NOTE: in conjunction with this essay, may I suggest that readers also visit Climate Audit and read Steve McIntyre’s careful evisceration of the “copygate issue”. – Anthony
Guest post by Thomas Fuller
The double handful of climate hysteria weblogs have tailed off in both output and popularity since the events of Climategate and Copenhagen. The Joe Romms, Michael Tobises, Tim Lamberts, the Desmog Blogs, Deep Climates and William Connellys of the world have been largely reduced to recycling whining points and venting splenetically against the sad fact that the world is turning away from their point of view.
This is an extremely positive happenstance for those of us Lukewarmers who believe that climate change does need to be addressed, as the alarmists continually turn people into skeptics with their outrageous and unscientific claims and their rigid insistence on conformity to the religious truth. It probably doesn’t bother many skeptics, either.
But just when you thought it was safe to go into the water, the useful idiots of climate change have been reinforced by one-shot attacks on specific skeptics.
The mudslinging trio of Mashey, Angliss and Prall have taken the same game plan and used it to orchestrate pseudo-scientific attacks on figures from the anti-hysteria League of Sanity.
Prall managed to corral the late Stephen Schneider into putting his name on a ludicrously poor explication of how skeptics don’t have as many publications as those siding with James Hansen. The paper is, to be charitable, not destined for posterity, being full of the shoddiest work on data collection, analysis and presentation–so bad that Spencer Weart, author of The History of Global Warming, dismissed it as unpublishable on the day it was released.
Angliss went after Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, seeking to convince the world not to read the book because he could mathematically prove that the Climategate emails were not a statistically significant percentage of the emails on CRU’s servers. And I’m not making that up. He took his own advice, sadly, not bothering to read Montford’s book or the Climategate emails, and his work shows the lack of scholarship.
And we’ve all read recently about Mashey’s attack on Edward Wegman, accusing him of plagiarism in a 250 page document that is straight out of the movie Conspiracy Theory, with color-coded themes and memes, and an outrageous accusation that Steve McIntyre was recruited, trained and funded by the George Marshall Institute–something I hope Mashey can back up.
It’s very much as if these lone cowboys decided that the hysteria blogs needed some support.
Something like a citizen scientist, as though they wanted to become the new anti-McIntyre, the anti-Montford, the anti-Wegman, by pulling down the false idols.
Sadly, they didn’t do what McIntyre did. They didn’t do what Montford did. They didn’t do what Wegman did.
They didn’t start with the data. Mashey started with his conspiracy theory, detailed in another document titled (and I’m not making this up), “Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony’. He had the theory sewn up, so he didn’t need any data.
Angliss rejected the data, refusing to read the book he criticized or the emails that prompted the book.
Prall got the data all wrong, misspelling names, not counting publications correctly, searching only in English, using Google Scholar instead of an academic database.
But, although they tried to make their work look sciency, it is not and never was intended to be science.
They are malicious attacks on those they oppose, taking up the cudgel for the deflating weblogs they used to comment on, trying to rekindle the flame that Climategate and Copenhagen extinguished.
They failed.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“whining points” bids fair to become a classic meme, I think.
For quotable commentary, Mr. Fuller, this was a wonderful article and will enrich the water cooler conversation immensely. 🙂
@AlanG
Reading from the browser can be hard at the best of times. Try Readability:
http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/
Saved me a lot of headaches. The only downside is that it does not work for the comments.
Tom – I would much appreciate a post from you at some time describing what you consider a “luke warmist” to be, and how you think, ideally, the “luke warmist” position should operate, scientifically, politically and with its PR. I am not being flippant – I genuinely struggle to understand “luke warmism” as a coherent concept (rather than as just something that falls between two stools).
All the best.
Djozar says: October 13, 2010 at 6:56 am
Alright then, what’s the defining point where you go from luke warmer to sceptic?
I believe there is some AGW, and that CO2 has some (minor) effect; so am I a skeptic, lukewarmer or out of the paradigm totally?
You are capable of unemotionally processing empirical data input and logically reasoning where that data leads you.
I had a fun encounter with Mashey last year. He seemed to fade from my view after my “Reply to John Mashey” post that took him to task for his pompous, ill-informed stance.
Jose: I believe that Dr Wegman’s report was submitted to a Congressional committee as part of his sworn testimony before that committee. I suggest that the standard for perjury produces better and more reliable information than peer review. The Climategate disclosures most certainly illustrate my point.
James Sexton says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:11 am
But, it is an either and/or situation. They have demonstrated that it can’t be neither. They have also demonstrated that it could be both.
There, fixed it 🙂
hro001 says:
October 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm
James Sexton says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:11 am
But, it is an either and/or situation. They have demonstrated that it can’t be neither. They have also demonstrated that it could be both.
There, fixed it 🙂
Much appreciated! Thanks!
