The full Tamino

Here’s what you get to see at Open Mind

sHx | November 2, 2010 at 9:26 am

You know, Tamino, you shouldn’t be so shy about asking Anthony

Watts to place a permanent link to your blog at WUWT. Real Climate, Stoat and several other pro-AGW blogs are already prominently displayed on WUWT blogroll. So it is better to ask than to throw up occasional tantrums in order to draw his attention this way.

[edit]

[Response: It’s very revealing that when Anthony gets pwned, his supporters call it a “tantrum.” Nice rhetorical trick … but you guys just can’t take the heat.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

…and here’s the full comment, sans editing, that sHx left in WUWT Tips and Notes tonight:

sHx says:

For what it is worth, here is in full my snipped comment at Tamino’s “Can We Talk?” thread:

You know, Tamino, you shouldn’t be so shy about asking Anthony Watts to place a permanent link to your blog at WUWT. Real Climate, Stoat and several other pro-AGW blogs are already prominently displayed on WUWT blogroll. So it is better to ask than to throw up occasional tantrums in order to draw his attention this way.

WUWT does not fear losing regular readers and commenters to the CAGW camp, you know. Rather, Watts’ blog seems to thrive on the range of opinions and options it offers to its visitors, something pro-CAGW blogs across the board have failed to emulate. In pro-CAGW blogs one gets to see nothing but the established climate dogma. According to Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate, the refusal to reciprocate the courtesy of linking to such skeptical blogs as WUWT, Bishop Hill, Climate Audit, etc , is justified on the grounds that those blogs are “anti-scientific”. What is your excuse, Tamino?

You are aware that Anthony Watts publicly offered you a chance to guest-post on WUWT on several occasions. Unless you are afraid of being pilloried by members of your camp, there is absolutely no valid reason why you should refuse the invitation. You’ll have greater audience figures in WUWT than Real Climate, Stoat, Climate Progress, Deep Climate and your blog combined. All you have to do is ask in a civil fashion.

We can’t talk, it seems.

sHx says:

Ah, the link:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/can-we-talk/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here’s the result:

Now on the ride sidebar

That was:

And I won’t even ask for a reciprocal link on his blogroll. That guest post slot is still open to Tamino by the way.

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “The full Tamino

  1. The AGW “Climate Disruption” alarmist blogs do not want their readers to see or even think other opinions.
    Dialogue for them is always one way.

  2. This is a splendid example of global climate disruption blinders–apparently worn so tight that the blood no longer flows to the decision-making gray matter that’s found between the ears (or behind the eyes). I suggest dialogue isn’t the only thing being disrupted.

  3. Doug in Seattle says: (November 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm) Dialogue for them is always one way.
    May even say has to be one way, Doug. Doubt is dangerous to demagoguery.

  4. Well, to have my little petty bit of fun, I went to the post at Tamino’s site, and submitted the following:
    re: Response: It’s very revealing that when Anthony gets pwned, his supporters call it a “tantrum.” Nice rhetorical trick … but you guys just can’t take the heat.
    Au Contraire, I’d say its pretty clear that skeptics can take the heat, virtually by definition of the debate/issue itself. Its the AGW advocates who believe the heat is bad!
    Nice edit job on the original sHx post too (NOT). Even in this instance, it appears its the advocates who couldn’t take the heat. Will be interesting to see if my post is allowed at all.
    ~~~~~~~
    Believers are from Venus, Skeptics are from Mars {VBG}

  5. Why should we care what that small minded asshat thinks, says, or does? I’d sooner spend a day strapped to a spark plug wire than read another word that formed between his ears. He is the most classless citizen to be found on either side of any issue that’s ever made the news and has achieved his ambition of offending the great majority of the open minded people of the climate concerned world.
    And given time, I could balance that narrative by saying something negative about that jerk.

  6. I think Gavin’s opinions are well embraced by others in the pro AGW camps. To them, any kind of debate is a form of defeat since in their view, talking induces a stalemate of inaction.
    Once they established “The Precautionary Principle”, they no longer have to debate to justify their views. It’s become a moral question of faith, not one of science.
    I guess that means I am “anti-scientific”, although “denier” has a nice ring to it as well.

  7. Tamino uses a graph for Arctic ice that is not widely accepted as completely accurate. Other graphs show up and down variation, not a basically straight line from 1880 to 1980. That would be cherry picking.

