[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled

[natasha at natasha.cc]

Quoting Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:

> On 2/17/2010 2:07 PM, natasha at natasha.cc wrote:
>
>> You agree with the irrational of Alfio that Max is easily manipulated by
>> PR spins?
>
> Alfio was making a general and quite rational point about some posters
> to the list, I think, and in this case it does look as if Max jumped
> the gun in citing spin stories rather than the original interview.

This was not my take on it at all:  The first sentence of the first  
paragraph of the article has a link to the original BBC Q&A interview.  
And in Max's post, he said that the piece was "interesting".   
Interesting to me means that it gets a person's attention - whether  
positive or negative and does not mean that one agrees or disagrees.   
Further, when asking why a person did not find it interesting, invites  
an exchange into thinking processes (maybe not totally Socratic, but  
it opens dialogue).  But, let's step back a moment: this topic is  
fascinating and, while I was out of the country (in Auzzi land) when  
it broke, it got a heck of a lot of attention in lots of circles and  
this BBC-WUWT is the first I personally have read about it since that  
time ... so for me anyway, it is "interesting" and, mind you, I am not  
saying that I agree with it or disagree with it. I am merely absorbing.

> Calling Alfio "irrational" doesn't get us very far in advancing the
> discussion.

Let's step back a moment: A perspective that lacks understanding (in  
this case an understanding of a person's intention (which we do not  
know yet because Max is not in this conversation and I do not speak  
for him) is not rational, especially when taking a post to court  
because it did not include a URL and taking "interesting" as more  
powerful than it could have been intended.

If you read my first post in this thread concerning the issue of  
global warming and discourse surrounding global warming, -- I wrote:

"Nevertheless the biggest problem and disappointment is that, while  
everyone seems to annoyed and saddened, there is a lack of intelligent  
communication between all parties in viewing the situation from  
diverse perspectives."  This sums up my view.

> Christopher commented: "I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to disagree
> with their positions, though, without also presuming that the people
> you disagree with are wicked?" Ditto "irrational."

This is incorrect.  Wicked does not equal irrational. And again here  
is another supposition. Irrational in this instance means a "LACK OF  
UNDERSTANDING". However, it is very true that irrational can be taken  
as pejorative - which is not how I meant it - I simply found the lack  
of dialogue, stated in an absolutist fashion, to be the result of a  
missed understanding.  Nevertheless, let's move on (or should I say  
backwards):  What does "manipulated" mean? Let's see:  I "assume" that  
Christopher means being "control shrewdly" or maybe "deviously".  But  
let's suppose the article does have a devious characteristic - does  
this result in a person being influenced by deception just because  
s/he says it is interesting?  I think not.

> HOWEVER... that
> doesn't mean some players in the supposed debate *aren't*
> wicked--consider, by analogy,. the decades-long and perhaps equivalent
> role of corporate advocates for carcinogenic smoking. If that was not
> wickedness, what is? It is arguable that climate change deniers are in
> a similar position.

I'd love to have a darn good discussion about players of debates,  
advertizing, PR, marketing, etc. under a different thread subject line  
which is more appropriate to its contents.

Best,
Natasha