WUWT – helping to educate UEA students on climate

This is curious and amusing. A few days back it was reported that there was a CG2 email from Phil Jones where he laments some skeptical slides being used in a powerpount lecture at UEA. Turns out that wasn’t the case after all.

From email 2639

This annoys me too. I’d read up and talk to people if I were to ever attempt moving to another field! It is just common sense. Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!

Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.

But look at how it is proposed to deal with the problem – Mick Kelly suggests having Greenpeace invade the lectures:

That’s amazing re Alan Kendall (always thought he was rather a loose cannon). And, no, he didn’t contribute to 1A01 in my day – sure I’d have spotted had he done so! Who’s convening 1A01 nowadays? I’d call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for

the students’ sake at least! Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 Good luck!

I was surprised to learn that over on Bishop Hill, the lecturer Ian Kendall says in comments that he used slides from WUWT and from Jo Nova. He also laments being a lone voice in a sea of alarmism.

“First a needed correction. It is alleged that I used Climate Audit material in my teaching materials. Upon reviewing this material I find not a single instance of illustrations from that estimable site (sorry Steve). Instead most came from Watts up with That or from JoNova’s excellent site.” This relates to email 2639, where Phil Jones (incorrectly apparently) said that Kendall used CA.

My, my, how quickly it becomes evident to me that hitherto I was wise to refrain from blogging. By trying to defend UEA as an institution I only gave opportunities for further attack .

1) I choose not to add to the criticism heaped upon some of my colleagues; in my judgement this would add little – I’m sure that they are fully aware of my opinion of them. To refrain from adding to their woes is my right and those of you who choose to question my motives here only shine a light on their own predjuces.

2) I have criticised from within, but mine was almost alone voice and easily ignored. I have always been concerned about the fallout from Climategate, for the university’s good name (which in many respects it fully deserves) but advice I offered was ignored – as is its right to do so.

3) I still teach part-time at UEA, and still ask students to question the evidence about AGW for themselves – but not to first years students anymore. I never preached an anti AGW message (how could I, I don’t have a grounding in climate science) instead I showed students evidence and argument they were not hearing and asked them to draw their own conclusions – FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE.

I am truly astounded by the attacks on myself and from people I would previously have considered to on the same side of the fence.

I am also appalled by the rightious indignation expressed by some respondents. As if they have a god-given right to criticize and further to suggest/ insist upon the wholesale destruction of an institution on the basis that some of its actions offend.

Lesson learned

Apologies from my typos and spelling. Latter never my strong suite and always believed the old saying that poor spelling a sign of intelligence. Perhaps too much reliance upon “spellchecker” in recent years.

Dec 2, 2011 at 11:02 AM | ‘@lanK

I’m happy to help. I’m constantly amazed where I see material from this website being used. And, congratulations to Jo Nova too. She’s far better at conveying science in her artwork than I could ever hope to be.

Advertisements

85 thoughts on “WUWT – helping to educate UEA students on climate

  1. Poor spelling is a sign of being slapdash.
    I think that this person was working at the appropriate university.
    What he is, in effect, saying is that although he doesn’t agree he was happy to take and keep taking the wages.
    Another of the rent boys of cake science.

  2. Anthony,
    Why do you delve in the minutia and ignore the larger issue? The illegally hacked emails have been thoroughly reviewed or investigated by truly impartial (far more impartial than this site) and respected (ditto) bodies:
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
    the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
    The Muir Russell report
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    Science Assessment Panel
    Pennsylvania State University
    united States Environmental Protection Agency report
    National Science Foundation
    “based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway…it is a growing threat to society.”[13]
    Please release all your e-mails immediately!!
    Be fair and balanced!

    • @Getting Warm. All of those have been covered at one time or another on WUWT.
      My site, my perogative. You have the option to leave if you don’t like how I run it, but given that this is the most visited climate website, I think I’ll keep on doing how I do it.
      You don’t know and cannot say with certainty that the emails have been hacked. Right now the smart money is on an insider leaking them because he/she doesn’t like what is going on at UEA, such as the constant ugliness seen in the emails.
      For a larger picture, have a read at this then.
      I particularly like this.

      “We aren’t threatened by global warming. The threat is from global warmists.”

