Options

Blog - apologia of profound confusion

The title of Blog - apologia of profound confusion should have the meaning that it is good to be confused, because that means that one is asking the important questions. I'm not sure if the connotations of the involved words capture that meaning :-)

I'n not sure if it is a wise idea to comment on

However, Posma's paper is rather new (March 2011), he has academic credentials and it also contains a lot of misleading and wrong statements. Maybe I could use this as input to explain some concepts in a little bit more detail.

Has anyone else written a comment on this paper? Somehow I have a gut feeling that a lot of people who could comment on it won't bother to do so.

Comments

  • 1.

    After thinking about this some more, I guess all I will do is explain the adiabatic temperature profile and why this is not an explanation of the temperature gap. If anyone thinks someone should debunk the whole paper, please let me know. But as long as no reader of Azimuth explicitly parrots any of the misconceptions in it, I think I will waste my time talking about it.

    Comment Source:After thinking about this some more, I guess all I will do is explain the adiabatic temperature profile and why this is not an explanation of the temperature gap. If anyone thinks someone should debunk the whole paper, please let me know. But as long as no reader of Azimuth explicitly parrots any of the misconceptions in it, I think I will waste my time talking about it.
  • 2.
    edited July 2011

    After thinking about this some more, I guess all I will do is explain the adiabatic temperature profile and why this is not an explanation of the temperature gap.

    That sounds good to me.

    Personally I think it's best to focus on explaining things as well as you can, rather than on debunking misconceptions. Maybe a small section near the end of a post is a good place for a bit of "debunking", especially if it helps test the reader's understanding of what you've already explained. But I think it's good to sidestep most of the "war" aspect of the climate wars. There are already a lot of good people who spend a lot of time "fighting misconceptions", but this approach tends to feed the "war". Your approach so far on the Azimuth Blog seems more attractive.

    This is only slightly related, but still interesting:

    By the way, you wrote:

    I think I will waste my time talking about it.

    Here it sounds like you're declaring that you plan to waste your time talking about this! I think you actually mean "I think I would be wasting my time talking about it." It's a subjunctive.

    Comment Source:> After thinking about this some more, I guess all I will do is explain the adiabatic temperature profile and why this is not an explanation of the temperature gap. That sounds good to me. Personally I think it's best to focus on explaining things as well as you can, rather than on debunking misconceptions. Maybe a small section near the end of a post is a good place for a bit of "debunking", especially if it helps test the reader's understanding of what you've already explained. But I think it's good to sidestep most of the "war" aspect of the climate wars. There are already a lot of good people who spend a lot of time "fighting misconceptions", but this approach tends to feed the "war". Your approach so far on the Azimuth Blog seems more attractive. This is only slightly related, but still interesting: * Robert Butler, [Learn to be like Lieutenant Columbo](http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/robert-butler/learn-be-lieutenant-columbo), _Intelligent Life_, Summer 2011. By the way, you wrote: > I think I will waste my time talking about it. Here it sounds like you're declaring that you plan to waste your time talking about this! I think you actually mean "I think I would be wasting my time talking about it." It's a subjunctive.
  • 3.

    Ouch. Thanks for the tip!

    Comment Source:Ouch. Thanks for the tip!
Sign In or Register to comment.