The Delingpole Conjectures: are they plausible, do they matter?

delinpole


James Delingpole is a journalist who takes a lively interest in the words and actions of climate campaigners and climate scientists. His often vivid writing might distract some from his importance as a contemporary philosopher, so here I examine a few recent sentences of his which contain what I have chosen to call ‘The Delingpole Conjectures’:

‘What I really should have said is that these [alarmist climate scientists] are a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots who don’t even deserve the name “scientists” because what they practise isn’t really science but data-fiddling, cherry-picking, grant-troughing, activism-driven propaganda.’

James Delingpole, 2015

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/31/global-warming-is-not-the-problem-global-governance-is/

Let us see what evidence can be found to lend credibility to these somewhat startling assertions, these conjectures. We (me, and all you good followers of CliScep) are, after all, not at all like the CO2 Cult members, who merely need a simple theory from which all else follows and evidence is of no concern since if it disagrees it will be modified, ignored, or derided, and if it agrees, well they are past the stage of needing its support to win political power. Thus they enjoy the benefits of deductive logic while we struggle with the burden of induction.

We list the Delingpole Conjectures below, and beside each present some evidence in exhibits which of course, given our aforementioned burden, are not given as proof but merely as indications of plausibility:

[alarmist climate scientists] are:

lying

Exhibit 1. ‘ The short video contained 20 false representations, pretenses or implications, calculated individually and by mutual reinforcement to deceive.’

Christopher Monckton commenting on a 2016 video with some of the stars of scientivism (Mann, Dessler, Trenberth, Santer). Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/19/20-false-representations-in-one-10-minute-video/

cheating

Exhibit 2. ‘So 2015 was an exceptional year for weather, which is not the way some scientists presented it. None of them mentioned the “blob” and as for the El Nino it was the “little bit on the top” merely a minor contribution. Most of the temperature rise was down to forced global warming, they said. This is all sleight of hand, and a little inaccurate.’

Source: ‘http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/23/2015-global-temp-or-how-some-scientists-deliberately-mistook-weather-for-climate/

scum-sucking

Exhibit 3. ‘I’m a climate-fucking-scientist’ rap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

bottom-feeding

Exhibit 4. ‘Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.

Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.

Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”’ Source: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/

third-rate

Exhibit 5. ‘ Between this withdrawal [of a paper by Gergis et al.] and the Esper et al paper showing the MWP and RWP warmer than today, Mike Mann must be having a really, really, bad day. ‘ Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finall

tosspots

Exhibit 6. Schmidt insists on ‘debating’ with an empty chair. ‘We asked a dozen scientists to debate with Roy and most refused.’ Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw

who don’t even deserve the name “scientists” because what they practise isn’t really science but:

data-fiddling

Exhibit 7. ‘ A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records. ‘ Source: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/it-was-all-a-lie-german-scientist-confirms-nasa-fiddled-with-climate-data/

cherry-picking

Exhibit 8. ‘I observed that the number of cores used in the most recent portion of the Yamal archive at CRU was implausibly low. There were only 10 cores in 1990 versus 65 cores in 1990 in the Polar Urals archive and 110 cores in the Avam-Taimyr archive. These cores were picked from a larger population – measurements from the larger population remain unavailable. ‘

Steve McIntyre. Source: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/

(and for a very informative overview of this saga from 2012: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html)

grant-troughing

Exhibit 9. ‘Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts — and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities. ‘

Thomas Sowell.

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2007/03/15/global_warming_swindle/page/full

activism-driven propaganda

Exhibit 10. ‘It has now turned out that many of the headline grabbing[1] claims in the IPCC’s 2007 report were false: the prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, [2]that 40% of the Amazon rainforest will be lost,[3]that African crop yields will be halved by 2020, [4] [5]that sea levels are rising quickly and that extreme weather events are more frequent.[6]The problem is that these claims had no basis in the refereed literature … in some cases no basis in any literature at all, and that what basis they had was at best dubious and at worst spurious. No science of sound epistemic character would tolerate such claims made in its name.’ Source: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/03/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-6-conclusion/

Further High-Level Views on This

Other philosophically-minded people have joined Delingpole in concluding that all is not well with climate science. Here are but three examples:

Exhibit 11. ‘In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage. This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear based support may not constitute corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be identified with man’s activities – engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and control.’