  8. I think we should be happy to have blogs like Tamino’s as it provides a forum for all to judge how out of step with the average person he and his supporters are.
    The more they use words like ‘nutjobs’, ‘deniers’ , idiots’ and ‘wingnuts’ to describe people with alternative opinions to theirs, the more they alienate the person who is undecided or slightly skeptical.
    If it makes them feel good to vent or manipulate posts, then go right ahead, because it ultimately benefits the skeptical position.

  9. dp you are a hoot! I am still laughing! Hope everything is continuing well with you and yours Anthony! In defense of Tamino I will say he had the courtesy and thoughfullness to show concern for Anthonys family problem. Other than that I have not been able to agree with him, although I doubt he loses sleep over that!

  10. From the Tamino article:
    You may disagree that global warming is really happening as fast as I think. Or that humankind is the principal cause. Or that the polar bears are endangered. You might think I overestimate the seriousness of the consequences. You may doubt forecasts of sea level rise, you may pooh-pooh any connection with hurricane frequency or intensity. Etc. etc. till the cows come home.
    But if you try to tell me that what’s happening to the arctic, and especially to its sea ice, is not damn strong evidence of global warming … then I have to wonder whether it’s possible for us to have a productive dialogue. Because I don’t think you’re a “skeptic.”
    ************************************
    Hmmm. The construction of these paragraphs and the points made here show us how someone with so much hate can never be a level-headed thinker. WUWT consistently acknowledges that there is warming, and that man might even be the cause of some of it. Their problem is that WUWT dares to mention some of the other factors. AGWers would rather attribute 100% to man, and scream “Oh God, we’re all gonna die!”. The fact that AGWers never mention healthy polar bear populations, sea ice flow, low hurricane frequency, etc., shows how disingenuous their whole charade is.
    Get the whole story at WUWT! Get half truths and panic-stricken rants at Tamino.

  11. I’ve always thought that deleting comments that are neither abusive or off-topic was a rather shady and intellectually dishonest tactic.
    However, the absolute worst is when comments are kept but edited at the blogger’s discretion.
    Regardless of where you fall on an issue, those that use such tactics deserve all the scorn and derision that we can muster.

  12. but makes it clear that these factors are not responsible for the long-term decline (of Arctic ice) we’ve witnessed. That’s due to warming….So: things have changed. Warming is the reason
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    There’s two things to point out here:
    First: by long term he means 28 years, 1979 to 2007. But that cannot be categorized as long term. Natural variation has caused Arctic ice to vary, up and down, for millions and millions of years. To try to conclude something about Arctic ice from 28 years of satellite data is sorely unscientific. But it is good for global warming “skeptics” that Tamino does this in that it easily exposes how “global warming” operates.
    Second: he says Arctic ice decrease in the years 1979 to 2007 was due to warming. He wants the reader to infer two things (that I can see) by saying that. One: he wants the reader to infer it’s “manmade” global warming, not just warming. Two: He wants the reader to infer that “skeptics” “deny” that warming caused it. But most everyone agrees warming caused the ice loss from 1979 to 2007. Who would say that is hasn’t? The loss in the Arctic was due, in large part, to a natural variation in the earth called the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). PDO was in positive (warm) phase from 1976 to 1999. This oscillation caused ENSO to be El Nino dominant. The heat from these El Ninos caused the natural decline. The reason the PDO shift happened in 1999 but the Arctic continued to lose ice until 2007 is because of a natural lag in the system—the Queen Mary can’t be turned around on a dime. But now the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is in negative (cool) phase. This is causing ENSO to be La Nina dominant. So Arctic ice mass is increasing since 2007.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    Tamino uses word games to make Anthony Watts look bad. But his word games are easily detected. Anyone who takes some time to look at how Tamino words things can see he fights dirty and hits below the belt. He reveals who he is by that. Global warming believers continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Oh that they would talk more and more so that all the world would see their game.
    They should have stayed quiet and insisted “it’s beyond debate”. Because now that ClimateGate and all the other -gates have forced them out of the closet their gig is up.

  13. Nobody over the age of 20 uses the term “pwned” (except wannabe 1337 h@x0r5) ((translated “elite hacker”)) internet neckbeard superhero basement dwellers.
    [d]
    r3Ply: $P3@K f0r y0ur53lf Y0U 7W0 fing3r 7ypInG N0o8. ~ c7M

  14. Things have changed. Warming is the reason. Stark and fundamental.
    Yes Mr. Tamino, it’s warming. Simmer down. No one denies that.
    You have this propensity for using the word “denier”. You in the consensus are getting desperate. I suppose what’s happening in the elections today isn’t making that any better.

