Bishop Hill A parting of the ways
Jun 11, 2013 Climate: Sceptics Climate: other For the Twitter afficionados amongst us, the past couple of days has been enlivened by the #climatechapman hashtag. This picks up tweets from an AGU climate communication conference currently being run in Colorado and being attended by many big names in climactivism, such as Mann, Schmidt and Gleick.
Much fun is being had with delegates tweeting to their fellows not to engage with anyone who disagrees with them.
Here goes another troll war. Stop engaging, stay on meeting topics.
Don't engage with trolls. Spend time with people who are actually interested
This is a strange approach for a conference with communication as its aim, although it has to be said that it's typical of climate communicators, who are often a bit of a contradiction in terms. I wonder, however, if this "block first and ask questions later" approach, as manifested by American Meteorological Society President Marshall Shepherd the other day, is turning into a specifically American phenomenon. In the UK, engagement across the lines seems to be alive and well, as manifested by the recent debate featuring Tamsin Edwards and Jonathan Jones. Tamsin's match report is here and there is another one here. This is from Tamsin's version:
...the mood of the event was absolutely wonderful throughout. Almost all the “battles” were respectfully teasing, filled with humour. We laughed a lot, which must be a first for a discussion about climate change, scepticism and policy! I put this down to the warm and respectful relationships between the panel members (even though Claire and Jonathan had only just met), to our joyfully provocative chair, and to the audience who quickly created the serious and light atmosphere we hoped for. It was a privilege to have such an interested and supportive audience, such thoughtful, interesting and honest co-members of the panel, and a fun chair who dug into us to make us react and think more deeply about our answers.
The climate debate was poisoned for many years by the Hockey Team, with their attempts to silence dissent. It seems that those efforts continue in North America. But perhaps there is now light at the end of the tunnel, on this side of the pond at least.
Reader Comments (26)
The alarmist battle is lost in the USA. They are just circling the wagons. Remains to be seen who will play General Custer.
In the UK they are trying the tactical withdrawal approach.
Hi,
I think there may be some missed context here - I can't actually find the discussion that tweet was aimed at. Does anyone know? Was it really calling for scientists to not engage with those of a more skeptical bent at all? I'd be happy (but disappointed) to be corrected.
I'd be fantastically surprised if the tweeter meant (e.g.) Jonathan Jones in his definition of "troll", as you seem to imply, Andrew?
As discussed yesterday, everybody has their own definition of "troll". My line is "abusive or bullying", but some people are more sensitive, and I think that should be respected. Reassuring people that they aren't obliged to interact with those that they find abusive is surely good advice?
Doug
Doug
I think a lot of it was based on the posts by @Hypermutation, who was clearly not a troll by any reasonable definition.
Also, did you read the post about Marshall Shepherd?
Doug
it wasn't directly aimed at Jonathan just people joining in the hashtag #climatechapman debate
given that Michael Mann was speaking, and Jonathans VERY strong opinion on 'Hide the Decline' - I think it is safe to assume that JJ would be included on people not that welcome.
If you want to look for yourself
just look at everything on twitter with the hashtag #climatechapman
compared to all the speakers (who were having a very sad debate throwing denier around, at one point). Bob Ward was excellent. Explaining media impact of climategate in a way that probably made a number of people there quite uncomfortable.
@bishophill @dougmcneall yes, as said yesterday definition of 'troll' is elastic. Noticed that one of the anti-trollers on #climatechapman said that shouldn't respond to people with fake names/avatars
Not sure I agree with this, however I do wonder if a different type of interaction takes place when you know someone's real identity...
Doug, it's not 100% clear, because it wasn't a reply tweet, but it seems that the "Here goes another troll war. Stop engaging" was a response to someone called $omaticHypermutation @Hypermutation who was raising a lot of awkward questions. What's interesting is that the person saying "stop engaging" was a university professor who was a speaker at the meeting. When asked to define what a troll was, he came up with "Trolls = angry tone, insults, blanket dismissals", showing that either he hasn't thought things through, or he has a good sense of humour.
