I would certainly prefer to see Beddington than McIntyre, but it appears Eli has given us two copies of the Beddington video and no copies of the McIntyre one?
Or Peter Rabbit's computer might be playing up again, which is always a possibility.
I too was intrigued by the body language of Max Foster. If I were Allan Pease (who I'm not), I'd say he was signalling that he didn't believe Prof Beddington.
OTH, he might just have a coldsore or a missing front tooth :D
McI saying that he hadn't sent very many FOI requests. WTF? He f'n orchestrated a mass mailing of FOI requests. This innocent bystander scheisse is just so bogus.
Someone posted something very interesting on BBC (Black's story about Jones being vindicated-- the comments section has a few loyal McIntyre fans defending him and amongst others things, Soon and Baliunas),
"You are right, CA is not RC, RC is run by real climate scientists. And as far as I know, RC do not investigate IP addresses of visitors like CA has done.
Yes, McI acknowledged TomP, I note that he did not thank him. You are squirming--TomP found it and none of McI's ardent acolytes. And here is something else interesting, he made the original post on 26 February. TomP notified McI of his error on 1 March. So despite all his acolytes having access to the PDF file to critique it for two days (and it is busy blog) not one of his 'eagle-eyed' acolytes had spotted the mistake-- in fact, they praised it (incl. Loehle). Not to mention the fact that some of his closer allies like RomanM, bender and Mosher probably proof-read it for him. His fans clearly just tow the line and do not apply their critical thinking skills."
They also say,
"Now what is really telling about the HoC committee is that McKitrick, McIntyre and other 'skeptics' all had the opportunity to craft and submit evidence to make a convincing case, yet such was the vacuity of their 'evidence' that it had no bearing on the committee's findings. And that has got to hurt, big time."
Just when did McIntyre feel inclined to notify the committee of his error?
Someone posted something very interesting on BBC (Black's story about Jones being vindicated-- the comments section has a few loyal McIntyre fans defending him and amongst others things, Soon and Baliunas),
"You are right, CA is not RC, RC is run by real climate scientists. And as far as I know, RC do not investigate IP addresses of visitors like CA has done.
Yes, McI acknowledged TomP, I note that he did not thank him. You are squirming--TomP found it and none of McI's ardent acolytes. And here is something else interesting, he made the original post on 26 February. TomP notified McI of his error on 1 March. So despite all his acolytes having access to the PDF file to critique it for two days (and it is busy blog) not one of his 'eagle-eyed' acolytes had spotted the mistake-- in fact, they praised it (incl. Loehle). Not to mention the fact that some of his closer allies like RomanM, bender and Mosher probably proof-read it for him. His fans clearly just tow the line and do not apply their critical thinking skills."
They also say,
"Now what is really telling about the HoC committee is that McKitrick, McIntyre and other 'skeptics' all had the opportunity to craft and submit evidence to make a convincing case, yet such was the vacuity of their 'evidence' that it had no bearing on the committee's findings. And that has got to hurt, big time."
Just when did McIntyre feel inclined to notify the committee of his error?
Eli, sorry have to do this, especially with it being a long weekend and all.
BUT, the "honest" broker is at it again. I think Roger has outdone himself this time-- Ross says the IPCC just "make stuff up" don't you know and Roger agrees. They really are trying hard to stoke the rapidly dying fire, and the level of rhetoric is rocketing upwards (well so are the MSU temperature data, but I guess they want to distract people from that nasty reality).
Someone really has to take Ross and Roger to task for this nonsense. DC has started, but there may be too much crap for one soul to deal with in McKitrick's diatribe. Other enthused and well-meaning bunnies are invited to show Ross and Roger the error of their ways.
MarkeyMouse says: MacCracken is an idiot, seems to think it's OK to use a "trick" to "hide the decline".
Still a long way to go in the debunking, but compare and contrast "..Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve. etc.." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-4,00.html
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
I would certainly prefer to see Beddington than McIntyre, but it appears Eli has given us two copies of the Beddington video and no copies of the McIntyre one?
ReplyDeleteOr Peter Rabbit's computer might be playing up again, which is always a possibility.
Max Foster's body language intrigues me. I don't know what to make of it, however.
ReplyDeletePete: Yeeps, it must be the pressure of getting the egg delivery set up. Thanks
ReplyDeleteI too was intrigued by the body language of Max Foster. If I were Allan Pease (who I'm not), I'd say he was signalling that he didn't believe Prof Beddington.
ReplyDeleteOTH, he might just have a coldsore or a missing front tooth :D
MacCracken was fairly solid. It was good that he had the last word and was able to chastise McIntyre even if indirectly.
ReplyDeleteMcIntyre looks just as dodgy as ever, putting his own spin on things. Par for the course.
BTW, thanks for the videos.
McI saying that he hadn't sent very many FOI requests. WTF? He f'n orchestrated a mass mailing of FOI requests. This innocent bystander scheisse is just so bogus.
ReplyDeleteA question re: McI. Would you buy a used gold mine from this man?
ReplyDeleteMcI saying that he hadn't sent very many FOI requests.
ReplyDeleteOf course *he* didn't. He had his minions do much of that dirty work. What a slimeball.
Since we are talking about McIntyre,
ReplyDeleteSomeone posted something very interesting on BBC (Black's story about Jones being vindicated-- the comments section has a few loyal McIntyre fans defending him and amongst others things, Soon and Baliunas),
"You are right, CA is not RC, RC is run by real climate scientists. And as far as I know, RC do not investigate IP addresses of visitors like CA has done.
Yes, McI acknowledged TomP, I note that he did not thank him. You are squirming--TomP found it and none of McI's ardent acolytes. And here is something else interesting, he made the original post on 26 February. TomP notified McI of his error on 1 March. So despite all his acolytes having access to the PDF file to critique it for two days (and it is busy blog) not one of his 'eagle-eyed' acolytes had spotted the mistake-- in fact, they praised it (incl. Loehle). Not to mention the fact that some of his closer allies like RomanM, bender and Mosher probably proof-read it for him. His fans clearly just tow the line and do not apply their critical thinking skills."
They also say,
"Now what is really telling about the HoC committee is that McKitrick, McIntyre and other 'skeptics' all had the opportunity to craft and submit evidence to make a convincing case, yet such was the vacuity of their 'evidence' that it had no bearing on the committee's findings. And that has got to hurt, big time."
Just when did McIntyre feel inclined to notify the committee of his error?
Since we are talking about McIntyre,
ReplyDeleteSomeone posted something very interesting on BBC (Black's story about Jones being vindicated-- the comments section has a few loyal McIntyre fans defending him and amongst others things, Soon and Baliunas),
"You are right, CA is not RC, RC is run by real climate scientists. And as far as I know, RC do not investigate IP addresses of visitors like CA has done.
Yes, McI acknowledged TomP, I note that he did not thank him. You are squirming--TomP found it and none of McI's ardent acolytes. And here is something else interesting, he made the original post on 26 February. TomP notified McI of his error on 1 March. So despite all his acolytes having access to the PDF file to critique it for two days (and it is busy blog) not one of his 'eagle-eyed' acolytes had spotted the mistake-- in fact, they praised it (incl. Loehle). Not to mention the fact that some of his closer allies like RomanM, bender and Mosher probably proof-read it for him. His fans clearly just tow the line and do not apply their critical thinking skills."
They also say,
"Now what is really telling about the HoC committee is that McKitrick, McIntyre and other 'skeptics' all had the opportunity to craft and submit evidence to make a convincing case, yet such was the vacuity of their 'evidence' that it had no bearing on the committee's findings. And that has got to hurt, big time."
Just when did McIntyre feel inclined to notify the committee of his error?
Eli, sorry have to do this, especially with it being a long weekend and all.
ReplyDeleteBUT, the "honest" broker is at it again. I think Roger has outdone himself this time-- Ross says the IPCC just "make stuff up" don't you know and Roger agrees. They really are trying hard to stoke the rapidly dying fire, and the level of rhetoric is rocketing upwards (well so are the MSU temperature data, but I guess they want to distract people from that nasty reality).
Someone really has to take Ross and Roger to task for this nonsense. DC has started, but there may be too much crap for one soul to deal with in McKitrick's diatribe. Other enthused and well-meaning bunnies are invited to show Ross and Roger the error of their ways.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/fabrication-or-lie-in-ipcc-ar4-wgi.html
McKitrick says this:
ReplyDelete".....the surface temperature data on which most of their conclusions rest."
This is utter bullshit, and he knows it. The first half of that sentence is probably also bullshit, but who knows.
I'm shocked that Roger Jnr would sign off on that.
MarkeyMouse says: MacCracken is an idiot, seems to think it's OK to use a "trick" to "hide the decline".
ReplyDeleteStill a long way to go in the debunking, but compare and contrast "..Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve. etc.." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-4,00.html
OK, I had to post at CA. Anyway, the part that got cut was: "That was the attack that got the whole e-mail hack thing rolling."
ReplyDelete