      For an even larger perspective, especially about why we have all those “vindications” consider this famous quote:
      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
      So far there haven’t been any true independent inquires where questions have been asked from an adversarial position, and aren’t connected monetarily in some way to funding. When we finally have one, I’ll take a look.
      The court of public opinion is another matter altogether.

  3. I can understand Kendall not wanting to tear his University apart himself. However, I wonder how well he understands the legitimate viewpoint of outsiders. If I am one of the sacrificial taxpayers potentially being uselessly charged thousands of dollars, using UEA science as an excuse, that makes me a stakeholder in the conversation, and I have a viewpoint. Particularly because I have work experience fighting stubborn data myths.
    And the question in that situation is whether we can successfully get anywhere by asking quietly.Not whether he can get anywhere that way, but whether we can.

  4. correction:
    I believe it is ‘Alan’ Kendall
    the mistaken ‘Ian’ comes from the fact that he posted at Bishop Hill with the screenname ‘@lan’

  5. I’d call his bluff and constructively suggest that he might ensure consistency between what you say (assuming you give the lectures I used to cover?) and his account – for
    the students’ sake at least!

    “For the sake of the, er, students!” We wouldn’t want our budding little “scientists” to get too sceptical, eh, and then not tow our ticket for an eternal meal at the government trough, now would we? And after all, it is Climate Science 101! Just how does “Dr.” Kendall think the students will ever get their degree in our Religion?

  6. It sounds like Kendall is attempting to do what university faculty are supposed to do and that is teaching critical thinking. And you can’t do that without presenting all sides of an argument.

  7. Oh dear. I guess there was a period of cleansing to “purge” the evil spirits within following the revelation of heretical views being espoused within their very own sepulcher. I wonder if they have resorted to self flagellation yet?

  8. Which word? Cake or science? You intended “phrase” perhaps. And me thinks “cake” was supposed to be “fake”. So the comments are going downhill fast for such a fine Sunday morning.

  9. @Getting Warm
    The severe problems with the sham pseudo-inquiries have been widely addressed, but I will simply note that your inclusion of the following entities as “truly impartial” shows you in a delusional state of mind:
    Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    All of the items in your list have severe problems, sham inquiry committees and such, but citing these two entities is like saying “Greenpeace says it so it must be true!”
    or maybe you aren’t aware that UCS is merely a left-wing activist front group and the EPA is severely biased (i.e., not ‘truly impartial’).

  10. Getting Warm says:
    on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
    … respected (ditto) bodies:
    the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)

    You must be unaware that Anthony has a close associate, Mr. K Watts, that is a paid in full member of UCS and consults with Anthony on a daily basis.

  11. Anthony,
    Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.
    You ignored my request to release all of your personal e-mails regarding climate change.
    I’m waiting.
    REPLY: Why would I take the demand of an anonymous coward, who can’t even bring him/herself to put their own name on their request, as something I would pay attention to? And, you seem unclear on the concept. Private emails by citizens aren’t subject to FOIA or demands from punks like yourself. Public emails at public institutions are. Bugger off. – Anthony

  12. @patrioticduo
    I used the term ”cake science” in a specific and sarcastic sense. The term ”cake” is stolen from the British television show Brass Eye which featured an episode on the dangers of a completely made up drug called cake that affects the area of the brain called Shatner’s Bassoon. The show featured celebs duped in to adding their weight to the anti-cake movement. They had all been specifically told that cake was a made up drug but they still played their parts. Does this ring any bells?

  13. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
    The illegally hacked emails have been thoroughly reviewed or investigated by truly impartial bodies:
    The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
    the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
    the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
    The Muir Russell report

    Ah
    Aha
    Ahahaha
    BWAHAHAHAA!
    Best laugh today, thanks ‘Getting Warm’.
    It’s bl**dy freezing here today by the way.

  14. Anthony Watts at 8:29 – I was surprised to see your response to Getting Warm. I thought his comment was an attempt at sardonic humour and I cackled a bit at it.

