Friday Funny: ‘civil dialog in the climate world’

There’s an annoyance in the farce, and his moniker is “And Then There’s Physics” also known as “ATTP” and recently outed by Poptech as Dr. Ken Rice.  Ken Rice is a Reader of Astronomy and Public Relations Director at the Institute for Astronomy, within the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh. Dr. Rice came into the debate with an attitude supposedly more genteel, claiming he was all for reasoned debate and less rhetoric.

He wrote recently of “hostilities” in the climate debate:

So, as much as I’d be all for a reduction in hostilities, and a more reasoned approach to discussions about climate science, I see no reason to capitulate to those who appear to be using a few extreme examples to simply score points. I also think we all own our own behaviour. If people want to reduce hostilities, they can simply do so. People are not responsible for how someone responds to what they say, they’re only responsible for what they actually say.

It is ironic then, that we see this now partially disappeared comment admonishing Dr. Richard Tol on his own ATTP blog from Dr. Ken Rice, aka “and then there’s physics”:

civil-dialog-ATTPThat was morphed to this subsequent comment:

ATTP-disappeared

So much for “civil dialog” from Dr. Ken Rice. But at least he’s honest about saying even he can’t be civil anymore. For example, this is his blog header from January 2014:

ATTP-civil1And this is his blog header today:

ATTP-civil2I’ll have another article in the future about Dr. Ken Rice and his failures.

 

Advertisements

244 thoughts on “Friday Funny: ‘civil dialog in the climate world’

  1. Good Lord, is this really necessary? The chap’s an Academic and trying to engage, maybe after the odd half-bottle of claret.

    • …hmm. What is this? Are we gathered for a stoning? That’s a silly way of putting it, but my question isn’t meant to be a joke, it’s serious. Is it OK for Rice to blog about Watts, but not OK for Watts to blog about Rice?
      Maybe, right? Maybe it is. Maybe it’s a given that ATTP is not to be taken seriously and WUWT lowers itself by deigning to notice him at all. And then again, maybe not.

      • Mr. McC’s invisible /sarc tags are fairly evident to me. I believe they’re swimming in the dregs of that bottle of claret. As for “gathered for a stoning” … need you really ask? Dammit man, taking number for it and lined up thrice around the block. Have the stones to admit it. After all, that’s pretty much Mr. Watts’ message to ATTP, yes?

    • Trying to engage? Is that really what he’s trying to do? I’m not trying to be silly, I’ve spent more time than I care to admit reading ATTP and trying to figure the guy out. I don’t really buy that he is.

      • Agreed Mark!
        After ATTP’s first few circular comments in a thread I just skip his remaining comments unless he accidently releases some real knowledge while trying to demeans someone else’s comment.

        I’ve written him off as another envious blog owner seeking to misdirect traffic from the better blogs and discussions. ATTP may be more civil than hotwhopper, but he is following the same blog envy orbit style.

      • Mark Bofill

        I agree. Somebody who is “trying to engage” with me from behind a screen of anonymity is not trying to “engage” as a friend.

        People who want to be friends say who they are: assailants don’t.

        Richard

      • Atheok, Brandon, etc. Thanks for your responses. Richard, thanks as always. I hope you are doing well my friend. I hadn’t responded earlier because I didn’t have anything useful to add, but I realized I ought to at least ack.

    • Don’t understand the joke, old chap.

      Because he is an “academic” does not excuse stupid and ignorant behavior. In case you missed the point, he is NOT trying to engage, he is trying to undermine. Unfortunately, scientific debate has descended into the realm of propaganda, and it’s not coming from the skeptics, but from the holders of political power, the Lysenkoists.

    • It most certainly is necessary, especially if you were on the receiving end of his trolling nonsense for the last couple of years.

      Kenny cannot handle any form of debate and as soon as he loses he censors. His sycophants hide on his blog too scared to debate anyone outside of it.

      • I’ve always suspected that I’m a figment of my own imagination. Thanks for confirming that. I’m not so sure I feel good about being a sycophant to boot, but I can’t have everything, not even in my own fantasies.

      • @ohflow, maybe you missed the censoring of various commentators like Shub, Dr. Tol and myself but I do not fault you for speaking without knowing anything about the subject, as most readers of Ken Rice are known for this.

      • :>

        Poptech,

        To quote the movie ‘The Untouchables’: “I do not approve of your methods”. I don’t. Inviting people to harass Rice leads nowhere good IMO. That was a dumb and crappy thing to do.

        This said, +1 for solving the puzzle, +10 for striking a blow against those bastards who snip our arguments in order to give the impression of sending us running, and +50 for your comment above. Sir.

        (clears throat) Now go forth and be nice, darn it.

      • Mark, if I wanted Ken harassed I could do that all by myself and make his life miserable but he has a family so I have no reason to do that. Instead I wanted him to be in better communication with those he trolled and banned.

    • In Edinburgh? I doubt it!
      And if he really wants to engage he can make a better attempt at being civil. I haven’t seen a posting of his yet that hasn’t tried to demonstrate his superiority of lesser mortals (ie everyone who disagrees with him). What is it with these colonials and their inferiority complexes?

    • Claret? In Scotland?

      Given his geographical location, I’d be more inclined to attribute it to a surfeit of Buckie and fried Mars Bars.

    • Actually, Dr Rice is not interested in civil discourse. He’s dishonest, which shines through whenever someone presents inconvienent facts. His basic response is to mount a defense against something not said or change the topic.

      You can be the most polite person in the world yet still be a cad if you are dishonest. I’ve never met Rice so I won’t label him except for being dishonest. He’s demonstrated that characteristic.

      • As a former torpedoman, I fit the knuckle dragging description. However I’m still trying to figure out exactly what I am supposedly denying.

  2. I am not sure at the purpose of Poptech of outing someone like Dr Rice. This is the home page of his that was linked to.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions

    He appears a genuine academic who spent time in the Antarctic, has a phd on physics but is now primarily interested in astronomy.

    Nor sure why he deserves a Friday funny slot. He may not always be polite but that happens to all of us at times. He seems less vitriolic than some other warmist sites.
    Perhaps the Additional article mentioned in the head post might explain why the spotlight has been turned on him.

    Tonyb

  3. Well, I’ve just completed another exercise in typing (can’t really call it a “debate”) with a renewable energy type whose entire war chest was a single Wikipedia page (Ontario electricity policy if you want a laugh – most of the sources are from the David Suzuki Foundation, or government websites that are basically press releases).

    When I continually pointed him to our Auditor-General’s report that maintains that the government has, to paraphrase, only a nodding acquaintance with the truth (90% of the subsidies are going to 11 firms, and I know its hard to believe, but many of them have close political connections to the government).

    I asked him for the raw data or an unbiased source and he came back with: “Wikipedia may not be the absolute reference, but I thought it would at least give you a primer that is not too hard to understand.”

    That, and he accused me of confirmation bias because I trust an Auditor-General over Wikipedia.

    Gonna be a long fight, isn’t it?

    • CaligulaJones.

      That, and he accused me of confirmation bias because I trust an Auditor-General over Wikipedia.

      Gonna be a long fight, isn’t it?

      Add, to the bottom of every comment, “Follow the money. FROM Big Government, FOR Big Government, PAID by Big Government, and back to Big Government.”

      • If only.
        FROM Tax Payers, TO Big Government, FOR Big Government, DOLED out to Friends of Big Government who SUPPORT Big Government because they think they can CONTROL Big Government.

        Or as ferd berple said: “a pseudo expert telling us how we should tax the poor to give to rich.” – and powerful.

      • Now, now. But you started it. Lettuce keep going.

        FROM Tax Payers, TO Big Government, FOR Big Government, DOLED out BY Big Government TO (Friends of) Big Government who SUPPORT Big Government because they KNOW they DO control Big Government THROUGH Big Government.

    • Indeed Caligua:
      – Ontario electricity policies are a real mush, botched implementation of smart meters for example (they forecast substantial reduction in demand from people reducing consumption in response to time of day pricing, people didn’t, ON even manipulated rates to reduce the impact, worth reading the auditor’s report).
      – It will be a long struggle, municipal councilors are full of eco-freaks and gullible shallow people, who vote for hypocrite David Suzuki’s “Blue Dot” scam.

  4. And, “I see no reason to capitulate to those who appear to be using [ ] extreme [Hypocrisy] to simply score points”, Mr. ATTP (should those exist). But we’ll just wait until the promised future article, perhaps it isn’t as bad as it looks.

  5. Ken Rice is something else. The original blog, Wotts Up With That Blog, was a relentless attack on Watts Up With That. After switching to the current name, attacks have broadened to anyone and everyone who slightly deviates from Climate Dogma. A recent thread about Matt Ridley was one big smearfest. And now he turns around with a “hostile, moi?”.

    My attempt to point out the irony of it all was quickly disappeared by the moderator.

    • I’m convinced by that. There are, of course Bad Academics. Some stay bad, even after a half-bottle or two of claret!

      • I know right. Ya’ gotta wonder about the credentials of a guy who drinks two half-bottles of vino in a sitting. What is that? So well-nourished on the public teat that he can consider anything past the midpoint unfit to drink? Such a lush that he’s three-quarters pissed already from just smelling the cork and doesn’t see the five bottles he’s already opened?

    • He had about 4 or 5 commenters in ttl over there. I posted a headline from almost a century ago that proposed that the arctic was melting at an alarming rate. It was deleted with no explanation.

    • Yes, Richard, you have become a major target of the vitriol and are regularly subjected to insults, misrepresentations, and disrespect. Civility is a quaint concept when you allow the peanut gallery to do the dirty work for you. Convenient and hypocritical.

      • …and we are all throwing a pity party for the misery of the miserable. Keeping the past alive gives you permission to not have to take responsibility for yourself. Kleenex anyone?

    • Some seem rather better at preaching civil discourse than demonstrating it.
      Often those that are better at preaching about most things.
      Admittedly I haven’t followed a great deal of R. Toll’s contributions but I always feel assured of considered, courteous and cogniscant comment when I do.

    • Thanks for that clarification. The post above does not provide an answer to ATTP’s “back it up or frag off”, and I am not that knowledgable or interested in this attp figure so I did not know how uncivil he has been.
      So bedankt Richard for elaborating!

