Eli is a friendly bunny
A recent post at Rabett Run, describing the hard working lagomorph at work, morning noon and night, elicited a rather pithy comment from Arthur Smith
and pretty soon, Eli's name is cursed! (well it already seems to be a byword for Watts and friends).Indeed, some rather rude characters are doing drive bys on Eli and Tamino and yes, the crowd at Watt's farm has gone thermonuclear, Roger is whining again (ok, Roger is always whining, but this is about his dad, it's personal) and more. Frankly, Eli is way too low on the food chain to be attacked by the science bleg of the year or whatever. Romm maybe, that would be punching up, but the attack on Joe coordinated by the Pielkesphere has been frenetic and not very effective.
So the question is what gives.
What gives is they stuck a stick into the climate science community with the theft of the CRU Emails. No one north of Judith Curry thinks the denialists are deserving of any consideration, and the entire science community, having for years thought that the denialists were a harmless and occasionally charming bunch of emeriti, have woken up and are not taking it anymore. The response is well on its way to demonstrating the fringe nature of climate change denial and that is having its effect. The denialists response is to play victim bully
To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind, where his feelings were hurt by people not accepting his nonsense. If you want a piece of Greg, he is lording it up at Rebane Ruminations, giving Anna Haynes a hard time. This is also going on at lucia's place.
From the Google Cache, Eli has a copy of the offending thread at Open Mind minus Goodknight's comments, but he carefully repeats one of them at Rebane.
Posts
86 comments:
Okay, as you can see, I'm on there twice, with one very long comment. The amusing part - that cretin didn't even impress me enough to remember. In fact I neither noticed him when he was there nor when he was gone.
Just saying. He's wallpaper.
Relevant comments by Greg Goodknight are also to be found in Lucia's "Things that aren't right: stalking" thread, giving his side of the story. The first incited me to comment over there, comment #46384
>>>>>>>>
Greg Goodknight (Comment#46384) June 22nd, 2010 at 10:11 am
I thought I’d share the one comment I made on the latest “tamino” thread; no, I didn’t expect it to get past the immoderator and I was not disappointed. I did want Tamino to read it, and since there’s a “J Bowers” making comments here, he needs to read it, too:
Richard C // June 21, 2010 at 8:57 pm | Reply
Didn’t I read somewhere that this “gentleman” claimed to have a degree in Physics based on two terms of study? And how can we doubt him, for surely Goodknight is an honourable man.
Out of curiosity, why isn’t Watts defending your right to blog?
o
J Bowers // June 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Reply
LOL
o
Greg Goodknight // June 22, 2010 at 12:18 am | Reply
Thank you, gents, for verifying that the editing by “tamino” left you with those impressions. I believe that was his intent.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
*
<<<<<<<<
Comment #46486
>>>>>>>>
Greg Goodknight (Comment#46486) June 22nd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Sigh. No, “bluegrue”, the original quote, from my very first tamino comment, that is also grammatically correct, was
“”First, some background; I’ve a BS Physics from a college that included two semesters of physics (major track classes), three semesters of chemistry (also major track, including one physical chemistry) and systems engineering as general ed requirements…”
Note the phrase “general ed requirements”.
Tamino added his love notes, and I then made a 2nd comment that began with:
“No, you misunderstood, sorry for not making it clearer; the two whole semesters of Physics intended for Physics majors were general ed requirements for everyone, including pure math majors. As was P-chem.”
The above was approved but tamino deleted the mention that I’m used to such abuse and a short-short summary of Shaviv & Veizer. He added his second love note to it, stating he thought I was lying.
That is not everything but it covers the off-base suppositions here.
<<<<<<<<
While Greg's description of his education was grammatically correct, I myself misread it to mean he only had 2 semesters of physics, independent from tamino's comments. Greg's selection of literature in his first comment was, well, questionable. At the least, why take one paper by Solanki to make the it's-the-sun argument, when Solanki himself refutes that argument. His attacks on Anna Haynes, while I do not agree with her course of action, are beyond the pale.
P.S.: Any chance to get a blockquote tag for the comments section?
I find a comment by papertiger at ruminations illuminating:
My standard practice is to feel out an alarmist blog with a short pithy comment, see if it survives the moderation. If it does then I move into more detailed and time consuming posts.
To paraphrase: first kick the host in the shin, and if the host doesn't mind start in earnest. There are lovely people around.
Eli is friendly but perhaps misguided. Global warming may have been happening during the 19th and 20th centuries but it looks as though it may be cooling now. That’s what nature does. Man has an insignificant impact upon global climates. Perhaps you’d like to read “Rescue from the Climate Saviors Is the “Global Climate” really in Danger?” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33181109/Rescue-from-the-Climate-Saviors-1-1) provided by “The Hockey Schtick” (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html) which concludes QUOTE:
* The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are deli-berate misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
* Earth has a “cooling system”. If our planet gets warmer, it will automatically raise its cooling power (Fig. 28).
