tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8511043585914219761..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat must thank his lucky stars that Brandon Shollenberger is a science denierSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12263887690610346992015-06-04T09:30:17.554+10:002015-06-04T09:30:17.554+10:00Thought I'd bop in here, since Sou thinks I...Thought I'd bop in here, since Sou thinks I'm blissfully unaware of HW content. Score a brownie point for yourselves on showing Shollenberger doesn't have the first clue what the total context of the "reposition global warming" phrase is, but in case you missed it, I beat you to that punch in a more subtle way with my comments at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/skeptical-sciences-john-cook-making-up/#comment-1505822 and at Shollenberger's own blog a day later: http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/making-up/comment-page-1/#comment-39<br /><br />While you fellows patted yourselves on the back for 'discovering' Oreskes' single page from those supposedly 'Western Fuels' leaked memos, going so far as to claim you saw "the original document in context", did you stop to ask yourselves what the surrounding pages of memos were "in context", or why it is that neither Oreskes nor the people she got the memo from ever bother to show the whole world what the complete collection looks like "in context"?<br /><br />Yep, Shollenberger didn't have the first clue what he was doing when he launched into his diatribe. But you collective AGW believers didn't and still don't have the first clue what you are talking about when you glorify Oreskes, Gore, Lew ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/the-other-problem-with-the-lewandowsky-paper-and-similar-skeptic-motivation-analysis-core-premise-off-the-rails-about-fossil-fuel-industry-corruption-accusation/ ) and all the rest for their work exposing the 'industry corruption' of skeptic climate scientists. The entire accusation stems from just one source, one basket (for lack of a better term), and you've put all your eggs in that basket which now has every potential of imploding. What I found hilarious over the last several years is how Oreskes and Mashey just can't keep their mouths shut over particular details of the accusation.<br /><br />Next time you see that pair, you might ask 'em if they even bothered to make certain the set with the "reposition global warming" page among them was ever actually seen and approved by all the top administrators of the Western Fuels ICE campaign. Watch Oreskes turn white as a ghost when you ask that question……Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10364598915818543463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54555509528790779202013-12-20T11:59:43.742+11:002013-12-20T11:59:43.742+11:00As it happens, Watts has trouble with chronology, ...As it happens, Watts has trouble with chronology, as do the inhabitants of WUWT.<br /><br />a) Deming's quote first appeared on Fred Singer's website in March 2005, from which McIntyre picked it up. Somewhat violating publication rules, that was 3 months before the essay's <a href="http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_deming.pdf" rel="nofollow">actual publication</a> in <a href="http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html" rel="nofollow">JSE</a>, my favorite <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/journal-of-scientific-exploration-is.html" rel="nofollow">dog astrology journal.</a> Well, they also cover UFOs, ESP, reincarnation, and weight loss when suffocating sheep ... and published Deming.<br /><br />Deming and Singer were already in contact in 2004/2005, and this was Deming talking in 2005 about something that supposedly happened in 2005/2006. However, anyone who knows anything about IPCC (1990) knows that Fig 7.1(c) was derived from a sketch of Lamb(1965), surrounded by caveats, Serious reconstructions got going, started to be published in 1993, and by IPCC SAR (1995/1996), that was long gone, and the modern hockey stick had started to emerge. See <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/" rel="nofollow">Stoat's Adoration of the Lamb</a> and its various links.<br /><br />b) McIntyre then took the Deming quote from Singer (not yet published in JSE), added the IPCC(1990) Fig. 7.1(c), but ascribed it to 1995, necesary for this whole story to make even cursory sense. The actual image he used did not come from IPCC(1990)< but was identical to one used by John Daly years before at Waiting for Greenhouse. So, this was a *clear* false citation to make his story work and it seems very likely that he had *neither 1990 nor 1995 IPCC reports. later, he said he'd forgotten where he got the image.<br />McIntyre then embarked on a rumor campaign to claim Overpeck did this,<br />later picked by Lindzen (who wrote a falsehood that Deming's essay fingered Overpeck.)<br />Then Montford, in HSI expanded Lindzen's falsehood to claim that Lindzen had confirmed Deming. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia talk page</a><br />That was amusing: Montford supporters kept trying to *delete* my comment from a *talk* page, a Wiki no-no. Stoat kept reverting it. No one ever addressed the issues, they just kept trying to delete the comment.<br /><br />Bottom line: in 2005, Deming made a claim of something that happened in 1995/1996 that was absurd then, in fact, actually doubtful even in 1990. Overpeck's comment in ~2005 was in response to the misuse of the MWP<br />A whole bunch of people rely utterly on Lamb(1965) as eternal truth, along with a dog astrology journal.<br /><br />I foresee that thread at WUWT as one I will have to WebCite to add to a certain report I've mostly written, after the SalbyStorm report is done.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68067626561725904972013-12-20T10:07:44.843+11:002013-12-20T10:07:44.843+11:00Indication is that Brandon graduated from the pres...Indication is that Brandon graduated from the prestigious ITT Technical Institute of Tulsa, OK. <br /><br />Solid scientific cred, that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59334321337340521972013-12-19T12:05:49.466+11:002013-12-19T12:05:49.466+11:00Brandon S. = drongo: Check.