Richard Lindzen, 2008/12. Source: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

Exhibit 12. ‘The evidence I have summarised is, I believe, sufficient to conclude that climate science has fallen prey to a corruption of its epistemic character. Not only did the individuals fail in various epistemic duties; they did not regard their faults as vices, but rather, as virtues, and knew that their activities were quite acceptable with the field. ‘

Nicholas Shackel, 2010

Source: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/03/climate-scientists-behaving-badly-part-6-conclusion/

Exhibit 13. ”Previously, the final judge of any theory was experience: data were collected, and if the theory did not agree with the data, then the theory had to be modified. This took time, and an effort was made to distinguish clearly between a proven theory and a mere hypothesis. All of this has gone by the board: now we have no theory, no data, no hypothesis. The ultimate aim is to secure a consensus. Once this consensus has been achieved, the policymakers can legislate to their hearts‘ content. Since it is very easy to achieve a consensus on the notion that ‗the planet is in danger‘, new rules and regulations are being issued every day: it makes people happy. Data no longer serve any purpose. As we saw in Volume I, NOAA data on temperatures show no evidence of global warming. So what? We have to legislate to prevent global warming, because there is a consensus that it exists.’

Société de Calcul Mathématique SA , White Paper, 2015

Source: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_LBRCV2_2015_12_EN.pdf

Meanwhile, Back on the Ground

Philosophy is one thing, but what does this all mean for everyday life? Here is one recent illustration of harms being caused in the name of climate science. I note some Welsh villagers are angry about the impact of the CO2 Cult on their properties. Not for them the pitchforks, tar and feathers of an earlier age. They are going to sue the government:

Exhibit 14. ‘A Welsh village is to sue the government after a climate change report suggested their community would soon be washed away by rising sea levels. The document says Fairbourne will soon be lost to the sea, and recommends that it is “decommissioned”. Angry villagers say predictions of that the sea level will rise by a metre a year are alarmist, and have hit house prices and investment in the village.’

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12152240/Welsh-village-to-sue-government-over-alarmist-rising-sea-level-claim.html

Others have been even less fortunate in the harm they have been caused by climate science in its dominant, modern form. Starvation, fuel poverty, acute fear of the future (not least in children), suppressed economic development (aka ‘sustainable development’), reduced industrial competitiveness, and environmental degradation from windfarms defacing landscapes and killing wildlife, or pollution from the mass-manufacture of solar panels in China. I have come from the high-level musings of one observer of modern climate scientists, through to the unpleasant ground-truth of what has been undertaken in their name. The Delingpole Conjectures do seem worthy of further investigation.

Further Reading

I suspect the Climategate files alone could provide illustrations by themselves for the Conjectures.  Perhaps good readers could point to some from there or elsewhere since I make no claims to have found outstanding examples – merely some that were to hand.  In the meantime, I have picked 10 posts from CliScep alone to help the interested reader dig further.

  1. https://cliscep.com/2016/02/16/blood-on-the-carbon-credits/
  2. https://cliscep.com/2016/02/10/climate-change-and-flight-times/
  3. https://cliscep.com/2016/02/04/australian-of-the-year/
  4. https://cliscep.com/2016/01/21/conversation-with-a-scientist-1/
  5. https://cliscep.com/2016/01/13/global-warming-market-for-schmidts/
  6. https://cliscep.com/2016/01/05/science-reality-part-ways/
  7. https://cliscep.com/2015/11/29/cop21-another-meeting-of-the-potemkin-society-for-climate-agitation/
  8. https://cliscep.com/2015/11/05/ridley-on-damaging-science/
  9. https://cliscep.com/2015/11/03/colbourne-on-the-status-of-climate-science/
  10. https://cliscep.com/2015/10/19/feeling-like-a-scientist/

176 thoughts on “The Delingpole Conjectures: are they plausible, do they matter?