  15. Getting Warm: I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not stupid. Therefore the alternative is, for some reason or another, you are a willing participant in the CAGW disinformation campaign, willingly and knowingly spreading their propaganda, for what reason I neither know or care. While your propaganda may fly elsewhere, the vast majority of the people who visit this site, contribute articles to it and comment on it are intelligent enough to be skeptical of all the CAGW claims, especially since those claims are debunked on a regular basis, ofttimes by contributors. So save yourself the effort of spreading your disinformation here. Instead, read the articles, read the comments, research the sources cited, compare the “skeptical” science to the CAGW “science” and do some real critical thinking. Then you can comment with something substantive, not just canned CAGW propaganda.

  16. “poor spelling a sign of intelligence.” Me too. IQ 145 – spelling crap. Told by US doctor that the brain in some people is wired by differently, although they are door spellers they make good machanics and scientists.

  17. @Getting Warm
    When inquiries or investigations routinely fail to interview a dissenting voice, they can hardly be described as “truly impartial”.
    Partially impartial doesn’t even cut it.

  18. I quite like the phrase “Cake Science” as a way of describing how funding becomes a cake which institutions want a slice of.
    It also highlights the fact that sponsored research into a subject is not even handed or even based upon or around some grand theory. It rather seems to be based upon what is politically expedient at the present time.
    Who is responsible? We are, we created the monster that now smothers science. We allowed Science to be turned into religion. We let the zealots run away at the mouth without check.

  19. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
    The illegally hacked emails have been thoroughly reviewed or investigated by truly impartial (far more impartial than this site) and respected (ditto) bodies:
    The Muir Russell report
    Pennsylvania State University
    __________________________________________________
    You can’t be serious! …. to borrow a phrase. Do you really believe that? Since Climategate II do you still believe it?

  20. Pity it’s so often the shallow comments that get aired first. Yup I’m no doubt guilty too because that is the way things unfold in life.
    Anthony, that was Alan Kendall’s first post at BH, first probably in the blogosphere. One should follow the thread thereafter, and read his second and third comments. The second comment includes this important statement

    You may be interested to learn that another who has been demonized, Kieth Briffa, was the first to actively and publically defend my right to express my climate change opinions.

    and the third comment opens

    Woke up this morning with some trepedation – had I stirred up another hornets’ nest by trying to defend Ed Acton’s position? Was very pleasantly surprised and I thank those who tried to understand my own position on these matters and those who have been supportive.

    I’d already seen intriguing references to Kendall and did my own emails search which resulted in a long post on the “emails grepper” thread because here was prime evidence, using both the earlier and the later emails, that, contrary to the kneejerk warmist “out of context!” shouts, the recent tranche of emails had helped to put a lot into context. Alan Kendall’s story as extracted from the emails helped me see a story of corruption at UEA over time, and an individual there who did what was within his power to do, to recognize and stand up for integrity, stand up for the freedom to examine all the evidence and to make up one’s own mind, and above all, behave with courtesy.
    I have a lot of time for Alan Kendall.

  21. Ian Summerell says:
    December 4, 2011 at 9:00 am
    “poor spelling a sign of intelligence.” Me too. IQ 145 – spelling crap. Told by US doctor that the brain in some people is wired by differently, although they are door spellers they make good machanics and scientists.
    _____________________
    My favorite bumper sticker:
    “DYSLEXICS UNTIE”

  22. I dont know why theyre having such a hard time.
    If its all as certain as theyre saying, then show us the human causal signal in the data and get it over with.
    Unless of course, they cant find it…..

  23. I’ll add “conspiring to disrupt a person’s work w/ advocacy groups” to the list.
    @Getting warm – That was excellent satire….well, I hope so for your case.

  24. Mike Spilligan says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:56 am
    Anthony Watts at 8:29 – I was surprised to see your response to Getting Warm. I thought his comment was an attempt at sardonic humour and I cackled a bit at it.
    =====================================
    Yep, I think Penn State was the big clue !!

  25. Graham Green says:
    December 4, 2011 at 7:55 am
    “Poor spelling is a sign of being slapdash.”
    The content of a document is seldom of any interest to the pedant.
    Footers and headers are very interesting for them. And fonts.
    Just like for the man with the pointed hair.

  26. “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
    So EU Warmist “scientists” ponder sending the EU’s paid Eco thugs. Reminds me of the SA, and doesn’t surprise me in the least.

  27. ‘Getting warm’ Doesn’t that mean being close to finding something? At least if he’s looking for enlightenment, he’s in the right place.

  28. Bloke down the pub says:
    December 4, 2011 at 10:36 am
    ‘Getting warm’ Doesn’t that mean being close to finding something? At least if he’s looking for enlightenment, he’s in the right place.
    Best yet.

  29. Bill Thomson says:
    December 3, 2011 at 8:55 am
    Coke cancels global warming polar bear campaign

    Those cans may become collectors’ items. I’ve got six stashed away, and am off to buy more for that reason.

  30. @getting warm. Nice try at a thread hijack. Make everyone look elsewhere instead of at the issue under discussion. I will repeat it, so that no one misses it:
    “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”

  31. Mick Kelly: “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 Good luck!”
    UGH, this is a “brown shirt” mentality which crops up over and over again on the political left (it’s actually rather rare outside the leftie activist groups and campus groupthinkers, since real world people of various persuasions (a) wouldn’t do it or even think about doing it, and (b) would know they couldn’t get away with it even if they were inclined that way.
    The myriad vicious disruptions of speakers (usually visiting) over the years on campuses has come almost entirely from the “progressive” politically correct left, is utterly despicable, and is rarely condemned or opposed.

  32. DirkH and Roy UK – that was a joke, look at the end:
    “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
    Just appreciate that they have a sense of humour, and get back to the important stuff.

  33. To emphasize my point, what underlies the Mick Kelly comment is far more despicable and troubling than merely the evident fact that he is a nasty leftie hack with only contempt for dissenting views. The “have Greenpeace invade his lecture” — even if not intended as a serious plan (I have no idea what was ‘really’ in his mind) — shows a contempt for freedom of thought and expression, whether “academic” freedom or in any other context.
    This comment is merely one reflection of a huge and widespread problem, a kind of “chilling” effect on thought, speech, and activity which is promoted widely by the activist left. And it is not only only against the ideological “right” or libertarians etc. — anyone capable of any range of moderate, thoughtful, skeptical thinking without regard to ideology is well aware that most campuses are hostile to open, free discussion of many sensitive subjects, especially where any “politically correct” views and agendas are involved.

  34. @Mike Jonas
    Interesting that you think the suppression of free thought, expression, and academic teaching is a fun “joking matter”….
    I have seen and known far too much of the vicious groupthink of such activist mobs on campuses and beyond to think it was a fit subject of light-hearted joking.
    It is generally people who approve of the widespread climate of intimidation and coercion aimed at suppressing freedom who can think it’s a joking matter to talk about activists “invading” someone’s classroom.

  35. The term “cake” science could also be taken from the theme to the game Portal. It’s a fun song although you need to listen to the whole things to get the implications:

  36. Look people – “Getting Warm” is a CAGW enthusiast and advocate, who was orphaned from accuweather’s old blog. He only reads his own comments and gives no consideration to other arguments. He is only here to regurgitate standard AGW talking points. He has been doing it for years, so there is zero possibility, of bringing him out of his Zombie state. He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth. You are all wasting your time thinking he is somebody redeemable. He thought we would all be dead, a long time ago, and will not revise his paradigm, just because we thrive instead. GK

  37. Mike Jonas says:
    December 4, 2011 at 11:52 am
    “DirkH and Roy UK – that was a joke, look at the end:
    “Alternatively, could always threaten to have Greenpeace invade his lecture 🙂 ”
    Just appreciate that they have a sense of humour, and get back to the important stuff.”
    Mike, I saw the smiley. Yet for SOME REASON it never occured to ME to harass people I don’t agree with by sending them a crowd of eco thugs; not even as a joke – maybe because I am not a totalitarian ecocollectivist on the taxpayer dole pretending to be a scientist????
    Furthermore, I am also not hare-brained and irresponsible enough to crack totalitarian jokes on my business e-mail accounts.

  38. Billl Hopkins says: “It sounds like Kendall is attempting to do what university faculty are supposed to do and that is teaching critical thinking. And you can’t do that without presenting all sides of an argument.”
    That was my take on the entire subject, Bill. See my comment on the thread at Bishop Hill. Many criticized him for not sticking his head farther above the parapet. He’d already attracted Warmist fire just by his teaching method. Who are we to say he should have done more? If he had, he’d surely have been given the “big cutoff,” and then who would teach the full picture at UEA? I think there was far too much “friendly fire” on Bishop Hill for someone who showed as much gumption as Kendall did. As a teacher myself, I respect him.

