An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
Hmmmm … I guess this rules out any chance of a cartoon by Josh appearing in Skeptical Science.
There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/.
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
Josh is sharp and very insightful love your toons Josh.
Friday Bonus Anthony — WUWT just made Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/23/how-many-people-watched-al-goresclimate-cast/
Following your link to Lucia I found there is much support from fairly sharp people for the Skeptical Science web page and their supposed refutation of denier myths. Now I used to read skeptical science all of the time and the refutations were extraordinairily unconvincing. What it all makes me wonder is just how bad has science education become? We have people who are supposedly scientists treating models as if the were well established theories. Arguing as if a set of computer games using made up assumptions were actual reality. All while pretending that the data they were comparing the computer games to wasn’t of both doubtful quality and wild uncertainty.
laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm
There is another accusation against the Eureka Prize winner here http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/dr-david-evans-four-fatal-pieces-of-evidence/.
………….
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
========================================================
That specific thread? No. But one doesn’t have to have been there to know it is true. That has been happening since the start. Its why I don’t venture to those threads anymore. I’ve even had my comments edited to take out the rationale of my point and then the rest posted, only not to be given the opportunity to explain. I don’t understand why this is such a hubbub. There isn’t an alarmist blog that doesn’t rely on censorship in one form or another.
I used to try, and, if someone else wants, I can give them tips on how to be allowed to post and cryptically make some points in hopes that someone would read them and understand the thought you wish to express. But, its a lot of work, unforceful, and silly. Worse, if you are successful, and productive conversation gets generated, it will disappear.
On this particular point though, I’d like to emphasize that Josh’s approach is the only appropriate one at this point. Point it out, to be sure, but don’t take is seriously and don’t expect it to change. It won’t. But, mostly, understand that in the blog forums, the skeptics have won, and the public knows this. We don’t erase embarrassing moments. We don’t intentionally mischaracterize others statements. If some misunderstanding occurs, it is posted. We don’t delete comments. We give our antagonists a voice. Contrast this to the alarmists blogs. In many ways, it was their aberrant behavior and their treatment of McIntyre that gave a huge lift to the skeptical blogosphere. Prior to Steve Mac, John Daly was the only one I was aware of. RC, Deltoid(which intentionally misrepresented a post of Willis’ here.) SkS, and a whole host of wannbees, ……. My point is, we’ve won. All we have to do is continue to do what we’ve always done from the beginning. But, its time to quit taking these people seriously. For years we tried to have an open dialogue with those people. They’ll have nothing of the sort. Just take this, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 , look at the numbers the blogs generate, especially this one, look at the content, enjoy Josh’s cartoon and laugh at the marginal fringe that purports to be mainstream. They are not, we are!
Sorry for the length,
James
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/
Though at this point, I doubt your house has any intact panes remaining.
[REPLY: Gee, Dana, you must like walking on broken glass. You’ll note that your comment is appearing, and Anthony admits where he may have erred. Since you arrived at SkS the blog attempts to re-write history. You got caught. When you’ve developed some integrity, come back and take your best shot. This attempt was just pathetic. -REP, mod]
Nicely put, James S. – my sentiments entirely.
Re Wondering Aloud and education. Deep down, I have hope because there are still people with the wit to pull examples like these. When you see such material no more, you’ll then have cause to worry. Source unknown – turned up in my emails.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Fal%20with%20dignity.jpg
I like a whole bunch of those Geoff.
I think memoryvaults experience has been widely documented elsewhere. Skeptical Science is very poorly named as no attempt is made to actually answer serious questions. they are vigorously arm waved away.
JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.
From http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true
dana1981 says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm
“…. …. ”
That’s hilarious!! I was going to include that as an example of the differences that distinguish skeptical sites from alarmists!
Question: what does this show you?…..“UPDATE: Some people in comments including Dr. Roy Spencer, (and as I was writing this, Dr. Richard Allan) suggest that the paper isn’t about feedback …….
I’ll answer the question, it shows a willingness to show alternate views. It shows an understanding that none of us can be correct 100% of the time. And, it shows a markedly different form for handling dissent than what the alarmists sites show on a daily basis.
Dana, these mean people at WUWT want you to develop some integrity before you post back here, I’d invite you to post on my blog before you do! Uncensored (no swearing) and unedited. We need someone to laugh at.
James
laterite says:
September 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm
JS: Most people would find this kind of ‘fixing’ abhorrent, and I find it disturbing that he is the recipient of this award if such fixing was widely known.
====================================================
Nonsense such as that was quit disturbing for me, too……… several years ago. I’ve learned to live with it, and understand that not all people are instilled with scruples. We’re all aware John Cook received that award. But, you must remember, even before the suggestion we get put in a re-education camp, even before the suggestion we should be tattooed, even before the comedy skit of blowing up skeptics was aired, we were silenced and marginalized. We were belittled, berated, and cast as if we were bereft of science. Our integrity was questioned at every point and continues today. So, one must ask themselves, who engages in such behavior? Who shrieks so loud when questioned?
As far as the award while it being widely known? Al Gore received a Nobel while including court documented falsehoods. It says more to the awarders then to the recipients.
James
A true work of art. The subtle ears in the walls. the reflection of the wet paint. Well crafted. Well done.
Recall that Tamino deleted (purged?) entire threads.
I just finished posting this on the “overcooked” thread, then I read James Sexton’s comment above and thought this thread was more appropriate:
The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, has been handed an award by the establishment just means they are trying to protect the status quo, which is crumbling due to grass roots pressure and the pesky facts that debunk CAGW.
The truth is known by most educated scientists and engineers: CO2 is harmless and beneficial – as is testified by over 31,000 professionals working in the hard sciences, who co-signed this statement:
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.
People may be reluctant to take the brave stand that the 31,000 co-signers did. But it’s much easier to just decline to sign alarmist petitions by simply saying, “Thanks, but I don’t want to get involved.” The fact is that the great majority of those in the hard sciences know damn well that the CO2 scare is fed by $billions in annual grant money. Take away the grant payola, and people will literally laugh at the peddlers of tha CAGW scare. Because it’s not about science. It’s about the money.