  15. sHx says:
    November 2, 2010 at 7:55 pm
    I made it to WUWT front page ahead of Tamino. I can die happy. 🙂

    Well sHx, openness does reward!

  16. Well, at least so far my post to Tamino’s hasn’t shown up…. I’m not holding my breath (see my earlier comment here: Rational Debate says: November 2, 2010 at 7:34 pm)

  17. Just posted this in Tamino’s blog. Not holding my breath.
    “In comments in this blog from the peanut gallery there is a lot of “nutjobs” and “wingnuts”. How long has passed since the last time you looked in the mirror?
    BTW, Tamino, there has been a lo-o-o-o-ng time sicne you wrote something about the all time record levels of Antarctica marine ice and decreasing temperatures. Perhaps the Arctic is the only place where you can claim “warming”.”

  18. Tamino Artic ice loss is due to so many factors besides warming, It plays asmall part, like so many other factors such as ice breakers, shipping leaves behind soot , Wind , theSUN, the PDO. The earth is not in a perfect circle orbit much like a spinning top. Who is the one that came up with the idea that the climate is static and is not suppose to change history has taught us it has change rapidly and slowlywith more CO2 and with less. I still wonder why people have got it in thier heads that it must stay were its at, An old saying comes to mind”The more things change the more they stay the same”. artic sea ice will fluxuate up and down thru ntime weather we like it or not. Pun Intended.

  19. Re-posted here, in case the “open minded” Tamino doesn’t like the message:
    From Ray Ladbury | November 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    “sHx,
    MicroWatts serves a very useful function as an asylum for the nutjobs. Pray, why would we want them over here where the adults are trying to have intelligent conversation?”
    my reply…
    …and you wonder why people don’t come over here very often.
    Do you think that Dr. Myers, Dr Curry, Joseph D’Aleo, Dr Spencer, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr, et al would like being referred to as “nutjobs”?
    And yet, Tamino, name unknown, is allowed free reign here.
    How many scientists use their real name here?
    Unbelievable.

  20. I in fact wish that Tamino would post here. I think we could learn some stuff and it would also give the people here an open forum for questioning Tamino’s analyses and sources (i.e. – is he cherry picking?)
    Clearly he doesn’t want the latter, but some might think that he doesn’t even want the former. If true, what kind of academic is he? (I cannot stress enough that this is just speculation)
    Unfortunately, I think the comments for his posting would turn into the same kinda things they did with Steve Goddard’s last few posts and have to be shut down. The commentors and Tamino himself over at his site just don’t give respect to their opponents – a just unacceptable approach to debate, and that wouldn’t fly here without the echo chamber.
    -Scott

  21. Anthony, just noticed the link to Skeptical Science in your blog roll. Thanks! I don’t have a blog roll but link to you from my links page:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/links.php?c=2
    (not many skeptic sites there but anyone is welcome to use the Add Link form)
    William Gray, I don’t get any funding for Skeptical Science other than the occasional paypal donation. Money is certainly not a motivating factor.

  22. From the Tamino article:
    “But if you try to tell me that what’s happening to the arctic, and especially to its sea ice, is not damn strong evidence of global warming …”
    I think I am right therefore I am right. The logic of such reasoning is of course flawed.
    Evidently you think it is strong evidence of global warming but that is not evidence, however, one could infer the obvious by your reasoning which is that you don’t have all the chips in the bag.
    And pwned ha ha misspelled words doesn’t even impress the kids no more, even they evolve.

