The Climate Back Channels

By Keith Kloor | April 3, 2011 8:15 am

Well, there’s been an interesting response to the launch of my new blog at Climate Central. I kinda expected a few people in the climate blogosphere would grit their teeth. But I didn’t expect my new gig to prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session. Michael Tobis offers a vague description:

Conversation about Keith came up on the back channels yesterday as a consequence of his new blogging venture at Climate Central.

Following this “conversation” on the “back channels,” a few things have happened, one of which Michael, in an otherwise generous post about me, discusses. (Presumably Michael has since been yapped at in the “back channels” for going off the reservation.)

The other interesting thing is the polite email I got yesterday from climate activist Anna Haynes, letting me know that she created a SourceWatch page for me, of which this is the first line:

Keith Kloor is a freelance journalist who blogs about climate change personalities and controversies, in a manner that fosters inactivism.

I guess that was the agreed on talking point to emerge from the “conversation” in the “back channels.” Or was the creation of the SourceWatch page yesterday merely coincidental? Anna is welcome to clarify in the comments. (If you’re not familiar with SourceWatch, here is its mission statement, which I’ll return to momentarily.)

Anna goes on to write in my SourceWatch bio:

His work has been criticized for a pattern of selectively quoting climate bloggers and scientists in a way that misrepresents their views.

With no apparent sense of irony, Anna “selectively” cites a few examples of this criticism lodged against me. There is no effort to balance this skewed portrait with others who might have a different opinion, such as that of the science journalist who referred to my blog in Scientific American as “militantly evenhanded.” Another irony: the main critic Anna cites is notorious for misrepresenting the views of the people he criticizes.

At any rate, I wonder if Anna or anybody in the “back channels” has bothered to read my actual work listed in the articles page of this blog. If so, I’d like to know if they can find one piece that squares with the impression of me created by Anna in her SourceWatch page. Incidentally, a majority of these published stories were written while I was a senior editor at Audubon magazine, where I edited hundreds of environmental articles during my tenure, such as this one and this one.

Now I defy anyone to conclude that the sum of my career thus far as an environmental and science journalist (including the last two years of my blogging) is accurately reflected in the SourceWatch page Anna wrote. Additionally, let me ask this: does my overall blogging on climate issues and the kinds of articles I’ve written and edited for professional publications seem consistent with SourceWatch’s charter, expressed here:

The Center for Media and Democracy publishes SourceWatch, this collaborative resource for citizens and journalists looking for documented information about the corporations, industries, and people trying to sway public opinion. We believe in telling the truth about the most powerful interests in society””not just relating their self-serving press releases or letting real facts be bleached away by spin. SourceWatch focuses on the for-profit corporations, non-profit corporate front groups, PR teams, and so-called “experts” trying to influence public opinion on behalf of global corporations and the government agencies they have captured.

Partisan climate bloggers and activists do their cause no favors when they create fictitious portraits of someone like me.

UPDATE: Anna Haynes says in the comments:

Having slept on the SourceWatch page ““ which is *extremely* simple ““ I woke up this morning having 2nd thoughts about the appropriateness of making a page for someone at this level,and logged in just now, intending to take it down.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: climate change
  • Quasimado

    Keith,
    You may be interested to know that the supposed photo of a Japanese nuclear plant shown on their site is not a nuclear plant (unless they have changed it), which goes to show you do not need to worry about anything they wrote, if in fact you were concerned.

  • Heraclitus

    Keith, I’m only familiar with your writings from this blog, but based on that I’m not sure that Anna’s opening sentence is unjustified. You don’t necessarily advocate inactivism, but your posts do often challenge those who advocate strong and urgent action. It is clear from many of your regular commenters here that those who really do advocate inactivism find your position within their taste-range.

    Whether you should be on SourceWatch given their charter you quote is a different question.

    Interesting mind-set there Quasimado - so one error means that you should ignore everything that someone says? Or is that only to be applied selectively?

  • Heraclitus

    Oh, and I’d be interested to know what your take is on ‘Judith Curry’ being the only ‘related SourceWatch article’ you have so far?

  • http://organizingentropy.typepad.com/blog/ Andy

    Not to slam you or anything, Keith, but it’s a bit ironic that you’re prominent enough to merit a sourcewatch entry while Joe Romm isn’t.  Peilke jr., Lomborg, Lindzen, Curry all have entries, all with critical comments in the opening paragraphs, but Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and Michael Tobis, like Romm, don’t have entries at all.  Maybe if they were as prominent and influential as you Keith!

    Call me crazy, but I’m sensing a pattern here.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Heraclitus:

    You have an interesting filter. Plenty of commenters on the other side of the spectrum disagree with me just as strongly as the “activist” types. Some of these supposed “inactivists” walk off in a huff, too, but still can’t seem to work me out of their system, like this guy.

  • Heraclitus

    Keith, don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying there aren’t many at the ‘skeptical’ end of the spectrum who disagree vehemently with you. But inactivism stretches quite a long way up that spectrum and whilst you may not be in the inactivist wavelengths yourself, your position may still foster an inclination towards inactivism. An example that comes to mind is your dismissal of the idea that high food prices cased in part by climate change could have contributed to unrest in the Middle East.

    Of course from the other perspective there are some who would presumably argue that you blog in a manner that fosters activism. But that is not the perspective of SourceWatch.

  • http://skepticalscience.com grypo

    The opening sentence is couched in a way that is definitive.  I’d say that Keith’s expressed views are more nuanced, and appear to favor whatever he thinks is most politically possible, and doesn’t comment at all on what would be effective or not, from what I’ve seen.

    I’d change that sentence.

  • http://organizingentropy.typepad.com/blog/ Andy

    Heraclitus,

    I’m not sure how one’s opinion on global food prices or anything else has anything to do with “activism” unless the definition of activism  changed recently.  Activism implies that one is doing more that merely formulating opinions and writing about them.

  • Quasimado

    Heraclitus,
    Well, that kind of “mistake”, is (often) symptomatic – read the Mission Statement of Source Watch together with the slant of the accompanying articles – Agenda is smiling and waving at you. Likewise, Anna is hardly an unknown in such surroundings …

  • Judith Curry

    Not only are there no pages for Romm, Schmidt, and Mann, but there are also no pages for Steve Schneider, Kevin Trenberth, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, or or many other prominent scientists/bloggers/journalists associated with the “consensus.”  The only person that I spotted with a sourcewatch profile was James Hansen.  This selection of who gets a sourcewatch profile vs who doesn’t rather speaks for itself.

    While Anna Hayne’s investigation of me following the Climate Heretic article was quite amusing (she was asking me medical questions, seeking to understand if there were medical reasons for apparently losing my marbles), I no longer regard this as amusing.  In my original response to her email queries, I politely answered her questions, and snickered about the whole thing in the blogosphere.  A few weeks ago I received another round of questions regarding companies that I have been involved in.  I fully intended to answer those questions, but replied to Anna that I was dealing with a family health emergency and could not reply right now.  That appeared on my sourcewatch page essentially as avoiding the questions.  I am finished with responding to any queries from Anna Haynes or anyone else associated with sourcewatch.
    At this point, if anyone is contacted by sourcewatch, I strongly recommend not responding.

