pointless surely. Heartland wasn't that big news was it? If the vast majority of people don't even know who heartland is what use is this add? They might be better off just removing the first part.
I suspect a lot of people now know who the Heartland Institute is who didn't know of it a month ago -- especially in the Chicago area.
And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, isn't it? Folks having a bit of curiosity will go to Heartland.org and soon see the NIPCC Reports. They might read some of the commentaries. They might be led to search the internet for other related commentaries. They might discover what is meant by the "appeal to authority" fallacy, or as Lord Monckton eloquently describes it, "argumentum ad verecundiam". (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/#more-61540 )Oh, dear, then they might start wondering who Lord Monckton is and why so many try so hard to tear down his personal character, which might lead them to wonder why this is applied to skeptics across the board, and ultimately how the widespread accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money emanates apparently from only just one source. Rather than taking that accusation at face value, imagine what happens if folks start digging into it and questioning the individuals involved in it?Gore's tactic here works just fine, as long as nobody starts asking too many questions. When you fully comprehend the problem here, you'll soon see what a monstrous mistake it is to draw any attention to Heartland in any form when you can't control the questions that arise from it.
You're kidding, right? Monckton is a clown -- literally. He's an embarrassment to your cause. It's amazing you don't see that.
So you are unable to refute the "appeal to authority" fallacy?What is amazing here is that your response above is the literal best you can come up with and that you don't see how it undermines your entire cause.Monckton is a clown? Two words: prove it. Not merely to put me in my place, but to prove to your loyal blog readers that you can back up what you say. If you are so confident that you can prove this, bang out your proof point-by-point and go one step further: invite Monckton himself to debate what you say. You should be able to put the man to shame, reducing him to complete speechlessness with devastating proof.Your move. Or do you run from such challenges?
Hey, looks like room for more people here!Now, we are all agreed that the colloqiual use of the word clown, outside of circus's, is for someone who is funny, or in a disparaging sense gets things laughably wrong.Monckton fits the latter definition to a tee.Here's some links proving it:http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdfhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htmhttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/monckton-skewers-truth/Now, let us know if you still think Monckton isn't a joke after reading the above.
Defending Monckton ( or asserting science is an appeal to authority ) - what will these clever Internet Performance Artists come up with next?!Best,D
@ commenter "Dano": lovely spin attempt, but it falls completely flat, as you attempt to portray the "science" as settled. The actual appeal to authority is the citation of the opinion of science organizations' summary statements which is met by disagreement from the scientists within those organizations. If a series of groups makes statements about a topic being settled, and compelling evidence to the contrary is found, the collective opinion of those groups is meaningless. So who's the real performance artist here?
@ commenter "guthrie": Unlike most AGW'ers I encounter who are loathe to visit any link I provide, I do always check out those provided to me. Yes, I still think Monckton isn't a joke after reading through your links, and it turns your illustration only strengthens my point rather than weakening it.Briefly, the first one goes to Barry Bickmore's site, and goes through science points I have no expertise to evaluate. They contradict Monckton's points, but Bickmore famously backed down from a direct 2010 face-to-face debate with Monckton to iron out such differences, as described here in reference to a late 2009 situation involving 18 professors' letter to the Utah Legislature http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/the-debate-monckton-wont-have/ Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to get an unbiased reporter to ask the people who proposed the debate for their side of the story. I personally know it will contradict what Bickmore says in his blog. That will present a credibility problem for Bickmore, when it comes to why he could not face Monckton in a science points debate.The 2nd link goes to John Cook's blog (he's not related to me) which notes Monckton was invited to testify at Congress, while failing to mention how he was summarily blocked from testifying in opposition to Al Gore by Democrat leaders. John Cook then cites Prof John Abraham who begins and ends his presentation with the same 'appeal to authority fallacy' that Gore does while pointing out Monckton has never put out