•
More thorough debunking of Skeptical Pseudo-Science:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
I see Dana1981 dropped by to learn a little about climate. About time. Of course, when someone displays the obvious lack of integrity displayed by him, one can just smile and know that karma has a way of dealing with them.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!” Gandhi
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
For example, why if sea levels are rising so dramatically, are the dryng rocks so carefully plotted on the British Admiralty charts of 250 years ago, which were made to a level of precison rarely seen since, why are those same drying rocks still drying rocks today?
These areas have not been resurveyed. They were charted by Bligh and Vancouver when they sailed with Cook. If sea level is actually rising, then these rocks should all be underwater, but they are not.
So, when you point this out on RC and other alarmist sites, you are deleted. Folks like Hansen and Jones, they can adjust the climate records all they want. What they haven’t been able to adjust are the BA charts drawn 250 years ago.
This is what RC desparately doesn’t want anyone to know. That there are records that show the truth, that were made with a much higher degree of accuracy than any climate records. The BA charts were made by men that knew that their lives and ships depended on getting it right, backed up by corporal punishment if they got it wrong.
Smokey says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm
“…………….The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, ……………….
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.”
=================================================
Telling, isn’t it? Their consensus. Their overwhelming majority can’t convince the majority of scientists. The few dozen misanthropists who call themselves scientists have been rejected by the working scientists. And so, it is only fitting that they become caricatures in Josh’s cartoons.
We should note, though, Cook isn’t a scientist any more than I am. My degree is in computer science as is Cook’s.
ferd berple says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:46 pm
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Was anyone else on this thread who can corroborate this?
I can certainly corroborate that RC deletes posts when someone asks a simple question that requires an honest answer.
=============================================================
Thanks Ferd! But, I can’t take credit for the original question……… laterite @ September 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm posed the original question. But, you did confirm my response to laterite. RC, SkS, Deep whatever, Deltoid,…… they’re all the same……echo chambers which allow no dissent or alternate views.
I stated this on an earlier thread, some read Orwell and took his writings as warnings, others read Orwell and took them to be diagrams for success. In the end, humanity’s future won’t be determined by scientific discovery, it will be determined by morality.
James
[SNIP: People who fling the term “denier” around are not tolerated here. Nor are those who attempt to demean their host with puerile name-calling. As for your opinion, well, like they say, everyone has one of those, too. -REP,mod]
James Sexton says:
September 23, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Yet I like to think that in the end, humanity’s future will be determined by the moral application of scientific discovery.
That’s why what the Warmistas do is so abhorrent!
Some of us (and by “some of us” I mean “me”) are less than fully conversant with all the details of this controversy, however, it seems that dana1981 has made corrections to her post, including a note of thanks to those who pointed out the problem:
Has this been properly acknowledged here, and does it significantly affect anything? We’re justifiably proud of our ability to err, and correct the error here. If it’s been done elsewhere, we should give credit where it’s due.
Anthony,
Thanks for giving [dana1981] a chance to make his case on your blog.
The real problem for the Hockey Team and their supporters is that truth is not on their side. If it were they would not need to behave like Muslim fundamentalists threatening dire consequences against anyone who dares to voice dissent.
In contrast, people like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are big enough to admit when they are wrong and make corrections if appropriate. Even though you are not a scientist you are a seeker after truth who quickly acknowledges mistakes such as in the link [dana1981] cited. Furthermore you do not erase your mistakes as SkS would, you simply put a line through them so we can see what the mistake was.
Contrast that with the false confidence of the Warmists. With the honorable exception of George Monbiot they saw nothing wrong with any of the antics exposed in Climategate. Can you imagine Michael Mann and his cohorts admitting that Bristlecone pines are unreliable temperature proxies, especially given their shameless cherry picking of trees in the Yamal peninsula?
[dana1981] demonstrated his lack of maturity by his refusal to acknowledge that “Charlie A” was right and he was wrong. Take a look at the exchange that is going on right now at SkS and tell me who needs to grow up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments.php?p=3&t=57202&
The down side of this discussion of the failings of SkS is that it is generating a spike in the comments at the site. My recommendation is to ignore SkS altogether; let it wither on the vine or stew in its own juice. Maybe someone can suggest a better metaphor.
JS: People can run their blog whatever way they choose in my opinion. It doesn’t worry me. But to be receiving top scientific prizes for, I guess it can be described as astroturfing, really worries me for some reason.
Frank Lee MeiDere,
You referred to [dana1981] as a female but I am pretty sure “He” is this person:
[snip – I don’t care if you say it is in the Guardian, without a source that shows it is public info I won’t allow his/her private info here – Anthony]
My source is the Guardian newspaper in the UK (aka the “Grauniad”).
Talking of such things, I’ve had loads of reasonably-worded posts deleted over at Puff Ho, when tackling some the CAGW Brigade in their Climate Change section. I don’t bother anymore – just leave them to blow smoke up each others @rses.
Oops. And as a good resident of WUWT I hereby acknowledge my error, offer my apologies, and retreat back into silence. (That last one is a lie — but I acknowledge the lie, as well.)
@James Sexton
“In many ways, it was their aberrant behavior and their treatment of McIntyre that gave a huge lift to the skeptical blogosphere. ”
Yes, that was the turning point. It still took a couple more years to spread the word, and then when Climategate came, critical mass was reached.
Right after checking in here, I still check Steve’s blog every day and, assuming there’s a new post, I stay and try to fathom it (not always easy – and I am trained in science).
dana1981 says:September 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm …
WUWT should also remember the definitive statement and ludicrous comments in the CO2 freezing in the antarctic entry that was reconfigured as a “learning” entry. Biggest laugh in the “science” blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/09/co2-condensation-in-antarctica-at-113f/
“How cold is it in Antarctica? According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday. That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air. “!!!!!
Unfortunately wayback did not capture the amazing title for the entry before revisionism attacked!
[REPLY: Yes, by all means check out the link and note that Anthony changed the title and explained in an update at the same time why he changed it. Note, too, that the biggest laugh wasn;t as much of a howler as suggested here. Contrast it with SkS which goes back months after the fact and changes articles and comments, often with the intention of making skeptic commenters look bad. -REP, mod]
Incidentally have you wondered why so few dissenting views here, over the last year? Banned – straight in the auto spam bin never to be released – comments just do not make it past moderation.