  • Judith Curry

    Also, I love mt’s “back channels,”  this explains a lot.

  • Heraclitus

    Andy, what do you think it is that fuels activism? One of the key causes, or tenets, of inactivism is the insistence that we cannot yet definitively link anything to climate change and we should wait and see before we take action, if we take any action at all. Activists would argue that we already have enough evidence of the negative consequences of climate change to justify action, so questioning these links is likely to foster inaction.

  • Lazar

    Yes Judith, I’m sure that “explains a lot” to you.

  • Matt B

    Hey KK,

    You know it’s a tough room when a post about you starts with

    “My troubles with mainstream journalism (Kloor prominently included) and my frustration with their obtuseness”…….

    and you can characterize the post as being in any way “generous”. Take solace that people who disagree most vehemently with your approach have specific ideas about what you as an individual should, nay MUST do.

    Also note that none of these critics give you credit for a fine taste in music, immediately devaluing their opinions. Keep up the good work!

  • http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com willard

    Even you can edit that page, Keith, in case it’s not more interesting for you to keep the stub as it is.  Or we could just keep up with yet another conversation about the conversation.

  • Jonathan Gilligan

    It’s always sad to see activists go into  “shoot the messenger” mode.  I’m an activist (at least I think I am; maybe I’m another false-flag operation by the Kochs; you never know) and one reason I mostly post comments here and not at other blogs is the fact that here is where I see the most interesting arguments about how to be effective at fostering activism. I see your criticism of climate-change activism here as constructive and useful. Too many climate-related blogs become amen-corners and the fact that this one lacks the deafening chorus of, “Preach it, brother Keith!” (contrast this to the oleagenous sycophancy of so many comments at Judith’s blog) makes it more attractive and useful, even if that’s a bit rough on your ego ;-)

    I don’t agree with everything you write, Keith; and I don’t agree with everything Tobis writes. But when the two of you go head to head, you both have enough intelligent things to say that I can learn a lot from watching the interchange. Part of me says, “Yes, Tobis is absolutely right on that point,” and another part says, “But even though he’s right, he’ll be ineffective if we can’t figure out a way to incorporate Kloor’s insights about making people pay attention.”

    It’s a fact that environmental activism in the last decade has been a catastrophic failure and if we’re not willing to look at that failure squarely and acknowledge that we activists have made mistakes, we’re never going to become any more effective, and IMHO we’re quickly running out of time to figure out what we’re screwing up, fix it, and persuade the world to adopt sensible policies on sustainability.

    The most discouraging thing I see is the frequency with which people jump to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them must be evil, rather than acknowledging that there really is room for honest people to have different points of view. Whatever happened to Gandhi’s insight that your opponents always know some part of the truth that you don’t?

    That said, what the heck is with the paranoia about “back channels?” Is there something wrong with Tobis and his friends emailing each other about what they think? Srsly, they’re not the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Club. I read Michael’s use of the term on his blog as ironic, mocking the seriousness with which people sometimes take things. But the reaction here makes me feel that everyone (including you, Keith) should take a deep breath and count to ten.

  • Anna Haynes

    Yowza.

    There’s a lesson here, readers: if you’re unhappy about how you’re treated, sending an email is the #1 thing to do.

    I didn’t get a reply from Mr. Kloor.

    Having slept on the SourceWatch page – which is *extremely* simple – I woke up this morning having 2nd thoughts about the appropriateness of making a page for someone at this level,and logged in just now, intending to take it down.

    I’ll still take it down.

    But I’d first say this is inaccurate: “There is no effort to balance this skewed portrait with others who might have a different opinion”; the main aspect of the “portrait” was the examples linked to, and Mr. Kloor’s responses to them, (also linked to).

    In future, Mr. Kloor, I’d suggest responding to email; if you’d done so, it would have helped. (Unless of course this here post is more in line with your goals.)

  • Anna Haynes

    Judith, it’s great to see you’ve got time to comment again; perhaps you could respond to my emailed questions now? (I’m most interested in CFAN’s clients, & at whose behest they are undisclosed)

    Also folks, it looks like Bob Ferguson’s SPPI may be just a shell corp., and he’s actually being paid by the Idsos; and according to Arizona Corp. filings, Craig started a business serving the oilfield industry. But I haven’t gotten a callback from Craig Idso or from Bob Ferguson.

    Although readers, maybe you could help – if you could look at the Idso’s “Center for the study…” SW page (link), and explain how we can reconcile their 2003 earnings with what Exxon and Scaife said they’d given them…I’m quite confused.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Jonathan,

    Let me state that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with groups of people communicating amongst themselves–indeed I participate in several unofficial list-serv conversations.

    So I didn’t mean for the reader start breathing heavily at the mention of “backchannels.”

    I also probably would never have written this post had the SourceWatch page not been suddenly created yesterday in the wake of these “backchannel” conversations. I happen to be pretty familiar with the site and know people that use it as an informational source, as I have in the past. So to find myself somehow qualifying to be profiled  on SourceWatch felt mystifying, to say the least.

    Anna,

    You go ahead and create the page, put it up without asking for my feedback or comment ahead of time, then somehow feel aggrieved when I don’t return your email. Why would I owe you an email response when you didn’t give me a chance to have a say before the page went live?

  • Anna Haynes

    “I guess that was the agreed on talking point to emerge from the “conversation” in the “back channels.” ”

    Really?

    (Journalism is a discipline of verification…particularly when it’s soooooo easy to ask. Email, Keith, email…)

    and re this:
    “Why would I owe you an email response…”

    Apologies, I guess I didn’t make myself clear, above; what I meant was, if you’d wanted a rapid, low-key resolution, emailing would have been the right thing to do.

  • Anna Haynes

    (…particularly, responding to email)

  • Ale Gorney

    Respond to Anna’s emails or else!

  • http://initforthegold.blogspot.com Michael Tobis

    Just because you’re on a mailing list with someone doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say or do.

    I for one do not find SourceWatch useful. I think that a less partisan and less capitalism-hostile site with a similar structure could conceivably be useful, but it would be a lot of work.

    The idea that accepting money from a large private organization is corrupting pretty much limits a work to the fringes, these days, doesn’t it? Is that healthy or unhealthy for a civilization? It’s an interesting question but one that is completely orthogonal to climate science.

    I agree that there are elements in the big energy companies that continue to behave irresponsibly. But big energy companies, whatever the supreme court alleges, are not people. I myself have been slightly funded by big oil on one occasion. Investigating funding sources for the purposes of embarassing those sources is harassment in the same way that FOIA requests of professors is. This sort of “openness” will do us a lot of damage as a functioning society.

    Much as I like Anna as a person and think her heart is in the right place, I think refusing to answer her questions for one’s SourceWatch entry is reasonable and appropriate.