      Maybe an idea mods, add this bit of clarification because the head post stays cryptic about attp’s uncivil behaviour.

    • I rarely read anything from him but I found his name interesting and a comment to this article. http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/matt-ridley-climate-denial/
      I found it a bit ironic that someone calling himself And Then There is Physics not noticing the dodgy plot.
      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n10/full/ngeo2254.html
      It looks like its a ten year mean ending in the date on the label of the data point. A dishonest slight of hand to get rid of the pause.

  6. ‘And Then There’s Physics’ is a very arrogant and close-minded name.
    Choosing that moniker shows he has difficulty engaging with others as equals.

    But he did try.

    So he’s currently failing? Yes!. He is.
    So we should forgive that and try to re-engage.

    At the very least his ignorance will be proven and displayed as a warning. And maybe his viewpoint will inspire us or just help us refine our justifications.

    • A Person In your post:
      “Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences…”
      Do you know anything about this guy? – A Person – do you have a website???

      • There are 2 things, I am embarrassed to be a BC citizen after reading (and following) this guy, the other much happier thing is his standing as the only Green party MLA in BC is that he is a fart in a windstorm ( but seeing as I live down wind from Victoria I might get a whiff of at times URGH) Maybe three I wonder ? Could this set precedence in favor of Mann in his case here as well? Now that would be disgusting!

    • The link provided by this posts has the following quote by Peter Thief. So so funny:
      Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, said the ruling “is a victory for climate scientists everywhere.”

      There is “an extremely long history of efforts by climate deniers and contrarians to attack not just climate science, but climate scientists: to smear their scientific reputations, to distort their statements, and to make false and defamatory accusations,” Gleick told DeSmog Canada.

    • A shameful episode for British Columbia.

      Andrew Weaver is a politician. He is a member of the British Columbia Green Party and the parties deputy leader. Recently he was elected in the 2013 provincial election as the first Green Party MLA in British Columbia’s history. Weavers suit can foster an atmosphere where silencing adversaries to win elections is accepted as valid political strategy.

      Justice Burke, the judge in the case acted either idiotically or as a political hack. It seems Justice Burke cannot tell the difference between a fact and an opinion. If a writer said Weaver forged his college credentials and had no evidence, that is defamation. If a writer says Weaver is an “alarmist“, “sensationalist”, and “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” That is opinion. Yes those were phrases pulled from the actual ruling, which were ruled as defamatory. The precedence now is a politician in British Colombia cannot be labeled or described, unless the politician approves the wording. To all Canadian newspapers, I am guessing Andrew will accept being labeled “great leader” or “world saviour”, but better check with his lawyers first. The damages described for the $50,000 award is comical. Damages being that Dr. Weavers opinion of himself was offended and the defendants refused to retract their opinion.

      I like Canada a lot, but this is a black eye for the country.

      • Ah yes, we love our northern neighbor. So kind to the environment. Only 5+ million gallons of raw sewage dumped everyday into the Straits of Juan de Fuca. A lovely thought. And those pulp mills up those lonely BC fjords, conveniently out of site. And Canadian diversified miner Teck Resources Ltd repeatedly dumping their waste into the Columbia River just a few miles from the its entrance into the US. Yes, we like Oh Canada’s double standards.

  7. As a chemical engineer for 35 years I was told, “never write anything when your mad”. Always try to imagine yourself sitting in the witness chair in a courtroom trying to explain it.

    • Good advice for everyone and particularly when working with chemicals ;-)

      Leaving it overnight or until the other end of the day often helps identify ‘improvements’ in expression, or even if it’s worth saying at all.

      That does tend to lose the passion and may interrupt the flow though.

    • The internet is spammed by paranoid alarmists who think they are saving the world by denigrating each and every skeptic. They do absolutely nothing to promote science. There only intent is character assassination. I am adding Dr. Rice/Wotts Up With That Blog to my list of ignorant internet snipers along with Slandering Sou/rooter/ and her other personna from Hot Whopper, Miesler/Citizenchallenged from WhatsupwithThatWatts, Greg Laden and John Samuel

    • No, he’s begging for money from the government, and he is receiving it as long as he can maintain the Warmista lie.

  8. Just a note, because I saw it referenced here and in some other entries, that ‘Poptech’ is a trademark for an organization that’s been around for at least 15 years, and among other things, holds a very popular international conference on the implications of technology on culture. Check out http://www.poptech.org. Therefore, statements like ‘outed by Poptech’ when you mean the blog ‘Popular Technology’ could be an issue for them. I was one of the early volunteers who got Poptech off the ground, but no longer involved. However I know they care a lot about their brand and reputation, so wanted to give a heads up.
    Taylor

    • epiphron elpis sounds like an anagram
      [snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]

    • I would love to see posts on WUWT from people like Ken, or Schmidt et. al., but it seems they are not willing to engage. I find that puzzling.

    • Elpis

      Let’s see if I got this right (I’m paraphrasing you): to have a civil dialog, we have to renouncing Ball’s writings.

      I have a better idea: how about you state what you don’t like about Ball’s writings, including your opinion of why he’s wrong, and we’ll discuss it.

      Like you said, I’ll believe it when I see it.

    • Yes, hiding behind silly names that are not their own let them do and say things without being accountable for their actions.

    • Riiight . You want people to renounce the writings of Dr. Tim Ball as heresy before They can be accepted into the fold .What’s the next step ? Swearing to keep faith with the one church of CAGW and the one true prophet Hanson and his blessed apostles Gore , Mann , Gleik et al ?
      Give Me a break.

    • So Tim Ball is uncivil? Wow! The guy speaks truth but has been constantly attacked with malicious intent. You are advocating censorship of someone you don’t agree with. Why aren’t liberals very liberal?

      • Tim Ball – Heretic! Heretic! Burn the Unbeliever! Censor all of his works!!!

        “Climate Change” is just the new Hellfire and Brimstone Religion for people who think they’re too smart to fall for a Hellfire and Brimstone Religion. “REPENT YE, REPENT YE, O YE EVILDOERS, OR YE SHALL ALL PERISH IN FLAME! AND GIVE US ALL OF YOUR MONEY TO PROVE THAT YE ARE WORTHY OF SALVATION!!! REPENT YE, O REPENT YE!!!”

        it’s the same old game as always.

  9. The wayback machine will not be kind to these types. But take screen shots anyway and archive as datestamped .pdfs off line. Could come in handy some day–hopefully soon.

  10. What in this world is an “Astronomy Reader”?…does it involve tarot cards?

    …and why in this world does anyone care what this astronomy reader thinks??

    • Prior to uncovering him being an Astronomy Reader, he was known as an expert on the climate physics. Someone with so much knowledge on the subject that you became scared thinking he may blog about you.

    • Rather than every academic in a university being called professor as in the US system, British universities differentiate grades; lecturer, senior lecturer, reader and professor. So, a reader is one level down from the top.

      • Actually, the US has lecturer/instructor, associate professor, assistant professor, and professor, plus some have adjunct as well.

        Mark

  11. Its just part of image that alarmists have of themselves as ‘all good ‘ and sceptics has ‘all evil’
    So they cannot be ‘uncivil ‘ in the same way they cannot lie . no matter what words they actual use . Where has sceptics can of course be nothing but wrong,

    • wickedwenchfan, we’re on the same page there. Abuse means they have no good answer to your questions.

      One of the great things about WUWT is that everyone can weigh in. It all comes out in the wash, and readers eventually can see who’s right, and who is emitting bluster.

  12. In Greek mythology:
    Epiphron was the Daimon, Titan, or God of prudence, shrewdness, thoughtfulness, sagacity, leadership and carefulness.
    Elpis was the personification and spirit of hope (hope was usually seen as an extension to suffering by the Greek, not as a god)

  13. There are some big echo chambers around – the more they are ignored the louder the echo becomes. I have tried to converse with a few of these sites (and some of them have great depths of knowledge) – but as soon as you are seen to even stray towards a neutral position the sites attack dogs go for you and bang! youre blocked. Ridiculous and deeply upsetting if you let it. Did my sanity a lot of good last time I was blocked – thanked the blogger for his excellent site and never returned (and dont want to!! very unpleasant company he keeps, many of the threads on his forum are pages and pages long with only 1 poster)

  14. Here’s a bit of good jargon from the world of Childcare: All children crave attention, but in some cases, when the child is good, the parent breaths a sigh of relief and zones-out at the computer, giving the kid no attention, so the child resorts to “negative attention.” They have discovered that the only way to get the attention of adults is to be naughty.

    Surely we adults are above such behavior, are we not? (Just asking.)

    Perhaps Dr. Ken Rice was not receiving the attention he thought he deserved, for his focus on some obscure branch of science that could make a yawn yawn, (unless you were focused on the same obscure branch.) What he really needed was to meet the Unmet Friend, the person interested in what we gravitate towards. However perhaps he was unlucky in that regard, and his love of attention overwhelmed his love of science. Perhaps being good didn’t work out, and he decided to quit Dr. Jekyll and become Mr. Hyde.

    Perhaps.

    Unfortunately the only attribute that Dr. Rice has retained throughout the process he is going through is the ability to make a yawn yawn.

  15. Oopsy!

    use-net news-groups, e-mails, blogs, hockey games, boxing matches, wrestling matches, football, … and the corner pub down the street.

    And Then Comes The Brawl.

    Just a part of the … “Climate.”

    Ha ha.

  16. Oh for goodness sake you lot!! If you actually try reading what Brad writes in his comments, you will see that he’s light-heartedly taking the piss out of all of us, alarmist and sceptic alike. Be very well assured though, he’s no alarmist. I’ve long been a fan. He’s one smart cookie with a razor sharp wit and the warmists hate him. As many of you will know, anyoldphysics has been outed today and it turns out he ran an earlier blog besides the two we knew about. Read this: https://totheleftofcentre.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/1906/ for one of the best takedowns you’ll ever see. “Brad” is the same Bradley Keyes commenting above and “To the left of centre” is aTTP. Until I saw it referenced (by Brad) on Twitter earlier, I hadn’t read it, but I wish I had.

    Jan 22, 2015 at 7:20 PM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/21/on-namecalling.html#comments

  17. They don’t seem to have much banter , these warmistas. No sense of humour

    I find that a bit worrying in an opponent

    • It’s one of the distinguishing marks of fanatics of any persuasion. They have no sense of humour about their cause and limited insight into their own behaviour.