* An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then (and that is our point) to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
* CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.
* The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
* IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface.
* IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire coo- ling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air the surface and the air immedia- tely above the ground would heat up more.
* The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true me-chanisms explained above.
* As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to fore- cast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” ac- cordingly dispensable.
* Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion
UNQUOTE.
It’s being sent to politicians all around the globe. They may start to realise that their propaganda about our use of fossil fuels causing catastrophic global climate change is failing to impress the voters.
Another good read is “The Hockey Stick Illusion” which presents the facts behind the efforts to get rid of the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age through the use of inappropriate statistical manipulations.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete. You need to read (or, at least, to understand) a little bit of atmospheric radiation before writing things like this one:
"IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire coo- ling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more."
I am not accepting the rest, just pointing one of the biggest unadequacies of your post.
I recommend you to read (and UNDERSTAND) the corresponding chapter in Murry Salby's Introduction to Atmospheric Physics (I think it is 8, but anyway, read the whole book, you need it).
Otherwise, you can send this to politicians around the world. Some of them can probably buy this broken engine. But it will never work. It's broken.
Friendly MickeyMinnieMouseJon
Gee, Pete, why should one read a blog posted by a science illiterate when one could simply go out and read the peer-reviewed literature? The fingerprints of a well mixed, longlived greenhouse gas are all over the climate and paleoclimate. To contend otherwise is simply flat stupid.
This Yooper bunny appreciates the satire of the Riddler.
To perceive as otherwise boggles the mind and endangers keyboard & screen alike.
Cheers,
Daniel the Yooper bunny
And for his second act, Pete Riddley will disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics with his newly invented perpetual motion machine.
Don't forget MT linked to the video the other day:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/06/success-in-science.html
There's definitely a lot of ants-nest-stirring going on, but I suspect the problem is a larger context: Copenhagen and follow-ons, the Obama administration, and a US congress that might, just possibly, finally, after avoiding the subject in every possible way, get its act together and make a difference on the matter.
Meanwhile one side of industry is already stepping up to the plate: global wind and solar installations way up once again in 2009 despite the economic climate, electric and plugin hybrid cars popping up everywhere. The dinosaurs (BP, Massey, and friends) aren't going to just roll over though. What we're seeing is a very natural small-scale consequence of the big players setting their pieces in motion. Expect higher levels of stormy blogospheric weather before this is over...
Also, I agree with Eli, and that's why I still think George Monbiot has covered himself in shame with everything to do with the CRU bullshit. It's not just that he doesn't understand science culture - which he doesn't - it's that his own culture - journalism - wouldn't function at all under the rules he'd impose on scientists. And I've been in both worlds.
Eli, it's anna haynes, not hayes, I made that mistake once. And frankly, for wasting her time on that site ... hope it's a learning experience. Now that I see bluegrue's post, I vaguely, vaguely remember the goodknight comments (though, still, not the name) ... the usual narcissism, and my eyes passed right over it. Not to be cliched, but for some people, negative attention is better than none. and some people are going to pound on the table (in the "pound on the law, pound on the facts, pound on the table" sense) forever, it's their MO.
I still think Richard C's comment on Watts was funny. No apologies for mirth.
The nice thing about the Cirque du Soily is that it never ends -- and never changes (except for special sideshow attractions from time to time)
Well, I thought Pete Ridley was just your typical conspiracy-loving denialist, but a quick visit to his blog shows me I was completely wrong:
"The structure of Al Gore’s climate change organisation bears a lot of similarities with Hitler's NAZI party."
Clearly, we all owe Pete an apology.
Not that it matters, I think all you guys are assholes, but Goodknight clearly went to Harvey Mudd College where his description of the general ed requirements at least for the late 70s, is smack on target.
The college was founded by a large crew of ex Manhattan Project researchers. I've often wondered what they would make of today's climate science. I don't know, I suspect they, like Feynman would be shocked at the shenanigans and nonsense of our so called reputable climate scientists.
Anonymudder
Ah, the anonymudder is one of those who believes in the cargo-cult science myth. That is, that Feynman actually said anything about climate scientists. He didn't. Now go back to Motl or WUWT and complain you've been caught out and need another meme to spread.
Ooh look, infamy!
Like BlueGrue my recollection was based entirely on Goodknights comments and not Tamino's. I suspect my eyes had glazed over before the “General Ed” part. Or maybe I just don't understand American degrees. Why on Earth would you have a General Ed requirement in a university science degree?
I also don't understand why anybody would want to emphasise two semesters of general ed physics in a physics degree, what was the rest of the degree if it wasn't physics?
It might seem that Goodknight is flaunting his victim status, but Goodknight says Tamino was wrong; and Goodknight is an honourable man....
Richard C
Anonymudder,
Gee, I wish you guys would learn some physics beyond invoking Feynman's name. And while you are at it, why not actually learn some of the science you disparage--climate science.