Just ask Anthony how many are treated this way!
[Very few. Very, very few. Robt]
[Concur with moderator Robt. Out of more than 670,000 reader comments, only a handful have been banned for legitimate reasons, when they continuously violate site Policy. All other comments are posted. ~dbs, mod.]
Chris B says:
September 23, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win!” Gandhi
I’ll take it as a compliment that you have copied my ID. Perhaps inadvertently?
Dana1981
If you note, the thread you point out as an error by Anthony is full the brim of people jumping all over him about that actual point of the paper. I’d like to know two things:
1. Why, when I point out major errors in statements on climate sites that are all gaga about AGW, do my points getted heavily edited and then ridiculed out of context and my responses protesting the twisting of the facts simply get deleted altogether?
2. Since you’re posting the average of the IPCC AR4 model suite, could you take the time and effort to post also the error? You see, 0.19 degrees per decade, plus or minus…what? 3 degrees? Its like having 20 bucks in a bank account more than you thought based on the average of 22 accountants who come out to 20 +/- 2,000. sorta meaningless, ya know?
jphilips says: September 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm
It’s interesting that you, with all your innuendo and snark, have not just vanished straight in the auto spam bin never to be released. As far as I can see, Anthony doesn’t do that and any commenter that contributes to the discussion is allowed…. unless, of course, people like R. Gates and Joel Shore don’t count as “dissenters”.
jphilips says:September 23, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Just ask Anthony how many are treated this way!
[Very few. Very, very few. Robt]
There are of course those that are scared away :
wattsupwiththat[dot]com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down/#comment-430723
REPLY: You are writing from a government entity, the UK Meteorological Office. Is this what taxpayers pay you for? To use your taxpayer funded time to denigrate others? How pathetic. -A
You are a pathetic bully Anthony Watts. These are my personal comments done in my personal time using PCs that are provided for reasonable personal use by employees, contractors and visitors to the Met Office.
REPLY: Perhaps, but still on the government funded network, using taxpayer funded PC’s, at your place of work. Still not cool. Read the policy page. Can’t take the heat, then do it from home. -A
wattsupwiththat[dot]com/2010/05/27/cei-files-suit-on-giss-regarding-foia-delays/#comment-398380
REPLY: I don’t know what the total makeup is, there are a lot of independent donations, I do know that. But I also know it won’t matter what the answer is, as you’ll simply write another hate filled post and blame “deniers” and “big oil”. Your MO precedes you. Blogging on school time and their network today? Tsk.
Just a hint of a threat!
================================================================
REPLY: No threat, policy. Made clear for a very long time on the WUWT policy page. I don’t have much tolerance for government employees that waste the taxpayer money to post rants like this fellow did. (even though he claims otherwise, but I’ve learned that the louder and more vile people are in conversation, the less trustworthy they are) So it’s my blog, my choice. I don’t force anyone to abuse their privileges and launch rants here. We have lots of people from .edu’s and .gov’s posting here. The only time I call attention to the fact is when they start denigrating people. This has worked pretty well because WUWT still leads the pack over all the angry ranter blogs on climate out there. Most people don’t come here to flame/be flamed, they come to interact and learn.
You chose not to post the whole comment so lets do that:
I don’t always agree with Monckton, and I’ve said so publicly. I agree less though with people that post loads of angry tosh.
You can get your own blog and run it anyway you want, I’ll run mine in such a way that people that behave like petulant children don’t get to hijack the conversation for everyone else, if that upsets you or some other people, too bad.
If you want to read a policy that is threatening, insulting, and degrading, I suggest you read what warmist Greg Laden has to say about the people of certain parts of America and what he’ll do. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about.php Scrolll down to commenting policy.
Cheers, Anthony
Re dana`s example of the “CO2 freezing in Antarctica” thread and its followup,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/
– this followup was responsible for me finding WUWT. I was asking myself whether CO2 would rain out of the atmosphere, googled it, and found WUWT. I’ve been around ever since – because of the level of the debate. I was actually awe-struck by this blog.
So, what Dana describes as WUWT’s biggest blunder is WUWT’s biggest strength.
@DirkH Thank you – what other blog actually has somebody do an experiment to put an end to the debate? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/
IIRC even a scientist at Argonne natl lab had a wrong answer published on his website at first. Everybody learned something from that.
[SNIP: You were warned once. That’s it. You will also note that our policy requires a valid e-mail address. The one you supplied is not. Anonymous, cowardly trolls are not welcome. -REP, mod]
In the UK, there are large number of eurosceptics, like me, who believed the single currency (Euro) was an act of extreme folly. However the politicians – especially the trendy left leaning ones – loved it. Now reality has set in and the Euro (through sovereign country and bank debt) has the potential to create a global economic disaster.
I guess its much the same with climate sceptics – the political establishment supports the AGW cult, so do the trendy left. Dodgy science, just like dodgy economics, has the support of our ‘political elite’. So it will probably take a near disaster to act as a wake up call. In the UK, it will probably be the widespread electricity brown outs and blacks out we can confidently expect in a few years time as we increasingly rely on expensive, unreliable wind power.
It is perhaps no surprise that most eurosceptics are also climate sceptics.
As for John Cook and Al Gore, they may be the heroes of those who think with their butt today, but we can be certain of one one thing: History will not judge them kindly.
And we wonder why our governments are in such a mess. jphilips is advocating govt. workers comment on blogs as opposed to doing their jobs. Brilliant philips………… gosh, I hope he’s Brit.
Somebody else (?) called Dana made this comment in the Grauniad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/case-study-climate-science-integrity
Reply: Uh, he wrote the article above that as well, and gives is full name. ~ ctm
In the link Anthony gave above, Greg Laden says:
“Sometimes I’m hard on an entire state. Like Texas. Or, recently, West Virginia. It’s funny when the slack jawed yokels who live in these god-forsaken shitholes get annoyed at that.”
Laden goes on to say [repeatedly] that he graduated from Harvard. For those who might be impressed, the fact is that Harvard [and similar Ivy League schools] primarily benefit their grads because of social networking, not because their curriculum is better than schools in flyover country. In fact, Forbes regularly rates red state school grads as being better for employers.
