Watching the Deniers: holding sceptics to account
Email: watchthedeniers@gmail.com
About me
I’m Mike, a 40+ year old living in Melbourne. I work as an information manager for a large professional services firm. I have no affiliations with any political parties, NGOs or activist groups. My politics could be best described as “centre left” or “centrist” (I’m pro-market, but supportive of liberal social policies).
This blog is my small contribution to trying to address the issue of climate change.
And no, I’m not a scientist. But I’ve worked as a researcher for private industry for years. It has been my job to evaluate the quality of information and pass that on to senior decision makers in industry.
I’ve got email!
It’s been asked for, so here it is: watchthedeniers@gmail.com
Mike, I love your blog and really appreciate what you are doing.
I hope you won’t mind, though, if I point out something, because the denialati will use any excuse to ridicule people like us.
It’s just a small item of grammar. The contraction “it’s” is used exclusively to represent “it is”; it’s never used as the possessive. So when you write: “It’s a tabloid with a daily circulation exceeding one million. It’s web site is popular” the first usage is correct; the second is wrong. You should have “It’s a tabloid with a daily circulation exceeding one million. Its web site is popular.”
This usage is particular to the word “it”. It’s fine to say “the newspaper’s web site” (with an apostrophe), but if you use the pronoun, the apostrophe must be dropped.
I would have preferred to email you direct with this, but couldn’t find an address.
Graham, thanks. Your are correct – indeed I’m painfully aware of the issue. I’ve mild dyslexia, and try and catch most things. However, you are correct suggesting my writing will be enhanced by attending to these small things.
Cheers mate – thanks for the feedback, I’m very honoured that people find value in what I have to say.
Mike
Great stuff mate…this is exactly where the debate needs to move. We non-climate scientists can’t hope to get to the bottom of the AGW issue. We simply are not qualified (well I’m not). I’ve read a lot on the science, and I now know enough to know I know very little, and this is how it will stay…a true and somehow comforting realisation I see you have also reached.
The issue for me is not what does the science says, but who do we trust? And why do we trust them? I know scientists can be tribal and egotistical. Yes, I was aghast to discover they were human too. But, at the end of the day, just like with astrophysics, neurology, nano-tech, or getting a heart transplant, we have to know when to defer to the experts. This is about ‘trust’ in information sources. And I am going to put my money on climate scientists the world over before I accept the rantings of some pundit lord who relies on the ‘grey literature’.
This is no longer about natural science. It’s about social science- why people chose to believe what they believe. Monbiot said it best when he described climate change, not as the biggest market failure, but the biggest ‘psychological failure’ (possible misquote).
Therefore, we need to educate people about how the scientific method- the greatest invention in history- actually works and how it is supported by the pair review process. Understanding the underlying institutional structure and culture of science is, in my opinion, more important than the quixotic (sorry always wanted to use that word) and infuriating quest to understand enough ‘climate’ science to debunk the denialists suffering from the ‘Dunning-Krugar effect’.
I have resolved to never debate the science ever again, but I will happily challenge people’s claims to speak authoritively on the subject, and while I’m there, have them update me on astrophysics and quantum mechanics too. People should legitimately engage in these fields if they fancy- it’s dame interesting stuff. But don’t pretend you’re views hold water against the experts. Thus is my first venture into the blogosphere- quite cathartic. Best of luck with the blog. T.C Oh. and please excuse any mildly dyslexic grammar mistakes.
[...] His blog’s title and an excerpt from its raison d’etre: Watching the Deniers: holding sceptics to account [...]
While you have probably gathered that I am not in 100% agreement with your opinions, I would like to thank you for continuing to allow the expression of alternative views.
I absolutely agree with your opinions. The carbon tax does not go far enough as the money is given back via the tax system. It should be increased and used only for alternative energy projects. It’s time that the federal government built its own clean energy power stations. Then they can mandate that all those polluting power stations be wrested off our terrible conservative governments and profit hungry polluting industries.
crap
If you have no scientific expertise then you cannot judge the merits of either the pro or con AGW argument. You are nothing but a political schill. Go back to marketing cigarettes and alcohol to children or whatever you used to do.