Harvey Mudd's a reasonable school. They know what they do well and concentrate on that. Still, it is a place where it is easy to become trained rather than educated. It would appear the "he whose name must not be spoken" (hereinafter referred to as hwnmnbs--or just bs for short) was neither. You appear to be similarly ignorant.
Anonymudder.
You say:
"I don't know, I suspect they, like Feynman would be shocked at the shenanigans and nonsense of our so called reputable climate scientists."
I don't know for sure what would Feynman say about people stating things like this one above, written by Pete Ridley:
"CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth."
Feynman is dead, so, we can not know. What I know for sure is that, the times Feynman wrote about atmospheric physics, he used the same reasoning you can find in any general textbook of atmospheric physics, like the ones currently used in standard graduate programs in Atmospheric Sciences worldwide. See, for instance, his explanation on the density as a function of height and the gravitational separation of species and the role of turbulent mixing. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, The definitive edition. Volume I, Figure 40-2, Page 40-2.
Don't invoke Feynman's name in vane. Unless you know exactly what you are saying.
MickeyMinnieMouseJon
huh?
maybe it skipped my attention, but were there even statements concerning this clown in Tamino's post that can be interpreted as libel at all? A single one? I don't recall anything along the line of 'it is known everywhere in town that the man is mentally unstable' or anything of that sort, with respect to him at least, although I vaguely remember something along those lines coming *from* him. I honestly cannot think of a single case of what could be construed as slandering him. It cannot reasonably be for example what others have expressed regarding his resume, if they didn't understand him than that's their problem and that was crystal clear in the post.
Anyway, we have been relieved from Motl's obnoxious sideshow about his desire to shoot environmental activists in that post as well that way and that is probably for the best for all including the guy himself. Some level of rabidness is best kept offline.
I don't know the exact comments any more, I think Greg took issue with his BS being called into question; it looks like several people (including myself) mixed up his BS and his aggrandizing description of his college, thinking he had a total of 2 semesters of physics. He seems to have asked tamino to correct the record, but by that time the relation was already poisoned. Judging from the bits of the exchanges that I have seen Greg posting elsewhere, his request seems to have been similarly opaque like his initial tale of his education. Greg decided to not shrug this off but pack out the oversized hammer. The Wordpress reaction effectively locked tamino out of his own blog, not sure whether or not sanitizing that thread would have worked.
anonymudder" "Goodknight clearly went to Harvey Mudd College "
Clear as Mudd?
What makes that "clear?"
Horatio has not seen any "proof" of that. That someone who goes by that moniker has claimed as much somewhere on the internet hardly amounts to "proof".
How do we even know that the person posting such claims is actually who they claim to be? Horatio can claim to actually be Stephen Hawking and hold the Lucasion Chair in Mathematics at Cambridge University, but that hardly proves it is true (though it actually is ~@:>)
To say nothing of the fact that "went to Harvey Mudd" does not even mean the same thing as "graduated from Harvey Mudd (with a BS in this that or the other)"
Real "proof" of a degree from HMC would be a statement coming DIRECTLY from Harvey Mudd College (or perhaps a document displayed on the college website(eg, on the alumni page) indicating that a person with said name has a BS in "such and such" and graduated in "such sand such" a year.
anonymudder continues: "The college was founded by a large crew of ex Manhattan Project researchers."
How many is a "large crew?"
Horatio's brief search on "Harvey Mudd" and "Manhattan Project" turned up a reference to a single individual (Arthur Campbell) who was head of the chemistry department.
"I suspect they, like Feynman would be shocked at the shenanigans and nonsense of our so called reputable climate scientists.'
Again, they who?
Campbell? Who else?
What actual evidence is there that "they, ...would be shocked at the shenanigans and nonsense of our so called reputable climate scientists."
What evidence do you have that Feynman would be "shocked at the shenanigans and nonsense of our so called reputable climate scientists."?
What (specifically) does that even mean?
What does "shenanigans and nonsense" mean?
Who are these "so called reputable climate scientists"?
What relevance does the Manhattan Project even have to Harvey Mudd today? That was over half a century ago. College faculties change a lot over such a time period. Some have improved. Some have gotten worse.
What anonymudder is engaging in here is fairly typical (hackneyed and vacuous) broad-brush innuendo.
And that anonymudder would be defending GG -- who apparently felt he had been libeled by not having his* claimed credentials displayed on Tamino's site -- while in the same breath casting broad aspersions on climate scientists is more than a little bit ironic (and pathetic)
*(again, how do we know he is who he claims?)
Perhaps anonymudder learned such behavior at Harvey Mudd, but somehow Horatio doubts it -- and doubts that the college officials and faculty would even approve of such behavior from their graduates.
This whole thing strikes Horatio as just another irrelevant and pathetic sideshow (part of the Cirque du Soily).
