tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5436371378011728146..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Unbalanced Antagonism: The UWA Vice-Chancellor stands up to a "vexatious" bloggerSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6198350280594979842014-04-17T09:32:23.258+10:002014-04-17T09:32:23.258+10:00IPCC Lead Author and Frontiers associate editor, P...IPCC Lead Author and Frontiers associate editor, Professor Roger Jones from Victoria University has an article. <br />http://2risk.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/frontiers-retraction-controversy/<br /><br />It has not been comment bombed by the loons yet.<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79925098527242747202014-04-04T08:00:49.368+11:002014-04-04T08:00:49.368+11:00It gets worse
"The data itself must be damni...<a href="http://archive.is/h5MH0" rel="nofollow">It gets worse</a><br /><br />"The data itself must be damning for them to want to protect it this much in violation of their own policy"<br /><br />": some of the responses to the poll that McIntyre wants to examine came from within the University itself, creating another, more culpable conflict of interest "<br /><br />lol: "It occurs to me that there is a *very* good chance that their is NO data at all – none, nada, zilch. How could that have happened? If Lewandowsky simply drafted the entire report as a piece of fiction backing his beliefs, and then manufactured the pretense of a survey in order to try to cover the fact that the paper and all of its conclusions were already written before the project was officially started it. And all of his partners knew about this from the start and applauded it, because it was “good for the cause”."<br /><br />How do you spell conspiracy theories again?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60510222101003097562014-04-01T21:15:56.777+11:002014-04-01T21:15:56.777+11:00Given the angst about denier psychology, and in pa...Given the angst about denier psychology, and in particular the spotlight that Lewandowsky shone on it, I think that it's time to remind some of the posters here of George Marshall's observations on the subject:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOsl5-AUTv4" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOsl5-AUTv4</a>Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69308776037690005612014-04-01T05:44:16.807+11:002014-04-01T05:44:16.807+11:00Well no, it was the authors themselves after reali...<i>Well no, it was the authors themselves after realizing the correctness of Steven McIntyre's analysis</i><br /><br />Bollocks. Those remarks are all verbatim or close paraphrases from the original paper. You are completely confused, which isn't surprising given that you have been lied to. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37843599648659098532014-04-01T04:48:00.541+11:002014-04-01T04:48:00.541+11:00The Marcott attacks are really sad - even if the p...The Marcott attacks are really sad - even if the proxies cannot <b>resolve</b> or separate short spikes, they can certainly <b>detect</b> them. See <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/" rel="nofollow">Taminos Monte Carlo test here</a>, see also some frequency response analyses I ran <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=88&&n=1951#93527" rel="nofollow">here</a> with a worst case <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=88&&n=1951#100931" rel="nofollow">here</a>. <br /><br />No such spikes appear in the Marcott data - they are imaginary pink unicorns postulated by people in denial. <br /><br />While I feel the RegEM reconstruction Marcott et al produced was superior to their Standard 5x5, more robust to proxy drop-out, the 20th century is by no means the focus of the paper. Arguments based on that are strawmen fallacies. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43012509119840874372014-04-01T00:30:40.896+11:002014-04-01T00:30:40.896+11:00What caerbannog says above regarding the unscienti...What caerbannog says above regarding the unscientific attack on Marcott is almost exactly what I say every time an AGW denier proposes that there could be temperature spikes undetected by the proxies. What would be the physical basis for these spikes? They can never answer that one. It's always *crickets*.<br /><br />They're all just McIntyre sycophants, uncritically latching on to every accusation the guy makes. And since when have any of McIntyre's claims of fraud against climate scientists ever stuck? Never. He's an obnoxious serial nitpicker whose claims are usually unfounded. And even when they do occasionally stick, his nitpicks don't substantially change the results of the papers he's attacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67323910252179158652014-03-31T23:49:47.868+11:002014-03-31T23:49:47.868+11:00Don't bother Geoff, the rules here are