  1. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, no? Insults from Delingpole supported by quotes from Monckton, Watts etc.. yeah right!

    Like

  2. Good stuff Geoff, keep up the good work.

    My opinion, the demise of old ‘Peak Oil’ delusion along with the collapse in the price of fossil fuel energy has sounded the death knell for the alarmist CAGW cult too.

    Not only have we seen the end of the ‘Peak Oil’, we are now witnessing ‘Peak CAGW’ too, as will become uncomfortably evident to the sad little Watermelon bedwetters such as the gobshite above very soon now.

    Oh happy day!

    Like

  3. RAFF
    “Insults from Delingpole supported by quotes from Monckton, Watts etc.. yeah right!”

    Descriptions of climate scientists supported by evidence. Yeah, right. Unless you can show where they’re wrong? How would you describe the Yamal saga other than cherrypicking? Isn’t “tosspot” an accurate description of a noted government-paid climate scientist who refuses to even sit in the same television studio as another noted government-paid climate scientist?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I had assumed that this post was ironic, but it seems not. You really are promoting Delingpole, Monckton, Goddard. I think I shall have to apologise to Geoff Price. This site is really no better than any of the others. You’re not even trying to hide your science denial.

    Like

  5. Exhibit 14. ‘A Welsh village is to sue the government after a climate change report suggested their community would soon be washed away by rising sea levels.

    I looked into the figures behind this story at the weekend. In summary:-
    – The sea level rise estimates are consistent with the top end of the RCP8.5 projections used in the IPCC AR5. RCP8.5 is the baseline projection without policy. So the planners are assuming that policy to reduce emissions will have no effect whatsoever.
    – According to a 2014 BBC report the council will stop maintaining sea defences in 2025 and by 2055 400 houses will have been completely abandoned. On the basis of the projections one or two inches of rise is sufficient to stop maintaining sea defences, and 14 inches sufficient to abandon a village. The Community Action Group was originally formed to counter the biased BBC reporting.
    It nicely illustrates the various stages of exaggeration. I provide the links that validate these conclusions here.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. “You’re not even trying to hide your science denial.”

    You really are a funny little chap, Rice.

    Getting desperate?

    You should be, the game’s just about up for you lot.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. …AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS
    “You really are promoting Delingpole, Monckton, Goddard.”

    Get over your astonishment (take some smelling salts; have a cup of tea) and explain just where Delingpole is wrong. Deal with the evidence. Act like a scientist for once.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Exhibit 5 mentions the Gergis et al. temperature reconstruction of the last 1000 years for an area covering Oceania. It is a good illustration of how far the scientific community will go to maintain that recent average temperature levels are unusual. The proclaimed headline result was that

    The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238-1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961-1990 levels.

    There were only 3 reconstructions covering the earlier period. Two tree ring reconstructions from New Zealand, and a coral proxy from Palmyra Atoll, over 2000km outside of the geographical area of the study. This the following chart of these three reconstructions illustrates a the problem with the Palmyra proxy.

    There are other issues with the paper as well, including not adhering to their own proxy selection criteria. But like with the Lewandowsky Moon Hoax paper, the most basic data checks (and in the Gergis case some geography) would illustrate the issues. I covered these here. Alternatively, you can take the approach of Gergis and her team of members of the scientific consensus, putting the data through hundreds of model runs to get the expert result.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Our Trolls of Low Degree

    Price is a prat
    No question of that
    His remarks would win praise
    From those who value asinine ways

    Whereas our pal Raff is more of a fop
    A would-be rough diamond but no, he’s a sop
    He cries out to be given the forename of Riff
    But that would encourage another wee tiff
    An excursion of muddle and pointy remark
    A tirade of tiresome and tedious snark