  18. “…they’re only responsible for what they actually say.” Ken Rice

    Great principle.

    My translation says, “give account for every idle word.” (:

  19. I remember first reading ATTP some time back. His approach was obviously a concern troll hiding both his identity and his knowledge. He brought nothing constructive to the table. Rather, he set “traps”. Great job to “out” him. He should thank Anthony and others here for giving him the courtesies he received while in his stealth mode.

  20. Sadly we really aren’t having a scientific debate. The entire issue is a money and political power issue.

    For me it always comes down to the very definition of terms like science or for a better example; theory. A theory has to do at least two things. It must explain what has been observed and it must be useful in successfully predicting the results of future experiments. By the first standard the “theory” of CAGW, (or any theory that has carbon dioxide as a major control of climate change,) has totally failed from the very beginning it never explained observations. By the second standard the “theory” has been dead since at least 1996 when we learned that the hot spot doesn’t exist which means the mechanism and predictions in all the models are wrong.

    What we now have is climate scare stories totally divorced from reality and a supposed theory that no evidence or observation can disprove. In other words not science at all. For some it is a religion, for others a political tool, perhaps for many… confirmation bias, or just self interest. Regardless of what ATTP’s purpose is the reality we live with is that this isn’t about science. That’s why there is so much invective.

    The fanatics can’t afford for this to be widely understood or the house of cards collapses. Meanwhile the actual scientists can’t help but get frustrated because while real evidence is ignored poor science is exalted and the system that is supposed to catch errors is science is corrupted..

    • Spot on Paul Nevins,

      By the second standard the “theory” has been dead since at least 1996 when we learned that the hot spot doesn’t exist which means the mechanism and predictions in all the models are wrong.

      The CAGW theory was falsified with this lack of a tropospheric warm zone. The creators of this theory never revisited this theory to revise it. They had abandoned the Scientific Method.
      This is what made me doubt the whole thing.
      This and the rhetoric that only bad things can come from a warming Earth.

  21. “So why do Western leftists always stop at the incident where they can blame their own culture?”

    “It is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other.”

    The insistence that Islam is just like Christianity, or that real Muslims would never engage in acts of violence, is condescending and simple-minded. (On that score, Obama manages to outdo even the New York Times, which in an editorial today repeatedly refers to the Islamic State as “jihadists.”) But it serves the function of heightening domestic political antagonism.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-crusades-1423256805

    Ah HA !

    So “Global Warming”, “Anthropogenic Global Warming”, “Carbon Global Warming”, “Carbon Anthropogenic Global Warming”, “Climate”, “Climate Science”, “Climate Change”, “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, “The Anthropocene” are just White Racist’s agendas masquerading as Science. The Parade of the Indulgences.

    Soon to become, ‘The Bonfire of The Vanities.’

    No ha

    • The insistence that Islam is just like Christianity, or that real Muslims would never engage in acts of violence…
      ====================

      The incessant barrage of anti-Muslim propaganda on every corner of the internet calls to mind a certain period in German history, with the only discernible difference being the target group:

      It is as if the entire western web is infested with thought police from the Ministry of Truth so that nobody can escape from the daily Two Minutes of Hate. Oh yeah….that’s actually true:
      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

      You can’t even read a thread about “civil dialog in the climate world” these days without being confronted by a Muslim-bashing screed from a bigot on a crusade.

      • Be assured that when wickens and cloistered monks start flying passenger jets into sky scrapers they will come under fire. You need to be patient.

      • Ah yes. Let’s try and draw a moral equivalence between anger and hatred fomented by lies and disinformation with anger and hatred fomented by actual events. Followed by a complaint about “Muslim-bashing screed from a bigot on a crusade”

        Coming from someone who has been snipped multiple times in this forum for blatant anti-Semitic screeds, that’s just precious.

      • Courtesy of the Religion of Peace:
        The Monthly Jihad Report for January, 2015

        Jihad Attacks: 266

        Countries:28

        Allah Akbars: (AKA Suicide Bombings) 43

        Dead Bodies: 3998

        Critically Injured: 2261

      • The Anglicans in the English controlled sections of Ireland took the destruction of monasteries, churches, church libraries and schools to a new level, It became a passion. In 1544 Immense amounts of ancient books and Vulgate Bibles were maliciously destroyed in giant bon fires. In an effort to reduce the Catholic Irish to ignorance Henry VIII decreed that in Ireland even the possession of a manuscript any subject whatsoever (including sacred Scripture) incurred the death Penalty. On January 5, 1541 by order of the king a English printer named Grafton was arrested and imprisoned for printing the Matthew and Great Bibles to which he had exclusive printing rights. King Henry VIII held a great official burning of to “heretical” books in 1546, The Protestant Bibles of Tyndale, Coverdale and Matthew and the Catholic Latin Vulgate helped feed the fires.

        The above is just a snippet of Bible destruction. And, thusly came America. The same America that saved itself (and other nations) from Nazi German and Japanese expansion. The same American that drove Hitler out of the middle east and north Africa heavily populated by Muslims. And just who on this planet hijacked a particular religion and gleefully burns a pilot in a cage waving the flag of jihad? Do I smell hate?

        So,man up! …and grow up.

      • The cloistered monks won’t come under fire, dp, until after a forensic investigation. That’ll be the main difference, one we failed to do after 9/11. it was determined to be bin Laden, et al, by end of business on September 11, 2001, IIRC. (I’m still stuck on the how. Kerosene/Jet A fire can vaporize steel but not burn paper?)

      • You know what Khwarizmi, perhaps there’s a reason Muslims are getting so much flack.

        Can you guess what it is?

      • @catweazle666,

        Most Americans sweep Islam into one pot because (1) they’re uneducated, (2) don’t really care about knowing the differences, and (3) the MSM are overpaid ignoramuses who fail to provide the proper context because they don’t know themselves. There are as many different groups of Islam as there are different groups of Christianity. The one Islamic group we hear about constantly (in fact, the only one), and is the Islamic equivalent of a murderous Christian snake handler sect on steroids (should such exist), are the Wahhabists. Except Americans don’t know this, have no clue. Created around 1810 AD by tribalists in tents on sand now known as Saudi Arabia; believe me when I say that they have exhibited none of the great scientific, mathematical, astronomical, and cultural advancements that Islamic science gave the world. Has about as much to do with generic Islam as I do.

        There is one reporter who does know the difference, war correspondent Pepe Escobar. The Dirtiest Secret of the War on Terror. Worth reading. The guy can write, and he does his homework.

      • policycritic,

        You can put me in with #2.

        Until Muslims across the board begin criticizing these savages, I don’t really care about hairsplitting. No Christian religion would remain silent if a faction of theirs was committing similar atrocities. Why should Islam be held to a lower standard? What’s special about them?

      • @dbstealey,

        They are, it’s just not being reported in our press. The foreign press is covering it, not seeing much here. The BBC has it on its “ISLAMIC STATE CONFLICT” page. But #2’s aren’t looking for it. :-)) There’s real rage against ISIS/ISIL.

        “ISIS doesn’t really care very much about the reactions it gets from Arab or foreign governments,” said Rami Khouri, a Middle East analyst based in Beirut. “They’re on a mission to carry out their barbaric deed. Anger against ISIS was in evidence among protesters in Jordan. One demonstrator held a poster that read: “They burned our hearts, so let’s burn their dens, and their prisoners in our prisons.”” CNN International.

        Here’s another, this is US coverage: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-isis-execution-angry-king-abdullah-quotes-clint-eastwood-to-u.s.-lawmakers/article/2559770

        “He’s angry,” [Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr., a Marine Corps veteran of two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan] said of King Abdullah. “They’re starting more sorties tomorrow than they’ve ever had. They’re starting tomorrow. And he said, ‘The only problem we’re going to have is running out of fuel and bullets.'”

        Apparently King Abdullah quoted Clint Eastwood from Unforgiven.

  22. To my knowledge, anyone who has written articles on this blog has essentially given up the right to call out the believers on their lack of civility, as the skeptic realm has largely decided to reject it as well.

    Go back through the articles here and see the significant number that engage in the name-calling and ad-hom attacks of people that the writers on this blog disagree with. Some articles almost literally read like a tabloid doing a hack job on a politician or Hollywood star,

    If you want to comment on civility, you need to return to being civil first, even if they smear you (and this is one place where the ‘Golden Rule’ gets it very wrong).

    • Adam from Kansas,

      Or just throw punches and learn to take one on the chin in return. Or the gut. Make it a stand-up fight and save the complaints for the clearly below-the-belt shots. Bonus points if the complaint is about the low blow, less about the person who threw it. Difficult in a pub brawl when everyone is fighting dirty, I realize.

    • Adam from Kansas drops a rather common but completely false claim.

      The trouble is KansasAdam, many if not most readers of Anthony’s blog have already read a number of articles and commentary.

      Ad hominem’s are neglible. Those ad homs that do crop up are invariably from the alarmist trolls trying to deflect comments or incite others.

      Most readers have already journeyed to other skeptic blogs and experienced the solid adherence to scientific process and polite discourse common on skeptic blogs.

      Most of these same readers have also experienced the infantile abuse so common on CAGW/AGW/alarmist/consensus blogs. Quite a few of these readers were driven away from the consensus world’s lack of civility; visited WUWT or any one of a number of skeptic blogs, enjoyed or interested by topics they read along with the polite incisive commentary, these readers now visit often.

      “…These readers now visit often.” A fact proved by blog web stats for WUWT and a number of skeptic blogs.

      Plus, unlike a number of consensus blog sites that need additional traffic, bot visits are discouraged. Do intentional bot visits remind you of your favorite sites?

      Next time you decide to drop by and leave an unwarranted bogus claim, don’t bother; instead visit the alarmist camps where your discourteous claim(s) are actually the truth.

      • Science is supposed to be the practice of inferring something about reality from evidence. “Tone” of the debate about what the planet is doing is not the best evidence of what the planet is doing. Or going to do. Get over it.