The whole conference seems to be designed as an echo chamber for climate activists to provide support for each other and enhance their own prejudices, and as Andrew says, trying to suppress all dissent. I felt some sympathy for the climate scientists there such as Gavin, who expressed his frustration at the time being wasted discussing the 'denialist' label, and Simon Donner who tentatively raised the question of whether this was really appropriate (only to be assured that it was, by a distinguished professor of philosophy).
All the discussions I've had with climate scientists have been cordial and informative - in both directions. It's the activist mouthpieces who don't listen but just denigrate and dismiss. I give them as good as I get.
Jun 11, 2013 at 8:48 AM | Doug McNeall
You were on the twitter exchange where Paul Matthews pointed to @AVastMachine's original
You said:
Uncontroversial? Mmmm, if it was said as "stop engaging *with trolls*" then I would say it's bleedin' obviously useless advice at face value. Once you realise it is useless at face value, as you claim to see it, then why say it?
I agree with Lucia Liljegren's tweet:
You guys really don't realise how you *Nudge* yourselves into line do you? ;)
As a rule in a court, regardless if you are a plaintif or defendant, if you don't show up you lose.
So all those climate debates that the climate activists refused to participate in, boycotted, failed to engage, slipped out the backdoor before question time, those are all loses for the team.
So I say, let the process continue. As long as global warmers are willing to run away, I'd buy them track shoes as long as they promise to keep going.
Meanwhile, a very successful academic conference has just concluded in Guelph, Ontario - the 1st International Workshop on Econometric Applications in Climatology, organized by Ross McKitrick. By no means was everyone attending a sceptic. A wide range of expertise and viewpoints represented, but the atmosphere was at all times scholarly and constructive. Some excellent papers presented, for downloads see http://econapps-in-climatology.webs.com/program
I guess Pete the Heat will call me a troll and fail to engage...
https://twitter.com/omotforest/status/344362751789002752
Paul N. Edwards @AVastMachine 9 Jun
Here goes another troll war. Stop engaging, stay on meeting topics. #climatechapman
@AVastMachine And what about our debate was not on a meeting topic? #climatechapman
Hide conversation
---------------------------
previously
Rebekah Jones
@RebekahDJones
Absorbing time, but not information: trolls on the internet and how to resist the temptation to respond. Discuss. #climatechapman
$omaticHypermutation
@Hypermutation
@RebekahDJones Why are people you disagree with "trolls" and why is it OK to attack those you disagree with? #racism #hatism #climatechapman
Reply to @Hypermutation @RebekahDJones
Rebekah Jones @RebekahDJones 9 Jun
@Hypermutation a troll is someone who posts inflammatory/extraneous/off-topic stuff online with intent of provoking an emotional response.
GrumpyDenier @GrumpyDenier 18h
@RebekahDJones @etzpcm @Hypermutation I would speak to Lewandowsky then and ask him to stop.
It is nice to see all the "Inmates" happy in the asylum and having a good time.
As a twitless one (and some would surely remove the 't' to help me be more accurate), I can barely make sense of the exchanges from the AGU meeting. I watched a live feed from it for a short while and I must say it looked a bit soporific. The meeting at Cheltenham on the other hand sounds like it was a lively and interesting one. Well done all who took part - may your style of 'climate communication' win the day over that of the earnest, jaded, disgraced, and boring ones over in Colorado.
"A C Osborn
It is nice to see all the "Inmates" happy in the asylum and having a good time."
Right - an interesting example here. I have no idea who this comment is directed at (is it the denizens of this blog, or climate scientists? Green activists? What?).
My fist impression is that it is a trolling comment, implying that a group of people are mentally ill. It doesn't offer any information, or any real perspective.
I guess I may be reading too much into it, and it is a throwaway bit of humour. Whichever way, it is probably a waste of everybody's time, if we are trying to have a serious debate.