  23. I quit bothering with Tamino a long time ago for reasons already cited above. That said, I’ll trust Jason S quoted him properly above just to have a little fun responding. I’d do it on his own site but it will get snipped and responded to out of context, so in relaliation for a rude comment to a legitimate question many moons ago:
    Tamino; You may disagree that global warming is really happening as fast as I think.
    Response; For this to be true you first have to provide evidence that you think. Dismiss, ridicule, name calling are all fine, but let’s see a thoughtfull response with properly laid out arguments and data to show that you can in fact think in terms of a legitimate response to a legitimate question.
    Tamino; Or that humankind is the principal cause.
    Response; While I know that humans created schools, and schools are run by principals, so yes they are human caused I suppose. As for warming, I think you meant humankind is the principle clause. See the use of an explanation followed by a logically connected question intended to expose the actual intent of your statement? Even if as you assert humankind are the principle cause, may I point out that the geologic record shows consisederable variability and by comparison recent climate changes, even the wildly exagerated ones, are well within natural variability, leaving our effects as minor at best, even if all other facters are even less minor.
    Tamino; Or that the polar bears are endangered.
    Response; Darn right they’s dangerous. They’re big, fast, powerful predators and smarter that you might think. Endangered? How quadrupling their population over the last few decades makes them endangered is beyond me. Go ahead and answer but stop with the sarcasm and belittling, this is your chance to answer the question in a manner showing that you do, indeed, think.
    Tamono; You might think I overestimate the seriousness of the consequences. You may doubt forecasts of sea level rise, you may pooh-pooh any connection with hurricane frequency or intensity. Etc. etc. till the cows come home.>>
    Response; Well heck yeah. If the forecasts were any where NEAR actual measurements, and if severe weather frequency predictiond]s were not in the exact opposite trend to what climate modelling predicted, we might not pooh- pooh them. And sorry for bursting your bubble, I’m a farm boy, and I can assure you we pooh-pooh you before, during, and well after the cows come home. Do you even know what the phrase means?
    Tamino; But if you try to tell me that what’s happening to the arctic, and especially to its sea ice, is not damn strong evidence of global warming … then I have to wonder whether it’s possible for us to have a productive dialogue. Because I don’t think you’re a “skeptic.”>>
    Response; There you go again. Sacrcasm, dismissal, ridicule, but no discourse founded upon logical analysis of facts to provide us any sign that you think at all instead of just shouting dogma.
    Of BTW, this sea ice thing is tricky. All sorts of explorers convinced kings and queens to fund NW passage exploration only to find the ice had close up as quickly as it had been opening for a few years before. Similar to today. Think that means anything Tamino? Think. Think. Think.

  24. Wow … just spent 10 minutes on the Tamino site. No wonder the guy gets so little traffic. The quality of the dicussion here puts Tamino’s ironically-named “Open Mind” blog to shame. I was almost tempted to post there, but I really don’t want to get dragged down to that level. It reminded me of the type of discourse one sees at Pure Poison, another site which purports to “welcome debate about politics and society, but constructive debate needs to be based on reason and facts”, but is really just a troll feast of vast proportions. I noticed a name or two in common from my short stay at PP in my short browse at Tamino.

  25. I think WUWT is pretty good for overall content and pretty fair with it’s treatment of posters, no matter what ‘camp’ they are in – so well done for that.
    A bit of humorous sarcasm is ok – but Tamino seems to go a bit too far, with a kind of na,na,na-na,na mentality – or am I just too sensitive? LOL
    Anyway, after looking at RC and trying to have reasoned discussion – I found the only place where I feel comfortably able to read stuff – is here. Yes, of course, there is a slant on the AGW ‘news’ but it’s not so much of an ‘In your face – I am right’ attitude as elsewhere!

  26. I clicked the link to Tamino for the first time. They don’t think much of WUWT, do they? I must say, I found it frightening over there. Reminded me of the self impressed, pedantic world I endured in graduate school. So absolutely sure of themselves all the time, even when proved wrong over and over. Humility is foreign to them. One cannot be a true intellect without humility, without the serious introspection that you may be wrong.

  27. I hope somebody is archiving all of the warmist blogs. I have a feeling that (1) in 5 or 10 years, they will make for some very amusing reading; and (2) their authors will attempt to quietly send their blogs down the memory hole.

  28. They are the “chosen ones” with “true knowledge” of how the world works… Zealots and with their precious dogma they will defend no matter what… They are saving the world and will brook no questions from unbelievers.

  29. You can smell the fear. The warmists have staked everything on this scientific theory, and they can now see the possibility that its mostly natural climate patterns.
    Remember, colossal global climate meltdown is more of a money spinner that worrying about ice age mitigation.

  30. Some people have got to the point where there going to need de-programmers to help them adjust back to a normal life when the CAGW scam is exposed.
    ‘Nutjob’s’, now thats ironic.

  31. The issue that sabril raises about ‘memory’ is an interesting one. [How do I get my comment to start with the name of the person whose comment I am commenting about? Other people do it; I don’t know how: my opinion on climate change is worthless].
    Back to memory. It seems likely that the main players in the AGW scare will try to slide back into the woodwork, muttering “it wasn’t me guv, and anyway they made me do it”. These things need archiving. I don’t know enough about websites and the internet to know how this works, but can we archive the essentials, so that years from now we can use Real Climate, and WUWT, and Bishop Hill, and Gavin, to illustrate how right and wrong clever people can be about important things?

