***
From WaPo:
[T]he newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.Rid... troublesome... A deliberate allusion to "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"? That is the conventionally erudite way to express the wish for your opponent's death.
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
Posts
254 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 254 of 254Ah, well, I spoke too soon.
Gentlemen, start your engines.
It runs to 90 pages
No one should have to write 90 pages to make a point.
The fact that CO2 retains heat is not an ideological talking point.
Yes it is, because it doesn't--no more so than any other element or compound.
Umm..there is a reason that Venus is so hot -- so much more hot than a barren planet at its orbital spot would be, that is. And it's its atmosphere, which is very rich in CO2.
As far as absorption of gases in the atmosphere is concerned, CO2 does do a great job on Earth -- see this graph -- at wavelengths longer than about 20 microns, it's the bomb as far as absorption is concerned.
Note that terrestial emissions aren't very big down under 3 microns.
Nuts I was hoping for #200.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If there is someone who doesn't think this kind of malarkey goes on in any scientific field -- or any field -- they are far too trusting.
Sometimes sunshine just makes the weeds grow faster. Especially Brazilian ones.
It takes a huge idiot to make an accusation of sock puppetry when no attempt at confusing the idiot as to one's identity was the aim.
Absolutely right, dickhead. It was wrong of me not to point out your full disclosure about the name changes.
What's that? There was no disclosure. Oh. I see. But you weren't trying to fool anybody, right?
As for the rest of your whinging at 6:22, boo-fucking-hoo.
Well, it looks like Brazilian Ritalin has finally left the thread.
Naw. He was waiting for 200. His game is placement, not wit.
As I pointed out in the Palin thread, Ritmo (nee Brasilia, nee Montana Urban Legend) has gone insane.
However, y'all have cheapened the insurmountable arguments against AGW by accusing him of being a sock puppet.
He's consistently been MUL for years here. He announced his name change, which he then adjusted. He's never hidden who he is.
He's no sock puppet.
Also, multiple identities cannot be contained by the same account - not on Blogger. Each account is one identity. If the name of that account changes - (one time!), that is not a deliberate change of identity for the purpose of confusing people - especially if there are no other changes in the profile, the blog remains the same, etc. To not understand the difference between that and sock-puppetry is too ignorant to even consider anything more said by the ignoramus making such an accusation. And then Miller has an even more creative definition.
Plenty of points have been made. Some people have actually responded to them. Miller and Elle Hubris have not.
All Elle Hubris does is make personal accusations that are irrelevant to any substantive discussion. If he doesn't like being accused of what he accuses others of doing, then he either shouldn't do those things, or he should focus on something relevant. They are already, all of them, irrelevant to any substantive discussion. And he knows it.
And all Miller does is to say, in essence, "help me ignore people who make points that I am too stupid to understand."
Everyone is free to follow such ground rules.
Wow, If this turns out to be true, who will ever believe scientists again?
I mean, they said eggs were bad.
Then said cholesterol was bad and then said there was a good form of it.
I am so confused!!!
MUL became BSR. There was no announcement that I saw. Perhaps you can point to it.
Then BSR became RB. Again, no announcement that I saw.
Althouse posts 10 or 15 times a day. It's not my responsibility to hunt down putative text from MUL/BSR/RB announcing his name change - I believe he has the onus of proving his bona fides.
AFAIK, he is someone trying to hide being changing names - hence sock puppetry.
Anyway, thanks to Blake and Paco Wove for pointing out the obvious. I'm sure this has come up before to anyone paying attention. And I appreciate Omaha1, TG and newscaster's attempts at making points actually related to the arguments presented. But Elle Hubris ruins it for me. He's as pseudonymous as me, so I'm not going to get hung up on his identity. But I find the lengths to which he personalizes arguments that can obviously remain topical (if he had any topical point) rather disturbing. I'm not hurt, just disturbed at how unhinged someone would get when others realize that their lawyerly parlor games could possibly not be dispositive of anything.
