Image source here
From Andrew Bolt’s blog at the Herald Sun:
Professor John Quiggin complains of smears by sceptics:
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace… Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.
Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quiggin smears a sceptic:
In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system, I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime…
So, to sum up, McIntyre organised the campaign which led to the creation of the file, obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, received the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. Whether or not he was directly involved in the theft, or merely created the opportunity and benefited from the proceeds is impossible to determine, and essentially irrelevant.
OK professor, let’s see your evidence beyond this missive.
Somebody needs to educate Quiggin on the CRU ftp security blunder that was “the mole”. He doesn’t get it, and then proceeds to use that as “evidence” against McIntyre. It’s comical.
Here’s Professor Quiggin’s page at the University of Queensland:
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/index.html?page=15898
[snip – take a break Wren, your arguments are circular]
Thus, I’m declaring troll status for you. Commenters, don’t feed the troll. Moderators, snip as needed when this gets out of hand. Wren I suggest you take a time out from commenting to get a handle on the history. Then come back and comment. – Anthony
—-
Thank you, Anthony and moderators! Cheers
Wren (08:51:48) : He can’t change the Conclusions in the IPCC Reports, but he has changed the conclusions drawn by millions of ordinary people around the world looking for the truth behind the IPCC conclusions and shown them as false.
R. Gates (22:04:44) :
Gates is wrong.
Constantly citing only the Arctic, while ignoring the Antarctic and the global status, is certainly misleading.
Also, cognititve dissonance can not by definition be applied to scientific skeptics. CD is based on beliefs, while skeptics question beliefs.
As I’ve stated since long before Mr Gates ever appeared on WUWT, I am perfectly willing to change my mind and accept that a rise in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, if there is verifiable, testable, empirical evidence provided by those believing in the CAGW conjecture — along with honest, open and transparent cooperation regarding their raw data, code and methods.
But since the same people who are claiming that CAGW is right around the corner adamantly refuse to cooperate by sharing their raw data, their algorithms and their methodologies as the scientific method requires, then scientific skeptics rightly question those conclusions, which are based on secret alchemies that are kept unavailable from the public that paid for them.
The fact that so much money, status and political power is made available to those promoting CAGW, skeptics are skeptical of the people who say “trust us,” without agreeing to disclose their methods. It is the only reasonable course of action — at least until those sounding the climate alarm agree to convincingly show their methods to the general scientific community.
Is it reasonable to ask if Jones has the discretion under FOI law and confidentiality agreements to selectively release data covered by confidentiality agreements?
REPLY: I’m going to break the “don’t feed the troll” rule becuase this really needs to be explained to you clearly. Your questions are circular and pointless. It has been determined that there is prima facie evidence that Jones and this officer broke FOI law, but due to statute of limits cannot be acted on.
…the ICO has been alerted by the complainant and by information already in the public domain via the media, to a potential offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act. The prima facie evidence from the published emails indicate an attempt to defeat disclosure by deleting information. It is hard to imagine more cogent prima facie evidence…In the event, the matter cannot be taken forward because of the statutory time limit.
Letter from UK Information Commissioner’s Office http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/summers_uea_ico_20100129.pdf
No more on this Wren, you are beaten, move on to something else. You’ve hijacked this thread long enough.
Read this, and post no more on this subject, we are done with your circular troll logic trying to defend Jones of of the indefensible. – Anthony
Anthony: Good call.
Wren,
“What advancements were made if no conclusions were changed?”
So you admit that McIntyre exposed the errors of the hockey sticks then? Good start, but Isn’t that enough in itself?
Let’s try this thought experiment. Let us imagine that Lindzen had published a paper that alleged to falsify the AGW hypothesis. The media trumpet the headlines “Top climate scientist finds flaw in global warming hypothesis” (you’ll have to suspend belief on that bit). Then McIntyre gets hold of the data and methods and proudly shows the flaws in Lindzen’s work. Do you a) applaud McIntyre for his good work, or b) accuse him of harrassment and medling and being politically biased?
Do you see where I’m going with this?
REPLY: Please don’t feed the troll.
From his bio at the university:
John Quiggin is an Australian Research Council Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland. Professor Quiggin is prominent both as a research economist and as a commentator on Australian economic policy.
My God, he’s just another soft science believer! I was thinking (something he is obviously finds challenging) of engaging him but, as Mark Twain said, “I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.”
Well, I think I am trying the patience of Anthony and the moderators so I will post no more on this thread.
Petty minded and childish….the games up and they know it.
So much evidence that the AGW’s have been found out and they simply can’t take it.
Their cosy world is coming to an end so they turn on one of the sharpest brains that have undermined them.
Sue them Steve.
Two observations on this thread:
1 – Prof Quiggin looks like Terry Waite. [snip]
2 – any post from wren makes my ears bleed
That is all!
