Comments on: Thanks! - What I’ve Learnt From My Readers http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/ The Blog that Talks about Climate Change Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:56:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: MPS http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-552 MPS Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:27:51 +0000 http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-552 Mark wrote a very insightful article as to what he has observed on the board. There was no ill will present in his article. From my debates on a local chat forum, I can say that his assessment of most people are reading the headlines, shaking their heads and then going on with their lives as usual. Most people aren't really interested in the complexities of the issue. They would rather just keep it simple. There are very few people out there that are actually talking about climate change in simple terms that everyone can understand. That is not to say anyone is stupid, it just means that most people don't really want to know all the intricate details. I have found, on my blog and also debating on a local forum, that people seem to get more useful information if you just keep it simple. I attribute this to people getting bored by too much detail. Mark and the other writers on this board do a very good job of keeping it simple. There is no need to get into intricate details for the average reader. Only those who are well read on the subject will understand a lot of it. The casual reader will get confused. Here is an example. I had several people ask me what I meant by Anthropogenic Global Warming. The term, while it is the proper term, confuses many people. Instead, when I write for my blog I try to use the words man made global warming. It says the exact same thing, but it is easy for the average reader to understand. Another example was when I was writing a piece on how there has been little to no change in the tropospheric mean temperature. Those who are well read on the subject will understand what I said, but my neighbor who has just a high school education won't understand a word of it. So instead, I used little to no difference in the average temperature in the middle and upper levels of the atmosphere. Sorry, I went off on a rant again. The point I am making is that Mark is correct with what he says in the article and there was nothing in it that would suggest that anyone is stupid. Mark wrote a very insightful article as to what he has observed on the board. There was no ill will present in his article.

From my debates on a local chat forum, I can say that his assessment of most people are reading the headlines, shaking their heads and then going on with their lives as usual.

Most people aren’t really interested in the complexities of the issue. They would rather just keep it simple.

There are very few people out there that are actually talking about climate change in simple terms that everyone can understand. That is not to say anyone is stupid, it just means that most people don’t really want to know all the intricate details.

I have found, on my blog and also debating on a local forum, that people seem to get more useful information if you just keep it simple. I attribute this to people getting bored by too much detail.

Mark and the other writers on this board do a very good job of keeping it simple.

There is no need to get into intricate details for the average reader. Only those who are well read on the subject will understand a lot of it. The casual reader will get confused.

Here is an example. I had several people ask me what I meant by Anthropogenic Global Warming. The term, while it is the proper term, confuses many people. Instead, when I write for my blog I try to use the words man made global warming. It says the exact same thing, but it is easy for the average reader to understand.

Another example was when I was writing a piece on how there has been little to no change in the tropospheric mean temperature. Those who are well read on the subject will understand what I said, but my neighbor who has just a high school education won’t understand a word of it. So instead, I used little to no difference in the average temperature in the middle and upper levels of the atmosphere.

Sorry, I went off on a rant again.

The point I am making is that Mark is correct with what he says in the article and there was nothing in it that would suggest that anyone is stupid.

]]> By: Kiashu http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-546 Kiashu Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:52:03 +0000 http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-546 Well, it's simply the nature of any society of more than about three members that no single person can know every aspect of it. That's why we have a democracy, freedom of speech and all that sort of stuff, so we can all toss our ideas vegetables into the soup pot and boil 'em up into the Solutions Soup. Well, it’s simply the nature of any society of more than about three members that no single person can know every aspect of it. That’s why we have a democracy, freedom of speech and all that sort of stuff, so we can all toss our ideas vegetables into the soup pot and boil ‘em up into the Solutions Soup.

]]> By: Mark http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-545 Mark Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:31:42 +0000 http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-545 Using only three categories to segment a very broad range of opinions is perhaps a little crude, but I am certainly not accusing anybody of being stupid. My main point is the complexity of the subject defies simple solutions, and few people have thought through every aspect in detail - including myself in many areas. Using only three categories to segment a very broad range of opinions is perhaps a little crude, but I am certainly not accusing anybody of being stupid.

My main point is the complexity of the subject defies simple solutions, and few people have thought through every aspect in detail - including myself in many areas.

]]> By: Kiashu http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-539 Kiashu Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:48:13 +0000 http://www.talkclimatechange.com/2008/02/15/thanks-what-ive-learnt-from-my-readers/#comment-539 You're painting with a broad brush here, and whenever you make any category you're going to have to ignore some details, sure - but I think you're overstating the categories somewhat, making the "red team" and "green team" sound stupider than they are, as though they can't distinguish between themselves and the whole world. You're basically saying that to be a member of these "teams", you've got to be a believer in the old "fallacy of the excluded middle", it's like you're splitting people discussing the death penalty into those who want to execute people for jaywalking and those who want to just let everyone go with a stern talking-to. You’re painting with a broad brush here, and whenever you make any category you’re going to have to ignore some details, sure - but I think you’re overstating the categories somewhat, making the “red team” and “green team” sound stupider than they are, as though they can’t distinguish between themselves and the whole world.

You’re basically saying that to be a member of these “teams”, you’ve got to be a believer in the old “fallacy of the excluded middle”, it’s like you’re splitting people discussing the death penalty into those who want to execute people for jaywalking and those who want to just let everyone go with a stern talking-to.

]]>