And normally, I wouldn't engage with it ;)
Doug
Oh dear! Therein lies the alarmist conundrum shut away in the inner sanctum - in that only the realists wish to properly engage, the public have long since departed because they're totally disinterested. Even, the political shills are quietly leaving a sinking ship - that only leaves the ever dwindling band of co-religionists and it's boring talking all the time to yourselves and the wall.
@Jun 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM | Doug McNeall
My reaction was there was nothing to engage with. I didn't get as far as categorising it further or feel the need to advise others what to do ;)
Doug
I agree with Leopard. Osborn's comment was content-free so why even bother with it?
The trouble is when people like Mann (and others) evidently define "troll" as "someone who doesn't have the sense to agree with me", it's hard to know just how to proceed.
Deliberately setting out to disrupt a thread in order to prevent the posting of views you disagree with would seem a reasonable definition to my mind.
Simply being off-topic hardly qualifies; that's a sin we're all guilty of on occasion.
There are a bunch of communicators. Then there are Mann, Schmidt and Gleick. Guess which way the discussion is going to get skewed.
If 'climate communication' has to go somewhere they have to throw out some of this old and compromised baggage mid-flight.
Just like the communicators and consensusists constantly strive to doubt the legitimacy of the skeptics, climate skeptics constantly doubt the legitimacy of communicators and activists. Where is this conversation going to go? Nowhere. The communicators, in addition, feel they can 'reach out' and 'convert' some uninterested and uninformed folks. Yeah. By their wild exaggerations and claims in trying to 'reach out', they created and fostered the previous batch of skeptics in the first place. And repelled the the vast majority of the public with their constant badgering, fear-mongering, call for sacrifices and downright priggishness
If the whole point of your existence is to impose a quota of punishment, or a tax on humanity, please don't be surprised that people don't want to 'listen' to you. What is the point of communication? That the communicated bend over and open their wallets and purses right? If not, the point of communicators is to constantly badger people into accepting what they don't want to do, start feeling they ought to be doing it, or even better, start feeling superior 'cause the're doing it. (as in, create clones of themselves).
Are there any 'communicating *maths' conferences?
[* replace with your own favourite academic subject]
Some of these tactics are purely Twitter specific replications of the same behaviour seen on the blogs. Blocking, not responding and running away, use of insults "mosquito" - are the expressions of the same 'control the conversation' mode of operation.
Only just seen your post. Thanks, Bish, for calling us the light at the end of the tunnel. And thanks John Shade.
Hoping to continue these conversations about strengths and limits of the science with the honesty, humour, and good grace all showed at Cheltenham. People like Jonathan Jones are a pleasure to talk (and banter!) with.
Tamsin
Doug McNeall:
I can provide you a good example. Curious one. @DrShepherd2013 is worried about people surprised on his defense / use of Marcott et al 2013. And claims he won't engage any one not using a peer-reviewed paper argument. But then, he defends Marcott with a link to a SkS post!!!
Just great:
https://twitter.com/plazaeme/status/343482803444400129
https://twitter.com/shubclimate/status/343459951706001408
Of course, he blocked all the bloody deniers, after Mann told him "the trick".
remember Jones own words 'you only want to find something wrong with it' one of the many ways climate 'science' is different from other sciences is in the way they reject the idea of critical review .
Their approach in this conference just reflects that outlook , they no interest in honest debate nor are they willing to let their views undergo critical examination. Which is most odd for 'settled science' for surely if that where true they could nothing but win . But like spoiled children that have never be told 'no' they run off ,stick their fingers in their ears and go La,la,la .
Apparently 'you only want to find something wrong with it' is on the ballot for the Royal Society mission statement (Latin being elitist. racist, misogynist, and homophobist). There is only one item on the ballot and only 'for' votes are counted, as per standard procedure.
Only just read Tamsin's report and the remarkable one from Rebecca Nesbit of the Society of Biology. What an achievement guys - and I of course use that term in the loosest, non-sexist sense.
Meanwhile Tamsin's Twitter interaction with Gavin Schmidt, with Roger Pielke Jr and others chipping in, from around 6pm today London time, was terrific. I'll give links to that on Tweet and blog, because I think it can serve as an education at various levels.