Stoat, who I do still sometimes read, had a recent post about the state of the blogging game. Some resonated with me, which I why I thought I would write this post. It does feel that the “blogging game” has clearly changed quite a lot. It really doesn’t feel nearly as active as it once was and there isn’t the same kind of back-and-forth that used to take place.
In my case, I think I’ve tried to stick to writing about topics that I find interesting, and have mostly tried to stay in some kind of lane; topics for which physics, or being in academia, might provide some relevant expertise. Of course, I haven’t always done so. It would be boring if one never went outside one’s comfort zone, but I think I mostly drift back. I also don’t really write this blog expecting anyone else to take it seriously; it can be both nice, but also somewhat stressful, when people do.
I’ve been writing this blog for just over 10 years, and one obvious issue is that it’s difficult to remain enthusiastic if you feel that you’re mostly just repeating yourself. Nothing fundamentally wrong with this, but not particularly interesting, both for the writer and the reader. I could try to explore different topics, but I don’t really have the time, or the energy, to become informed enough to write about them. I’m also not really trying to be heard, and I have enough going on without worrying about how active, or popular, the blog is.
I do somewhat miss the conversations that I used to have more of, either here, on other blogs, or on X/Twitter. Maybe it is still possible to have them, but it does feel as though it’s much more difficult to have nuanced discussions about complex topics. Many of the vocal people on social media seem to be mostly trying to broadcast their views, rather than putting out ideas that they’re happy to have challenged (even if they say otherwise). I’m also not a fan of intemperate exchanges. I typically regret being uncharitable, even if the other party might have deserved it, and just can’t be bothered starting discussions that aren’t likely to go well.
Overall, it’s been a mostly interesting experience writing the blog and it doesn’t really bother me that the “blogging game” has changed. I’ve learned a lot and I have mostly enjoyed the conversations that I have had. Change is probably inevitable and expecting things to stay the same is probably unrealistic. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think that the public discourse couldn’t be better, but I don’t really think that complaining about it on blogs will make much difference.
...and Then There's Physics 
I realise that an alternative to this:
is that it may always have been like this and I’ve just realised the futility of trying to have conversations with those who are mostly trying to promote a particular agenda.
I usually read your blog via the email that gets sent. I often let them stack up in my in box and then when waiting for an appointment and the like, I get caught up on your posts. The golden age of blogging passed, and I think that’s because people’s time and energy has move to Facebook and Twitter, or at least has been diluted, but I wanted you to know I read your blog.
jg,
Thanks. I do appreciate those who read and comment. I think you’re right that people have mostly moved to other social media sites. It does seem that substack is also becoming more popular, so long-form commentary can still be reasonably successful.
Somewhat in line with jg’s comment , I’m not sure it’s that blogging has changed so much as that energy has shifted towards Twitter and away from blogging and along with that the energy has gotten even more toxic. Not that some domains of blogging weren’t always toxic, but blog engagement, I think, is inherently less toxic – not the least because the algorithmic features of Twitter (e.,g, boosting and amplifying and the larger role for “likes”) along with the character limits tend to have a more toxic effect
Same for me. Also, there is much less retroaction in blog that it used to be,
Yours is one of a handful of blogs that I check every morning for new posts. I don’t comment often, only when my questions or thoughts haven’t already been raised by other commenters.
I’m retired from full time employment now (recovering Petroleum Engineer) but work part time with a lot of very young people. What I notice are very short attention spans and a zest for multi-tasking. They keep 10 windows open simultaneously, and music coming from some unknown source. It is no surprise that the “blogging game” has changed.
Keep up the good work.
Long given up using a blog to attract eyeballs. My approach is only to use the blog to operate as a lab notebook and then compile the results later on for a book or paper. As a testimonial it does work, though rarely find anybody else doing quite that. For fiction, the author of The Martian serialized the first draft on a blog. Always interested to hear of any other experiences.
Somewhat in line with jg’s comment , I’m not sure it’s that blogging has changed so much as that energy has shifted towards Twitter and away from blogging and along with that the energy has gotten even more toxic.
ya, energy shifted, key combatants shifted, eyeballs follow the drama.
