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”:
That was morphed to this subsequent comment:
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:
And this is his blog header today:
I’ll have another article in the future about Dr. Ken Rice and his failures.
Perhaps in the world of climate ‘science’, F— Off has replaced Yours Sincerely
“Dialogue” is not an objective of insults.
Heh, as soon as I read ‘and then there’s physics’ I wrote back ‘and then there’s everything else’.
=================
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.
TDG said:
I’ve often wondered what became of her.
She’s probably commenting now at Hotwhopper.☺
Ken by the way, claims he is NOT a public servant. How would that be, given that he works for Edinburgh University?
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’
Only it’s not physics as we know it.
Ken is still censoring Dr. Tol.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/guest-post-label-the-behaviour-not-the-person/#comment-47046
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/guest-post-label-the-behaviour-not-the-person/#comment-47151
Mosher words of wisdom,
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/guest-post-label-the-behaviour-not-the-person/#comment-47229
Is the English major referring to commentators here as “anti-science”?
It appears he is if you read further down.
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.
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.
=================
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!