1 Sou i...Don't bother Geoff, the rules here are<br />1 Sou is always right.<br />2 when Sou is wrong refer to rule #1 <br /><br /><br /><b>Sou:</b> Reposted after deletion. I mistook Anonymous for Greig, who is banned. I was wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60364383109918695172014-03-31T12:24:27.985+11:002014-03-31T12:24:27.985+11:00George, that could be classed as conspiracy ideati...George, that could be classed as conspiracy ideation (just kidding).<br /><br />Steve wrote: <i>" I’m trying to make arrangements for a data request by a research psychologist."</i> <br /><br />He's already got someone lined up, if they're silly enough to cooperate with him.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4258536256692531302014-03-31T11:30:49.188+11:002014-03-31T11:30:49.188+11:00guthrie
McIntyre does -not- want the IP addresses ...guthrie<br />McIntyre does -not- want the IP addresses of survey takers. Just the referring server's address. Only a small proportion of survey takers would have landed on the survey page by typing in the page URL into the browser address bar or copy-pasting. A significant majority would have followed a link by clicking on it. This meta-data would be available to Kwiksurvey and the service subscriber.shubhttp://nigguraths.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70998860436242014312014-03-31T11:20:40.259+11:002014-03-31T11:20:40.259+11:00Here's an unintended consequence of Velcro'...Here's an unintended consequence of Velcro's comment: "Never expect a university with ivy on the walls to ever change or admit its errors. No wonder UWA is now the last ranked university in WA."<br /><br />Velcro would never post this at the blog site of the UWA graduate, Jo Nova. Somewhat devalues her credentials, if that's possible. Which leads to …<br /><br />"Steve has said he's trying to get someone else to surreptitiously get data for him to misconstrue. Guess who else put up his hand. None other than Eric "eugenics" Worrall!"<br /><br />Guess who didn't publicly put her hand up to help Steve? If Steve does get his hands on some hard data, we'll know who the mole is. (And I mean all that in the nicest possible way.)George Montgomeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07042191140401441348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72590135208329965732014-03-31T08:59:37.442+11:002014-03-31T08:59:37.442+11:00Wait, having the IP of the originating host for th...Wait, having the IP of the originating host for the survey enables Macintyre to work out the IP and origins of the people filling it in? <br />And this doesn't break all the rules about confidentiality how? And i still don't understand how having the server address for the survey lets him find the IP's. Shub really isn't making any sense here. guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44601443570571074622014-03-31T07:24:26.614+11:002014-03-31T07:24:26.614+11:00Yeah, I saw that. Eric seems to think Steve McInty...Yeah, I saw that. Eric seems to think Steve McIntyre is a climate scientist, which he's not. He also thinks that global warming is all "natural" with no human cause. Eric's not too hot on logic or research. I'm not sure that Steve would choose to have Eric comment. He doesn't exactly add credibility to CA. (But then, neither does Steve McIntyre!)<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/occams-razor-sez-eric-worral-is-science.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18626937908758383352014-03-31T06:03:08.434+11:002014-03-31T06:03:08.434+11:00Yes, I am.Yes, I am.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17806469184847890292014-03-31T05:34:23.058+11:002014-03-31T05:34:23.058+11:00Although it's not exactly my field either, the...Although it's not exactly my field either, the answer is yes.<br /><br />See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> for an explanation.<br /><br />I did take grad-level Sensation and Perception in school, created a supervisory groups @ Bell Labs that combined computer scientists and cognitive psychologists (who would be called cognitive scientists these days). About 10% of the staff in our lab fit that, because they were valuable..<br /><br />I occasionally correspond with some good ones.<br /><br />As usual in an emerging field, it can be confusing.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59508027839330009102014-03-31T05:21:50.083+11:002014-03-31T05:21:50.083+11:00Sou, what question of yours above am I supposed to...Sou, what question of yours above am I supposed to answer? Are you referring to the other thread?shubhttp://nigguraths.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85736611271609681842014-03-31T04:46:57.980+11:002014-03-31T04:46:57.980+11:00Sou, a few comments down from McKitrick's is o...Sou, a few comments down from McKitrick's is one from Eric Worrall where he calls you male. Doesn't give much confidence in his ability, does it?Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75591781512159316502014-03-31T04:41:11.990+11:002014-03-31T04:41:11.990+11:00Shub - that's enough. The university is not gi...Shub - that's enough. The university is not giving data to Steve McIntyre so that's that. He's shown that he's not objective for one thing. For another, he's already amply demonstrated that he's not competent to analyse the data.<br /><br />In fact no more comments from you till you answer my question above. Since the earliest report of the paper I found was at the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists" rel="nofollow">Guardian 27 July</a>, while Barry was talking about an <a href="https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/here-we-go-again-watts-up-with-that-pushing-the-no-consensus-myth/" rel="nofollow">unrelated article dated 20 July</a> - and the moon landing paper was only <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/622.short" rel="nofollow">accepted on 7 July</a> (and published in March 2013) - I find your claim implausible.<br /><br />What's even worse is that Barry seems to think he should be allowed to "refute" scientists (wrongly I might add) while he should be immune from having his own errors pointed out. I guess that would be classified as PV=persecuted victim.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32492338852004114532014-03-31T04:19:27.311+11:002014-03-31T04:19:27.311+11:00So you are outraged by your own characterization o...So you are outraged by your own characterization of what's meant by 'complete data', not what he actually wrote? Ok, then.<br /><br />Guthrie, the possible use in knowing where the survey responses are coming from is to verify Lewandowsky's claims:<br /><br />(1) that the survey was posted in skepticalscience, which, the authors claim, had a widespread readership and was therefore exposed to skeptics<br />(2) to verify whether skeptics responses (or any responses) originated from Skepticalscience, as the authors claim<br />(3) to assess proportions of skeptic responses from the referring sites and verify whether they correlate with the authors claims<br /><br />Whatever we might feel about this matter, I think we can agree, getting data from 1377 respondents is an impressive feat and representing they came from Skepticalscience when it looks like the survey was never posted there, amounts to a falsehood. Why would the Lewandowsky team do this? They have no reason to. <br /><br />Releasing the raw survey data would settle the question easily. Dragging this question is putting his passionate defenders at risk whereas releasing the data can potentially make the requestors look like fools. Why not release it then?shubhttp://nigguraths.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28726483441949181162014-03-31T04:15:44.559+11:002014-03-31T04:15:44.559+11:00It's hilarious that McIntyre the thug and WUWT...It's hilarious that McIntyre the thug and WUWT got so heated up about this moon landing paper, because they were so sure their denialist camp is innocent of this smear, only to have a whole brace of moon landing denialists <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/boxing-day-special-nasa-faked-moon.html" rel="nofollow">turn up on WUWT a few months later</a>. At the time of the paper they were livid about having the moon-landing conspiracy in the title (foxgoose, I recall, was hounding Lewandowsky about it on his blog for days) - but they have evidence on their own blogs of the presence of these conspiracy theorists. <br /><br />Then of course McIntyre confirmed everything with his elaborate conspiracies over exploratory factor analysis - which anyone could have done, and he just lacked the talent to complete. He is a clueless, paranoid hack.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58813261173636025082014-03-31T03:53:28.888+11:002014-03-31T03:53:28.888+11:00From the strange comment:
"This is starting ...From the strange comment: <br /><i>"This is starting to feel like the summer of 2009 all over.<br />http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/<br />And we all* know how that story ended."</i><br /><br /><br />Yes, we *do* know how that story ended. McIntyre and Co got all of that data nearly three years ago. They got everything they wanted from the CRU. <br /><br />And what have they done with the data since? Anyone here have a link to the global temperature results that McIntyre computed with the data he demanded (and got) from the CRU? Anyone?<br />caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81509179713067404622014-03-31T03:44:40.891+11:002014-03-31T03:44:40.891+11:00Legally, I think it could be read as a threat. Re...Legally, I think it could be read as a threat. Regardless, someone ought to save it. The mindset is clear … "cooperate or risk having your university's network hacked".