@whut I did the same with my novel NUCFLASH à La Macaza
https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/blogue/2020/06/08/nucflash-macaza
I also use blog as a place to store detailed response to common denial argument.
Yvan, pitch and sell it as a screenplay 😉
Paul Pukite (@whut) I am first tried to sell it as a novel.
Netflix serie is an expected bonus 😉
@ATTP
Can’t let them have the field to themselves though, so while good faith dialogue is impossible, a defence of fact-based reasoning is always worth the pixels.
Remember, they want you to shut up and go away.
Hey BBD. Long time no see.
> Remember, they want you to shut up and go away.
Maybe some. Others want to fight. And a defense of fact-based reasoning often has no impact, or even just gets people to dig in deeper (the weakness of the information deficit model).
It’s a catch-22
If you debate, it shows that it’s debatable if climate change is real
If you don’t, you leave them able to freely proclaim it isn’t.
You lose.
I have seen variations of the last three comments for over a decade.
1. We don’t want you to shut up and go away. Even you, BBD!
2. We don’t dig in deeper, Joshua. You just don’t convince us.
3. VTG, this isn’t sport. We don’t measure wins and losses. When your side’s worst arguments are place against your opponents’ best arguments, your side doesn’t look good. The converse is also true.
Tom,
Who is “us” and what are the sides?
Hi ATTP. For ‘us’ I mean those who don’t adhere to the Climate Consensus. The ‘sides’ are those who advocate the Consensus ‘doctrine’ and those who don’t adhere to it. I imagine the latter shakes out as skeptics and lukewarmers.
I’m very surprised you need to ask.
I’m asking because you’re using terms that aren’t well-defined. What, for example, is the “Climate Consensus” or the “Climate ‘doctrine’?
Anyone involved in scientific research realizes it’s an adversarial process. One not only defends one’s own work but will often have to attack others. And if it’s not that, the adversary is nature itself, as it tends to guard it’s secrets.
Tom’s use of “we”, “us”, “sides”, “doctrine” and “adhere” tells us far, far more about him than about any aspect of the climate science discussion.
Tom –
> 2. We don’t dig in deeper, Joshua. You just don’t convince us.
I know that you consider yourself as a special case above all the riff-raff, but your comment only shows evidence of the well demonstrated and common phenomenon of the weakness of the information deficit model.
If you have some research that falsifies that phenomenon, please produce it.
Your patronizing and team-oriented self-sealing arguments by assertion are boring.
Tom, here are some very recent examples from other blogs that, I think, provide a glimpse at the quality of arguments across whatever range of “sideism” you might consider. You may disagree, but please consider responding based on the quality of evidence as presented in these three samples:
A guest over at Judy’s, peddling an e-book also titled like the post “Climate Change: A Curious Crisis”. In his ad, he invents again the unscientific term “Anthropogenic Climate Change theory” to label the earth sciences, and goes from there. He appears to be carrying on the JC view of “if we doubt, it can’t be true, why do some tell us that’s unreasonable, the meanies.”
From Heartland Institute staffer Anthony Watt’s place, another guest post, by a former Heartland intern, where she complains that CNN reports on a Nature paper about the ice mass loss on Antarctica as if CO2 has a role, rather than her suggestion of the amazing coincidence of a sudden change in volcanic activity that happens to coincide with warming oceans. I didn’t read to where she explains how volcanoes under the West Antarctic ice sheet manage to produce the observed warming of subsurface waters BEFORE they reach the volcanic area, but if she reveals that, please let us know where the paper’s published. She now works at a place named after one of the originators of the famous “30,000 random people sign an Oregon petition as if that disproves actual science” thing some years back.
Last up, Zeke Hausfather guest-posts (today’s trend) at Dessler’s The Climate Brink about “Global temperatures remain consistent with climate model projections” which, as the charts and links he give show, the scientists have been continuing to be pretty right. He also throws in bonus discussion of the known issue with some CMIP6 models running hot, that’s also been discussed on other blogs not affiliated with Heartland or that “side”.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/global-temperatures-remain-consistent
Tom, I don’t “adhere” to anything, other than objective analysis as far as I can judge it. – obviously my judgement on that will be imperfect and rightly open to criticism.
