Slimed by “CO2 science”

7 thoughts on “Slimed by “CO2 science””

  1. What a beat up, on your part. Seems like they did you a favour and provided some coverage on the article.

    By the way what’s your mission statement John?


  2. Fair enough Ilajd. They did and I do appreciate it. I just wanted to clarify there was a bit more to the main message. But I agree with them (I don’t know who wrote the piece) that in some aspects (but not all, e.g., reef fish are in terrible shape), reefs may be in better shape than we think. Believe it or not, I sometimes find myself siding with skeptics when the science suggests everything isn’t as bad as sometimes depicted in the media.

    But the old ploy of taking statements out of context to bend the science findings doesn’t fly with me. Whether it is a green or brown organization doing it.

    I am supposed to have a mission statement? I am a person, not an organization. As a human, I have beliefs and goals, but they are private. As a professional, I am a scientist and educator; so I guess my mission statement is “to learn and teach”.


  3. You say to teach and learn then come up with a blatant misrepresentation of what is a straightforward report. Did you contact them to correct the article? That might have been happy to assist. I have taken the liberty of posting this to the site owner on your behalf.

    You mention that “Several colleagues and reviewers warned us about publishing a “good news” (sort of) story, arguing it would give ammo to skeptics, etc.”

    what happens in the case the “good news” becomes overwhelming? Do you think your colleagues would be happy to suppress this information to save their funding?
    I am glad you still think the science comes first!


  4. IIajd’s comments are so representative of most skeptic rhetoric and “argument” in the blogosphere is it delicious.

    he subtly challenges a basic fact; “You say to teach” Actually I do-daily, though perhaps not always effectively

    he then makes a fairly strong accusation without bothering to explain it so that others can evaluate its veracity. “a blatant misrepresentation of what is a straightforward report”

    When asked to explain, he moves on to a new argument (this is a common tactic and IIajd is doing this on another climateshifts post as Ove has pointed out). Let’s do an experiment. IIajd would you explain how I blatantly misrepresented their report? I quoted it all in its entirety!

    “Did you contact them to correct the article? That might have been happy to assist.” I would have, but who is “them”? The article has no author!

    “what happens in the case the “good news” becomes overwhelming?”

    Well then we can all move on and argue about something else. Perhaps guns and abortion? But seriously, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I have made several “good news” posts to this site that could easily have been on CO2science, eg;

    Take a pill and find something real to argue about.

    “Do you think your colleagues would be happy to suppress this information to save their funding?”

    I know you won’t believe this, but the only truthful response is; what funding?


  5. As ilajd likely knows, “CO2 Science” is a fossil fuel industry-funded outfit whose purpose is to misrepresent the science. Similar distortions can be found in all of their write-ups. Note that they neither reproduce nor even link to abstracts, which makes it hard for an uninformed reader to know they’re being lied to.

    Re this general problem, it just means that authors need to be more and more careful to put their results in a context that is difficult to misrepresent.

    BTW, ilajd, attempting to represent “CO2 Science” as having something other than a malign intent is undermined by their description of Gore, Mann and Kump as “alarmists” who “parroted” concerns about the reefs. But perhaps you’re so used to such rhetoric that you didn’t even notice it.

    Oh, and re the overwhelming good news, please to start holding your breath now.


  6. Getting in waaay late to the conversation here, but Ilajd’s confidence that CO2 science “-might have been happy to assist” seems to have been poorly placed.

    Checking out the CO2 science site, I don’t see that they have updated that particular page.

    Shocking, I know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s