  32. I must have said this a dozen tmes but I suppose once more won’t matter …
    What is their problem?
    I don’t deny the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago (though the way they manipulate the temperature figures I could be wrong). But so what? Where is the empirical evidence that this is a bad thing? What is the threat to them and to the science if things are not as grim as they make out? (Don’t just say “research grant”: these are guys that could get money for all sorts of research in their field.) Why are they so angry when people (some better qualified than they are) don’t buy into all the scaremongering stuff?
    Why are they so insistent — with very little, if any, real-world evidence — that they are right?
    The more I read the more I fail to understand just where the warmists are coming from.

  33. Even Judith Curry’s new Website has overtaken Tamino’s in terms of Responses, because she really does demonstrate an “Open Mind”.

  34. Well, comment didn’t survive.
    Here, we’re seeing questions to Tamino.
    And the “adults” over there can’t see fit to answer.
    Oh well, at least the “nutjobs” over here will let me post.
    And see the humor in all this.

  35. Tamino’s writing style has deteriorated over the past year.
    And his posters seem to be just going through he motions.
    I wonder when he is going to discuss the papers that show the Arctic losing much more ice than present over the past?

  36. It’s been my experience that people who have good reasons for thinking what they think don’t mind being questioned because they are comfortable defending their views and (sometimes) are interested in other points of view.

  37. I refuse to even visit the website of this “Tamino” character. The best way to avoid many problems is to steer completely around them–besides, I’m sure there’s nothing constructive to be gained by reading what he/she posts. And I certainly don’t want to increase their traffic, thereby providing some semblance of credability.

  38. John Cook says:
    November 2, 2010 at 10:58 pm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/links.php?c=2
    (not many skeptic sites there but anyone is welcome to use the Add Link form)
    Please link to Skeptical Science (some example HTML is supplied below) before filling out this form.

    I might consider linking to your site once the the inference that those sceptical of the AGW claims are akin to holocaust deniers has been purged from it. Until then, forget it.

  39. In this case, ironies abound, see ‘Open Mind’, see ‘Firm, Patient, and Silent’, but on one the man is quite straightforward; he sees as through a glass darkly.
    =================

  40. The fact that Anthony has put links to pro-AGW sites speaks volumes about the integrity of WUWT,and the fact that most of these pro-AGW site will not link WUWT or any sceptical sites speaks volume on the lack of integriy and true scientific debate/ethos of the people running them.Again Anthony/WUWT lead the way….again

  41. How do we know Tamino, with another screenname, doesn’t comment here regularly?
    Just look for an anonymous commenter here with the Tamino style and modus operandi, Voila!
    John

  42. Sam the Skeptic says:
    “Why are they so angry when people (some better qualified than they are) don’t buy into all the scaremongering stuff?
    Why are they so insistent — with very little, if any, real-world evidence — that they are right?
    The more I read the more I fail to understand just where the warmists are coming from.”
    The warmists, Sam, have an agenda that is nether scientific or realistic. Their objective, along with all their pals at the UN, WWF, EU, Greenpeace, etc etc, is to inflict fear and doubt amongst the general public throughout the planet, so as to impose more taxes, more financial clout and less freedom to the average Joe. They use all kinds of sinister tactics, and AGW is the best one they have come up with for a long time. Hence their incessant drive to try and maintain their momentum, and to change the goalposts when it suits.
    As Vaclav Klaus said, not so long ago, “Blue Planet with Green Shackles”. Sums it up beautifully.
    m the Skeptic says

  43. I was on a pretty good run on having my posts appear in full on Open Mind, but this one on Tamino’s Can We Talk thread seems to be stuck in moderation:
    Just The Facts | November 3, 2010 at 2:54 am | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Tamino
    Why do you edit certain posts such as sHx’s above;
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/can-we-talk/#comment-45332
    and my post from a couple weeks ago?:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-44877
    If you want to talk, why are you censoring the conversation?

  44. I am all for Judith but why have we got a whole post about a Troll? What next? “Come on Down Gavin”?
    After the last few years, one thing I have learned is that it is a total waste of time trying to ever try to put our side to the ……(trying to not get snipped!) environmentalists.
    Anthony has tried and been endlessly insulted! Media weather guys have had the same treatment! Over 33,000 scientists have had the same treatment! (Oops! I forget sometimes, they are not Climate Scientists!)
    These guys have had a few months to get over the emails etc and are all coming back, having re-organized (with a few exceptions like Monbiot, who realizes the game is up)
    Same old arguments, same old deletions to anything that does not line up with their agenda etc.
    Its nice to point out their shortfalls on their sites but lets just stick to science here and leave it to good peoples common sense to spot the politics.
    (That and a huge new lot in the house soon!)

