Actually, I agree with this from Malcolm. Regardless of the media's
hopelessness or not, outlets like the Telegraph are still (whether we like
it or not) where most people get their opinion forming and news from. Our
relationship to them will always be assymetrical. But this is insufficient
reason for NOT in certain cases, responding, on their terms, with as cogent
an argument as possible. We have to beware of assuming that because we know
(or think we know) it all, the majority of relatively 'informed' Joe
public (ie Telegraph, Indie, Guardian readers et al) are dependent on what
they read in print. One could go even further, by saying that even against
the odds, we have a duty to respond in specific instances, even against the
odds of what may or may not be done to our response by the newspaper itself.
If Malcolm et al. are willing to do the spade work and put in effort, (using
as appropriate David's suggested blog) I do not see a reason why CF should
resist this particular effort but rather should enthusiastically support it.
The issue again, is, are folk prepared to put in effort, and is the
Telegraph the correct focus of a response? If the answer is in the
affirmative perhaps a 'group' of esteemed scientists as endorsees of a
draft article would be the optimum route. As stated previously it would have
to be expressed in language which unlike Monckton is not goobledegook for
the general reader.
That's my view, !
mark
on 17/11/06 10:20 pm, Professor Malcolm Levitt at [log in to unmask]
wrote:
> Hi David, etc.
> I guess my intention was not to suggest feeding the telegraph with a rebuttal
> article, but more to
> provoke the compilation of a point-by-point response which could be placed on
> a suitable website
> (such as the crisis forum) and used as a reference point for those (like
> myself) who are at least
> intrigued by some of Monckton's arguments and would like to see them addressed
> properly in a
> single place - so that people like me dont have to go trawling the internet to
> see what he's on
> about.
> The RealClimate website certainly fulfils this role in part but I would like
> to see the entirety of
> Monckton's pieces reproduced with commentary on each point, including links to
> more detailed
> discussions, dissenting views, etc. Maybe the RealClimate people are the ones
> to do that - and
> perhaps David has personal contacts there (?)
> It seems that some of the climate experts on the forum find this all "old
> stuff" and not worth
> bothering about. But it does not seem that way to me. I am very surprised
> about the sloppiness
> (and weakness) of the responses to Monckton, to be honest.
> malcolm
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:24:45 +0000, David Cromwell <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark (and everyone on the list),
>
> Well the realclimate.org blog entry I sent round
> last night, *does*, I think, demolish Monckton's
> arguments. Someone *could* rejig it, with the
> author's permission, for a newspaper article or
> do their own from scratch. But as for feeding the
> Telegraph beast by submitting a rebuttal - well,
> I have my doubts. Even if the editor accepts a
> piece, you'll have little control over the
> editing and how it appears. Bear in mind too that
> stoked-up "controversy" like this helps newspaper
> to sell and thus attract/maintain their corporate
> advertisers. Anyway, I'm unconvinced it's a
> useful and effective route for the Crisis Forum,
> especially given our limited resources. However,
> others on the list may well feel differently!
>
> On a somewhat related note, I include below an
> interesting bit of correspondence from
> cosmologist Ed Whitten in today's Nature.
>
> best wishes,
> David
>
>
>
> Correspondence
>
> Nature 444, 265 (16 November 2006) |
> doi:10.1038/444265a; Published online 15 November
> 2006
> Answering critics can add fuel to controversy
> Edward Witten1
> 1. Institute for Advanced Study,
> Einstein Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
>
> Sir:
> Your Editorial "To build bridges, or to burn
> them" and News Feature "In the name of nature"
> raise important points about criticism of science
> and how scientists should best respond
> (Nature 443, 481; 2006 and Nature 443, 498-501;
> 2006). The News Feature concerns radical
> environmentalists and animal-rights activists,
> but the problem covers a wider area, often
> involving more enlightened criticism of science
> from outside the scientific establishment and
> even, sometimes, from within.
>
> The critics feel passionately that they are
> right, and that their viewpoints have been
> unfairly neglected by the establishment. They
> strike a populist note. They bring into the
> public arena technical claims that few can
> properly evaluate. They are sometimes able to
> generate astonishing amounts of publicity. We all
> know examples from our own fields or from the
> media.
>
> Responding to this kind of criticism can be very
> difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of
> élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts.
> A direct response may just add fuel to
> controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to
> devote immense energies to their efforts, can
> thrive on the resulting 'he said, she said'
> situation.
>
> Scientists in this type of situation would do
> well to heed the advice in Nature's Editorial.
> Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have
> the chance, try to patiently explain why what you
> are doing is interesting and exciting, and may
> even be useful one day.
>
> [My emphasis in bold]
>
>
>
>> Malcolm et al. The idea of a proper article length but accessible
>> response, offered to the Daily Telegraph, that is, is an excellent one.
>>
>> Are there Crisis Forum folk with the expertise who can offer this? Or if
>> not us, who can. (Would have thought there are plenty of recognised
>> 'experts' at Southampton National Oceanography Centre who could provide
>> the critique?
>> David (Cromwell) good friend, have you any thoughts on this? (Or anybody
>> else!)
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Malcolm Levitt
>> Sent: 15 November 2006 18:04
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Monckton article
>>
>> Is there anyone out there who is preparing a detailed analysis/criticism
>> of the Monckton articles?
>>
>> I, for one, would like to see a decent climate scientist address his
>> points one by one. He has done a thorough job and deserves a detailed
>> response, based on scientifically proved and sourced facts.
>> It may be a laborious piece of work, but it should be done.
>>
>> The criticisms I have seen so far rely too much on who he is (a rich
>> aristocrat who used to advise Margaret Thatcher), where it is published
>> (the Daily Telegraph instead of Nature), and a few obvious blunders he
>> has made (1421, for example), which are not really of great importance.
>> If his work is that flawed, it should not be difficult for someone who
>> knows these things to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
>>
>> Personally, my mind is still open. I think it is unlikely that the
>> scientific community and parts of the political world could be convinced
>> of anthropogenic global warming out of some sort of mass hysteria, but I
>> cannot exclude it either. I'm a scientist on the "hard" physical end,
>> and I know that it can be quite easy to misinterpret even reproducible
>> experimental data, never mind statistical analyses of past climate. It
>> is not impossible that Monckton, as a climate outsider, has really made
>> a valuable contribution, and so far I'm not convinced by the criticisms
>> I've read. The George Monbiot one in the Guardian this week is
>> disappointing, making much out of the fact that Monckton does not have a
>> science degree (this is not so different from dismissing critics of the
>> Iraq invasion on the grounds that they are not military or political
>> professionals).
>>
>> Unfortunately I'm not sufficiently qualified in the field to judge most
>> of Monckton's arguments myself. Is anyone aware of a good-quality
>> science criticism, that concentrates on the facts? Like them or not,
>> Monckton's articles are really bugging me.
>>
>> all the best
>> malcolm
>
>
>
|