TG's civility - despite some light ribbing and venting that is never so personal as to become the focus of his comments - is appreciated as always. He's a good guy and conservatives will need people like him as they attempt to remain relevant and figure out what it is about their philosophy that would actually appeal to sane, level-headed people who are not antagonistic to the idea of science and sincerely interested in the state of their country as it currently stands and not how nostalgia presents it.
I'm off to watch the rest of Blade Runner.
Oh, hell, I don't remember where. He just said something like, "That does it. I'm changing my name."
Seriously, his profile links to his blog, which also mentions the change. There has never been any attempt by MUL to deceive people as to who he is or what he believes.
Ritmo, I could care less who you are - you are still wrong. You are a master of misdirection. Whenever someone makes a valid point opposing you, you just change the subject. No one ever suggested that people should consume cleaning products or eliminate alternative energy, but it seems that you want to attribute those bizarre views to your opponents. Well I am retiring now for the night so if you want to continue fighting against your imaginary enemies more power to you. Good Night!
Miller's right that it's not really worth responding to comments by MUL/BSR/BR/whatever-name-he's-using-today.
That person's goal is not discussion. The facts are not on his side. The science is not on his side. The only thing left to him is to pound on the table in hopes of creating enough noise to drown out the signal of the discussion that other people are having.
As such, the real reason to respond to his comments is to
1. demonstrate his ignorance and errors of fact (e.g. his and his hero Gabriel Hanna's inability to distinguish "raw data" from a data set whose values have already been filtered and individually adjusted by a proprietary algorithm), and
2. take the opportunity to rehearse the dishonesty and fraud by the pro-AGW "scientists" revealed in these emails: the conspiracies to delete taxpayer-funded data sets being requested for review, their search for the best methods to game the peer review system to avoid having to answer critics, the fabrication and manipulation of data to support their hypotheses when the real-world measurements inconveniently contradicted them, etc.
Ritmo, I could care less who you are - you are still wrong. You are a master of misdirection. Whenever someone makes a valid point opposing you, you just change the subject. No one ever suggested that people should consume cleaning products or eliminate alternative energy, but it seems that you want to attribute those bizarre views to your opponents. Well I am retiring now for the night so if you want to continue fighting against your imaginary enemies more power to you. Good Night!
Regarding Einstein and Szilard, (Teller might be a better example), and the general question of "Aren't scientists people with political views?".
The differences with the current situation are:
1) These men were being political ... about _political_ issues. They weren't coloring their scientific research with their political views, though they may have chosen their particular research areas in part because of them. In the science, they were ruthlessly objective, and completely open to the criticism which is the core of the scientific method.
2) They were honest about their politics.
Indeed, why _not_ be honest about your politics, when what you are engaged in IS just politics?
This is not to say that they didn't have normal human emotions in wanting to be proved right. It's just that they recognized that the only way to achieve that was the one that every decent (in all senses) scientist learned was not optional: expose your ideas to the most withering analysis, and let the chips fall where they may.
The CRU emails, conversely, demonstrate a concerted effort to get to a particular result, and to shield themselves from criticism. This behavior appears to be at least in part because of political leanings, and yet there is no transparency about this. The withholding of the raw data is the inexcusable smoking gun here, and, as McIntytre knows, this has been going on for years.
You are kidding, right? I'm supposed to click on someone's profile link to see "hmm, I wonder if this person was someone else recently"?
And the fact that there were two name changes? I'm supposed to follow this?
This is simply someone who attempted to confuse people by changing his public posted name. Twice.
In the future, when MUL/BSR/RB changes his name again, I would suggest he make the announcement several times, or add it as a signature.
I for the life of me can't understand the need to change his name in the first place. Or second place.
For whatever reason, commenter NameShifter seems to think that changing the subject is true intellectualism.
Not sure what school taught him this.
But he certainly tries to derail nearly every conversation he takes part in.
I can imagine he's real fun at parties.