      • ATheoK
        There’s no point in trying to reason with someone like Adam from Kansas.
        If he’d referred to the comments that appear here (as I get the impression you are doing) then he might just have had a point.There are some comments that make my tender Brit soul cringe just a little bit but then for all I know that is what the Americans call “robust”! And anyway they tend to be few and far between.
        When he talks about “articles” I fear that what he means is well-reasoned, fairly robust rebuttals or denunciations of what the writer sees as rubbish but which he thinks are ill-mannered because they call into question (inevitably) some scientist’s competence. So when we establish beyond a reasonable doubt that MBH98 is bulls**t and we say so, he sees that at as an ad hom against Mann.
        If the mindset is: all scientists I agree with are perfect; the rest of you are a bunch of know-nothing amateurs with no right to an opinion, then you have a communication problem.

    • True, However civility is not an absolute. Some are more civil than others. Incivility begets incivility. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be holding a knife in a gun fight. One should fight fire with fire.
      I am not a D’Nyer. If you call me a name, I’ll call you one right back. If you can’t stand the heat Bubba, you know where to go.

  23. Anthony,

    I note with interest that your own masthead says nothing about trying to keep it civil. Probably wise. I too don’t think much of people who pretend to be something they’re not.

  24. FROM: Taxpayers

    TO: Government

    SUBJECT: Criminal fraud in “climate research”

    ATTN: Knowing statements of falsehoods in applications for research grant funding drawn from the public purse.

    PURPOSE: Investigation, indictment, and prosecution, with secondary civil actions to recover both compensatory and punitive damages.

      • At 10:39 PM on 6 February, apparently for the first time ever appraised of the fact that the knowing statement of lies on a grant funding application leaves the applicants liable to prosecution for criminal fraud, Brandon Gates posts:

        Just when you thought science by politics was bad, look out! Science by litigation!

        You didn’t know that all that lovely taxpayer money comes with the sorts of strings that can hang you?

        Now, were the Office of the Inspector General down there in Mordor-on-the-Potomac being operated by a legitimate administration rather than under the aegis of our present Indonesian-in-Chief and his coterie of ACORN elves and Muslim Brotherhood members – say, after January 2017 – we might see some spectacular liming of the “Climate Research” outhouse….

      • I think this is where I’m supposed to say, “yabbut, you guys started it”. And then do a lot of whining about how unfair the real world is. Or something like that.

      • Tucci78,

        You didn’t know that all that lovely taxpayer money comes with the sorts of strings that can hang you?

        Sure. I also know that you didn’t mention any specifics leaving me free to invoke the spectre of frivolous lawsuits based on political motivations. See how ambiguity works? Nifty trick, innit.

      • Sweating to avoid confronting the fact that the knowing utterance of falsehoods in grant funding applications gives grounds more than sufficient for criminal prosecution (gee, wonder why?), at 3:23 AM on 7 February we’ve got Brandon Gates apparently whistling past his personal graveyard with:

        Sure. I also know that you didn’t mention any specifics leaving me free to invoke the spectre of frivolous lawsuits based on political motivations. See how ambiguity works? Nifty trick, innit.

        Oh? The word “fraud” ain’t enough in the way of “specifics”?

        What’s there of “ambiguity” to be argued?

        Ain’t it nice that everything in the way of “research” undertaken on the taxpayer’s dime is open to Freedom of Information Act interrogatories (and it’s a separate criminal offense to evade such demands, too!)? The process in both criminal and civil proceedings is pretty straightforward therefrom.

        And it’s not as if the various communications among “the Consensus” quacks haven’t proven wonderfully demonstrative of criminal mens rea when it comes to outright lies and beaucoup suppressio veri, suggestio falsi throughout their “research,” meaning that there’s not only boatloads of lies having been knowingly employed as ostensible support in applications to fund their further projects but also plenty of prevarication in the reports they’ve tendered to the funding agencies upon completion of their various ventures into Cargo Cult Science.

        As for the “frivolous lawsuits” (y’know; civil actions in tort law for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages), those are undertakings separate from the criminal investigations, indictments, prosecutions and convictions, advantaged by different rules of evidence and other procedural particularities. Them’s the business of the O.I.G. acting on behalf of the public as plaintiff, not as the victims of peculation.

        Considering how well-coordinated “the Consensus” has proven itself to be, there’s even argument for invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

        Climategate, the gift that just keeps on giving….

      • Tucci78,

        The word “fraud” ain’t enough in the way of “specifics”?

        No. People who think saying “fraud” is specific enough are just the sort of folks I’d expect to bring politically motivated frivolous lawsuits. Mostly though I just expect them to blather about it as part of their political rhetoric. So … science by politics with a threat of lawsuit. You illustrate the type well. The tip was:

        … under the aegis of our present Indonesian-in-Chief and his coterie of ACORN elves and Muslim Brotherhood members …

        Which I must say is rather nicely composed and gave me a good chuckle.

      • Tucci78,

        Climategate, the gift that just keeps on giving….

        Quite true. Watching law-loving activists go ape for illegally obtained private communications was, and is deliciously duplicitous. But hey, breaking the law is ok if it’s for a good cause, amirite? I’m right. Myself, I thought those emails were fascinating reading. An oft stomach-churning look into how the real world of science actually works. A must read for any serious student of climate and the debate surrounding it.

        The real gift is noting that it’s the straw of desperation clutched at when AGW “skeptics” have run out of arguments — which is easy to do because there isn’t exactly a cornucopia of them — and need what they think is a good zinger to drown out voices of reason and rational sense. Playing that card is tantamount to a hard-core partisan Democrat attempting to blame the current state of the economy on W. Bush. As in: it reeks of desperation.

        So by all means, keep beating that drum and chanting your mythologies about MBH98 sports equipment. It keeps you from being taken seriously and getting in the way; something that serious people appreciate when there’s good, difficult, worthwhile work to be done adding to the corpus of human knowledge.

      • His nose rubbed in the Climategate information dump (the 17 November 2009 gift that – indeed! – keeps on giving), at 7:31 AM on 7 February, Brandon Gates whines that a na levo release to the ‘Net of materials LAWFULLY DEMANDED of the administrators at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), said demands having been CRIMINALLY EVADED by Professor Jones and his accessories, constitutes:

        …illegally obtained private communications…

        …to flop-sweat that perpetual climate fraudster “private” crap about materials which had entirely been produced on the public dime (and that includes the e-mails!), making every goddam bit of FOIA2009.zip entirely subject to discovery under the prevailing FOIA statute in the United Kingdom at the time of both the interrogatories and the exposure of “the hockey team” in its deviations from professional ethics and its members’ criminality.

        Weren’t nothing “private” in FOIA2009.zip, and Mr. Gates is blowin’ it out’n his distalmost sphincter, ain’t he?

        And, of course, Mr. Gates is psychoneurotically thought-blocking about what the hungry shysters of the private sector would (merrily!) do in actions to pursue all them lovely punitive damages. SABicyclist isn’t alone in pointing out the thousands and thousands of wrongful deaths which can be laid to the spurious catastrophism fostered by “the Consensus on Climate” in building up their vitae.

      • Gavin,

        Odd retort when the topic of discussion is an endlessly rehashed paper from 1998. I’d think people with that sort of attention span would get excited watching paint dry.

      • Brandon Gates;
        The real gift is noting that it’s the straw of desperation clutched at when AGW “skeptics” have run out of arguments

        Well if the warmists would actually pick a position and stick to it, then we could have an actual debate. We’d still run out of arguments, its just that we’d be obviously correct. But the debate keeps morphing because each warmist argument that gets debunked simply morphs into something else. It was Catastrophic AGW, then is was Climate Change and then it was Climate Disruption and then it was Climate Wierding and now its back to Climate Change again. I think, I haven’t checked for certain in the last 24 hours so it may have changed again. The disaster du jour wanders from warming to drought to flood to mass migration to mass extinction to crop failure to sea level rise, from one imminent disastrous non event to the next, none of them coming to pass and none of them posing even a fraction of the threat to human life that the proposed remedies do. How can we NOT run out of arguments? Your side can’t defend any one position long enough for there to BE an argument.

        But if you want to have an argument, then its easy.

        CO2’s effects are logarithmic. The purported direct effect of CO2 doubling is 1 degree C. But that’s calculated at the effective black body temperature of earth which is -18C. When calculated against the actual surface temperature of earth (+15C), that effect drops to a bit over 0.6 degrees (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). We’re at 400 ppm in the atmosphere and going up by about 2 ppm per year. So 200 years from now, we’ll have an extra 0.6 degrees of temperature increase directly from CO2. Whoop-dee-ding (Archie Bunker). OK feedbacks. If feedbacks are high, they could triple or quadruple the direct effects of CO2. But feedbacks arn’t that high else we would be able to directly measure them but we can barely (if at all) differentiate CO2 driven warming from natural variability, so ALL the evidence is that feedback are LOW. And if feedbacks are low…. then there’s diddly squat to worry about.

        That’s it, that’s the whole thing in a nutshell. Any warmist I’ve ever been able to convince to go through this math in detail has either responded with “so…. there’s not much to be concerned about” or, “but ice melting, but storms increasing, but floods, but droughts, but, but, but….oh look, a squirrel.”

        I have no ill will toward squirrels, but I do find that they are tough to present arguments to.

      • davidmhoffer,

        Well if the warmists would actually pick a position and stick to it, then we could have an actual debate.

        I don’t like that constraint. It potentially holds me to deciding something about reality and not budging from it. I’ve heard some rumors that we do too much of that already.

        But the debate keeps morphing because each warmist argument that gets debunked simply morphs into something else.

        It would be nice to get credit for self-debunkery when it happens.

        It was Catastrophic AGW, then is was Climate Change and then it was Climate Disruption and then it was Climate Wierding and now its back to Climate Change again.

        As much as possible, I make my decisions based on the primary literature, not what the marketing and PR departments comes up with. Partisan squabbling is an unavoidable part of the policy debate, but in terms understanding of what the planet is likely to do or not, I stick with the science as best I can. Only with that in hand can I think about appropriate steps and cut through the political bullshit which both sides pile up with alacrity.

        Your side can’t defend any one position long enough for there to BE an argument.

        lol, like the climate contrarian side of this spat is sooooo monolithically unified.

        CO2’s effects are logarithmic. The purported direct effect of CO2 doubling is 1 degree C. But that’s calculated at the effective black body temperature of earth which is -18C. When calculated against the actual surface temperature of earth (+15C), that effect drops to a bit over 0.6 degrees (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). We’re at 400 ppm in the atmosphere and going up by about 2 ppm per year. So 200 years from now, we’ll have an extra 0.6 degrees of temperature increase directly from CO2.

