Now it is. McIntyre and Real Climate have become occasional bloggers, although Curry still posts frequently. The truancy of McIntyre and Real Climate has not improved the climate debate.
In today’s climate blogosphere, we have sort of a ‘post-panic’ crew of bloggers, myself included, who (on good days) post relevant commentary on the politics, policy and media antics surrounding climate change. People like Brad Keyes of Climate Nuremberg, Fabius Maximus, And Then There’s Physics and Michael Tobis and myself–what we’re doing is often interesting (or hilarious, in Climate Nuremberg’s case)–however, we’re focusing on WG2 and WG3 issues.
As today’s posts by the big 3 mentioned above show, WG1 still needs attention.
Real Climate has one of the best posts from that venue in a couple of years, writing about the consensus reaction to recent papers hinting at lower sensitivity. It’s Gavin Schmidt at his best–clear, reasonable and, well, scientific. He’s co-author of a paper challenging these skeptic upstarts regarding sensitivity, and regardless of your opinion on the subject, those upstarts will have to respond. As Schmidt notes over at RC, this is the way it’s supposed to work in science.
Judith Curry has an extremely well-organized and clear response to an essay by Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan). Taleb argued that our response to climate model output should be a strong effort to lower emissions, no matter how uncertain those models actually are. His argument amounts to Pascal’s Wager, as pointed out by a commenter on the post, and Curry (IMO) more or less demolishes Taleb’s assertions.
It’s McIntyre who pretty much steals the day, however, with another concisely argued and clearly presented view of the disparity between model projections of temperature and actual observations.
But it’s not just the coincidence of these three posts from the big 3 happening at the same time that is getting rarer.There was a time when conversation about all of this would have ranged from boisterous to merely lively at places like Bart Verheggen’s or Keith Kloor’s. Both of those venues hosted regular commentary from all sides of the climate issue. But Bart’s site has gone fairly quiet and Keith’s is simply gone. Other venues such as WUWT, Bishop Hill, Deltoid, Open Mind, etc. seem to be getting staler, as their posts and commenters are becoming less about the debate than about pushing a point of view.
What saddens me about the current crop of climate blogs, including this one, is how little migration there is of readers between them. Lucia Liljegren’s Blackboard seems to be the only holdout, where both skeptics and the climate concerned get together. We have created two (or more) echo chambers and our utility is vastly diminished as a result.
Reminiscing about the Golden Age of the Climate Blogosphere is not a bad thing–I occasionally page through old posts on all of the sites mentioned here, and there’s a lot of good stuff there. And what’s happening now isn’t bad at all–it’s just different.
But what I’d rather be doing is contributing to the next golden age of the climate conversation.