Angliss: “Mosher also said that we know enough context to prove that there was a widespread breakdown in scientific ethics among climate researchers. In addition, Mosher claims that both he and his co-author Tom Fuller feel that the emails revealed nothing that alters the conclusions of climate disruption research to date”
Mosher (October 2010) FALSE AND A LIE. Interested readers can see my exchange with brian in email, below. BEFORE he wrote his piece. I think I’ve been pretty clear that the breakdown was local and confined.
Mosher (January 2010) “There is no simple take away. Except this: the Climate scientists corrupted the IPCC process, the science journal process, the statistical process, and the FOIA process to silence one man– Stephan McIntyre ”
Let me see if I have this straight – the IPCC, statistics itself, the journal/peer review process, and the principal of FOI have all been hopelessly corrupted. But this is merely a little local difficulty.
Steve Mosher has over-reached, in his desire to please the over-conspiratorial tinfoil hats at the Big Government blog, he has engaged in rhetoric wholly at odds with his newfound ‘local and confined’ schtick. Good thing the internet is wiped clean at the end of every month, otherwise these thing might hang around to embarrass one.
REPLY: Spoken like a true (certified) 10:10 supporter.
REPLY: Spoken like a true (certified) 10:10 supporter.
Thanks. I shall be submitting this to the Oxford English Dictionary as perhaps the best ever example of a completely irrelevant and ad hominem response. Textbook stuff.
REPLY: Great! Always good to see the work of 10:10 eco child snuffers and their supporters get the exposure they deserve.
It was a joke Mr Watts! It missed the target, it was in poor taste, it was never aired, it has been withdrawn, an apology has been issued. But it was no more a snuff movie than are Monty Python or South Park.
But this little film has certainly made its mark here. How many posts now? Six, seven? The ad hominem attack on Franny was a motivator for me to go sign up, how many others? Isn’t there some dictum about bad publicity?
TTFN.
REPLY: You call it a joke, many others see it as a window to the mindset of the people. It was mega fail, and far beyond simple poor taste. So when confronted with such things at their best “in poor taste” , you run to embrace it? How idiotic. – Anthony
Phil Clarke says:
October 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm
“There is no simple take away. Except this: the Climate scientists corrupted the IPCC process, the science journal process, the statistical process, and the FOIA process to silence one man– Stephan McIntyre ”
“Let me see if I have this straight ……
Steve Mosher has over-reached, in his desire to please the over-conspiratorial tinfoil hats at the Big Government blog, he has engaged in rhetoric wholly at odds with his newfound ‘local and confined’ schtick.”
=======================================================
So, let me see if I have this straight——- Steve Mosher quotes Steve McIntyre and you take that as an expression of Steve Mosher’s thoughts?
You know, I’ve found several writers to be vague and unclear about their thoughts. When I can, I ask for clarity. When explicit clarity is provided, I no longer rely on inferences. This is a time honored practice. Perhaps you can employ this and if it works, introduce the radical concept to your friends? Personally, I think Mosh is wrong in his position, but its his position.
Also, Phil, you’ve
beenhere long enough to know Mosh has rigorously defended some aspects of the CAGW crowd/practices. So, his statements that he’s not indicting the entire climate science group is totally within character, word, and act. Go here for just one example. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/Phil, when will the alarmist crowd begin to understand that character assassination isn’t working for them? At first, it served the skeptic crowd quite well, but now it only shows the lack of intellectual argument from alarmist camp. We’re past that, you should tell your friends, if they start playing nice, we’ll enter a dialogue with them and maybe let them keep their science credentials. Or they can continue to show themselves for what they are, but at this point, I’m actually gathering pity for poor dumb twits. It must suck to have their whole belief system vaporize in front of them and because of them.
Bradley and the others on the Hockey Stick Team are academics with many students. They have experiance of plagiarism, and will quickly recognise in their student’s work. Why then, in an important, and critical, report on the Hockey Stick has it taken 4 years for anyone to notice the plagiarism? Either these learned academics do not read around the subject and/or the allegations are tenuous at best.
While the distinction of “Luckwarmer” is being brought up and the defining characteristic of belonging in the “Middle Of The Road” (MOTR) on the climate issue, I want to mention that statistics provide evidence that many MOTRs end up as “Roadkill”because when they jump to one side of the issue to avoid what is coming from that direction they tend to land right in the path of something worse coming from the other direction.
The term is “Realist”!
The war continues…James Delingpole’s view on our ‘impartial’ ABC:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058818/what-on-earth-is-bob-ward/
James Sexton says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:11 am
Great post
Well, hey, if Pachy is going to be the one implementing the recommendations, then all should be fine. Who better to guard the hen house than the fox?
Heh, too many tabs opened. My last post was meant for a different thread,…….
TY very much David