        The way I know to work this out is that a doubling of CO2 results in 3.7 W/m^2 additional forcing, which comes from ΔF = α ln(C/C₀), α = 5.35. We need to know the equilibrium climate sensitivity to any radiative forcing to translate that into ΔF, which means we need to know about ….

        OK feedbacks. If feedbacks are high, they could triple or quadruple the direct effects of CO2. But feedbacks arn’t that high else we would be able to directly measure them but we can barely (if at all) differentiate CO2 driven warming from natural variability, so ALL the evidence is that feedback are LOW.

        Cue one of my frustrations arguing with the climate contrarians: we should be able to do X, but I assert without evidence that we can’t, so I conclude that my view of things is correct and the people who study these things for a living are wrong. Let me put it to you this way, the lower you say ECS must be, the harder it is for you to explain the fluctuations from the MWP to the LIA and back out of it again, especially if you insist that the highest temperatures in whatever local warming episode you favor must be global and not just a local fluctuation.

        While you’re pondering that, I’m going to tell you the answer I accept from literature written by people who do the actual research. ECS is ~0.8 K W^-1 m^2. Multipy that by 3.7 W/m^2 from above and we get 3.0 °C for a doubling of CO2. The range considered by AR5 to be likely (high confidence) is 1.5°C to 4.5°C, the exact same range in FAR. How’s that for picking a position and sticking to it?

        And if feedbacks are low…. then there’s diddly squat to worry about.

        And if feedbacks are high, there’s diddly squat to worry about because, well pick one. It’s been hot before. We’ll adapt. CO2 is plant food (water and fertilizer are no object … it’s just going to be there, don’t worry!). “You guys” are great at telling warmistas what is impossible or difficult for us to know and rarely listen to us when we tell you that we’re uncertain about a great number of things because you’re collectively so all-fired sure that no matter what it will all work out. That’s a real bitch of a position to argue against, let me tell ya’.

        So I feel your pain, just from the opposite side of the aisle. It is what it is I guess.

      • Gates says:

        Tucci78, so you’re going with the story that the emails weren’t stolen.

        Sometimes you make sense, Gates. This isn’t one of those times.

        Post evidence that the emails were “stolen”.

        Take your time…

      • Brandon Gates;
        The range considered by AR5 to be likely (high confidence) is 1.5°C to 4.5°C, the exact same range in FAR. How’s that for picking a position and sticking to it?

        AR4 said the range was 2.0 to 4.5, AR5 said it was 1.5 to 4.5.
        AR4 said the consensus estimate was 3.0, AR5 said they could not reach a consensus estimate.

        You cherry picked a much earlier report and claimed it matches the last report and so the estimate has been stable, while cleverly leaving out the part in the middle where the numbers changes and the ability to even arrive at a consensus estimate collapsed. You’ve just provided one of the most galling examples of warmist bullsh*t, which is claim “we always said that” when you didn’t.

        But while there is ample evidence cited by AR5 to justify the lower bound of 1.5, there has been almost no new research to justify the upper bound. It was kept in the mix for purely political purposes. Several papers since AR5 have further constrained sensitivity to under 2.

        But let’s address your comment:

        Cue one of my frustrations arguing with the climate contrarians: we should be able to do X, but I assert without evidence that we can’t, so I conclude that my view of things is correct and the people who study these things for a living are wrong.

        No, that’s not what I did. What I did is point out that if sensitivity was high, it would be easily discernible from natural variation. The fact that we cannot is evidence that it isn’t. You go on to claim:

        the lower you say ECS must be, the harder it is for you to explain the fluctuations from the MWP to the LIA and back out of it again

        Now you have conflated two different issues, AND drawn the exact wrong conclusion from them. Natural variability is what it is. The higher it is, the smaller CO2 sensitivity is by comparison. That strengthens my argument, not yours. And that, ultimately, is where we wind up. Warmists cling to increasingly thin arguments about sensitivity being high, while turning themselves in knots to explain how high sensitivity estimates can be justified.

        In the meantime, CO2 is logarithmic, whatever fears we had about doubling from pre-industrial levels of 280 have been erased by the fact that we are now at 400, more than half of the effects of a single doubling are in the books with nothing special happening to the climate, and to double from where we are now, it will take another 200 years.

      • davidmhoffer,

        AR4 said the range was 2.0 to 4.5, AR5 said it was 1.5 to 4.5.
        AR4 said the consensus estimate was 3.0, AR5 said they could not reach a consensus estimate.

        A great example of scientists being honest and saying, “we don’t know”.

        Several papers since AR5 have further constrained sensitivity to under 2.

        So I’ve seen. So the full range of published estimates is 1.5-4.5. Do you or do you not agree?

        You’ve just provided one of the most galling examples of warmist bullsh*t, which is claim “we always said that” when you didn’t.

        I was making light of a common contrarian argument that after 25 years of research ECS to CO2 doubling is hardly better constrained than when we started. I guess you missed the sarc tags around, “How’s that for picking a position and sticking to it?”

        It’s completely “lost” on you that science is all about NOT doing that, hence all the changes over time in the IPCC ARs. “Lost” in “scare quotes” because you damn well should know better than to argue that “Well if the warmists would actually pick a position and stick to it, then we could have an actual debate.” A proper skeptic would know that science doesn’t work like that, and act like it.

        But let’s address your comment:

        Please, let’s.

        What I did is point out that if sensitivity was high, it would be easily discernible from natural variation.

        It’s a truthy sounding argument, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s based on nothing but your own sense of how things should work. A couple of properly skeptical questions should illustrate this:

        1) What causes “natural variation” in the first place?
        2) How high, exactly, must sensitivity be before “unnatural forcings” become “easily discernible”?
        3) What constitutes “easily discernable”?

        Natural variability is what it is.

        No. We’re dealing with a physical system following a chain of causality. Shit does not “just happen”.

        The higher it is, the smaller CO2 sensitivity is by comparison.

        No. Part of the problem here is ambiguity in terminology and me being sloppy about not noting it. So:

        http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:162782/CONTENT/Paleosens_Project_Members_2012.pdf

        Quantifying climate sensitivity
        ‘Equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is classically defined as the simulated global mean surface air temperature increase (DT, in K) in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 , starting from pre-industrial conditions (which corresponds to a radiative perturbation, DR, of 3.7 W m –2 ; refs 1,3). We introduce the more general definition of the ‘climate sensitivity parameter’ as the mean surface temperature response to any radiative perturbation (S 5 DT/DR; where DT and DR are centennial to multi-millennial averages), which facilitates comparisons between studies from different time-slices in Earth history. For brevity, we refer to S as ‘climate sensitivity’. In the definition of S, an initial perturbation DR 0 leads to a temperature response DT 0 following the Stefan–Boltzmann law, which is the temperature-dependent blackbody radiation response. This is often referred to as the Planck response 4 , with a value S 0 of about 0.3 K W 21 m 2 for the present-day climate 5,6 . The radiative perturbation of the climate system is increased (weakened) by various positive (negative) feedback processes, which operate at a range of different timescales (Fig. 1). Because the net effect of positive feedbacks is found to be greater than that of negative feedbacks, the end result is an increased climate sensitivity relative to the Planck response 4.

        So as I understand it, I should have used the term “climate sensitivity parameter” which is a function of the Planck response and the net of feedback processes. It gets hairy because feedback processes don’t operate on the same timescale, some are relatively fast and other may take centuries or millenia as Figure 1 of the paper shows.

        Long and short of all this is, we, as in citizens of this planet, don’t want S, climate sensitivity, in the generic sense to be “high” because that would mean that response to ANY increase in external forcing will also be “high”. What you need to understand about me is that I want the climate sensitivity to be “low” because that would mean ECS of CO2 doubling is also “low”. A “very” warm MWP followed by a “very” cool LIA suggests that generic climate sensitivity might be “high”. It’s not the argument you want to be making if you like burning fossil fuels.

      • dbstealey,

        Post evidence that the emails were “stolen”.

        Rational people understand that they were not willingly released to the public by those who wrote them. IIRC the story is that Anthony got the file around the same time the Guardian did which isn’t consistent with an FOI type release. So, um, “stolen” seems a pretty good word to use. Is that a problem for you?

      • @Gates:

        First, I see that you cannot post evidence that the Climategate emails were stolen. Chalk that one up to skeptics, who know it has all the hallmarks of an inside job.

        Next, you have repeatedly labeled skeptics as “contrarians”. Please define that label — and keep in mind that the so-called ‘consensus’ is heavily on the side of skeptics.

        Finally, you ask:

        What causes “natural variation” in the first place?

        May I? Thank you. I refer to Prof Richard Lindzen, who writes:

        The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope… Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages, and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in hundred-thousand year cycles for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present, despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced, to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat… For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

        So you see, nothing is ever in equilibrium. Global temperatures naturally fluctuate, and there is no need to invoke human activity as a cause. As we see, the climate has changed much more in the past, when human emissions were negligible. Thus, “natural variation” is the default position of the climate, which can never be static.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but the alarmist crowd seems to expect a static climate. If it is not static, then they presume that any changes must be due to human activity. Is that about right?

