Post by slh1234 on May 28, 2010 0:10:22 GMT
But here is where I would want to be careful about how excited I got.
Ice, you are definitely anti-AGW in your viewpoint. So you are also more prone to see anything encouraging as a sign that the political winds are switching in your favor. Almost everyone is like that, though, and I know I am also susceptible to human nature like that.
But if we back up a little bit and look at the article, the debate itself, and the vote. Does it really mean what you want it to mean?
I was not there. I'm depending on someone else's account of the debate. This someone I'm depending on starts this article with this:
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England
(believed by whom? Can we get a reference please?")
He continues to refer to the AGW side as "Extremists." I may believe that, too, but this is exactly why I need to be careful in reading further. It tickles my emotions and tells me what I want to hear. That makes it easy for me to believe ... so I should be cautious lest I be led by someone playing me.
Then comes this:
Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.
Who exactly are these "serious observers" who are interpreting the debate this way? Are there names? Or is this just another way of saying "They say ... " I want to believe it, so if I'm not careful, I read that without questioning, but if I do, then I am very susceptible to just being led by someone playing my emotional strings.
So this is the person telling me the story, and (I assume) also the person interjecting the comments in square brackets. This should tell me the slant of the story, and if I'm smart, I had better put my emotions in neutral here and view this type of story with this author's slant in mind.
Next, let's look at the participants. Honestly, I don't know many of them, but one I know was Christopher Monckton. If he is speaking, he is likely to affect the makeup of the audience specifically because he is well known by both sides of the debate. My thought is that if he affects the makeup of the audience, then he will draw more anti-AGW than pro-AGW simply because they have the passion and frustration and really want someone to articulate their viewpoint. They (correctly) think Christopher Monckton can do that, so they show up to see that done.
One thing that makes me think the audience was sympathetic to Christopher Monckton was this part:
Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers]
If they really cheered, then it may be that we have an audience sympathetic to Christopher Monckton. But even if not, there is something else that can happen: Christopher Monckton's method is brilliant in bringing the emotions of the audience onto his side. This is one reason why he is a great debater. he has a way of making it real, and swaying the audience at least while they are in the "spirit" of the atmosphere ... that may not last after they leave, though. But for now, he has them, and that will last long enough for them to vote at the end of this.
When you look at the preparation of the participants (again, depending on the account given, but recognizing the slant of that account), did someone seriously make this statement?
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true.
If that really happened, and you're on the side represented by Lord Whitty, at this point you drop your head in embarassment realizing you're getting your butt handed to you in this debate if that's the best your side has. It's like being behind by 3 runs, sending up your cleanup hitter with the bases loaded and watching him strike out. That answer is so embarassing in the context of a debate that it would make someone wonder if Lord Whitty was even trying to win the debate. They are certainly doing nothing to excite their side in the audience.
On the other side, according to the account we have, Christopher Monckton is very prepared, even able to cite paragraphs within the IPCC report (which I have not verified, btw) for the 'UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.' Now, one would hope he knew the address for the claim he made there since he brought it up instead of his opponents, but I guess he could have said "we all know it is true" like Lord Whitty.
I have to tell you, when I read the object illustration executed by Christopher Monckton with the cummerbund, my mind went back to "Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man." His debate may have even been better executed than Marc Antony's. And to that, the only answer his opponent had was to say he was not a real Lord? In a debate, that's like throwing a batting practice fastball to a power hitter.
So according to the account, the execution of the debate was not even close - it was an ass beating. If I was in the AGW corner, and my side did that piss poor of a job of preparing for and executing the debate, I'm probably hiding my face in embarassment, not because I'm convinced I'm wrong, but because I recognize the piss poor showing. If I'm in their position, then what happened was an upset - like when the better football team doesn't prepare or play well because they got the big head and thought they could just throw their jocks out on the field and win. Even from the other side, I look at that debate and think the pro-AGW guys could have executed better than they did.
So I think the execution of the debate also figures into the vote at the end.
In my emotional self, I want to believe the results mean exactly what you say. But if I'm smart, I recognize the statement that was being debated (economics vs. climate in a time of economic difficulty), I recognize how the makeup of the audience may have been affected by the participants, I recognize the preparation for and execution of the debate, and I recognize the slant of the author. When I take those into account as well as I can as a human, then I see plenty of reasons to not get too excited too quickly at the results of the vote at the end of this debate.
