tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7451803566421310216..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Paul Homewood and Christopher Booker are wrong about global surface temperaturesSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41613705806895107042016-11-28T17:59:36.780+11:002016-11-28T17:59:36.780+11:00I suspect that Anonymous might just be a troll. S...I suspect that Anonymous might just be a troll. Still, he's reflective of the general condition of conservatives... The facts remain though that science and reality have a left-wing bias, and that right-wing ideology and unrestrained libertarianism cannot be sustained as the dominant paradigm in a world with so many humans and with so much (growing) technological complexity.<br /><br />Readers concerned about the Right's antipathy to progressive social cohesion may be interested to read this piece, as well the comments that follow:<br /><br /><a href="http://theconversation.com/changes-to-radio-national-are-gutting-a-cultural-treasure-trove-69397" rel="nofollow">http://theconversation.com/changes-to-radio-national-are-gutting-a-cultural-treasure-trove-69397</a>Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59501491654735592642016-11-28T11:09:27.019+11:002016-11-28T11:09:27.019+11:00'The Torygraph', I think you'll find. ...'The Torygraph', I think you'll find. But, yeah, it's not the Daily Fail, which is the real prolefeed tabloid. To get the distinction think JS Mill's observations on stupid people.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91242143031783239092016-11-28T09:32:33.856+11:002016-11-28T09:32:33.856+11:00The fact that our anonymous friend thinks the Tele...The fact that our anonymous friend thinks the Telegraph is for intelligent people merely tells us something about him. What a low bar the poor man sets. What's next: is using a knife and fork to be seen as something that only intelligent people do?<br /><br />And the attempt at an insult directed at me rather misfires as my anecdote specifically ruled out me as the person who condemned the paper. I only noted that this example of gutter journalism appears to confirm something I had heard long ago. So a failure in reading comprehension confirms the initial estimate of our anonymous friend's intelligence. Or, rather, the lack of it.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23640160666201274362016-11-28T08:54:55.451+11:002016-11-28T08:54:55.451+11:00Jammy - There was a barrage of spam, so I turned o...Jammy - There was a barrage of spam, so I turned on moderation for a few days. Now moderation has been partially removed but is still on for older articles only. That can mean a bit of a delay before legitimate comments appear.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41885084322963954542016-11-28T08:04:10.624+11:002016-11-28T08:04:10.624+11:00TestTestJammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2622276025233008172016-11-28T07:59:28.873+11:002016-11-28T07:59:28.873+11:00
Anonymous
Ah, just go for the person and imply t...<br />Anonymous<br /><br />Ah, just go for the person and imply they are not intelligent rather than make a sensible point. <br /><br />The Telegraph publishes some good articles from its more serious journalists. But it also publishes some terrible right wing guff.<br /><br />You might say the same about the Guardian So react? Meh.<br /><br />Which is the more trashy mag? Which is more dishonest? Which has more propaganda? Which is less balanced?<br /><br />I expect an intelligent person like you has the correct opinion.<br /><br /> Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17669810903582036842016-11-28T07:48:39.001+11:002016-11-28T07:48:39.001+11:00Anonymous' reaction isn't to the exposure ...Anonymous' reaction isn't to the exposure of the lies by Christopher Booker and Paul Homewood. Instead it's to Millicent's name-calling of his or her favourite paper. I guess for some people, intelligence doesn't count for much compared to loyalty to an ideology.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91232947283333331012016-11-28T02:57:24.402+11:002016-11-28T02:57:24.402+11:00Actually, the Telegraph is for intelligent people ...Actually, the Telegraph is for intelligent people so I am not surprised at your comment. I wonder if I called the Guardian a leftytrashmag whether you might react?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30948358661363770772015-02-20T19:41:42.381+11:002015-02-20T19:41:42.381+11:00VV - "I wonder whether they will print a corr...VV - "I wonder whether they will print a correction now"<br /><br />We formally complained on Februrary 10th:<br /><br /><a href="http://greatwhitecon.info/2015/02/a-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-sunday-telegraph/" rel="nofollow">A Letter to the Editor of the Sunday Telegraph</a><br /><br />The Telegraph's complaints procedure states "We aim to acknowledge your complaint within 5 working days of receipt."<br /><br />We have still received no reply. You do the math!Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53523397171844310792015-02-17T04:21:49.975+11:002015-02-17T04:21:49.975+11:00Ah..... Got it. Thanks.Ah..... Got it. Thanks.FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44204330599489738202015-02-16T21:13:07.040+11:002015-02-16T21:13:07.040+11:00Dr Inferno took this thinking to its logical, most...Dr Inferno took this thinking to its logical, most blog-scientifical conclusion here: http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/how-to-cook-graph-skepticalsciencecom.html<br />lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53799418743741857702015-02-16T14:01:48.190+11:002015-02-16T14:01:48.190+11:00FLwolverine - Gavin Schmidt summed it up well when...FLwolverine - Gavin Schmidt summed it up well <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-412901" rel="nofollow">when he said</a>:<br /><br />[Response: <i>Changing a unit to have a small sounding number doesn’t actually change anything; neither the significance nor the accuracy. But if you want to play rhetorical games, go right ahead – though perhaps not here.