tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post4128152282118326785..comments2024-03-11T09:29:31.793-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: The "Blacklist" PaperDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24123818862344903712010-06-26T20:20:20.115-07:002010-06-26T20:20:20.115-07:00One of the illnesses that we have caught from the ...One of the illnesses that we have caught from the Pielke's is that the problem is with the scientists, not the political scientists and the politicians. WrongEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-329222974335475132010-06-24T11:38:06.839-07:002010-06-24T11:38:06.839-07:00Come to think of it, it does seem like they have t...Come to think of it, it does seem like they have to be dealt with repeatedly. :)Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-80397754807766630152010-06-24T11:36:39.011-07:002010-06-24T11:36:39.011-07:00The paper seems to me to be a potentially useful t...The paper seems to me to be a potentially useful tool in dealing dealing with largely science-ignorant editors who currently think the people like Christy or Lindzen represent a significant "other side" of climate science. Even some experienced science reporters might benefit, recalling that not long ago Andy Revkin was attempting to construct a comfortable (for him and RP Jr.) "middle" in the "debate." Andy may have dropped the idea, but Keith Kloor certainly thinks it still has legs.<br /><br />So yes, there's a use for such research.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-77684786075563859932010-06-24T11:34:39.875-07:002010-06-24T11:34:39.875-07:00That's a much more cogent argument than the &q...That's a much more cogent argument than the "black list". <br /><br />However, the point of the paper is similar to Oreskes'; it is to establish for people outside the scientific community that there is a consensus within it. This "no consensus" thing is an issue raised by the naysayers, and the paper is an objective refutation.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.com