tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8258766345179038196..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Irony alert! More conspiracy plots discovered at WUWT and elsewhere...Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27335653350528796072014-09-10T00:50:12.260+10:002014-09-10T00:50:12.260+10:00No. It was some script kiddie, who makes a habit o...No. It was some script kiddie, who makes a habit of scraping urls to see what open window he can find to break into. He mostly targets SkS AFAIK, but he could wander further afield I suppose.<br /><br />http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/and-then-they-attack-you.htmlSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22779147300957388712014-09-09T23:36:06.145+10:002014-09-09T23:36:06.145+10:00Thanks. Were these photos stolen as part of the b...Thanks. Were these photos stolen as part of the big hack? PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23272411425916219752014-09-09T22:35:07.322+10:002014-09-09T22:35:07.322+10:00GSR, there's an article about that here at HW:...GSR, there's an article about that here at HW:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-fails-to-save-face.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-fails-to-save-face.html</a><br /><br />See the comments, too. More here plus comments also:<br /><br /><a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theorist-anthony-watts.html" rel="nofollow">http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theorist-anthony-watts.html</a><br /><br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22258816127065003012014-09-09T22:12:54.256+10:002014-09-09T22:12:54.256+10:00WUWT has this stuff
http://wattsupwiththat.com/20...WUWT has this stuff <br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/08/monday-mirthiness-97-hours-97-opinions-97-consensus/<br />running now where Watts misrepresents Dr. Craig Loehle's proxie temperature reconstructions and gets called out by....Dr Craig Leohle forcing Watts to correct it. <br /><br />He also suggests that the animated arm waves of the SkS's 97 caricatured scientists are reminiscent of Nazi salutes. He then talks about John and Dana photoshopping themselves into Nazi costumes. There's a shopped picture of John dressed as a Nazi in the comments section. What's this all about?PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45248727915981283092014-08-09T21:46:42.762+10:002014-08-09T21:46:42.762+10:00When it comes to anything hinting of climate chang...When it comes to anything hinting of climate change denial, I am full of snark. Just how many times can you answer crap about "no warming since the 1998 El Nino" before all your patience is gone?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23205383413817453372014-08-08T22:59:33.363+10:002014-08-08T22:59:33.363+10:00Ah, so you've managed to make the unit cost of...Ah, so you've managed to make the unit cost of electricity high, which drives individuals to tack solar panels on their own roofs -- brilliant!<br /><br />Do rooftop solar panels get counted in the electricity usage numbers?numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17523981460663130712014-08-08T22:42:31.832+10:002014-08-08T22:42:31.832+10:00Yes, sadly we're being held to ransom by idiot...Yes, sadly we're being held to ransom by idiots (the sheer scale of imbecility coming out of Canberra at the moment has achieved a kind of perverse grandeur! Pyne, Abetz, Brandis, Hunt and Abbott seem to be attempting to outdo each other in some bizarre situationist - if not outright dadaist - performance piece...)<br /><br />But the sheer scale of solar uptake is actually one of the factors driving the crisis in the conventional generation model. And we just don't use as much electricity as we used to!<br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-08/australia-faces-unprecedented-oversupply-of-energy-report-says/5658926<br /><br />Interesting times...<br /><br />billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25647204724472823682014-08-08T22:04:03.139+10:002014-08-08T22:04:03.139+10:00I'd expect Australia to be coated in solar pan...I'd expect Australia to be coated in solar panels by now. Too bad for your idiot PM (not that my PM is any better).<br /><br />http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australias-renewable-energy-industry-grinds-to-a-halt-20140716-ztio2.htmlnumerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5670646785863682842014-08-08T18:34:57.370+10:002014-08-08T18:34:57.370+10:00"Science vs Conspiracy: collective narratives..."Science vs Conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of (mis)information"<br />Alessandro Bessi, Mauro Coletto, George Alexandru Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Walter Quattrociocchi<br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1667<br /><br />The troublesome aspect of this is that the deniers are convinced that the roles are reversed. They think that their conspiracy is the science while the mainstream science is the conspiracy.<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49479684139414743672014-08-08T15:38:57.062+10:002014-08-08T15:38:57.062+10:00"Before that, the state’s 1,200MW of wind far..."<i>Before that, the state’s 1,200MW of wind farms had provided around 28 per cent of the state’s electricity demand in 2012/13.</i>"<br /><br />http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-wind-energy-jumps-to-43-in-july-88992<br /><br />(Check out the graph. The industry has really turned around Snowtown's economy - it's ~$8K a year per turbine to host, folks, whether it's a good season otherwise, or not - and whole image after the 'bodies in barrels' tragedy.)