The Daily Lew – Issue 5

(See the update below where SkS compares Climate Skeptics to the Viet Cong along with needing….”a conspiracy to save humanity”.)

LewWorld continues to crumble from within and Skeptical Science has been exposed as conspiracy theory central, according to Dr. Judith Curry, who sums up your failure quite well:

The latest ‘explanation’ for lack of belief in the IPCC consensus ‘truth’ is that these non believers are conspiracy theorists.  See Stephan Lewandowsky’s editorial Evidence is overrated if you are a conspiracy theorist.  Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey.  Bloggers such as Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs).  BS detection in action.  While I have used the term ‘auditors’ for deep investigations of problems with climate data, BS detection seems much more apt for this particular issue.

Lew, get a clew.  I hope this experience with the skeptical bloggers has revealed what they are really all about, as they have revealed YOUR conspiracy by finding a really big pile.

The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers  has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum (link).  SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers.  All this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars.  But take a step back, and consider how bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.

Read her post here.

Meanwhile, Steve McIntyre is collecting data on who actually took the survey, if you took the survey in 2010, then please note it in a comment here.

==============================================================

UPDATE: I had pretty much ignored the SkS forum dump when it was happening, thinking that perhaps they were being treated unfairly, but since Cook has gone a bridge too far now with this Lewandowsky mess, I no longer feel the need to hold back on what is going on behind the scenes over there.

Here is Glenn Tamblyn (Skeptical Science author/moderator) secretly conversing with his SkS pals on their off limits forum and saying “we need a conspiracy to save humanity”. The Viet Cong comparison is a nice touch too. There’s talk of convening a “war council” too.

And this isn’t about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks…. Our Monckton’s … Our assassins.

Anyone got Bill Gates’ private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.

..So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up…Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

[As quoted by Geoff Chambers in this Bishop Hill thread. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/26/opengate-josh-158.html?currentPage=2#comments ]

So, who are the nutters again?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Stephan Lewandowsky and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to The Daily Lew – Issue 5

  1. steve says:

    I converted one warmist to skepticism just by going through the graphs of global temperatures over the past few million years. This blog is to be highly commended on linking to the actual data.

    After the occasional hysterical headline about arctic ice death spirals, I always show my partner the WUWT linked graphs of arctic and global sea ice cover and ask her to compare the graphs with the article. She always comes away shocked at the difference.

    I always was of the impression that 99% of what is written about global climate change is actually regional weather. And the millions of words written about whether polar bear numbers are up or down neglects the fact that polar bears are not big fluffy proxy global thermometers.

  2. Skiphil says:

    ***BREAKING***
    urge all to monitor this situation, take screen shots etc.
    Lewandowsky’s blog subsidiary of the SkepticalScience blog is now slashing more inconvenient comments, re-writing thread histories to excise unwelcome criticism:

    Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
    Conspiracy theorist Stephan Lewandowsky, in keeping with SkS style, has rewritten the history of his blog hosted by the University of Western Australia.

    Tom Fuller, who does online commercial surveys for a living, has sharply criticized the Lewandowsky’s tainted methodology – a methodology that relied on fake data to yield fake results.

    Instead of responding to Fuller’s criticism, Lewandowsky has disappeared every single comment by Fuller on the following threads (and presumably all threads)…. [see CA link]

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/15/lewandowskys-pogrom/

    ===============================================================

    Can something be both outrageous and hilarious? This is….

    Now they will need to start snipping some of their loyal bots such as JBowers, whose response to a Foxgoose comment is now referring to a *future* comment (JBowers in #84 is now referring to #89 not yet made, according to the server’s revised numbering scheme):

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=119&&n=161

    84. J Bowers at 21:57 PM on 11 September, 2012

    Foxgoose, possibly yes. Read Geoffchambers’ comment #89 and feel free to explain how John Cook could possibly be sockpuppeting.

  3. F. Ross says:

    <blockquote
    Skiphil says:
    September 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
    Can something be both outrageous and hilarious? This is….

    …a “Lew-Loo”!

  4. WTF says:

    Skiphil…perhaps they are playing 99 bottles of beer on the wall and starting at 100 ;-)

  5. stephen richards says:

    You have to agree that these AGWs are great entertainment if not very smart.

  6. Gunga Din says:

    Those of you out there are not skeptics, if the evidence was so strong in favor of CAGW, why would the “believers” need to stoop to such nonsence?
    Ask yourself, “When did this all start and who started it? Who started it and what did they have to gain?”
    The “evidence” that what is going on with the weather (or climate) is Man’s fault is so weak. The “evidence” that Man can do anything to control the weather is even weaker.
    But they need you to continue to believe them and vote to support their nonsense.
    Again, ask yourself, “When did this all start and who started it? Who started it and what did they have to gain?”

  7. MarkW says:

    Is this guy actually suggesting that Gleick was fighting within Queensbury rules?

  8. Mike Haseler says:

    Can I make a simple plea:

    To sceptics: Stephan Lewandowsky is an angry person trying to hit out at us sceptics because he does not understand us. The more we attack him, the more he sees us as cold hearted vindictive people acting to stop him “saving the world” as he would see it.

    Stephen has made mistakes. He has overstepped what is acceptable for research, that is not acceptable. But neither is some witch hunt against hum because his action was only possible because he failed to see the humanity in us. The more we attack him, the more we confirm his stereotype of cold hearted people driven by some inhuman “driving force” which is why he tries to rationalise our behaviour with this crazy idea of a conspiracy.

    As for Stephen. Can you not see how much you have hurt us? I know you intended to do good, but you are attacking good people who do not deserve to be treated like you this way.

    Please please! Just apologise and let’s have an end of it.

  9. WTF says:

    Gunga Din….It all started when our Colleges and Universities in Canada and the US started handing out degrees like so many prizes in Cracker Jack boxes. AS Kate at SDA asks…what is the opposite of diversity? University!

  10. Heggs says:

    Im too fat to fit in a chu chi tunnel! I suppose I could by a bicycle and move rice and beer?

  11. temp says:

    Both amusing and scary at the same time. These religious nuts are great. [snip -OTT] Yet they have demanded we be rounded up, jailed, put in “education camps”, put on trial for war crimes/crimes against humanity and a host of other things. They not only have demanded it they have tried to push laws to enact these ends….for what?

    Simply because we don’t believe in the doomsday cult they belong too. They talk about “survival” but its the cultist who would gladly cut away the “dead wood” as we have been called in the past and bring about the new utopia. [snip -OTT]

  12. Kevin Kilty says:

    … And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this.

    Wire fraud is mainstream?

  13. WTF says:

    Mike Haseler says:…….

    I don’t really think anyone gives a **** what SL thinks about them. The point of all this is to constantly expose the utter hypocracy of people like him an hold them accountable for their actions. Anthony etal do a great service in this regard.

