Quote of the week #29

qotw_cropped

This QOTW is from an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail which focuses on the rise of skeptic blogs including CA and WUWT.

The article contained this nugget from Gavin Schmidt, who never fails to disappoint with his (what McIntyre calls backhanded ) prose:

“He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

You know, sometimes I think Dr. Schmidt’s ego must be so large that the NY Dept of Transportation would have to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels.

I found this portion of the Globe and Mail article also interesting:

In the wake of the scandal, blogs that question the reality of man-made global warming have surged in public attention, leading new readers to websites such as Wattsupwiththat.com (run by weatherman Anthony Watts) and climatedepot.com (run by conservative activist Marc Morano). The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.

What should be deeply worrying to the scientific community is that they’ve allowed climate science to become noble cause corrupted by monied interests. Some serious retrospection is needed.

About these ads

90 thoughts on “Quote of the week #29

  1. A surprising number of comment pages do not allow one to post if one’s post contains the word Schmidt.

    It gets flagged as a rude word, as if one were attempting to post S*h*i*t.

  2. Henry, I find that deeply disturbing, since that is my own surname. (no relation to Gavin, though!!!!) Philistines.

    Regarding the aformentioned Gavin Schmidt’s quote: It is just as useful, and possibly even more valuable to reduce the sum total of false knowledge than it is to add to the amount of total knowledge. I base that on the premise that false knowledge is *always* damaging while new knowledge is only occasionally helpful.

  3. Gavin Schmidt;
    The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community>>

    He presumes to speak for the entire scientific community?

  4. Yep, a truly ironic quote on the contributions to knowledge. It is a measure of the madness.
    =========================

  5. I love the idea that Gavin thinks that he represents the integrity of the scientific community.

    He’s fast becoming a joke. Maybe he should start thinking about getting a real job.

    But, then again, he could not put down that he is a scientist. Are flim-flam and collusion-to-defraud valid job categories?

  6. OT:
    Has anyone a URL for the latest Coleman video? I cannot find it at KUSI. At least it was not there 5 minutes ago.
    TIA

  7. “What should be deeply worrying to the scientific community is that they’ve allowed climate science to become noble cause corrupted by monied interests. Some serious retrospection is needed”.

    This is the most disturbing issue. Not sharing data so that results could be verified (indeed, destroying data rather than complying with an FOIA request). Blacklisting skeptics and trying to run them out of the profession if they did not buy AGW. Colluding to keep skeptics from publishing. Selling the idea that AGW is settled science to their political, media, and academic allies to stampede the republic into misinformed, hugely expensive decisions. These climate scientists were acting as activists, not scientists. Shame on them and shame on those climate scientists who are not calling for a house cleaning in the climate science profession.

    Even those climate scientists who agree with AGW must stand up for their profession and tell Hansen, Mann, Jones, etc. that these tactics have shamed the profession of climate science and that profound corrections need to be made immediately. There needs to be a thorough investigation and the perpetrators of this malfeasance, this stain on science, need to be tried for fraud.

  8. [snip OK Oliver, I've had just about enough of your attempts to interject your iron sun theory into discussions that have no connection whatsoever. I've warned you about this. You are relieved from posting for the remainder of the weekend. - Anthony]

  9. Charles Darwin stated “to kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”. I wonder if the Gavinator has ever heard that one?

  10. This quote is referencing the doubleplusgood versions of the words “knowledge” & “science”.
    In Newspeak “Knowledge” : Knowledge is information ,true or false,that furthers the cause.
    “Science” : Science is computer output ,true or false,that furthers the cause.
    The truth WILL set us free thanks to true knowledge and true science and websites like this one.
    Thank goodness for the internet. Nothing but propaganda, Oh, I mean “knowledge” & “Science”, on the main stream media machine.

  11. The writer is not “in” the scientific community. “Jeet Heer, a Regina-based cultural journalist, frequently writes about comics.”
    The Toronto Mope and Wail online is going paid subscription – this is a great thing as fewer people will read their rot.

