Roger Pielke Jr. Tweeted about a post on the “…and Then There’s Physics” blog, which is run by an anonymous someone who describes themself as “not a climate scientist, but a professional and active scientist who teaches and carries out research at a university in the UK. The views I express here are my own and not those of my employer.” The blog post is about “ClimateBall,” which I do not address here. However, a paragraph in the post is worth thinking about in a Smokey Wire context. The first part of a paragraph in the post is:
It would be wonderful if we could have thoughtful discussion amongst people who broadly disagree, but who are willing to listen to what the other person has to say, give it some thought, and maybe actually agree with some – if not all – of it.
Or maybe not agree with much or any of it, but at least listed and give it some thought. That’s the ideal for our discussions here. However, too often we — myself included, at times — respond this way:
Instead, it’s more about scoring points. Find a way to undermine the other person’s argument. Find a way to undermine their credibility. Find a way to dodge their arguments against your position. Don’t necessarily apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone else (of course, you then make out that you hold a higher moral ground). Again, to be clear, I certainly don’t think this is how it should be conducted; it just appears as though this is – sadly – how it is often conducted.
I’m going to print this paragraph and tape it to my monitor, and look at it before I post anything here…. It might be good if we all did that.