  14. cui bono says:

    Mike Haseler says (September 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm)
    “To sceptics: Stephan Lewandowsky is an angry person…”

    Isn’t it the sceptics who should be bloody angry at all these shenanigans? Mann, Gleick, Cook, Lew…

    If they are going back to the 1960s with references to the Viet Cong, I’m reminded of JFKs response to Bertrand Russell during the missile crisis: “I think your attention might well be directed to the burglars rather than to those who caught the burglars.”

  15. Dave says:

    One suggestion to Mr. Tamblyn… Prozac!

  16. richardscourtney says:

    Mike Haseler:

    I reject your “simple plea” at September 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm and I call on all others to reject it, too.

    It is time the public were made aware that the alarmists have deliberately destroyed careers of honest scientists who refused to toe the AGW line, have destroyed reputations of decent people who questioned their AGW-faith, have damaged the practice of science by damaging the peer review process and usurping the Executive Committees of Scientific Institutions, and etc..

    Whenever something like the Lewandowsky affair occurs then we need to do all possible to expose it.

    Richard

  17. richardK says:

    Mike Haseler
    Chairman, Scottish Climate and Energy Forum
    SCEF aims to support government, communities and the people of Scotland to make the best decisions on climate and energy for the benefit of us all.

    Please add: I believe in Rodney King’s statement, “Can’t we all get along?”. Just because some people make up data, rig surveys, conspire with others to stamp out debate and receive government funding doesn’t mean they are bad people. They just care more at any cost. Wow!

  18. temp says:

    Must agree with richardscourtney. This has become much more then just “The Lew”. If he had floated this turd and then backed away maybe he would be allowed to dive back in the sewers.

    However thats not what happened. What happened was it passed peer, it was picked up by the press, it has and will be for years to attacked people unjustly with. Worse is that he is not only defending it he is actively going the extra mile to defend it when its clear to anyone the turd is a turd.

    This is no longer just about the study.
    Its about how its passed peer review, who reviewed it, how it passed,
    Its about why the study was even done, who paid for it and a host of other things.
    Its about how he has defended it, the other defenders and groups working to defend it.
    Most of all its about the true goal of the study and how it would be used to attack anyone who doesn’t believe in the religion of global warming.

    This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.

  19. Ed_B says:

    ” Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time”

    Ahh.. only in a sane world where democratic governments actually cared about the taxpayer, instead of only pushing their agenda upon taxpayers, whatever the cost.

  20. Steve C says:

    This is becoming absolutely mindboggling. To use their own phrase, it really does begin to look like a “death spiral” … Reality check: it is all really happening, isn’t it? It’s getting almost impossible to believe, like a totally overdone Hunter S. Thompson scenario when you’re not ‘chemically enhanced’ enough yourself.

  21. Mike Haseler says:

    WTF, cui bono, richardscourtney, richardK, I did not say we didn’t have a right to be angry.

    A few months ago a minister of religion from a Iona (an ancient seat of religion in Scotland) on the highest profile BBC program likened us ordinary sceptics in the UK to “paedophiles and sex traders”. I have a family and children, so you can imagine how absolutely appalling that kind of slander was. There is no doubt we have been treated absolutely appalling largely egged on by people like Stephen.

    However, I used to be part of the Greens in the UK. I even was briefly selected to stand for the Scottish Parliament. I know these people are on the whole just as good as anyone here. I would not say that every green is perfect but on the whole their intention was good. Mistaken yes, but bad no.

    That doesn’t make what Stephen did right. However, when our argument is that he has unjustly pursued a vendetta against us, it doesn’t help at all if we then carry out a vendetta against him.

  22. ttfn says:

    “And the skeptics are the Viet Cong… Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all.”

    Maybe we should invite Jane over to sit on our anti-aircraft guns. Oh wait! Since the indiscretions of her youth, she’s firmly on the side of the Gentlemen now. Greg should also approach Ted and Soros for a much needed infusion of cash. It breaks my heart to see these poor crusaders forced into a dark room with barely a tic tac between them.

  23. WTF says:

    Mike H I appreciate and respect your point of view on this matter. I really do. I have to say though that our definitions of ‘good people’ may come from different dictionaries.

  24. kenskingdom says:

    Richard Courtney
    I agree totally. They’re not worried about who they destroy. Up ‘em!
    Ken

  25. temp says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    “I would not say that every green is perfect but on the whole their intention was good.”

    Ever hear the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”. I could say that before socialism was defined as socialism through science this was the phase that was placed upon this ideology.

    Whatever they believe about the supposed “good intentions” is meaningless. Hitler, stalin, mao, hundreds of others have had “good intentions”. What about all those eugenics professors…

    “Good intentions” are the enemy of a free and just people….

  26. David Ross says:

    Once he discovers our secret jungle hideout, perhaps he’ll carpet-bomb us with Agent Orange, to flush us out.

    Somebody ought to inform the the poor delusional soul that the type of people most likely to back his campaign (e.g. Ted Turner, who was married to “Hanoi” Jane) have, shall we say, a bit of a soft spot for the Viet Cong.

  27. David L says:

    Nice analogy to Viet Cong. They realize they won, right? Glad by analogy the skeptics are on the winning side by their admission.

  28. Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Mike, I remember John Bell’s comments. I’ve done a wonderful music workshop with John Bell and I adore his music, he is gifted, sensitive, original, very special. So is the Iona community he belongs to.

    But his comments about climate scientists were rude and ignorant cr*p. I have to separate the two parts of this person. I have to do the same for Prince Charles too.

    I intended to email Bell direct but never did. However, I suggest you might like to email both Bell and Lewindowksy direct.

  29. Lew Skannen says:

    “We need our own … …. Our Monckton’s …”

    Monckton? Is that the same Lord Monckton that they constantly try and tell us is just a useless buffoon? The guy who knows no science and is wrong about everything? The guy who is totally irrelevant and not worth debating? etc

    This is the funniest bit of the whole set of revelations!!
    Lord Monckton really has these people spooked.
    Three cheers for Lord Monckton!!!!

  30. John Whitman says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    That doesn’t make what Stephen did right. However, when our argument is that he has unjustly pursued a vendetta against us, it doesn’t help at all if we then carry out a vendetta against him.

    = = = = = =

    Mike Haseler,

    I do not think exposing every aspect of Stephen L’s actively sustained lack of integrity in his attempt to achieve victory for his ’cause’ is a vendetta against him; nor do I think that publicizing his obviously non-scientific behavior done in the very name of science is a vendetta against him . . . it is just that it very important to find the truth about him and tell it widely. Exposure of his case is important to highlight the alarming trend of intolerance of critical (aka skeptical) thinking by the CAGW alarmist advocates (like Stephen L) representing themselves as objective scientists.