<br /><br />I agree the daily stuff means little - we frequently get well over 50% on individual days now (this is, after all, a freakin' blowy place!) - but that's a whole year! I well remember sententious 'now then children' lectures that we'd never get over 10-12%... If we do build solar-thermal at Port Augusta we may make some <i>really</i> serious inroads into the fossil mindset.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52112472526436584712014-08-08T14:30:29.421+10:002014-08-08T14:30:29.421+10:00That's for a whole month. Excellent. We used t...That's for a whole month. Excellent. We used to get numbers for a day, which didn't mean a whole lot. I see Germany is up to around 30% renewable these days too. It's about time Victoria ramped up wind power.<br /><br />All the "stone age" alarmism from fake sceptics is sounding very hollow :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35456249408602017492014-08-08T14:18:05.063+10:002014-08-08T14:18:05.063+10:00Sorry about the OT, but I thought this worth shari...Sorry about the OT, but I thought this worth sharing: <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/8/8/wind-power/south-australia-hits-43-wind-mark" rel="nofollow">South Australia hits 43% renewable electricity for July</a>. No disasters ensue. Go figure...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20998441367578136422014-08-08T13:17:06.271+10:002014-08-08T13:17:06.271+10:00Thanks, Matt. IMO it's human nature to be more...Thanks, Matt. IMO it's human nature to be more comfortable with people who agree with you or are like you in many ways. Not many people differ in that regard. Comfort takes precedence. People have to force themselves to read stuff or go to sources that make them squirm a bit - not just on climate but on current affairs and other subjects as well. (Some of our newspapers here have one or two columnists that are of a different political leaning to the main slant of the newspaper. I'm not sure if it's to provide more balance on topical subjects or to give their readers something to get mad about :D.)<br /><br />The thing is, I've learnt an awful lot about climate science firstly by engaging with deniers (at HotCopper mainly) and later by watching WUWT and a few other denier blogs. I investigated the denier memes. Firstly by reading blogs and websites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate.org and BoM, NASA, CSIRO etc to find out the real story. These days I spend more time reading the scientific papers on different subjects. It's been a good learning experience. I'm no expert by any means. I've barely scratched the surface. At least I'm learning where to look for information. And though I'm no expert, I know as much about climate now as I do about any hobby I've ever had, probably a lot more.)<br /><br />Back when I was posting about climate on HotCopper, occasionally deniers would cite WUWT as a source. I'd check it out but never saw it as a serious web site. It seemed more like a conspiracy theory site for nutters at the time. A joke. Not worth any time at all. I've got to know it better over the past few months. It is overwhelmed by utter nutters, which puts it in the fringe. Anthony Watts doesn't help either, although I do think that if he made the effort he might understand some of the science. But that's not the business he's in, so why would he bother? He's in the business of stoking fear about climate mitigation action and ridiculing scientific research. What drives him is ideology and the attention he gets. He's a bit like Jose Duarte and Judith Curry. It doesn't matter who gives the attention, they'll chase it wherever it leads them and do whatever it takes to get the biggest crowd.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27069684138225450152014-08-08T12:53:18.864+10:002014-08-08T12:53:18.864+10:00Matt, I don't understand your point. If a pape...Matt, I don't understand your point. If a paper expressed no position (ie was neutral) then it cannot be counted as having a position. You cannot report that it takes a position when it doesn't. You cannot argue, for example, that by not mentioning that DNA plays a role in inheritance, a paper on inheritance doesn't accept the role of DNA. Nor can you argue that it does. It is probably fair to assume that it does, because these days almost all scientists who study genetics would accept that DNA plays a role, even though they may not explicitly say so in every published paper. Also, probably most papers on genetics these days are built upon the knowledge that DNA plays a role, even if they don't explicitly state it one way or another. Without doing any analysis, it could be 97% of geneticists who accept the role of DNA and build upon this knowledge in their work. It could even be 97% of biologists. Without doing an analysis of papers I couldn't say.<br /><br />As for 4b - the way I read it is that these papers were originally included in 4 as a "neutral" category, but after completing the analysis, the researchers decided to split the "neither accept nor reject" into a category of "not take any position" and "take an explicit position of "not know"".<br /><br />Therefore they took a sample and, extrapolating from the sample, estimated that 40 papers fell into 4b. This wasn't included in the 97%. It was only 0.3% of all papers anyway, so is even less consequential than the 78 papers that either implicitly or explicitly reject humans as being the main cause of global warming.