tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1769444134174493524..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Axe GrindingEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52266925734198026732012-06-05T10:28:06.706-04:002012-06-05T10:28:06.706-04:00> Why do you believe someone who won't sign...> Why do you believe someone who won't sign their name to their words?<br /><br />From the top of my non-existent head:<br /><br />Because you believe what that person says, not his authority to say it.<br /><br />Because credibility is not an issue in the specific case.<br /><br />Because it would be a pro hominem.<br /><br />Because you don't need to believe anything.willardhttp://neverendingaudit.tumblr.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3442782586275328882012-06-05T10:15:39.876-04:002012-06-05T10:15:39.876-04:00"Some people spent far too much time and far ...<i>"Some people spent far too much time and far too much energy caught up in the intricacies of the blogosphere."</i><br /><br />Said the blogger.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38186250276951214472012-06-05T07:28:11.804-04:002012-06-05T07:28:11.804-04:00Davey boy.
"You're anonymous. (For all w...Davey boy.<br /><br />"<i>You're anonymous. (For all we know, you're Peter Gleick.) That immediately makes anything you write suspect, as likely to be disinformation, misinformation, uninformation, or crap-information, as it is to be information.<br /><br />The world doesn't trust anonymous information, for good reason.<br /><br />I don't believe a word you write -- in fact, I immediately begin to question something the very moment you publish it here. What kind of person thinks he/she has something vital to share, but lacks the courage to share it?<br /><br />We all know the answer: a coward who has shyed away from ever saying anything important to begin with. </i>"<br /><br />Snort.<br /><br />Prior to the appearance of this thread I'd never heard of you, and your output beyond the confines of the Rabbet Run are still unknown to me. You are to all intents and purposes as anonymous to me as is anyone else here.<br /><br />I judge you only on the substance (or rather, the lack thereof) that you present here. I judge you only on the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) and the logic (or screaming lack thereof) that you present here.<br /><br />Apparently you're a journalist. A paid one. And one who is to busy with his own pursuits:<br /><br />"<i>I need to make a living, and I have my own interests that I prefer to pursue. </i>"<br /><br />which don't seem to coincide with pursuing the facts of matters scientific.<br /><br />You definitely exhibit a fixation on the manner in which people use names with which to refer to others, and you exihibit the enthusiasm of one who has a man-crush on Steve McIntyre, but you're not actually constructing a resilient narrative that supports your suggestion of any notable flaw in the character or of the science of professional climatologists.<br /><br />Oh, you may gnash your teeth and pull your hair and stamp your feet and wail to the contrary, but there's a whole bunch of real, actual, trained and experienced professional scientists here who are very aware that you're not pursuing <i>investigative</i> journalism with anything like the vigour that you pretend. With <i>nothing</i> resembling investigation, truth be said...<br /><br />If someone is actually paying you to produce "journalist" output, they're misplacing their money. Given the very tenuous understanding of rational investigation and analysis that you have exhibited here, I would be very dubious about the quality of <i>any</i> work that you produce. Seriously, if you're making a living from your journalism, tell your boss to come here and offer me a job instead - I'll provide better-researched material that is orders of magnitude more scientifically/logically defensible, and is very likely far cheaper to boot.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54002509697764933022012-06-05T07:04:57.743-04:002012-06-05T07:04:57.743-04:00To Eli, McIntyre is a very high maintenance qvetch...To Eli, McIntyre is a very high maintenance qvetch. His mission in life is to consume others time and energy.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67704460703960814982012-06-05T07:00:11.715-04:002012-06-05T07:00:11.715-04:00The Quark Soup post does confirm that Pacific Inst...The Quark Soup post does confirm that Pacific Institute is reviewing that investigation, which is an independent one, letting us know that it is likely completed.<br /><br />"The Pacific Institute Board of Directors has not finalized its review of the investigation"<br /><br />The investigation that Goldenberg reported on:<br /><br />"He has been on leave from the institute pending an external investigation into the unauthorized release of the documents"<br /><br />The investigation announced by Pacific Institute on 2/27/12<br /><br />"The Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute is deeply concerned regarding recent events involving its president, Dr. Peter Gleick, and has hired an independent firm to review the allegations."