Neither do I advocate a “doctrine”, “a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.”
I think you may be engaging in projection.
Maybe we can give Tom a bit of a break, but what I was hinting at was that there often seems to be complaints about labelling and tribalism, and I’m pretty sure Tom has made such complaints. But then he seems to use terms like “us” and “your side”, which just seems somewhat inconsistent.
My own view is that defining these “tribes” and “sides” is not actually all the straightforward. I’m not entirely sure which one I would feel comfortable associating with, or quite what all the sides are, even if others might think it obvious which one I belong to.
Anders –
> but what I was hinting at was that there often seems to be complaints about labelling and tribalism, and I’m pretty sure Tom has made such complaints. But then he seems to use terms like “us” and “your side”, which just seems somewhat inconsistent.
Aside from that aspect…
IMO, the more interesting aspect is related to how these discussions play out – i.e., whether or not people want the people who disagree with them to shut up, or whether or not it’s important to remain engaged regardless of, or to counter, that theorized desire to shut people up.
I think there can be a related evidence-based discussion (although certainly the evidence isn’t dispositive and subject to interpretation). My interpretation is that pushing back is likely not very effective either way, because when pushing back occurs the predominant response is doubling down.
Without suggesting that Tom is unique, I think his response might be considered as evidence regarding how those dynamics play out. As indeed might all of our comments.
> You lose.
And then there’s physics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg%27s_theorem
I can’t remember where I found this (maybe in the fortune program that provides a short quote each time I log onto my linux system), but here it goes:
Freeman’s Commentary on Ginsberg’s theorem:
Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem
meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg’s
Theorem. To wit:
1. Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.
2. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even.
3. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.
VTG –
> If you don’t, you leave them able to freely proclaim it isn’t.
Regardless of whether you respond they are free to claim, and indeed will claim, climate change (or risk from climate change, or risk from anthropogenic climate change, whatever) isn’t real.
> you lose
I don’t think it’s that “you lose” so much as it is that they can’t lose.
Then we all need to win! Team Science needs to win even if it constantly loses, for without losing it’s not Team Science anymore. Thus it needs to keep playing!
The question then becomes: how could Team Science help contrarians win in a way that everyone wins in the end? My own idea is to help contrarians work. That won’t be easy. As soon as they realize we’re asking something out of them, they resist.
Stakeholder dialog, participatory democracy based on a consensus outcome. People have to be invested in finding a non-zero solution.
As long as there’s a pathway towards zero sum, scorched earth is the proximal goal.
ATTP, kind of a rehash, but those of us on the outside of the fence pretty much feel that your team put us in a box neatly labeled ‘denier.’ Things kinda went downhill from there, but that kind of served to create the us and them thingy.
Tom,
My point is that you’re the one doing the labelling and assigning people to tribes. Who are you to define “your team” and why are you choosing to associate with the label “denier”?
Hiya ATTP. No, your team stuck us with the label regardless of how appropriate it was or wasn’t. Your team created the teams, labeled them and any time we complained about it we got yelled at, swore at and laughed at. Why do you keep saying it is us that are labelling and assigning people to tribes? That’s false to fact.
Tom,
I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly. You’re the one putting people in teams, not me. You’re the one making accusations, not me. etc. This isn’t that complicated.
Tom is a uniter. He adheres to nothing. I try to follow his example.
Anders –
It’s interesting to me that you engage with Tom. Is it because he says things like “hiya” before he constructs dichotomous, tribalistic characterizations to express his deep “concerns” about tribalism?
You built it but now you want me to forget it? Sorry…
Tom present: “Why do you keep saying it is us that are labelling and assigning people to tribes? That’s false to fact.”
Tom prior: “The ‘sides’ are those who advocate the Consensus ‘doctrine’ and those who don’t adhere to it.”
It would be very hard to make this up.
Joshua,
I don’t have a good answer, obviously.
Tom –
> You built it but now you want me to forget it? Sorry…
Please, do whatever you like. I don’t “want” you to do anything one way or the other.