There is not one Supreme Court justice who is not a Harvard or Yale graduate. It’s simple back-scratching. The main value of an Ivy League degree is networking; they support their own over anyone else, no matter what the qualifications for the job. But that doesn’t mean anything academically, especially since Harvard and other schools have eliminated letter grades in favor of Pass/Fail. And no one fails at Harvard, especially if they’re African-American. Our unestimable President accomplished absolutely nothing of note at Harvard, his high school grades were miserable, and he cannot even explain why he was admitted over thousands of Asian and Caucasian applicants with astronomical SAT scores and 4.25 GPA’s. [Of course, we know the answer: Obama was given preferance simply because Harvard is racist.]
A Harvard degree means little to thinking adults, aside from its great value as a networking tool. Laden’s degree in cultural Anthropology does not qualify him to opine on climate issues any more than the rest of us. Probably less, since a degree like that is taught by blinkered liberals who infest Harvard 100%.
Laden’s propaganda blog makes no bones about his intent to funnel readers into the globaloney propaganda machine. If you do a search on his blog you are informed: This search engine will only give you results from carefully selected skeptical and scientific sites. WUWT has become immensely popular because it allows all points of view, instead of spoon-feeding readers with alarmist nonsense. Only insecure fanatics like Laden refuse to allow people with different points of view from expressing their opinions. If open discussions about CAGW were allowed at alarmist blogs like Laden’s, the CAGW nonsense would quickly be relegated to the obscurity it deserves. To avoid that fate, Laden and the rest are forced to censor opposing comments. They have no choice; the alternative is to allow the truth to be winnowed from all sides through open, uncensored debate. But the truth is anathema to the cargo cult CAGW believers, so it must be suppressed wherever it appears.
Anthony you say
“You can get your own blog and run it anyway you want, I’ll run mine in such a way that people that behave like petulant children don’t get to hijack the conversation for everyone else, if that upsets you or some other people, too bad. ”
You have every right to delete potentially illegal entries (e.g. defamatory, racist, comments inciting violence etc.) – however, you do nothing with defamation of climate scientists on the other side (how many times have you allowed fraud to pass?).
To ban someone who vociferously debates is not science it is censorship. It is your blog and your right to control who types.But as a very popular location you should also have a duty to allow reasoned debate from all.
Anonymity
All posters should be blogging over a level playing field. Just because I have a dozen scientifically earned letters after my name should not make my comments more believable than joe bloggs esq. UNLESS i bach then up with scientific evidence.
Secondly a pseudonym allows a certain amount of from the loonies out there on both sides. I do not want my family subjected to threatening phone calls, emails and letters – or worse:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial
On Sunday he [Dellingpole] published a letter sent to a Conservative candidate asking about his position on climate change. Here’s what the letter said:
“Dear Edwin Northover
I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action….
Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?
Kind Regards, *** ***”.
It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a “nauseating email” which must have come from a “disgusting eco-fascist organisation”, though he didn’t know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined “Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies”. Much worse, he published the man’s name and home address.
Delingpole’s bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (“Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of “stalking” and “bullying”.
One commenter wrote: “I tried to telephone *** *** on the number helpfully posted in this blog, but he’s out until tomorrow. Perhaps he is out ‘tackling climate change’? – anyway his missus didn’t seem to know where he was.”
Paradoxically, their hounding of this poor man demonstrated that he was just what he seemed to be: an ordinary citizen, exercising his democratic right to ask a parliamentary candidate about his position on an important matter.
REPLY: Oh please. What Delingpole or Monbiot write/do is not about WUWT, don’t try to make their issues mine. – Anthony
jphilips [and ajpferrier] says: “…you do nothing with defamation of climate scientists on the other side… how many times have you allowed fraud to pass?”
Maybe that’s because fraud is involved with mainstream climate “science”. I think there is ample evidence of scientific misconduct, and as public funds are involved, that to me is clearly defrauding the taxpaying public.
If the repeated charges of fraud by the skeptic community were baseless, then Michael Mann and his clique of climate charlatans would cerrtainly be demanding legal redress. But they don’t dare, because the discovery and deposition process would put them on the hot seat. They would have to explain their actions. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that aspersions of fraud and scientific misconduct on the part of those rascals has a verifiable basis. So the clique lets sleeping dogs lie, rather than opening themselves up to hostile questioning under oath and calling witnesses against them… which is going to happen eventually anyway.
Finally, most of your comments refer to James Delingpole. So why not post your opinion on his blog, instead of here? You are obviously not being “censored” here, so quit complaining about it. Routine censorship happens almost exclusively at alarmist blogs, as I and many others know from personal experience. Therefore, your complaints are hypocriitical at best.
[And which is the sock puppet, ajpferrier, or jphilips? Anonymity is one thing; posting under multiple screen names is certainly more objectionable.]
OK so Jpilips was not banned! simply locked in “moderation”
So after 1.5 hours of jphilips not getting posted but your post at September 24, 2011 at 5:03 am
becoming visible I assumed the worst (another IP address, email address, name, was banned at this location). I posted under this name.
Now to get a completely new personna!
REPLY: Uh, note the time: 5:03 AM PST it was the middle of the night for the previous comment, people sleep you know. Sheesh. Also note we don’t allow people here to switch personas per the policy page pick one and stick with it or shove off. – Anthony
For those of you who had a look at Dana1981’s graph, here is a more accurate version.
This covers all predictions made by Hansen 1988, IPCC FAR, IPCC TAR and IPCC AR4 versus Hadcrut3 and GISTemp staring at the time the predictions were made (ie. when they stopped using hindcasts and started making predictions).
All on the same baseline and all used roughly the same warming prediction for the year 2100.
Not too accurate so far, especially the ones that have over ten years of predictions available.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ian_Plimer#Awards.2C_fellowships.2C_prizes.2C_notable_achievements
Ian Plimer got 2 Eurekas and was on many gov’t and other jobs.
Yet the ABC who lauded him now dismiss him for saying CO2 alarmism is just that: false alarmism.
So the lauded Eureka is either as low in standards as the Nobels become, or as prestigious as they want us to think? In which case, Prof Plimer deserves respect and airtime.
