Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Of blog moderation and citizen GCM audits

The following came out of a conversation I had with a character along with some interesting experiences in the 'echo-chamber.'  You see, I've become the butt end of some vicious below the belt insults and labels and it occurred to me that perhaps it was time for me to start getting down'n personal too.  

But, rather than the denialist penchant for attacking the 'opponent,' I figure maybe I should get down'n personal about myself.  It might help shed some light on folks like me and what drives our various blogging missions to expose more folks to the rational aspect of climate science... the things that Republicans and their professional denialists do everything to distracting us from.
"skeptic" wrote:I notice CC your blog requires comment moderation? 

     citizenschallenge wrote:  You bet ~ got a problem with that?  You think I'm supposed to leave myself defenseless to the kinds of contemptible stuff phony skeptics think belong to a serious discussion?   Graphic animations of exploding heads - no thanks.

But, if you post a thoughtful comment I will happily post it.  As you should know I'm not scared of discussing these issues, but at my sites I get to demand a certain level of civility. 
       You can read about my thoughts on the anatomy of a serious discussion over here:  http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-start-this-blog.html

"skeptic" wrote:I dont care about the status of your commenting. I mentioned it to make sure those that cannot waste their time and visit understand that 'its one of those blogs'.

Anthony's WUWT - heavy handed comment moderation and a double standard rejection policy...
Morano's Climate Depot - no comments allowed...
the so-called "Science" & Public Policy Institute - no comments allowed...
The Global Warming Policy Foundation - no comments allowed...
"Global Warming Hoax" - no comments allowed...
etc., etc.
The double standard of the WUWTzers and self styled skepticans is truly amazing.

Tell me again, why I shouldn't protect my blog from crazy incoherent flamers like a few I've run into?
Like I said I'll welcome any serious thoughtful "skeptical" comments - the evidence is coming in too fast'n furious for me to worry about avoiding your/their questions to the best of my ability and then to point to authoritative sources upon which I have built my opinion.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
"skeptic" wrote:Yes I will read anything you link me to that is written about climate models and what we can feel comfortable extrapolating into real 'prediction' by anyone with a computer science degree.

If you do not understand why on the #497th flip we do not strictly have a 50/50 chance then I question your general ability to play with abstraction. Learn more here:http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoinTossing.html

Right! . . .  and one needs a slightly deeper knowledge of statistics and chance to understand that.

Just like it takes a deeper understanding of climatology to understand how the various formulas relate to real world interactions.  Because without appreciating those subtle weather/climate dynamics you don't know how to apply those formulas you got there.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Let me use a personal example to try to convey the fallacy you got going there.

You see, for well over a year now, I've been part-timing as an accountant... imagine that.  

Actually considering my early two decades in restaurants, including managing and ordering, an acc't 101 adult ed course way back - and also some of the carpentry stuff,  - it's not so far fetched.  Besides, after four decades pretty much working full-time plus on my feet, it's nice to sit on my butt and earn money.  So, I do have the basic understanding and the will.

And I do some fancy stuff, reconciling accounts that see ±million in and out every month.  I was even involved in a company conversion.  One of the jobs I was tasked with was building a new chart of accounts, huge project, like three weeks worth, but little 'ol me built a very complex corporate chart of accounts.  Fancy that, I got it going on.

But, what if I marched up to the General Manager and said I want to audit their books and I'll show you why you're having challenges here.  I know how to use the balance sheet, I know all about the formulas, I got the computer, gimmi that stuff to see if you're doing it right.

Beyond the shear impertinence. . . . . . .  There would be something insane about that.  

Because, simply knowing how to do my portion of the accounting job well, does not give me the background or knowledge to figure out what those numbers actually mean so far as the operation of the facility.  

And that's how it is with these knowitall dilettantes like McIntyre, Watts and that crew.  See the secret they won't tell you but that I appreciate, thought it's tough to enunciate... so I'll go back to my story...

The little secret I didn't mention about all my grand accounting skills, is that I'm actually little more than a "computer" for a gal that has nearly four decades in her field.  

She's there to tell me what to do and how to do it.  And I go like a sonovagun and produce some pretty and accurate work...  but,  when I hit up against a dead-end and such.  It takes her (and her expertise) to peal my head off the keyboard and with a short glance at the spreadsheet, point and say "what about that..." Boom! There is light, poop I could'a, should'a seen that . . . 

But, I didn't and next time it will be something else that her expert eye can see through in a moment, though I been staring at it for minutes or hours.

That is why we have experts.
And that's why we should have realistic respect for experts.
Something denialists find impossible to do.

No comments: