tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3371094859895976189..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Las Vegas Denier Fest: Awards for best con artists, denial propagandists and plodders for hireSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2861375131360217352014-07-10T01:32:41.039+10:002014-07-10T01:32:41.039+10:00"I wonder if [Tom Harris] decided to arrive i..."I wonder if [Tom Harris] decided to arrive incognito this time."<br /><br />That certainly fits his MO. It's worth pointing out that his status amongst the deniers is due to a) being Canada's most prominent denier*, and b) looking good in a suit. Well, the beard helps too. In reality, he's a guy with a website and a reference from Heartland.<br /><br />*Tim Ball used to hold that title, but as his pronouncements have become more cranky and delusional even rural hotel restaurants full of retired farmers don't want to hear from him.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27341099543901555482014-07-08T22:34:00.861+10:002014-07-08T22:34:00.861+10:00Indeed, on any other 'science' site, smoke...Indeed, on any other 'science' site, smokey, who wears his ignorance as a badge of honour would be an embarrasssment. At WUWT they put him on the staff ....<br /><br />I have a teenage son, and even at his most intractable he is more open to reason than Denier Dave. Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6328503851168064092014-07-08T19:45:32.651+10:002014-07-08T19:45:32.651+10:00Smokey's determined to reject global warming. ...Smokey's determined to reject global warming. He also rejects the greenhouse effect, though as a sop to Anthony he occasionally concedes an "even if there were..." type statement.<br /><br />I don't know which predictions he thinks have turned out "wrong". He might be getting confused by <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html" rel="nofollow">these alarmist predictions</a> from science deniers.<br /><br />The main prediction of greenhouse warming is that the world will warm as we add greenhouse gases. And it has and it is.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61465683724303543242014-07-08T19:27:19.060+10:002014-07-08T19:27:19.060+10:00Looks like the censorship curtain has dropped agai...Looks like the censorship curtain has dropped again, my last two contributions to the thread have not appeared .. on the plus side, Smokey is in meltdown ...4 posts in 10 minutes, all projecting his debating crimes onto his opponents<br /><br /><i>Every alarmist prediction has turned out wrong. All of them. When a group makes numerous predictions, and they ALL turn out wrong, rational people will disregard their swivel-eyed nonsense. That is the position you religious True Believers have put yourself in. No wonder you fall back on ad hominem attacks. Because you sure don’t have any credible science.</i>Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85157568746879600652014-07-08T08:37:35.305+10:002014-07-08T08:37:35.305+10:00I spent forty years working on elucidating the 3D ...I spent forty years working on elucidating the 3D atomic structures of large medically important active proteins with Electron Microscopy and X-ray Diffraction. I have been retired for ten years and I am quite aware that I know very little outside my field at any real depth or breadth. In that sense I am burnt out as I have had to learn a great deal about climate science and still do not understand a very large fraction of what is known by the experts. In fact I would have totally lost relevance in my own field by now, by not keeping up with the literature. I can only laugh at even 'educated' deniers who can 'prove' that climate science is 'wrong' with data and methods that would not pass in a high school project, let alone a first year science subject. BertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49905337994009628512014-07-07T21:34:25.017+10:002014-07-07T21:34:25.017+10:00The British Empire was like the Medieval Warming P...The British Empire was like the Medieval Warming Period - neither global nor synchronous...FrankDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52275928900251050072014-07-07T04:31:02.384+10:002014-07-07T04:31:02.384+10:00From the LMF charter
"With the British Empir...From the LMF charter<br /><br />"With the British Empire, governance became truly global for the first time."<br /><br />Ever so slightly arguable. Not even sure the British governed France or Germany, let alone the whole world.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48394285390233488222014-07-07T01:27:33.525+10:002014-07-07T01:27:33.525+10:00"When I use a chart, it means just what I cho..."When I use a chart, it means just what I choose it to mean - nothing more nor less"<br /><br />Christopher Monckton in a Humpty Dumpty suit (Apologies Lewis Carroll with 'Through the looking Glass"):<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.lordmoncktonfoundation.com/vision" rel="nofollow">The Lord Monckton Foundation Charter</a>.