jfleck’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  a misunderstanding

  Andrew -

  Sorry for being less than clear. It was precisely my point that a public savvy about how science works is unlikely to be achieved, and we need approaches robust to that reality.On Climate whiplash posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  the solution space

  "The ultimate solution is for the general public to become more savvy about how science works."

  This would be nice, but having toiled in these trenches for years and also looked at the data on public understanding of science, I think it's fair to say that this is a false hope.

  This is a specific case of a more general argument: "If the general public became more savvy about X, then the problem at hand would be easier to solve." This argument is made about a huge range of issues. The problem is that most people are not savvy about most things, and never will be. What we need, I think, is a set of solutions that are robust to this reality.On Climate whiplash posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  intellectual honesty

  David -

  My allegation of intellectual dishonesty has nothing to do with Roger. It has to do with your claim that you really do think adaptation is important, but that you are unwilling or unable to write about it, and have you have repeatedly criticized those who bring the issue up.

  As I said, actions speak louder than words.On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  straw man

  As I responded to Eli over at Fleck's, the good Rabbett is deploying a straw man. None of the principles in this argument are arguing in favor of adaptation at the expense of mitigation. That's a straw man.

  But the willful deployment of this argument over and over again has resulted in a quite demonstrable abandonment of adaptation on the part of what David calls "green commentators". It takes two forms - intellectually dishonest lip service (the David Roberts approach, in which one pretends to believe in it, then launches an attack every time anyone brings up its importance) or outright hostility, the approach of the more intellectually honest commentators.On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  adaptation

  David -

  The problem is that it's not just you. While lots of folks give lip service, as you did, to the importance of both adaptation and mitigation, essentially the entire discussion revolves around mitigation, and is permeated by a fear that any discussion of adaptation simply provides cover for the bad guys.

  One of the few exceptions to this is Roger, whose discussion of adaptation is robust, rather than merely notional. This is why his views are, in fact, newsworthy, Zarembo's mangling notwithstanding. He's genuinely a rare case in accepting the importance of mitigation but also pushing adaptation hard.

  Maybe you should invite Roger to blog here.On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses