{"id":420,"date":"2007-03-15T01:20:59","date_gmt":"2007-03-15T06:20:59","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=420"},"modified":"2007-04-18T18:29:02","modified_gmt":"2007-04-18T23:29:02","slug":"adventures-on-the-east-side","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/03\/adventures-on-the-east-side\/","title":{"rendered":"Adventures on the East Side Do\u011fu Yakas\u0131nda Maceralar<\/lang_tk>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

So that<\/a> was …. interesting.<\/p>\n

First off, I’d like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight – the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how ‘scientized’ political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word ‘scientized’!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals – very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present) and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all. Lindzen used his standard presentation – CO2 will be trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998. Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science.
\nUpdate:<\/strong> The transcript<\/a> is now available – though be aware that it has not yet been verified for accuracy. Audio + Podcast<\/a>.
\n<\/p>\n

The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I’ll link it here once it’s available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half\/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull.<\/p>\n

I had started off with a thought that Lindzen and Stott, in particular, would avoid the more specious pseudo-scientific claims they’ve used in other fora since there were people who would seriously challenge them at this debate. In the event, they stuck very closely to their standard script. Lindzen used the ‘GW stopped in 1998’ argument which even Crichton acknowledged later was lame. He also used the ‘aerosols are completely uncertain’ but ‘sensitivity to CO2 from the 20th Century is precisely defined’ in adjoining paragraphs without any apparent cognitive dissonance. Stott didn’t use the medieval English vineyards meme (as he did in TGGWS<\/a>) – but maybe he read the RC article<\/a> ahead of time. <\/p>\n

The Q&A was curious since most questions were very much of the ‘I read the Wall Street Journal editorial page’ style, and I thought we did okay, except possibly when I suggested to the audience that the cosmic ray argument was being used to fool them, which didn’t go over well – no-one likes being told they’re being had (especially when they are). My bad.<\/p>\n

The organisers asked us afterwards whether we’d have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no. We are scientists, and we talk about science and we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas – and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage (shades of David Mamet<\/a>?). <\/p>\n

One minor detail that might be interesting is that the organisers put on luxury SUVs for the participants to get to the restaurant – 5 blocks away. None of our side used them (preferring to walk), but all of the other side did. <\/p>\n

So are such debates worthwhile? On balance, I’d probably answer no (regardless of the outcome). The time constraints preclude serious examination of any points of controversy and the number of spurious talking points can seriously overwhelm the ability of others to rebut them. Taking a ‘meta’ approach (as I attempted) is certainly not a guaranteed solution. However, this live audience were a rather select bunch, and so maybe this will go over differently on the radio. There it might not matter that Crichton is so tall…<\/p>\n


\nIngilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren Figen Mekik<\/small><\/p>\n

Evet, bu<\/a> ilgin\u00e7 oldu\u2026<\/p>\n

\u00d6nce, yorum yazan herkese fikirleri ve \u00f6nerilerinden dolay\u0131 te\u015fekk\u00fcr ederim. \u00c7ok faydal\u0131 oldular. \u00d6zellikle, evrim kuram\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131 ve yaratanc\u0131lar aras\u0131nda geli\u015fen m\u00fczakerelerden verilen \u00f6rnekler \u00e7ok i\u015fimize yarad\u0131. Bizim taraf\u0131m\u0131z \u00e7ok dolays\u0131z bir yakla\u015f\u0131m kulland\u0131 \u2013 genel Uluslararas\u0131 Iklim De\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi G\u00f6revg\u00fcc\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn \u00e7izgisini takip ettik (Richard Sommerville bunu savundu), bilimselle\u015ftirilmi\u015f siyasi m\u00fczakerelerin nas\u0131l bilime zararl\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirttik (ben bunu savundum, ama bilimselle\u015ftirilmi\u015f kelimesini kullanmadan), ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bulmak i\u00e7in \u00e7e\u015fitli tasar\u0131lar\u0131 anlatt\u0131k (daha \u00e7ok Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton kitlelerin bay\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6zel u\u00e7ak kullanan liberallerden \u015fikayetini dile getirdi. Onun bu fikirleri nedense \u00f6zel u\u00e7ak sahibi do\u011fulular aras\u0131nda da seviliyor. Ayr\u0131ca, k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nmay\u0131 sorun haline getirenlerin, herhangi bir enerji kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131ndan do\u011fan iki y\u00fczl\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc vurgulayan laflar da etti Crichton. Lindzen her zamanki sunumunu yapt\u0131 \u2013 CO2<\/sub>\u2019in etkisi \u00f6nemsiz olacak, kimse aerosollerin (havadaki k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck par\u00e7ac\u0131klar\u0131n) etkisini tam kestiremiyor, yirminci y\u00fczy\u0131ldaki iklimin CO2<\/sub> hassasiyeti \u00e7ok az, ve k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma 1998\u2019de durdu, gibi\u2026Stott biraz tabii afet gibi, ve esasta k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nmay\u0131 savunan herkesin \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc dunyada a\u00e7l\u0131k ve yoksullu\u011fu savundu\u011funu iddia etti. Ayr\u0131ca iklim bilimlerindeki en \u00f6nemli geli\u015fmenin g\u00fcne\u015f \u0131s\u0131mas\u0131ndaki art\u0131\u015f\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da savundu.<\/p>\n

Yeni geli\u015fme<\/b>: M\u00fczakere\u2019nin tam metni<\/a> burada, ama do\u011frulu\u011fu hen\u00fcz tespit edilmi\u015f de\u011fil.<\/p>\n

