tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post5226052004648187746..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Shared Knowledge and SourcesRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-86611094530722522782008-09-14T13:05:00.000-04:002008-09-14T13:05:00.000-04:00battyhugh: An unsourced comment by a nonprofession...battyhugh: An unsourced comment by a nonprofessional was what prompted this note. We don't need more. Even more, we don't need racist ignorance.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-22128008864700408632008-09-14T12:53:00.000-04:002008-09-14T12:53:00.000-04:00Often what's really at hand is nothing to do with ...Often what's really at hand is nothing to do with the science and what is a reliable source or not. Instead, one of the people has reached a conclusion (or started with one) and no amount of information from no matter how impeccable a source will change that person's mind.<BR/><BR/>A small scale example involved my sea level change FAQ (I have a story or three about that, one including more on doing science). That is, there were two people going at it about sea level change, one on the extreme that sea level can't change, the other on the extreme that sea level will change and kill us all real soon now (unless ...). Both were citing my faq as their authority. The interesting part, to me, was that when their authority (me) stepped in and said they were both wrong, they finally agreed -- to ignore me and continue arguing. Though they were citing a scientific source, they didn't care about what the science had to say. It was just window dressing.<BR/><BR/>If you look for it, the science as window dressing people are usually easy to identify. If you still have some question, ask what evidence would be needed for them to change their conclusion. The window dressing folks usually require something either impossible (the names of every person ever killed by climate change, and how) or absurdly irrelevant (that they be given climate observations at annual resolution for the last 4 billion years showing that the earth has never been warmer). <BR/><BR/>Or, not infrequently, they'll agree that they don't care what evidence you present.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-21808150660641522122008-09-13T15:25:00.000-04:002008-09-13T15:25:00.000-04:00I find it very frustrating that in many discussion...I find it very frustrating that in many discussions I have on climate change, I spend at least half of it going over what exactly a good source is (e.g., the peer-reviewed literature vs. a random article from Dr. so and so whose expertise is in medicine or engineering, etc). Of course, there is some bad peer-reviewed work out there as well, and also some very sloppy stuff from "specialists in the field" (usually coming from the likes of Roy Spencer or Richard Lindzen), and it becomes difficult to convince people "just who to trust," especially on issues which carry political baggage to them. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, there are some very reliable sources on the web which are not journal articles such as RealClimate (but again, the stuff there is written by specialists). <BR/><BR/>The peer-reviewed literature is always a safe bet for a good starting place, but generally the intended audiences are scientists and not "average joes who are looking for a good source." But as for the people who only read these wingnut sources, it's not easy to convince them that they are well off course for a good considerations of the issues, and when these people think that such sources are more credible than, say, reports from the National Acadmeies or IPCC, there is a big problem. But often it does take a specialsit to be able to go to any sources, and judge the validity of the claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-76615709857412164462008-09-12T21:26:00.000-04:002008-09-12T21:26:00.000-04:00Another very good reason to give a source -- it ma...Another very good reason to give a source -- it makes me look up what I'm sure I remember, and check citing publications to see what's newer. And with Usenet (excuse me, the Web) there is almost always something newer -- often a better source, maybe new information.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-45646400970683719092008-09-12T09:07:00.000-04:002008-09-12T09:07:00.000-04:00And the corollary to your comment "The greatest di...And the corollary to your comment "The greatest difficulty in the world is not for people to accept new ideas, but to make them forget about old ideas." John Maynard KeynesPhilip H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12049875206738422083noreply@blogger.com