a peer-reviewed paper. Monckton himself contradicts that here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/ regarding his 2008 Physics and Society paper. Meanwhile, Prof Abraham abysmally fails to acknowledge the abundantly obvious double standard applied to Al Gore, a person who has never written a peer-reviewed science journal-published paper. Worst of all, Abraham invites people to check out sites supporting his side, but not skeptic sites - a default way of shunning skeptics. In sheer contrast, skeptics across the board base their arguments on citations of the contrasts between themselves and their sites while continually linking to AGW-side sites.The 3rd link goes to a Tamino blog over ice cap extent and contradictory interpretations of how large or small it is. Who's right? I can't tell, but it would be nice if those two or other skeptics / AGW'ers could face off in debate and show the rest of us how the differences are worked out. 50-some AGW scientists and speakers were invited to the Heartland Institute's Chicago conference, none accepted the debate challenge.Which brings me back to how this illustration only makes my point rather than undermining it. The public is told the science is settled, no legitimate criticism to IPCC assessments exist. When skeptics are seen, open debate with them is avoided outright as I noted basically four times above, a tactic that doesn't bolster the AGW side, it prompts questions about the need to suppress/ignore critics.Speaking of which, I learned our David Appell did rise to some kind of challenge to ask Lord Monckton questions. As Monckton briefly described it to me, "He recently sent me a long private email asking me to justify something I'd said. I gave him a careful and considered reply, but did not get so much as an acknowledgement."So, perhaps Appell was planning to write something about Monckton's "faults", but will his rebuttal be fairly dealt with since Appell called him a clown right here? Will Appell be brave enough to disclose this correspondence, and even thank Monckton for responding?
lovely spin attempt, but it falls completely flat, as you attempt to portray the "science" as settled. The actual appeal to authority is the citation of the opinion of science organizations' summary statements which is met by disagreement from the scientists within those organizations. If a series of groups makes statements about a topic being settled, and compelling evidence to the contrary is found, the collective opinion of those groups is meaningless. So who's the real performance artist here? "The Science isn't Settled!!!*heart*" is an old talking point. Nevertheless, you can't flap your hands away from the fact that Monckton has no credibility. Can't be done. Not working. Fail.Best,D
@ Dano; "... you can't flap your hands away from the fact that Monckton has no credibility..."And you are able to prove this....how? Merely saying it is so does not make it so. Again, you steer into your own self-inflicted credibility destruction. You tell people not to listen to Monckton, I tell people to listen to him and his critics, compare the two, and decide for themselves.From watching your side's tactics, people are likely to wonder why it is that you can't won't defend your position, which in turn plants doubt in their heads, they very thing you do not want them to have.If Monckton is not credible, isn't in your best interest to prompt Appell or some other prominent person like Barry Bickmore to engage him in face-to-face debate, and skewer all his falsehoods once and for all in a way that leaves no doubt in anybody's minds? If you are so convinced you can win this, why would a person like Bickmore run from it?
I had a brilliant long comment but blogger ate it. Yet another thing to add to my letter to google.So the short version -The first link Russell doesn't like because Bickmore doesn't want to get into debates. Oddly enough, this proves nothing about the science, so we can safely say that Monckton is a clown. You see, many evolutionary biologists know that debates are useless, because the opponent can use such techniques as the gish gallop to plough you into the ground. The second link he discounts because Cook wrote something wrong once and Al Gore hasn't been peer reviewed either. Oddly enough the only mention of the word 'peer' on that page is in relation to Monkcton having a title. Instead, what you have is a list of quotes and links to their sources, and links to the actual science that shows that Monckton is a clown when it comes to science.What could be simpler than that?The third post, Russell honestly admits he cannot judge the scientific claims. Unfortunately, that means he hasn't much to say on the science and that is actually the question we are interested in. The case for Monckton being a clown rests not upon the fact that many people find his politics to be repellant, but on his complete mangling of scientific facts (A scientific fact is not necessarily the same as a mathematical fact or proof).So despite a great deal of bluster and non-scientific claims, it is clear that Russell is wrong and our host is correct.
Post a Comment