    We just must be very sure that every detail any of his BS that we find is documented and told to the general public repeatedly. That is all.

    The evidence is pointing toward Stephen L. being an shocking example of a scientist who, in the name of science, is trying to use intellectual violence against those skeptical of his biased version science.

    John

  31. Barry Woods says:

    Monckton is part of the problem, why do you think the ‘concerned’ focus on him so much..

    I totally agree with Mike Haseler.

    I also hope the mods could take a look at – Temp – comment earlier in the thread. and snip a totally inappropriate sentence. That I utterly detest, and do want to be any part of it.

    I will not repeat it, it should be obvious that some of that comment (if not all) is totally inapropriate here, or anywhere.. of course that is my own opinion..

    But I might add to Mike Haseler’s comment.

    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action. Not realising if all sceptic blogs (and theor own conspiracy theor fossil fuel funded thinktanks, even Senator Inholf, etc) disapeared tomorrow for a years sabatical.

    Nothing would change economically and politically. Kyoto would remain dead, nothing will replace it because the devlping world will not stop growing their ecomonies, which depend on fossil fuels fro growth, and will do for decade. total impasse, and of course solar, wind, renewables are not up to the job to provide our energy requirments.

    sceptics are ‘angry’ by ‘scared, irrational, emotive peoples’ comments lashing back is the problem. They ”need’ angry deniers and the too groups shouting each other, less having to confront these real world realities, and reason for political will fading away and they will get angrier, as they get more scared about the lack of action.

    That, of course as always, is just my own (albeit strong ) opinion.

  32. Andy W says:

    Lew Skannen says @ September 15, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    My thoughts exactly Lew. If Monckton really is the clown the warmists say he is, why do they need ‘a Monckton’.
    Finally we know: the superb oratory skill of Lord M has really got the warmists spooked.
    Keep it coming my Lord, the warmists are on the run!

  33. Jimbo says:

    Our ‘side’ has got to get professional, ASAP. We don’t need to blog. We need to network……………….And the skeptics are the Viet Cong……………..Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history………….we need a conspiracy to save humanity.

    Calm down now. Save humanity from what? Who won the Vietnam War? The guerilla force is deserting.

    These people have left the reservation. They still think they can win with lies, propaganda and attempts at conspiracies.

  34. Barry Woods says:

    Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions

  35. David Ross says:

    We have to distinguish between the majority who are well meaning and generally civil and the zealots without scruple. Lewandowsky is clearly in the second category and deserves no quarter.

    Mike Haseler wrote:

    I know these people are on the whole just as good as anyone here.

    Agreed. But, in a sense that is the problem. A good person wants to save the planet if they think it is in danger. And what cannot be justified to ‘save the planet’? Young people are especially vulnerable to ideologues who can harness that kind of motivation.

    Comparisons between the “anti-globalization” mobs that run riot every year and Mao’s Red Guards, for example, are valid.

    people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history

    A Boot Camp For Rebellion
    St Petersburg Times, March 14, 2000

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031400-05.htm

    [...]
    Atop the scaffold fluttered a flag depicting a pair of mechanical gears jammed by a big monkey wrench, and the words “The Ruckus Society.” The portly man eyed the flag, puffed out a nimbus of smoke and asked a passer-by, “What’s a ruckus?”

    A ruckus is what happened in Seattle last fall, when thousands of activists trained and coordinated by the Ruckus Society disrupted the World Trade Organization meeting. Now the Ruckus Society is training the next generation of protesters to take on everyone from the World Bank to General Motors to both political conventions.

    “We’re the nation’s boot camp for civil disobedience,” said Lou Niles of San Diego, at 53 the oldest member of the group and a ramrod-straight retired Army officer who became a paramedic to atone for what he did in Vietnam.

    On a bluff overlooking the Peace River near Arcadia, the Ruckus Society this week is staging its first Alternative Spring Break. To the nation’s college students, Ruckus organizers said: Instead of joining the drunken throngs getting a nasty sunburn on the beaches of Fort Lauderdale, why not attend a wilderness camp for free training in political theater?
    [...]
    The camp — sponsored by the Rainforest Action Network, the student group Free the Planet and the anti-global warming group Ozone Action — attracted 80 participants who paid their way to the Peace River Campground.
    [...]
    On Sunday morning, about the time the good burghers of Arcadia were getting dressed for church, the campers stood in a circle and called out their names and causes: the AIDS awareness group Act Up!, United Students Against Sweatshops, the Houston Animal Rights Team.
    [...]
    Standing quietly among the tattooed multitude was a graying man clad in black: Bill Carey of the United Steelworkers of America in Gary, Ind., whose union wants to learn how to raise a Ruckus.

    “This is sort of a natural growth for us,” he said.
    [...]
    Because Ruckus camps focus on tactics, not polemics, its sleeping bags are often occupied by strange bedfellows. Past camps put anti-gun-control libertarians with anti-hunting activists and paired abortion rights and anti-abortion protesters.
    [...]
    They staged a role-playing exercise with students playing protesters, police, reporters and corporate executives. A melee ensued, with panicky “police” swinging clubs, hissing as if they were spraying tear gas and dragging a woman out screaming. One faux protester, Peter Tsolkas of Clearwater, suffered a real asthma attack unnoticed.

    “It was intense,” the screamer, Charlotte Noss, said afterward … Her next step may be what Ruckus calls a “direct action.”

    We’re coming to a crunch point,” Noss said. “They’re not listening to us.”

    More and more groups are turning to civil disobedience to push their agenda, whether it’s a parade of celebrities getting arrested to protest a New York police shooting or a pair of Florida legislators staging a sit-in at the governor’s office over affirmative action. Law-abiding groups are turning to Ruckus to learn how to stage an event with precision and panache.

    “What they showed us at the WTO is that this really works,” said Ozone Action’s Brandon MacGillis.
    [...]
    This was Ruckus’ founder, 45-year-old Mike Roselle, whose work with Ruckus, Greenpeace and the radical environmental group Earth First! have led to him being arrested more than 40 times.
    [...]
    In five years Ruckus has trained about 2,000 activists. Each camp costs Ruckus about $30,000 to $40,000, paid for by donors like Ted Turner.

    When Roselle launched Ruckus five years ago, donors were scarce. Foundation officials would say, “You teach people to break the law.” Roselle said he prefers to think of it as teaching people to “intervene in immoral situations on behalf of a higher law.”

    But in the post-Seattle glow, Ruckus is being viewed as not only legitimate but even powerful. There is talk of making Ruckus more of a gang of freelance samurai, providing tactical services to environmental and human rights organizations.

    “Now we’re dealing with all this euphoria,” Roselle grumbled. “Now people think they can go shut down any international meeting any time.”

    The truth is, he said, that Ruckus’ training camps tend to attract more media attention — from the Wall Street Journal, Mademoiselle and, most recently, the New Yorker — than the protests they spawn.

    Sellers joked that Ruckus “will weather this storm of approval” with its bad reputation intact. But Passacantando contends the climate has changed, and an American public weary of corporate greed is ready to embrace what Ruckus represents.

    “This too is what democracy looks like,” Passacantando said. “It’s not just pulling the voting lever.”

    This is “post-normal” “participatory democracy”. Ozone Action merged with Greenpeace shortly after. John Passacantando, who attended this camp, became Director of Greenpeace.

  36. Jimbo says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    Can I make a simple plea:………………

    Mikey, Mike this is Guerrilla warfare. Take no hostages. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. He egged sceptics on with his inflammatory paper title so he deserves all he gets. This is not over yet.

    PS. The Moon landings DID take place. Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon. CAGW is a scam.

  37. Nick says:

    Anthony, perhaps you have seen this quote attributed to Richard Feynman in an interview he gave (I can’t verify the accuracy of the quote, as I lifted it from a blog dedicated to an unrelated topic, but where controversy also exists). It seems to fit in your Daily Lew files and seems worth dusting off:

    In an interview Feynman gave, he had this to say:

    “Because of the success of science there is a kind of a…I think a kind of pseudoscience, social science is an example of a science which is not a science. They don’t do scientific…they follow the forms…you gather data, you do so and so and so forth but they don’t get any laws, they haven’t found anything, they haven’t got anywhere yet, maybe someday they will but it’s not very well developed, but what happens is…even on a more mundane level we get experts on everything. They sound like a sort of scientific experts. They are not scientists. They sit at the typewriter and make up something like, ‘food grown with fertilizer that’s organic is better for you than food that’s grown with fertilizer that’s inorganic.’ Maybe true but it hasn’t been demonstrated one way or the other but they sit there on the typewriter and make up all that stuff as if its science and then become experts on food, organic foods and so on. There is all kind of myths and pseudoscience all over the place. Now, I might be quite wrong, maybe they do know all these things but I don’t think I’m wrong. You see, I have the advantage of having found out how hard it is to know something, how careful you have to be about checking the experiments, how easy it is to make mistakes and fool yourself. I know what it means to know something and therefore I can’t…I see how they get their information and I can’t believe that they know it. They haven’t done the work necessary, haven’t done the checks necessary, haven’t done the care necessary. I have a great suspicion that they don’t know that this stuff is…and they are intimidating people by it. I think so. I don’t know the world very well…that’s what I think.”

  38. Jimbo says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    ……………………….
    However, I used to be part of the Greens in the UK. I even was briefly selected to stand for the Scottish Parliament. I know these people are on the whole just as good as anyone here. I would not say that every green is perfect but on the whole their intention was good. Mistaken yes, but bad no.

    Mike, you need to wake up and smell the Nescafe. Would you like it roasted or instant?

    http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html

    http://www.green-agenda.com

    We are dealing with mostly selfish people who only want survival for themselves. Caring about the environment & reducing co2 is just a ruse to reduce the world’s population as much as possible while keeping themselves and their genetic offspring alive. Just ask Prince Phillip who is worried about overpopulation and has 4 kids. Did I mention James Cameron??? Google Mr. Cameron and his lifestyle. ;-)

  39. Jimbo says:

    Barry Woods says:
    September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm
    ……………………………
    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy……….

    I refer you to my comment above.

    I have children and I want to live in a safe world. What makes these green fools think I love my children less than theirs. This is the problem – the Messiah Syndrome – it has killed many people. Just ask that chap with a short mustache who expired at the end of WW2. I vaguely recall that he was a vegetarian green who was passionate about the environment.

  40. temp says:

    Barry Woods says:
    September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    “I also hope the mods could take a look at – Temp – comment earlier in the thread. and snip a totally inappropriate sentence. That I utterly detest, and do want to be any part of it.

    I will not repeat it, it should be obvious that some of that comment (if not all) is totally inapropriate here, or anywhere.. of course that is my own opinion..”

    Not seeing it… o and the ad hom is a great argument…

    “Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action.”

    Wow really? You mean like hitler and the jews? Jonestown? Or stalin/mao with capitalists/host of other things… you mean exactly as I had stated above? Who knew?

    The “they genuinely believe” BS is just that BS. Your like the chinese farmer who marching along, stopping every few minutes and hearing guns shots. You see some other chinese farmer getting ready to jump the guard and make a run for it. You turn to him and say “Don’t use violence because that means that Mao has won”. Along you march…. until the march ends…

    “Sceptics are ‘angry’ by ‘scared, irrational, emotive peoples’ comments lashing back is the problem. They ”need’ angry deniers and the too groups shouting each other, less having to confront these real world realities, and reason for political will fading away and they will get angrier, as they get more scared about the lack of action.”

    Skeptics have played the lay down and take it for more then long enough. Unlike you who seems to live in a fantasy land where everything just “works itself out for everyone”. The real world is hardly as nice or forgiving to those or lay down and take it…

  41. hro001 says:

    Barry Woods says: September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy

    Apart from the fact that I’m not sure how you would have a greater understanding of the “motives of many of the most vocal advocates” than any other skeptic, academics who want their work to have our respect have a responsibility to conduct themselves with a modicum of professionalism – regardless of their personal beliefs (“genuine” or not).

    Lewandowsky, Gleick, Mann et al have failed that test abysmally. Considering that those in the mainstream media continue to be remiss in investigating and highlighting such failures, then – as one who recalls that “silence is acquiescence” – I have to ask why should we not shout about their failures, follies and foibles from the rooftops?!

  42. davidmhoffer says:

    Barry Woods;
    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You have it exactly backwards. Those who shout d-nier have a clear and obvious motive, which is to discredit the skeptics without having to discuss the science at all.

    Those who discuss the science in support of the CAGW meme have motives that are less clear. They come from a spectrum ranging from those who genuinely believe the science supports their position, to those who simply are misrepresenting if for their own purposes. Except for the most egregious examples of misrepresentation, it is difficult to tell the difference.

    But when someone puts a label on their opponent, the purpose can only be to dehumanize and discredit the opponent without regard to the facts and logic of their position. This is history repeating itself. We can only hope that in this case those who dehumanize and discredit their opponents to serve their own purposes will fail to force the rest of us to repear the darkest chapters of human history along with them.

  43. Skeptik says:

    I am becoming confused, the Viet Cong are communist and I thought we were supposed to be NAZI’s.

  44. Mike D in AB says:

    Barry Woods @ 3:39 pm: Their motives shouldn’t enter into it. As stated above, “they” are acting like a doomsday cult. If we don’t agree that the world is going to come to an end then why should we agree to proscriptions upon our wealth and freedoms? The “Heavens Gate” cult wanted you to castrate yourself and commit suicide while covering yourself in a purple cloth. You obviously didn’t do that (in time to catch the Hale-Bopp comet), so you didn’t listen to other well meaning people who only had your best long-term interests in mind (that is, good intentions). Indeed, the “solutions” will likely kill millions with the banning of cheap energy sources and by artificially raising the cost of the goods for the emerging nations that could help lift billions out of poverty. The intentions may be good, but they are dooming billions to lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. The very real deprivations that are caused are much worse, to me, than a change of 2 degrees in the next century.

    On a side note, I live in Alberta, Canada. For most of the last 100,000 years, the current location of my home has been under a kilometer of ice. We are in an interglacial. Why on earth do you want the ice back?

  45. John Whitman says:

    Barry Woods says: September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy

    = = = = =

    Barry Woods,

    I suggest that those of us who went to university in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s at very liberal public institutions do understand firsthand the motives of the current climate change advocates. We saw the first appearance of movements that transformed themselves into the modern ideological radical movements that inform the CAGW science research.

    I was there as a young engineering student and the weirdness motivated me to make sure I understood.

    John

  46. P. Solar says:

    Glenn Tamblyn
    >>
    Not fighting like ‘Gentlemen’ at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don’t know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging.
    >>
    Is that like Blackberry Rules or did he mean Queensbury ??

    So Glieck’s wire fraud and impersonating a board member was playing fair , Right. And skeptics are playing rough by calling out bogus science and checking the data. The bastards !! How daire they?

    >> Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history.

    Guerillas ?? Bunch of monkeys more like.
    I’m really tempted to laugh at all this but that would be so… so unfair.

  47. sorepaw says:

    This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.

    These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.

    First, the identities of the reviewers aren’t supposed to be revealed to the corresponding author of the submitted manuscript, and it’s very unlikely that the editor in chief at Psychological Science will tell anyone else who they are. (In a criminal investigation, he might be compelled to do so, but the probability of a criminal investigation of the Lewandowsky et al. paper has to be very low).

    Second, we don’t know who the “action editor” was for Lewandowsky et al. At a journal the size of Psychological Science it usually won’t be the editor in chief. Assuming the typical practice of bringing in three reviewers, the action editor can overrule one, two, even all three in deciding whether to accept or reject (just how easily depends on the number overruled, and the journal’s internal culture, including the likelihood of an adverse reaction from the editor in chief). So we cannot be sure, without actually seeing the reviews, whether all three (or however many) overlooked all of the faults in the Lewandowsky paper and waved it through to publication.

    Third, reviewers for academic journals are not financially compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.

    The most that can be expected out of the existing system is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from emulating his example.

    I doubt UWA will investigate him unless there is a retraction and the stated reason for the retraction is outright data faking or misleading data presentation that rises to the level of fraud. If it’s merely for incompetence and unacceptably poor reporting of method and results, with a side helping of political bias, chances are no official action will be taken against him.

    I’m assuming that Lewandowsky is a tenured full professor (whatever the Oz equivalent title for this is) and he is almost surely not going to be fired from his position unless he is nailed for fraud.

    I’m not saying that all of this is fair—parts of it obviously aren’t—but it is how the system works.

    Keep in mind that university administrators prefer to cover up malfeasance by university employees whenever possible— in order to minimize bad publicity for the institution.

    Look how difficult it has proven, so far, to nail Michael Mann…

  48. TomRude says:

    So an academic’s article is shown to be badly flawed and we are the bad guys?

  49. Robert Austin says:

    Barry Woods says:
    September 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions

    It is quite obvious from Glenn Tamblyn’s “pep talk”, that these people are just whipping each other up into a frenzy. So how do you deal with intellectually berserk people who just happen to be in positions of authority. Do you turn the other cheek as Mike Haseler would have us do? The problem is that a collegial style of scientific debate achieves little when dogmatic belief holds sway. Witness the longevity of the execrable Doran/Zimmerman paper. That report was a steaming pile but the resultant 97% meme just keeps on popping up. Should we, by being considerate of Lewandowsky’s alleged humanity, allow Lewandowsky’s skeptics = conspiracy theorists “finding” to gain a toehold? I do not think so. Lewandowsky is a member of Cook’s secret forum and the secret communications show that they consider themselves to be at war with skeptics. When one side declares war, the other side is, de facto, in a state of war.

  50. sorepaw says:

    This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.

    These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.

    First, the identities of the reviewers aren’t supposed to be revealed to the author of the submitted manuscript, and it’s very unlikely that the editor in chief at Psychological Science will tell anyone else who they are. (In a criminal investigation, he could be compelled to do so, but the probability of a criminal investigation of the Lewandowsky et al. paper has to be very low).

    Second, we don’t know who the “action editor” was for Lewandowsky et al. At a journal the size of Psychological Science it usually won’t be the editor in chief. Assuming the typical practice of bringing in three reviewers, the action editor can overrule one, two, even all three reviewers in deciding whether to accept or reject (just how easily depends on the number overruled, the journal’s internal culture, and the likelihood of an adverse reaction from the editor in chief). So we cannot be sure, without actually seeing the reviews, whether all three (or however many) overlooked all of the faults in the Lewandowsky paper and waved it through to publication.

    Third, reviewers for academic journals are not compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.

    The most that can be expected is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from pulling similar stunts.

    I doubt his institution will investigate unless there is a retraction and the stated reason for the retraction is outright data faking or misleading data presentation that rises to the level of fraud. If it’s merely for incompetence and unacceptably poor reporting of method and results, with a heaping helping of political bias, chances are that no official action will be taken against him.

    I’m assuming that Lewandowsky is a tenured full professor (or whatever the Oz equivalent title for this is) and he is almost surely not going to be fired from his position unless he is nailed for fraud.

    I’m not saying that all of this is fair—parts of it obviously aren’t—but it is how the system works.

    Keep in mind that university administrators prefer to cover up malfeasance by university employees whenever possible, in order to minimize bad publicity for the institution.

    Look how difficult it has proven, so far, to nail Michael Mann…

  51. sorepaw says:

    This study is so clearly a joke that it is the perfect rallying call to start pushing for change and holding people accountable. The reviews should be fired and disgraced, the study should be retracted and “The Lew” should be put out on the street… and thats the low end. Really he should be made to pay back much of his pay and grant money or face jail time.

    These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.

    First, the identities of the reviewers aren’t supposed to be revealed to the author of the submitted manuscript, and it’s very unlikely that the editor in chief at Psychological Science will tell anyone else who they are. (In a criminal investigation, he could be compelled to do so, but the probability of a criminal investigation of the Lewandowsky et al. paper has to be very low).