  12. The psychosis of Schmidts quote is amazing. On the one hand, he essentially calls McIntyre some kind of great intellect with the potential to be a “scientific superstar”; but then he implies that all this power is used for evil. In a sense he’s saying that thin line that separates scientists and truth seekers from going to “the dark side” is well, extremely thin. He’s doing more damage to real scientists with his quote than he realizes.

    Looked at another way, his quote is saying that a loner who asks questions is an undesireable. By calling McIntyre this, he says that requesting data and methods is a path to cause a “reduction of the sum total of human knowledge”.

    All this, and I’d wager real money that *what* Gavin says means significantly less to him than the satisfaction he gets just from seeing his name and quotes in mass media. I think people should refer to him as the Paris Hilton of climate science.

  13. “He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

    Do you ever notice how liberals, when they go to attack somone they perceive to be a threat, actually wind up describing themselves? Everything a liberal claims…believe the opposite.

    Jeff

  14. Here is a piece of that human knowledge which has settled in the brain of our head cheese, B O:

    Dallas snow storms and warmth (55F) in Vancouver is a result of the planet warming up as a whole.

    “That’s one aspect of the science that everyone should understand.”

    H/T Lubos Motl

  15. …the sum total of human knowledge…

    Going by all the different books and periodicals that mankind has published, as often found at secondhand shops if they survive that long, and even the internet in general, I think those Augean stables are long overdue for a good reduction anyway.

  16. I believe Gavin gets his witticism via one-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas B. Reed, who (allegedly) said of his political opponents, “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”

    Personally, I like that little jab. :-) (The original, of course.)

    Paul

  17. I for one have come to the conclusion that Gavin desires, as do the other alarmists, that skeptics just simply give up.

    I mean, look at the rhetoric :
    Here is a response I got from Gavin after I posted a comment to a post entitled, ‘Whatevergate’

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/

    “[Response: The IPCC is the most peer-reviewed document in the world. It is still not perfect. But even you could have reviewed it if you wanted to. Transparency is great, but even if the data was all locked up and the analyses secret (which it is not), the nonsense passing for journalism in the last few weeks would still be nonsense. But if you want transparency (and why not?), start downloading the data, or the code, or the papers (all of which are readily available), and point out where it is exactly that you think we are hiding anything. - gavin]”

    What have we learned from this talking point from a leading alarmist.

    He states that the I.P.C.C. report is the most peer-reviewed document, but fails to mention that the document contains alarmist material from non peer-reviewed author(s).

    Another key point to avoiding the truth is when he says that data analyses is not secretive or locked up. Are you kidding me?
    How much of the analytical data, especially the climate models, has been studied for confirmation of authenticity? None, the last i checked.

    And lastly, his feigned attempt at implying to be transparent, is but a ruse.

    Gavin reminds me of a used car salesman. A term used to flip a potential buyer, to continue to ‘always be closing the deal’, is called ‘bait and switch’. Which is exactly what he and many other alarmists choose when confronted with difficult questions.

    So it may be if Gavin can continue to muddy the scientific waters with this tactic,
    it may lead to some skeptics to feel frustrated or even defeated, but at some point those waters will become clear and the only one left defeated with be Gavin and those that hold firm to their failed foundation of AGW.

    So, I tip my hat to Watts and McIntyre and the rest of the blogging skeptics that continue to research and question the consensus on global warming.

    Keep up the good work!

    D. Alan

  18. “… he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

    It seems Gavin is admitting that he though he new something that Steve M. showed just wasn’t so.

  19. Let’s put Schmidt and McIntyre in a squash court and learn who has the best backhand. Pay-per-View subscriptions would establish a purse value.

    Squash match would be immediately followed by a traditional refereed debate on the proposition:

    Paleoclimate reconstructions including tree-ring data are robust recreations of past global temperatures

    Debate winner to be determined by on-line vote

    Final prize = (squash purse) X (winning on-line vote) must be donated to charity of the winner’s choice.