        Allow me to close with another Lindzen quote:

        “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

  25. Tips & Notes is becoming impossible to open, but this fits with Friday Not-so-funny:

    apparently this ran as a public service announcement (PSA) at the end of CNN Christiane Amanpour’s program yesterday. talk about anti-human! the other ads automatically play after the Roberts one. pretentious? yes:

    Youtube: Nature Is Speaking – Julia Roberts is Mother Nature | Conservation International (CI)
    Oct 2014 – Julia Roberts, Harrison Ford, Kevin Spacey, Edward Norton, Penelope Cruz, Robert Redford and Ian Somerhalder all join forces to give nature a voice. Watch the films and take action at …

    Wikipedia: Conservation International
    Conservation International (CI) is an American nonprofit environmental organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia…
    From its origins as an NGO dedicated to protecting tropical biodiversity, CI has evolved into an organization that works with governments, scientists, charitable foundations, and business…
    CI has been criticised for links to companies with a poor environmental record such as BP, Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto and Shell and for allegedly offering greenwashing services.
    CI has also been chastised for poor judgment in its expenditure of donors’ money…
    The organization has been active in United Nations discussions on issues such as climate change and biodiversity, and its scientists present at international conferences and workshops. Its United States policy work currently highlights “a direct connection between international conservation and America’s economic and ***national security interests”…
    A 2008 article in The Nation pointed out that the organization had attracted $6 million for marine conservation in Papua New Guinea, but the funds were used for “little more than plush offices and first class travel.”…
    In 2011, Conservation International was targeted by a group of reporters from Don’t Panic TV who posed as a major American arms company and asked if the charity could “raise [their] green profile.” Options outlined by the representative of Conservation International (CI) included assisting with the arms company’s green PR efforts, membership of a business forum in return for a fee, and sponsorship packages where the arms company could
    potentially invest money in return for being associated with conservation activities. Conservation International agreed to help the arms company find an “endangered species mascot.” Film footage shows the Conservation International employee suggesting a vulture North African birds of prey as a possible endangered species mascot for the arms company because of the “link
    to aviation.”…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_International

    seems they have plenty of bucks to buy the “stars”:

    2012: NYT: Q. and A.: Linking People’s Needs to Nature’s
    By Felicity Barringer
    But in the last few years Peter Seligmann, the founder and chairman of Conservation International, has made a major strategic change in his ***$250 million organization…
    (url can be easily found online)

    • Pat:
      Microsoft’s IE browsers have memory issues.

      Tips and Notes opens easily in the non-MS browsers. I use Chrome or Safari when I need to open the tips category.

      Cheers!

      • Why should we use another tool to do the exact same job? (I agree, M$ IE is a pain and I have to bin it now and then. Clean out the “memroy” etc). I don’t choose different cars to drive to different stores, or petrol stations. If I buy a computer with an INSTALLED operating system AND “web browser”, it should work (As advertised). No excuse (MS)!

      • I’ve just run some tests- have 60+Mbps bandwidth. IE and Firefox perform about the same. Tips and Notes DLs averaged about 1 minute 10secs. and DL speed just briefly went above 6 Mbps each test, but spent most time in sub 96Kbit range.
        My guess is that the WordPress server chokes on Tips and notes.

      • Ps Cleaned cache before each test. Quad core cpu never maxed and free RAM remained generally above 2GB, so it all points to the push server, not the browser.

  26. ATTP refuses to accept any sceptical posts that he considers are too close to the mark in identifying how the IPCC fraud was done.

    He is simply a shill, not a professional scientist.

  27. The warmists are running out of time to push their propaganda. Significant unequivocal global cooling will be a kin to a forced move in chess, it will be impossible to ignore. The public, media, and politicians will demand an explanation. It will not be business as usual in the climate wars.

    The warmists have ignored the logical consequences of the 18 year ‘pause’ in warming, the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record with the exact same pattern of the warming (high latitude warming both hemisphere) that has occurred in the last 150 years that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes (solar activity in the last 70 years was the highest in 8000 years), and the unexplained paradox that the signature of greenhouse gas warming – tropical troposphere atmospheric warming at 8km – did not occur.

    The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. Past Maunder like minimums solar magnetic cycle grand minimums have lasted for 100 to 150 years.

    The solar magnetic cycle’s affect on planetary cloud cover (Southern ocean has cooled) is the physical reason why there is now record sea ice in the Antarctic for all months of the years, starting in 2012. There are now the first signs of high latitude cooling in the Northern hemisphere: record snow fall on the Greenland ice sheet and a recovery of sea ice in the Arctic.

  28. ATTP is a priceless resource for skeptics.
    His unrelenting sense of righteousness is matched only by his ignorance and closed mindedness.

  29. Ho, ho, ho! Such an annoying farce!

    Anthony – I thought I might take this opportunity to remind you that some of my recent completely and “partially disappeared” comments here on WUWT are still on the cutting room floor!

    [Snip. How ironic. ~mod.]

  30. It appears that Ken Rice
    Despite allusions to the contrary
    Is a guy who’s not very nice
    We’ve seen this demonstrated once
    Will we see this bad behavior twice?
    Or, may we see this behavior thrice?
    Is nasty behavior a part of Ken Rice?
    Something he may properly claim as a vice?
    When he wakes up in the morning
    Out of his hair does he have to pick lyce?

    (I added that last line strictly for rhyming effect.)

  31. and “then” there’s physics.

    “Then” implies afterwards or after.. After what? Before physics what was there? God? Infinite nothingness? When did physics actually start according to these loonies? Here’s a clue for Ken, physics, was, is and always will be.

    I know the implication is “then” infers injecting into the world of deniers the concept of physics. But “then” I can’t help but notice the tendency to come up with the stupidest of catch phrases. “Climate Change” being the biggest one lately. I know it is supposed to mean “Climate change caused by evil men with fossil fuels” but literally it states the obvious; climate changes. And maybe if Ken and his climate brethren stuck to the obvious, they wouldn’t constantly be falling victim to flights of fancy.

  32. “And Then There’s Physics” also known as “ATTP” and recently outed by Poptech as Dr. Ken Rice. Ken Rice is a Reader of Astronomy and Public Relations Director at the Institute for Astronomy, within the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh”

    Poptech,

    I am impressed with your focus to investigate and to identify “ATTP” as the UK academic Dr. Ken Rice @ University of Endinburgh.

    I wonder how many others with similar anonymous WUWT commenting patterns as Dr. Ken Rice turn out to be intellectually stealthy academics in hiding. Poptech, is there a research paper in the offing?

    John

    • A couple of other fly by night commentators here have been identified as academics. I am willing to bet that a legitimate percentage of anonymous alarmists posting here have an academic background and of course a left-wing political ideology.

      • Speculates Poptech at 8:36 PM on 7 February:

        A couple of other fly by night commentators here have been identified as academics. I am willing to bet that a legitimate percentage of anonymous alarmists posting here have an academic background and of course a left-wing political ideology.

        Does ANYBODY hew to the blatant fraudulence of CO2-demonizing catastrophic anthropogenic global [‘viro horror-of-the-week] blatherskite absent the motivations of “left-wing political ideology”?

        In any fora where the ‘Net’s facilitation of – well … relative – anonymity enables freedom of discourse substantially choked off in meatspace by the very real promise of physical, economic, and political retaliation (or does nobody reading here remember being taught in school about John Peter Zenger and Governor Cosby?), it’s always been stupid to assume that any comments or articles posted can be valued any more or less except for the validity of what one reads in each such offering?

        In a medical journal, a letter of comment over the signature of a Big Name from a Big Clinic will certainly get your attention more readily than a similar comment from a country G.P. or a medical student, but is any Big Name ever taken to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra on any subject, at any time?

        If the med student supports his contention robustly, and he speaks sense to the subject in a manner that warrants attention, his contribution to the discussion can possibly be of greater value to the journal’s readers than had been the ponderations of Dr. Big Name.

        In the various instantiations of the Internet, the criteria aren’t as exacting (much less – commonly no – editorial “filters against folly”) as in a medical journal’s “Letters” section, but still there’s the fact that in order to make his point, the anonymous or pseudonym’d commenter must also speak sense within the limits of his post, each and every time he posts, or his purpose for posting (if even only remotely legitimate) is not achieved.

        It ain’t who says something, but rather what he says.

        For that reason, the man posting from behind an online “handle” – with some pitiful protection from retaliation – can voice information and opinion more explicitly than would otherwise be the case, and this is a great VIRTUE of the ‘Net, not at all a liability.

        Or have none of those reading here yet been made aware that Dr. John Locke had written Two Treatises of Government (published in 1689) while hiding from the Stuart monarchy in Holland under the name of “Dr. van der Linden,” and even after James II had been deposed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and it was safe for the refugees of the Rye House Plot to return from exile, Locke only published Two Treatises anonymously?

      • In response to my explanation of the VIRTUES of Internet anonymity and its historical precedents (not only Dr. John Locke’s publication of Two Treatises; I could just as easily have mentioned Cato’s Letters and The Federalist Papers, which were also published pseudonymously), at 11:26 AM on 8 February, we’ve got John Whitman sort-of-replying:

        On your part that is an impassioned statement in defense of anonymity, but I remain critical because of inequalities when there is anonymity in open intellectual discourse.

        In critical response to your comment please read my comment below to Alan Robertson (February 7, 2015 at 2:42 pm): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/06/friday-funny-civil-dialog-in-the-climate-world/#comment-1855094

        Jeez, whatever in hell gives this guy to assume that I hadn’t already read his blatherskite about “the problem of an asymmetry in intellectual responsibility / accountability”?

        Thus has John Whitman summarily dismissed the reality of meatspace RETALIATION for daring to speak defiance to entrenched power. Must’ve never had the name of Julian Assange cross the threshold of his perception.

        Nor – of course – does John Whitman address the fact that BECAUSE “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” each instance in which someone posts the promulgation of opinion (not to mention the dissemination of information), he’s obliged “To place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”

        Maybe even providing support by way of references which guide the reader to further discussion of the matters at hand.

        I’m given to suspect that John Whitman (about whose person and reputation outside this forum I really don’t give a good greasy goddam; does anybody else?) is the kind of man who simply wants those who irritate him in public discourse to be readily identified for punishment.

      • Tucci (replying to John Whitman’s challenge above)

        Nor – of course – does John Whitman address the fact that BECAUSE “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” each instance in which someone posts the promulgation of opinion (not to mention the dissemination of information), he’s obliged “To place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.

        Ah. But the CAGW religion requires and assumes that ONLY the absolute Truth can be found within the anonymous pages and unattributed editorializing of unknown “peer-reviewed” papers and their Star Chamber editors.

        “No printee, no paper, no publishee,” eh? If someone doesn’t say exactly what 2 out of 3 unknown “peer-reviwers” demand from their remote ivory towers of Big Government sponsorship and control, they get nothing. Worse, with no papers in hand, they get fired.

      • In response to my observation that “…BECAUSE ‘On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,’ each instance in which someone posts the promulgation of opinion (not to mention the dissemination of information), [obliges the commentor]‘To place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent,’”, at 6:29 PM on 8 February, RACookPE1978 posts:

        …the CAGW religion requires and assumes that ONLY the absolute Truth can be found within the anonymous pages and unattributed editorializing of unknown “peer-reviewed” papers and their Star Chamber editors.

