"I think my reasonableness bored him."  

Don't expect to be invited back...

"The host was somewhat taken aback that I wasn't a bomb-throwing wacko. He didn't know what to make of me. I think my reasonableness bored him."

Good thinking on your part ...

Heidi on the other hand was speaking out in a venue that gets noticed by media that the middle of the road convertible voters might hear.

Heidi gots guts.  Fight the power!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

David -

Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent to go on right wing talk radio and trumpet the importance and value of the IPCC consensus, while at the same time here, among friends, expressing a complete willingness to abandon consensus findings when a scientific outlier (hurricane-global warming link) meets your needs?

It's obvious that you've got the high ground with IPCC-style consensus. Why are you so easily willing to cede it by turning to the dueling-scientific-outlier trope?

David -

This repeated "Limbaugh hordes" line of argument is a straw man - precisely the same as the "dirty hippies" you so charmingly lampooned. Obviously there are Limbaugh hordes, and they're serial science abusers. But the rhetorical trick of lumping all of one's political opponents with the most venal and stupid of them is precisely the thing you were complaining about in your dirty hippie post. I hope you recognized the irony when you used the trick yourself.

Within the science itself, there are genuine and intellectually honest skeptics. Their numbers are small, but the smart ones pick away at areas in which the IPCC acknowledges genuine uncertainty (just like the hurricane question). And well intentioned people otherwise willing to accept the  main points of the IPCC's consensus (not Limbaugh horde denialists) point to these scientists and say, "Well, yeah, but what about (solar variability, land use changes, etc.)...." If you're willing to argue that expert panel assessments ought to be the guiding principle behind political and policy arguments, it's easy to dismiss their arguments as outliers that are irrelevant to the important policy questions - an argument that I've made in trying to explain to my readers how they should think about the outliers they frequently hear cited in the climate wars rhetoric. You've lost that, your best card.

And again, I never said people who make the global warming-hurricane argument are extremists. You're the one who keeps bringing up that word - a bit of a straw man as well.

While you're busy in tribal warfare against the Limbaugh hordes, you're missing out completely on the serious business going on far closer to the center among far more reasonable people. You keep trying to pull this discussion back to the Limbaugh hordes and the tribal warfare at the fringe, which is an easy battle to fight because they're idiots. But again, that's making the mistake of lumping all one's opponents in with the most venal and stupid of them. I think you need to recognize the far more interesting, subtle and important discussion nearer the center, where I believe the real action is right now.

The fact that you so completely missed the point of Revkin's "center" piece illustrates the danger to your own side of the argument in continuing to go after the Limbaugh hordes' red flag.

As you know from the polling data, a significant majority in the U.S, believes the scientific consensus. In the public mind, you've already won on the science. As Matthew Nisbet's repeated appeal to the data points out, people's unwillingness to act is based on something other than a sort of Limbaugh-horde-fueled misrepresentation of the science.

jfleck, have you bothered to go and look at the comments appearing on Heidi Cullen's blog after she was linked to on Limbaugh's site?

I don't think that the "Limbaugh hordes" are some kooky manifestation of a paranoid mind.

Instead of "straw man," why not try "straw men," since there are over 1000 comments beating up on her? That would be a little more honest.

Benny Big Eye

perhaps I'm missing your point too. I get that you're above all the grubby tribal warfare the masses are engaged in. You're involved in a veritable Athenian salon, soberly discussing the real issues with other sober, serious people. Clearly I should be sober and serious too and forget about the Limbaugh hordes, even in a post about being on the radio directly addressing the Limbaugh hordes.

Perhaps, to help the dim-witted, you could stop with the handwaving and explain just what this center is.  Who are these intellectually honest skeptics that are close to the center? Name them. Revkin's article was about policy and framing. You seem to be talking about science. Which center are we talking about? You say bashing the Limbaugh hordes isn't motivating the masses. Well, is motivation what we're talking about? If so, is the idea that sober centrism is going to motivate people?

Forgive me, but the vibe I get from you and Pielke Jr. and other self-conscious centrists is just that you want to be taken seriously and not lumped in with a "tribe." That, rather than any substance, seems to be driving all this talk of a center.

www.grist.org

The mistake is seeing the outpouring of dittohead bile poor Dr. Cullen is receiving and assuming those are the people your argument is with. The polling data suggests that on this question, dittoheads denying the science are in a significant minority - even among Republicans. Fighting with the dittoheads is satisfying in a sort of tribal, visceral way, but it ignores the much more interesting and substantive discussion in the middle, where the majority of Americans (Republicans included) accept the science but are ambivalent about what needs to be done in response.

