Nullius in Verba: I always enjoy reading your comments and often share them with others. Your posts are insightful and very well written, and I consider you one of the best regular posters around. The Intersection wouldn’t be nearly as good without you.

What sport is there in reasoned debate, without a genuine opponent? One able to match wits with you with skill and honour?

I therefore leave it to the audience to consider who had the better of this bout.
And to reflect deeply on our host’s words above regarding the existence of norms.

I had the same reaction to the phrase at first, but after a bit of thought, decided that it could be interpreted neutrally.

I was a bit intrigued by the bit that said “Imagine if people acted in public like they do in some online discussions. It would be chaotic mess with people getting assaulted and arrested.” Is this suggesting that making controversial statements such as we do here without the shield of anonymity would result in getting assaulted, or arrested?! Who by?

Which of course reminded me of Greenpeace saying “We know where you live.” Or indeed, Ben Santer’s dark alley.

A lot of people do comment anonymously because they don’t want to be traced by internet crazies – climate fanatics are not necessarily excluded from that. More prefer to stay anonymous because they could face sanctions from employers or clients for their beliefs. (And I’ve seen a few climate protests where there’s a chaotic mess of people being assaulted or arrested, and you wouldn’t want to be a known sceptic in the middle of that lot.)

So I don’t necessarily disagree with it. Without the context of Guy’s previous comments, and considered in isolation, it’s something I might have said myself.

GET AWAY WITH IT???? With what? Some kind of thought crime? Is having a controversial opinion some kind of offense against you fellow citizens? I mean really, what does that mean, “get away with it”?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

#23, Interesting “proof”. To disprove bias, you give a classic example of bias. Well done!

Every administration suppresses science it doesn’t like. That’s how politicians operate. They all have their own agendas and schemes, and they manipulate events to whatever extent that they can to make them come about. Science is not sacred territory to them; they’ll mess with it as willingly as they will with healthcare, the economy, education, or any of the reports, surveys, and statistics that come out about them. Nobody gets to the top without being very good at it.

So I’d be surprised if President Bush hadn’t interfered with science. Where the bias comes in is when you report on it selectively. To make your point, what you ought to have done is cite an example from Chris’s book where he reports on his ideological allies doing the same sort of thing.

Take Climategate, for example, or the Hockeystick scandal. All sorts of science suppressed and distorted; by the IPCC, the UN, governments, universities, journals, and NGOs. Upon the evidence being leaked, science journalists ought to have been all over it. What happened, why is it significant, what does it mean for science? A lot of them are. Even people like George Monbiot who just watched his life’s work getting flushed down the toilet, and yet has managed to take a principled stand for Science. Even though it goes against everything he believes in and has written about for years, even though he has to listen to his enemies say “I told you so” – and I’m sure that really burns – he took an honest look at what Climategate revealed, was horrified at what climate scientists had done to scientific standards and processes, and he said so.

“Since I began writing about this issue, I’ve been assailed by climate scientists and environmentalists, all insisting that Jones did nothing wrong. If these emails meet their standards of professional rectitude I dread to think what else they would find acceptable.”

Now that’s journalism.

But you’ll see none of that here. The view here is still that there’s nothing in it, everything is fine, it’s just those zany sceptics babbling on about something, la, la, la, I can’t hear you. It was Bush suppressing science, it’s the Republican war on science, because science is obviously on the side of the Democrats/liberals/left.

Well, you’re all entitled to your opinion. And the proprietors here are at least very good about allowing open access to the other side to comment here. And there are of course plenty on the sceptic side that are just as partisan that I would cringe to be associated with. It’s human nature to be biased – and we are all human.

I don’t like Monbiot or what he stands for, and I don’t agree with all he says, even now. But I can – through gritted teeth – express admiration for his reaction when he realised he had been wrong. It’s a hard thing for anyone to do.

I come to this Blog as much for Chris Mooney’s editorial content as for the comments section. I know what Chris’s bias is. I know it’s close to 100% Op Ed with almost no objective grounding whatsoever. And I’m fine with that because the objectivity is in the comments section. Chris does a great job at providing a venue to discuss, objectively, a topic that he puts forward. (ty Chris).

http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2010/05/the_switzerland_problem.php

The view I disagree with is the “nothing is true, that’s just your bias.”

I am flat out saying YOU’RE wrong, and DOUG WATTS is wrong.

As proof, a great deal of the Bush administration actions suppressing science – objectively verifiable behavior – came to the public attention through Chris’s first book.

I also explained what I think a blog like this is – since I was being asked a question – and I’ll repeat – it’s a mixture of journalism/reporting journalism/op-ed, and many elements that aren’t journalistic.

And let me add, the bias thing is simply bullshit. Doug Watts made a fairly deranged remark and it’s quite telling, frankly.