tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6897766155639142138..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: A blow to smear merchants and disinformersSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45631256061637041332014-04-21T09:04:19.360+10:002014-04-21T09:04:19.360+10:00Some of the comments -- about how the folks whinin...Some of the comments -- about how the folks whining about personal emails could just do the experiments/research themselves -- remind me of one of the more striking bits from biorhythm history. <br /><br />Some 40 years ago, I read an article in Science Digest (now defunct) about biorhythms, and how you had cycles of 33, 28, 23 (or whatever) days that affected your mental, physical, and emotional status. Then ... blah blah, and blah. Striking in the article was mention that there were streamer trunks just full of data making the case, but that they were on a ship which was sunk during World War II (another 30 years previously). Even as someone 40 years younger than my current 25, that rang a loud alarm bell.<br /><br />The point of the story, though, isn't that bit of ancient history. It is that 10 years ago or so, when I was teaching astronomy again, I pulled out a couple recent books on biorhythms. They were _still_ bemoaning the loss of those steamer trunks of data, 30 years after the previous books, 60 years after the event. None of the supporters had ever gotten around to collecting new data.<br /><br />The whinging about Mann et al. 1998/9 seems a fair bid to challenge the biorhythms. This time with the 'improvement' that since the whingers don't produce anything themselves, just complaints about ever more ancient history, there's no end to the complaining possible. As with the biorhythm people, if they had any scientific point, they could just go collect and analyze data themselves.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10129517121393735692014-04-20T07:06:47.653+10:002014-04-20T07:06:47.653+10:00"SouApril 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Different fiel..."SouApril 18, 2014 at 1:56 PM<br /><br />Different field, different data and different reasons. The comments so far have been about weather observations and climate science - not personal data and cognitive science."<br /><br />To someone like Eric who thinks the scientists are just in it for the grant money directed by political conspiracy or maybe are just "true believers" Lewandowsky is just another facet of the conspiracy so they don't make the distinction.riveratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40008772791194445002014-04-19T07:46:51.779+10:002014-04-19T07:46:51.779+10:00"... and things in your possession ..."
..."... and things in your possession ..."<br /><br />Shame they didn't think to keep their used toilet-paper; they could have posted that off to ATI first, with a "More follows" note.<br /><br />This was never meant to be complied with, of course. The point is to screech "They must be concealing something!" when it's refused. When they do get data, legally or illegally, it's always a disappointment, requiring countless hours of editing and re-arranging to make anything even remotely useful.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59660343214723873742014-04-19T07:23:36.734+10:002014-04-19T07:23:36.734+10:00Anonymous said on April 18, 2014 at 2:25 PM
If cl...Anonymous said on April 18, 2014 at 2:25 PM<br /><br />If climate science is actively encouraging the general public to access data, then why did Phil Jones reply to a request for data with... "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."<br /><br />Ask Phil Jones. But my guess is that he knows the difference between "...your aim is to evaluate the data and judge how accurate it is" and "...your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."<br /><br />Do you?<br /><br />A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19196144104475109622014-04-19T04:40:42.199+10:002014-04-19T04:40:42.199+10:00And it's not just emails. They wanted the enti...And it's not just emails. They <a href="http://www.virginia.edu/foia/climatechange/pdf/2011-01-06-Schnare%20et%20al-request-Mann%20records%20with%20attachment.pdf" rel="nofollow">wanted the entire fish tank</a>:<br /><br /><i>"15. The scope of this request is to reach any and all data, documents and things in your possession, including those stored or residing on any of the specified or referenced (see FN 1, supra) computers, hard drives, desktops, laptops, file servers, database servers, email servers or other systems where data was transmitted or stored on purpose or as a result of transient use of a system or application in the course of day to day research or product processing work that is owned or contracted for by you or any of your officers, managers, employees, agents, board members, academic departments, divisions, programs, IT department, contractors and other representatives.<br /><br />"As used herein, the words "record", "records", "document" or "documents" mean the original and any copies of any written, printed, typed, electronic, or graphic matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced, any book, pamphlet, brochure, periodical, newspaper, letter, correspondence, memoranda, notice, facsimile, e-mail, manual, press release, telegram, report, study, handwritten note, working paper, chart, paper, graph, index, tape, data sheet, data processing card, or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter now in your possession, custody or control."</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-78192975045284452242014-04-18T23:49:49.532+10:002014-04-18T23:49:49.532+10:00The ATI, now called Energy & Environment Legal...The ATI, now called Energy & Environment Legal Institute, is basically a front organisation for the fossil fuel industry.<br /><br />It has some very interesting ties, and some very shady dealings. The hypocrisy knows no bounds. One of it's members runs the junkscience blog.<br /><br />For further information on this truly vile organisation check this out.<br /><br />http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_%26_Environment_Legal_Institute<br /><br />http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html<br /><br />I for one am glad that this vexatious fishing expedition by a grubby and unethical fossil fuel front has been quashed.<br /><br />The fact that people like Worrall, Watts and their ilk support this affront to science is truly disgusting. You can bet that if these emails were released Worrall would be the first to create an app with them (like he did with the climategate emails). He is a truly vile, repugnant and reprehensible individual.<br /><br />I think that any more posts by Worrall should be immediately binned, and that he should be permanently banned. He just makes my skin crawl and my stomach turn.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9142170080646685462014-04-18T23:22:19.043+10:002014-04-18T23:22:19.043+10:00Anonymous, well said.
I once suggested to a denie...Anonymous, well said.<br /><br />I once suggested to a denier who was hot under the collar about Cook and the 97% consensus that anyone could repeat the procedure and publish the results. I got deafened by the sound of tumbleweed. I don't think deniers are interested in the truth, just slowing down the research.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90745375061770276732014-04-18T21:52:20.329+10:002014-04-18T21:52:20.329+10:00Doug Keenan has conspicuously failed to find anyth...Doug Keenan has conspicuously failed to find anything 'wrong' with Prof Mike Ballie's hard earned data. <br /><br />Perhaps Doug is now, as we speak, trudging accross some stinky, midge infested swamp, in his wading boots, gripping grimly onto his chainsaw in a renewed effort to blow this huge gloabl conspiracy.Thelarchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83411421934271097912014-04-18T21:19:10.812+10:002014-04-18T21:19:10.812+10:00eric, what data, specifically, do you want that yo...eric, what data, specifically, do you want that you aren't able to get because it's being hidden from you? if you got said data, would you do anything with it? what would you do with it? do you honestly think any of these skeptics have any intention of trying to replicate results, or do you think they are on a nitpicking expedition? can you give some examples of skeptics getting the data they think is fraudulent and finding out that it was? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-697511303079407262014-04-18T21:01:51.265+10:002014-04-18T21:01:51.265+10:00We will now be chastised for bringing the daughter...We will now be chastised for bringing the daughter into the debate ;)<br /><br />"If she turns out not to be a denier, would he feel vindicated that she can think for herself? Interesting to see how that one pans out."<br /><br />By that time all Worall will be forgotten (never mind, we already know how that 'll pan out). There will be some new, even more crazy scam, as AGW has hit earth for like six to ten more years and if the past few years of world weather escalations are anything to go by we're in for an incredible wild ride.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19066869503407393562014-04-18T20:41:40.040+10:002014-04-18T20:41:40.040+10:00Two points...