  39. Mike Jonas says:
    December 4, 2011 at 11:52 am:
    Thank you Mike for pointing me in the direction of understanding the finer points of web speak and humour.
    Maybe a quick e-mail to Greenshirts is in order:
    Quote from greenpeace: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few. 🙂
    Is that ok now? Maybe my funny bone is malfunctioning after all the cr@p I have heard from the alarmists these last few years.

  40. Seconded, jorge. @lan Kendal is a gem. What is really alarming is that in a supposedy world class institution there is, apparently, only one of him demonstrating academic free speech amongst all the conformists. Would someone like him be recruited to the staff today?
    I was at the London School of Economics at the height of the Cold War in the late 1960s and there was a spread of opinion in the Sociology faculty (yes, I know, another politically motivated rather dubious -ology!). We all knew which professors were rooting for which side of the ideological divide, marxist or classical. But it was “balanced”. It is frightening that there is no balance at all at CRU. The students will really get the message that contrarians are cranks.
    I think there would have been a more open and academically searching debate if Climate studies had been centred on Oxbridge. Sorry, I’m not being a snob! I’ve been arguing this for years.

  41. Are we at the point yet where it is ethically, philosophically, and legally OK to call them “Climate Change Conspirators”?
    I think so.

  42. No matter what negatives the AGW believers post here you publish their posts – I have only ever seen insulting comments censored and often only part removal still allowing the context.
    Compare that to a pro AGW site like SkepticalScience where the moderators don’t have even the courage of their convictions and allow robust debate.
    When it becomes obvious the adoring “right” minded posters are losing a debate the moderators step in and totally remove “inconvenient” posts.
    They allow the “faithful” to hurl insult and abuse at a sceptical poster but remove even non offensive replies in defence of the indefensible.
    This is so typical of the pro AGW side and to my mind a person who will not involve in debate is intellectually insecure in their position and – like a spoilt child – resorts to insult and invective when their intellect isn’t up to a robust challenge in their “religion”.
    Well done for maintaining your willingness to allow the AGW believers their posting “rights” even in the face of some disgraceful examples of lack of decorum.
    PS – SkepticalScience is a disgrace – especially for the use of the incorrect “K” in the word sceptic – when I went to school you would be reprimanded for poor spelling.

  43. I am a geologist. One of the first lessons I learnt in Earth Science is that a visual diagram, chart, section or map conveys much more than a page of text. I used it in my turn when coaching students, that clearly-labelled diagrams were the fast lane to high marks. I am not surprised in the least that WUWT sourced this fellow’s lecture slides, because Anthony Watts exemplifies that skill.

  44. “First a needed correction. It is alleged that I used Climate Audit material in my teaching materials. Upon reviewing this material I find not a single instance of illustrations from that estimable site (sorry Steve). Instead most came from Watts up with That or from JoNova’s excellent site.” This relates to email 2639, where Phil Jones (incorrectly apparently) said that Kendall used CA.”
    ===========
    Yep, the radar has detected the imminent threats.
    Will it be able to track the coming onslaught ?

  45. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
    Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views
    ========================================================
    GW, slip your finger into your nasal cavity and switch your brain to the state of ‘thinking’. Once in that state you are free to commence the enlightenment of ‘education’ including ‘challenge’, ‘ethics’, ‘morals’, and most importantly, ‘science’.

  46. Lucy Skywalker says:
    December 4, 2011 at 9:34 am
    =======================
    How unfortunate, Lucy, that Briffa was so easily bought-off with a few pieces of silver.

  47. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
    “Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.”
    Is the “We” a veiled threat? Is it an indication that there are groups who monitor and try to derail anything that opposes their agenda? If the alarmist science is so solid, Getting warmer, why resort to guerilla tactics? Why hide behind a pseudonym? Stand up and face us with honor.

  48. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:48 am
    Anthony,
    Love your site. Most of the time we just visit sites to reinforce our views.

    Yes, you’re getting warm indeed, but you left out from your own practice of the Climate Scientists’ post normal methodology the critical “or else!” and “before it’s too late!”

