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.
re post by: Malcolm Chapman says: November 3, 2010 at 2:55 am
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.
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:
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}
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.
Tamino is just an elitist [snip]. Everybody already knows it. Not sure he is worth any of our trouble whatsoever.
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!
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.]
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
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 😉
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.