<br /><br />I don't know what data you think hasn't been made available. If you are referring to 4b, then the number was an estimate based on extrapolation of a sample. So you won't get a list of the 40.<br /><br />As you'll have already found, since you did an exercise yourself (kudos for that by the way), all the information needed to redo the study was made available by the research team. <br /><br />If anyone wanted to do an analysis their own way, they can do so. As others have done (eg James Powell).<br /><br />My exasperation was because you posited (using the converse of your numbers) that a huge proportion of scientific papers reject the notion that humans are causing global warming. It's obvious to anyone who reads science that's not the case. Almost all science is built on the knowledge that it's rising CO2, from human activity, that has caused most if not all of the recent global warming, offset to some extent by aerosols - again mostly from human activity.<br /><br />The correct number is 97%, not 65% or 35%. Anything else is flawed logic.<br /><br />All the information is right there in the Cook paper and in scientific journals. The reason fake sceptics play with the numbers is because they don't want the world to know that this is a fundamental fact. Well, most of them have shifted to accepting reality in that regard now, they've moved on to "but pause" or "it won't be bad". It doesn't seem to stop them from wanting to deny that climate scientists know what is causing global warming.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42010443427490245092014-08-08T11:20:11.049+10:002014-08-08T11:20:11.049+10:00Matt,
You raise an interesting question. Where t...Matt,<br /><br />You raise an interesting question. Where to bin people who say explicitly "I don't know!", as opposed to not mentioning the subject at all. I don't know how many CS papers you've looked at, I'm pretty sure my count is several hundred. I have yet to see a paper that upfront says "answer hazy try again later". I have yet to have anyone cite such a paper, even if I know Curry's "Uncertainty Monster" paper does stake that claim. One paper. I suspect the numbers in 4b are close to zero. So more than likely it changes 97.3% to 97.25%. And I don't buy subtracting category 4 out entirely as you seem to want to do. I don't expect every paper in virology or immunology to address Duesberg's worries about HIV causing AIDS, even if they're talking about HIV DNA or protein folding. I don't expect every paper on the behavior of some gas to explicitly endorse or reject Henry's and Boyle's laws, and I don't expect papers on the thermodynamics properties of systems to take a position on the 3 laws of thermodynamics. <br /><br />But then here's a proposition for you.... take any of those kinds of scientific systems I mention and score them with category 4 removed. THEN compare climate science with those other systems. Good luck.Dave123http://www.skepticalscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33456373595839516802014-08-08T10:12:55.739+10:002014-08-08T10:12:55.739+10:00"They come into the climate debate with preco..."They come into the climate debate with preconceived notions, and they latch on to those handful of dissenting scientists who agree with them. ... This is pure confirmation bias"<br /><br />I'd apply it more widely and to many more fields than climate science, but it's so true it's universal. <br /><br />On WUWT, I once wrote that skeptics should read this blog. (I think) My comment did not auto-post because I used the phrase HotWhopper, but it was published after a few minutes. <br /><br />The response to my comment surprised me. Even if you think HowWhopper is full of crap, the posts are quick reads and, overlooking the liberal use of snark, full of useful info. <br /><br />Apparently reading any view which dissents from your own is taboo. I didn't get it. <br /><br />I wasn't advocating shaking hands, scheduling play dates or sleepovers. And I know there's not enough time to read or to consume everything on a topic, but knowing what your competitors are up to and understanding their POV is a fantastic way to stay relevant.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13066243144187067635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83548382882924173222014-08-08T09:32:50.023+10:002014-08-08T09:32:50.023+10:00I come here with a reasoned question and this is h...I come here with a reasoned question and this is how I'm treated!?!<br /><br />Just kidding. With a name like mine, I'm used to being walked on.<br /><br />I do admire the way you implied the answer is there in front of me if only I looked harder. I've noticed it's a common device used by scientists across the spectrum of climate science.<br /><br />That said ...<br /><br />I still don't understand why endorsement 4 was the only endorsement split. <br /><br />And I don't get the reason the paper defines 4a as "does not address or mention cause of global warming" and 4b "expresses position ... uncertain" and then groups them in the end result as "no position". That seems off.<br /><br />The first pattern that comes to mind is atheist, agnostic, theist. In Cook et al, the agnostics didn't count.<br /><br />Though not at 97%, Cook et al would likely still have had the majority supporting AGW. <br /><br />The team took the trouble of splitting 4a and 4b, why not share the data?<br /><br />----------------------<br />@Millicent, I know right? Like the famous philosopher said, "I publish, therefore I am. All others need not exist. Now pass the gravy." Or something like that.<br /><br />I'm with you on this. Everyone knows published papers are the holy grail ... and the pellet with the poison is in the vessel with the pestle and the chalice with the palace has the brew that is true.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13066243144187067635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59997047253571188482014-08-08T08:01:38.027+10:002014-08-08T08:01:38.027+10:00Ah, "popular" for the hotwhoppery wasn&#...Ah, "popular" for the hotwhoppery wasn't where I expected to find it -- it's more infamous than famous ;) Thanks!numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44082984194284792242014-08-08T07:20:50.636+10:002014-08-08T07:20:50.636+10:00hazym