        More precisely, the “Climate Consensus” charlatans have relied upon the SEEMING of integrity and reliability conferred by the editorial mechanism of blinded peer review, in which copies of a manuscript submitted for publication are put into the hands of independent experts known only to the journal’s or conference’s editorial staff without the author(s) identified. These reviewers’ comments (including questions and suggestions) are tendered to the editors, who pass them along – attributed merely to “Reviewer 1” or “Reviewer 2” – for the authors’ attention and response.

        All communication goes through the editorial staff, who are responsible for keeping this “peer review” anonymous and refereeing the exchanges. It’s clunky and slow and deliberate, but as someone who’s been on either end of the process, I’ll speak for its virtues. I’ve had some reviewers whose wholly anonymous and utter unpaid contributions have been substantial enough to warrant – in my opinion – credit as co-authors. Good guys.

        When on 17 November 2009 I had the contents of FOIA2009.zip brought to my attention to confirm the long-held suspicion that the members of “Mike’s Hockey Team” had systematically and with malice aforethought BROKEN BLINDING in most of the highest-impact scientific periodicals not only to enable their own manuscripts to evade this critical mechanism of error-checking but to impede and even suppress the publication of research and opinion critical of what RACookPE1978 so eloquently calls their “absolute Truth,” I succumbed to my Sicilianity and speculated on places in the Pine Barrens where their mortal remains might be inconspicuously interred.

        In that wise, I suppose I’m still somewhat “impassioned.”

        But anonymity in peer review – rather, the preservation of limited identification on either side of the editorially blinded author/reviewer see-saw – is essential to the process of scrupulous error-checking which makes the expression “peer-reviewed journal” an honest of trustworthiness, limited though that trust must ever be.

        What “the CAGW religion” has done in publications pertinent to climatology and associated disciplines simply constitutes the perversion of peer review into a mechanism to effect the violation of trust.

        Hm. Come to think on it, a one-way trip out into the Wharton Tract might not be punishment enough for these bastids.

      • Tucci78

        But anonymity in peer review – rather, the preservation of limited identification on either side of the editorially blinded author/reviewer see-saw – is essential to the process of scrupulous error-checking which makes the expression “peer-reviewed journal” an honest of trustworthiness, limited though that trust must ever be.

        Thus, DURING the edit and review process, MAINTAIN the anonymous review process: Maintain the contact between editor, reviewer_1, reviewer_2, and reviewer_3 unknown and “second-hand” with all papers and contacts and corrections passing through the editor to the authors. IF, however, the writers reject after due and appropriate re-writes and revisions demanded by one or more of the reviewers, the conclusions or continued interferences of any or all of Reviewer_1, Reviewer_2, Reviewer_3 they will have the right and responsibility of getting two additional reviewers, and of getting those additional reviewers accepted by the editor. Even if under protest or disagreement, the editor must accept the final choice: 2 or 3 of the original reviewers; 3 of 5 of the expanded group. The editor has the right AND DUTY then to address such disagreements on publications.

        BUT …

        On publication, ALL reviewers are listed with the editor(s) in a separate line item IMMEDIATELY below the authors and co-authors.

        The reviewers of each professional paper MUST be recognized for their time and effort, BUT in turn they MUST ALSO ACCEPT the responsibility of their decision. If it was wrong, if the paper has errors or must be withdrawn, IT IS THE REVIEWER’S responsibility – with the editor of that piece – to accept responsibility for the paper’s errors. IF the reviewers disagree – in whole or in part – with the paper or the ideas or the methods chosen, it is their responsibility to add their caveats or their disagreements in the sane journal at the same time paper is published. “No disagreement issued with the paper” means the reviewers accept the paper as written.

        Further, it MUST BECOME the responsibility OF THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY at large to promote and reward the reviewing members on their faculty the same – if not more! – rewards and professional honors as those who publish papers.

        “Publish or perish!” must become “Publish, Write, and Revise to Promote.”

      • At 8:48 PM on 8 February, RACookPE1978 rather reasonably proposes that:

        On publication, ALL reviewers are listed with the editor(s) in a separate line item IMMEDIATELY below the authors and co-authors.

        The reviewers of each professional paper MUST be recognized for their time and effort, BUT in turn they MUST ALSO ACCEPT the responsibility of their decision. If it was wrong, if the paper has errors or must be withdrawn, IT IS THE REVIEWER’S responsibility – with the editor of that piece – to accept responsibility for the paper’s errors. IF the reviewers disagree – in whole or in part – with the paper or the ideas or the methods chosen, it is their responsibility to add their caveats or their disagreements in the sane journal at the same time paper is published. “No disagreement issued with the paper” means the reviewers accept the paper as written.

        Further, it MUST BECOME the responsibility OF THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY at large to promote and reward the reviewing members on their faculty the same – if not more! – rewards and professional honors as those who publish papers.

        Well, I wouldn’t quite go that far. I’ve done review, and I can’t say that I’ve ever undertaken the sorts of innovative work that the originating authors have invested in their research or their manuscripts reporting same. Some reviewers, though….

        Yeah, the best of ’em invest enough skull-sweat to list the papers to which they’ve contributed on their vitae. Credit ought to go where credit is due.

        Mostly, I’ve seen the editorial staff people working for the particular journals or scientific conferences to have been competent referees in the process of managing peer review, however they choose to handle the reconciliation of disagreements and other dickerings (I’d prefer to leave the procedural particulars to those editors, frankly). It’s simply that they’re human, and have to admit – with complete transparency – their own susceptibility to both error and corruption.

        Don’t matter to me whether it’s “noble cause corruption” (as we’ve seen so commonly among the political progtards) or the sorts of extortion mentioned by the members of “Mike’s Hockey Team” in their scheming collusive e-mails exposed by Climategate and various other FOIA-facilitated discoveries and whistle-blowing.

        Let the CAGW crackpots have their periodicals and meetings. Just let’s do away with the pretense that what they’re perpetrating has anything to do with sound scientific method.

      • In response to this,

        John Whitman said on February 8, 2015 at 10:58 am @ Alan Robertson on February 7, 2015 at 2:42 pm

        There is one problem associated “with anyone posting here anonymously” while others post here openly with their own identity. It is the problem of an asymmetry in intellectual responsibility / accountability.
        The tolerance of that problem often fatally jeopardizes having a responsible / accountable intellectual discourse.

        I do engage with anonymous commenters on many blogs, but only when I factor in the problem of asymmetry in intellectual responsibility / accountability.

        John

        was this . . .

        Tucci78 on February 8, 2015 at 6:13 pm

        “[. . .]

        Thus has John Whitman summarily dismissed the reality of meatspace RETALIATION for daring to speak defiance to entrenched power. Must’ve never had the name of Julian Assange cross the threshold of his perception.

        Nor – of course – does John Whitman address the fact that BECAUSE “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” each instance in which someone posts the promulgation of opinion (not to mention the dissemination of information), he’s obliged “To place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”

        Maybe even providing support by way of references which guide the reader to further discussion of the matters at hand.

        [. . .]”

        Tucci78,

        Anonymous climate science focused blog commenters simply can normally avoid intellectual responsibility / accountability. Non-anonymous commenters do not wish to avoid intellectual responsibility / accountability. That is an asymmetric intellectual situation.

        It is moot to inquire why anonymous commenters choose to be so, because no one can verity it.

        It is moot to ask anonymous commenters if their actions are consistent with their words, because no one can verity it.

        It is moot to determine integrity of thought across an anonymous person’s core of ideas, because no one can verity it.

        I think those are just a few of the important intellectual basics in an open intellectual discussion.

        One has the freedom to try to be anonymous, go ahead. Each of us chooses our own credibility verification limitations on our intellectual path when deciding to reveal identity versus non-identity.

        John

      • At 10:39 AM on 9 February, John Whitman claims that:

        Anonymous climate science focused blog commenters simply can normally avoid intellectual responsibility / accountability

        …by posting either anonymously or under an online pseudonym, EVADING (yet again, and as always, in saecula saeculorum) THE FRIGGIN’ POINT that even were a commenter to staple his birth certificate and genetic markers to his post, the only thing that anyone reading really has as a mark of validity regarding that which is submitted for “publication” is contained within the post itself.

        What John Whitman wants of folks whose opinions run contrary to his’n is simply nothing more than the ability to chase them down and punish them for daring to have spoken their minds in ways that piss off John Whitman.

        Continues John Whitman:

        It is moot to ask anonymous commenters if their actions are consistent with their words, because no one can verity it.

        Rat droppings (i.e., filth not even respectable enough to be called “bullpuckey”). The act of posting (i.e., the composition and presentation of information and argument) is itself an “action” undertaken by said “anonymous commenters,” inescapably associated with those “commenters” online personae, so that within the context of their presentation online – especially in a forum such as this one – there are consequences to be suffered should one’s presentation prove to be obtuse, evasive, or otherwise demonstrative of a character deserving contempt.

        As I’ve observed (and as John Whitman has continued to evade), because – even when someone has ostensibly given his True Name in a forum such as this one – no one can be at all certain that the guy isn’t just blowin’ it out his bunghole (for among the great Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Catastrophe Flavor-of-the-Week crowd, pushing the Big Lie is considered a virtue, and there is little real incentive for someone like John Whitman to cleave unto honesty, intellectual integrity, and plain goddam common sense), the viability of each comment is UNRELATED to the identity of its originator.

        As I’ve said, it don’t friggin’ MATTER

      • At 10:39 AM on 9 February, John Whitman claims that:

        Anonymous climate science focused blog commenters simply can normally avoid intellectual responsibility / accountability

        …by posting either anonymously or under an online pseudonym, EVADING (yet again, and as always, in saecula saeculorum) THE FRIGGIN’ POINT that even were a commenter to staple his birth certificate and genetic markers to his post, the only thing that anyone reading really has as a mark of validity regarding that which is submitted for “publication” is contained within the post itself.

        What John Whitman wants of folks whose opinions run contrary to his’n is simply nothing more than the ability to chase them down and punish them for daring to have spoken their minds in ways that piss off John Whitman.

        This, he’s confident, will do much to muzzle ’em. That sure as hell looks to be his real objective, doesn’t it?

        Continues John Whitman:

        It is moot to ask anonymous commenters if their actions are consistent with their words, because no one can verity it.

