Smokey’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Huh?

  Pangolin wrote:
  "Smokey, your criticism of the OP is that it doesn't cite data..."

  Not at all. My criticism is that the practice of quoting people concedes too much to pseudoscientists.

  "... when in fact it cites numerous sources that summarize and collate legitimate scientific findings and only legitimate scientific findings."

  You've checked them all? Do you realize that very few reviews are peer-reviewed?

  "Given that the review paper citing abstracts of a series of reports and summarizing findings into a concise whole is a well known and practiced scientific technique I don't see the validity of your criticism."

  Given that reviews (they cite papers, not just abstracts) don't count as scientific productivity and are rarely peer-reviewed, I think you don't understand my point at all.

  "A valid criticism is that the so-called "journalist" in the politico piece is in no way qualified to judge the difference between legitimate scientific findings and political blather by whack jobs with science degrees."

  I agree. That is shown more effectively by making the top criterion the production of new data, not by gathering quotes from both "sides."

  "Not that I have a science degree but I can recognize there is a difference between peer reviewed works and Anthony Watts blog."

  So, do you realize that reviews are rarely "peer reviewed works"?

  "Politico's acceptance and promotion of such low-standard work should taint the rest of site. It screams "we'll accept any old trash as content" reducing it from journalism to something akin to  Twitter."

  I agree completely. My only criticism of the piece here was the concession of important ground to climate change deniers. On Beltway paper runs two of the dumbest stories of the decade on climate science posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's about framing

  "I think David was barking at the political aspects of things..."

  I know, but politics is about framing, and the "skeptics" are winning politically when we adopt their frames. Such battles should never be fought on the basis of credentials, quotes, or consensus--just the data.

  For me, the most effective frame is a parody of the milk ads. Just ask, "Got data? Until you generate some, you're not practicing science in this matter."On Beltway paper runs two of the dumbest stories of the decade on climate science posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bad framing

  Your article is very good with one glaring exception:

  "In the entire article, not one scientist is quoted defending basic global warming consensus, which is supported by a vast array of peer-reviewed research and the vast majority of climate scientists."

  Screw quotes. Screw peer review. Screw consensus.

  There's a basic tenet of science that you're missing here: real scientists test their hypotheses and produce new data. Period. That's what's missing from global warming skeptics, antievolutionists, antivaccationists, and those who claim that animal research doesn't work.On Beltway paper runs two of the dumbest stories of the decade on climate science posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 18 Responses