Tom,
Indeed, I’m need expecting, or wanting, you to do anything. If you think that there is a group of people that you can define who have done things that are unforgiveable, then that is entirely your choice.
However, it might be nice if you could recognise an equivalence between this and what you’re criticising. If labelling people and calling them names is so objectionable, why are you so comfortable doing it?
This back-and-forth between ATTP and thomaswfuller2 reminds me of Dostoevsky’s “Notes from Underground.”
ATTP, I don’t know where you get that from what I wrote. I’ll just say again–you guys made the definitions, the tribes, etc. I don’t consider that unforgiveable–just unfortunate, as witnessed by the results.
Pretending otherwise on a blog where some current commenters have rigorously attempted to enforce the boundaries and labels your team has created strikes me as ludicrous.
Tom,
I realise I’m wasting my time, but you still don’t seem to get that you’re the one defining who is in the tribes. You’re the one using “you guys”. What I’m hoping you will recognise is that you’re essentially doing what you’re complaining about. I’m not necessarily suggesting that there haven’t been people who have done what you claim, I’m suggesting that the manner in which you’re making your argument is inconsistent.
Essentially, it’s hard to take your concerns about tribalism being “unfortunate” when you’re being tribal.
You can’t win ATTP.
After all, Tom “wrote the book”.
I think I’ve shared my Three Laws before, but here goes:
I’m not trying to win 🙂
ATTP, I’m not trying to win either. I’m trying to communicate that, as Willard has so cleverly recreated in microcosm, you set the rules, delineated the playing field and named the teams. You can say as much as you like that I’m saying ‘you guys’ and acting all tribal–but I’m just living in your little ecosphere, using your terminology and recognizing the reality you created.
Tom, “some current commenters have rigorously attempted to enforce the boundaries”
How dare people have different opinions to you. The impudence of it.
If only there was a law for what is currently happening.
New Climateball players should note the date.
> Is this tread about Fuller?
Fuller’s law. At some point, every thread is about Fuller
Hey. I hadn’t noticed that. 😉
Looks like motivated reasoning caught up with you, Joshua. I haven’t written about me at all. What does that say about those who do?
I thought that vwas Tol’s Law.
VTG,
That was my thought too 🙂
what Joshua has said here about the bad faith commenters. Just dump them. Block them etc. Be careful about it. But whatever you do, don’t engage except and unless to say, yeah… we don’t play your game. Take it somewhere else.
Adios, Tom.
Limiting commenters to one to three posts per day can slow down the back and forth. I’m not at 2 for the day, so will call it quits there
There are at least Three Laws under Richie’s name. The first two are Very Tall‘s:
L1. However poor you expect Tol’s behaviour to be, he will promptly fail to meet even that level.
L2. In any blog comment thread where Tol contributes the subject will tend to being about Tol.
A third one is If Richie does not understand it, it’s false.
The new comment editor is weird.
It rather looks as though we’ve all lost.
Estimating vanishing allowable emissions for 1.5 °C
At least, all those of us who don’t have access to Musk’s spacey getaway.
I think that’s right, Dave, but I am also told that it is not happening faster than expected and that things are happening more or less as expected. I think maybe a tad more, but I am not a scientist. Not even a geologist.
thanks willard. Eight years ago is long enough to justify forgetting I hope. And yes, the editor is weird.
If all these poopyheads would stop calling us poopyheads I would have nothing to be “concerned” about.
Alright. Time to call Joshua’s Principle: if only all these poopyheads would stop calling us poopyheads.
Looks like the new commenting facility implements parts of the Block Editor:
https://wordpress.org/documentation/article/wordpress-block-editor/
It’s a bit overkill, and it destroys my Markdown usage, but so be it.
Completely off-topic but more fun than carbon budgets running out, and perhaps of interest to our host:
Strange blobs in Earth’s mantle are relics of a massive collision
Moon-forming impactor as a source of Earth’s basal mantle anomalies
The prevailing idea among geologists has been that they’re graveyards of subducted oceanic slabs, which in turn has led to musings about repeating supercontinent cycles because otherwise, why do they keep landing in the same two places, either side of the Earth, rather than being randomly spread. So quite a turn-up if it withstands scrutiny.