Quiggin is a master of denial and self delusion:
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/02/14/charlie-brown-and-the-football/
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/18/obvious-truths-finally-stated/
Here is the earliest screen image copy that I have of the first page of John Quiggin’s post
before it was altered to make it slightly less defamatory:
http://i43.tinypic.com/kex75c.jpg
You complain about someone else cherry picking when you write, “Now this is a perfect example of an AGW skeptic cherry picking data to support some preconceived notion.” Then you turn around and commit the most flagrant act of cherrypicking imaginable by ignoring the vast majority of the existence of the Arctic. You write, “To be accurate and precise in seeing true trends you always want to look at the largest data set you have.” The largest dataset we have indicates the Arctic is normally without and totally free of ANY icecap and glaciations. That is zero icepacks, Zero icebergs, Zero glaciers, none, zip, nada, all she wrote, none at all. You wrote, “These graphs are the best snapshots of the long term trends in the arctic.” Given the fact that the Arctic normally has no such ice in the vast majority of the “largest dataset we have,” it is obvious for all to see you have, in your own words, cherrypicked…”data to support some preconceived notion” you have regarding AGW.
More utterances from the Prophet Lovelock
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lovelock_sceptics_kept_us_sane/
Lovelock then and now
http://www.climatedepot.com/
We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place
Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622794/Weve-lost-our-fear-of-hellfire-but-put-climate-change-in-its-place.html
“The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”
— Quoted by Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb in their book Trashing the Economy (1993)
http://activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/b/3507-david-brower
Uber-Hysteric Carbon Cult Prophet of Doom Lovelock serves the purpose of making all others look reasonable.. following the same propaganda “technique” enunciated by David Brower
ClimateGate “break-in, theft, robbery, etc.” None of this applies as the British Employment Act legally protects any employee of a public or private institution who leaks or whistle blows. It is VERY clear now that the Information Commissioner has indicated malfeasance, there is no theft crime – only the leaking of documents proving science subterfuge and manipulation.
Mr. Quiggman might want to invest in a new gumshoe certificate.
“”Wren (15:42:36) :
JimAsh (11:00:02) :
“Wren (10:44:28) :
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that McIntyre fans have a double standard.
Allegations of wrongdoing based on suspicions are OK if directed at Jones and man.
Mere suspicion of wrongdoing is outrageous if directed at McIntyre.
Why can’t people just be honest?”
We ARE being honest.
Why couldn’t Jones be honest ?
Right and wrong ?
It is wrong to phony up the science….
=====
That allegation against Jones is a good example of an allegation based on suspicion.
Why not be honest and call a spade a spade?”””
============
The spade is as called. Science BENT to serve a political agenda.
Earth will not become Venus.
Water will not rise 200 feet.
Ice is not permanent.
Glaciers melt. Glaciers are not your friend.
Polar Bears can swim hundreds of miles. Polar Bears are not your friends.
We do not live at 14,000 feet. ( except for some in castles in the air)
The Earth is NOT a closed system.
The sun DOES count.
Sometimes it rains a lot. Sometimes snow. It’ll be 90º in July. I’m a prophet.
You don’t know what you don’t know.
And games have been played at great peril to national sovereignty,
common sense, and actual planning and response to actual events and possible events.
Spade.
D. Patterson said:
“The largest dataset we have indicates the Arctic is normally without and totally free of ANY icecap and glaciations. That is zero icepacks, Zero icebergs, Zero glaciers, none, zip, nada, all she wrote, none at all.”
Oh Brother! I suppose then we should actually go to an even more absurd level and say the largest data set we have shows the Arctic (and Earth for the matter) should not really exist at all since they have not be around for the majority of the universe’s existence! Where does the rediculous comparison stop! We know that we are in an interglacial, and that the arctic sea ice goes through fluctuations, but IN THE TIME THAT ACCURATE MODERN RECORDS HAVE BEEN KEPT, we know that the arctic sea ice has showed a downturn in the last decade. I make the claim that it is most honest to look at the largest data set (meaning accurate records) as opposed to cherry pick the last year or six months, and then you turn that into some rediculous stretch covering who knows what past climate cycles.
Oh Brother!
Thank you Professor John Quiggin. You have just about proved in one shot that you and all other AGW alarmists are nothing more than hopeless scare mongers who belong in jail.
All this talk about the Arctic ignores the whole other end of the planet. It also leaves out the global ice extent totals. I’ve repeatedly posted those charts to the sound of… *crickets*
See, the
hypothesisconjecture is that CO2 is gonna getcha, and the Arctic ice extent proves it. But Arctic sea ice is simply a function of wind and currents, not temperature.Let’s compare current Arctic temperatures with the baseline of 1958 – 2002: click
I’m not frightened. Is anyone frightened? If so, be sure to take a flashlight to bed, so you can check for CO2 monsters under the mattress. You can never be too careful. They might getcha.
Moderators,
OK, starve him/her. I don’t want to use the T word.
But, be careful. PETA will start campaign to protect them.
John
Good call Anthony!
Be very careful. You may not be in his department, but he may have friends and allies in yours. The first rule of graduate-studentship: tread very cautiously, lest you affront those who control your future. Not brave advice, but judicious nonetheless, from all that I have heard.
/Mr Lynn
They sure are P.O. ed over there!!!
Bait n switch is what I call it. blame Mac and maybe no one will notice.
Wren (00:29:35) :
Wishful thinking won’t make it happen. Remember, El Nino and La Nina come and go, and the globe keeps getting warmer and warmer.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Yes, Wren, that’s why winters keep getting longer and harsher in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Still pining for Marx?