    Let the GAMES BEGIN!

  20. davidmhoffer (14:45:16) :

    Gavin Schmidt;
    “The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community”

    An obvious solution is for Gavin to engage in debate in blogs. Not his, but others that surpass his intellect. It’s called learning.

    If he has not noticed the shift in emphasis from comment in MSM to comment on blogs, then he’s missed the boat. The reading public is shifting to blogs in droves. This is the ‘voting’ reading public.

    Sure, there is a place for careful, peer-reviewed papers when a topic has reached a stage of finality allowing summation and robust conclusion. The abundance of papers submitted for peer review when they are merely Work in Progress is a clutter of the system and a dilution of its purpose.

    Use the the blog world, Gavin, for the minor and intermediate material and do peer-revew only when it is worthy.

  21. “Jeremy (15:08:30) :
    [...]
    I think people should refer to him as the Paris Hilton of climate science.”

    Does he have a pet that he carries around with him? Like this guy:

  22. kruddwatch, there are links at the bottom of this:

    New special from founder of the Weather Channel tackles manmade climate change theory

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m2d19-New-special-from-founder-of-the-Weather-Channel-tackles-manmade-climate-change-theory

    “The situation is completely out of hand,” said Texas A&M climate scientist Gerald North. “One guy e-mailed me to say I’m a ‘whore for the global warming crowd.’ ”

    which is from:

    19 Feb: Science Mag: Scientists Grapple With ‘Completely Out of Hand’ Attacks on Climate Science
    by Eli Kintisch

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/scientists-grapple-with-complete.html

  23. “He could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”
    ==========
    Sounds like he has it ALL figured out, and doesn’t need any additional input or opinions.
    IMO, it is not possible to reduce “the sum total of human knowledge.”
    Unless you suppress said knowledge.

  24. What does “adds to the reduction of the sum total” mean? Is that math-babble for “subtracts”?

    My judgment is that “trickery to hide the decline” subtracts from human knowledge, making GS’s efforts a net loss for all of us.

  25. The oh so politically correct and Liberal Mop and Pail used the term Weatherman?!? The Horror. They call fishermen fishers for gosh sakes. I am sure you wear that designation with pride, and justifiably so Anthony, but I am sure those at the Grope and Flail thought they were dissing you in some sort of sly sort of center of the universe way.

    P.S. (Toronto = Center of the Universe to Liberals)

  26. Jeremy,

    Think of Gavin as the Paris Hilton of Climate Science? Please don’t ever create that anomoly again. The first thing that popped into my head was that Carl’s Jr. hamburger commercial with Ms. Hilton.

  27. From the same article: “I think the climate-change-denial movement has recognized that transition was taking place and has really invested a lot of effort and resources in creating this huge infrastructure of online disinformation. And I think it is a challenge for legitimate news organizations to compete with that massive disinformation network.” – M. Mann

    This paranoiac statement comes from not understanding the grass roots passions about transparency of scientific methodology. Mann is so ensconced in the ivy league world of pal-reviews and politics that he cannot comprehend a world where concerned and educated folk voluntarily devote large chunks of time to test and dispute his agenda-driven hypotheses. There was no conscious ‘recognizing’ or ‘investment’ – the internet was the place to discuss these matters without the heavy blanketing filters of ivy league pal-review smothering the debate. And as for the ‘resources’ invested in this ‘huge infrastructure’, gee whiz – please Mr. Mann show us how we can tap into this alleged wealth – you seem to be eminently qualified in the art of resource garnering.

  28. When people begin to criticise others I’ve learned over the years that what they are telling you is their world view. Somebody gives generously to a cause – bloke A stands up & loudly proclaims how nobody who isn’t seeking fame would do such a thing – bloke A is giving you an insight into his world, not that of the giver.

    It’s as if such people can’t look at themselves & analyse who they are – they view the world around & think that everyone must be just like they are, so they take their own faults & project them out to everyone else.