    Openness volunteered is an eminently good thing. Openness demanded on an involuntary basis is a very complicated thing and should be treated with great caution. There is a reason lawyers are stingy with their clients’ information and demanding of their opponents’ “Did not return calls” is not a sign of bad faith, and there’s a distinction to be made between investigative journalism and harassment that cuts, in our polarized state, “both” ways.
     

  • Anna Haynes

    Dr. Tobis and I shall agree to disagree.
    :-}

  • peetee

    uhhh… @Judith Curry #11: wadda bout your Lisbon backchannel effort? Beauty tee-shirt, by the way!

  • Menth

    OK, here’s what we’ve got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people,
    — under the supervision of the reverse vampires — and funded by the Kochtopus have been working  tirelessly to suppress the climate activist movement and it’s lack of success has everything to do with this and not the hilarious insularity and ineptitude of much of the movement itself.

    “Inactivism”? Yes Keith, you are a counter-revolutionary, shame on you.

  • Jeff Norris

    Mr. Kloor
    First let me commend you on being able to critically examine your motivations, I wish more people would attempt it.  But, do not disregard your initially reaction to the use of the phrase “back channels”.
    I suggested that it was based on your training in the use of connotations and context in communications.  I admit that I do not know for sure what idea, emotion or cultural reference Mr. Tobias was trying to connect to nor do I know how  you associate the phrase.  To me the phrase “back channel” suggests the un official communications between knowledgeable people about sensitive information that cannot or should not be discussed openly.  Not trying to ring a conspiracy bell merely suggesting that you have a reasonable sensitivity to the idea of elitism on any subject.

  • Keith Grubb

    Keith, looks like with SourceWatch, you have failed peer review. Block skeptic comments, and you will have a much better chance.

  • Tom Gray

    re 27
    ==================
    To me the phrase “back channel” suggests the un official communications between knowledgeable people about sensitive information that cannot or should not be discussed openly.
    ================

    Isn’t that a hint why anybody would be curious that they were being discussed in this way?

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    If the back-channels mentioned are the ones I participate in then I think the “talk” amounted to a few messages to the effect that Kloor had a new blog and would it be any better than the old one?  I may be wrong, like most I was not paying much attention.

  • steven mosher

    Well She has me as a Skeptic. Which according to their definition means I dont believe that C02 will warm the planet.  Funny.

  • Ian

    Jonathan Gilligan April 3rd, 2011 at 11:21 am says:

    It’s a fact that environmental activism in the last decade has been a catastrophic failure and if we’re not willing to look at that failure…

    Jonathan, I disagree that environmental activism per se has been a catastrophic failure. I believe there have been numerous advances in environmental stewadship. What perhaps has been more ‘catastrophic’ is the tendency for many environmental organisations to promote AGW as virtually their raison de etre to the detrement of what I see as far more pressing environmental concerns (eg. overfishing, water quality issues, species and habitat loss). As a former fervent devotee the the AGW issue, I now cringe at how blinkered my focus had become and how my self-righteous exhortations only made me bitter and ineffectual. 

    Like you, I too find the rancour that occurs between those with competing views rather discouraging. And while 3 years ago I would have applauded the work of Sourcewatch, I now feel that their approach actually only serves to widen the gulf and make real dialogue less likely.

    Best wishes, ian

  • Ian

    Geez Mosh, your Sourcewatch profile is a little pathetic! Can’t you anonymously send Ms Haynes a ‘dodgy dossier’ or something. I mean, if you’re gonna be tagged you might as well make it impressive!

  • steven mosher

    Re 33. You mean the part about being the secret child of Koch? or the Russian mafia story, or the chaos computer club connections?

  • Marlowe Johnson

    @keith
    if you don’t have a problem with ‘back channels’ then why the scare quotes in the post?  as a journalist, i’m sure you understand very well that the use of that kind of punctuation is normally used to convey scorn/sarcasm etc…

    fwiw i also agree with MT on the general usefulness of sourcewatch as this ground has already been covered to death.  the more interesting question, imo, is not how what the singers/idsos/lindzen etc are doing is affecting (or not) climate policy, but instead how the arguments of TBI et al are providing cover (or not) for inaction on climate change.  this, i’m pretty sure is any area where Romm and KK would have different opinions…

    @Jonathan Gilligan
    agree with pretty much everything you’ve said just now, as usual.  i’m starting to wonder why i bother posting on threads that you’re active on :)

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Marlowe–
    if you don’t have a problem with “˜back channels’ then why the scare quotes in the post?
    I interpreted Keith’s usage of “” around “back channels” is indicating he was using Michael Tobis’s exact words.  That is–I think those aren’t scare quotes. They are conventional, honest to goodness quotes of the sort one uses when quoting exact words used by another.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Mosher.
    You lived in China?!!! You converted to Roman Catholic. Nooooo!!!!!!
     

  • Jeff Norris

    @bigcitylib
    Hypothetically I am sure.
    If MT had asked you if he could quote you directly or with your “nom de plume” for his post would you had agreed?  Do you think that if he had it would have helped or hindered the point he was trying to make?

  • Jack Hughes

    Splitters

  • steven mosher

    Lucia thats my evil twin. Once on RC some genius went off explaining how my few on climate were related to my “views” on abortion. Wrong mosher.
    But of course everyone thought his analysis was spot on.

  • Ed Forbes

    #6:  “..high food prices cased in part by climate change could have contributed to unrest in the Middle East…’
    .
    LoL…now that is just too funny

    .
    Now if you were to say something like “…high food prices cause by converting food to fuel could have contributed to unrest in the Middle East…” you would have been on the correct track.

  • Jack Hughes

    @Ed #41

    Man-bear-pig moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform…

  • JD Ohio

    Keith I guess you are an inactivist because you sometimes rely on Paul Krugman to support your views and Krugman is well known for his coddling of conservatives and his failure to call a spade a spade.
    I would be willing to bet that in following the money, Sourcewatch does not look into the finances of Big Environment such as the WWF or of the large grants made to Universities to support the warmist agenda.  For instance, Michael Mann’s institute at Penn State received a $45 million dollar grant.

    JD

  • Pingback: The Blackboard » Climate Gossip on Backchannels?

  • Sashka

    Keith,

    It’s a war and you know that. “Those who are not with us are against us” ™. You shouldn’t expect honesty or objectivity from anyone who is on a mission. You should wear insult and smear from activists (of both kinds) as medals of honor.

    @ Heraclitus (2)

    I’m sure Quasimado meant deliberate lies, not honest errors. Yes, one is enough.

    @ Anna (17)

    Do you have a mild case of megalomania or something? Why do you think people must answer your emails? Do you think you are important in some way? Let me give you a clue: outside your narrow circle fw people heard about you and nobody gives a squat. No offense, just to give you some perspective.

  • Roddy Campbell

    Keep up the inactivism fostering.  If the alternative is Anna Haynes.
    Who is she anyway, and why do we care?  I googled her and found almost nothing other than a report on a Sacramento geiger counter that she perhaps felt should have had higher readings after Fukushima.  Or something like that, it was a bit confusing.
    I too was interested in Mosher’s views on population control in China and the Roman church.
    I found an interesting article on Sourcewatch, on how the FDA is forcing movie theaters to disclose the nutritional content of popcorn.  1460 calories apparently for a large one with butter.  Those EVIL EVIL EVIL movie theaters.  Naughty!!!
    The UN ‘recommends’ 2350 calories per day, maybe the Coke gets it up to that?