John Cook = maybe huma...Brandon S. = drongo: Check.<br />John Cook = maybe human? Struth!!!! I've seen'im, and he's as human as one can expect an ocker to be...;)<br /><br />Well-done, Sou! so much better that you keep track of these 'drongos,' than me. My blood pressure can't take it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43710678025727124702013-12-19T10:32:02.737+11:002013-12-19T10:32:02.737+11:00All this, not so long after the Heartland Institut...All this, not so long after the Heartland Institute went to such lengths to misrepresent themselves over the AMS study, where they: a) used the AMS logo as a header, b) created a fake email account to look like it came from the AMS, and c) presented the study in complete contradiction to what the authors themselves stated.<br /><br />Why was Brandon's mind NOT boggled by this? Where was his gnashing of teeth over these fabrications?<br /><br />Where was Anthony's indignation over what the Heartland Institute perpetrated? Where was the repost from someone shocked at their methods?<br /><br />This is such hypocrisy straight down the line from the denier set.<br /><br />The indignant gnashing of teeth, apparently, is strictly reserved for situation that are ideologically convenient.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04529763941744463398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47850021017032033112013-12-19T06:36:15.609+11:002013-12-19T06:36:15.609+11:00Thanks, unknown. Brandon is very coy, isn't he...Thanks, unknown. Brandon is very coy, isn't he.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49626530909816596722013-12-19T05:09:01.035+11:002013-12-19T05:09:01.035+11:00Oh my virgin eyes have been smote!Oh my virgin eyes have been smote!Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76334327702234492252013-12-19T02:37:29.419+11:002013-12-19T02:37:29.419+11:00Indeed:
"As to this being a fabrication (as ...<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/the-truth-about-we-have-to-get-rid-of-the-medieval-warm-period/" rel="nofollow">Indeed:</a><br /><br /><i>"As to this being a fabrication (as Robert claims), no, it’s a summation or a paraphrase of a long quote, something that happens a lot in history. Monckton and Montford aren’t specifically at fault in this, as the summed up quote has been around for a long, long, time and it appears to have originated with Dr. David Deming’s statement to the Senate. (see update, it goes back further than that- Anthony)<br /><br />The conversion to a paraphrase maintains the meaning. “Mortal blow” certainly equates to “get rid of” (as it is often said) or “abolish” as you (and Monckton/Montford) state it, and “we” equates to “I’m not the only one”."</i> - A. Watts<br /><br />So apparently paraphrasing is just ducky for Watts and Monckton? But not for Cook? Even though (unlike Watts and Monckton) the paraphrasing Cook uses doesn't change the meaning of the statement? Oh well, far be it from me to expect consistency from the 'skeptics'...<br /><br />KRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41958051183709504512013-12-19T01:31:43.196+11:002013-12-19T01:31:43.196+11:00I think Watts just had a post on the misquote &quo...I think Watts just had a post on the misquote "we have to get rid of the mwp' in which he says a paraphrase of a quote is just as good as the real thing. I hope Watts educated Brandon on this otherwise another example of Watts's hypocrisy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19918748534263172013-12-19T01:12:32.464+11:002013-12-19T01:12:32.464+11:00Making shit up.Making shit up.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08668913285385154713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40509315454332294512013-12-19T01:04:27.273+11:002013-12-19T01:04:27.273+11:00Probably appropriate to use quote marks there. Bu...Probably appropriate to use quote marks there. But then he whose name shall not be mentioned, lest he show up here, often gets his panties in a wad over nothing.Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.com