    Listen carefully when people begin to belittle others – they are telling you, in detail, how they see the universe.

  29. All,

    And ya know, most of us troglodites out here just would like to know what the hell is going on – from a scientific point of view. There are some folks on this site who obviously are convinced the whole damn thing is a bunch of bunk. Others argue (Pielke’s here) that wait a moment, looks like there is AGW, but it’s land use (apologies for over simplification – troglodite, remember?) that’s causing it. And there are a few who are CO2 cheerleaders (not talking about the trolls here, they don’t count).

    Most of us are really sceptics on the CO2, I happen to like the Pielke theories – and think more $$$ should be invested there. At least I can trust the science. Anthony and others need $$$ for data integrety studies. It’d be money well spent since no matter your persuasion, at least you could trust the data (and access it).

    I think the vast majority of viewers and posters here are not in favor of more pollution for pollution sake, but husbanding (can I use that – stewardship also comes to mind but that has a religious connotation) our natural resources and keeping this planet as “clean” as we can. What “clean” means is the scientific area.

    Just my take, and thanks to everyone but Gavin…who reminds me of Pigpen in Charlie Brown, always stirring up dust.

    Mike

  30. Classic tactic. When you can’t win on facts or merit (and they can’t), then try to make the other side appear evil.

    Expect such attacks to continue and intensify. Desperate times call for desperate measures. The easy money cash cow is being threatened. The choices are give up the money and admit defeat or fight back to the bitter end. Never underestimate the evil people will do to get money. AGW has the added benefit of getting the other corrupting goal of power. Two things that do corrupt the weak willed.

    Be prepared. The AGW priests won’t go quietly in the night.

  31. M&M: True Canadian Heroes.

    Veritas victrix.

    …-

    “The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick

    When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym “M&M” to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November.

    Reading the e-mails, it quickly becomes clear that leading alarmist scientists, like Michael Mann at Penn State and Phil Jones at the CRU, seemed positively obsessed – almost to the point of appearing deranged at times – with discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick. For example, when the pair published their first hockey stick busting paper in 2003, Mann sent an angry e-mail to his colleagues, telling them how to deal with MM: “The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.”

    Raymond Bradley, a climatologist with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), went even farther, suggesting that CRU should provide the “independent” voice that would discredit McIntyre and McKitrick: “…if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an “audit”, and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue… If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments.”

    What did McIntyre and McKitrick do to put these climatologists on the defensive?” (more)

    http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/19/the-heretics-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

    “The Sound Of Settled Science”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

  32. When Schmidt said:

    “and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.”,

    is he referring to Phil Jones?

    Jones has done more to discredit Gavin Schmidt’s position on global warming than practically any blogger I know (deference to you, Anthony, but when a Warmer turns to the bright side, it’s a shock to readers of the NYT).

    :)

  33. It is called falsification. It doesn’t reduce knowledge. It removes error and in the process increases knowledge.

  34. Gavin Schmidt works for NASA?

    Where is the NASA that put men on the moon?

    Where is that glorious NASA?

  35. “He could be a scientific superstar,”

    Sorry Mr. Schmidt, but I don’t think you know what a scientific superstar is.

  36. ot

    but more snow is in the forecast for Dallas—where is your global warming Gavin Schmidt?

  37. I learned today that, despite reports to the contrary, the ‘hockey stick’ is alive and well and that Dr. Wegman’s report has been discredited–The Globe and Mail is a welcoming platform for AGW propaganda and it occupies land that would make a great parking lot.

  38. Not sure if this has been covered here
    “help write the full story of the hacked emails scandal”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/help-write-the-full-story-of-the-hacked-emails-scandal

    Gavin Schmidt has been busy marking up the online version of the CRU emails on the Guardian. An online “peer review”, which at first glance seems like a valid approach from a formerly very one-sided UK newspaper.

    If anyone want to add their point of view, apparently it is open to all comers.