Can’t have it both ways.
Anthony Watts says:
September 23, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Yep. Made a damn mess of the discussion here, it did. Appeal to authority and all that. I contacted the scientist, he quickly replied, apologized, and asked the site’s editor to put in his fix.
Bill Illis, nice chart. Now, Let’s see if John Cook or his buddies publish that chart on SkS. 😉
Bill Illis – I disagree that your graph is “more accurate”, but I have done posts evaluating the accuracy of the other projections on your plot [FAR, SAR, TAR, Hansen ’88, and others] if you’re interested. They also go into detail examining the various reasons behind the model-data discrepancies. See here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Predictions_150
So ajpferrier aka jphilips admits to being a sock puppet. My guess is that this person was also DeanL and that all of them are dana1981. There is now a “Sid” over at Bishop Hill rehashing all of the very same talking points and asserting that we are all stupid for accepting the idea that the MWP was warmer than today.
Love the cartoon!
Science is supposed to be skeptical; without skepticism, science becomes dogma becomes religion. Yet, somehow, the “skeptical science” blog is skeptical only of….climate skepticism.
That isn’t skepticism; it’s priests and acolytes in training.
—————–
dana1981,
Great to see you comment here.
What are your plans to make SS uncensored, un-manipulated and open to all ideas on the subject matter of current climate science? I am sure Judith Curry, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford would extend a helping hand both morally and practically. As would many longtime open venue independent thinkers.
John
REPLY: I’d offer help/advice, most certainly – Anthony
SkS…Dana1981…jphilips and ajpferrier….IMO you are missing the point.
You are losing readers [ credibility ] not because of what Mr Delingpole or Mr Watts says or does.
That rests clearly on the shoulders of the SkS Team and Mr Cook.
If you don’t want your tree to smell bad – stop peein’ on it.
dana1981 says:
September 24, 2011 at 8:27 am
——–
Kudos for passing the class at Tamino’s school of data charting (what smoothing program and baselines are you using? were the hindcasts that far off?).
I usually just post the data as I download it (making sure all the baselines are correct first and apples to apples comparisons can be made etc. )
I’m wondering…
Since Dana1981 is here, if the fact that Dr. Pielke suggested the SkS categorizations of “Christy Crocks” etc were demeaning, and then someone at SkS suggested that WUWT had a demeaning category “Al Gore is an idiot” (created when Gore uttered his famous “Earth is millions of degrees” gaffe on national TV) and Pielke agreed and called us on it, I agreed and responded publicly with a change here: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/response-from-anthony-watts/
…if SkS has found themselves able to respond in kind? So far it doesn’t look like it.
Your thoughts on whether SkS will respond in kind are welcome.
Also, I’m wondering if you’ll be posting articles at SkS under your own name now, since apparently you’ve been outed at other websites. Science isn’t advanced anonymously, peer reviewed papers don’t have “handles”, they have names and affiliations. It would seem a good model to emulate if indeed SkS is all about science, and not about sniping from the cover of anonymity.
Since you seem to want to embrace peer reviewed science, it would seem the logical choice. I’ve said here that people who write opinions should stand behind them, otherwise it is just anonymous noise. Do you stand behind your own words enough to put your name to your publications?
“I’ve said here that people who write opinions should stand behind them, otherwise it is just anonymous noise.”
Yet you don’t say that to people who agree with you, Anthony (e.g. Smokey)
REPLY: Note that I specifically referred to Dana’s SkS articles and publications. I have no care about what handle he/she uses to comment on blogs with. Otherwise all commenters using handles would fall into that category. – Anthony
[snip ] A valid email is required to comment here, per policy page. see below:
Your email address deanl@xxx.xxx.au [x’s inserted by me for public display, full email used in test] comes up bad by two separate checks
http://verify-email.org/
Result: Bad
Description: 550 5.1.1 … User unknown
======================
http://tools.email-checker.com/
“bad”
======================
And your IP address says you are commenting from Europe, but the email you give is from Australia. We’ve recently had a case where somebody appropriated somebody’s email address and used it to comment here, because they are too cowardly to use their own. While your criticisms of WUWT might be valid, we don’t tolerate this sort of thing. While you can pick any name/handle you want, a valid email address is required to comment here. – Anthony
Josh, Love the cartoon esp. the RED floor.
CAGW has never been about truth it has always been about “Political Correctness” The coining and popularization of that phrase tells us that logic, facts and data are now out of style because they do not advance the “Correct” political agenda.
Once it becomes clear that science is look at as a tool for the United Nations to advance its political agenda – Supranational Administrative Law – then the trashing of the Scientific Method, the outright lies and the degradation of scientific training makes sense.
We have heard from Harvard so here is Yale’s Two C
ents worth:
Good Global Governance at the Supranational Scale: Globalizing Administrative Law
Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1#search=%22united%20Nations%20global%20Governance%20unelected%20super%22
Just what everyone wants and needs, a bunch of unelected international bureaucrats writing our laws……. GRRRRRrrrrrrr
Looks like we are going to get the Middle Ages with out the Warming this time around. Worldwide Feudalism with the UN/WTO as top dogs.
Regarding three issues:
1. Gore’s actual viewership. Comparing hits of the telethon to other “premier” events like the Chilean earthquake and presidential things is a good way to get a grip on outlandish statements. Obviously Ustream is going to support the Gore claim, as that is how they get their business. But if anyone really believes that Gore grabbed twice the Chilean interest, well, that’s a stretch.
2. Dan1981 got caught up in his belief system and, he might say, a problem of endpoints or short sample times. Sure for the first and maybe a bit of the others – if you accept that temp does NOT reliably follow CO2 as CO2 is NOT a fundamental, 95% driver to temperatures. In other words, the science is not settled, nor the outcome, certain.
3. Using your own name is appropriate. I use mine and have cringed at a few things I typed. Dang. Later thoughts are often better ones – I doubt that this is news to anyone who has engaged in a technical conversation. Complex ideas get better in an interative, progressive way that goes backwards at times. So there is no real shame at making a mistake with your identity known. At least you are in the discussion. [Unless you show yourself unable to admit an error, that is ….]
There is so much open discussion at WUWT! That is the sign progress is possible.
