An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An uncomfortable week for John Cook’s crew at ‘Skeptical Science’
Lucia also points out another corner painted by “Dana1981”.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 Baldwin 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