    For @KRuddWatch above,

    Was this the URL for the Coleman videos you were after?

    http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m2d19-New-special-from-founder-of-the-Weather-Channel-tackles-manmade-climate-change-theory

  39. I think people should refer to him as the Paris Hilton of climate science.

    Not especially good looking but a rousing example of a good name gone bad. But the business model is good. Lots of money to be made on taking a good name and dragging it in the mud. Especially if you are a holder of such a name. Like “scientist.”

  40. This article is iconic for the very stage we are at in this debate.

    We are now seeing an ‘establishment’ deeply rattled by a rebellion by folks that have been forced to the margins. They call themselves the ‘scientific community’ while the philistines are in the ‘wild west’ or otherwise armchair critics.
    The unreflective and entirely unprepared state of the establishment was according to witnesses on full display at the announcement last week of the CRU climategate investigation team. . Roger Harrabin of the BBC was incredulous.

    Its going to be a really tough fight from now on. Its hard to believe just how much in careers, money, reputation is at stake.

    And what is this about a focus on the nitty-gritty of measurement? “small technicalities” that apparently “don’t matter” “an epic game of nitpicking” and this:

    zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines.

    Once again the ‘masses of evidence’ patch to cover over the lack of evidence into a causal link between emissions and warming – a link that is not even in the IPCC assessment as Revkin has pointed out.Revkin has pointed out.

    and then this is surely the best:

    claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science.

    Wow, like who give Yamal all the weigh it did not deserver…and isnt nitty gritty data the foundation of empirical science?? But I dont have to say it here…

    And then painting McIntyre with the greatest compliment of the rebel leader – if only he came over to our side “he could be be a superstar,”

    All this confirms that there is no doubt that the blog has served well where the normal processes of scientific review have been massively corrupted. My question is:Is it here to stay?

  41. With quotes like that, maybe Gavin should consider switching from climatology to astrology.
    It would raise the IQ levels of both disciplines.

  42. I’ve come to know more about Mr Schmidt in last few days, having late last night just finished a run through all the GISS/NASA FOI emails. That prompted me to spend, for the first time, some “quality” time at RC.

    In the QOTW he seems to be consistent with everything I saw in FOI emails and on his blog. He appears to be projecting his own personality onto Anthony.

    Has anyone seen him speak live in public? How does he come across live?

    John

  43. Ahhhhh heck . . . that is Gavin is projecting himself onto Steve McIntyre . . . My sorry excuse is no coffee yet this morning in Taipei because Statbucks is still closed for the extended Lunar New Year holiday.

    John

  44. (…) zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines. To read their online work is to enter a dank, claustrophobic universe where obsessive personalities talk endlessly about small building blocks – Yamal Peninsula trees, bristlecones, weather stations – the removal of which will somehow topple the entire edifice of climate science.

    Jeet … Small building blocks? Like actually measuring recent temperatures. Well now we might try using something like (off the top of my head)weather stations for that job.

    Or the small building blocks used to reconstruct temperatures before we had weather stations (you know, for historical context or something), Now how might we possibly do that? I know, perhaps we could try Yamal Peninsula trees and bristlecones – that sort of thing.

    We could of course discuss “massive and converging lines of evidence that are coming in from many disciplines”, feel global warming through our asses while flying or even examine animal entrails. I’m sure they are all in here somewhere. My preferred measure of global warming is temperature though. Call me a climate-change-denial crazy if you want but I just think temperatures have it all when it comes to global warming.

    [Slightly OT] The Good Bishop pointed out a blog entry by an English MP which, while I agreed with him as far as FOI is concerned, contained this little nugget ….

    Some of the data, for example concerning the location of 42 rural Chinese weather stations or the width of annual growth rings of trees in frozen Siberian bogs, might be arcane and of minute relevance to fundamental climate change questions, but it should still have been made readily available.

    Temperatures are obviously so yesterday.