Podcast gelecek hafta \u00c7ar\u015famba haz\u0131r olacakm\u0131\u015f. (Haz\u0131rlan\u0131nca hemen buraya bir link\u2019le ba\u011flar\u0131z) B\u00f6ylece siz de olan biteni duyabilirsiniz. Ama maalesef oradaki seyircilerin bu konudaki e\u011filimi yar\u0131 yar\u0131ya da\u011f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131 san\u0131r\u0131m. Ayrica seyirciler Crichton ve Stott\u2019un e\u011flendirici uslubundan olumlu etkilendiler (Lindzen\u2019dan o kadar ho\u015flanmad\u0131lar galiba), ve bizim taraf biraz sade kald\u0131. E\u011flendiricilik a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan seyircilere pek kusur bulmamak l\u00e2z\u0131m. Crichton son derece rafine, ve Stott\u2019da da biraz h\u0131rsl\u0131 bir vaiz gibi. Onlara k\u0131yasla biz s\u00f6n\u00fck kald\u0131k.<\/p>\n

Ben m\u00fczakerenin ba\u015f\u0131nda, Lindzen ve \u00f6zellikle Stott\u2019un ba\u015fka ortamlarda \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fckleri baz\u0131 yar\u0131-bilimsel ve yan\u0131lt\u0131c\u0131 fikirlerini buraya getirmeyeceklerini, bizden \u00e7ekineceklerini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcm. Ama al\u0131\u015fagelmi\u015f diyaloglar\u0131na sad\u0131k kald\u0131lar. Lindzen k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nma 1998\u2019de bitti sav\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc ama sonra Crichton bile bunu biraz zay\u0131f buldu\u011funu s\u00f6yledi. Ayr\u0131ca s\u00f6ylediklerindeki \u00e7eli\u015fkinin hi\u00e7 fark\u0131na varmadan, ayn\u0131 a\u011f\u0131zda hem \u201cpar\u00e7ac\u0131klar\u0131n \u00f6nemi tamam\u0131yla belirsizdir\u201d dedi hem de \u201c yirminci y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ikliminin CO2<\/sub>\u2019e hassasiyeti m\u00fckemmel bir \u015fekilde biliniyor\u201d dedi. Stott orta\u00e7a\u011fdaki Ingiliz \u00fcz\u00fcm ba\u011flar\u0131 sav\u0131n\u0131 kullanmadi (ama daha \u00f6nce burada<\/a> bunu savunmustu) – ama belki de bizim burada<\/a> yazd\u0131klar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 okuyarak geldi de ondan. <\/p>\n

Soru-cevap k\u0131sm\u0131 \u00e7ok ilgin\u00e7 oldu \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc pek \u00e7ok soru \u201cben Wall Street Journal\u2019da yaz\u0131lan yorumlar\u0131 okudum\u201d havas\u0131ndayd\u0131, ve bence biz burada kendimizi iyi savunduk. Ancak ben seyircilere, sizi bunlar yan\u0131ltmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yor deyince hata ettim galiba. Hi\u00e7 kimse aptal yerine kondu\u011funu bilmek istemez, \u00f6zellikle aptal yerine konuyorsa ger\u00e7ekten. Bu benim yanl\u0131\u015f\u0131m oldu.<\/p>\n

M\u00fczakereyi d\u00fczenleyenler, bittikten sonra, geriye bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131zda bu konuyu daha farkl\u0131 tart\u0131\u015f\u0131r m\u0131yd\u0131n\u0131z diye sordular. Bunun cevab\u0131 m\u00fczakerenin b\u00fcy\u00fck bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in hay\u0131r. Biz bilim insanlar\u0131y\u0131z ve bilimi konu\u015faca\u011f\u0131z. Ki\u015fisel ahlak veya daha geni\u015f siyasi g\u00fcd\u00fcmlerle ilgili konulara giremeyiz \u2013 ve tabii ki bu bizim i\u00e7in b\u00fcy\u00fck bir aleyhte durum yaratt\u0131 (biraz David Mamet\u2019i<\/a> and\u0131rd\u0131, de\u011fil mi?). <\/p>\n

Size ilgin\u00e7 gelebilecek bir k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck detay da \u015fu: d\u00fczenleyiciler, be\u015f sokak a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki restoran\u2019a gidebilmemiz i\u00e7in bizlere l\u00fcks b\u00fcy\u00fck arabalar tahsis etmi\u015fler. Bizim taraftan kimse bu arabalar\u0131 kullanmad\u0131 (y\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fck) ama \u00f6b\u00fcr taraftan herkes kulland\u0131.<\/p>\n

Peki, m\u00fczakerelere de\u011fer mi? Bence pek de\u011fmez (sonu\u00e7 ne olursa olsun). Zaman o kadar s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ki herhangi bir \u00e7eki\u015filen konunun detay\u0131na inecek vakit yok; ve sahte o kadar \u00e7ok konu \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor ki, insan\u0131n cevap verecek g\u00fcc\u00fc kalm\u0131yor. Benim yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131m gibi seyircilere hitap etmek her zaman istenilen sonucu yaratmayabiliyor. Ama, bu seyirci kitlesi de biraz \u00f6zel bir grupdu do\u011frusu. Belki radyo dinleyicisiyle daha ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 oluruz. O zaman Crichton\u2019un uzun boylu olu\u015funun \u00f6nemi kalmayabilir\u2026.
\n<\/lang_tk><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So that was …. interesting. First off, I’d like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-420","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-reporting-on-climate","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}