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:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
r3Ply: $P3@K f0r y0ur53lf Y0U 7W0 fing3r 7ypInG N0o8. ~ c7M
It saddens me to say that I can read that without resorting to a nerd translator. Yes, I shall come out of the closet as a gaming nerd… who is currently in closed alpha testing for a much anticipated MMO title. Wootage!
PS> For the noobs: http://www.jayssite.com/stuff/l33t/l33t_translator.html
“WE” are anti-science ???
Why don’t they teach us the science then? Are they really shy?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Even Judith Curry’s new Website has overtaken Tamino’s in terms of Responses, because she really does demonstrate an “Open Mind”.
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.
Tamino deletes a single sentence I post.
Especially he hates the two equal warming of the last century shown in the following plot.
http://bit.ly/de8ihf
I wonder why?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
=================
I guess the definition of “pwned” has changed in the last week. Who knew?
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