  45. QUOTE:
    The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.
    END QUOTE

    So ar as I am aware, the sites referred to have an influence that is almost entirely indirect but it is about open-ness and qeustioning the science in a manner that bring clarification and understanding.

    On the other hand “scientists” like this have never once made such a public statement about the eco-activist groups like FoE, Greenpeace, Oceana etc. who have a direct influence on policy through their recognition individually as NGOs in the policy making forums of the UN such as the IPCC and IMO and so on. Then too they have acces to significant funding and for that they do not bring clarity or understanding but propaganda to the debate. They maipulate figures, data and are of course, the source of many of the “campaign documents” that mascarade as science and are exploited by the IPCC.

    That such statement are made is the measure to which, despite the cloak of scientific authority, the sophistry, the use of emotive language in scientific papers and journals, where impartial objective reporting is called for, in spite of scinetists having a political aganda as part and parcel of their role in the climate change debate that allows them to maniuplaue distort and misrepresent the truth, despite the millions of dollars that some individual scientists have had access to in the form of grants to prepra epresent and publicisse their mantra, they are failing to get their “message” across.
    What irks is that they are nnot in fact chamioning science against the likes of the eco-activist propagandists but are on the wrong side of the fence. It is they who are aligned with the the cranks and the activists and it is they who are having to defend their corruption of science and that it is all unrevelling due to the minisculy funded work of a few dedicated people who have a better grasp of what science is and should be about that is what is galling.

    The more such comments that arre made the better we will know how rattled they are and how rapidly the air is leaking from their balloon.

  46. “He [Steve McIntyre] could be a scientific superstar,” Mr. Schmidt says. “He’s a smart person. He could be adding to the sum total of human knowledge, but in effect he adds to the reduction of the sum total of human knowledge.”

    Congratulations Steve McIntyre for contributing to the sum total of vetted human knowledge! Someone has to take the trash out and you’ve been doing an excellent job cleaning up the huge mess of so many alleged scientists who let their political agenda overrule the scientific method. So once again I congratulate you for your excellent work slicing and dicing through the mythological claims of the alleged “ManN-made Global Warming” hypothesis to get to the truth. I congratulate you Steve McIntyre for having the guts to prune the tree of knowledge of it’s crud. It needs to be a bonsai tree not a sprawling mann-made mess with crud all over it that can’t support new growth rooted in facts.

    Congratulations Steve McIntyre on contributing to the sum total of accurate human scientific knowledge and for putting the mythologists and soothsayers of doom and gloom into the side-lanes of history! Epic work Steve McIntyre! Epic!

  47. “What should be deeply worrying to the scientific community is that they’ve allowed climate science to become noble cause corrupted by monied interests.”

    You mean when connected to funds raised through Heartland, CEI, Cato…….. ?

    REPLY: which are microscopic compared to the billions spent on AGW research and funding to organizations like WWF and Greenpeace. If you have a claim, step up and put your full name to it like I do. Otherwise keep your innuendo to yourself. -A

  48. From the lead article ….

    “Science journalist Chris Mooney, co-author of the 2009 book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, calls the Internet a “complete Wild, Wild West for scientific information.”

    Mr. Mooney thinks the belief in the reality of man-made global warming, which is the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, is losing ground in public opinion because of these blogs. ”

    Is AGW such a sure, substantive certainty that those who are dubious of the claim are the equivalent of ‘Creation scientists’?

    That sickens me.

  49. Well at least the “Grope and Flail” (as some of we canucks call that rag) has acknowledged there are climate skeptics. Now if only our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would do the same!!!!

  50. It is so RARE that I feel such total venom and contempt for other human beings, but the bs posted on Gavin’s taxpayer funded website make me hope he is hoisted on his own petard.
    Gavin Schmidt is MY personal lightning rod for this deception, as a resident of Colorado.
    Fie!

