Friday, February 2, 2018

Twitter Etiquette

Well, I'm learning a lot about Twitter etiquette. I wanted to make a lot of climate bloggers and commentators aware of how what everybody thinks they know about the Penn State scandal is likely wrong, and how it might be related to the climate conversation. So I tweeted my post out with as many Twitter names as I could fit per tweet. When one of these tweets got some responses, it produced a lot of static (tweets to wade through) for the rest of the people listed on the tweet. From now on I'll use single tweets or small specifically targeted groupings. Using a lot of names in one tweet is lazy.

A couple people pointed out how to mute the conversation. I've also just found out you can mouse over the names in a reply, and it will let you click for a full check off list. I should probably mention that I never use the Twitter app or home page. I can never keep up.  I prefer go through bookmarked Twitter profiles in a browser.

Thursday, February 1, 2018

Climate Change and Jerry Sandusky

What does Jerry Sandusky have to do with Climate Change? Well, on a very tangential level, Rand Simberg called Michael Mann the "Jerry Sandusky of climate science". In the wake of the Sandusky scandal, Penn State president, Graham Spanier was convicted of child endangerment. Michael Mann touts a letter of support he got from Spanier in his book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, as I have snickeringly  pointed out in a blog comment thread. Well I've just run across one of the most astounding stories I've ever read and it's been hiding right in plain sight!

At Michael Shermer's site for his Skeptic magazine, I ran across a review of a new book by a very respectable science writer named Mark Pendergrast. It is entitled, The Most Hated Man in America -- Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement, in which he argues that Sandusky is most likely innocent! Now this is a very sensitive subject and Shermer even included a disclaimer for the review. Some prominent skeptic movement skeptics, such as Jerry Coyne and Danial Dennet have commented on it. It's also gotten some derision, most notably in a couple posts by PZ Myers.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Introductory Post

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations." -- version of quote of unknown origin
I'm very interested in climate and energy issues and have been commenting on them for over half a decade in various forums using the handle, Canman. On climate, I have a lukewarmer view, and on energy I advocate for nuclear power and express skepticism of so called renewables. I have a couple of tiny blogs. One is called Canman Climatology, where I explore offbeat ideas. The other is Canman Canned Comments, where I write about some of my misadventures with comment moderation.

In this day and age there is a lot of talk about fake news and fake facts. This has got me to thinking about something similar. A lot of things that appear to be pertinent, verifiable facts are often ignored or omitted. This happens not only in blog posts and news stories but also in official reports and investigations. The reason that a fact is omitted is that it does not fit the narrative that is being conveyed. There can be many motivations behind this. It can be deliberate deception, perhaps a half truth. A fact can be thought to be insignificant, irrelevant or simply not believed. Confirmation bias is something that probably all individuals are subject to. It should be obvious that it can become institutionalized and effect official reports. On the issue of climate, I have found a lot of these ignored facts in two subtopics: Michael Mann's hockey stick graph and Climategate.