Ice, you are definitely anti-AGW in your viewpoint. So you are also more prone to see anything encouraging as a sign that the political winds are switching in your favor. Almost everyone is like that, though, and I know I am also susceptible to human nature like that.
But if we back up a little bit and look at the article, the debate itself, and the vote. Does it really mean what you want it to mean?
I was not there. I'm depending on someone else's account of the debate. This someone I'm depending on starts this article with this:
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England
(believed by whom? Can we get a reference please?")
He continues to refer to the AGW side as "Extremists." I may believe that, too, but this is exactly why I need to be careful in reading further. It tickles my emotions and tells me what I want to hear. That makes it easy for me to believe ... so I should be cautious lest I be led by someone playing me.
Then comes this:
Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.
Who exactly are these "serious observers" who are interpreting the debate this way? Are there names? Or is this just another way of saying "They say ... " I want to believe it, so if I'm not careful, I read that without questioning, but if I do, then I am very susceptible to just being led by someone playing my emotional strings.
So this is the person telling me the story, and (I assume) also the person interjecting the comments in square brackets. This should tell me the slant of the story, and if I'm smart, I had better put my emotions in neutral here and view this type of story with this author's slant in mind.
Next, let's look at the participants. Honestly, I don't know many of them, but one I know was Christopher Monckton. If he is speaking, he is likely to affect the makeup of the audience specifically because he is well known by both sides of the debate. My thought is that if he affects the makeup of the audience, then he will draw more anti-AGW than pro-AGW simply because they have the passion and frustration and really want someone to articulate their viewpoint. They (correctly) think Christopher Monckton can do that, so they show up to see that done.
One thing that makes me think the audience was sympathetic to Christopher Monckton was this part:
Lord Monckton, on a point of order, told Mr. Mason that the proposition had avoided personalities and that if Mr. Mason were unable to argue other than ad hominem he should “get out”. [cheers]
If they really cheered, then it may be that we have an audience sympathetic to Christopher Monckton. But even if not, there is something else that can happen: Christopher Monckton's method is brilliant in bringing the emotions of the audience onto his side. This is one reason why he is a great debater. he has a way of making it real, and swaying the audience at least while they are in the "spirit" of the atmosphere ... that may not last after they leave, though. But for now, he has them, and that will last long enough for them to vote at the end of this.
When you look at the preparation of the participants (again, depending on the account given, but recognizing the slant of that account), did someone seriously make this statement?
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true.
If that really happened, and you're on the side represented by Lord Whitty, at this point you drop your head in embarassment realizing you're getting your butt handed to you in this debate if that's the best your side has. It's like being behind by 3 runs, sending up your cleanup hitter with the bases loaded and watching him strike out. That answer is so embarassing in the context of a debate that it would make someone wonder if Lord Whitty was even trying to win the debate. They are certainly doing nothing to excite their side in the audience.
On the other side, according to the account we have, Christopher Monckton is very prepared, even able to cite paragraphs within the IPCC report (which I have not verified, btw) for the 'UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.' Now, one would hope he knew the address for the claim he made there since he brought it up instead of his opponents, but I guess he could have said "we all know it is true" like Lord Whitty.
I have to tell you, when I read the object illustration executed by Christopher Monckton with the cummerbund, my mind went back to "Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man." His debate may have even been better executed than Marc Antony's. And to that, the only answer his opponent had was to say he was not a real Lord? In a debate, that's like throwing a batting practice fastball to a power hitter.
So according to the account, the execution of the debate was not even close - it was an ass beating. If I was in the AGW corner, and my side did that piss poor of a job of preparing for and executing the debate, I'm probably hiding my face in embarassment, not because I'm convinced I'm wrong, but because I recognize the piss poor showing. If I'm in their position, then what happened was an upset - like when the better football team doesn't prepare or play well because they got the big head and thought they could just throw their jocks out on the field and win. Even from the other side, I look at that debate and think the pro-AGW guys could have executed better than they did.
So I think the execution of the debate also figures into the vote at the end.
In my emotional self, I want to believe the results mean exactly what you say. But if I'm smart, I recognize the statement that was being debated (economics vs. climate in a time of economic difficulty), I recognize how the makeup of the audience may have been affected by the participants, I recognize the preparation for and execution of the debate, and I recognize the slant of the author. When I take those into account as well as I can as a human, then I see plenty of reasons to not get too excited too quickly at the results of the vote at the end of this debate.