  51. Many thanks to those kind souls who responded to my plea for a URL above.
    Of course Anthony has now included the video clips on this blog.
    I guess I should have predicted he would do this and then I would not have bothered people with my OT request.
    Promise to do better in the future:-)

  52. He could be a scientific superstar. Like Phil Jones. Like Phil Jones before everyone could look into his superstar kitchen. Well, better not to be such a “superstar”.

  53. “The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.”

    It’s not worrying to my part of the scientific community.

  54. The sites’ rising popularity, and the growing influence they appear to wield in shaping public debate, is deeply worrying to the scientific community.

    What should be deeply worrying to the scientific community is that they’ve allowed climate science to become noble cause corrupted by monied interests. Some serious retrospection is needed.”

    That is the wrong response, and the one that the warmers were hoping to elicit. You implictly accept their assertion that ‘the scientific community’ is worried about skeptic blogs. This furthers their propaganda that scepticism over alarmist propaganda is anti science.

    Screw that.

    I am a member of the scientific community. I am not worried about these blogs. Neither are the scientists who contribute to these blogs. We scientists are worried about the decidedly unscientific behavior of a clique of politicized ‘scientists’ who have entirely too much influence over the field of climatology.

    No one who says ‘Why should I give you my data, when your purpose is to find something wrong with it’ is a member of the scientific community by definition.

    Neither is anyone who attempts to conceal the divergence problem within the proxie data, deny its necessary implications, or draw attention away from its importance by waving hands about ‘multiple converging lines of evidence’ and other propaganda techniques.

    They are agenda driven hacks, and a growing portion of the scientific community is very worried about them.

  55. I have a question to Hr. Schmidt;

    -What is the definition of “The Scientific Community” ?

    -Where can I find the AGW Theory that you claim is true?

    By comparing the definition of “The Scientific Community” to where I work, I can then establish whether Im included or excluded of this “Community”.

    I do not use Unix anymore. Not since 1995.
    I do not use Fortran anymory.Not since 1985.
    I do not like MacIntosh’es. (The are not inclusive enough)
    I am not a socialist.
    My company is owned 51% by the government,

    Included? Excluded?

  56. I think this quote of Jones earns an honourable mention, if not its own honour as quote of the week, requoted from his Nature interview with commentary mentioned here:

    http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/02/15/hunkering-down/

    “‘I don’t think we should be taking much notice of what’s on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process,’ says Jones.”

    “That’s probably not a smart thing to say, given he’s the guy who wrote this (in one of those infamous emails) to Michael Mann: ‘I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!'”

  57. I think gavin was sorta validating ronald reagan’s statement about so much of what they ‘know’ just being wrong. it must be frustrating for poor gavin to be aware of so much of his knowledge is BS and not knowing which might be knowledge versus what might merely be wishful thinking.

  58. Andy Scrase (16:48:18) :

    “help write the full story of the hacked emails scandal”

    Interesting point here.

    I fully expected my post (1st 1st for me) here to be snipped. It was intended for the “make a mod laugh at least once a week” pile. On that sequence at the Guardian I commented several times. None got through. Any mention of the work and opinion of Lindzen, Bryson, Spencer, Christy, Akafosu, etc, was removed, sometimes in moderation but mostly afterwards. I can only presume that some of the delicate “minds” posting on those pieces were so offended at anything an enemy says to add to the totality of human knowledge they felt moved to complain and have them stricken from their records.

    So, for anyone wondering why the MSM is dying, and why the great unwashed are turning to free-thinking platforms in their droves, here is a great example. I posted here expecting to get censored yet didn’t, and I posted there expecting to join the debate and got cut out.

  59. Tom P (16:21:22)…

    …led me on a wild goose chase recently by vaguely referring to a different CA thread when I asked for the provenance of a hokey stick chart he’d posted.

    After much searching and clicking on endless links at the general CA thread, containing hundreds of comments, I finally found it linked within a post.