  • kdk33

    “Man-bear-pig”

    Come on Jack, be cereal.

  • http://nigguraths.wordpress.com Shub

    I walked off in a huff, Keith?
    .
    I questioned a commenter calling Anthony Watts a thug, and you asked me to leave.
    .
    I used to comment here fairly regularly before that, didn’t I? I thought I contributed to this blog. But you consistently treated me like shit, simply because you don’t like my tone (or whatever other reason).
    .
    Let us keep the record straight.

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    I didn’t expect my new gig to prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session.

    Keith, I didn’t see anything at mt’s describing the conversation as a “what-do-we-do-about it strategy session.” Did you get anything from him or any other participant that characterized it as such?
    If not, do you think it’s appropriate to flatly describe a conversation you were not party to as “an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session,” or do you think it would have been better to have written something like “it seems that my new gig  prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session” or words to that effect?

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @49 PDA:
    Keith, I didn’t see anything at mt’s describing the conversation as a “what-do-we-do-about it strategy session.” Did you get anything from him or any other participant that characterized it as such?
    If not, do you think it’s appropriate to flatly describe a conversation you were not party to as “an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session,” or do you think it would have been better to have written something like “it seems that my new gig  prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session” or words to that effect?

    I would like to see Keith address this. I was thoroughly amused by Keith’s characterization of events until I realized that people would actually believe that this is what took place.

    I would have thought that Keith, as a journalist, would actually perform a bit of journalism rather than substitute speculation for investigation.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    PDA and TB,

    That’s an interesting interpretation of my post, since the majority of it was focused on Anna’s coincidental creation of the SourcWatch page one day after my new blog at Climate Central launched. I also discussed in my post whether I was an appropriate candidate for such a page.

    I notice that neither of you have anything to say about the substance of what my post was actually about.

    Your faux complaints can’t be taken seriously until you address what my post was actually about.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @51 Keith Kloor:
    the majority of it was focused on Anna’s coincidental creation of the SourcWatch page


    Your faux complaints can’t be taken seriously until you address what my post was actually about.

    I was under the impression, per Anna and your comments, that this issue had been resolved. I don’t know what else there is to say on that issue.

    I think that if people like Judith Curry or yourself would like to see SourceWatch pages on mainstream voices in climate science like Schneider, that sounds like a great opportunity to author the article. I don’t believe that Anna herself has made any pretense of trying focus on all voices in the climate blogosphere equally, but rather is concerned with proponents of inactivism, merchants of doubt, etc. who are potentially being bankrolled by industry interests.

    That’s obviously not what I choose to focus on, and I think that I’ve made my position on “grassroots” vs. astroturfed commenting on this issue clear enough in the past.

    That being settled, your characterization of events has spawned at least one additional post (lucia’s), and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more given the tone. I am curious as to why you characterized events the way you did, and what if any investigation led you to do so.

    In the future, please do me the favor of not assuming bad faith on my behalf (e.g. characterizing my comment as “faux complaint”. As you can see by my wording in this thread and others, I do my best to assume good faith on your behalf even when others do not. Thank you.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    I assume bad faith because you have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page, the fairness of what she wrote, or the timing of it. These are the things that my post was about.

    You want to continue to play games or would you address what my post was actually about?

  • http://warming101.blogspot.com Anna Haynes

    Apologies to Dr. Curry at #10 above, who was displeased that I’d changed her SW page (the day before her comment above) to note that my questions regarding her potential conflicts of interest had not yet been answered; I’d assumed that, as she was posting on her blog and responding in the comments section there, that she (or her business partner/spouse, who I’d also asked, in emails more than a week ago) might have time to give at least a quick answer.

    (Maybe I’m reading things into the situation, but it did feel to me like a brush-off, of indeterminate length. But in retrospect perhaps I should have handled it differently.)

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @53 Keith Kloor:
    I assume bad faith because you have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page, the fairness of what she wrote, or the timing of it. These are the things that my post was about.

    Let me get this straight.

    You’re assuming bad faith on my behalf because I am commenting on something you thought was important to write publicly about, but you don’t consider the main point of your post.

    Seriously?

    And again, it sounded to me like the issue you do consider to be the main point of the post has been resolved, and was resolved before PDA and my comments were made. Is this not the case?

    Now that that is out of the way, perhaps you’d like to respond to PDA.

    Alternatively, if you don’t consider his comment worth answering, perhaps you can explain why you thought the things you wrote which prompted his comment were important enough to write about publicly in the first place. I would think that what PDA is doing- actually asking you about something rather than speculating- is the preferable route to take.

  • DeNihilist

    J. Gilligan said – {and IMHO we’re quickly running out of time to figure out what we’re screwing up, fix it, and persuade the world to adopt sensible policies on sustainability.}

    IMO, the problem is just plain old burn out. I am burned out hearing nothing but doom from the enviromental side. I am burned hearing hearing arguments that have had a longer shelf life then Spam, when the argument has been thoughtfully rebuked. I am burned out by having some of the latest research, such as the one from CISRO, stating that a warming world may actually reduce hurricanes in OZ, completely ignored by such enviromental groups, or if not ignored, then the authors’ attacked in ad hom ways.

    As you state later in your post – { Whatever happened to Gandhi’s insight that your opponents always know some part of the truth that you don’t?} this has been totally disregarded by most Enviro Groups for some weird reason. Too many groups see this as a fight, not as a Scientific mission of discovery.

    As we probe the results of the past and latest conclusions, more will be revealed, some pointing towards doom, some pointing towards benefits.  This is the nature of life. Not all things will be negative with upward warming of the globe. And sensible people know this. If these Enviro groups would accept that people like myself are inteligent and have a few years experience on our sides, and would relate to us in an adult way, i.e. accept and comminucate the positives along with the negatives, then you would see most of the rancour drop away and the start of a communication on what REAL decisions need to be taken at this point in time with the knowledge that we have TODAY.

    Please remember though, this knowledge we have today WILL be displaced in the coming years as we explore ever deeper into the puzzle of climate, so keep an open mind.

  • Lazar

    I think Keith read too much into the statement.
    But the sourcewatch article was an aggressive, unfair, imbalanced move. I won’t fault Keith if he felt overly defensive.
    I am glad that Michael and Keith are continuing a civil adult conversation. Their blogs are welcome refuges from the PR crap from my side.
    We do not need to be all-attack-all-the-time. Treating interesting voices like Keith’s as enemies is boring. It leads to boring rhetoric and boring focus. Boring. Boring. Boring.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    Willard nailed it.  “Conversation about the conversation.”  Boring. Boring. Boring.  But it’s mostly what KK seems interested in with this blog.

    And if climate sensitivity turns out to be on the high end of the range? Then conversation about the conversation, to the extent it undermines or delays the conversation we need about *action*, will stop being just a boring, trashy nuisance.  It’s going to be immoral.