<br /><br /><br />GWPF Mk II<br />Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61480516394432928112014-07-07T01:11:49.051+10:002014-07-07T01:11:49.051+10:00I doubt it will be published, I've added corre...I doubt it will be published, I've added corrections to Monckton's last two 'updates' on the pause, poiting out that CET is unreliable before about 1730, and that his claim that the highest trend of more than ten years duration is +2.0C/centrury is wrong, the 15 years to 2006 had a trend of about +2.7C/century - about twice the model projection (indicating that the 'pause' may be no more than a regression to the long term trend).<br /><br />Both comments never appeared, maybe because I made some uncomfortable but truthful comments about Watts honesty and integrity here. I can only guess.<br /><br />Anyow, I recalled this example of Monckton's reliability. <br /><br />SPPI (almost certainly His Lordship)<br /><br />"Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American<br />Physical Society,"<br /><br />New Scientist<br /><br />"I spoke to Al Saperstein of Wayne State University in Michigan, one of two co-editors of Physics & Society, the offending newsletter. He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. "I'm a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed," he said. "It was not."<br /><br />Saperstein was the guy the peer said peer-reviewed the peer's paper, which paper was, it goes without saying, peerless nonsense.<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html<br />Phil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55121786067081595432014-07-07T00:52:16.563+10:002014-07-07T00:52:16.563+10:00Anders wrote "They've got Delingpole down...Anders wrote "They've got Delingpole down as Entertainment."<br /><br />He didn't have any jokes of his own but he did interpret the jokes of others.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-7577134247213098272014-07-07T00:24:46.320+10:002014-07-07T00:24:46.320+10:00Bert wrote:
"As a burnt out old Physicist ......Bert wrote:<br />"As a burnt out old Physicist ..."<br /><br />How did that happen? Did one of your experiments go wrong?<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13880958127943576318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70162366928288722822014-07-07T00:10:00.716+10:002014-07-07T00:10:00.716+10:00I've been following that and can't see you...I've been following that and can't see your comment. Not that any of them will be believed. If they won't accept the ruling of the Clerk of Parliaments that Monckton isn't a member of the House Of Lords and play a weird linguistic game of making up their own meanings for words that are as clear as day, they won't accept what you, I or any other person believes based on evidence. They seem keener to accept the word of the mendacious Monckton.<br /><br />Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17934438764880460012014-07-06T22:01:06.903+10:002014-07-06T22:01:06.903+10:00Examples of (3) are collated here http://www.skept...Examples of (3) are collated here http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf<br /><br />For example, Monckton frequently cited the work on atmospheric radiation of Dr Rachel Pinker (amusingly getting the scientist's gender wrong). <br /><br />Monkton: "What, then, caused the third period of warming? Most of that third and most recent period of rapid warming fell within the satellite era, and the satellites confirmed measurements from ground stations showing a considerable, and naturally-occurring, global brightening from 1983-2001 (Pinker et al., 2005)."<br /><br />Dr Pinker responded "This statement in effect equates temperature change with surface solar radiation change which, as noted in points 2 and 3 above, is only one input into a complex climate process. Also, it is not necessarily the case that global brightening is naturally-occurring; it can be caused by anthropogenic aerosols or changes in the atmospheric moisture content as well as clouds, possibly affected by increasing CO2 levels."<br /><br />In the Telegraph piece that carried the controversial graphs, Monckton wrote:<br /><br />"Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks."<br /><br />But oddly omitted Solanki's complete scientific opinion: "I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Already at present the overwhelming source of global warming is due to manmade greenhouse gases and their influence will continue to grow in the future as their concentration increases"<br /><br />http://www2.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/<br /><br />Examples of 4 would be a fabrication to sell merchandise:<br /><br />A SCOTTISH aristocrat who claimed he was forced to sell his ancestral pile after losing a fortune on a $1 million puzzle has admitted that he invented the story to boost sales.<br /><br />www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost-home-was-stunt-to-boost-puzzle-sales-1-679237<br /><br />Lying about his words at the gate-crashed Copenhagen conference...<br /><br />"It was not I who called them Hitler Youth. It was three Germans and a Dane in the audience"<br /><br />Not according to the video, sir 1.26. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZw8yF5alkM<br /><br />Or recently here, claiming he 'won' the UK High Court case against the distribution of Nobel prize winner Al Gore's OScar-winning documentary to UK schools. The case was an attempt by Stewart Dimmock, a school governor, to get a Court order for the film to be banned, so the only reasonable interpretation of 'winning' would be if such an order was made. The Judge decided not to make any such order and in fact described the film as 'substantially founded upon scientific research and fact' and ruled that 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate'. The film is thus ruled fit and remains available for educational use, with some changes to the Teachers notes detailing differences between the films interpretation and mainstream scientific opinion.<br /><br />Dimmock was ordered to pay a third of his costs, about £60K. If that is a 'win', what does losing look like?<br /><br />Then there is his development of a wonder-drug, which will cure anything from AIDS to the common cold .....<br /><br /><br />That's just a few examples of His Lordship failing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. Follow the links to discover many, many many more.<br /><br />Will you have the courage to post this, or will it disappear like my previous completely polite and completely factual corrections to His Lordship's wrong assertions?Phil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38782335652839148522014-07-06T22:00:36.906+10:002014-07-06T22:00:36.906+10:00If I may once again highjack this thread to preser...If I may once again highjack this thread to preserve a post I made at WUWT in case it get disappeared...<br /><br />Lord Monckton's mendacity generally takes these forms:<br /><br />1. Cherry-picking studies and data that support his case, while misrepresenting or ignoring contrary evidence.<br /><br />2. Getting the science wrong and repeating the erroneous science even after it has been shown to be so, often at a louder volume. Nothing wrong with making errors, but Monckton's response when his are pointed out generally consists of a bluster-filled but vacuous rebuttal, perhaps with a bullying threat of legal action - almost never followed through - while he carries on with the same false claims at a higher volume.<br /><br />3. Misrepresenting science and scientists. One frequently follows one of his references given to support a point to find the science and usually the scientists says something else altogether.<br /><br />4. Mis-stating or overstating the facts. <br /><br /><br />Examples of (1)<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/<br />http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/moncktons-artful-graph/<br /><br />At this very website, (where siting and equipment issues are highlighted, hah) Monckton uses the Central England Temperature series to try to indicate a (cherry-picked) period starting from before the mercury-in-glass thermometer was even invented had a faster rising temperature than recent decades, even after I've pointed out that the data points were rounded to the nearest 0.5C, making such a calculation meaningless. <br /><br />Examples of 2 would be Monckton's paper published on the APS website, (which he falsely claimed was a peer-reviewed article, which annoyed the physicists) the 125 errors of fact were documented here:<br /><br />http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html<br /><br />Or the response of a group of climate scientists to Monckton's testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives.<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-response.pdf<br /><br />Or the 'rap sheet' compiled by Barry Bickermore <br /><br />http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/<br /><br />Or Skeptical Science's 'Monckton Myths'<br /><br />http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm<br />Phil Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744659873337514317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87124049293758528892014-07-05T06:16:35.973+10:002014-07-05T06:16:35.973+10:00Had the surface stations project been scientific i...Had the surface stations project been scientific it would have defined not only the data to be gathered but the way in which it would be analysed and what could be inferred from that analysis. In fact the method of analysis was, and remain, undefined as Watts's oppo continues to search for some analytic method which gives the right answer while retaining more than a dozen or so weather stations. A hopeless task, as BEST has demonstrated. And, of course, that really was a scentific project.<br /><br />Those of us who recall the surface stations project launch will remember that all the celebration of what the data would show took place right then, before any actual data had been collected. The truth would be revealed and the truth was already known.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26821541316086091992014-07-05T03:11:35.479+10:002014-07-05T03:11:35.479+10:00"Burnt out physicist"....