Which subject did I change? Do you honestly expect me to condone suppression of data? Or do you just want me to say that because evidence exists that an organization engaged in tactics that are not pardonable, the case they made is shoddy? I never did the former and in the case of the latter, the scientific question is different from the political machinations that might have gone on. Their case might still be conclusive, or it might not be. We don't know. This is just one endeavor and I don't know that there aren't others engaged in asking questions that blow both the CRU (or whatever) and their "opposition" out of the water. False dichotomies work for statisticians but I am (still) addressing a theory, not a boiled-down, oversimplified "earth is either warming or it isn't" legalism.
You guys seem to have this exalted view of science as if it can conclusively resolve everything at any one time. It isn't and I never claimed as much. Which is why I never understood the brou-ha-ha over this group to begin with.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of politics swirled around in all of this. All I've said -- all I've EVER said -- is that carbon dioxide retains heat and is implicated (as MM points out) in determining climate on other planets. The first proposition is a physical constant known for over a century and verifiable by anyone with dry ice and a bomb calorimeter. The second is cannonical (if that is the right word) astrophysics.
If anything, I have been as agnostic as anyone about what will happen if current trends continue. I don't know, and none of you know, but I know that there is no reason to predict that there would be no significant warming trend. Perhaps there won't be but we have no reason to expect that. No gremlins have been predicted to come along, no "rogue" molecules, to distort predictions. Of course anything possible. I'd just like an explanation of why I should expect that possibility. You don't have one and neither does anyone and for me to make the conservative case (by standards of naturalism) that it is foolish to fuck with a natural system, to use our own reality as an experiment in atmospheric composition, and be told that I am absurd for stating as much (or whatever other thought-crime you want to accuse me of) doesn't make any sense and it is a different argument from whatever you are getting all high and mighty about re: the CRU. Not a changed argument. A different argument. Sometimes there is actually more than one relevant argument to a given scenario, Miller. You should try considering that sometime and stop assuming that the only arguments you want to consider are the only ones that exist. For your sake.
Oh, and at parties I rarely talk about this stuff. I know how to make small-talk with conservatives and liberals tend to talk about other things anyway. Last party I went to this chick was telling me about how she makes a profit selling candy for charity. It was funny hearing the lengths she went to. Then a guy with long hair showed up and talked about the S & M scene he frequents. A short chick who works in a neuroscience lab was fascinated. She'd hit on me before and I'd gotten intimations of kinky interests but she always seemed too straight-laced to take B & D that seriously.
I had a lot of fun with these conversations, injected witty banter into them, and still get invited back. Is that fun enough for you, dude?
You know, some people can have fun and take important matters seriously. Almost all of us can go on unnecessary tears but the bloggress intentionally likes her spot in the sun of the blogosphere that way. Or else you guys wouldn't be here. I just don't have a problem with enjoying that and yet dissenting from positions that don't make any sense to me. Sorry.
Oh. I get it. The ritzy sock puppet accumulates two votes that he is not a sock puppet and that is definitive. Perfect!
He is thus encouraged to post this: Last party I went to this chick was telling me about how she makes a profit selling candy for charity. It was funny hearing the lengths she went to. Then a guy with long hair showed up and talked about the S & M scene he frequents. A short chick who works in a neuroscience lab was fascinated. She'd hit on me before and I'd gotten intimations of kinky interests but she always seemed too straight-laced to take B & D that seriously.
Crikey! This must be support your lunatic sock puppet week!
Fair enough. I'm happy to abandon the field to a Paco/Blake/Brassiere singalong.
Don't be so threatened by people who are different from you, Elle. You might have gotten paid to defend them legally back in the day, the way you did with the nosey ho-ma-sekshulls.
And don't be so upset that you got called out for not knowing the definition of sock-puppet, either. Paco and Blake aren't changing the definition by democratic means, or by any means. They are sticking to the actual definition. One that miller even seems to be coming around to.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock+puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Do not feed the sock puppet.
Ritmo once pulled over Beth for having a "NO to CO2" bumper sticker.
True story. Really. No, really really.