    Second, we don’t know who the “action editor” was for Lewandowsky et al. At a journal the size of Psychological Science it usually won’t be the editor in chief. Assuming the typical practice of bringing in three reviewers, the action editor can overrule one, two, even all three reviewers in deciding whether to accept or reject (just how easily depends on the number overruled, the journal’s internal culture, and the likelihood of an adverse reaction from the editor in chief). So we cannot be sure, without actually seeing the reviews, whether all three (or however many) overlooked all of the faults in the Lewandowsky paper and waved it through to publication.

  52. sorepaw says:

    Third, reviewers for academic journals are not compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.

    The most that can be expected is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from pulling similar stunts.

  53. sorepaw says:

    Third, reviewers for academic journals are not compensated for reviewing (a journal article manuscript is not like an academic book manuscript, where the publisher might pay $75 or $100 on receipt of a complete reviewer report) and it would take deliberate collusion in some spectacular fraud to get a reviewer in hot water with the institution that actually pays him or her.

    The most that can be expected is that Lewandowsky et al.’s article is formally retracted by Psychological Science and Lewandowsky suffers some degree of professional ignominy in the aftermath. If such consequences are vigorously publicized in the blogosphere, Lewandowsky may be further discredited and others deterred from pulling similar stunts.

    I doubt his institution will investigate unless there is a retraction and the stated reason for the retraction is outright data faking or misleading data presentation that rises to the level of fraud. If it’s merely for incompetence and unacceptably poor reporting of method and results, with a heaping helping of political bias, chances are that no official action will be taken against him.

  54. temp says:

    sorepaw says:
    September 15, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    “These outcomes are unlikely, for a variety of reasons.”

    Sadly i agree the chances of anything happening are small. However it is probably the best piece of meat they’ve thrown us since climategate. If traction can be made and speed build, the house of cards will get knocked over with amazing speed. Its just getting that traction to start is always the hardest part.

  55. jorgekafkazar says:

    Nick says: “Anthony, perhaps you have seen this quote attributed to Richard Feynman in an interview he gave (I can’t verify the accuracy of the quote…”

    “Because of the success of science there is a kind of a…I think a kind of…

    The quote is accurate. Here is the primary source:

    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/04/19/richard-feynman-the-pleasure-of-finding-things-out/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timferriss+%28The+Blog+of+Author+Tim+Ferriss%29

    The quote starts at ~42:50. Feynman also says: “You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. i thnk it’s much more interesting to live not knowing, than to have answers which might be wrong.”

  56. sorepaw says:

    Sorry for the duplication up above. I couldn’t see any of my posts until several minutes after entering them…

  57. nemo says:

    sorepaw, this *is* a moderated forum. have a little patience? :)

  58. nemo says:

    @sorepaw … oh. and if you didn’t see “this comment is awaiting moderation” you might be using cookie blocking. Should consider whitelisting the site in the future.

  59. zefal says:

    (JBowers in #84 is now referring to #89 not yet made, according to the server’s revised numbering scheme)

    I’m pretty sure they created a wormhole. They bent the fabric of HTML and time!

  60. Alex says:

    Hi, this is only marginally relevant to the topic, but maybe an idea… Has anyone looked at the correlation between supporting AGW and rejecting GMOs ? Now that is a field rife with denial of scientific data and conspiracy theories all on the green side.

  61. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    TomRude said on September 15, 2012 at 7:27 pm:

    So an academic’s article is shown to be badly flawed and we are the bad guys?

    Well, we did announce it rather publicly and outside the accepted bounds of (academic) decency, like proclaiming to everyone within earshot that his zipper was down, thus we were rather rude.

    Actually we noted it while Lewandowsky was strutting around his campus performing his interpretation of “Paul Reubens enjoys a movie“, which was extremely rude of us.

    We didn’t even wait until he published!

  62. Barry Woods says:

    Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.. rather than hang around our own sceptics ‘cyber ghettoes’ to find out what they yreally hink, not my own (and other sceptics) pre-conceptions..

    someone mentionsd the 97%
    Well, I wrote about it hereat WUWT (found the orignal suvey – no one else had)

    Someone metioned Peter Glieck, well I talked to him to. A few climate scientsist defended me when he publically labellebed me as sending him ”incredibly offensisve’ tweets and comments

    And Lewandowsky, were it not for myself, Geoff Chamber and a few others, nobody would be talking about this much, we have done all the work weeks ago.

    Lots of armchair commenters.

  63. hro001 says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: September 16, 2012 at 1:33 am

    We didn’t even wait until he published!

    But Lewandowsky (in a somewhat back to the future moment) claims that he has “published”. For all the Lewgory™ (as opposed to the Algorey™) details, pls see:

    The big Lewandowsky … and the 97%

  64. hro001 says:

    Barry Woods says: September 16, 2012 at 1:49 am

    Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.

    With all due respect to your “trying to talk” – of which you do quite a lot, without any consideration of the comprehension challenges (presumably) presented by your chosen mode of “communication”, perhaps if you’d spent less time “trying to talk” and more time “listening” you would begin to recognize that it’s not all about you and your perceptions of your efforts.

  65. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From hro001 on September 16, 2012 at 2:20 am:

    But Lewandowsky (in a somewhat back to the future moment) claims that he has “published”.

    He can say he’s published, but we know it’s premature.

  66. Barry Woods says:

    Hrooo1

    Amazimg. ? You have insight to my privte dialogues, which is a lot more than you see publically

  67. John Doe says:

    If any of the SS whackaloons wanting assassins are US citizens then someone should drop a dime on them with Homeland Security.

  68. beng says:

    I thought warmunists identified with the Viet Cong. Warmunists can’t read history?

  69. hro001 says:

    Barry Woods says: September 16, 2012 at 3:39 am

    Amazimg. ? You have insight to my privte dialogues, which is a lot more than you see publically

    Barry,

    What’s “amazing” to me is that you seem to have forgotten that your rather sweeping claim was:

    Sceptics do NOT understand the motives of many of the most vocal advocates of climate change, especially those that shout ‘denier’. These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy

    I’m delighted that you’ve had these “private dialogues”. It warms the cockles of my heart almost as much as the questions that Lewandowsky refuses to answer.

    But you have not explained how – or why – these “private dialogues” might have given you a greater “understanding” of their “motives”. Btw, what training do you have in determining “genuine” belief solely on the basis of “private dialogues” in which you have engaged?!

    I’m also not sure I understand how (or why) your earlier :

    A few climate scientsist defended me when [Gleick] publically labellebed me as sending him ”incredibly offensisve’ tweets and comments

    has convinced you (or should convince anyone else!) that you have a greater understanding of the “motives of many of the most vocal advocates …”. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten me!

  70. richardscourtney says:

    Barry Woods:

    I fail to understand why being in an “armchair” affects the worth of a person’s comments. Please explain.