Who really cares whether some guy/gal who claims to have a degree from such and such a college actually has such a degree? (or even whether he/she is actually who they claim to be?)
It certainly means nothing when it comes to the "debate" about climate science -- and specifically, whether his/her arguments hold any water.
As the person who actually holds that chair "Horatio" I'll have to insist you end the identity theft forthwith!
After all, which of us has the platinum Nobel Peace Prize for Medicine in Physics? Me, that's who.
"I also don't understand why anybody would want to emphasise two semesters of general ed physics in a physics degree, what was the rest of the degree if it wasn't physics?"
Yeah. I studied physics undergrad at an American Uni. We had to take mainly physics, with no electives at all in our case, x amount of math, x amount of science NOT physics, x amount of general/liberal arts, and 1 language and a certain amount of a 2nd.
The only thing I can think of is a special program for ed students who want to teach HS science. In that case, I'm sorry to say, I'm going to immediately expect a "Science for ed majors" program, and suspect it wasn't as rigorous as a purely Physics BS would be.
@bluegrue,
yeah I remember some statement about his education which wasn't clear to me either (but thought that was probably just me) and tamino's rather impatient response. There was no follow-up to that (he could have trivially cleared up the misunderstanding) but rather some blather about hurt feelings... Oh well whatever, can't say I really care one way or the other.
This is the data we know the censor in question has committed to:
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-goodknight/6/646/646
and with that, I, too, declare my interest in the topic over.
Those who failed to visit Pete Ridley's blog, or touched in only briefly, may also have missed this gem -
"Although there are similarities between these four producers [of Gore's film], with Leni Riefenstahl there is one significant difference – Riefenstahl was recruited by Hitler’s propaganda machine whereas Gore was recruited by the other three."
Pete, please never come over to our side. You're fine right where you are!...
Mudd's programs as teacher training is as big a howler as I've ever read. I realize east coasters might be unaware; here's an interesting way to look at it, courtesy of the Singapore American School in a page meant for their students planning on attending college in the US:
http://hseagle.sas.edu.sg/hscounseling/MediaArticles/PhDProductivity.htm
The only category that Mudd was not #1 or #2 in was biology, but the Mudd degree in Biology only became a reality a decade or so before the study, and biology was the only category that had MIT ahead of Mudd, but just barely. In every other major that Mudd granted, math, physics, chemistry, engineering, Mudd graduates have done well, and Mudd still requires its graduates to complete a minor in a non-scientific subject.
So many smears, so little time. The big bunny should come back to those threads that he was trying to get folks to visit.
Greg Goodknight, your ignorance does more to smear the reputation of a good college than anything else anyone says here.
a_ray,
With such a conscience I am sure you have confronted a deceitful rabett whose lies exist in this very post.
Hint: Wordpress did NOT take down a post at "Open Mind" nor did Greg ask them to do such a thing. Anything that rabett types is now suspect.
Celery Eater
Celery eater, Given your track record--an accusation oflying by you is an endorsement of veracity. Just so we are clear on what you are being mendacious about: Are you saying that Goodknight did not contact Wordpress? Are you saying he did not ask to have all mention of him excised?
The high school football glory days of Al Bundy.
Greg did contact Wordpress and the whole scenario was detailed by Tamino. Wordpress did not take down a letter, word, comment, nor a post at "Open Mind" Tamino did himself, he even stated as much. Mr. Rabett has been to many different holes lately and only speaks, but does not listen.
To quote the Rabett
"To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind, where his feelings were hurt by people not accepting his nonsense."
Since Wordpress did not take down any post Greg could not have convinced them to do so.
a_ray your defense of a team member is admirable and attack on me typical. The truth shall set you free, but only if you see it, then embrace it.
Celery Eater
Celery eater
Fact: He whose name must not be spoken did contact Wordpress to demand that all reference to him be removed from Open Mind--true or false?
Fact: Wordpress disabled Tamino's access to his account until he removed said references. True of False?
Fact: This could be done by either scanning EVERY SINGLE conribution to the post and removing said references or by taking down the entire post. True or false?
Tamino, not surprisingly, as he does have a day job, chose the latter strategy.
Indisputable fact: The UNSPOKEN ONE by his actions made himself look like a dainty little asshat--much as you are doing by your mincing of words. The truth, celery eater, is something you wouldn't recognize if it bit your pecker off.
a_ray said:
"Tamino, not surprisingly, as he does have a day job, chose the latter strategy."
Correct Tamino took down the post not Wordpress.
If you read the response from Wordpress it said "Please remove all posts and all comments that either name or allude to a Mr Goodknight"
The post did not refer to Greg, only comments to it did.
Wow Tamino would have to scan comments for a reference to Greg and remove them? Oh the horror of using a search routine on text. lol
Fact: Wordpress did not take down a post Tamino did. That is not parsing words. Once again,
"To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind, where his feelings were hurt by people not accepting his nonsense."
