My point is not primarily that you have political aims. It is that in comments you complain that Roger suggests those who believe in AGW resort to political tricks, insist “the other side” does it more, and then immediately support your entire argument with the precise political trick. (That is: supporting your claim with nothing more than an ad hominem attacks– claim to credentials.)

Mind you, I believe AGW is probable and action is advisable. It bothers me to see some make the argument supporting AGW look incredibley weak by resorting to logical fallacies as you have done here.

I ask you: Why do it? Third parties are bound to notice you rely on political tricks instead of science. Why shouldn’t they suspect the science is weaker than it is?

What matters is who is right. If we determine who’s advocacy we listen to based on who follows somebody’s ground rules, they play nice, or whatever, it doesn’t help if the science is wrong. For example, Roger’s post addresses Tom Wigley’s assertion: “In this issue, given that a comprehensive EXPERT document exists” that climate scientists shouldn’t do anything other that to endorse the conclusions of the IPCC. If it so happens that what the IPCC is correct, that the science is solid & the best available, this would be by far the most important consideration.

What I see from Roger, here and elsewhere is a plea for a range of voices to be given a listen, which seems on the surface to be a fair, open-minded approach that would move things in the right direction. Unfortunately, in practice, folks like Roger, William Gray, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lonborg, and even John Tierney of the NYT, are given extensive exposure in the popular media without providing background that informs readers that the science behind their views is widely thought by EXPERTS to be suspect. Reading the responses of the site’s hosts to Roger’s comments at RealClimate.org have the feel of a playful but somewhat bothersome puppy being lovingly snapped at by a perturbed dame; it is readily apparent that he is out of his league on the climate science part of things. Roger seems to be focused on admonishing folks to “listen to me” without really having the bona fides that (obviously, in my view) warrant him having a voice of note on these scientific issues.

I would suggest the usefulness of one’s view is, ultimately, ONLY a result of the soundness of the science, and has nothing to do with the packaging, framing, or who the messenger is. That said, the discussion at RealClimate is heavily scientific, and they seem like nice guys to boot.

What matters is who is right. If we determine who’s advocacy we listen to based on who follows somebody’s ground rules, they play nice, or whatever, it doesn’t help if the science is wrong. For example, Roger’s post addresses Tom Wigley’s assertion: “In this issue, given that a comprehensive EXPERT document exists” that climate scientists shouldn’t do anything other that to endorse the conclusions of the IPCC. If it so happens that what the IPCC is correct, that the science is solid & the best available, this would be by far the most important consideration.

What I see from Roger, here and elsewhere is a plea for a range of voices to be given a listen, which seems on the surface to be a fair, open-minded approach that would move things in the right direction. Unfortunately, in practice, folks like Roger, William Gray, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lonborg, and even John Tierney of the NYT, are given extensive exposure in the popular media without providing background that informs readers that the science behind their views is widely thought by EXPERTS to be suspect. Reading the responses of the site’s hosts to Roger’s comments at RealClimate.org have the feel of a playful but somewhat bothersome puppy being lovingly snapped at by a perturbed dame; it is readily apparent that he is out of his league on the climate science part of things. Roger seems to be focused on admonishing folks to “listen to me” without really having the bona fides that (obviously, in my view) warrant him having a voice of note on these scientific issues.

I would suggest the usefulness of one’s view is, ultimately, ONLY a result of the soundness of the science, and has nothing to do with the packaging, framing, or who the messenger is. That said, the discussion at RealClimate is heavily scientific, and they seem like nice guys to boot.

I can respond to your points:
1.In this point, you complain that I am mistaken when I point out you are advancing you arguments that Morano’s actions are political on the basis of credentials, in particular a lable.

In your first comment, the support for your assertion that Moranpo’s involvement in making the list is political are based was an ad homimen: the label “Swift-boat Veteran”. This was sufficient for my first comment. Clearly you had said nothing more at that point.

Had you simply wished to agree with Roger’s point that the list was political, you could have said:

” …do you care to make any concrete suggestions as to what the climate science community might do to best deal with political games such as those advanced by Senator Inhofe and Swift-boat veteran Marc Morano, other than to sit dispassionately by?”

rather than what you did say, which was.
” …do you care to make any concrete suggestions as to what the climate science community might do to best deal with political games like defending your claim by creating a list of supporters, as Inhofe and Morano have done?”

