UPDATE 15.20 – Sincere thanks to Adam for relenting and allowing my comment. Inclusive debate is good.
@alicebell @James_BG @keithkloor my thoughts on this week’s science, scepticism & advocacy debates http://t.co/xSZM7eHwng
— Adam Corner (@AJCorner) August 2, 2013
@RogTallbloke @BarryJWoods @alicebell @James_BG @keithkloor butoff topic I’m afraid – sorry, not debating causes of CC on this post
— Adam Corner (@AJCorner) August 2, 2013
@RogTallbloke @BarryJWoods @alicebell @James_BG @keithkloor but v. happy to publish comments on topic of science/advocacy
— Adam Corner (@AJCorner) August 2, 2013
@AJCorner @BarryJWoods @alicebell @James_BG @keithkloor OK Adam, it’s your blog, delete away. I’ll post the screenshot at the Talkshop.
— Rog Tallbloke (@RogTallbloke) August 2, 2013
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I was wrong about that last tweet. Barry Woods tells me Adam’s blog is publicly funded. Does that mean he gets paid to delete the public’s comments?
Second comment added.
And approved! Here goes…
Adam has reinstated my original comment inline with his reply. Thanks mate!
The way that scientists and academics control the theory applied, the questions asked, the paradigm, and the adjustments to the data must also be included in a discussion of scientists engaging in advocacy.
The final comments by scientists regarding “decarbonization targets” are also advocacy, but the public is perfectly capable of discerning that the advocacy begins much earlier in the process.
Exactly so Zeke. Feel free to go and tell Adam. Link in first tweet.
A voice from the pissed off section of the public:
TinyCO2 August 2, 2013 at 3:32 pm
From being a true respecter of scientists I have rapidly become disappointed and would no longer appreciate being likened to one. You guys deal with theory too much and don’t put enough store in real world data. And no, that isn’t a comment about climate science.
Dr Edwards is helpfully trying to point out that the public view scientists who engage in advocacy as not necessarily more convincing. In fact that sort of passion can cast doubt on the quality of their work since they might be tempted to exaggerate, fabricate or ignore certain things. But hey, who cares what the public thinks.
The one thing that you seem incapable of doing is talking to those people you know you need to convince. Talking at, yes, talking to, no. You admit that sceptics “do express many of the broader concerns that the general public more broadly share … and its here that debates about climate change are more likely to be won and lost” but wouldn’t dream of asking us what we think and why. If we do tell you, you don’t believe us and try to dig for deeper meaning. Or worse, you cut us out altogether and try to pretend we’re just aberrant idiots. How’s that working for you? CO2 plunging yet?
I don’t know why you try to rewrite our position. I wonder if it’s because we are truly different species and we have very little common ground. Your views of how politics might influence public opinion on AGW certainly don’t sound like you’re talking about my side of the human race. I get the feeling you haven’t a clue what a cataclysmic change cutting CO2 would involve and think that it can be treated like any other social problem. But then I’m talking about my species, perhaps you side just needs sceptics to shut up.
PS, yes, we are cross and for good reason but perhaps I should wait for you to tell me why rather than having my own opinion about it.
“I get the feeling you haven’t a clue what a cataclysmic change cutting CO2 would involve ”
Isn’t that the truth.
Or perhaps they just don’t care as long as they get fuzzy warm feelings about saving the world and can insulate themselves from the consequences.
And in the end, free and prosperous nations limit reproduction to below replacement level so the curtailment of freedom and prosperity via resource rationing would indefinitely postpone the achievement of the long term global sustainability that they say they are in favour of.
Those with the self indulgent authoritarian impulse never were the sharpest tools in the box but somehow they got to be making the decisions.
Probably because those who can, do and those who can’t try to tell them how to do it.
You can include me among the pissed off. Let’s see if I’ve got this right. The current scientific advocacy concentrates on temperature and extreme weather. Nobody pleads the innocence of CO2. The transparency of 99.9% of the atmosphere to solar radiation is used in argument to accuse CO2 of warming said atmosphere. It is true sunshine can warm CO2 which in turn warms the atmosphere but that used up portion of sunlight is no longer capable of warming the surface. There is still plenty of sunlight left to warm the surface which in turn warms the atmosphere from the bottom up. Two paths at least to warm the atmosphere. Warm air rises. How does the air cool? Energy is not lost just because air rises and expands. Remember, 99.9% of the atmosphere is transparent to radiation, it cannot cool by itself by radiating. Only the ‘greenhouse gases’ can radiate. This effect is readily observed on any clear night when air temperature is seen to drop rapidly.
If it wasn’t for the ‘greenhouse gases’ radiating to space from the upper atmosphere there would be no path for the heat to escape and the surface temperature would be unliveable.
CO2 cools the atmosphere. Q.E.D.
All I get is
“Error establishing a database connection”
“Error establishing a database connection” – what I see, too. Tallbloke reader volume crashed their server?
Working fine here this morning.