  45. I too made a sincere recommendation to Mr. Grant Foster (Tamino) that he accept Anthony’s invitation to post on WUWT. I pointed out that readers of both blogs would benefit from thoughtful discussion of scientific facts and resulting opinions. My post was derided for several days then removed.

  46. I don’t link to Tamino because he is not honest. In my opinion RC and climate progress are in the same league. People or groups that will say anything to support an agenda don’t deserve the privilege.

  47. Wow, reading ‘Open Mind’ reminds me of Top Cat (Tamino) and Benny (commentors)
    Hilarious…….

  48. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    November 2, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    There’s two things to point out here:

    There ARE two things… You just said “there is two things”.

  49. Sam the Skeptic:

    I don’t deny the earth is warmer than it was 50 years ago (though the way they manipulate the temperature figures I could be wrong). But so what? Where is the empirical evidence that this is a bad thing? What is the threat to them and to the science if things are not as grim as they make out? (Don’t just say “research grant”: these are guys that could get money for all sorts of research in their field.) Why are they so angry when people (some better qualified than they are) don’t buy into all the scaremongering stuff?
    Why are they so insistent — with very little, if any, real-world evidence — that they are right?

    I don’t deny that it has warmed in some places, while it has cooled in others, and remained relatively static in yet others, over the course of the instrumental record. My problem with the whole debacle is that they’re saying it has warmed globally when that is demonstrably not the case.

  50. Jeff Id says:
    November 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
    I don’t link to Tamino because he is not honest. In my opinion RC and climate progress are in the same league. People or groups that will say anything to support an agenda don’t deserve the privilege.

    You said it so well I’ll just repeat it. They should be ignored.

  51. jason says:
    November 3, 2010 at 2:28 am
    You can smell the fear. The warmists have staked everything on this scientific theory, and they can now see the possibility that its mostly natural climate patterns.
    I think a lot of them knew it was natural all along and they were trying to get it all done and dusted before nature took its course and temperatures headed down again. We may have escaped by the skin of our teeth.

  52. I think you are all being unkind to Tamino – I think that for a 10 year old he is doing really well.

  53. I have very little time for those who demand the right to be heard while reserving the right to censor.
    Other than censoring outright trolls and spammers of course, but they are easily recognized.

  54. Peter Plail says:
    November 3, 2010 at 11:24 am
    I think you are all being unkind to Tamino – I think that for a 10 year old he is doing really well.”
    Please, let’s not insult 10 year olds. My neighbor is 9 and could argue rings around Tamino.

  55. This is the sort of stuff that landed me at WUWT. I would read these climate blogs bashing blogs like Climate Audit and WUWT. From my life experience, people become start name calling and becoming aggressive when they know their argument is not robust. So, I ended up here, I found the discussions to be civil, and the topics enlightening. Personally, I think that the climate stations project is the single most important piece of work related to climate (no NSF grant needed). Because all of this business about AGW hangs on one thread…have we been accurately measuring surface temperatures?

  56. Peter Plail says:
    November 3, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I think you are all being unkind to Tamino – I think that for a 10 year old he is doing really well.

    However much people here agree with this comment and those like it, comments like these really aren’t any better than many of those on Tamino’s side. I think skeptics and AGWers alike can prove their points and the other side’s failures without personal attacks such as these.
    At least if you’re going to do personal attacks, say something like “Tamino acts like a child when he uses the word ‘pwn’.”
    Just my thoughts,
    -Scott

  57. Scott says: November 3, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    “I think skeptics and AGWers alike can prove their points and the other side’s failures without personal attacks such as these.”
    How? if all your points get removed or edited to look as weak as they can. I totally agree with addressing the argument not the person but someone like Grant.. is very hard work. (I think he got bullied out of the 13 year old RC clan… Joke!!)

  58. As has been pointed out many times, Anthony has given Tamino a free opportunity to post here. If he is correct, and he can also get all his friends together to post supporting evidence, surely it is the perfect opportunity to post the best case possible to a very large group of mainly skeptic readers. Surely that is better than posting to a much smaller delegate of people who already agree with you?