One of Dana’s links, see Fig 3:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-ar4.html
purporting to show how GISS and the A2 scenario correlate…
“If two quantities are diverging, the best way to illustrate this is to align them at the same starting point, not to use long-term average as a baseline.”
(from http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/temperature-anomalies-v-absolute-projections/#comment-27257 )
Looks like the sleight of hand happens at the innocent left side of the graph.
But, did Dana really shift the model projections vertically? He says:
“We digitized Scenario A2, the red line in Figure 2, and compared it to the observed global surface temperature change as measured by NASA GISS (Figure 3).”
So look carefully at Fig. 2 , year 2000, the red line, and it’s at about 0.2 C anomaly; in Fig 3, it has the color blue now and is at 0.45 deg C anomaly in the year 2000 – so yes, he did “normalize” or offset it.
The reason for this shifting are not given in the article. I didn’t bother to read the comments.
Anthony says (about dana1981):
“Do you stand behind your own words enough to put your name to your publications?”
Anthony, forgive me if I am misunderstanding this. I seldom post but I have been reading here constantly for a very long time. I also was following the pielkesr threads over at SkS where he also questioned dana about being anonymous. Another commenter pointed to dana’s profile on the “team” page at SkS here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php
Dana1981’s public profile there says:
“Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.”
I guess dana just doesn’t point it out who he is much because I don’t see anything about a PHD. In fact I do not see much in the way qualifications of the entire team that would show anyone on the site is qualified to even wipe Doctor Pielke’s shoes! I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw dana1981 only has a master’s degree.
—————————-
Anthony,
I suspect Skeptical Science (SS) will change their pejorative category labels.
However, will any new labels show some respect toward the scientists they refer to? Maybe not, but I am an optimist that any new labels will show at least neutrality if not respect.
John
I read Greg Laden’s comments policy and about puked. It is truly the definition of “elitist”
On another blog I had this article by Dana cited to me. I avoid SS as I think the name is dishonest in view of their site policy (they post no articles by sceptics and moderate away sceptic comments). However I am surprised by how clumsy and poor in science the article was (I’m being polite here). I had no problems proving it wrong in a few minutes.
Why is it that CAGW bloggers seem so poor at the science? How can they justify policy so catastrophic to our economies when they can’t even win a blog comment debate or post a blog article which holds water?
@DirkH
What do we learn?
Model output can not only be fudged, it can also be altered by scanning and
digitizing pictures.
LOL
Anthony – “…if SkS has found themselves able to respond in kind?”
First of all, there’s a big difference between the two examples. “Al Gore is an idiot” insults the man. “Christy’s Crocks” refers to his statements (and frankly, “crocks” is a perfectly apt description). However yes, we are planning on probably changing that category name, but we have a lot of higher priority stuff going on, so it will probably take a while.
As for using my name, as Mike Wilson noted, it’s provided on the SkS Team page. My SkS user ID is “dana1981”, so that’s automatically how I’m listed, although sometimes I have added my full name, and use my full name when my articles are published elsewhere (i.e. The Guardian, The Conversation, ABC Drum, etc.).
Mike Wilson – “I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw dana1981 only has a master’s degree.”
Wow, that’s just a tad bit rude. Somehow you don’t have a problem with Watts not having a PhD though. Rude and hypocritical – you’re quite the catch!
dana1981 says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm
——————-
Dana,
We appreciate that you have the wisdom to come to an open venue like WUWT to comment, as opposed to a not open venue. We all understand the benefits and wisdom of that choice, long since. : )
So welcome.
Dana, what is not so understandable is how an honest person cannot accept the real world of the open, un-manipulated and un-censored. We understand you are not used to it being the progenitor of a site that may be the antithesis. But that you cannot distinguish the difference is hard to understand from a master degree level education. Please explain.
A lot to learn here, some of it is just dealing with the real world outside of Skeptical Science [snip – use the right abbreviation please]
Anything I can do to help you acclimatize, please let me know.
John
Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony
dana1981 says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
——————-
dana,
I simply qualify with my strictly simple reference as any honest person would. So i use Skeptical Science (SS).
Like I do USA, UK, ROC, PRC, WUWT, CA, BH, RC and Skeptical Science (SS) . . . . ad nauseum.
If you wish to use my name JMW or JoMW or JMiW or JW is OK. No problema.
John
Maybe you should change the name of the site. How about “Skeptical of Science”, then you can use the acronym SoS. Seems more appropriate.
REPLY: I have to agree with him, it is in bad taste, I’ve mentioned this on other threads also, which is why I always use SkS. Now maybe just maybe if we could get SkS to stop using the other WWII related term “denier” we’d all have some progress. I’m pretty sure if they did that, people would stop using the abbreviation that Dana 1981 finds insulting. – Anthony
@Dana
“First of all, there’s a big difference between the two examples. “Al Gore is an idiot” insults the man. “Christy’s Crocks” refers to his statements (and frankly, “crocks” is a perfectly apt description). However yes, we are planning on probably changing that category name, but we have a lot of higher priority stuff going on, so it will probably take a while.”
“Christy’s Crocks” insults the man’s work. Of course you are incapable of seeing that. Al Gore’s statement about the Earth’s temperature a few kilometers down being “millions of degrees” truly WAS idiotic (wouldn’t you agree, or do you want to back him up?), why you could even call it a “crock”… it refer’s to HIS statements.
Well it took me about an hour’s worth of work to change mine, but thanks so much for letting us know what your priorities are.
Of course if you or Cook had a lick of marketing sense, you’d make it a priority.
FAIL
Well, that’s what I get for wasting my time on this site. I really should have known better. Ta-ta.
REPLY: And he takes his ball and runs home rather than deal with the tough questions or commit to stop insulting Dr. Christy. Good show. – Anthony
For what it’s worth…
It shouldn’t be too hard to set up a ‘shadow’ of the Skeptical Science blog, with original versions of articles archived and a proper comment section that does not ‘vanish’ peoples comments.
Even if it shadowed only the most contentious articles, it might be helpful until such time as Skeptical Science corrects its current policies.