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    Keith, I don’t see what’s inappropriate about asking questions about part of a post without commenting on the central theme. And apparently, you don’t either: you criticized Kugelman’s piece on food insecurity by raising questions about the Indian suicide statistics.

    If you don’t want to answer my question, you obviously don’t have to. You don’t even have to explain why, as far as I am concerned. I would prefer that you refrain from accusing me of bad faith while doing so, but that too is up to you.

  • Matt B

    #56 DeNihilist:

    You nailed it, good post.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    PDA & TB,

    You want to nitpick, by all means. I’ll be happy to address your concerns when you address the substance of the post. Let me reiterate.

    I assume bad faith because you have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page, the fairness of what she wrote, or the timing of it. These are the things that my post was about.

    And I mean this most seriously.

    It’s pretty easy, guys. Just speak to what’s in the post. Then we can get past this silly game you’re playing.

  • Sashka

    @ Sullivan

    If, on the contrary, climate sensitivity turns out to be on the low end of the range? You’ll force the world to spend gazillions of dollars for nothing and then claim that you saved the planet. I supposed that’s highly moral from your PoV, right?

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    I’ll be happy to address your concerns when you address the substance of the post.

    Well, as I said, I think this is a novel requirement for asking questions, and one you don’t adhere to yourself. But sure, I’ll bite.

    The SourceWatch page has since been deleted, and there’s no history available so I can’t read what else – if anything – was originally up there, but the excerpt you posted doesn’t reflect your entire body of work. I’d be surprised if anyone seriously considered SourceWatch to be a balanced source of information, and I think the charter is grandiose to say the very least.

    That’s my response. TB has already posted his. I hope this satisfies your request.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Thingsbreak
    That being settled, your characterization of events has spawned at least one additional post (lucia’s),
    FWIW, I first learned there had been discussion on back channels not from Keith but reading Tobis. I can over here after that.
    I forgot to mention I’d read Tobis’s post and that it was his own post that sparked my curiosity.  I think it is inaccurate to say that Keith’s post spawned mine in a manner that suggest Keiths’ alone spawned my post.  I would say MT’s post and Keith’s collectively spawned my post rather than saying Keith’s alone did.  However, before I read Keith’s post, I merely found MT”s confusing.
    In any case, my post mostly discusses Anna Haynes SourceWatch page. I mention the “back channels” which I first learned of at MT’s.
    I was thoroughly amused by Keith’s characterization of events until I realized that people would actually believe that this is what took place.
    I’m not under the impression that the conversation on the back channel was about what to do about Keith.   My reading of Keith’s post is Keith didn’t know. My reading of MT’s is he’s not saying what was discussed about Keith.  That detail was utterly irrelevant to the content of my post.
    FWIW: I’m very moved by your concern that people have a misconception about what was discussed on the back channel. I’d like to suggest this remedy and will assist.  If you are a member of the “backlist”, please find the full  discussion including quotes and post them so we can all read them. Include additional details like the name of back channel.
    I would be happy to run the story so as to eliminate any misconceptions that might possibly exist on the part of my readers.
    In the meantime without your help  I have no power to obtain the quotes I’m content to continue to observe and discuss Anna’s extremely odd behavior vis-a-vis SourceWatch pages.   I’m currently rather amazed at her seeming to think that she can just email private company, ask for business sensitive information (i.e. client lists) and the heads of that in that drop everything and direct their employees to spend tie putting together a client list merely because Anna Haynes asked. Wow!  Maybe she should contact a physician and ask him for his client list. Or contact Amazon.com and ask for their client list.
    The lesson many learn when reading about Anna’s SourcWatch activities is that the best response is to discuss her activities publicly. That way, information about the reliability of SourceWatch is put in public where people can learn of it. After that, they can judge how seriously to take any intimations on a SourceWatch page and in particular, those authored by Anna Haynes.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @61 Keith Kloor:
    You want to nitpick, by all means.

    I do not “want to nitpick”. I was hoping you would address PDA’s comment regarding substance of this blog post. It’s your blog, you are free to not do so. I do not understand your framing of this as “nitpicking”. I do not want you to assume bad faith on my behalf, as I choose not to assume bad faith on yours.

    I’ll be happy to address your concerns when you address the substance of the post.

    It’s pretty easy, guys. Just speak to what’s in the post. Then we can get past this silly game you’re playing.

    Done here and here.

    If these answers were not satisfactory, you have yet to say why you find them to be so.

    Additionally, I object to your characterization of me simply stating my desire to see you answer a comment as a “silly game you’re playing”. I’ll choose to forgo snarking on the disconnect between this accusation and your own sudden precondition for addressing your own writing, and merely point out the apparent contradiction from my perspective.

    Cheers.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @64 lucia:
    FWIW, I first learned there had been discussion on back channels not from Keith but reading Tobis. I can over here after that.
    I forgot to mention I’d read Tobis’s post and that it was his own post that sparked my curiosity.  I think it is inaccurate to say that Keith’s post spawned mine in a manner that suggest Keiths’ alone spawned my post.  I would say MT’s post and Keith’s collectively spawned my post rather than saying Keith’s alone did.


    Fair enough. I was going by the context of your post and the pingback to this one. I cheerfully revise my previous statement to:

    “That being settled, your characterization of events has spawned in part at least one additional post (lucia’s)”

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    @ 65

    Not done and done. Let’s try again. I’ll break it out for you to make it easier:

    1) You have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page. Or do you?

    TB answer:

    2) The fairness of what she wrote [consider my quotes accurate. But I give Anna my blessing to reproduce her entire entry in a comment for you to judge in entirety, if you prefer].

    TB answer:

    3) The timing of Anna’s Sourcewatch page. What do you think of the timing? It shows up a day after a backchannel conversation about me. [Anna, feel free to jump in here and clarify. Did you come up with the idea independently? Did the debut of my new blog have anything to do with prompting you to write the sourcewatch page? Maybe your answers will help TB and PDA render an opinion on the things I am asking.]

    TB answer:

     

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Thingsbreak-
    I remain worried that you have overlooked my kind offer which remains open. Your comments suggested you were concerned that my post propagated mis-conceptions about what was discussed on back-channels. I think you are mistaken, but I sympathize with your concerns.
    With your help, I am willing to help eliminate any possible worrisome misconceptions.  If you provide me quotes from the list and the name of the list, I will be more than happy to disseminate any information that might reduce the likelihood that anyone might have developed an incorrect impression about the precise nature of the discussion on the back channels.
     

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @67 Keith Kloor:
    You have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page. Or do you?

    I was under the impression, per Anna and your comments, that this issue had been resolved.

    I think that if people like Judith Curry or yourself would like to see SourceWatch pages on mainstream voices in climate science like Schneider, that sounds like a great opportunity to author the article. I don’t believe that Anna herself has made any pretense of trying focus on all voices in the climate blogosphere equally, but rather is concerned with proponents of inactivism, merchants of doubt, etc. who are potentially being bankrolled by industry interests.