1) In even the most acrimonious sci...Two points...<br /><br />1) In even the most acrimonious scientific debate in the professional literature I've never seen anyone ask holus-bolus for all of their opponent's private emails.<br /><br />2) I once blew the whistle on a data-fabricator. In the academic investigation that followed there was no requirement for a wholesale delivery of private emails, despite the intense grilling, interviewing, and procedural review that resulted.<br /><br />In fact I would challenge anyone to point to any issue in science where a real, genuinely-instigated investigation has asked for the sort of access to private correspondence that the Denialati ask of Mann.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12475482555930397042014-04-18T20:37:02.721+10:002014-04-18T20:37:02.721+10:00I had a discussion with one of my students about o...I had a discussion with one of my students about opinion and making your own mind up in science. I pointed out that it is evidence that matters and no one gives a fig what the scientist's opinion is. Eric's daughter ought to have the opinion that the Earth is the centre of the Universe. That's the only sensible conclusion from what she sees with her own eyes. Would he accept that?<br /><br />Eric's daughter will have to do much more studying than he seems to have done before she can have a valid scientific opinion based on real evidence. If she turns out not to be a denier, would he feel vindicated that she can think for herself? Interesting to see how that one pans out.<br />Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39942740820384615782014-04-18T20:06:13.060+10:002014-04-18T20:06:13.060+10:00"...or that they 'make their own mind up&...<b>"...or that they 'make their own mind up', or don't follow the 'groupthink..."</b><br /><br />I have often thought this rather over-developed and misplaced sense of individualism is part of the problem of denialism. Somehow, only making your own mind up and not listening or not agreeing with the group enhances your rugged individualism. Of course it is an illusion because it is extremely difficult to not build your opinions from other people's, if not impossible.. And it is just as strongly individual to listen to the group and decide the group ideas are correct and agree with them - it does not diminish individuality at all. <br /><br />Often when "discussing" with deniers I note that they think discussion and debate is only about winning - not an exchange of ideas and information that may mean you change and adjust your thinking and position in the light of new information. Deniers see it as losing the argument and therefore some sort of reflection that you are weak or lacking in backbone. This is why they appear to get more and more stubborn, entrenched and irrational as the discussion progresses. Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90056869249530977262014-04-18T19:58:35.608+10:002014-04-18T19:58:35.608+10:00Dave, I totally agree with you. Reality isn't ...Dave, I totally agree with you. Reality isn't going to change the minds of deniers. When I said game over, I meant that virtually no one outside their castle walls would take them seriously. A big temperature spike this year would make the it hasn't warmed for x years look silly. Rose in the Daily Mail would be ignored.<br /><br />Of course, I am an optimist.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49525532207184673992014-04-18T19:47:37.592+10:002014-04-18T19:47:37.592+10:00"... or is it double standards" - and e..."... or is it double standards" - and evil with a fascist to totalitarian aspiration. The sentiment that oozes out of all those climate revisionists is they want to dictate speech and scientific endeavour of which the latter had better be destroyed, because for these people logic is toxic and facts are taboo. Inquisition 2.0 .<br /><br />Eric 'Eugenetics' Worrall, what a coincidence - again: so Worrall wants to lead the Brave New World? <br />"what I want is for my little girl to be able to make her own mind up" said he, I don't think so and in that post he can't hide what he really wants. He want his little girl to copy dad's malignant mind. Poor girl. Can we invoke a FOIA to check out his parenting, for the sake of science naturally?cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60728801027071167552014-04-18T19:01:52.075+10:002014-04-18T19:01:52.075+10:00Catmando wrote