<br /><br />If anyone doubts this, let them point to the flaws, or possible misinformation. <br /><br />A referee or fact checker would be useful in this situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-55971323420609802312012-06-05T05:15:20.998-04:002012-06-05T05:15:20.998-04:00Don't feed the troll folksDon't feed the troll folksMartin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49202283546541857702012-06-05T02:15:43.519-04:002012-06-05T02:15:43.519-04:00McI has a number of anonymous pals he thinks highl...McI has a number of anonymous pals he thinks highly of. Go figure.<br /><br />You're getting old and bitter, David, and it's really showing.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44394726156548145842012-06-05T02:03:11.297-04:002012-06-05T02:03:11.297-04:00Neven: Why do you believe someone who won't si...Neven: Why do you believe someone who won't sign their name to their words?<br /><br />Confirmation bias?David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40047626803920014272012-06-05T01:26:40.133-04:002012-06-05T01:26:40.133-04:00You're anonymous. (For all we know, you're...<i>You're anonymous. (For all we know, you're Peter Gleick.)<br /><br />The world doesn't trust anonymous information, for good reason.<br /><br />We all know the answer: a coward who has shyed away from ever saying anything important to begin with.</i><br /><br />David, do you yourself notice how very much you're sounding like Anthony Watts? What's next, posting the anonymous coward's address?<br /><br /><i>And I think it's a huge waste of time to spend all day reading the climate blogosphere.</i><br /><br />Then you are obviously not qualified to come up with handwaving statements such as these: "But of all the skeptics, Steve McIntyre seem to me to be one of the most decent, and most impersonal, out there."<br /><br />To quote Bernard J:<br /><br /><i>I for one would like to applaud David Appell's persistent promotion of McIntyre's work.<br /><br />Without this dogged pushing, we might not have had the salient reminders above of just how abjectly baseless McIntyre's claims were, and how justifiable are the criticisms of the same.<br /><br />With friends like David...</i><br /><br />But feel free to do as much pearlclutching as you like.And good luck with pissing off both sides and thinking you're the smartest boy in the room. Maybe Kloor, Pielke and Revkin can make some space for you.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63115761924832346172012-06-04T23:37:33.766-04:002012-06-04T23:37:33.766-04:00It appeared you had no interest in it from your co...It appeared you had no interest in it from your comments about the blogesphere.<br /><br />Glad to be wrong on that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46712307332955819002012-06-04T23:26:30.041-04:002012-06-04T23:26:30.041-04:00grypo wrote:
>> I suppose this means that Da...grypo wrote:<br />>> I suppose this means that David will not be looking into the reasons that would lead Mann into wanting an investigation into McIntyre's "ties". <<<br /><br />What a complete failure of understanding.<br /><br />My comment meant that I hadn't LOOKED into the matter. That I'd have to research and investigate the issue.<br /><br />And that I'd do the same with any other issue.<br /><br />I'm not willing to make quick, off-the-cuff conclusions about technically complex issues without doing the necessary work.<br /><br />It's very telling that grypo doesn't grok that.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90695923721853483452012-06-04T22:28:37.752-04:002012-06-04T22:28:37.752-04:00I suppose this means that David will not be lookin...I suppose this means that David will not be looking into the reasons that would lead Mann into wanting an investigation into McIntyre's "ties". It is unfortunate because it is the blogesphere that McIntyre uses as his weapon of choice. But don't ask me, ask <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind/" rel="nofollow"> another scientist </a> whose passing personal thoughts deserve to be encapsulated by an Einstein quote.<br /><br />--<br />My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain – the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.<br /><br />Benjamin D. Santer<br />--<br /><br />In the words of a famous auditor, this deserves due diligence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3143115054659346122012-06-04T22:28:19.924-04:002012-06-04T22:28:19.924-04:00Anonymous 6/2 2:16 pm wrote:
>> "My po...Anonymous 6/2 2:16 pm wrote:<br /><i> >> "My post added valuable information to the situation." << <br /><br />I very much agree, and thank you for doing that. It confirmed that the investigation was likely done....<br /></i><br /><br />A complete lie. In fact, my post said absolutely nothing about an independent investigation. Reread it:<br /><br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/gleick-review-not-finalized-pacific.htmlDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13339595702199753702012-06-04T22:22:03.981-04:002012-06-04T22:22:03.981-04:00Anonymous 6/2 2:16 pm wrote:
>> ...but to be...Anonymous 6/2 2:16 pm wrote:<br />>> ...but to be honest, at first, I just wanted to help and make sure people understood the situation correctly. <<<br /><br />How incredibly naive of you.<br /><br />You're anonymous. (For all we know, you're Peter Gleick.) That immediately makes anything you write suspect, as likely to be disinformation, misinformation, uninformation, or crap-information, as it is to be information.<br /><br />The world doesn't trust anonymous information, for good reason.<br /><br />I don't believe a word you write -- in fact, I immediately begin to question something the very moment you publish it here. What kind of person thinks he/she has something vital to share, but lacks the courage to share it?<br /><br />We all know the answer: a coward who has shyed away from ever saying anything important to begin with.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-352317427457842132012-06-04T22:04:48.634-04:002012-06-04T22:04:48.634-04:00Martin Vermeer wrote:
Yes, McIntyre has published ...Martin Vermeer wrote:<br /><i>Yes, McIntyre has published in reputable journals, but that was a while ago. And history has not been kind to those papers: if you do your homework on them, you'll see that they were thoroughly refuted.</i><br /><br />I didn't say McIntyre was perfect. I said he often raises legitimate points and deserves to be taken seriously. <br /><br />Few scientists publish work of huge importance, or work that is undoubtably correct. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />And it doesn't mean their scientific opponents should try to get investigative journalists to discredit them. <br /><br />Mann has many forums -- papers, a blog, academies, interviews -- to make his work and opinions known. He shouldn't be trying to discredit his opponents through secret backchannel innuendo.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29804986301198476932012-06-04T21:47:55.128-04:002012-06-04T21:47:55.128-04:00J Bowers wrote:
Well, that's one example, and ...J Bowers wrote:<br /><i>Well, that's one example, and a "not so reliable" one at that.</i><br /><br />Some people spent far too much time and far too much energy caught up in the intricacies of the blogosphere.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85621742695224190002012-06-04T21:00:06.295-04:002012-06-04T21:00:06.295-04:00"I said I did: Steve McIntyre. His work is pu...<i>"I said I did: Steve McIntyre. His work is published in peer review journals. That doesn't mean it's conclusive, or even correct overall (but then, many published papers aren't), but some people (like Peter Huybers) found it worth looking into."</i><br /><br />Well, that's <i>one</i> example, and a "not so reliable" one at that.<br /><br />* Ch.1: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/" rel="nofollow">Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, part 1: In the beginning</a><br />* Ch.2: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/" rel="nofollow">Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, part 2: The story behind the Barton-Whitfield investigation and the Wegman Panel</a><br />* Ch.3: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/" rel="nofollow">McClimategate continues: Yet another false accusation from McIntyre and McKitrick</a><br />* Ch.4: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/04/22/wegman-and-saids-social-network-sources-more-dubious-scholarship/" rel="nofollow">Wegman and Said on social networks: More dubious scholarship</a><br />* Ch.5: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/11/how-to-be-a-climate-auditor-part-1-pretty%C2%A0pictures/" rel="nofollow">How to be a climate auditor, part 1: Pretty pictures</a><br />* Ch.6: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-part-2-the-forgotten-climategate-emails/" rel="nofollow">How to be a climate science auditor, part 2: The forgotten climategate emails</a><br />* Ch.7: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/07/01/mann-exonerated-by-psu-inquiry-no-substance-to-the-allegation/" rel="nofollow">Mann exonerated by PSU inquiry: "No substance to the allegation"</a><br />* Ch.8: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/07/29/wegman-report-update-part-1-more-dubious-scholarship-in-full-colour/" rel="nofollow">Wegman Report update, part 1: More dubious scholarship in full colour</a><br />* Ch.9: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/03/what-have-wegman-and-said-done-lately/" rel="nofollow">What have Wegman and Said done lately?</a><br />* Ch.10: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/15/wegman-report-update-part-2-gmu-dissertation-review/" rel="nofollow">Wegman report update, part 2: GMU dissertation review</a><br />* Ch.11: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/" rel="nofollow">John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report</a><br />* Ch.12: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/08/wegman-under-investigation-by-george-mason-university/" rel="nofollow">Wegman under investigation by George Mason University</a><br />* Ch.13: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/24/david-ritson-speaks-out/" rel="nofollow">David Ritson speaks out</a><br />* Ch.14: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/" rel="nofollow">The Wegman report sees red (noise)</a><br />* Ch.15: <a href="http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/" rel="nofollow">Replication and due diligence, Wegman style</a>J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36529967075814710522012-06-04T19:45:17.613-04:002012-06-04T19:45:17.613-04:00You need to follow it a bit more before making swe...<i>You need to follow it a bit more before making sweeping statements.</i><br /><br />I don't think my comment was "sweeping." <br /><br />And I think it's a huge waste of time to spend all day reading the climate blogosphere. It's like candy for the mind.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85500690510492285422012-06-04T17:48:36.741-04:002012-06-04T17:48:36.741-04:00I don't follow every little twist and turn in ...<i>I don't follow every little twist and turn in the climate blogosphere.</i><br /><br />You need to follow it a bit more before making sweeping statements. Beware the Honest Broker-virus.Nevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15413215743703093876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19098571392830296992012-06-04T16:58:48.150-04:002012-06-04T16:58:48.150-04:00grypo: I would have to do a lot of research and in...grypo: I would have to do a lot of research and investigation to begin to answer your question. <br /><br />As I wrote earlier, I don't follow every little twist and turn in the climate blogosphere. I need to make a living, and I have my own interests that I prefer to pursue.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86669475768369321622012-06-04T16:16:30.653-04:002012-06-04T16:16:30.653-04:00yes, and it looks like he has new target to harass...yes, and it looks like he has new target to harass, Joelle Gergis. She <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/" rel="nofollow">told him to do the work himself</a>, pretty much what everyone else tells him, until he effs it up like he did with the Russian data a few weeks ago. Of course, he's having none of it, but would rather continue to harass people until they erase their blogs.<br /><br />It's interesting to watch people hitch their caboose to that trainwreck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12937485016457942692012-06-04T15:53:35.425-04:002012-06-04T15:53:35.425-04:00Well, AFAEKS, McIntyre has made a couple of worthw...Well, AFAEKS, McIntyre has made a couple of worthwhile, but not ground breaking technical corrections and consumed a lot of everyone else's energy. He is a rent seeker who makes so much noise that people have to do his work for him to get him to shut up.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35732942723119181242012-06-04T15:43:10.591-04:002012-06-04T15:43:10.591-04:00Grypo,
In my opinion, that statement by Stevie is ...Grypo,<br />In my opinion, that statement by Stevie is in the same league as:<br /><br />"Ah, the strawberries, that's where I had them. I proved by deductive logic that a duplicate key did exist..." I can just see Stevie playing with those ball bearings.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72025490939220904882012-06-04T15:20:48.053-04:002012-06-04T15:20:48.053-04:00I'd be curious if David agreed with the follow...I'd be curious if David agreed with the <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/" rel="nofollow">following statement</a> from McIntyre because it pretty encapsulates his entire reason for being in this debate:<br /><br />"I am completely convinced that they would have used it in Briffa et al 2008 and/or their October 2009 online article without a second thought. My surmise is that the apparent failure of the (still withheld) Yamal-Urals regional chronology to accord with their expectations caused CRU not to use it in Briffa et al 2008. I realize that this is a harsh statement, but it’s what I think."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53721638180900176512012-06-04T13:42:08.859-04:002012-06-04T13:42:08.859-04:00David,
Tone trolling. How convenient since your ...David, <br />Tone trolling. How convenient since your contention is utterly unsupported and indeed unsupportable.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.com