Isn't "J." the one who called Beth a liar (and worse) for claiming that she felt intimidated by a cop who pulled her over in La. for having an anti-David Duke bumper sticker, at a time when he received widespread support -- just because she didn't report it?
Yep. He's a not very credible one too. Vitriol and blame-the-victim responses to credible recollections of harassment is such a great way to garner sympathy for conservatives. I swear it is. You just don't know it.
Feeling hungry, Miller? For knowledge? For credibility?
You are kidding, right? I'm supposed to click on someone's profile link to see "hmm, I wonder if this person was someone else recently"?
If you're going to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, yeah, you should research whether that's true.
And the fact that there were two name changes? I'm supposed to follow this?
Only if you want to level charges of sockpuppetry against a longtime commenter.
Besides, you'd have to be pretty stupid to not see the connection between, what was it, Brasilian Samba Rythym and Ritmo Brasileiro.
This is simply someone who attempted to confuse people by changing his public posted name. Twice.
Right, so, guy posts under the same handle for four years and then suddenly says, "I know! I'll fool everyone by changing my name and announcing it.
I for the life of me can't understand the need to change his name in the first place. Or second place.
Clearly, you don't. But people aren't so rigid about names. Titus changed his name constantly, but if he's a sockpuppet, it's not because of that. (It's because he's also Alex or whoever.)
You have the better argument, just use it. It's not helped by this unsupportable idea that a guy who's been around 3 years longer than you suddenly up and changed his name to fool us all, while leaving all his historical information linked to his new name.
And now, a word verification from our "sponsa".
[2nd post. 1st one got seriously mangled somehow!]
Sock puppet, I address that in the general, why do you pretend so hard. So very, very hard?
So, the bullshitters support one another. Okay.
Beth was once pulled over by a sock puppet. Blake was there. Ritmo was there. Lots of witnesses.
True story. No, really. Super really.
The fact that you think someone would make something like that up, when they would have no incentive to do so, says something very dark about your understanding of humanity, J.
I think I'm going to edit my profile further by adding Blade Runner to my list of favorite movies. Does that expose me to even stronger charges of sock puppetry, Miller? Just wondering.
The fact that you see something very dark in my humanity says something very dark about your humanity, Ritmo.
Not sure about that. Can I not see something dark in Saddam Hussein's sense of humanity without it being indicative of a sense of self-reflection? Or are the spiteful acts one undertakes irrelevant to such an assessment?
Perhaps Saddam Hussein might have made the same defense you just tried. After all, his political enemies were just making things up as well. Or so he said.
Seriously? I'm supposed to research this somehow? All I know is that at one time there was a poster called "MUL" who posted random "thoughts."
Then another poster showed up called "BSR" who posted random "thoughts."
Then another poster showed up, "RB," posting random thoughts.
Somehow the elegance of someone changing their screen name twice is supposed to highlight their sheer intellectual brilliance.
And even though this person bobs and weaves his identity, somehow I'm supposed to spend my energy and time trying to figure out whether his name change is purposeful and direct or simply a way to avoid the failed reputation of his previous identities?
I think not. I'm OK with simply thinking he's a sock puppet.
Feel free to disagree. After all, it's just the internet, where names are commonly shifted.
And, back to the task at hand: which is the falsification of data and the bobbing and weaving to deny culpability by the CRU.
Hmm. I detect a pattern.
No, Ritmo, you're just as bad as me.
Every time I shoot a commie puppy, you're there with me. Every time I pull Beth over, you're riding shotgun. Every time I say every time, you're there, taking notes, to prevent against self-nullifying recursion.
Really. Totally really.
I think I'm going to edit my profile further by adding Blade Runner to my list of favorite movies. Does that expose me to even stronger charges of sock puppetry, Miller? Just wondering.
It depends on whether or not you side with the "Deckard is a replicant" side or the "Deckard is human" side.
You are really a piece of work, Miller. Blake, who sympathizes with what position you want to take on AGW, gives you carte blanche to go ahead and take your best shot on the merits of whatever we're arguing.