"Those deniers sure are desper...Catmando wrote<br />"Those deniers sure are desperate. If El Niño does arrive this year, it could be game over for them."<br /><br />Na, I don't think so. To paraphrase a famous quote "Climate change denial reduces one funeral at a time"<br /><br />It's funny how deniers will often say that they are critical thinkers, or that they 'make their own mind up', or don't follow the 'groupthink', but when some hopelessly unqualified joker, from some 'think tank', or some ex-fossil fuel executive says something like there has been no warming, or the IPCC can't be trusted, they all unquestioningly and blindly fall into unison, like they are 'speaking to me'. Oh, the hypocrisy. There is also another saying that you don't want such an open mind that your brain falls out. <br /><br />How many times has WUWT actually had a guest post by an actual professor in atmospheric science. No, they have an unqualified Joe Bloggs, like Steele or Worrall, parading logical fallacies and falsehoods. While most of the population have kicked their Morton's daemon to the curb, deniers actively feed them with the nonsense of quote-mining, stolen emails and character assassination. Ideological bloggers will bombard the scientists with vexatious requests for information, bogging down their legitimate research, and when rebuffed, will cry conspiracy and stonewalling. What we never see is an actual alternate model for the warming, or actual research. They instead will obsessively hold onto outmoded and debunked views, like the MWP was warmer, or the scientists are hiding data. The same sort of thing occurred during late last century, when flat earthers would stand on street corners, abusing everyone who would pass by, and would actually offer rewards to anyone who could actually prove that the earth was a sphere. They never relented and died still holding their wacky beliefs. Unfortunately, human nature hasn't changed, and as Lewandowski wrote in Recursive Fury, trying to interact with thin is fruitless.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51669285077877932582014-04-18T18:32:45.964+10:002014-04-18T18:32:45.964+10:00It was funny to watch the whole Tolgate scenario r...It was funny to watch the whole Tolgate scenario recently. Here was a guy who stated on forums that the Cook et al paper probably was correct in saying that AGW is well accepted and true, but harassed the team for "data." Then, his skin turned thin when demands were made on him because errors were found in his papers. BTW, this example is minor in comparison to asking for years of emails without any good reason. Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70184142966916074272014-04-18T18:27:17.438+10:002014-04-18T18:27:17.438+10:00Well said. Can you imagine how slow particle phys...Well said. Can you imagine how slow particle physics, for example, would move if finding a 4-quark particle demonstrated the need for significant policy changes or challenges to people's worldviews? (BTW, a 4 quark particle was just found and, no, it won't affect your ability to drive a big car so please don't start FOI requests.) This is what it's all about, right? It's not about the science or ATI/Steve/Eric/etc.'s inquiries would have led to huge advances in climate science, which it hasn't. It's not about the science because, as this specific article shows, it's about requests for emails not data. Finally, it's not about science because the data is transparent as you just said Sou. It's about wasting time to prevent more science.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65191652331897865712014-04-18T18:06:34.588+10:002014-04-18T18:06:34.588+10:00Yes, this has always been amazing to me. If the el...Yes, this has always been amazing to me. If the elementary basis of morality is the golden rule - 'Do unto others...' - how could anyone imagine it was somehow just to force others into making personal disclosures they'd never, ever, voluntarily make themselves? Let alone condone - in fact, relish - its being done by stealth?<br /><br />I mean; what couldn't be done with a bit of careful editing - and creative reconstruction! - of a decade or so of Eric's correspondence, or Watts', or Jo Nova's? <i>If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.</i> as Cardinal Richelieu said...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63570727555637750882014-04-18T17:53:47.615+10:002014-04-18T17:53:47.615+10:00When you think about it, if the best that the deni...When you think about it, if the best that the deniers can do is drag up hacked emails and fudged attempts at discrediting the hockey stick then the deniers might as well admit they haven't got any real evidence and give up. Would that that were the case. <br /><br />By the way, the Hotwhoppery is an excellent way of keeping the discussions under control and not letting the poor, sensitive souls like Stainless Steele and Eric 'Eugenics' Worrall run back to their nanny Watts and cry that you're deleting their posts and how censorship is bad.<br /><br />Those deniers sure are desperate. If El Niño does arrive this year, it could be game over for them.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79563164757105726522014-04-18T17:32:29.167+10:002014-04-18T17:32:29.167+10:00At the risk of being deleted without trace, I'...At the risk of being deleted without trace, I'd respectfully like to ask Eric to send me the last 10 years of his private email corresponance so I may forensically analyse them, quote mine, and otherwise mangle, to make out he's an intelligent poster acting in good faith and not the pompous waste of space he comes across as. <br /><br />Thanks.Thelarchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12246699278416310712014-04-18T15:45:28.134+10:002014-04-18T15:45:28.134+10:00Eric, as ever with your crowd this always bears re...Eric, as ever with your crowd this always bears restating: Climategate is over. You lost.