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.
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