Note: in my version version, the proof of the idea that this is a political game is the description of the activity itself. It the version you posted, proof the list is a political game is the credentials of the people who who created the list.

Oddly enough, supporting a position by making a list to show crendential backing your position is a political game; it’s also logically flawed. These sorts of proofs by credential counting are logically flawed political games whether s done by a climate scientist, swift boat veteran, the Pope, supposedly dispationate robot or you here in comments.

Yet somehow, *you* feel compelled to support your claims the list is political by discussing the credentials and background of the person who made it!

I suspect it’s possible you don’t see the merit in Roger’s claim that some climate advocates focus excessively on credentials precisely because you don’t recognize this behavior when it’s done in support of political positions with which you agree.

2. In this point, you complain that I am mistaken when I suggest you are insisting Roger provide evidence to support his point.

In your Jan 30, 5:23 pm post under points 1 and 2, you criticize Roger for failing to cite specific instances of the repugnant behavior described by Roger. (Your oblique reference refers to Roger’s opinion that climate scientists are often involved in supporting their side by comparing credential on both sides rather than advancing scientific arguments.

FWIW, Once again, you list 5 bullets and complain that Roger doesn’t provide specific evidence to support those claims.

Yes, you are demanding Roger provide evidence that climate advocats engage in various types of political games. I know this because I read your intemized points posted above.

3. In this point, you pretty much agree with me. Yes. Identifying who engages in these rhetorical polys tells us nothing about which sides has the best evidence. And it does tell us that a political game is afoot.

I simply add: You are engaging in this political game but denying it. Like Roger, have no objection to anyone playing politics. However, I find it worth recognizing the symptoms, and I’m puzzled that you deny your are doing it right here, in comments, now!

So when you say you “have problems with scientists engaging in advocacy when they say they are focused only on science”, what have you said or implied that is practically useful to any participant or observer?

I see nothing to draw from it, other than an implicit message that scientists should stop speaking (unless they prominently announce and repeat that they care about the issue), or that you’re giving a club to others who are no less political – the Inhofes and Moranos – to discredit as “political” or “advocacy” anything inconvenient that a scientist has to say.

Am I misunderstanding you?

Sincerely,

Tom

This is what Lucia seems to be pointing out, if I may be presumptuous. You are looking for another list that adds nothing substantive to the GW debate. Supplying such a list would accomplish nothing useful. This post is not, it seems to me, meant to prove anything. For people such as myself and, presumably, you, essentially spectators to this field of science, the post is overheard conversation. I mean to say, it’s advice to his colleagues. If they recognize what he is describing, then they may consider what he has to say. If not, fine. A list of people misbehaving is exactly what RPJr would not want to provide. Politics, or less politely, mudslinging, is the problem; sticking with science is the answer.

1. I have not advanced any arguments on the basis of relative credentials, but simply provided support for my assertion that Morano is acting primarily on the basis of political motives.

2. I have not demanded that Roger provide proof that both sides argue by weighing credentials instead of arguments. Rather, I have noted that Roger has made specific assertions of bad behavior that he does not document and the reader cannot easily confirm.

Although in his latest response Roger states that “it is not “bad behavior” that I object to. Boorish behavior is everywhere, and especially it seems on weblogs”, in his main piece, he specifically decries:

- “professional immolation that the climate science community has engaged in”
- “several climate scientists have taken on as their personal responsibility the chore of personally attacking people who happen to find themselves on the Senator’s list”
- “the repugnant behavior of the attack dog climate scientists”
- who “engag[e] in the character assassination of people who happen to find themselves on Senator Inhofe’s list”
- who “excoriat[e] anyone who dares to challenge their beliefs”, rather than “encouraging challenges to knowledge claims”.

Roger may have good reasons for not identifying particular individuals or incidents that bother him, it both leaves us unable to evaluate his claims and those who are his target without a clear charge to defend against (were they to desire to do so).

3. I agree that “whose rhetoric is worse” tells us nothing about which side has the best evidence. But it does help us to identify that a political game afoot, which is worth knowing.