    But in Tom P’s link in his post above, there it is, posted as a pic. I could have found it in ten seconds if he had posted that link instead. Fool me once…

    And Tom P neglected to link to the CA post that deconstructs his hokey stick treemometer chart and shows why he’s not been answered by Steve Mc — Tom is simply being a pest: click. It’s clear that Tom P would take up all the time Steve McIntyre has if he could. I wouldn’t answer him either, after his endless nitpicking, changing the subject when cornered, etc.

    Regarding the rise of skeptic blogs, their popularity is a direct result of the worldwide movement toward the elimination of free speech by a tightly controlled government/media partnership. The story of the decade is the corruption exposed in the leaked CRU emails. But how many mainstream newspapers and national magazines have covered it in depth? Answer: none. Getting the truth out is done by internet blogs, which is why they are being targeted by the Administration here, and ‘democratic’ governments around the world.

    Free speech is being extinguished. We can see it happening everywhere. This shows what is happening right now, right at this moment, in Europe: click

    That link was in response to the Dutch government’s prosecuting this elected representative for for simply exercising his right to free speech: click. That link was recorded about a year ago, so he was being very prescient. What he predicted is now happening.

    Plenty of people are threatened by the freedom of the internet, and they are intent on putting an end to it, goaded on by dinosaurs like TIME, Newsweak, the NY Times, and the rest of the lock-step old media, who are losing readers and viewers tired of being spoon-fed what they are told to think.

  60. Somebody asked to see Gavin live, here’s Gavin vs. John Christy. Don’t be too disappointed, Gavin doesn’t say “Denialosphere” once…

  61. As usual, regarding this QOTW, Schmidt is using transference (or projection) – speaking for himself whilst condemning others for his own vices.

  62. To maz2….This frontpagemag article ‘The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick’ reminds me that a few years ago, somebody organized a poll so that people could vote for the ‘the greatest Canadian ever’. My submission was Mark Steyn but regardless….the leftists mounted a strong (and ultimately successful) campaign to put Tommy Douglas over the top. If such a poll was ever held again, I propose that a grass roots movement be started to not only put Steve McIntyre on top but to push for a statue to be built in his honour. While we all owe a huge debt to many, Mr McIntyre has been a superlative representative of reason over the forces of glowbull warmist nonsense.

    On the issue of the Mop and Wail, it is frankly a sad thing to watch how this rag has sunk so low. A once proud and irreproachable paper has been breached by the unhinged. On the other hand, it is nice to see that 2 out of the 3 Toronto newspapers are not afraid to call out the glowbull warmists. A very good op-ed in the Sun today…. http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/19/12952876.html

  63. Smokey (04:34:35) : Once again, Smokey has hit the nail on the head, and used a sledgehammer to do it. Vaclav Klaus recognized early on in the game the warning signs of where the AGW agenda is headed. I could care less if some of you do not like the nature of my posts. I intend to make everyone that I can aware of the direction the AGW ideology is taking the world (clue; sadly, it has nothing to do with science or saving the planet). I hope to do this before we are all muzzled. Thank you, Anthony, for being given the opportunity to post my opinions on your blog !!

  64. I would like to add that people need to realize we are not “the man”. Those who back AGW are supporting and being supported by “the man”. Wake up.

  65. H. L. Mencken:

    Nine times out of ten, in the arts as in life, there is actually no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.

  66. Just think that 100 years ago some guys with names starting with M were trying to measure the Ether Wind. And look how that turned out. If they’d only kept their heads down and listened to Conan Doyle.

  67. Incredible. What scientific community is deeply worried about this shaping of public debate? It’s not the entire scientific community, is it? Or, is it that portion of the scientific community that is sucking up taxpayer dollars (stimulus funds?) for research that will certainly not provide the broad swath of humanity with anything to better their lives.

  68. JeffK (15:13:18) :
    Do you ever notice how liberals, when they go to attack somone they perceive to be a threat, actually wind up describing themselves?

    That’s called “projection,” Jeff. I’ve seen some hilarious examples from Lefty commenters on milblogs.

Comments are closed.