Now that is s..."Burnt out physicist"....<br /><br />Now that is something I can relate to... ;-)Flakmeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14376276664043708609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55014842407738816892014-07-05T02:53:05.129+10:002014-07-05T02:53:05.129+10:00Some bod professing to be The Heartland Institute ...Some bod professing to be The Heartland Institute dropped into the comment thread below this article at Climate Progress, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/" rel="nofollow">Physicist Offers $10,000 To Anyone Who Can Disprove Climate Change</a> and left this message:<br /><br />"Heartland Institute<br />Think Progress lies so often about The Heartland Institute that we don’t generally bothering responding (or reading) these diatribes, but for the record: (a) Heartland is not "using $10,000 to entice content" for the special advertising insert of The Washington Times promoting our 9th International Confernce on Climate Change; The Washington Times is publishing the special section and, naturally, selling ads for it; and (b) the “Koch brothers” are not “key contributors” to The Heartland Institute. Too bad none of the left’s pet climate alarmists accepted our invitations to come and defend their beliefs at this conference. What a surprise."<br /><br />Think Progress lies about The Heartland Institute. TP don't need to bother for Heartland do it to themselves and if that message was from Heartland it illustrates that only too well.<br /><br />I note that Tom Harris showed up under another article at CP about the same time so I wonder if he decided to arrive incognito this time. I'll try find it if anybody is interested but the comments threads are a bit of a zoo although there are many sane people over there many really ignorant ideologues provide much stuff to shovel.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72757196287092772132014-07-05T00:58:53.223+10:002014-07-05T00:58:53.223+10:00LOLLOLMillicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42598830545012493522014-07-05T00:30:22.306+10:002014-07-05T00:30:22.306+10:00Millicent, I love that line of Cleese's where ...Millicent, I love that line of Cleese's where he goes "If it hadn't been adding four atomic bombs of energy per second, it would be flat lining like a Norwegian Blue"<br /><br />Then Palin goes "It paused" and Cleese replies "No it didn't, you didn't hit it with that hockey stick."<br /><br />Ah, those were the days.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42714129336039529602014-07-05T00:16:38.026+10:002014-07-05T00:16:38.026+10:00Watts began, in a sense, RPSr's pet. Not only...Watts began, in a sense, RPSr's pet. Not only was the surface stations project RPSr's idea, but apparently before that Watts's blog was more true to its supposed mission (i.e. blogs about "puzzling" and interesting things about a variety of vaguely sciency and techie things, not devoted to climate change denialism). I look at Watts being named as one of a couple of dozen authors on a minor paper RPSr's got his name on as being due to RPSr's trying to legitimatize his pet. Etc etc.<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36224454695089113802014-07-04T23:40:26.099+10:002014-07-04T23:40:26.099+10:00He does a very good comedy routine with Sir Paul N...He does a very good comedy routine with Sir Paul Nurse. It's the Interpreter of Interpreters sketch. I believe it is almost as famous as Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50093834506178858352014-07-04T23:26:03.571+10:002014-07-04T23:26:03.571+10:00That is right, if I blog about something, I always...That is right, if I blog about something, I always made an archive, even if I do not always link to it. Just to have independent proof that claims were made.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34157043410422633422014-07-04T22:01:28.161+10:002014-07-04T22:01:28.161+10:00Don't discount organizational ability. Watts ...Don't discount organizational ability. Watts couldn't be the PI, but he could maybe run things.<br /><br />Authorship on papers tends to be granted to everyone who worked on a result, not just those who wrote the words. This is appropriate IMO, as writing generally takes less time than doing. Exception: lab techs in biology often do the bulk of the work, but get no respect.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23257603029879158522014-07-04T20:04:05.953+10:002014-07-04T20:04:05.953+10:00No no no, you're not meant to thank me and adm...No no no, you're not meant to thank me and admit your mix up, you're meant to instruct your solictors to sue me for defamation .... ;-)<br /><br />Appears his Lordship treats the accusation the faked a chart as defamatory. Such might be the case if he did not have a reputation for playing fast and loose with graphical representations. But he does.<br /><br />http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-the-case-of-the-missing-curry/<br /><br />(Too many examples to choose from). Phil Clarkenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84505867420077402222014-07-04T18:37:34.447+10:002014-07-04T18:37:34.447+10:00Have some respect : "send another crackpot to...Have some respect : "send another crackpot to Congress" is more accurate again.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09537772941984056434noreply@blogger.com