    Now wrinkly old Rice
    Is not at all nice
    And his place is well to one side
    On the scale that ends in the snide
    He longs to be smart
    But he’s no good at that
    He surely deserves a modified moniker
    For he’s just A Truly Terrible Plonker

    They are climate scare groupies of hostile intent
    They wander the Tubes their spleens for to vent
    Their heroes are scientists with the climate prefix
    (To others like doctors with the prefix of witch)

    They see them as powerful, with money and fame
    They love how they make others tremble with shame
    At their burdensome footprints of Carbon O2
    And their fears of everything gone loopy-loo

    But here in this parish we care not a jot
    For the sloppy, the greedy, the portentous lot
    Of serial hypers with their lurid PR
    Disgracing all science both near and afar

    This post has but one modest ambition, let me make clear
    To entertain the notion that those whom our trolls hold so dear
    Are possibly rascals (or tosspots or fiddlers or other unseemly)
    That are so far from admirable they deserve our contumely

    Liked by 1 person

  10. James Delingpole has been in hospital recently with a fairly serious condition – pulmonary embolism. In recent tweets though, he’s been commenting on the hot-ness of some of the junior doctors (gender not specified) which suggests that he is on the path to recovery.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Kevin, I think the worst aspect of the Gergis et al paper (in the context of data-fiddling) was that they claimed that they had de-trended their series before screening, in order to avoid the ‘guaranteed hockey stick effect’ that otherwise arises. Eventually someone, JeanS I think at Climate Audit, figured out that they had not done this. By a remarkable coincidence, one of the authors almost simultaneously discovered the same thing independently, and the paper was withdrawn.

    Anyone not familiar with this incident can read about it at
    http://climateaudit.org/tag/gergis/

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Paul at 18 Feb 10:53pm
    There were a number of elements in the Gergis paper that would undermine the headline claim of the last decade of the last millennium being the warmest. Failure to apply a key statistical procedure to eliminate bias, when the text claims to have done so, fatally undermines the central claim. From that point of view, it is the worst aspect.
    However, in public relations terms I believe it is not. The Lewandowsky meme is that there is an expert scientific consensus on climate besieged by an oil company-funded assortment of science-denying bloggers, blinkered by such failings as their conspiracist ideation and errant free-market ideologies. His thrust is to encourage uncritical acceptance of his beliefs and discrimination against those who even dare to oppose. In this context, the withdrawal of the Gergis paper can be excused as failing on an obscure technical point that was overlooked. But for it to be acceptable for a central conclusion of temperature reconstruction covering >5% of the surface if the earth, written by a group of leading experts (and passed through peer review for publication in a leading journal) to be dependent on a visibly erratic and discontinuous data set over 2000km from the study area supports the Delingpole viewpoint.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. …AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS

    You’re link “explain just where Delingpole is wrong.” goes to Wikipaedia which says:

    “The phrase “not even wrong” describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.”

    Since neither Delingpole’s nor Shade’s article “describes an argument that purports to be scientific” or “fails at some fundamental level” or ”contains a terminal logical fallacy” or “cannot be falsified by experiment,” your comment fails every test of relevance or rationality.

    You’re exhibiting the Oreskes Syndrome – making pointless statements with no regard to your own reputation as a rational human being. It’s as if you believe that you’re immune to criticism, which tends to confirm my suspicion that all warmists are from the Planet Krypton.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Geoff,
    Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard are 3 people who have presented some of the most bizarrely incorrect, incoherent and ignorant arguments I have encountered since engaging in this topic. If you need me to illustrate that to you then you are so lost in the woods that you are unlikely to ever get out. Feel free to stay there. It is not my problem and I doubt there is enough time available to convince you of the stupidity of their arguments.

    In fact, in all seriousness, this post is truly bizarre. You really should change the name of this site to “Climate Denialism”. You’re all promoting it and suggesting otherwise is simply denying reality. Own your denial.

    Like

  15. “You’re all promoting it and suggesting otherwise is simply denying reality.”

    You’ll know all about that, Kenny!

    Get this, the REAL evidence, scientific, thermodynamic, historical – not the misconceived fabricated pseudo-“science” scammers like you dream up – clearly shows mankind can no more substantially alter the climate than substantially change the time the Sun rises and sets, and all the claptrap the likes of you spout can’t possibly change that.

    You’re just another apocalyptic religious nutter, neither more nor less.

    Like

  16. That’s rather coy of you. Because looking for exo-planets is pretty brilliant, in fact one of the most brilliant jobs I can imagine – a far cry from Man in a Barrel’s description of you above (which is quite funny though).

    It makes me wonder why someone literally at the frontier of human scientific endeavour would want to bother lecturing us on the radiative properties of gases. Not that you do mention physics much here though – if at all.

    My problem with AGW is not the physics but the relation between the physics and the rest. If you could explain how you get from A to B that might be interesting. I’d personally be willing to let you write an article here about it, though of course the decision would have to be collective.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Not that you do mention physics much here though – if at all.

    I can’t really see the point of doing so.

    My problem with AGW is not the physics but the relation between the physics and the rest.

    My main problem is why “the rest” really has any relevance. Reality doesn’t care if some politicians have exaggerated, or some scientists don’t always behave as impeccably as they should, or some papers aren’t as perfect as they should be, or some people can be rude on twitter or on blogs. And if you don’t hve any problem with the physics, why would you possibly write positively about three of the biggest promoters of climate science denial that I have so far encountered.

    I’d personally be willing to let you write an article here about it, though of course the decision would have to be collective.

    I genuinely have no interest in doing so. Seriously, I’m embarassed enough to comment here – given this post. I certainly wouldn’t want to author a post.

    Like

  18. a far cry from Man in a Barrel’s description of you above (which is quite funny though).

    Let’s be clear, Man in a Barrel’s description is of his own twisted imagination. It has nothing to do with me. Maybe that you found it funny should give you pause for thought.

    Like

  19. Well, given that you do comment here – quite a lot – you could at least stick to the subject and tell us what’s wrong with the statements by Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard linked in the article. It won’t do to say that they “have presented some of the most bizarrely incorrect, incoherent and ignorant arguments [you] have encountered.” You need to say what’s wrong with what they say in the links (except Delingpole). Those aren’t Cliscep rules. They go back to Aristotle and Socrates.

    If you can’t, then I wouldn’t trust any exo-planet you might claim to find as far as I could throw it.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. You need to say what’s wrong with what they say in the links (except Delingpole).

    No, I don’t need to do anything. If you think that allows you to conclude something, then your understanding of the concept of being skeptical is woefully poor. Not everything needs to be rebutted. Some things are best ignored. If you really want to understand Monckton’s errors look at Barry Bickmore’s blog. You can search mine for Delingpole. Sou, I suspect, has written about Goddard. There’s plenty out there if you just put some effort in.

    Those aren’t Cliscep rules. They go back to Aristotle and Socrates.

    I don’t think Aritotle & Socrates suggested that someone else had to do your homework for you.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. “Seriously, I’m embarassed enough to comment here –”

    Then why do you? You’re a serial offender here and at Bishop Hill. If you had a decent argument to make it might be different. Every post is an ad hom or a derailment. You’re a pain.

    Like

  22. There’s something mystic about someone called AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS stating that he can’t see the point of mentioning physics – like those Zen masters who say the way to achieve enlightenment is not to seek it.

    You say:

    “My main problem is why ‘the rest’ really has any relevance.”

    By “the rest” I mean COP21, a trillion dollars a decade for windmills in Africa, the millions of climate refugees who already outnumber refugees from war, and the feminisation of turtles. If there’s no connection with the physics then there’s nothing to worry about, is there?

    I like the flowers on your avatar.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. There’s something mystic about someone called AND THEN THERE’S PHYSICS stating that he can’t see the point of mentioning physics

    I was only referring to mentioning it here.

    By “the rest” I mean COP21, a trillion dollars a decade for windmills in Africa, the millions of climate refugees who already outnumber refugees from war, and the feminisation of turtles.