    That’s obviously not what I choose to focus on, and I think that I’ve made my position on “grassroots” vs. astroturfed commenting on this issue clear enough in the past.

    The fairness of what she wrote [consider my quotes accurate. But I give Anna my blessing to reproduce her entire entry in a comment for you to judge in entirety, if you prefer].

    I was under the impression, per Anna and your comments, that this issue had been resolved.

    The timing of Anna’s Sourcewatch page. What do you think of the timing? It shows up a day after a backchannel conversation about me.

    I have no novel insight about this. I did not, nor have I, seen any “backchannel” communication about you in reference to a SourceWatch article. The “backchannel” communication about you I saw consisted of me sending an email that you had a new blog at Climate Central (Subject line: “Keith Kloor moves to a new, Climate Central-hosted, blog”) with a link to the new blog and absolutely zero editorial comment on my part.

    I could certainly speculate about the timing without any evidence, but I think it would be easier to simply ask Anna herself, don’t you?

    Now, care to address PDA’s comment?

  • Jeff Norris

    I think Anna Haynes was well aware and had already formed a strong opinion of Keith Kloor’s crimes long before the back channel talks that MT refers to.  What must have prompted her haste to create an entry for Kloor is that he has a new platform to spew his “in activist” rhetoric.   I doubt her actions were  pre approved by the Judeans Peoples Front or even the PFJ (they are just not that organized) but I suspect it was resolved that members must act to stop the spread of in action or not act as they see fit.   Meeting adjourned let’s eat.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @68 lucia:
    Your comments suggested you were concerned that my post propagated mis-conceptions about what was discussed on back-channels.

    I’m not sure what led you to that conclusion. I expressed an interest in seeing Keith respond to PDA, and to address how he arrived at the characterization he did. No more, no less.

    If you provide me quotes from the list

    See @69. I can make no claims about any other potential discussions of relevance. As I said to Keith: I could certainly speculate about the timing without any evidence, but I think it would be easier to simply ask Anna herself, don’t you?

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    I’m going to answer these questions pre-emptively, because I’d like us to cut to the chase. Further, I’m unclear on why MY question should be held up on the basis of what a different commenter does or does not do, in addition to my ongoing bewilderment of the new precondition for asking questions at Collide-a-Scape.

    1) You have nothing to say on the appropriateness of me being a candidate for the SourceWatch page. Or do you?
    PDA answer: I’m not sure what position I am in to judge the “appropriateness” of what a third party chooses to write or not write. I’d wonder if what Keith objects to is being lumped in with people “trying to influence public opinion on behalf of global corporations and the government agencies they have captured;” of course I have no way of knowing whether this is the case but if so, I’d call that inappropriate. However, I also think it’s arguable to include Keith as one of the “corporations, industries, and people trying to sway public opinion” in a minimal sense as a blogger and journalist.

    2) The fairness of what she wrote [consider my quotes accurate. But I give Anna my blessing to reproduce her entire entry in a comment for you to judge in entirety, if you prefer].
    PDA answer: I’ve already expressed my opinion that the excerpt presented was unfair if intended as a depiction of Keith’s career as a whole.


    3) The timing of Anna’s Sourcewatch page. What do you think of the timing? It shows up a day after a backchannel conversation about me. [Anna, feel free to jump in here and clarify. Did you come up with the idea independently? Did the debut of my new blog have anything to do with prompting you to write the sourcewatch page? Maybe your answers will help TB and PDA render an opinion on the things I am asking.]

    PDA answer: I think it’s perfectly reasonable to question the timing. After all, you don’t know and I don’t know what was discussed on the so-called “back channel” and the coincidence is worth noting. This is all on the assumption that Anna is on the mailing list, though, and I haven’t seen this presented as fact by either Anna or mt.

    This brings us right around to the matter I have been asking you to address, though: do you think it’s appropriate to assert as fact the content between what Anna wrote and a conversation you were not privy to?

     

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    Edit the last paragraph to read “This brings us right around to the matter I have been asking you to address, though: do you think it’s appropriate to assert as fact the content of a conversation you were not privy to?”

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    PDA
    to assert as fact the content between what Anna wrote
    He didn’t assert this as a fact. Re-read.

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    Edited. I really, really dislike the post creation window on this site.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    PDA

    do you think it’s appropriate to assert as fact the content of a conversation you were not privy to?”
    He didn’t state as fact the content of a conversation to which he was not privy.  “I guess ‘x’” ≠ ‘X is a fact’.  “I did not expect ‘y’ to happen.” ≠ “Y happened”.
     

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    TB (69)

    All you did was repeat the same answers. Are you aware of how revealing this exchange is about you? Did you Notice my invitation to Anna for her to “clarify” any presumed connection (on my part) between a backchannel conversation, the debut of my new blog and the creation of her SourceWatch page. Notice that she has chosen in all her comments on this thread to ignore the connection I imply in my post. She’s commented a bunch of times and never has she explained what prompted her to write the SourcePage at the time she did and what motivated her.

    PDA: You want to play a little game with semantics, sure I’ll play. Tell me where I “assert as fact” the following:

    I guess that was the agreed on talking point to

    emerge from the “conversation” in the “back channels.” Or was the creation of the SourceWatch page yesterday merely coincidental? Anna is welcome to clarify in the comments.

    Yet even though I actively invite her to clarify (or rebut) me, I still get this parsing line of questioning from you and TB suggesting that I have no grounds to make the connections I have.

    TB even somehow asks me again in a recent comment (69): “I could certainly speculate about the timing without any evidence, but I think it would be easier to simply ask Anna herself, don’t you.”

    What would be easier and more sensible is if I stopped wasting my time trying to honestly engage with both you guys.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Things–

    I’m not sure what led you to that conclusion.
    This paragraph:
    That being settled, your characterization of events has spawned at least one additional post (lucia’s), and I wouldn’t be surprised to see more given the tone. I am curious as to why you characterized events the way you did, and what if any investigation led you to do so.
    Reads as if my writing a blog post was triggered by is related to Keith’s supposed characterization of the discussion on the backchannels. It was not triggered by that characterization and didn’t even touch on it. As far as I am aware– and I suspect as far as you are aware zero blog posts were triggered by Keith’s supposed characterization of what was discussed on the back channels.
    but I think it would be easier to simply ask Anna herself, don’t you?
    Keith did ask here in the blog post as follows:
    Or was the creation of the SourceWatch page yesterday merely coincidental? Anna is welcome to clarify in the comments.
    Anna appeared in comments here but it seems she has elected not to clarify choosing instead to ask Judy Curry questions.  There is no rule that says Keith may not present his question to Anna in public.
     

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Keith,
    Whoops! Cross post!
    Obviously, I agree with you that you did not assert what was said on the back channels as fact and you did, in fact, ask Anna to clarify.

  • PDA

    Keith, my question was, and remains

    I didn’t see anything at mt’s describing the conversation as a “what-do-we-do-about it strategy session.” Did you get anything from him or any other participant that characterized it as such?If not, do you think it’s appropriate to flatly describe a conversation you were not party to as “an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session,” or do you think it would have been better to have written something like “it seems that my new gig  prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session” or words to that effect?