    Richard

  71. sorepaw says:

    These people are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophe – and they see ‘sceptics’ as malicioulsy, greedily or stupidly being the cause of the lack of climate action.

    I’m sure this is true—in some cases.

    In other cases, they’re genuinely furious that anyone might be obstructing their paths to power, prestige, and greater grant funding.

  72. temp says:

    Barry Woods says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:49 am

    “Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.. rather than hang around our own sceptics ‘cyber ghettoes’ to find out what they yreally hink, not my own (and other sceptics) pre-conceptions..{…}Lots of armchair commenters.”

    Talk about supreme arrogance…. the only “preconceptions” I see are the huge amount you make about skeptics.
    Not only do I understand the doomsday cultists better then you. I understand history better then you. Your ignorance is massive to say the least. You bring to the table some of the worst logical fallacies. You have yet to counter a single point in this thread but you have managed to cry, bully others, whine, claim your better then everyone else, claim your “authoritah” is vastly supreme… and thats just in basically one post. If I reviewed all of your posts just in this thread alone more then likely you have broken the vast majority of logical fallacies.

    You are so far devoid of any rational, logical or scientific thought it is frankly scary.

  73. atheok says:

    “Barry Woods says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:49 am
    Everyone – I think I understand some of the advocates better, because I gave spend a lot of time trying to talk tho them.. rather than hang around our own sceptics ‘cyber ghettoes’ to find out what they yreally hink, not my own (and other sceptics) pre-conceptions..
    someone mentionsd the 97%
    Well, I wrote about it hereat WUWT (found the orignal suvey – no one else had)
    Someone metioned Peter Glieck, well I talked to him to. A few climate scientsist defended me when he publically labellebed me as sending him ”incredibly offensisve’ tweets and comments
    And Lewandowsky, were it not for myself, Geoff Chamber and a few others, nobody would be talking about this much, we have done all the work weeks ago.
    Lots of armchair commenters.

    Um, you mean your armchair “Holier than thou” comment? I feel so shamed… NOT!

    You use the word “understand” as if it is ‘we’ do not understand the most vocal CAGW advocates. Are we then stupid? Do you really think that everyone who demands to see the scientific proof of man’s causing climate change is completely ignorant of the fatalistic CAGW faithful and their strident screed screechings? It certainly isn’t I or the other critics on science blogs lookng for the real science who should be ashamed.

    Leave the poor poor Lewpy man alone, because he is an angry man, poor poor Lewpy. Why? I thank you for any role you’ve played in unmasking Lew’s fraud. But whether you’ve talked to him and Gleick doesn’t change their actions past or present, just made you sensitive. Also based on the angry spoiled green man’s current actions, it sure doesn’t look like his future actions will be different. That is, unless the will of the people comes to the fore and seeks to incarcerate him and his entire cadre of fraud supporting buddies.

    Call it an example if you want. Truth be told, it is not an example, but it is justice in action.

  74. David Cage says:

    If disbelief in AGW is akin to conspiracy theory then those who believed in a cover up of the Hillsborough disaster in the UK were also conspiracy theorists. They have been proved to be correct in their assumptions of a cover up. However I feel that to call a belief in the existence of a major back side protection exercise by those at the top a belief in conspiracy is to both glorify the seedy nature of the exercise and to make those who suggest its existence appear fanciful.
    Let us face the fact that if climate change is shown to be a series of blinkered observations, inadequate checking and sloppy data collection followed by inadequate analysis, invalid comparisons and the worst computer modelling the world has ever seen, then some Nobel prize winners are going to look very stupid as are those who awarded the prizes.
    No wonder many are going to such lengths to avoid any non climate scientist dominated testing of their work that should have occurred the day they felt the need to call it climate change and not global warming. Selective job offers to AGW believers has occurred for more than two decades now, which was how consensus has been achieved. Hence the need for outside vetting, as by their own admission the science is beyond question in the frat group.

  75. DirkH says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    September 15, 2012 at 12:22 pm

    “Can I make a simple plea:

    To sceptics: Stephan Lewandowsky is an angry person trying to hit out at us sceptics because he does not understand us. The more we attack him, the more he sees us as cold hearted vindictive people acting to stop him “saving the world” as he would see it.

    Stephen has made mistakes. He has overstepped what is acceptable for research, that is not acceptable. But neither is some witch hunt against hum because his action was only possible because he failed to see the humanity in us. The more we attack him, the more we confirm his stereotype of cold hearted people driven by some inhuman “driving force” which is why he tries to rationalise our behaviour with this crazy idea of a conspiracy.”

    Splendid idea. I’ll stop angering warmists as soon as all green taxes and carbon credit schemes are repealed, including subsidy schemes for PV and other incompetitive technologies. Including electric cars. Let the free market decide what works best and the economies will recover.

    As soon as the warmists fulfill this simple demand, all is forgiven.

  76. cdquarles says:

    Might I remind people that the Viet Cong lost the war. They signed a peace treaty with us, which our own Congress refused to enforce when the NV government violated it. (Just like Saddam, by the way, but our government responded to Saddam’s repeated (17 times!) provocation by invading Iraq and removing him).

  77. richardscourtney says:

    cdquarles:

    I assume your comment at September 16, 2012 at 3:45 pm is a troll intended to deflect the thread from its true subject. It says

    Might I remind people that the Viet Cong lost the war.

    No. The Viet Cong won. They drove the Americans out of their country and took over running it – all of it – themselves in a manner of their choosing. They had complete and absolute victory.

    Similarly, we are driving out those who are despoiling science with PNS and climastrology. The work of Lewandowsky is as self-delusional as the propaganda was that emanated from the US Embassy in Vietnam when the Viet Cong were slowly but surely winning their war.

    Science has provided many benefits. So, it important that we win the battle to save science from its usurpers as soon as possible. Science is being despoiled by the Agent Orange of PNS, it is being corrupted by the puppet leaders installed in Executives of science Institutes, and its practitioners are being burned by the napalm of the conflict.

    Richard

  78. TonyG says:

    Barry Woods says:
    Jimbo – many are genuinely scared of the coming climate catastrophy, and they see political action slipping away. worse is probably to come. highly emotive irrational people, can make very poor descisions

    Barry, that’s what’s truly frightening to me. If they really believe this and really think skeptics are so evil, I fear that they might take things beyond just talk. With rhetoric like they’re already throwing out, it’s not that much of a leap to imagine that someone might just decide that “action” is necessary.

  79. richardscourtney says:

    TonyG:

    At September 17, 2012 at 7:01 am you say of climate catastrophists

    If they really believe this and really think skeptics are so evil, I fear that they might take things beyond just talk. With rhetoric like they’re already throwing out, it’s not that much of a leap to imagine that someone might just decide that “action” is necessary.

