Saturday, August 22, 2015

Why You Should Read "Frankly Curious"

Frank Moraes at the blog Frankly Curious has some nice things to say about a recent Oath Keepers piece I wrote. We read each other's blogs. He's good people.

Moraes writes about a variety of different subjects, but the thing that interests me most about him is he's a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics - so when he writes about related subjects, he has more credibility than the average satirical blogger with a resume that includes, ahem, true crime articles in Maxim.

I recently posted a piece crunching the numbers on how often Politifact caught each presidential candidate in a lie. I liked what I did. But I kind of knew that someone with greater sophistication about statistics would be able to write a more solid piece. Frankly Curious did it. I have a lot of pride about what I write, but Frank's version was better.

He does tackle climate change as well. Here's his takedown of the "climate always changes" trope you've heard from your local rightwinger. And if you've ever broken out in hives over a George Will article, Frank's got a gift for you called "George Will Is Still An Idiot." It's about Will generally, but down in the comments section Moraes gets into how Will is specifically an idiot about climate change.

His blog is fun, but I bring your attention to it, because he has real expertise, and that's good to know when you're out here in the internet. Not everyone's opinion is equal when we're talking about some subjects.

2 comments:

  1. Thanks for the kind words! Although I do primarily read you because you are hilarious, I think your straight writing is great. I thought your early coverage of the Planned Parenthood fake scandal was the best around. Most people didn't know what to think, and I really appreciated your forthright coverage.

    The irony of my writing about global warming, is that when I was working in the field (in the 1990s), I was skeptical. I was very much under the spell of the Gaia hypothesis (I still am, although in a modified form), and I just didn't think the climate could be that unstable. So I spent a lot of time looking for negative feedback loops and other mechanisms that would push against warming. But over time, it became clear that there really wasn't much in terms of stabilizers. And this is terrifying. It's also horrible that the more certain the science becomes the more people think it is a matter of opinion. I have this imagine in mind of people in 200 years looking back wondering, "How could they deny all the evidence?" Of course, we today know why: because those in power only look one quarter ahead.

    Again: thanks for the links and words. You have a great blog. I'm always pleased when you pop up on my rss feed. I have been forwarding Donald Trump's classy poems to everyone I know. Although I must admit that Trump knowing "The Second Coming" does stretch believability.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's also horrible that the more certain the science becomes the more people think it is a matter of opinion." I'm going to quote this repeatedly.

      Delete

Related Posts with Thumbnails