<br /><br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42366826468449651272014-03-31T03:26:30.959+11:002014-03-31T03:26:30.959+11:00The 20th Century portion of the reconstruction was...The 20th Century portion of the reconstruction wasn't robust because few of the proxies extended into the 20th Century. <br /><br />But that is a complete non-issue, because Marcott et al weren't trying to reconstruct 20th Century temperatures. The intent was to reconstruct temperatures of *thousands of years ago*. That is where the reconstruction is quite robust. <br /><br />We already have a number of robust reconstructions for the past 1 to 2 thousand years (including the 20th Century).<br /><br />The obsession with Marcott et al's 20th century results (a time period that was not the target of their reconstruction) is, frankly, driven by less than honest motives. <br /><br />As for past temperature variations occurring within a century, if there were any past variations comparable to the warming we've seen during the past few decades, what could possibly be responsible? Sudden solar variations? No evidence of that. Atmospheric CO2 "spikes"? No evidence of any of those. And if there were CO2 "spikes", what physical mechanisms would remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere so rapidly that such warming events wouldn't be recorded in the proxy data? <br /><br />There are no plausible physical mechanisms that could cause global temperature swings (on par with the recent temperature increases) of durations too short to be recorded in the proxy data. None. If you don't understand why, then maybe you should enroll in an Earth Science 101 course at a local community college.<br /><br />I'm going to be blunt here -- the attacks on Marcott et al are based on a mixture of incompetence and dishonesty.caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-48336536435219965472014-03-31T03:16:39.986+11:002014-03-31T03:16:39.986+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.caerbannoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03896552738444745753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40088858182312124182014-03-31T03:08:38.170+11:002014-03-31T03:08:38.170+11:00I am not at all surprised that the UWA Vice-Chance...I am not at all surprised that the UWA Vice-Chancellor characterized his requests as <i>"vexatious"</i>. For reference, the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/foia1982222/s89l.html" rel="nofollow">Australian Freedom Of Information Act 1982 - Sect 89L, Vexatious applicants--grounds for declaration, part 4A</a>:<br /><br /><i>"abuse of the process for an access action" includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) harassing or intimidating an individual or an employee of an agency</i><br /><br />The numerous blog posts implying or flatly accusing Lewandowsky of fraud, scam, dishonesty, etc., certainly qualify as harassment.<br /><br />A psychiatrist I know once said, if on <i>first impression</i> someone comes off as an a**hole, they are likely suffering from some form of personality disorder. IMO Steve McIntyre fits the bill in that regard, on first and on subsequent impressions. KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77498097379773208472014-03-31T03:00:13.318+11:002014-03-31T03:00:13.318+11:00Geoff, while it's no surprise for a science de...Geoff, while it's no surprise for a science denier, you are misrepresenting Shawn Marcott.<br /><br />What you (and they) are referring to is the last few years of their reconstruction. About 40 out of the previous 11,300 years. <br /><br />This touches on the very point I was making! McIntyre spent all his time trying to prove wrong what the scientists themselves said was unreliable. He's a nutter. He wasted so much time on that to distract from the main findings of the paper itself - and particularly what that means in regard to our current rapid global warming. <br /><br /><b>We are currently at or maybe hotter than at any time in the past 11,300 years.</b><br /><br />You, too, are confusing the McIntyre tripe with what the scientists themselves write. (At least you had the grace to link to dot earth, even though you didn't understand what I wrote and didn't understand what the scientists found.)<br /><br />HotWhopper readers will know very well that the Marcott study aligned it's data with the instrumental record:<br /><br /><i>To compare our Standard5×5 reconstruction with modern climatology, we aligned the stack's mean for the interval 510 to 1450 yr B.P. (where yr B.P. is years before 1950 CE) with the same interval's mean of the global Climate Research Unit error-in-variables (CRU-EIV) composite temperature record (2), which is, in turn, referenced to the 1961–1990 CE instrumental mean (Fig. 1A). </i><br /><br />I've written about the sort of rubbish you write already.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html<br /><br />You can see the paper itself. It's open access with registration.<br /><br />http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full<br /><br />You'll learn nothing from Steve McIntyre except maybe how to make nasty insinuations about scientists while avoiding libel suits (so far).<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com