tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8854225146741411732..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Steve Had a Little ListEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger145125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72823878454197613492011-05-05T12:45:03.895-04:002011-05-05T12:45:03.895-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.essays ukhttp://essay-writing-service.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66872410211195855792010-04-15T18:57:41.086-04:002010-04-15T18:57:41.086-04:00Adrian,
Yes, you got it. What McFraudit and fello...Adrian,<br /><br />Yes, you got it. What McFraudit and fellow travellers are up to is spreading FUD and lies. At the same time, they pretend that, oh, no, we are just asking questions! We never use smear tactics and ad hom, oh no. We are so reasonable. <br /><br />FUD and lies...TrueScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44689840529368956032010-04-15T18:00:00.593-04:002010-04-15T18:00:00.593-04:00Is the Steven Mosher posting here the same nice, r...Is the Steven Mosher posting here the same nice, reasonable person who posted this at Deep Climate? <br /><i><br />steven mosher // February 8, 2010 at 7:42 am | Reply<br /><br />The death threats are troublesome for two reasons.<br /><br />1. Jones caregivers should be reading his mails if he is in such a state of mind.<br /><br />2. I know his supporters are mad at him, but why are they writing death threats<br /></i>TrueScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8227269190157048172010-02-13T10:18:56.780-05:002010-02-13T10:18:56.780-05:00Rattus - that may well be it, after all you want t...Rattus - that may well be it, after all you want the IPCC report to be written as unambigously as possible.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12087469081259354042010-02-12T20:56:14.432-05:002010-02-12T20:56:14.432-05:00Guthrie,
In otherwords, Courtney so clearly misun...Guthrie,<br /><br />In otherwords, Courtney so clearly misunderstood (or distorted) what was said that I rewrite was deemed necessary so that he could not get it wrong?Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33914116317193417682010-02-12T18:34:39.359-05:002010-02-12T18:34:39.359-05:00An open debate IPCC would be pointless. On the ot...An open debate IPCC would be pointless. On the other hand a moderated wikipedia type setup with only scientists involved, as I kind of thought was the case now, would stand a reasonable chance. Of course one can allow non-scientists to read it, and you could employ some graduates to filter the sensible from the stupid comments - even our old pal from the coal board, richard courtney, despite lying and fouling up the science actually made some usefull comments on the way the last report was written, which resulted in a section or two being re-written for clarity.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17992984293423290387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18491769348513080172010-02-12T12:23:37.012-05:002010-02-12T12:23:37.012-05:00Marion, good summary.
And yes, Wikipedia-like IPP...Marion, good summary.<br /><br />And yes, Wikipedia-like IPPC reports would be a goon fest, a gong show, useless and a waste of time and effort.<br /><br /><br />Dr. John Christy, I think, floated that ridiculous balloon. <br /><br />Isn't it odd that when WG2 and WG3 came out about 3 years ago they were dismissed by the "skeptics" who climate dot have read them. Well, they clearly had not. They just dismissed them out right....<br /><br />Mistakes learned, move on and they'll address the concerns and lessons learned in WG2. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they do follow through. I for one, do not want to give the "skeptics" one error to blow out of proportion....but that would be an unrealistic goal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80676203212433555832010-02-12T06:41:09.924-05:002010-02-12T06:41:09.924-05:00Adrian, it is a crazy idea. the WG2 and WG3 are no...Adrian, it is a crazy idea. the WG2 and WG3 are now being reevaluated as if they were things they are not. <br /><br />In all honesty, what's really happened is, yet again, brain infection from market fundamentalism.<br /><br />People are hypercritical of the IPCC WG2 and WG3, and are not proposing how to fund a better replacement, or keep anyone dumb enough to get involved with it from being harrassed non-stop until they can't work.<br /><br />It's the old story - This gummint stuff sucks, and it better damn well improve itself, oh, and we're cutting all its funding. and using the money we saved to work a mob up and buy them pitchforks and torches. Get to work.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51771607106113338762010-02-12T06:35:55.889-05:002010-02-12T06:35:55.889-05:00Thanks to steven for all the free data on whether ...Thanks to steven for all the free data on whether you can reason with sociopaths.<br /><br />My working hypothesis is now "no."Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80015682766813626752010-02-12T04:24:37.682-05:002010-02-12T04:24:37.682-05:00Thanks to all for the follow up comments.
I'd...Thanks to all for the follow up comments.<br /><br />I'd like to add that Demi did rather miss the point. The "1/2 degree up or down" was introduced into the conversation by dhogaza to make a point. <br /><br />What Steve Mosher referred to was "0.1C" and clarified later with <br /><br />"it = the .1C type problems". <br /><br />He also said (and this was got me going): <br /><br />"nobody with any credibility expects to find some huge smoking gun in the code. No error that accounts for the warming"<br /><br />This would indicate that none of those wankers expects any of the current witch-huntery to change a thing. All they are hoping to achieve is a delay in the ability for anyone of us to do anything about a problem that they know exists - AGW.<br /><br />The irony is, again correct me if I'm wrong, that they don't want anything done about it until they are absolutely certain that the models are 100% accurate because of the potential economic burden. That economic burden, of course, being assumed by the application of a bunch of other models (that are so unreliable that they didn't even predict the recent economic melt-down).<br /><br />Meanwhile, a serious article in Nature has at least one scientist calling for the IPCC to be scrapped in favour of a 'Wickipedia-style' open debate. Does anyone else find that a little scary? Isn't that effectively what we have outside of the IPCC - blogville?Adriannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29852970102058571362010-02-11T16:27:34.219-05:002010-02-11T16:27:34.219-05:00The core of the campaign is a network of professio...The core of the campaign is a network of professional lobbyists, rightwing activists and politicians, tame journalists and a handful of scientists (including some at the University of East Anglia itself) who present themselves as independent seekers after truth, but are actually in regular contact to co-ordinate their actions and talking points. <br /><br />The main mechanism of harassment was the misuse of Freedom of Information requests in an effort to disrupt the work of scientists, trap them into failures of compliance, and extract information that could be misrepresented as evidence of scientific misconduct. This is a long-standing tactic in the rightwing War on Science, reflected in such Orwellian pieces of legislation as the US “Data Quality Act”.<br /><br />The hacking was almost certainly done by someone within the campaign, but in a way that maintained (in Watergate terminology) “plausible deniability” for the principals. ... much the same team had their first outing in the controversy over the Mann et al “hockey stick” graph. All the same elements were there – supposedly disinterested citizen researchers who were in fact paid rightwing operatives, misuse of accountability procedures, and exceptional gullibility on the part of the “sceptical” mass audience.<br /><br /><a href="http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/02/11/climategate-revisited/" rel="nofollow">Climategate revisited</a>Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080844313226790538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92195049185864085032010-02-11T16:11:31.725-05:002010-02-11T16:11:31.725-05:00"Oy. Drop the temp record by half a degree ov..."Oy. Drop the temp record by half a degree over the last century, and all talk of AGW - and all of its funding - disappears. Half a degree IS what the cruxt of the matter is at this time."<br /><br />You really don't get it, do you?<br /><br />If temperatures did not behave as predicted by some fairly straightforward physics, that would make the problem -more- interesting to the like of Jones et al. It would also undoubtedly guarantee funding to assist with and explanation <br /><br />These people are following the muse of their human curiosity. Their annoyance with being pestered by gullible idiots is the same as you'd feel if you were on Lover's Lane about to get to first base and a cop showed up with a flashlight at your window.<br /><br />How can people be so dense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13805602944532213762010-02-11T15:46:09.704-05:002010-02-11T15:46:09.704-05:00Demi: I see your point, but based on context, I a...Demi: I see your point, but based on context, I assume Mosher was talking about relatively trivial differences there. If he meant to say he thought it was possible there had been no warming at all since the 1970s, I'd think he'd use different language. <br /><br />Then again, elsewhere he or at least his friends try to make it sound like that's a possibility, so you never know. So only he can clarify his statement.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88838815479535183502010-02-11T15:42:38.366-05:002010-02-11T15:42:38.366-05:00Anon 8:49 needs to put his sarcasm head on and re-...Anon 8:49 needs to put his sarcasm head on and re-parse.<br /><br /><i>Cymraeg llygoden</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24337459233596242042010-02-11T15:10:08.040-05:002010-02-11T15:10:08.040-05:00"That's an outright accusation of fraud, ..."That's an outright accusation of fraud, not an attempt to wiggle the science 1/2 degree up or down."<br /><br />Oy. Drop the temp record by half a degree over the last century, and all talk of AGW - and all of its funding - disappears. Half a degree IS what the cruxt of the matter is at this time.<br /><br />Therefore, if that was done intentionally, yes, it is fraud.<br /><br />--DemiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57628711775623461542010-02-11T14:13:40.471-05:002010-02-11T14:13:40.471-05:00"And would a kid have known about Yamal etc.?..."And would a kid have known about Yamal etc.?"<br /><br />Anybody who reads CA on a regular basis, regardless of age, would have searched for whichever terms they searched for.<br /><br />All we can say is the person probably read CA, followed the controversies generated there, saw there was a campaign to send FOIs, was motivated by it, knew how to break into an email server and search for certain terms, and then put the results in places where his sympathizers could find them. And also tried to put them where non-sympathizers would find them, as well.<br /><br />Beyond that, I don't think we know anything, so it's irresponsible to speculate about M&M themselves, or Russian spies, or any of that.<br /><br />___<br /><br />By the way, like Adrian's take and dhogaza's reply. It's completely inconsistent for Mosher or McIntyre to say they're just looking for minor errors and that they basically think the science is correct, while instigating the feeding frenzy of baseless claims of fraud and major error.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60719535395736993872010-02-11T13:45:27.371-05:002010-02-11T13:45:27.371-05:00I'm with carrot eater on this, which is why I ...I'm with carrot eater on this, which is why I pointed out that it doesn't necessarily take a sophisticated cracker to make their way into a server hosting web sites such as real climate.<br /><br />"But I'm sorry, there's simply no reason (yet, at least) to think one of the principals of CA actually did it."<br /><br />If caught, the discovery would hurt their cause. I can't imagine the kind of free pass given them by so many journalists would survive such a disclosure.<br /><br />The obviously were pleased that it happened, and sleazily tried to downplay their role in distributing stolen information by insisting it's a protected whistleblower doing it (BTW this is why I doubt it's someone inside CRU, such insistence by friends would make any such person nervous, I should think).<br /><br />But I don't think they did it.<br /><br />"The person/s who obtained the data knew exactly what they were looking for."<br /><br />The concordance study down at The Guardian's request make it clear that a relatively small set of grep's using words like "modeling" would've been sufficient to grab the purloined e-mails. Now, as to how many "false positives" (i.e. useless e-mails) that would return, they can't say because they only have the purloined messages to work with.<br /><br />But since the 1300 (?) or so messages contain a mere handful of gems worth misrepresenting or lying about, ITSM that they kept much, most, or all of the mails returned by simple grep'ing for such terms.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14925017565986799432010-02-11T13:40:36.819-05:002010-02-11T13:40:36.819-05:00Yes, Carrot, the CRU hack has gotten a lot of undu...Yes, Carrot, the CRU hack has gotten a lot of undue attention, BUT would a kid have known that a priori? And would a kid have known about Yamal etc.?<br /><br />I think not. Anyhow, you let's just hope that they find whoever did this and hold them to account.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88930777571300032072010-02-11T13:06:30.047-05:002010-02-11T13:06:30.047-05:00"Also, kinds (sic) would go for the glory. Th..."Also, kinds (sic) would go for the glory. There is not much glory hacking into CRU. "<br /><br />Looking around, there clearly was. <br /><br />Again, it's probably very safe to say that whoever did it was a reader of the different climate blogs, in particular CA. That's what motivated the person. But I'm sorry, there's simply no reason (yet, at least) to think one of the principals of CA actually did it. <br /><br />"The person/s who obtained the data knew exactly what they were looking for."<br /><br />Hardly. No more so than any random but regular reader of CA. Why are people thinking it's a sign of sophistication that the person searched for certain names and terms? It isn't. I'd also say the person had little understanding of the scientific significance of what he found (basically, none). Though he shares that in common with much of the denial-blogosphere.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13529093530507257222010-02-11T12:46:29.909-05:002010-02-11T12:46:29.909-05:00Re Jim and dhogaza's comments. Can someone ple...Re Jim and dhogaza's comments. Can someone please spell this out to the journalists like Revkin and Pearce and Rose and...!<br /><br />MapleleafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17197091568726656622010-02-11T12:34:25.891-05:002010-02-11T12:34:25.891-05:00dhogaza @9:29AM: It's a front, an act, a diver...dhogaza @9:29AM: <i>It's a front, an act, a diversion. By posing as reasonable people, they hope to fool people into believing that their wildest accusations are also reasonable.</i><br /><br />Isn't that the definition of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29#Concern_troll" rel="nofollow">concern troll</a>"?Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080844313226790538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4575259859603615712010-02-11T12:29:28.668-05:002010-02-11T12:29:28.668-05:00Adrian:
"How do they live with themselves, k...Adrian:<br /><br />"How do they live with themselves, knowing the damage they are causing for the sake of an intellectual willie comparison? "<br /><br />Because it's not really an intellectual willie comparison. <br /><br />Their product is not the relatively tiny impact they've had on the science itself.<br /><br />Their product is the other stuff you talk about:<br /><br />"accusations of fraud and demands for the removal of Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others and a feeding frenzy of unparalleled proportions is taking place in 'journalistic' circles with attacks on the IPCC and almost any individual associated with it. Mosher himself has attacked the peer-review process and claimed that it prevents 'non-consensus views' from getting through."<br /><br />They pretend like their findings are earthshaking evidence of scientific fraud on the part of researchers.<br /><br />Mosher's true feelings are revealed by his use of the term "Piltdown Mann", for instance, to impeach Mann's scientific credibility. That's an outright accusation of fraud, not an attempt to wiggle the science 1/2 degree up or down.<br /><br />Shorter summary: don't trust Mosher (or McI) when they pretend to be reasonable. It's a front, an act, a diversion. By posing as reasonable people, they hope to fool people into believing that their wildest accusations are also reasonable.<br /><br />Obviously, it's not working with you. But it works with many, including, apparently, far too many journalists.dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52832003069246300952010-02-11T12:20:36.645-05:002010-02-11T12:20:36.645-05:00Adrian @7:38AM: "I am horrified."
And i...Adrian @7:38AM: "I am horrified."<br /><br />And it's ever so much worse than you think. Check out John Mashey's new paper, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out-wegman-file" rel="nofollow">Plagiarism? Conspiracies? Felonies? Breaking out the Wegman File</a>.<br /><br />I extracted one of his central graphs: <a href="http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2010/02/graph-of-day-climate-anti-science.html" rel="nofollow">Graph of the Day: Climate Anti-Science Activities, 1989-2010</a><br /><br />Also required reading: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265908738&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming</a>.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080844313226790538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72982140435375024502010-02-11T11:53:19.660-05:002010-02-11T11:53:19.660-05:00Adrian, most of the prominent ones have said at on...Adrian, most of the prominent ones have said at one time or another that their major concern is that their taxes not be raised for the purpose of mitigating climate warming until it's proven to their satisfaction. The problem is that they're greedy and self-centered, probably spoiled from childhood, and such people are not psycholgically configured to care about things that aren't directly affecting them. Indeed, they will happily make stuff up to undermine the science and feel quite justified in doing so. The parallel with the teabagger response to health care reform is informative.Steve Bloomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90270253061357670012010-02-11T11:49:24.326-05:002010-02-11T11:49:24.326-05:00Cymraeg. Huh? Let us apply some logic here. The...Cymraeg. Huh? Let us apply some logic here. They blasted prvate information (illegally?) all over the bloody web, and now you are suggesting that Mosher cannot reveal his source of the "data" b/c it is may be "held in commercial confidence".<br /><br />The police need to speak to Mosher.<br /><br />Carrot, yes tens of millions of people live in that time zone. But a few vectors are pointing towards M&M country. McI has had his hand in the cookie jar without permission before and tried to cover it up, rather badly in the end.<br /><br />Personally I do not think that McI would be so dumb, but perhaps McK. If note them, very likely one of their acolytes.<br /><br />As for hacking and kids. I do not think that this was done by a kid. Someone grep'd or did a search though the large sum of files and emails to weed out the information on Jones and his colleagues.<br /><br />Also, kinds would go for the glory. There is not much glory hacking into CRU. They tend to go for corporations or government agencies in the hopes of getting a job with Apple of Microsoft.<br /><br />The person/s who obtained the data knew exactly what they were looking for.<br /><br />It is troubling that Mosher won't reveal his source. If it is part of the criminal investigation, fine. Then he could have said that. But he didn't and Pearce did not push him on it. Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com