The above is wrong or a lie. No matter how much you stammer and throw about your temper that FACT will not change.
I'll ignore your other implications that I am defending Greg Goodknight, I am not. He was a CSP for contacting Wordpress in my view. I shall remember how far you like to stretch the simple meaning of words in the future just to defend someone you follow with blind allegience. Pretty sad.
Celery Eater
Also, Interesting how the Rabett privded a "cleansed" version of the post. In a_ray's view that must have taken him hours of painstaking effort running probably 2-3 searches of the text with some "selecting" and "deleting" of text found. lol
Celery Eater
Final thought.
Celery Eater posted a comment on Rabett Run using a_ray_in_dilbert_space's name.
Using a_ray's logic of course...lol
Thanks for the laughs with you, but more at you..
Celery Eater
Celery eater, I'll bet you're one of those folks who reaches a climax when you get to tell someone they shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. But, then, you probably don't have a day job other than posting crap on the web to add to the noise in the climate debate.
But, hey, prove me wrong. Let's talk evidence.
You would lose that bet. As all the other assumptions and "box" placement you enjoy using.
Evidence? Tamino said he took down the post. What other evidence do you need to contradict "Wordpress took down a post at Open Mind"?
Celery Eater
I requested Tamino's libelous comments be removed from the responses he added to my comments and to be allowed to post comments in my defense. As far as I can tell nothing I asked for was actually granted by WordPress, who acted more in their own interest.
Upon my initial complaint alleging libel, including libel per se, a "Mark" from WordPress responded with "Please be very exact. State exactly what has been written and why it is provably wrong. The url of the blog would also be useful.....".
And that's exactly what they got.
"Fact: He whose name must not be spoken did contact Wordpress to demand that all reference to him be removed from Open Mind--true or false?"
False. I contacted WordPress alleging libel and the only words I specifically asked to be removed were tamino's three responses he added to my comments.
Imagine how Al Bundy's wife Peg felt when he reminded her incessantly about his glorious high school football career.
Imagine the climate debate without reactionary ad hominems.
Now, imagine the climate debate without sock puppets in the blogosphere.
"To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind, where his feelings were hurt by people not accepting his nonsense."
I asked for no "post" to be removed and my "feelings" were not hurt. I was libeled, I found the WordPress terms of service agreement, read the EFF page linked from the WP TOS agreement and learned about the concept of a "libel per se" where one does not need to prove harm; it is assumed in certain circumstances. Worth reading.
'Al ham" is not the same as "Ad hom"
...and imagining how Peg Bundy must have felt is getting easier all the time.
Imagine a climate debate where wannabes realized that their undergrad physics degree doesn't trump a PhD and 20 years of concerted research.
It seems that someone whose name must not be spoken is not satisfied simply to make himself look like a clownshoe, but feels compelled to repeat the act over and over again.
Ao a-ray have you run away from the facts, because the one you worship is wrong?
Celery Eater
It's been my experience that a Ph.D. outside their immediate specialty does not have anything over their BS/MS brethren besides the raw value of the union card for seeking tenure track positions. Please, which of the sock puppets here with real or imagined Ph.D.'s have spent 20 years studying the sensitivity of climate to CO2? Will this sock puppet speak out and detail their research?
When we have a Ph.D. just citing their degree, as Anna Haynes wielded her Ph.D. from Harvard in a specialty that overlaps climate science as much as English Lit does, we have credentials with no credibility.
It would seem to this Yooper bunny that trolls have overtaken the lair of the Rabett and have made a mess of it.
Either some pruning or a killfile is sorely needed.
The obfuscation is blotting out the learning opportunities for bunnies everywhere.
Cheers,
Daniel the Yooper bunny
Greg says:
"Please, which of the sock puppets here with real or imagined Ph.D.'s have spent 20 years studying the sensitivity of climate to CO2?"
I do not understand why you write that, Greg. Have you spent 20 years studying the sensitivity of climate to CO2? It is hard to believe, because:
* Either your last name is not Godknight
* Or you have not published on the topic in the mainstream journals. So, your credentials are ... lower than mines.
I would accept that you have a superb PhD degree on stochastic physics or nuclear physics or even quantum chromodynamics (like our friend Lubos does), but ... I haven't read your name in any of the journals I usually read about climatology, geophysics, meteorology....
I don't usually ask other people what I am not able to provide. But, it's my style. Perhaps other people see it other way.
MickeyMinnieMouseJon
O dim one whos name must not be spoken,
I don't see anyone here making contentions outside their expertise that diverge from established science except, well... you and celery-for-brains. Eli posts either peer-reviewed research or within his own expertise, likewise the commenters. You... not so much.
So, want to talk evidence, Greg, or do you want to trade insults? I can do either.
Sensitivity issues?
Call "Dr. Shoe"
That's "555-SHOE".
Can he help? "Shoe betcha"
Well I guess when people from your own team lie it is OK. Selective morals and integrity, interesting, but not surprising, must be the carrots.