Instead of doing that, you go on and claim that some insignificant thing I do on-line is meant to confuse you, making my arguments, ipso facto unworthy of your consideration.
Miller, now I am feeling sorry for you. Why? Before any name was changed, my avatar was changed into this eye-catching, funky green and yellow eye simulating the flag of Brazil.
And then, the name changed to match.
But that was before MUL became... me!
People pay attention to all sorts of cues. I'm getting the impression, Mr. Miller, that you are pretty impervious to visual cues.
In either event, any argument for deliberate deception is pretty weak. I am who I am. I did not change anything to separate previous comments from before. We can go ahead and address my previous comments, if it would make you happy. But Blake seems to think you are capable of addressing the current slate of comments.
Are you, Miller? Or are you the one trying to dodge?
Deckard is definitely human. As the replicants will one day also be.
Unless I have that much further to go in my understanding of the movie.
Beats the tar out of me. Which version did you watch? The final, director's ultimate one? I have one DVRed but haven't watched yet.
And yeah, it's a little annoying having these punk kids who signed up a year ago, or one-initial, "no profile available" dudes yakking about sockpuppets.
It always sucks when people you agree with are asses.
Wow, so going by "J" freaks some people out.
What delicate flowers. Perhaps our host could take your pictures.
Science damn them all! Their answer to the great question is not as good as ours, praise Science!
"You guys seem to have this exalted view of science as if it can conclusively resolve everything at any one time."
Keep in mind that "You guys" aren't the ones who made the stupendously ridiculous claim that "The Science Is Settled!" and then proceeded to suggest such things as revoking credentials and putting people on trial who didn't go along. It wasn't until I started hearing such idiocy that I really began to pay close attention to the AGW debate. Now paying attention, I am not impressed with the arguments of Hansen, Mann, et al.
Having studied purified enzymes as well as the behavior of those enzymes in living cells, I know full well that you can determine fairly clearly the characteristics of a thing in isolation, and discover the hard way that the behavior of that thing is quite another issue when part of a very complex and very poorly understood system (and yes, I am claiming that climate is very poorly understood, relatively speaking).
I'm a bit late to this party, and don't really have much to add to it.
First, I'm not RB. When it comes to what to do about climate I probably disagree with him about 85%. To me, it is very clear that the only "alternative" energy source worth considering is nuclear power; and I strongly disapprove of the fear-mongering of the environmental movement.
That being said; while my opinions are my own I don't get to pick my own facts. The earth has been warming up for the last forty years, INCLUDING the last ten, and carbon dioxide does have something to do with it. I abandoned the global-warming skeptics when I found that nearly everything they said, which I had the power to check out, was a deliberate distortion. Even my comments on other threads are deliberately misrepresented--for example, someone accused me of calling the NOAA and NIST global temperature averages "raw data" when I explicitly said the opposite--and I am accused of using sock puppets. Without any evidence whatever--Ann, after all, can see whose posting from what IP address and could easily confirm that I'm writing from Pullman, Washington, and not wherever it is RB posts from.
As for this tree-ring controversy, I'm sorry to see scientists trying to bully people. They ought not to do that. They don't need to, because the evidence for global warming doesn't depend on any one set of data. They ought not to engage in activism or alarmism, either. The fact that they do doesn't ,ale them wrong. Only facts can make them wrong, and the skeptical camp has none of their own yet.
Perhaps someday they will, and I will listen to their case when they have real evidence instead of misrepresentations of the work done by others.
Ritzy Brassiere wrote (9:05): And don't be so upset that you got called out for not knowing the definition of sock-puppet, either. Paco and Blake aren't changing the definition ... They are sticking to the actual definition.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock+puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
This nonsense cries out for a "better late than never" comment. So here it is: It's always more honest to provide the links. I have selected the first definition at each of Ritzy Sockpuppet's sources
Urban Dictionary, Sock Puppet: 1. An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously. (5. Used to describe a person who has no original thoughts, opinions, or ideas of his/her own. Instead they regurgitate the "party-line" or talking points of others; usually of their particular political party.)
See my post of 11/22 @ 2:55 pm.
Wikipedia, Sockpuppet: A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was....
Multiple identities are inherently deceptive.
Beyond doubt, MUL/BSR/RB is a sock puppet. More importantly, he is a bloviating lefty troll.
BTW, the issue presented by Althouse's blog entry is not the efficacy of AGW, but the character of its scientific backers. Similarly, the issue raised by RB's sock puppetry relates to his character, not his arguments.
Again: Miller's right that it's not worth trying to engage comments by MUL/BSR/BR/whatever-name-he's-using-today.
As his most recent commentary confirms, his goal is not a productive discussion. The facts are not on his side. The science is not on his side. The only thing left to him is to pound on the table in hopes of creating enough noise to drown out the signal of any discussion between other people on the thread.
But his appearance to inject more spam into the thread does provide an opportunity to remind everyone of his demonstrated ignorance and errors of fact in this subject area (e.g. his and his hero Gabriel Hanna's inability to distinguish "raw data" from a data set whose values have already been filtered and individually adjusted by a proprietary algorithm).
Also, it would be neglectful to not make an on-topic contribution to the thread by mentioning the incredible dishonesty and fraud by the pro-AGW "scientists" revealed in this batch of emails, like the conspiracies to delete taxpayer-funded data sets being requested for review, the effort to game the peer review system to avoid having to answer critics, and the fabrication and manipulation of data to support their hypotheses when the real-world measurements inconveniently contradicted them.
Once again, Elle Hubris-Homeslice proves his obstinate idiocy.
A much better lawyer than he once explained to me that in law, there are ingredients to things. Likewise, in definitions, there are ingredients.
Note the deliberately ignored ingredient in first definition he manages to confuse:
An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account
Apparently Home-Bray needs to look up the word "already". I never had two accounts. These are, and always were, the same account. In fact, if you go to this link, you will see that it says "On Blogger Since August 2005."
Let's try the other one:
"'A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was....'
Multiple identities are inherently deceptive."
Again. Home-Bray might want to look up the word "multiple". At no time did I use more than one identity or more than one account. I've only had ONE FUCKING ACCOUNT!!! If you go to any of the comments posted under "MUL" they will trace back to this very same account. And there was no deception. Just because Home-Bray is too stupid to understand something, doesn't mean he was deliberately deceived. It just means that his stupidity was so significant that he managed to deceive himself.
Furthermore, as Blake says, the change was announced. At 7:17 PM yesterday, Blake notes, on this very thread:
"Oh, hell, I don't remember where. He just said something like, "That does it. I'm changing my name."
Seriously, his profile links to his blog, which also mentions the change. There has never been any attempt by MUL to deceive people as to who he is or what he believes."
I am not linking to the post on my blog where I also said as much. It is there for anyone with a brain and rudimentary powers of (and an interest in) observation to see. I will leave it to Elle Home-Slice to see if he has the basic intelligence (or balls) to find that very piece of information, which completely smothers the gaseous exhaust emanating from his frozen brain - a decrepit organ no longer capable of offering him any use, which at this point should be shattered into a thousand pieces, collected in a box and marked: "Broken. Return to owner."
What a joke of a person.
AC245 appears a bit confused. He seems to believe I am a spokesperson for the CRU and that their ideas are mine, that I am responsible for their actions, pronouncements, whatnot. Someone with this severe a deficit in their powers of comprehension should not be listened to - regardless of what he had to say a month ago.
I think the willful ignoring of evidence this obvious says something about Elle Hubris' character.
The availability of publicly posted information two links away from any post I've ever made on this site is exculpatory of any charge of deception.
Hombre is a moron, doesn't know what he's talking about, and is too old and dried up to realize what a fool he's making himself out to be to anyone here with basic knowledge of information technology. God help us all if that Old Fartknocker gets on Facebook. He'll probably accuse the others of doing some dastardly deed to confuse his mind, like using some bit of internet slang that, in his senility, might go misapprehended.
Time to up the Aricept and Seroquel doses, Geezer. You sound like you're about one step away from being put into diapers in the geriatric ward. You certainly don't sound agreeable enough for any family (should you have that) to care to put up with your senile antics.
Another reminder: Miller's right that it's not worth trying to engage comments by MUL/BSR/BR/whatever-name-he's-using-today.
As his most recent commentary confirms, his goal is not a productive discussion. The facts are not on his side. The science is not on his side. The only thing left to him is to pound on the table in hopes of creating enough noise to drown out the signal of any discussion between other people on the thread.
But his appearance to inject more spam into the thread does provide an opportunity to remind everyone of his demonstrated ignorance and errors of fact in this subject area (e.g. his and his hero Gabriel Hanna's inability to distinguish "raw data" from a data set whose values have already been filtered and individually adjusted by a proprietary algorithm).
Again, it would be neglectful to not make an on-topic contribution to the thread by mentioning the incredible dishonesty and fraud by the pro-AGW "scientists" revealed in this batch of emails, like the conspiracies to delete taxpayer-funded data sets being requested for review, the effort to game the peer review system to avoid having to answer critics, and the fabrication and manipulation of data to support their hypotheses when the real-world measurements inconveniently contradicted them.
In other words, one of the two leading hives of pro-AGW propagandists have been busted as con artists and "Enron Scientists".
The facts and science are not on Air Conditioning Unit 54671's side, either.
The null hypothesis is not that changing atmospheric composition will do nothing. That is a faulty assumption. He knows nothing of the science behind this (although it's quite simple, actually) and is simply joining the right-o-sphere pile-on about what will probably amount to a big nothing in the grand scheme of things.
To repeat, for the millionth time, unethical behavior in favor of a bias does not change the reality of what can be observed. Either the public debate will be affected, or it won't. But AC acts like a single instance of a problematic presentation (and not, as he alleges, a problematic analysis itself) changes the reality of the global climate equation. It does not.
In short, he is attempting to mount a war against certain scientists and confusing that with an argument against the theory they have researched.
As for "injecting spam", I fully reserve the right to defend myself against scurrilous Texas retirees with nothing better to do with their time than to throw around stupid accusations based on a horrendously poor comprehension of internet lingo, and an even more incredulous misapprehension of the word "deception" (among others), as if posting publicly available information on the matter he alleges was concealed, two mouse-clicks away from comments that he was responding to, was an exercise in deception. Further, the same information was also made available as it occurred in these very pages - the same privileged space that Elle Hornbutt regularly frequents.
Of course, it is nothing of the sort.
Not that Air Conditioning unit #61656 would be expected to understand something so basic.
Again, more spam from MUL/BSR/RB/whatever-name-he's-hiding-under-today (including for some reason a link to some blogger who proposed a bet about climate change a while ago but then reneged when someone actually tried to take him up on it.).
Out in the real world, though, the real people involved understand the ramifications of these email revelations:
WSJ reports:
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
At least these con artists (no point in pretending these "Enron scientists" are anything but) are smart enough to lawyer up now that their scam has been exposed!
Lord Lawson is already calling for a public inquiry in the UK to determine the depth of the fraud and to figure out if there's anyone left at the CRU who doesn't need to be sacked, fined, or imprisoned.
And lawsuits and Congressional investigations into the misbehaviour on the U.S. side of the con job - the GISS - are already in motion.
In the meantime, several fine folks are poring through the computer code that was released along with the emails, and finding that the computer code also uses a lot of tricks to "hide the decline".
The AGW fraudsters did their best to keep their cooked books and crooked accounting methods hidden. They had a good run. But now that the relevant information's out there for everyone to see, the AGW hucksters are well and truly fscked.
I predict that for the star players it will end as badly for them as it did for Enron's top execs (heck, you've already got George "Moonbat" Monbiot calling for Jones to resign). The useful idiots who weren't directly involved in the coverups but who only provided "peer review" will end up with reputations akin to Arthur Andersen's.
Post a Comment