    You are a bit late. Over recent years some of their “actions” include

    Getting US State climatologists sacked for not proclaiming AGW.
    Smearing the reputations of any who question AGW
    Throwing pies ate scientists who question AGW
    Attacking computer systems of people who question AGW
    Usurping the peer review systems of scientific journals
    Getting ‘replaced’ Editors of science journals which publish papers not-supportive of AGW
    Usurping the Executive Committees of science Institutions
    etc.

    Richard

  80. rw says:

    A general comment about the sincerety of warmists. The problem is, their behaviour is inconsistent with the idea that their fears are genuine. People with genuine fears don’t try to discredit their opponents by fraudulent actions and suchlike. Moreover, they don’t commit such acts in response to an invitation to present their case, as Gleick did. People only do that when they are acting in bad faith. As far as their ‘fears’ go, the overblown rhetoric gives the game away – it’s rationalization rather than genuine expression. The thing that fascinates me is that, as always, the truth of the matter is right in front of everyone (whatever the ultimate interpretation of such actions). Their behaviour gives the game away.

  81. BullDurham says:

    This may be off-topic, but since it has become an integral part of the thread, it is worth noting the VietCong did NOT win the war. They didn’t lose it, either. They were all but eradicated during the Tet Offensive in 1968. All effective military operations thereafter were conducted by the North Vietnamese Regular Army. A few (percentage wise) of the forces were VietCong, but not a majority. That’s why the administration of the south after American forces were withdrawn and South Vietnam was abandoned by the US was run almost exclusively by North Vietnamese personnel. And why there now is only “Vietnam,” neither north nor south but one country. Additional commentary about how it appears we won the subsequent economic war (or not, depending on how you view the hybrid Communist-capitalist way things are being done now) could be interesting but will not change the situation.

  82. richardscourtney says:

    Bill Durham:

    Decades have passed since the Vietnam war and it should now be considered as a matter of history which – like all history – has lessons from which we can learn.

    One can have views on the politicians who were in control of combatants on both sides of that war, but it is not reasonable to minimise the heroism of combatants on either side. The fact that the Viet Cong died in such numbers is a tribute to their heroic contribution.

    Similarly, many Americans and their allies died and suffered. Their sacrifice deserves to be honoured, too.

    Think what you like but the historical facts are clear: without the Viet Cong the forces of ‘North’ Vietnam would not have won that war and – by any rational assessment – they did win.

    Richard

  83. Pat Frank says:

    Richard, the Viet Cong were destroyed during the 1968 Tet Offensive. They were never an effective force after that.

    After 1968, all of the fighting in South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA never won a major battle and lost most of the minor ones.

    The Vietnam War was won on the streets of the US when the middle class decided the horrid costs at home were not worth the benefits in Vietnam, and joined the protests.

  84. Merovign says:

    I’m sorry, but I am the first person to think the leak is a “plant,” a cover, propaganda in itself?

    Tamblyn’s statements reflect either a deliberate attempt to mislead (either to, I guess, rally the ignorant masses or as propaganda), or some pretty severe delusion.

    I would very much like to know what Tamblyn thinks Gleick did that gathered all that attention. I know that people tend to forget that an echo chamber doesn’t just let you hide from opposing ideas, but actually allows people to ramp up their rhetoric, but this is just a little beyond ridiculous. “Gentlemanly” fraud is Marquess of Queensberry rules?

  85. richardscourtney says:

    Pat Frank:

    Your post at September 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm is the most recent in this thread about the Vietnam war and it is addressed to me. So, I am answering that post as a reply to all who want to understate the contributions and sufferings of combatants on both sides of that war.

    Your post says to me

    the Viet Cong were destroyed during the 1968 Tet Offensive. They were never an effective force after that.

    After 1968, all of the fighting in South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA never won a major battle and lost most of the minor ones.

    The Vietnam War was won on the streets of the US when the middle class decided the horrid costs at home were not worth the benefits in Vietnam, and joined the protests.

    All modern wars are won or lost on the ‘home front’. The Vietnam War was no different. People in the US and allied countries were shocked at the conscription, the deaths of their own Service personnel, and the continuing escalation of the scale of the conflict. Eventually they became convinced that the war was not worth its cost in lives and money.

    That conscription, loss of life and escalation were a result of North Vietnamese (mostly North Vietnamese) opposition to the US and allied forces. The Viet Cong were a significant part of that opposition. Indeed, the Tet Offensive was a significant part of gaining the attention of the US public at the scale of the war. The fact that so many Viet Cong died is a statement of their contribution to the winning of that war: their sacrifice was part of gaining the attention of the public in the US and and its allies.

    People die and suffer in wars. In later ages people can consider whether or not a war was worth fighting. But the troops on both sides of a war mostly fight for admirable reasons (e.g. patriotism, protection of their homeland, etc.). Of course, there are individuals on both sides of any war who commit atrocities, but their fellow combatants cannot all be tarred with responsibility for that.

    Those who have fought with valour and honour for their country – including those who fought on land far from their country – need to be treated with the respect they deserve whether or not later generations think the war was ‘just’. And their contribution needs to be recognised; especially the contribution of those who died.

    Importantly, we need to learn from history. In the context of the – I think mistaken and objectionable – analogy of the AGW-dispute with the Vietnam War, we do have people willing to make great sacrifices. For example, Pat Michaels, Mark Albright and George Taylor were US State Climatologists and they were dismissed from their jobs because they refused to toe the AGW line. It remains to be seen if their sacrifice has as much effect on US public opinion as the sacrifice of the Viet Cong in the Tet Offensive.

    Richard

  86. BullDurham says:

    I concur with the several comments about the Vietnam War being lost (or won, depending on your perspective) on the streets and in the media in America. I remember the media reports of the Tet Offensive being all about the success of the VietCong, and NEVER reporting the casualties they incurred, while emphasizing those of American and South Vietnamese soldiers. The comments about the courage of the individuals involved also were, in general, accurate. But those attributes were not the topic of my comment.

    My primary interest in this topic is that of MILITARY history, and evaluation of the effectiveness of different tactics and strategy. Twenty years in the US armed forces led me to give up trying to analyze POLITICAL strategy, since it has never (or, at best, rarely) been strongly influenced by military objectives, but primarily by immediate interests of those in office at the time, with little or no interest in the long term benefit to the country (the US, in my perspective, but I doubt if it changes much if your focus is on another) much less the people actually involved in the fighting.

    The reason for the initial post was just to correct the way the military results of the conflict in Southeast Asia were ASSUMED (based on media reports, apparently). Several analogies had been made that were inaccurate (or “false” if you prefer non-PC language) as they were worded.

  87. richardscourtney says:

    BullDurham:

    For sake of clarity, I write to say I agree with your post at September 18, 2012 at 9:20 am.

    Richard

Comments are closed.