  59. so much negativity and bitching on the pro-AGW blogs (not that I havent been just as guilty in the past, but that’s mostly born out of frustration at being labled an idoit or denier or some such crap) – I really don’t get it.
    Most people here don’t buy the offical line of tipping points and impending doom and are just after an honest appraisal of the facts and an open discourse to try to work out what’s causing what and further their understanding and further the science – you dont have to be a scientist to have a bright idea – someone else might take it and run with and prove the theory.
    Somehow, the pro-AGW camp view this skeptical discussion as some kind of heretical rebellion that must be crushed at all costs without realising that if there was actual hard core bona-fide proof that our CO2 is causing panetary meltdown that most of us here would be ok with trying to find ways to fix it at all costs. However, given that actual cause-effect links and facts seem to be in rather short supply, the only thing they have left is pathethic sniping and bitching.
    It really must be miserable being that miserable.

  60. Jason S. says:
    November 2, 2010 at 8:29 pm
    Get the whole story at WUWT! Get half truths and panic-stricken rants at Tamino.
    Nice.

  61. re post by: Malcolm Chapman says: November 3, 2010 at 2:55 am

    ….[How do I get my comment to start with the name of the person whose comment I am commenting about? Other people do it; I don’t know how: my opinion on climate change is worthless].

    Hi Malcolm,
    Others may know of some easy automatic way (and if so, I’d love to know too!), but I just do it the old fashioned way. I highlight their name and however much of their post I need (so what I’m referring to is clear, as I’ve done here with your post)… then copy it, and go down to the comment form and past it in. Then to be nice and polite and make things easier to read, I’ll usually put a “re:” or “@” or “re: post by” before the person’s name, and move the date up onto the same line. Then edit their post to the minimum needed so folks have some idea what I’m talking about, and put it either into italics or blockquotes. For either you have to surround the text you want to affect by ‘html command codes.’ So for italics, you start just before the text, and put in a less than sign, and ‘i’ and a greater than sign. e.g., {i} except using less than/greater than instead of the brackets. To ‘close’ that command you use the same thing, only with a forward slash just before the ‘i.’ So its {/i} To do blockquotes its the same thing essentially: {blockquote} text you want affected {/blockquote} Again, of course, you don’t use the brackets, you use the less than & greater than symbols.
    Anthony has a link somewhere to a page that shows you all the various commands wordpress (this site) will/can recognize, but I’m sorry I don’t know offhand just where its at. Bet you can find it somewhere on the homepage tho.

  62. Just how “Open Mind” Tamino (or moderators there) really are…. sHx’s post, when I first went to the site, was followed by these two replies:

    Ray Ladbury | November 2, 2010 at 2:32 pm | Reply
    sHx,
    MicroWatts serves a very useful function as an asylum for the nutjobs. Pray, why would we want them over here where the adults are trying to have intelligent conversation?
    *
    Didactylos | November 2, 2010 at 8:44 pm |
    It’s not that we’re elitists. It’s just that Watts sets the bar low, then trips over it.

    I tried to add my reply as shown below, twice, once at about 7:30 then again just after 9pm. I don’t think it could possibly be seen as being anywhere near as obnoxious and disagreeable as those two already there. Needless to say, it never appeared. My attempted post:
    re: Response: It’s very revealing that when Anthony gets pwned, his supporters call it a “tantrum.” Nice rhetorical trick … but you guys just can’t take the heat.
    Au Contraire, I’d say its pretty clear that skeptics can take the heat, virtually by definition of the debate/issue itself. Its the AGW advocates who believe the heat is bad!
    Nice edit job on the original sHx post too (NOT). Even in this instance, it appears its the advocates who couldn’t take the heat. Will be interesting to see if my post is allowed at all.
    ~~~~~~~
    Believers are from Venus, Skeptics are from Mars {VBG}

  63. Sorry Scott, I was just trying to inject a little tongue-in-cheek humour rather than saying rather boringly that Tamino’s actions are somewhat juvenile. Perhaps if I had added a smiley it would have made my intention clearer.
    I don’t think it comes anywhere close to the vitriolic rants that are commonplace on “realist” blogs.