Oy, this "middle." There are three separate discussions:

The science.
The policy response.
Framing the issue and motivating people.

It's never clear which of these the "middle" is in the middle of.

www.grist.org

David -

On the "Athenian salon," I'm not sure I qualify. I've spent my time in the tribal wars. When I began writing about climate seriously a few years back, I had great fun whacking down the denialists. So I plead guilty here to doing exactly the same thing I'm criticizing others for doing. I've largely given it up after concluding that it served no real purpose - that I was dealing with one tail of the statistical distribution, where minds will not be changed, and the more interesting discussion - and by that I mean both scientifically interesting as well as "policy relevant" interesting - was happening in the middle - that is, in the sphere of science within but tugging at the edges of the IPCC-style consensus.

You asked for examples of the sort of centrist skeptic scientists I'm talking about, whose work I find to be out of step with the consensus, but interesting enough to pay attention to. I'll give two examples.

The first would be Roger Pielke Sr., whose continued niggling on the effects of land use changes has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and NAS reports, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to greenhouse forcing as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.

The second would be Kerry Emanuel, whose hurricane work has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and more recently the WMO, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to other climate change problems as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.

The literature is regularly full of examples like this: James Annan's work suggesting upper limits on climate sensitivity (OK, it's not in the literature, but I'm willing to treat it like it is); Petr Chylek's work questioning the Greenland temperature trend; the various teams reporting accelerating Greenland ice cap melting; the Mann, Cane, Zebiak, Clement work raising the possibility of serious drought where I live because of climate change; Marty Hoerling's amazing paper using the IPCC climate runs to suggest dramatic decreases in Colorado River flow over the next century (eek!); the various analyses suggesting more El Ninos and therefore greater southwest precipitation.

Those that are of relevance to my audience (New Mexicans), I write about, trying to explain both what the new research suggests, and how it fits into or conflicts with the consensus. When the new work suggests things will be "worse than we thought," I get beat up by the "Limbaugh hordes". When the new works suggests things will be "not as bad as we thought," I get beat up by the "dirty hippies". This is the classic response one would expect based on the work of Sarewitz - that people with strongly held views on a subject will pick and choose among the science, tending to believe that which supports their views and dismissing that which conflicts. Journalism isn't much good in reaching those people. Instead, I'm hoping to communicate to those in fat middle of the bell curve of public opinion, helping those who chose to actually read the work to better understand what the science actually says.

There's good evidence from the literature on the public understanding of science that what I'm attempting here is futile, that the "cognitive misers" out there won't take the time to seriously read about the science, instead taking their cues from the various opinion leaders. But I'm in denial about that, as I've got no other marketable skills.

Sorry, I realize I misspoke: the work on El Ninos I referred to suggests more intense El Ninos, not more El Ninos. Wouldn't want to be accused of abusing the science. :-)

jfleck, thanks for the clarification, and you make a good point. But I think it perhaps misses the mark a little. The same point can be made on the abortion debate where only a fraction (around 20 % or so) of Republicans are hard core anti-abortion.

But their minority position is part of the plank during every election. Tiny numbers can have a certain amount of power, so while the dittoheads might not be large in overall population, they can have a disconcerting ability to control and shift debate.

I think that's the point Roberts is making. Not that I disagree with you that the dittoheads are a minority.

Benny Big Eye

Eli says - "If statements from the tail are not challenged, and when necessary worse, the lurkers will think the tail is talking truth."

But in the exchange which triggered this, David was defending "statements from the tail" - in this case his tail, not theirs. That was doing the lurkers on his tail of the distribution a tremendous disservice. The lurkers here, given their position in this particular bell curve, have a far greater need to understand the shortcomings of those pronouncements on their own side of the tail. This is Grist, not Tech Central Station. Its' readers are likely to know already that the Limbaugh hordes are idiots.

More importantly, thought, they need to have the middle explained to them well - not dismissed with a journalistic wave of the hand based on one's "informed gut" when the middle conflicts with the views of those out with you on your tail of the distribution, as David argued was appropriate.