.

Friday, November 21, 2014

The back story

Sou | 2:53 PM Go to the first of 40 comments. Add a comment

This is just a placeholder for any stray WUWT-ers who are not such fake sceptics that they'll not investigate denialist claims made at WUWT. What Dr Michael Singer actually wrote. In full. Without the quote-mining by Jim Steele.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/jim-steele-at-wuwt-pushes-for-pseudo.html

Dr Singer's long comment is in the body of the article. He adds quite a bit more in the comments. I'm linking to this to put Jim's latest dummy spit into perspective.

(Didn't I once say that sexism and climate science denial are common to a certain demographic? I did? Yep, I was right, wasn't I.)

PS WUWT moderator Smokey aka dbstealey aka D Boehm aka  ~dbs is wrong again as usual. Here's why.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Any chance of an archived link to the front story? So I do not have to get the shoes dirty. :-)

Sou said...

I wouldn't normally, for reasons that will become obvious. But I'll make an exception just because you asked so nicely :)

https://archive.today/Xoahp

Joe said...

I need a shower. That was some sick, misogynist, anti-science commentary.

GSR said...

AW has put a plea out to all guest bloggers to torture their particular area of interest into a blunt instrument with which to attack Sou.

Anthony and his attack dogs hate being taken on face to face and fist to fist.

In seeking to ridicule and undermine Sou, WUWT has only succeeded in promoting her.

What AW hates the most about Sou is that she makes him work harder. He now has to give some sort of nod to rigour. It's never achieved but he's nodding like a fucking mad man.

Catmando said...

I recall your trashing of Steele over those Texas temperatures. He won't see it as a defeat but it clearly was. Steele continues to act as a mean spirited misogynist who quotes Sagan's baloney test without realising he doesn't understand what Sagan was saying. I await his simpering self defence here with anticipation.

Sou said...

WUWT has been pretty tame lately, that's true. Nothing like what was common only a few months ago. I haven't seen too many insects or ice-free Greenland lately. Nor much about how Russian steampipes are causing global warming or how airports get a sudden bout of UHI disease :)

Anonymous said...

This is the first time I've heard of this blog but after reading a few articles, or what passes for articles here, I've come to the conclusion you need medical help Sou.

Phil Clarke said...

Just when you think WUWT could not sink any lower....

Congratulations Sou, the more of these hit-pieces that get posted, the surer you can be that your efforts are hitting home. The flak is most intense when you're over the target as they say.

Deniers certainly lack a sense of irony, after a piece of toxic, abusive, misogynistic slime from one commenter (which I am cetainly not going to repeat), came this exchange.

MODS should snip. Your misogynistic rant should be shunned by the WUWT community.

(Reply: And then it would be easier and easier to start censoring… ~mod.)


Start censoring, Mr Moderator? The censoring began years ago, and continues, not of content-free, offensive, ad hominem drivel, no of course not, but of attempts to post reasoned, and evidenced replies to, for example, Monckton's attempt to defame Michael Mann. Just this week...

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/wuwt-at-crossroads-willis-eschenbach.html?showComment=1416319889445#c4989366787347479028

Actually, now I think about it, posting a reasoned and evidenced reply to Monckton is both a category error and a perfect waste of time :-)

Oh, in case it doesn't travel - 'flak' is slang for anti-aircraft fire.

Anonymous said...

Are you sure you have not been on this blog before?

Anon2

Anonymous said...

The public don't believe in CO2 warming and no amount of papers discussing the effects of a a 4C rise on this ecosystem or that species is going to change their minds no matter how many scientists agree. We have relied on temp data adjusted upward with an algorithm and the deletion of cold data deemed unreliable and the public know.

They know what we did.

Sou said...

A denier who can spell algorithm. My oh my. I wonder if he knows that it doesn't really mean that "Al Gore is fat" :(

cRR Kampen said...

Tell him 'algorithm' is an Arab noun. He'll return into the Breitbart hole.

The Tacloban public don't speak no more, hey Anon!

Anonymous said...

the public are complete and utter morons. most people in this country don't even know why summer is warmer than winter. are you one of them?

cabc

Rob said...

ignore this idiot Sou, I think it's great you take the time to debunk the pseudo-science of WUWT and really enjoy reading your posts :) keep it up!

Millicent said...

I'm baffled as to why we would give so much as a rat's arse about your 'conclusion'. We generally leave the medical diagnoses to Stephan Lewandowski - and its not looking good for your kind.

palindrom said...

Interestingly, and completely off topic of course, "flak" is short for Fliegerabwehrkanone,, which means "anti-aircraft gun" auf Deutsch.

palindrom said...

As a quasi-physicist, the denialist trope that makes my blood boil most vigorously is the gross misuse of Feynman's warnings about bad science. I wish he could come back to life, step out from behind a movie poster like Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall, and tell those folks a thing or two. After all, "nature cannot be fooled".

wheelism said...

Two in three American support strict CO2 emissions standards for coal-powered plants, even if it likely means higher energy prices.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/americans-support-co2-limits-on-existing-coal-fired-power-plants/

The public knows what you're trying to do.

They know.

wheelism said...

From the link:

The survey also found that Americans support a broad range of policies that would help reduce or protect against global warming. For example, solid majorities “strongly” or “somewhat” support the following:

Increasing funding for improvements to local roads, bridges and buildings to make them more resistant to extreme weather (83%)

Funding more research into renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power (77%)

Providing tax rebates to people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (77%)

Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (75%)

Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year (62%)

The study also found that 66% of Americans think global warming is happening (up three percentage points since November 2013), whereas only 16% say it is not happening (down 7 points since November 2013). Public understanding of the human causes, levels of worry, and risk perceptions, however, have held steady in recent years.

Catmando said...

palindrom, I think you probably have seen this but, blowing my own trumpet, I covered Feynman misuse a while back and couldn't agree with you more.

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-richard-feynman-primer-for-deniers.html

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you think Lewandowski's in your corner Millicent, because I sure wouldn't want him in mine.

spilgard said...

I'm still puzzled as to how the temperature data can show "no warming for [x] years and [y] months" while simultaneously being falsified to show a warming trend. The cognitive dissonance, it burns!

Millicent said...

The pros in your corner tend to be people who whored what little reputation they had for the tobacco industry. Why is that?

Brandon R. Gates said...

In semi-related news, just today on WUWT Bob Tisdale announced a new blog devoted entirely to ... doing something ... re: HotWhopper. First comment on the WUWT post:

--------------------------

omnologos
November 21, 2014 at 10:29 am

Trolling a troll blog?

Troll-ception! !!

Bob don’t you have anything better to do? (Asking )

--------------------------

Need. More. Irony. Meters.

Harry Twinotter said...

Rhetorical deception? Who is this "Jim Steele" person anyway?

Harry Twinotter said...

Bob Tisdale I know to be a nobody, just wondering about this Jim Steele person - has anyone tried to verify his "credentials"?

Just looking at the HotWopper blog Bob Tisdale has created, he appears to have taken the photo of the Coonabarabran fires from the HotWhopper blog.

Everett F Sargent said...

Who is this "Jim Steele" person anyway?

"eminent physicist, polyglot classicist, prize-winning botanist, hard-biting satirist, talented pianist, good dentist too"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hillary_Boob

You know, a real Nowhere Man

Sou said...

Jim Steele is pretty well nobody. You can read his bio here:
https://archive.today/N1i6V

Because he managed a rural field office for some time (part time), he was with SF State Uni so he got to know a few ecologists. That strikes me as a very competitive field that has different streams - sort of like ideological differences in approach as far as I can make out. I've seen this sort of academic rivalry before in the social sciences, and it can get very nasty. It's almost ideologically based but more about methods and approaches, I think.

It's not clear that Jim ever finished his masters. He's never published anything in the peer reviewed literature as far as I know. The only publication that I came across from his own website, apart from his vanity-published climate science denial book, is an article in some grass roots environmental newsletter (non-academic).

http://www.yubawatershedinstitute.org/documents/treerings21.pdf

So he's got no credentials on most of the topics on which he pontificates. I've been told that he is variously egged on in his harassment of academics (by their rivals) or discouraged (by scientists he's friends with who see what a fool he's making of himself).

Harry Twinotter said...

Thanks. I forgot all about Google Scholar.

Jim Steele's name popped up on a lot of blog postings on other Climate Change websites.

Sou said...

Like other people who try to earn a buck from their self-published pseudo-science 'books' - Jim has used WUWT for freebie promotion. He tends to move around a lot, usually doing a hard or soft sell of his book... plus - you can guess the rest.

palindrom said...

Wonderful! Thanks for pointing it out.

Anonymous said...

Is this a case of the recursive furies? :-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Sou, i'm hoping for your perspective on the announcement by china as per Joe romm's article in climate progress Nov 19 - "China to cap coal use by 2020", re its impact on the Australian media. I haven't seen it covered at all. Thanks, allan

GSR said...

"eminent physicist, polyglot classicist, prize-winning botanist, hard-biting satirist, talented pianist, good dentist too"
Everett F Sargent you left out the important bit Real Estate Salesman.
I can now officially reveal that Jim Steele is actually Orly Taitz.

GSR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Goodness, Edith, sweetie.....
You're as dumb as nine chickens,

GSR said...

To whom are you replying?

DJ said...

Jim wrote "I objected to attempts by advocates of CO2 warming"

What, you mean like scientists, using observations and physics. The 'advocate' of CO2 warming is reality. It's not like we get to choose what is reality and what is not (unless of course you are a denier, who seem to pick and choose how physical laws behave)

and then he wrote "In response to my argument that instead of indoctrination, text books need to encourage more debate to foster critical scientific thinking"

Yes, books do need to foster critical scientific thinking, but debate? Should books still be debating germ theory vs miasma theory, heliocentricism vs geocentrism, biology vs humorism. This is the same technique that ID promoters use to try and get their unscientific beliefs introduced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Why is it that spuikers of pseudoscience insist on the same techniques? Also, what is the alternate global warming theory? It seems to be it just 'magically' happens.

Climate science and the fact that CO2 causes warming is NOT indoctrination. In the micobiological sciences, is teaching the fact that bacteria and viruses cause disease, indoctrination? Is the teaching the fact that bacteria is composed of proteins, indoctrination? Is the teaching the fact that proteins is composed of atoms, indoctrination?

Really Jim? I would call you an utter nutter, but that would be a disservice to utter nutters.

David R said...

Sue,

You're doing a great job. They don't like it up them. You keep sticking it up them!

Keep it up girl.

David R

Brandon R. Gates said...

[chuckle] My most generous supposition is that it's damage control. But omnologos asks a more penetrating question than (s)he may realize. If they seriously thought Sou is a troll, the last thing they'd want to do is devote an entire blog to discussing HotWhopper. It will be interesting to see how long their experiment lasts.