  49. “Anthony Watts at 8:29 – I was surprised to see your response to Getting Warm. I thought his comment was an attempt at sardonic humour and I cackled a bit at it.” – Surely you know by now that this stuff cannot be parodied. There isn’t anything extreme enough that it could be an exaggeration.

  50. G. Karst says:
    “He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth.”
    They’re not replying for GW’s sake. To ignore such comments would only serve to create a perception of not being able to answer instead of not wanting to answer, hardly safe if your goal is to present an alternative to the CAGW paradigm to those that may be just starting out in a quest for “truth” concerning CAGW.

  51. Richard M says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:42 am
    Getting Warm says:
    on December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am
    … respected (ditto) bodies:
    the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
    You must be unaware that Anthony has a close associate, Mr. K Watts, that is a paid in full member of UCS and consults with Anthony on a daily basis.
    —————————————————————————–
    Well said, Richard. I also point out that K. Watts not only meets all the educational qualification requirements for full membership of the UCS, if he has successfully completed an obedience course, he has exceeded them.

  52. @dcfl51 says:
    December 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
    WOW, thanks, I hadn’t seen that document before. That is a disgraceful record of ‘whitewash’ inquiries, and it does not matter how many such superficial inquiry bodies are formed, when the mandates are far too limited, such mandates as exist are neglected, the staff and procedures utterly farcical, the ‘evidence’ largely not even sought (or ignored), then ‘whitewash’ is the kindest word that can be offered (even if McKitrick tries to be a bit kinder and non-judgmental in shying away from the ‘whitewash’ word).
    All of the inquiries re The Team and Climategate are scandalously bad.
    Only the more general IAC report on reforming the IPCC would seem to have any credible value at all, and even that one was shallow and highly protective of bad practices in the past.
    Anyway I with all who say the IPCC needs to be abolished – it is not a scientific but a political body, badly formed and poorly run (except in terms of certain ‘progressive’ agendas advanced).

  53. I have never seen any requests that Phil Jones and others should release private emails, only those done in their official capacity as staff member of CRU at the UEA. I am sure if Anthony Watts or Willis were working for a university, and were the centre of a scandal, they would open their emails for public scrutiny.

  54. John West says:
    December 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm
    G. Karst says:
    “He can be safely ignored, until such time, as he is genuinely seeks truth.”
    They’re not replying for GW’s sake. To ignore such comments would only serve to create a perception of not being able to answer instead of not wanting to answer, hardly safe if your goal is to present an alternative to the CAGW paradigm to those that may be just starting out in a quest for “truth” concerning CAGW.

    Point taken – rebuttal required.
    I was not really addressing the blog but was indirectly telling GW to buzz off. You have exposed my “ugly toad”. GK

  55. Getting Warm says:
    December 4, 2011 at 8:15 am …
    Please release all your e-mails immediately!! I’d almost bet Anthony would do that WHEN (and this is an imponderable guess) they release all their emails first.
    Hell, we can’t even get Mann to release his stuff from the UVa, and the taxpayers PAID for it. And Mann won’t do it under threat of the LAW, no less! And neither will the big-wigs at the UVa that undoubtedly see such revelations as the end of their gravy train and their careers!
    So go pull your joke on the Occupy crowd or something–that’s the true level of your request.
    (Don’t you find it rather confusing…nay, even remotely suspicious that it takes a whistleblower to reveal what these “climate scientologists” are up to? Any level-headed human with an ounce of inquisitiveness certainly would.)

  56. On the subject of dyslexia – its a big problem for me.
    Last week I went to a toga party dressed as a goat!

  57. Rosco says:
    PS – SkepticalScience is a disgrace – especially for the use of the incorrect “K” in the word sceptic – when I went to school you would be reprimanded for poor spelling.