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2496397173728079832014-04-18T15:14:50.730+10:002014-04-18T15:14:50.730+10:00I wouldn't as a rule do this but will make an ...I wouldn't as a rule do this but will make an exception, if only to illustrate the perfidy of fake sceptics.<br /><br /><b>Firstly,</b> when that email was written, FOI legislation had only been in effect for around six weeks. In any case the response was not related to an FOI request.<br /><br /><b>Secondly,</b> as is usual, Anonymous does not write the comment in context, which demonstrates that the author of the email, although clearly frustrated by the vexatious harasser, did not leave the enquirer hanging, but explained the reasons for not dropping what they were doing and spending time to give him everything he wanted, and instead explained what data he was willing to provide and helpfully pointed him to alternative sources of information, writing:<br /><br /><i>I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years investedin the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.<br /><br />You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn't restricted there. Several European countries are. Basically because, for example, France doesn't want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo Francewants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.</i><br /><br /><b>Thirdly,</b> the following comment illustrates the bind researchers find themselves in when they get targeted by vexatious fake sceptics (<a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=5&t=209&&n=159#674" rel="nofollow">from pjclarke</a>)<br /><br /><i>You're in real trouble now, Professor. You've come to the attention of The Auditor. He has asked you Questions. You now have two choices:-<br /><br />(1) You could assume the questions are posed in good faith, The Auditor is genuinely interested in the knowing the answers, and will make constructive and reasonable use of the information. This would be a category error. It's like those email scams where if you respond the spammers know the address they've hit is real. Next thing you know there will be a second round of followup questions, and so on ad nauseum. Dr Gerald North writes:-<br /><br />"This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.” <br /><br />Do you really want that?<br /><br />(2) You ignore the questions. This will lead to a post at the Audit weblog using words like 'stonewall', 'petulance', 'refusal'. You won't be directly accused of malpractice or fraud, naturally, however the comments will be a playground where those with a desire to speculate about 'What is Lewandowsky hiding?' will be given free rein. There will then be a short hiatus during which you may think your life is getting back to normal, but then the orchestrated FOI requests for any and all emails relating to the paper will start ...<br /><br />Do you really want that? <br /><br />There is no 3rd choice.</i><br /><br /><b>Finally:</b> any further comments about climategate will be deleted without trace. If anyone wants to revisit the matter you can do so <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html" rel="nofollow">here at the Union of Concerned Scientists</a>. That article also lists some of the enquiries - all of which cleared scientists of wrong-doing.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90358823190209595532014-04-18T15:02:09.021+10:002014-04-18T15:02:09.021+10:00I see that no-one has identified any other field o...I see that no-one has identified any other field of science (or any academic field) that is more transparent, that actively encourages the public to access data. Not only that, but it provides tools, frequent updates to make it easy for people to access and understand the information. There are scientific organisations that provide live charts of all sorts of information. There are blogs at which you can directly interact with some of the world's leading climate scientists. There are thousands of person hours volunteered by scientists all around the world, in a giant international collaboration, to compile the latest research into volumes so that people can keep up with current knowledge.<br /><br />There is surely no other field of academic interest that is more accessible, where scientists, universities and other research organisations bend over backwards to keep the public informed. With information in a wide variety of formats to make it accessible to people having some and having no scientific training whatsoever.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2947580663320025892014-04-18T14:42:05.861+10:002014-04-18T14:42:05.861+10:00Because McIntyre is a lying, cheating, dishonest p...Because McIntyre is a lying, cheating, dishonest prick. In short.<br />dhogazanoreply@blogger.com