</i> – gavin] Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33307248162819925572015-02-16T12:18:12.280+11:002015-02-16T12:18:12.280+11:00OK, my meager science background is revealed. Coul...OK, my meager science background is revealed. Could you please explain what's so funny? (Squares shoulders) I'm ready to be embarrassed.FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60721392927539520922015-02-15T14:18:53.589+11:002015-02-15T14:18:53.589+11:00The comment by Paul Scott provides an interesting ...The comment by Paul Scott provides an interesting case. <br /><br />People who are predisposed to science denial have a tendency to read articles about climate science with a jaundiced eye. Perhaps they really do misread and misunderstand, or perhaps they are seeking attention (ie trolling). <br /><br />It's hard to tell whether it's confirmation bias on Paul's part that causes him to misread the article. Or if Paul knows that he is misrepresenting the HotWhopper article and does it anyway. <br /><br />He could hardly have missed quote from Christopher Booker alleging "greatest scientific scandals of all time", which if he agreed would place him with Christopher as a conspiracy nutter. He may not have seen (unlikely, but possible). the point I made that deniers never mention temperatures adjusted downward. He couldn't possibly have missed the videos by Kevin Cowtan, or the references to other articles on the subject.<br /><br />Instead he makes a leap in the wrong direction. Paul Scott wrote:<br /><br /><i>"I glean from reading this stuff; that no one denies, that temperatures have been adjusted upward, in the interests of good science; but that anybody who states this, is a liar, and in denial of being as denialist. "</i><br /><br />In that statement Paul wrongly concludes that I am labeling scientists and climate hawks as "deniers" - scientists such as Kevin Cowtan, Victor Venema, Rasmus E. Benestad of RealClimate.org; science writers like Phil Plait, John Timmer; and he's even alleging I am calling myself a "denier".<br /><br />Paul these people cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called science deniers. That term is reserved for people like Christopher Booker and Paul Homewood. (And if you think the cap fits you as well, by all means don it.) <br /><br />Paul's closing <i>"You people are clinical"</i> suggests that he views climate discussions in "them and us" terms, putting himself on the "side" that is anti-science.<br /><br />Paul, if you still don't understand the point of this article, then by all means ask about the bit you don't understand.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36259648689529705522015-02-15T12:32:58.608+11:002015-02-15T12:32:58.608+11:00Paul Scott when discussing this issue you must be ...Paul Scott when discussing this issue you must be aware that The Telegraph has asserted fraudulent conduct. Effectively that accusation is against scientists at Berkeley Earth, CRU, Hadley and more.<br />That malicious allegation has been disproven. Curry reckons the malicious and false allegation of wide spread inter-organisational fraud is <i>overblown</i> .In selecting those words she joined The Telegraph's defamation of good people doing good science.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29648078115239919832015-02-15T10:51:12.905+11:002015-02-15T10:51:12.905+11:00These are past temperatures, so raising them reduc...These are past temperatures, so raising them reduces the trend. I'd have thought people would take a little comfort from that, but you can never please everybody. Some people you can never please at all.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26618342647113913182015-02-15T10:50:03.644+11:002015-02-15T10:50:03.644+11:00These are past temperatures, so raising them reduc...These are past temperatures, so raising them reduces the trend. I'd have thought people would take a little comfort from that, but you can never please everybody. Some people you can never please at all.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57423223274016342422015-02-15T09:01:25.087+11:002015-02-15T09:01:25.087+11:00Many have also been adjusted down. In fact, if you...Many have also been adjusted down. In fact, if you use just unadjusted temp data, it shows temps are actually slightly higher. This means the effects of all the adjusting in total has slightly lowered the temps. <br /><br />(Re)Read the article. If you're still confused just ask---there's a mass of links from real scientists and distinguished scientific organizations that people would be happy to give you.Dan Andrewsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58194086876701414252015-02-15T07:12:16.100+11:002015-02-15T07:12:16.100+11:00Perhaps you have not gleaned well enough. Try read...Perhaps you have not gleaned well enough. Try reading again with a bit more comprehension and it may become clearer to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71657033098135733702015-02-15T07:08:25.226+11:002015-02-15T07:08:25.226+11:00Is falsely claiming the temperature record is bein...Is falsely claiming the temperature record is being doctored to misrepresent the magnitude of global warming OK by you then?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35124024511960823272015-02-15T07:02:41.115+11:002015-02-15T07:02:41.115+11:00It used to be called lying. Now its called adding...It used to be called lying. Now its called adding balance.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70631803929384989932015-02-15T07:02:27.259+11:002015-02-15T07:02:27.259+11:00I glean from reading this stuff; that no one deni...I glean from reading this stuff; that no one denies, that temperatures have been adjusted upward, in the interests of good science; but that anybody who states this, is a liar, and in denial of being as denialist. You people are clinical paul scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15675247055484136242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44786009446126157222015-02-15T04:39:27.415+11:002015-02-15T04:39:27.415+11:00I know. I was lying :)I know. I was lying :)Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61016663532239379872015-02-14T23:49:52.932+11:002015-02-14T23:49:52.932+11:00No Cugel it would be a stinking lie. No Cugel it would be a stinking lie. PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36696884669351677182015-02-14T14:15:49.128+11:002015-02-14T14:15:49.128+11:00No, PG, that would be irony. Irony is not lying.No, PG, that would be irony. Irony is not lying.Cugelnoreply@blogger.com