    The restatement of my question in my previous comment contained an error. That error was remedied in the comment immediately following.
    You have accused me of bad faith and of playing semantic games, and refused adamantly to respond to my straightforward question unless I address what you insist I address. I have done everything you have asked, and more. Rather than respond to my question as you promised to do, you dismissively referred to a comment clearly marked as in error, and continued to belittle me. I further note that I have maintained a civil tone throughout this back and forth.

    I respectfully request that you respond to my question as you have indicated that you would.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Lazar (57)

    Thanks for your comment here and over at MT’s.

  • Jonathan Gilligan

    @Keith: Since I did address the substance of your post back in #16 before I started picking nits about “back channels” I feel entitled to return and pick some more nits.

    You’re being silly if you give your post a headline about “back channels” and use that phrase five more times in nine paragraphs and then act surprised when people respond to that part of your post rather than the part about SourceWatch, which begins in the third paragraph. Don’t you journalism folks teach something about lede and nut grafs that go at the beginning of a story to orient the reader by indicating clearly and concisely what’s really important? If you didn’t intend to emphasize the “back channels” aspect of this story, then you did a very poor job of writing this post.

    When I first read it, I thought the lede was “I didn’t expect my new gig to prompt an immediate what-do-we-do-about it strategy session,” but you think the lede is the very last sentence: “Partisan climate bloggers and activists do their cause no favors when they create fictitious portraits of someone like me.” Is this story, then, a textbook example of utterly burying the lede?

    Oh, and in case I left anything ambiguous back in #16 about my opinion of Anna Haynes and her SourceWatch nonsense, what she posted there about you was irresponsible, inaccurate, and unfair. And her excuse that you should have emailed to do her fact-checking for her is absurd and unconvincing. But that’s her fault, not Michael’s. Which is why I was so puzzled to see you giving Michael such a prominent role in a story about Anna.

  • Michael Tobis

    Oh em gee what a ridiculous conversation.

    Somebody said something grumbly about KK on a closed mailing list. Nobody (besides myself) on this thread is participating as far as I know. Anna and BCL are not on that list. The grumble was prompted by KK’s new CC blog. Arthur piped up with a link. No further conversation ensued.

    I thought Arthur’s link interesting, and it occurred to me that I hadn’f flagged it the first time around. So, as I usually do when I see an interesting link, I flagged it in Reader. This automatically posts it on my “recommended readings” as well. Later after Keith objected I regretted the timing of putting it on my “recommended reading” list.

    That’s everything of substance that happened that I am party to.
     

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Jonathan (82),

    I can accept your interpretation because you’re not selectively cherrypicking the post while ignoring the thrust of it.

    My problem is not with you but with people making disingenuous criticism for the sake of scoring partisan points.

    I only disagree with one thing you say in your comment: that I gave Michael “such a prominent role.” It is Michael’s post that serves as the lede for my story, the set-up for what I construe to have come after a backchannel conversation.

    Had he not written his post he would not have been mentioned at all. But even with reference to his post, I can’t see how you might have gotten the impression that I gave him a prominent role in my post.

    The only other thing I’ll say is that I think you are confusing a facetious/sarcastic tone at the outset (“what-do-we-do-about-strategy session…”)

    But I take responsibility for an uneven tone in the post that I think would lead someone such as yourself to think that I’m trying to make more out of this than I could obviously know.

    Again, thanks for your honest, constructive criticism.

  • Jonathan Gilligan

    @DeNihilist (#56): “If these Enviro groups would accept that people like myself are inteligent and have a few years experience on our sides, and would relate to us in an adult way, i.e. accept and comminucate the positives along with the negatives, then you would see most of the rancour drop away and the start of a communication on what REAL decisions need to be taken at this point in time with the knowledge that we have TODAY.”

    Did you have something like this in mind, where I posted last week with a link to a 1979 interview with Stephen Schneider saying, “The best we can do is say, “˜Look out, there’s a chance of potentially irreversible change at a global scale based upon the benefits of the use of energy. And it’s very tough for us to know whether those benefits of energy today are worth the potential risks of environmental change for our children.’ ”

    I must have missed that moment 32 years ago when the rancor dropped away  and we all started to communicate sincerely about making real decisions. In other words, I have become convinced by history that there’s very little truth in claims that the rhetoric of AGW activists is a principal obstacle to progress on policy.

  • http://thesewordsmakemyheadsad.tumblr.com PDA

    Hey Keith, you said you’d be “happy to address [my] concerns when [I] address the substance of the post.” I’ve done so, and with all the courtesy I can muster, despite receiving the distinct impression that there is literally nothing I can write that will convince you that I am not “making disingenuous criticism for the sake of scoring partisan points.”

    If that’s in fact the case, would you kindly just let me know so we can bring this head-butt to a merciful end? I’m aware that I’ve annoyed you in the past, so if I’ve worn out my welcome, I’ll simply take my leave.

  • http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com willard

    > It is Michael’s post that serves as the lede for my story, the set-up for what I construe to have come after a backchannel conversation.

    The predicate “is the set-up for what I construe” deserves due diligence.

    In case someone thinks I’m scoring partisan points with disingenuous criticism, I will not miss to add that Miss Haynes should learn to be more circumspect in her profiling: “foster” is one of the few words that appeared in her very shallow stub, and a very dubious one.

    (Is this enough for you, Keith, or should I keep kicking?)

  • kdk33

    “I have become convinced by history that there’s very little truth in claims that the rhetoric of AGW activists is a principal obstacle to progress on policy”

    And indeed you are correct.  The case for action on climate is weak, always has been – nothing to do with rhetoric.  We’re doing the right thing: nothing. 

  • DeNihilist

    And here J. Gilligan is the perfect example of what I ws trying to get through – -{I must have missed that moment 32 years ago when the rancor dropped away  and we all started to communicate sincerely about making real decisions.}

    You just could not stop yourself and had to try to belittle my comment.

    So now i feel my back up, and instead of wanting to discuss with you, learn from you who obviously have been in this debate far longer than me, I would rather now just ignore you.

    You put out the query. I tried to answer as honestly as I could from my point of view. But instead of engaging with me, you would prefer to belittle me. Then you wonder why more and more of us common folk are shaking our heads and walking away from you guys.

    I don’t havr the time to read every thing that get’s posted on these sites, let alone read them every day. Maybe you should start from that aspect.

    Anyway Jonathan, thanx for proving my points and have a happy warm life.

  • DeNihilist

    Actually, i will give you one more point of advice J.G., if you are so jaded from your years of battle against the enemy, maybe it is time for you to retire and let a younger, more patient, and enthusiastic voice takeover. One that doesn’t make an ASS out of U and ME every time a different opinion is opined.

    Nuff said.

  • steven mosher

    MT,
    I didn’t see you as the subject of keith’s post at all.
    the back channels exist to maintain the thin green line, usually in unconscious ways, sometimes more deliberately.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    OMG, Tobis and pals are discussing stuff on a mailing list!!!

    Quick, someone hack their archive and send it to Mosher!

