I don’t really want to follow Tom Fuller’s writing, especially since the Examiner don’t allow URLs in the comments, but when someone takes you on directly
I guess you need to respond.
Bart, I don’t like your friends. Not Michael Tobis, not Eli Rabett. I am happy to engage with people who disagree with me and I stuck around while they were insulting me. But Bart, I don’t know if you realise it, they were attacking Roger Pielke Sr. only because they knew I have expressed my appreciation for him in the past. They don’t have the stones to confront Pielke directly, so they threw it in to hide the fact that they have relatively little to say to me. After all, Tobis said our opinions of climate change are very similar. The disagreement is about policy–which he says he doesn’t want to discuss. It’s not that he doesn’t have a policy–he just feels no need to discuss it.
” I am happy to engage with people who disagree with me and I stuck around while they were insulting me.”
but didn’t actually engage on any substantive points whatsoever before running away. Ducking out, so to speak.
“But Bart, I don’t know if you realise it, they were attacking Roger Pielke Sr. only because they knew I have expressed my appreciation for him in the past.”
Oh please. You really don’t figure that prominently in my thinking, Tom.
” They don’t have the stones to confront Pielke directly,”
“After all, Tobis said our opinions of climate change are very similar. The disagreement is about policy–which he says he doesn’t want to discuss”
It’s your reading comprehension problem, Tom, that is exactly what disturbs me about you.
As regards policy, he and I are more or less in agreement: solving poverty cannot be separated from global energy policy, and poverty must be solved.
The problem comes when Tom takes on science.
Now isn’t that exactly the opposite of what Tom says I said?
The point of this blog is to increase the science and engineering content of the public conversation. I really don’t care about cap and trade vs carbon taxes; I started to get into it but then backed off.
It’s obviously important, but for me it is premature to discuss details of policy all that much. Most people still don’t understand what is going on; thus any policy that has any real effect is likely to be reversed. It is an absolutely crucial part of the problem to stem the tide of bullshit and get real information to the public.
Tom Fuller is among the people lacking much clue about science, but who is happy to write about it and to try to attract an audience. This is irresponsible, especially because he does not appear to be learning anything, and has not offered to explain how he chooses whom to trust.
Tom Fuller is part of the problem.
I have advised him to write about stuff he is better equipped to write about. He thinks this is insulting but it’s intended as honest and thoughtful and even kind advice. Perhaps with reading skills like he displays he ought not to be writing at all.
Nevertheless Fuller is working on a “climategate” book with CA denizen Steve Mosher. Won’t that be ever-so-helpful? Maybe they will finally tell us what we ought to be so upset about.