Eh, even when I try to get away from it on weekends it follows me via email.
But, I decided I’d take a moment to post this comment from Joe Romm’s Climate Progress somebody sent me that popped up on my phone. I got a huge belly laugh out of it. I startled Kenji when I laughed so hard:
Meet Mike Roddy, whose picture has previously appeared here.
[Update: Image from Mike’s movie PR: http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2008/09/polar-cities-go-hollywood-2112-hopes-to.html ]
Mike has always been a class act at Climate Progress, as you can see below:
It stems from this piece Roddy wrote about me, see the “corrections” at the end, which he apparently agrees with:
http://www.webcitation.org/5x0pgZdgl
Heh. Quite something that Mike Roddy, but I’m not sure what.
But, see here’s the thing, kicking and bestiality aside, in science, replication is King, and if other scientists can’t replicate a paper’s work, well then it often doesn’t get to pass peer review when peer review works correctly and isn’t “pal” review.
That might be a minor detail with BEST, since they to put PR before peer review in a media blitzkrieg. Even so, there are many things I do agree with in their other papers. The one on quality of station siting, not so much.
But, as Steve McIntyre demonstrates, the BEST work with my station siting quality isn’t replicable. The devil is in the details. He says boldly:
I have looked at some details of the [BEST] Station Quality paper using a spreadsheet of station classification sent to me by Anthony in August 2011 and cannot replicate their results at all.
Gosh, I feel pretty good after all that kicking. Kinda reminds me of this:
BEST is at the starting line in the cartoon above. Will they survive?
Anthony:
In your next email exchange with Mr. Roddy, would you please find time to explain to him that, unlike the Wimpy Warmers, we do not prefer sexual congress with nice, tame farm animals. We fearless Skeptics prefer the wild ones!
Richards is Vancouver is absolutely right.
Except I draw the line at skunks.
I’m sorry that you are having this unpleasant, actually thoroughly nasty, certainly juvenile nonsense to put up with Anthony. It is much better if commenters here don’t descend to such foulness in response.
Keep up the good work Anthony; there are so many of us who are heartened by your work.
Regards,
Annie.
Regarding peer review of the WORST report, sorry, the BEST report, I am expecting a chart like the one at page 41 in the Wegman Report;
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
Mike Roddy came to Ealing, UK last week.
http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Wallaby-decapitated-at-Ealing-wildlife-park/1400003928690/1257246745782?scope_id=1257246763809
Annie says:
October 23, 2011 at 2:08 am
“I’m sorry that you are having this unpleasant, actually thoroughly nasty, certainly juvenile nonsense to put up with Anthony. It is much better if commenters here don’t descend to such foulness in response.
Keep up the good work Anthony; there are so many of us who are heartened by your work.”
Spot on Annie, thank you, I couldn’t have said it better.
Legatus says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:05 pm
This is called ‘libel”
You may call it “libel” but it really isn’t. Roddy’s comment suggesting Anthony admits to having sex with animals is childish, idiotic, unimaginative, base, and entirely typical of this immature man, but there is clearly no design for the comment to be taken factually or seriously, and thus it could not be considered libellous. Reading the comment which came from an apparently grown, educated man, it’s almost enough to make you feel embarrassed for Roddy.
I was going to end with the words “not really though” – but I can’t shake it. I actually do feel embarrassed for him.
Anthony keep up the good work. The whole AGW bandwagon is a ship of fools, their use of physics is dubious, they have invented their own terms, they push anomalies as temperatures and a plethora of sins against solid science we have discussed over and over again.
In my opinion it is really not possible that with the large proportion of badly sited stations you found, and the nonexistent data base for the rest of the world , which is more than ten times the area of the US, they can claim they have taken into account the urban effect. And the comparison should be between well sited and badly sited stations. A station can be rural and badly sited.
That is the reason they use “anomalies”. The minute I saw “anomalies” in their plot, I stopped reading. Anomalies are a trick to make plots they like, when they average them over large areas, they have little meaning except like a wet finger to the wind: this way it blows. The largest anomalies are at night and in the polar regions where a higher temperature should be really welcome if it exists. The connection with heat and energy is practically destroyed in the world average, because it is the absolute temperature that enters the radiation budgets with T^4 , not the anomaly distortions.
Fortunately another la Nina is coming and by the time people’s teeth stop chattering, the self promoting fireworks of these people will sputter out and maybe people who know physics will have a chance at climate studies.
It could be Roddy feels he possesses the authority to comment upon other people’s sexual proclivities. He obviously never grew out of playground bullying and witless namecalling. In my local vernacular he would be described as a total tugger (w**ker). And then studiously ignored since he would have nothing sensible to bring to the discussion table.
When the likes of these clowns focus on you, wear it as a BADGE OF HONOR!
After those nasty comments, a new name — Mike “Rowdy” Roddy Piper-pooper.
Roddy’s written material is so clearly actionable, its enough to make you gag. Set up a pursuit fund, Anthony. I think there’s probably plenty of money out there to support you in making an example of him. It way past time to start spanking the potty-mouthed children.