        Rat droppings (i.e., filth not even respectable enough to be called “bullpuckey”). The act of posting (i.e., the composition and promulgation of information and argument) is itself an “action” undertaken by each of these “anonymous commenters,” inescapably associated with those “commenters” online personae, so that within the context of their presentation online – especially in a forum such as this one – there are consequences to be suffered should one’s conduct prove to be obtuse, evasive, or otherwise demonstrative of a character deserving contempt.

        As I’ve observed (and as John Whitman has continued to evade), because – even when someone has ostensibly given his True Name in a forum such as this one – nobody can be at all certain that the poster isn’t just blowin’ it out his bunghole (for among the great Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Catastrophe Flavor-of-the-Week crowd, pushing the Big Lie is considered a virtue, and there is little real incentive for an acolyte of the cult to cleave unto honesty, intellectual integrity, and plain goddam common sense), the viability of each comment is to all effects UNRELATED to the identity of its originator. It either stands or falls on its own merits.

        As I’ve said, it doesn’t friggin’ MATTER who hits the “Post Comment” button as long as that which goes into the commenting field makes sense.

        Away from this John Whitman (with his rat feces noise about “…credibility verification limitations on our intellectual path when deciding to reveal identity”) just continues to flop-sweat.

        Tells ya everything you’ll ever need to know about both his character and the “intellectual path” upon which he’s embarked, don’t it?

      • Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:35 am

        Tucci78,

        Impasse.

        I want identity to be able to perform due diligence verification of intellectual integrity as a fundamental principle.

        You do not.

        While I do have significant dialogs with anonymous commenters, without that due diligence then the credibility of a person commenting anonymously is not fully established.

        On the other hand, If the climate focused dialog on blogs is just entertainment, then anonymity is equal to non-anonymity.

        John

      • At 1:09 PM on 9 February, we’ve got John Whitman somehow arrogating to himself – ON SOMEBODY ELSE’S WEB LOG – the duty and authority to get somebody’s:

        …identity to be able to perform due diligence verification of intellectual integrity as a fundamental principle.

        You do not.

        Well, yeah. That’s because I don’t fantasize myself to be a member of some Internet Geheime Staatspolizei. My own due diligence” begins, runs its course, and ends preponderantly in the discharge of my professional duty to the patient, with a secondary role in the preservation of public health. Just who the hell is paying (and authorizing) this John Whitman fella TO POLICE THE WORLD WIDE WEB, anyway?

        To this arrogant friggin’ pompous presumption, of course, John Whitman adds sustained evasion of the fact that “identity” does nothing whatsoever to guarantee “integrity” in the contents of an online blog comment under any circumstances.

        Heck, were “identity” sufficient as the guarantor of “integrity,” the peculating con artists of “Mike’s Hockey Team” would all be wearing prison uniforms, each in one or another correctional facility in these United States or the United Kingdom.

      • Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:54 am

        Tucci78

        My reply to this comment of yours is the same as my reply to your comment ‘Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:35 am ‘.

        John

      • Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:54 am

        Tucci78,

        The impasse deepens.

        As to this latest comment of yours to me, my reply is the same as my reply to your comment ‘Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:35 am ‘.

        John

      • Tucci78,

        I correct my comment at ‘John Whitman on February 9, 2015 at 2:37 pm’

        I meant to reference in my quote ‘Tucci78 February 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm’ instead of Tucci78 on February 9, 2015 at 11:54 am

        John

      • At 2:51 PM on 9 February, John Whitman blathers:

        I correct my comment at ‘John Whitman on February 9, 2015 at 2:37 pm’

        Why? This arrogant “due diligence” censor-wannabe only EVADES THE FRIGGIN’ POINT about how identifying a poster does nothing at all either to validate or invalidate the content of said poster’s comments.

        Hey, does anybody reading here give a flying fig who the hell this John Whitman character may – or may not – be when he’s not compulsively proving himself utterly contemptible on the Internet?

        ========================

        [Everyone, let’s drop it. ~mod.]

    • Poptech on February 7, 2015 at 8:36 pm

      Poptech,

      I wouldn’t bet against you on the part about academics commenting while hiding under anonymity.

      The ‘left-wing’ in your comment might well instead be significantly in part those with just politics of the moment to fit ones cause of the moment.

      John

  33. There is actually pretty good reason for an academic to want to be anonymous here. At least if they are skeptical. Being known as a skeptic can be damaging to your career and the careers of your friends. That is part of what the climate gate emails prove.

    • Paul Nevins on February 7, 2015 at 10:46 am

      There is actually pretty good reason for an academic to want to be anonymous here. At least if they are skeptical. Being known as a skeptic can be damaging to your career and the careers of your friends. That is part of what the climate gate emails prove.

      Paul Nevins,

      I see your point, but there is a conundrum.

      Anonymous commenters here who are academics (whether climate change cause supporters or skeptics) may have reasons to withhold their profession and identity, but their reasons cannot inherently be verified because to verify the accuracy of their reasons we need to know that they actually are academics and their identity.

      Wiithout verification of their justifications and reasons for anonymity we have only intellectual vapor. Such intellectual vapor is irrelevant.

      John

      • There isn’t a problem with anyone posting here anonymously. The problem arises from those thread twisters whose sole purpose is to prevent meaningful dialogue about scientific issues.

      • Alan Robertson on February 7, 2015 at 2:42 pm

        There isn’t a problem with anyone posting here anonymously. The problem arises from those thread twisters whose sole purpose is to prevent meaningful dialogue about scientific issues.

        Alan Robertson,

        There is one problem associated “with anyone posting here anonymously” while others post here openly with their own identity. It is the problem of an asymmetry in intellectual responsibility / accountability.

        The tolerance of that problem often fatally jeopardizes having a responsible / accountable intellectual discourse.

        I do engage with anonymous commenters on many blogs, but only when I factor in the problem of asymmetry in intellectual responsibility / accountability.

        John

  34. I read attp quite alot mainly for the discussions in the comments. Theres a few skeptics over there and the back and forths can be really interesting. Ive also seen two or three people being banned on there, but they were slayers and/or CT nuts. -1, M2, vinny and lucifer comment alot from the skeptical side of the debate so i trust that the bans were justified. I do think the nonskeptical side get away with alot of abuse on the skeptics in the comments.
    Richard Tol I have no compassion for, he consistantly make hit and runs, never stay around to back up claims and he constantly attempts to de-rail articles/threads. Don’t take my word for it, head over there and ctrl+f for Tol and you can see for yourself.

  35. It’s useful to recognize some phenomena:
    – He may be under pressure to “engage”, from himself or others, both to increase effectiveness.
    – If not a natural (to him) drive, it will be difficult for him to do properly.
    – People mis-use words, that’s very common with people whose core beliefs are those typical of environmental activists. “Engage” is inferred to be “dialogue” or “debate” (words they mis-use regularly as they really mean agreeing with them), but it can mean war.
    – Indeed, sometimes misleading use of words is a deliberate tactic.
    – Contradiction is fundamental to the ideology most environmental activists believe, it’s called “dialectic logic”. That sometimes leads to adopting the enemy’s tactics (noting they consider business people and climate skeptics to be dishonest, which may give them an excuse to be).

  36. So what was the point?
    I await the next article on this expert of academia to enlighten me, as to why a hugely successful blog such as this would so generously call attention of its readers to such a contemptible misguided persons blatterings?

    Is it that government funded structures are full of such creatures?
    This is not news to most taxpayers.
    Is it that unethical fools will cloak themselves in the mantle of a genuine science to utter their soothsayings of Climatology?
    Also not news to me.

    Or is it for the beautiful entertainment value of those who rush to defend the indefensible?
    I am richly entertained by those who chose to defend this disguised minion of the Scottish Establishment.

    Climate Gate a gift that keeps on giving.

  37. I have learned a lot from the interblogs. “Then” and “than” are used interchangeably, as are “your” and “you’re.” But most surprising, “carbon” is indistinguishable from “carbon dioxide” and unvalidated model output is “data”!

  38. Heh, as soon as I read ‘and then there’s physics’ I wrote back ‘and then there’s everything else’.
    =================

  39. In my experience, whenever someone resorts to personal attacks of that nature it’s because they have no valid argument to counter what’s been said. I had a student some years ago and I asked what proof she had to support an outlandish claim. She replied, “F-OFF! There, that’s my proof!” She then stormed out of the class.
    She never dropped my class and when I sent her a letter to convince her to do so or face an incomplete or failing grade, she called my office and dared me to fail her. I had no choice but to honor her request. I discovered later that she had stabbed a man at a local bar and had been sent to prison for a short term. Apparently she had a drug and/or alcohol problem.
    That was many years ago and I’ve often wondered what became of her.
    Sorry for the off topic tangent.
    The point: people can often get downright nasty when someone challenges their core beliefs. Iconoclasts are rarely popular.

    • UK universities are not ‘public institutes’ but private concerns of a rather odd nature , so Ken is right he is not a public servant , but that makes no difference to his ‘prat status’

  40. Mosher words of wisdom,

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/guest-post-label-the-behaviour-not-the-person/#comment-47229

    Steven Mosher says:
    February 8, 2015 at 5:07 pm
    A while ago some people who view climate change differently than I do, started to refer to the blog SkepticalScience as “SS”.

    even the looniest of those folks could agree that it was not advantageous to apply this label.

    its pretty sad when a group of anti science nut jobs shows more common sense than folks who are more educated.

    Is the English major referring to commentators here as “anti-science”?

  41. Hard to believe a retard like ATTP is an actual academic.
    But that’s what a quasi-religious belief, like AGW, will do to a previously sane person
    Turn you into an ignorant, intolerant, nut-job.

  42. I like moshe’s take on the ineffectiveness of the term. I sympathize with Richard Lindzen’s embrace of the term. For me, the appellation provokes the obvious response: ‘Well, just what am I denying?’ That bursts the cloud, discussion pours, and understanding rains, gently, mercilessly.

    Well, at least I’ve made them think of what the term means.
    =================

  43. Uh, if you read the quote, he did not claim he was all for reasoned debate and less rhetoric. He said , “I see no reason to capitulate…”

    That’s how you setup a pretense, then knock it down.

    I’d like to have a cake, but I wont bake it.
    Come to my side of thinking, and the debate is over!

Comments are closed.