    “Sceptical” is just the UK spelling. Here’s what I’ve posted previously on the matter:
    Stephen Brown wrote:

    “sceptic (English, and correct, spelling) “

    Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :

    “The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”

  58. Anthony’s adage is not one I have seen before:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”
    It is another way of saying conflicts of interest, something deeply embedded in the practitioners of ‘climate science’.
    If they told the truth, i.e. “the global climate is changing, the activities of man are obviously having an effect, but it’s no big deal as the change is mostly natural climate cycles”, then they would all be swiftly out of their well-paid jobs

  59. I thought “Getting Warm” was his “handle” based on all the hot air being released during his/her pontificating.

  60. Anthony, I did enjoy your link above to the article in the O.C.Register. Comparing it with the drone of alarmist rubbish we’re fed in the UK media (pace Delingpole and Booker) it was like a breath of fresh air.
    I found it a bit worrying, though, that Mr. Landsbaum could say, apparently seriously, “Thank goodness for bad economic times.” It suggests that he hasn’t connected enough dots to realise that both the economic collapse and the AGW saga are works of the same vile power interests, whose sole aim he himself excellently captured in the previous paragraph – “It’s always been about control and money. Their control of your money”. Quite so. I hope he passes by WUWT occasionally and notes this comment.
    As for Alan Kendall, good for him. “Mentioning the unmentionable” in academia is never easy – ask Denis Rancourt, another popuar lecturer who dared to mention the links between science and politics and met … difficulties.

  61. …where he laments some skeptical slides being used in a powerpount lecture at UEA…

    Shouldn’t that be “powerpout?”

  62. Hey kids, let’s have a contest to guess the true identity of ‘Getting Warm’. Is he/she a government employee or university grant recipient? An IPCC summary writer or NYT green news blogger? A politician or a Solyndra executive? Perhapsmaybe a retired Los Alamos scientist like Chick Keller?

  63. GettingWarm cites the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee as impartial.
    Nuts!
    It’s as impartial as the Parliamentary enquiry lead by Lord Oxborough, he of the directorships of companies that, he hopes, stand to profit from green policies.

  64. Rosco says:
    December 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    . . .
    PS – SkepticalScience is a disgrace – especially for the use of the incorrect “K” in the word sceptic – when I went to school you would be reprimanded for poor spelling.

    I think it is an Americanism. My grandmother was English and permanently affected my spelling habits. Here in the US, I was constantly being questioned by teachers about several of my spelling habits – use of “u” in words where Americans normally don’t, “e” as a substitute “a” in grey, etc. The spelling isn’t “wrong” merely dialectical.

  65. Mike M.
    Getting Warm is a retired biological and educational researcher. No university ties. No government ties.
    My passion for the environment comes from living in climate damaged Alaska (rapidly receding glaciers, spruce beetles, five degree warmer summers and yes, drilling in ice to light up methane bubbles.

  66. Anthony, maybe you should put your name into the race for a new professor at the UEA.
    ” Ethics and Accountability 101″
    They could surely use it.

  67. GettingWarm talks about “…living in climate damaged Alaska…”.
    No, GW, you are wrong. The Alaska you know may (or may not) be changing now but it was, without doubt, once warmer than now. So, it isn’t “damaged” it is merely changing – that is the language of the alarmist and proves that you are not a real scientist.
    You say you are a “researcher” – Greenpeace by any chance?

  68. GettingWarm:
    You say you lived in Alaska. How long did that last, before the realist drove you out of their State? Last I heard, you and your ilk, are not all that welcome there. Alaska’s climate is inherently and dangerously cold in most places. The last thing they need is some idealist spreading fear and panic. You have been predicting doom for years… How many catastrophes have panned out. Where are the CAGW disasters you keep blathering about? Where are these climate disasters (not weather) creating such an emergency, that draconian dismantling of our economy is necessary? Where are the dead bodies being hidden? Don’t you ever tire of being WRONG? There has been no real warming for half a climatic period, and if there was it was welcomed, by most of the biosphere, as increasing CO2 is.
    Now that we are beginning to cool… You will be able to see some real weather disasters. They will find bodies frozen outside and inside dwellings. But your tune will never change. Go sing it somewhere else. GK

  69. Beyond CG-I and II, until a cohort of under-40 academic researchers asserts itself in face of the Green Gang’s kook fringe [whatever Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. may think themselves], these peculating bumwads will continue their assaults on every principle of decency. Fortunately, like Monty Python’s dismembered Knight of the Ford, sites like CA and WUWT are reducing Luddite sociopaths to ankle-biting impotence.

  70. I am a scientist – Chemistry, A good argument is always part of our community – sometimes it gets heated (pun intended). Quite the opposite I see with this group, I am amazed they call this science. Oh well soft sciences are just that!

Comments are closed.