If you don't want to have your comments...hazym<br /><br />If you don't want to have your comments removed, try to avoid tendentious and unsubstantiated claims about eg. Cook et al. and instead focus on the substantive. <br /><br />You appear to believe that the scientific understanding of atmospheric physics is flawed. Describe how, and support your argument with references to the published literature. <br /><br />If you can't do this, then ask yourself what you are arguing about. <br /><br />If it's not science but policy, then argue policy. Denying the scientific evidence leads nowhere and is corrosive to your credibility. <br /><br />Whilst I don't agree with say, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/" rel="nofollow">Tim Worstall</a> on climate change economics, I've a hell of a lot more time for arguments that accept the scientific consensus.<br /><br />Instead of trolling, you might find your voice. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3502118359518215302014-08-08T06:28:16.101+10:002014-08-08T06:28:16.101+10:00Joe
Sorry BBD, should've guessed you were res...Joe<br /><br /><i>Sorry BBD, should've guessed you were responding already</i><br /><br />Please, comment as you see fit. Never mind me. The more the merrier.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86394322799488379022014-08-08T05:40:29.757+10:002014-08-08T05:40:29.757+10:00Agreed, he has that naive attitude of the PhD cand...Agreed, he has that naive attitude of the PhD candidate or even newly minted PhD that he will not fall foul of the errors he sees others making. Hopefully he will soon learn that science, like all things, is done by humans, and that none of us, not even Jose, are perfect. Mike Pollardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50067578204858779202014-08-08T02:18:41.872+10:002014-08-08T02:18:41.872+10:00His conduct and Blog content is all rather opinion...His conduct and Blog content is all rather opinionated (in the "what I'm saying is obvious" way). Lot's of confidence. Less than sure about the accompanying competence. <br /><br />One can be very smart and, yes, even be a PhD candidate - yet also be a complete twerp. <br /><br />I'd guess that the Jury might not be out on this for too long.Anon123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64818879286957884162014-08-08T01:49:12.280+10:002014-08-08T01:49:12.280+10:00Seems he doesn't yet have a PhD.
One thing I ...Seems he doesn't yet have a PhD.<br /><br />One thing I noticed along the way from undergrad to postdoc is that younger students tend to be unimaginably harsh, and soften up with experience. By the time a prof has tenure they seems to be total softies (unfortunately I haven't had that personal experience).numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36338629010881582092014-08-08T01:44:10.804+10:002014-08-08T01:44:10.804+10:00His dismissal of Cook et al is also an epic fail. ...His dismissal of Cook et al is also an epic fail. You can criticize plenty of things (as with just about any scientific paper), but it looks very much like he didn't even read it.<br /><br />For one, apparently, Duarte thinks it is easier to just ask the scientists. Apart from the fact that that actually isn't that easy (ask Bray and von Storch how good response rates are), Cook et al actually did that.<br /><br />Second, Duarte seems to have missed the authors explicitly discuss the potential that their evaluation is biased, as they are all convinced themselves. Which refers back to the author responses, showing the raters have been at worst been conservative, but clearly not selective.<br /><br />A third funny comment he made is that the raters are not climate scientists and therefore would have trouble with interpreting the abstracts properly. Well, this could potentially be one reason the rating was more conservative than the authors, but Duarte then ignores he himself has very little experience with this type of research (having some publications in social science does not make you an expert in all of social sciences), and therefore this comment contradicts his own strongly critical statements about the work that was done. Apparently he believes that *his* lack of expertise in the area is no barrier to evaluate it (and make blanket statements) - to the extent he even calls for retraction of one of Lewandowsky's papers.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51726316637564035882014-08-08T00:36:00.938+10:002014-08-08T00:36:00.938+10:00You know, I think he missed something along the wa...You know, I think he missed something along the way towards his PhD when his first reaction to a paper he disagrees with is to call for a retraction. He lost any credibility he might have had with that move.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.com