Fact: Wordpress did not take down a post at "Open Mind".
Celery Eater
I see all have left their morals and integrity at the entrance to this rabett hole. Lies stand, because the speaker is a friend.
Fact: Wordpress did NOT take down a post at Open Mind
Celery Eater
Celery Eater, Perhaps you can elucidate all the myriad differences between Wordpress taking down a post or denying a poster access to his site until he takes it down.
And yes, Tamino might have scrubbed through every single entry looking for a reference. What if he missed one? What if the reference was oblique. Does he then get hit with a libel suit?
The fact of the matter is that the one who looks like an idiot is the one complaining about how mean all those awful old scientists are. Grow a pair and give as good as you get.
But, I see you would rather add to noise by gossiping--and I'm more interested in talking about evidence.
Fact: you have nothing substantive to say.
a_ray said:
"Celery Eater, Perhaps you can elucidate all the myriad differences between Wordpress taking down a post or denying a poster access to his site until he takes it down."
That is not what Wordpress told Tamino to do, but you know that, because I am sure you went to Tamino's site and read this: "Please remove all posts and all comments that either name or allude to a Mr Goodknight"
The post did not mention nor allude to Mr. Goodknight.
a-ray said: "And yes, Tamino might have scrubbed through every single entry looking for a reference. What if he missed one? What if the reference was oblique. Does he then get hit with a libel suit?"
Mr. Rabett provided a clean Goodkight free version really quickly, yes searches on computers are so hard lol!
Face it this statement is false "To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind,..."
Why would I discuss anything further with you if you are so stuck on defending dishonesty or at the very minimum deceit?
It is you that has nothing of value to add, because you have no values.
Later...
Celery Eater
The hasenpfeffers seem confused. If your research doesn't overlap that of Shaviv, Veizer, Lindzen, Svensmark, Kirkby or Friis-Christensen, your claimed 20 years of research seems little more relevant than a Ph.D. in fruit fly genetics would be in discussing any research from those guys. And that was the list of scientists that "tamino" (whose credentials are in some doubt) trashed, and used as a basis to trash me for giving them credence.
I'd love to talk evidence. What Tamino cut from my second post was a brief discussion of Veizer and Shaviv finding their results, one from a geochemical perspective and the other astrophysics, essentially matched. Veizer was on the verge of abandoning his research because his temperature proxy wasn't well correlated with any CO2 record over the ~500 million year span he'd analyzed when Shaviv emailed him with the news that he seemed to have a match.
Generally, when two completely separate physical science disciplines independently generate relationships that correlate well over a half billion year period, the conclusion has merit. Do the coneys disagree?
"Generally, when two completely separate physical science disciplines independently generate relationships that correlate well over a half billion year period, the conclusion has merit."
Marvellous. I must say I am glad that you have agreed that the correlation of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and of course palaeontology shows that the AGW hypothesis has merit.
(I probably forgot a few -ologies along the way).
Richard C
And when they have poor correlation, like CO2 over geologic time, that's also information.
"I must say I am glad that you have agreed that the correlation of biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and of course palaeontology shows that the AGW hypothesis has merit." ... Be specific, because I've not seen anything that fits your claims. To the contrary, a friend of mine running a paleomagnetism lab has assured me the correlation between 14C and temperature had been noted for years, they just didn't have anyone who could make any sense of it.
The lack of any runaway positive feedback warming events in the geologic record remains interesting, too. If some of you think there may be one or more and would like to discuss them, now's a fine time to do so, as it is unclear when another scoffer will wander in and chat.
Greg,
I have read your heroes' Shaviv, Veizer, Lindzen, Svensmark, Kirkby or Friis-Christensen papers. What happens is that I have "also" read (amongst others) Bard et al and Damon and Laut, this is one of my favourites:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf
I am not particularly impressed by shaviv and svensmark, lots of studies have already shown that the influence of GCRs is at most small (quote of Harrison and Stephenson, 2006): "This study has found a small yet statistically significant effect".
I understand that you can be impressed by shaviv and the others in your list. However, there is more literature on the topic. You should strive with all of the papers before making an informed opinion.
The worst error is to assume that people not thinking the way you do are necessarily stupid (or hasenpfeffers). By the way ... is calling people hasenpfeffer a libel act? I think somebody has to check with a lawyer.
Regards
MickeyMinnieMouseJon
Ah, I see that He whose name must not be spoken is at least interested in discussing something resembling science...unlike celery for brains.
Greg, perhaps you could elaborate on how a small modulation on a background signal of 6 particles per square cm per second somehow gets amplified into a global effect on climate. I have yet to see a convincing mechanism--unlike the greenhouse effect.
I also dispute your characterization of the correlation with CO2--it's actually quite good if you interpret it based on the physics (e.g. whether the CO2 is a forcing or a feedback, whether there are other forcings/feedbacks operant, etc.).
Finally, how do you explain the current rise in temperatures at a time when GCR fluxes are not changing appreciably--as shown by neutron fluxes since 1950 and by on-orbit bit-flip rates in electonics over the last 30 years?
Until you have a mechanism and a much better correlation, you'll have a hard time convincing the real scientists.
I was on topic for this particular post. You wanted to change the subject after you found you were defending dishonesty. Everything you say is suspect and no one should put forth the energy required to validate each of your statements. I prefer to converse with honest people who have integrity there a_ray_in_dishonest_space.
Celery Eater
My comments were on topic for this post. You wanted to change the subject after you defending of dihonesty left you feeling dirty. I do not have time to engage in off topic discussions with defenders of lying and deceit. Validating all your statements before resonding would get rather tiresome. I prefer to converse with people of integrity Mr. a_ray_in_dishonest_space.
Celery Eater
Celery for brains,
I do not believe I "defended" anyone. I don't think anyone needs "defending". It is you who seems to be obsessed with seeing lies everywhere. Good luck with that. I see interpretation, perhaps imprecision, but no intentional distortions, well, except the ones you've introduced. But then I think you really see the world that way. You really are a sad little man.
I have previously read Damon & Laut, and Svensmark's defenses. Point Svensmark, despite an old rivalry that got ugly.
Yes, having all the i's dotted and t's crossed will help convince the stragglers, but until then we have proposed mechanisms and experiments underway.
Perhaps "a_ray" can point me to the an accurate determination of the CO2-water vapor positive feedbacks resulting in a 2 to 4 degree C warming per doubling that does not include parameterization of the GCM to fit the surface temperature records. ?
Why does this remind Eli of his youth.
Greg Goodknight,
Why focus on only a single line of argument. CO2 sensitivity has been determined by over a dozen independent lines of evidence--they all favor a range around 3 degrees per doubling.
I would also point out that the uncertainties are much larger on the high side than the low. You absolutely cannot understand Earth's climate with a CO2 sensitivity below 2.1 degrees per doubling.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Meanwhile, I will take your post as an admission that you have no credible mechanism for GCR driven climate.
Haha, having no demonstrated mechanism and no experimental results means you only have to "dot i's and cross t's?" If you have such convincing evidence, why don't you bring it to bear on the points a_ray raised?
I only see lies where they are, like this one "To top it off one of the minor characters, one Greg Goodknight, who managed to get through undergrad physics courses at one time in his life has convinced Wordpress to take down a post at Open Mind, where his feelings were hurt by people not accepting his nonsense." Wordpress did not take down a post at Open Mind, Tamino did.
Eli's latest, sorry I have a hard time believing you with your honesty deficiency.
Celery Eater
Greg says:
"...but until then we have proposed mechanisms and experiments underway. "
As far as I know, most studies show that, if a relation exists (big IF), it is weak in terms of radiative forcing.
So, you say the mechanism exists, I don't see it exists. It is as simple as that. Experimental evidence ... we are still expecting the great experimental evidence. We'll see. If the evidence arises, I will accept it, but I, sincerely, don't expect it will happen.
Regards
MickyMinnieMouseJon
The conversation reminds Horatio more of this
This conversation makes me understand why my cat hunts and beheads bunnies, dishonesty and group think are dangers to civilization.
Celery Eater
"I would also point out that the uncertainties are much larger on the high side than the low. You absolutely cannot understand Earth's climate with a CO2 sensitivity below 2.1 degrees per doubling."
Only if you do your best to throw out the inconvenient GCR link. You just keep coming back to 'it's got to be CO2, it's the only thing left after we ignore what we want to ignore.'
A gaggle of GCM all coded to the same positive feedback theory and all jiggered to fit the same sets of surface temp records have all been used to show a range of about 2 to 4 C sensitivity of climate to a doubling. Now Solanki (Dec 09, AGU meeting) has said he expects something like the Dalton minimum going forward. As one chemist prof of my past liked to say, "one clean experiment is worth a thousand dirty equations". GCR flux took a nice downturn with the current solar minimum, and the clean CLOUD experiment, delayed by alarmist politics, is underway.
Richard Alley, in his celebrated talk at that same AGU meeting, repeatedly made the same basic claim, it has to be CO2 because there isn't anything else. He did claim the Permian Triassic extinction was due to CO2, because there wasn't anything else, ignoring that pesky radiocarbon proxy for galactic cosmic rays which, coincidentally, was at it's minima for the entire Phanerozoic at the same time as the Great Dying.
Celery for brains,
See, for you, since you have no evidence for your position and no interest in actually understanding climate (or anything else, near as I can tell), this situation necessarily becomes personal. It's not for me. I don't know Uncle Eli. He has been a good host for me. There is certainly nothing in his interpretation of the events that does violence to the truth. Tamino was threatened. He responded with the course of action he thought best--to take down the post. What is relevant is that he was coerced as a result of a certain poster whose skin was too thin to handle even what, by intertube standards, was pretty mild abuse. Only one person winds up looking pathetic out of the incident--well, two, if you count you, but I don't think you're worth counting. I mean, after all, you are so insecure in your position that the only way you can maintain it is by accusing anyone who opposes you of dishonesty.
Ah, Greg, I see that you didn't even bother to peruse the references I thoughtfully provided for you. Not surprised. Had you done so, you would see that not all of the lines of evidence are dependent on computer models. What is more:
1)Isn't it interesting how the cosmic rays magically coincide with Milankovich driven onsets of glacials and interglacials--at least in Svensmarks analyses if no one elses.
2)Still no mechanism.
3)Still no change in GCR during the current warming period--makes it kind of tough for your expalanation, I would think.
4)Kinda warm for a "Dalton Minimum", huh?
a_ray,
What position is that ray? The only position I have taken is on the statement that the Rabett made, that is completly false. I see you are building a nice little box for me to be in, because that is easier to do than actually engaging in any type of exchange. Why? because I had the audacity to "attack" someone whom you like. It's not personal that's a projection on how you feel, not me. That's right you don't know Eli and you did not even ask him for any clarification on his inaccurate statement. Again what postion am I insecure in? Oh yeah, you think I am a "denier" or whatever the label of the day might be. Here is another instance in where you are wrong, as you might find I agree that the climate has been warming, CO2 might be a siginifcant factor and alternative fuel research is a good idea, just to expose a few positions I might have. You are very "programmed" in your reactions. Your value judgements of me or anyone else hold no value and are are meaningless, you sure have a high opinion of yourself. Enjoy being a robot. Me? I'll keep a clear mind, conscience and continue to call them like I see them, I guess that is the veteran in me.
Celery Eater
Celery-for-brains,
The only position I've seen you take is that everyone else is dishonest. That isn't particularly interesting. In fact, none of what you say is interesting.
In fact, perhaps the only notable thing about you is that you seem to think there is virtue in taking no position on things that matter. You seem to think this makes you "objective". It only makes you boring and unpleasant.
So tell ya what, oh limp one, you continue to call them like you see them, and everyone else will continue to ignore you. Deal?
A_ray,
Since you continue to ignore what I say (I stated positions and I do not think everyone is dishonest) I leave you to learn more life lessons from Dilbert.
"limp one" "celery brains" "not interseting" wow you are so creative. Please stay in your own little world where you only listen and engage in things you already believe. Continue to think you are elevated and more intelligent than other people (you do this well as it oozes through my screen). You cannot even get yourself to inquire on the accuracy on a statement that is at the minimum misleading.
And as for your advice to the masses on ignoring me, I am still waiting for you to start.
Celery Eater
Goodknight.
Good grief, is this thread still going?
In which case I will presume on Eli's forbearance a while longer. I may as well point out from the outset that I don't expect this to end in any resolution, but merely to peeter out in tedium.
Actually, scrub that...
I've just browsed through a RealClimate thread from Feb 2008. It seems nobody wanted to buy snake oil back then.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=530
Richard C
Richard C,
I agree Eli is a good host as evidenced by every single post I attempted to make went through without issue. For that I tip my hat and appreciate it.
Celery Eater
Celery-for-brains,
[Snore]
"Here boy, here boy, good a_ray, now let me lead you on some more."
LMAO
"Oh yeah, you think I am a "denier" or whatever the label of the day might be. Here is another instance in where you are wrong, as you might find I agree that the climate has been warming, CO2 might be a siginifcant factor and alternative fuel research is a good idea, just to expose a few positions I might have."
I'll go further than that, CO2 is certainly a significant factor. However, straw men are much easier to knock down, so the more we can be painted with the broad brush, the easier it is for the sock bunnies of the world to convince themselves how clever they are in comparison.
I've not followed the RealClimate link, but I've little doubt it is yet another where my defensive posts were heavily edited or blocked, which was their habit in those days. Post-climategate, they've loosened up a bit. I will agree the host-bunny here doesn't have a damaged fairness gene and is a relatively good host. He'd be better if he'd get more of his facts straight.
Shaviv & Veizer '03 has no Milankovich cycles, they're all integrated out, and if "ray" wants to discuss something specific about Svensmark, "ray" should make a complete statement rather than snide innuendo.
We don't have a great handle on GCR before the grand solar maximum started circa 1940, but that 8K to 10K year maxima lasted nearly 70 years and GCR jumped to record levels when the current minima started. I'm sure 'ray' is familiar with the concepts of thermal mass and the difference between "weather" and "climate"; if Solanki is right in his solar outlook being Daltonesque, it will take time for the 20th century heat buildup to dissipate.
I suspect "a_ray" will be very happy in a few years that he was writing these things under a nom de net.
atqui is est fervens
a editio of obvious
C.E.
Post a Comment