I have no complaints about the personal comments, or any opinions about my written work. If you’re going to dish it out, as I do, you’ve got to take it, right? I’m curious about McIntyre claiming that I linked to a porno site on ClimateAudit. I’ll admit my memory is not what it was, but I don’t recall that one. Please send me a link, Steve.
I only wish that more of you would focus on Muller’s WSJ editorial. What’s next for you guys, “It’s the sun!”, or “Volcanic activity”?
“I only wish that more of you would focus on Muller’s WSJ editorial. What’s next for you guys, “It’s the sun!”, or “Volcanic activity”?”
Don’t know…. What’s next for you guys after “global warming – climate change – global climate disruption” ?
It is often those who can afford to start a fight who are actively trying to start one. IOW, those with decent lawyers are more likely to try to goad Anthony into a legal battle. Best to avoid it if you can.
Mike Roddy says:
So, are you denying that you ever posted such a link anywhere? Or, are you admitting that you might do such a thing, but just don’t remember that particular occasion?
Given your sleazy propensity for ascribing aberrant sexual behavior to other people, my guess would be that in fact what Steve claims might very well be true. 😉
Muller was a CACC shoveler before he was a ‘skeptic’ before he was a born-again CACC shoveler-
““In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.”
Climate ‘skeptic’ Richard Muller, Grist, October 2008
I am confused over Mike Roddy’s vuvuzelan embrace of Muller’s results, for the following reasons-
1. The papers are not peer reviewed.
2. The lead author and PR shill is reportedly a climate skeptic/denier, to which Roddy has previously stated at DotEarth that- “Deniers, especially those who populate this comments section, live in an alternate reality, and giving them any credence at all should be viewed as dangerous.” Papers that are guaranteed to pass peer review are certainly much more *dangerous* than mere comments on blogs.
3. Any research that has been funded by the Koch brothers or big oil or big coal or big gas or big nuclear is extremely suspect, and should be ignored.
4. The results directly challenge the canonical MBH hockey-stick.
5. The lead author is not a climate scientist, and therefore lacks the training required to tease the climate catastrophe from the hash of data.
Mike Roddy says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:04 am
I have no complaints about the personal comments, or any opinions about my written work. If you’re going to dish it out, as I do, you’ve got to take it, right? I’m curious about McIntyre claiming that I linked to a porno site on ClimateAudit. I’ll admit my memory is not what it was, but I don’t recall that one. Please send me a link, Steve.
What’s next for you guys, “It’s the sun!”, or “Volcanic activity”?
I can only speak for myself Mike but I intend to return to the elementary schools and help teach science. We have done severe damage to a couple generations of children in teaching them that a religious devotion “global warming” is a proper way to embrace and understand science. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion and we may have lost some brilliant young scientific minds to the rubbish you and other global warming religious believers push as “science”. That is my opinion and I it’s my intention to help defeat the onslaught of global warming religion in the schools.
Dave, UK says:
October 23, 2011 at 3:52 am
there is clearly no design for the comment to be taken factually or seriously, and thus it could not be considered libellous.
Yet Mann has sued over the use of “State Penn” versus “Penn State”.
No need for grand conspiracies. The government after your tax dollars is my hypothesis.
Mike Roddy says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:04 am
“I only wish that more of you would focus on Muller’s WSJ editorial. What’s next for you guys, “It’s the sun!”, or “Volcanic activity”?”
This can’t be the real Roddy; he didn’t call us names.
Mike Roddy, come have a beer with me. You can explain to me how the atmosphere works .
Is it possible that within the BEST team there is much consternation about what they are finding? That saying “it is warmer now than before” is the only thing that they could agree on? That releasing their data is recognized as a problem for the warmists with whom they are friends and philosophical buddies? That the “certainty” and the “settled science” is not, to them, and though they intellectually understand the case for a firm position, they are in a quandary when it comes to demonstrating it?
Remember when Gary Hart said he wasn’t having an affair, and challenged the reporters to follow him, and they did, and he was having an affair and thus ended his presidential aspirations? A challenge, fairly met, can have undesirable outcomes. Or perhaps the analogy is closer to that of Farmer Jones” Used Car Sales: I can see a Josh cartoon where the BEST team are used car salesmen, saying “Of course this car is drivable – if you don’t trust me, drive it!”, while the car behind them is held up on concrete blocks.
And on a more technical note, the BEST temp graph doesn’t look like the GISTemp graph, except grossly. So BEST is saying there are serious problems with GISTemp/Hansen, even if their view is more pro-warmist than Hansen. Is best saying GISTemp sorta sucks, but only sorta? Backhanded compliments are not what the BEST guys were expected to provide.
Mike Roddy says:
October 23, 2011 at 8:04 am
What’s next for you guys, “It’s the sun!”, or “Volcanic activity”?
Come now, Mike. You wish that those are the extents of our arguments. And you call us deniers. How lame. Some scientist you are. Go back to your self-fulfilling prophesy models.
I said:
October 23, 2011 at 3:52 am
“…there is clearly no design for the comment to be taken factually or seriously, and thus it could not be considered libellous.”
ferd berple says:
October 23, 2011 at 10:19 am
Yet Mann has sued over the use of “State Penn” versus “Penn State”.
Yeah, so Mann is a clown. What’s your point? That Anthony should respond in the same way as that fool?