They aren’t influential enough to bother, SkS gets a fraction of WUWT’s traffic and reach – Anthony
dana1981
Too bad you decided to take your ball and go home. I thought I saw the opportunity for you (yes YOU) to get some additional respect for yourself and for your pro CAGW position. All you had to do was engage honestly with the issues raised.
o what problem do you have with committing to stop using the “de-nier” label? You take umbrage at being tagged as “SS”, is it not reasonable to show the same respect to your critics and cease the use of that derogatory and inflammatory word?
o several questions regarding science, and the manner in which you presented the science in your article have been raised. You’ve answered none of them. Do you think your failure to do so improves your credibility on this site or on any other site?
o You’ve focused the bulk of your comments on bickering about who said what and when and if it was insulting or not. Frankly, the bulk of us who are interested in getting the facts on the table probably don’t care a whole lot, PROVIDED that your answer the SCIENCE questions that are posed to you, AND you extend the same respect to them that you demand for yourself.
I for one will not use the term “SS” to describe your site. But I will suggest that until you stand up and deal with the factual questions that have been put to you instead of running away like a child, you’ll be called all sorts of nasty things by all sorts of people…and the best way to shut them up is to counter the science….not quibble about who insulted who and when. Play ball or run away.
Running away just suggests you tried to play in the big leagues and found out that you can’t cut it.
I’ll be open about this–who is SkS (or SS, or whatever they might want to be called)? I’ll admit I know nothing about them.
This dana1981 guy wimped out and ran like only a bruised ego can. In the meantime, I won’t even bother to stop by SkS for a visit–just what would they have to offer regarding climate science?
But whether this dana1981 guy comes back or not, he’s certainly demonstrated one thing here–he’s not a scientist. And, regardless of his academic attainments and current blog or article writing, that’s about the biggest insult I can hurl.
Ouch!
dana1981 says:
“Wow, that’s just a tad bit rude. Somehow you don’t have a problem with Watts not having a PhD though. Rude and hypocritical – you’re quite the catch!”
Dana calling me (or anybody else for that matter) rude and hypocritical. ROTFL
Dana, I have been reading SkS for longer than I have been reading WUWT. Rude and hypocritical is exactly how people are treated when they dare to ask questions at your blog. How you treat people (rudeness and arrogance) is also one of the many clues that lead me to believe you were just spouting propaganda not real science. Real science never has all the answers to every question like you pretend to with your master’s degree while belittling real PHD climate scientists. Anthony never pretended to have all the answers and does not come across with your arrogance.
Ignore me or ridicule me if you want, I don’t care but I am one of those regular people you claim you are trying to convince at your site. Consider this constructive criticism so you know why your side is loosing and Anthony’s is winning!
That makes it two of us. My god the man is apparently so isolated he doesn’t know how sanctimonious he sounds–or maybe he does.
Gore has made loud and idiotic statements about climate over and over again for at least twenty years, and not once to my knowledge has he ever made a correction. His completely inept, and unhelpful, comparison of history to gravitation via the General Theory of Relativity in Earth in the Balance, among other pompous silliness, ought to prove the point; and, if that doesn’t, then surely Carl Sagan referring to it as a “holy book,” ought to do the job. After a twenty year long run of unrelenting nonsense, and I completely understand the cult following of a category like “Al Gore is an idiot.”
Christy’s worst blunder does not come close by comparison.
RockyRoad says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I’ll be open about this–who is SkS (or SS, or whatever they might want to be called)? I’ll admit I know nothing about them.>>>
I’ll tell you who they are from my perspective. When I first started doing my own research into climate, Skeptical Science was one of the first sites that I spent any significant time on. The first thing that got my attention was that the “science” they presented was a pale shadow of actual science. It was presented in a manner which might possibly fool someone who had little or no background in science at all, and it seemed it was clear that this was the intention of the site. I even noticed that sites like RealClimate, which made its CAGW agenda clear, would often quote SkS as a place to go when someone asked where they could find unbiased opinions. It was clear to me that Skeptical Science was nothing but a rabidly pro CAGW site masquerading as a skeptical site.
But for anyone with with the basics of physics and some critical thought processes, the “science” was smoke and mirrors. It was Skeptical Science and Real Climate, more than any other sites, that convinced me that climate science was a complete fraud. That was long before I discovered sites like WUWT, where my suspiscions were confirmed by actual facts, properly presented data, and criticism not only accepted, but even encouraged (subject to rules of civility of course…which I suspect I encroach upon from time to time, such has become my disgust and outright rage at the manner in which science has been hijacked in the climate debate and been replaced with something akin to magic.
To misquote Arthur C Clarke:
Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
mods ~ another down the hidey hole. Rescue? The Hidel Hole has it in for me of late I think.
[REPLY: Your posts would not disappear so often if they didn’t contain magic words like “fraud” and “scam” – REP, mod]
Jeff Alberts says:
“…you don’t say that to people who agree with you, Anthony (e.g. Smokey)”
Jeff, I donated $100 trillion to Anthony. Naturally, that selfless generosity buys exclusive commenting privileges.☺
[And I almost always agree with Anthony, not to suck up, but because IMHO he is right about just about everything related to the climate debate. The link above has some of the pithiest and most entertaining comments of any WUWT thread. Rational folks will surely enjoy them.]
Dana writes : “Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
I find it a little ironic that in one of the threads over at SkS the moderators allowed people to refer to me as TTT until I asked them to stop. Furthermore I see that now there is only one reference to “TTT” and my post complaining about it has been removed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=1&t=54&&n=718
Unfortunately the wayback machine didn’t take any snapshots of this article otherwise I’d have had another documented barb to stick in the back of SkS.
@ Dana,
If you actually come back and read this, please take this as a bit of advice from a non-science person (well, unless you call “computer science” a science).
I’ve read and commented at both SkS and WUWT, SkS for longer than here. When I post a question at WUWT I get an answer explaining in terms I can understand, or polite responses pointing out where my thoughts are incorrect. When I post a question at SkS I get insulted and laughed at. At SkS I’ve even been called “a stupid retard”.
If that is SkS’s policy to convince “on the fence” readers to their view of climate change, then I am not surprised the site’s readership is so low. And it’s not just me. Reading through lots of threads will show the tight-knit central “group” at SkS resorts to insults, cajoling and straight out attacks on anyone who has an individual thought process and poses alternatives, questions the SkS doctrines, or questions the central “group”.
If you REALLY want people to read and take note of your message, treat them with respect and engage them. They’ll listen to you then. But above all, let them make up their own mind. Don’t force your message on them, that’s what religions do.
[REPLY: Your posts would not disappear so often if they didn’t contain magic words like “fr***d” and “s**m” – REP, mod]
Wow. s**m isn’t really a term I use very often at all. As for the f-word…
Wow. That’s a tight abuse policy.
Now…if only there was a way to get the CAGW to crowd to reduce the number of opportunities for the apt application of that terminology…
I’d get fewer down the hidey hole…but then, I’d have a lot less to say too….
[REPLY: Just sayin’. It’s actually kinda embarassing to have to retrieve my own comments (when I post in my commenter persona) for the same reasons. -REP, mod]
News flash: the controversial moderator at WUWT, known to all as REP, has banned himself for abusive language. He plans to appeal the decision to the site owner, Anthony Watts, but doesn’t hold out much hope of a favorable result, as he is sure his was right, coming as it did after repeated warnings.
[UPDATE: Anthony rejected the appeal and put me on permanent moderation. -REP, mod]
typo: “his decision was right, …”
I know it’s difficult to get an accurate perception of reality from inside the echo chamber, but here’s what happened:
Guy brings ball to WUWT
WUWT commencers [including Watts] throw rocks at his head
Fortunately their aim is horrid, and miss him by about 10 feet
Guy thinks to himself, why am I wasting my time here?
Guy takes his ball and goes home
WUWT mob continues throwing rocks at where he previously stood
It’s funny, SkS was just criticized by the same echo chamber for our “poor treatment” of Pielke Sr., who simiarly took his ball and went home from SkS. But the comments here were an order of magnitude less civil than the comments between SkS and Pielke. Of course my comments will fall on deaf ears, since I’m not standing in the echo chamber, so indeed I will take my ball and go home. But you now have a perpecetive from outside the echo chamber, should you choose to listen to it [which who are we kidding, you won’t].
REPLY: And yet, he returns with his ball. Poor treatment? Did you see any of your comments deleted or
stricken through? As was done at SkS? Big difference. You really do need a mirror, sir. Words are not rocks, your comparison (and attempt to make it appear violent) fails.Actually, I predict you’ll be back soon. – Anthony
Yikes bad typing, “perpecetive” = “perspective”
dana1981;
So…you’re still around after all, and still complaining about the state of civil discourse…
…and still have not answered a single question or objection to the science your present in your article. What are you afraid of?
Dana left a piece of unfinished business before he took his ball and went home for the second time:
dana1981 says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Please, can people stop using the acronym “SS”? The correct acronym is “SkS”.
REPLY: On this we agree, folks please stop using it. Now Dana, would you agree to stop referring to people here and elsewhere (i’m referring to SkS) using that other distasteful WWII phrase “deniers”. You’ll get major props if you announce that. – Anthony
Anthony,
Out of respect for you as a gracious host here, I will not in the future here on WUWT use the acronym SS for Skeptical Science. I will use no acronym at all for Skeptical Science here at WUWT. Instead I will refer to it as Skeptical Science with the bold first letters. OK with you?
dana, . . . cheers. : )
John
[REPLY: John, don’t you thnk that is at least a violation of the spirit of Anthony’s request to commenters? -REP, mod]
I like SPS… Skeptical Pseudo-Science.☺
dana1981, Please take down the insults to Cristy, Lindzen, Monckton and Spenser NOW and I will apologize for being rude to you in return for your gesture.
Come on dana. Tell us you will stop calling sceptics “deniers”. If you don’t then we know you are not interested in a reasoned debate. Just nasty mudslinging. Or would that be losing your most important rhetorical device.
[REPLY: John, don’t you thnk that is at least a violation of the spirit of Anthony’s request to commenters? -REP, mod]
————–
REP, mod
A little subliminal message? OK.
How about instead of Skeptical Science I use the following?
The Skeptical Science blog can be called “The blog whose initials (first letters of its name) shall not be used as its acronym”? Most everyone will know the blog I am taking about. And I can shorten it to TBWISNBUAIA.
Curious as to the thought processes of not referring to Skeptical Science by a normally academically appropriate acronym such as SS?
Nobody thinks anything dubious about using SS in referring to the US’s program called Social Security. Everyone knows what SS in that context means just like everyone knows what SS refers to in the climate blog context.
Also curious if this is the path down which, at some future time, I cannot make comments about the IPCC that don’t fit the IPCC’s official mandate about its brand and self-image? Wow, I just had a little chill here a WUWT.
John
[Reply: Actually, when you think about it, the term “Social Security” sounds a little ominous. Suppose we refer to it as “SocSec”? -REP, mod]
[Reply: Actually, when you think about it, the term “Social Security” sounds a little ominous. Suppose we refer to it as “SocSec”? -REP, mod]
—————
REP, mod,
Not warming yet from that first little chill.
John
My apologies to Dana and John Cook, as I am at fault in my post on this thread.
I will use SkS from now on – actually the unfortunate connection never entered my head, it was just I’m so used to refering to ‘RC’ that the other was reflex. I intended no harm or criticism other than where science is incorrect and over my concern regarding the misdirection inherent in Mr Cook’s choice of site name.
Uhm… does that mean muscle car enthusiats will have to scrape the name plates off their Chevy Nova SS and just make it a plain old Chevy Nova?
—————-
davidmhoffer,
That was clever. I had similar thoughts as I was searching for analogies showing that the acronym ‘SS’ is innocuous in so many contexts.
How about the Chevy Impala SS? Or the Camero SS? These were some of the all-time most popular cars . . . . and who cared about the SS acronym?
Is it just me that considers trivial and bizarre the Skeptical Science blog’s objection to the normal simple process for making an acronym of its name as; ‘SS’? These are people self-styled to be representing mainstream climate science, yet doing this theatrical dramatization of acronym myopia?
John
[SNIP: This has already been discussed. Do not use the term on this site again. -REP] Any suggestions? [REPLY: Yes, pay attention and do some checking. -REP]