Fascinating and plausible.
A kiss that never goes away.
@DG
At least, all those of us who don’t have access to Musk’s spacey getaway.
Among the many things billionaires have got wrong, the idea that they can hide from the apocalypse is a killer 🙂
How, when the world has broken down and everything from dollars to gold is worthless, do you constrain your private army from shooting you in the head and throwing your corpse over the compound wall?
As for Mars and its percholates and rads, Elon is welcome to it.
From the first day of grad school, it was an us vs them mentality. My thesis advisor treated research like we were trying to scoop Bell Labs and all of the competition. If some lab equipment part or material was needed, it had to be an express shipment. This newsroom-like dynamic may not be as common in earth sciences, as nothing is resolved quickly. So seeing this tribal attitude is not out of the ordinary IMO but it really is more multi-faceted than stated. The deniers and consensus each have their own internal factions.
I expect Bunkers will continue to be the last resort fallback for the wealthy, not Space, which is not an actual option and I strongly suspect may never be viable. Musk, Bezos, Branson are not typical – but even they will have bunkers.
Actually the prospect of the super wealthy taking global warming seriously and doing Adaptation looks quite frightening – and may be indistinguishable from their Doubt, Deny, Delay; maximising their wealth will be their principle defense against global warming and where that involves fossil fuels, maximizing their profitable exploitation.
Paris Marx (what a name!) just finished his mini-series on Elon. Here is the first episode:
https://www.techwontsave.us/episode/189_elon_musk_unmasked_origins_of_an_oligarch_part_1
His granddad has Canuckistan connections, just like teh Donald’s incidentally. A member of the Technocratic Party, which has become illegal at some point in Canada. His name was…Joshua.
Speaking of technocratism, I made a political compass. If anyone is interested, my next post could be about it. Or it could be about labeling. Or it could on the question Where is Science? to follow up on AT’s current post.
@Ken Fabian
but even they will have bunkers.
Which I suspect will be occupied by their late employers’ Heads of Security and their mates.
At the risk of going all Harry Potter over it, quis custodiet?
Willard, as my acquaintance with Canadian political exports is limited to Neocans like David Frum & Mark Steyn, may I ask if the Technocrats meshed with the Social Credit movement that so fascinated Ezra Pound ?
Paris Marx ‘s moniker can’t hold a candle to the goose stepping name of the author of the article you link ; Hannah Getahun
Yes, Russell. There were human connections. Elon’s grand dad floated between the two parties, even if technocrats were not exactly in favor of democracy. However, the social credit movement has a multitude of flavors, depending on if you’re in Western or the Eastern parts of Canada. There was a linguistic divide:
Source: Wiki.
Some of their ideas ain’t so bad. My mum liked the idea of printing more money, so she anticipated the Modern Monetary Theory. She also solved hockey: Give a puck to each of them!
Willard , be thankful most Canadians never gave a puck. Had they, the Greysuits and Greenshirts might long ago have taken up hockey sticks and set up competing Canuckistans on islands in Lake Winnipeg;
Coming to this thread rather late – so back to the topic: I read ATTP because I value ATTP’s passionate commitment to try to be truthful and polite. It aligns with my inclinations – and we always like things that align with our views and are expressed with clarity and wit. It is very rare – and maybe so algorithmically disadvantaged that it is near nonexistent on social media?
When I first followed the climate debate it was a fascination with the complexity of the science – so many nuances and complexities. I then went through a period of crusading horror against the way that debate was often framed with reductionist simplicity. And for a long time now I remain interested – in a slightly ghoulish way – in the psychology of tribalism as well as concerned – from half-decade to half-decade – about the unrolling evidence.
Anyway we can all do our best to engage in dialog, examine our prejudices, and reflect on why sometimes dialog is not possible – without blaming those who have no patience or no inclination for that. I realise the no blame thing can be dispiriting and difficult when we genuinely believe that misinformation can cause great harm: but tribalism empowers misinformation, and blame encourages tribalism.
Thanks ATTP for pursuing civilised discourse in the climate science blogs: maybe it requires a streak of masochism to do this – but is no less valuable for that!