    For a *journalist* — a genus whose own back channel discussions have occasionally been newsworthy themselves – to get snarky about some climate bloggers using mailing lists, is quite rich.  And yes, Keith, as J. Gilligan said, that *did* appear to be the focus of the post, whether you intended it or not. Back channels back channels back channels.   Discussion about the discussion.

    Obligatory ‘balance’:  Anna Hayes was wrong to do what she did.

  • Lazar

    “the back channels exist to”

    “Back channels” is used to refer to different things by different people.

    It is possible that Mosher doesn’t know what the thing that mt calls “back channel” exists to serve for mt.

  • StuartR

    What is Sourcewatch? I often see it used in the context “Dont trust ‘X’ he’s in Sourcewatch ;) ” But never think to check further after seeing the link to an odd fringe site.

    Yet I now see that someone called Anna Haynes can unilaterally decide to make changes to its content if she doesn’t get immediate answers to her questions, or if she has had an especially good kip.

    And people care!? Wow! Reminds me of the good old days of William Randolph Hearst. I guess the nearest we have today with that power is Murdoch :)

    There must be a lot of proud gimps who can stay on the right side of her ;)

  • http://warming101.blogspot.com Anna Haynes

    Boys and girls, calm down please…

    Keith, it’s not wise to assume that everyone reads your blog regularly; so if you ask a question, it’s best to notify the askee in an email. (And yes, we all probably sin in this dept sometimes; but if the Q is important to you, it’d be wise.)

    I’m referring to your “Anna, feel free to jump in here and clarify” above.

    I had no idea you had any involvement with Climate Central, and creating the SourceWatch page was my own idea; & as I said above, in retrospect not a good one. Yet.

    (In future, if for example if you should start being quoted misleadingly on climate (or publish misleading climate articles) in mainstream media, or give congressional testimony, that’ll change.)

    Note: Ken Caldeira has a SourceWatch page, since reporters had been misrepresenting his views on geoengineering.

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Precious. Anna is lecturing on common courtesies and journalism criteria.

    Anyway, I’ll consider myself warned.

    I really need to get you into my journalism class when we talk about citizen journalism. You gotta let me know next time you’re in NYC. But please, email ahead. People don’t always like it when crusaders just show up unannounced. Makes them jittery.

  • http://warming101.blogspot.com Anna Haynes

    > “common courtesies”

    Practicality, actually. If you want a question *answered*, IMO it just makes sense to let the askee know that it’s been asked.

    Keith, a question for you and your readers: could something like this be going on, do you think? (link

  • Sashka

    if for example if you should start being quoted misleadingly on climate (or publish misleading climate articles)
    Anna is the ultimate connoisseur and arbiter of all things (climate-wise) proper and misleading. Now I see.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Anna
    Keith, it’s not wise to assume that everyone reads your blog regularly; so if you ask a question, it’s best to notify the askee in an email.
    Anna, I think it’s unwise for you to jump to the conclusion that Keith thinks you read his blog.
    Whatever he did think, it seems his blog post within 4 hours of his posting it.   Lesson: If Keith wants to ask Anna something, starting by posting the question at his blog seem to work.  It’s true you may not read his blog. It’s true you may not like his asking you questions in public.  It’s true you may not like being asked questions in public.   But by hook or by crook, in this case, Keith asked you something in public and it’s quite clear the post came to your attention in less than 4 hours.

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    Sashka–Anna’s comment at MT’s was deleted. But I read it and clicked the links. It appears she included a rather confusing paragraph about circa 1993 Illinois politics and linked to to an article discussing some obscure person I’ve never heard of. (I didn’t live in Illinois in 1993.)

  • Tom Yulsman

    Oh yes, this discourse really is helping us solve the world’s sustainability problems. I’m sure that once we get these issues worked out among us, we’ll be well on our way to grappling with climate change and figuring out how to accommodate the needs of 9 billion people on planet Earth.

  • http://www.realclimategate.org Barry Woods

    1.5 billion people arguable need electricity more than CO2 reduction.. The CAGW enthusiasts would seem deny them this.  Ie lots of coal in Africa.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    102:
    Burning African coal is a short-term solution for a energy problem affecting 20% of humanity, that will exacerbate a climate problem with a real potential to affect far more than that over a longer term.  So what do people need ‘more’?  And does it have to be one or the other?

    101: Pathetic, innit?

     

  • Tom Yulsman

    Two days ago I toured an office building that uses less than 50% of the energy than a building constructed to current ASHRAE standards. It also makes extensive use of recycled materials, and its design emphasized sustainability throughout every part of the process “” so much so that it may well be the most environmentally friendly building of its kind on the planet.

    Most astonishingly, it cost no more to build than an ordinary energy hog. And it is an absolute marvel to work in. The interior spaces are serene and calming “” as attested to by the workers I interviewed there. And with the addition of solar panels, it is a net-zero building as well. (In fact, it is feeding extra energy into the grid.)

    Yet we are not building many buildings like this. Why do you suppose that is? And do you think the obsessive compulsive debate over climate change is helping to advance construction of buildings like these “” which makes sense purely on economic grounds?

    So Anna, the next time you are tempted to send me an email like the one the other day seeking dirt on Judith Curry and Keith Kloor, maybe you should ask yourself what you will actually accomplish by tarnishing the reputations of people you simply disagree with. I would like to suggest that your time would be better spent on something constructive. And the world might even be a better place for it.

    And lastly Anna, some unsolicited advice: If you want respect, you might start by showing some yourself.

  • http://rabett.blogspot.com Eli Rabett

    Tom:  Capital costs.  It is well known that even rapid payback (1-2 years) efficiency investments are not made because of reluctance to pay the up front costs.  It is only with tax credits and regulations that these things get done, but they do get done.  Go find a commercial building with a single incandescent.
    The role of regulation in this (see low volume flush toilets) is vital, and yes, those “allies” of yours play the tune of reactionaries.
     

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Eli,

    In what way do Tom’s “allies” play “the tune of reactionaries”?

    You need to emerge from your rabbet hole and be specific. Name-calling won’t cut it, either. Be specific. Cite examples.

  • kdk33

    Tom,

    Do you really belive that business turn down a building that costs half as much to operate for the same up front cost.  It strains credibility.

    Eli,

    Do you reall belive businesses turn down relatively certain investments with 1 to 2 year payback.  It strains credibility even more.

    ps. low flush toilets don’t work.

  • http://warming101.blogspot.com Anna Haynes

    Since we seem to have moved on, topic-wise, from “let’s excoriate Anna”, anyone have an idea why the $752k coincidence at CO2 Is Green? or what the almost $350k is about, for “contract labor” at the Idsos’ Center for the Study of CO2 and Global change? Why won’t Cool It’s Ondi Timoner back up her claims that people were fired as a result of appearing in the film? etc, at (link)

  • http://collide-a-scape.com Keith Kloor

    Anna, you’re playing the victim card?

    Eli (105)

    Still waiting for you to elaborate. Feel free to flex those rabbet muscles over at the briar patch, if that makes it easier. Then come over and give us a link.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »