by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Forbes has an article Four reasons why the environmental movement belongs on ‘The Biggest Loser’.
Keith Kloor has an article Environmental Groups are Flirting With Extinction.
Nic Lewis on Drew Shindell
ClimateAudit has a post Does “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity” by Drew Shindell make sense? Shindell’s paper critiques the low estimates of transient climate sensitivity, and Nic critiques Shindell’s critique.
The Atlantic provides some interesting context for the show, with this article Why Cosmos can’t save public support for science.
I hadn’t been paying much attention to the Cosmos buzz, although I did see it stream by on my twitter feed. Peter wanted to watch it, so we downloaded it on Wed eve. My first reaction was “Who is the talking head? He seems a bit too polished and dry.” I subsequently found out he was Neil Degrasse Tyson, who is apparently quite famous in the world of public communication of science. I thought the first 20 minutes or so was gee whiz pointlessness. The middle 20 minutes was more interesting. And then I really liked the history of science stuff.
The most interesting part of the show to me was the history of Giordano Bruno. Slate has an article Neil Degrasse Tyson’s Cosmos: there was one big problem with Sunday’s episode. The problem was that apparently Cosmos got much of the Giordano story wrong.
So, will the new Cosmos be as popular as Sagan’s version? A lot of this depends on Tyson – his personality, how he navigates controversial issues, and whether he can capture the je ne sais quoi of the present age in terms of capturing the public’s attention and imagination. Part of Sagan’s appeal was his passion and a slightly quirky personality (I didn’t get that from Tyson). Bottom line – I’ll tune in to watch the next episode.
Philosophy professor on denialists
Lawrence Torcello, Asst Prof of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, has a post at the Conversation entitled Is misinformation about climate criminally negligent? The author better hope that such misinformation is NOT criminally negligent, since his article contains plenty of it.
Steyn vs Mann
This is a category that is becoming a regular feature of Week in Review. Steyn continues to up the ante. He has a new post this week A change of climate. Steyn has filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Mann’s Amended Complaint. WUWT calculates that Steyn is now suing Mann for $30M.
Of relevance to this case is the 50th anniversary of NYTimes versus Sullivan, in regards to the freedom and responsibility of the press. In particular, see this article in the National Review, who published the allegedly libelous statement by Steyn. National Review and Steyn clearly have different ideas on this, and it is not difficult to see why they parted ways in their defense against Mann’s lawsuits.
Quote of the week