  64. Tamino is just an elitist [snip]. Everybody already knows it. Not sure he is worth any of our trouble whatsoever.

  65. Just had my experience with the “open mind” today, see: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/how-likely/#comment-45390
    My last comment is
    ——————————————————
    Espen | November 4, 2010 at 4:45 pm | Reply
    I’m not sure why you need to be so rude, and I should probably leave and never come back … [edit]
    [Response: I’m not sure why you need to be so stupid. Please leave and never come back.]
    ——————————————————
    This was the full comment:
    ——————————————————
    I’m not sure why you need to be so rude, and I should probably leave and never come back to this puddle of dirt again, but I’m a persistent person, and being a mathematician myself, I don’t like people who play cheap tricks with statistics and simple math, so I’ll try once more: The situation back then wasn’t NOT X, quite the opposite, it was very close to X when we measure it with the best metric we have for such a long time range: Long term temperature measurements of the high Arctic. The fact that ice conditions may have been very different (we don’t know for sure, we have no good measurements from before the seventies) doesn’t make NOT(X) out of X, especially considering that the whole point of your little statistical game is that the ice conditions are due to AGW, i.e. mainly a function of atmospheric temperatures!

  66. Well, Tamino is really a bigger jerk than I thought:
    Espen | November 4, 2010 at 9:39 pm | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Tamino, I’m not a denier, in fact I have a very open mind (otherwise I would, as a green activist in my youth, never have started asking myself critical questions about AGW at all)… Also,, I’m convinced that CO2 warms the atmosphere – but not that climate sensitivity is high. I’m not convinced that warming has already damaged the earth, in fact I think that a little more warming will only be beneficial. It’s much more rational to worry about a possible return to little ice age conditions, where the Arctic may have been quite close to the onset of a new glaciation.
    I think it’s sad that you don’t want a dialogue with people who don’t completely share your views. And I’m sorry to say that this failure to engage in dialogue makes you half blind: You think I’m in denial just because I see similarity where you see differences.
    [Response: what a crock. I already told you why you’re a denialist, and it has nothing to do think you’re a denialist because:
    1: you criticized my estimate of P(X|B) based on conditions which were NOT B.
    2: when the basis for your “50-60 years ago” argument was shown to be a sham, you resorted to the “data is tainted” meme. It seems that you’re willing to use data which supports your preconception, but when it contradicts you, you’ll deny the very data itself. It’s pathetic that you can’t do any better than that, and you actually pat yourself on the back for it.
    And when your shenanigans is shown for what it is, you call yourself “open minded” and me “half blind.” You are totally blind.
    I love to engage in dialogue with people who don’t completely share my views. I’m sick and tired of refuting the same old astoundingly stupid arguments from the blind. That’s you.]

  67. Espen –
    I just finished reading that exchange over at Open Mind! Thanks for posting your full comment here…I was curious to see what you said in your full comment.
    I understand your frustration. As a scientist myself who believes in (limited) AGW, I’m somehow treated as a full-blown “denier” (I hate that word) simply because I question some bad science and extreme claims (and especially b/c I don’t believe the ‘C’ in front of the AGW).
    Out of curiosity, what area of mathematics is your specialty? I’m pretty poor with stats (and really with all of math past what normal scientists/engineers are required to take), but even I was able to tell that Tamino was using assumptions favorable to his views to support his view…something we see a lot of in science today…and effectively a circular argument.
    Regards,
    -Scott

  68. Scott, my speciality is logic, but I took some statistics courses too, and have some experience with applied statistics. Enough to see through some of the bad statistics done in climate science (and elsewhere, of course), but not enough to e.g. understand everything Steve M writes 😉

  69. If Robert or any of the other commenters that posted more or less polite comments to me reads this blog too…:
    I’m sorry, but it’s impossible to answer you over at Tamino’s. It’ simply not possible to maintain a fruitful dialogue when the host acts in such a rude way. I don’t know if the bottom of this thread would be the right place either.
    I posted two more posts which were deleted:
    Espen | November 4, 2010 at 10:03 pm | Reply 
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    . You can yell as much as you want, you’re in denial: My argument has NOT been shown to be “a sham” just because YOU don’t think the two warming periods are similar enough. The peak of the “north of 66N average” may be higher now (although the airport problem is more real than you want to admit). So what? The warming RATE was higher back then. And for some of the northernmost long continuous records, the warming AMOUNT was also higher back then, see e.g. Ostrov Dikson (close to the famous Yamal!): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
All in all – enough similarities to question whether a “fully natural” warming of the magnitude we see now is really that unlikely (And I don’t even think it’s “fully natural”, up to half a degree C of the current peak is quite likely to be due to CO2 concentrations, IMHO).


    .
    . Espen | November 4, 2010 at 10:05 pm | Reply 
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    . Robert, thank you for your response, I would like to discuss this further with you, but I’m already tired of the bad temper of the host, so I withdraw.

Comments are closed.