When it comes to global warming, our colleague over at ScienceDude apparently gets an occasional intemperate comment appended by readers to his blog.
We’d like to recommend (urge?) any of the readers of this blog who happen to agree with our eminently reasonable understanding of the over-blown nature of global warming alarmism that when pointing out areas of disagreement elsewhere, it’s always nicer to play nice.
Gary’s a good guy and his blog not only is popular, it’s commendable and recommendable. He just makes some mistakes on this global warming thing.
So, should you have an opportunity to visit ScienceDude (and we recommend that you do) and feel the need to set the record straight, we hope you would do it in a calm manner, showing the kind of respect and dignity that we’d all like to be treated with. You know, without ad hominem or nastiness. The way the critics do who post here to differ with our take on global warming. Hm. Well, OK. Maybe not the way they do.
RELATED POSTS:
Mr. Landsbaum may not believe it, but I for one do not enjoy pointing out the problems I see with his posts on this issue. If he’ll look (as I suspect he does) at threads on other posts by other writers on this blog, he’ll find a much more substantive level of discussion.
This calls for the question: why are Mr. Landsbaum’s comments so reviled? Why do they get torn apart so nastily? Are people out to “get” him somehow?
I think not. The tone of a blog is set by the blogger. In the case of Messrs. Greenhut and Bock, that tone is respectful, intelligent, avoids cheap shots or snideness, well researched, and read as the work of one interested in fostering a civil discussion.
Mr. Landsbaum’s post, by contrast, are too often the exact opposite. i’ll forego any characterization of what they are by simply noting that they most certainly do not have any of the qualities I cited regarding the Greenhut or Bock postings. Simply put, you get out of this what you put in.
So I’ll be happy to participate in reasoned discussions, on climate change or any other subject, when they arise. As I said, on other subjects, by other bloggers here, I have already. But you’ll pardon me if my sympathies are less than total for Mr. Landsbaum’s pleas for civility. When he gives it - to the issues he discusses as well as to those who write in response to him - I’ll be happy to reciprocate.
If you choose a job that puts your viewpoints, forecasts, political leanings, likes and dislikes in a public forum which reaches thousands of eyes you just gotta expect push back every now and then. At a job interview for a journalist position, one of the first questions asked should be ‘How thinned skinned are you?” If you don’t like getting called out on your opinion it seems to me that you’re in the wrong business. I compare it to a guy who is applying for a lifeguard position who doesn’t want to get wet. Mr. Sciencedude had his feelings hurt because he forecasted another dry winter. He did the same thing last year and was wrong. So someone asked him why we should believe his forecast this year. That’s a fair question! If you folks don’t like confrontation on questionable opinions or forecasts then don’t give the reader an option to reply. It’s really that simple. That way you can say whatever you want without any fear of disagreement.
Mr. Landsbaum fails to realize sometimes that his inflamitory statements are not civil either. Hard to have see civility when it starts off on the wrong foot.
rlh,
In your comment above you write : “In the case of Messrs. Greenhut and Bock, that tone is respectful, intelligent, avoids cheap shots or snideness, well researched, and read as the work of one interested in fostering a civil discussion.” Perhaps, you should check out Greenhut’s hit pieces on Assemblyman Todd Spitzer and you might change your mind. Look at how Greenhut describes Assemblyman Spitzer: ” Spitzer represents the big-government, pro-union, law-and-order wing of the GOP, so it’s not surprising that he is hardly a consistent advocate for the traditional GOP principles of limited government and freedom.” This is really ” cheap shot” in my opinion. Additionaly, Bock’s blogs about Sarah Palin have been pretty biased and one sided as well.
I most certainly don’t agree with the tone of Mr. Greenhut’s attacks of Spitzer (not that I know enough about Spitzer to be defending him per se). I will note that Greenhut’s recent slams against Spitzer on the insuacne bill have come back and bitten him in a very private place because of his overreaching. Bravo for that. Overall, however, I do feel that is you sompare the tone of the G
oops sorry for the partial post.
What I was in the process of saying is that the character, tone, and content of the Greenhut and Bock posts is very different from those of Mr. Landsbaum - Hyperion to a satyr, if you’l lforgive me quoting from Hamlet. So I’ll hold to my distinctions between their work and Mr. Landsbaum’s. As i said before, I hope Mr. Landsbaum can adopt a more reasonable tone, stop making claims that frankly insult the intelligence of a reader, etc etc. It’d be nice.
rlh,
I enjoy pointing out the problems of the posts of the AGW crowd.