    And my point is that none of this tells us whether or not there are risks associated with continuing to emit CO2. Physical reality doesn’t care. If there are risks, and they do materialise, and if the consequences are severe and damaging, this will happen whether or not we should – or should not – have installed windmills. Also, that there are other issues that we should also be taking seriously does not mean that we should dismiss the risks associated with continuing to emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

    If there’s no connection with the physics then there’s nothing to worry about, is there?

    Did you really mean this? Physical reality doesn’t really care if we happen to make – or not make – stupid policy decisions. How our climate will respond to increasing anthropogenic forcings is largely independent of whatever stupid things we may, or may not, do along the way. If you’re basing your views of the science on policy decisions with which you disagree, then you’re essentially doing your skepticism the wrong way around.

    Like

  24. With regard to how to get from A to B, and doing things the wrong way round, it’s worth recalling that AndThenTheresPolitics got from B to A.

    He started a blog called Left of centre, then later started his separate blog sneering at WUWT, without making any connection between the two.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Geoff, you consoder yourself a judge of shallwness. Would you say Delingpole, the interpreter of interpretations, is a serious thinker, or shallow?

    Like

  26. “If you’re basing your views of the science on policy decisions with which you disagree”

    I’m not.

    I’m basing it on a successful, lucrative career in the real world based on the physics, thermodynamics and statistics that cover a great deal wider range than the niche study climate “science”.

    Like

  27. “Would you say Delingpole, the interpreter of interpretations, is a serious thinker, or shallow?”

    Vastly more serious than a troll like you.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Cat,
    Seriously, you have a background in physics, thermodynamics and statistics? Really?

    Paul,
    Sorry, did criticising your hero, Anthony Watts, make you cry? The good thing about this post (and about you defending Watts) is that it further confirms my general view that those who whine most about the term “denier” are those who know they are one but are too cowardly to own it.

    [PM: Was that comment written by a senior academic at a UK university? Or a six-year-old child?]

    Like

  29. Exhibit 10, about the failed predictions of the UNIPCC AR4 2007, is probably the most important. There were a number of scary claims made, dressed up as predictions from a consensus of the world’s leading scientists. I found the most alarmist claim was

    By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition.

    There was nothing in the AR4 Report to support that claim. The reference was Agoumi 2003, an article based on reports submitted to the UNFCCC in 2001 on climate change impacts from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Sometime ago I read through the reports. The only reference to the 50% reduction is in the Morocco report for dry seasons. This is based on highly models that assume temperature rises between 0.6°C and 1.1°C from 2001 to 2020. The Algerian report, which thoroughly documented the model results, got nothing like Morocco’s vague claims. The Tunisian report did not even use the climate models.
    The Agoumi 2003 original link no longer works, but is available here.
    The country reports are still available.
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/mornc1e.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/tunnc1esum.pdf
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/algnc1.pdf
    It nicely illustrates the importance of substantiating claims made.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. To have followed up on all the false predictions in IPCC AR4 my comment at 10.11am would have taken too long. Yet I believe that the key to understanding whether there is a potential non-trivial climatic problem resulting from human GHG emissions is to evaluate these particular predictions. I propose that there are at least three possible ways to look at the problem.
    First, is to determine whether the prediction is derived from scientific theory, or model predictions. or a short-term extrapolation from empirical events, or is just unsupported speculation.
    Second is to look at whether the short-term predictions came true. In a complex area, with limited information and non-linear relationships like climate with limited information, to expect all the predictions to come true would be unreasonable. But one or two clear success stories would be nice to counter the failures.
    Third is to look at past predictions or speculations. Are the catastrophic claims still current in the literature? Have they been developed? Or have they been dropped?
    With this in mind, I would suggest people take a look at Lenton et al 2008 : Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. The article was well-publicised at the time, even making a splash in the Independent.
    In particular Fig 1 below illustrates the tipping elements, with details in the text. Most I believe have been quietly dropped.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. It is quite interesting that ATTP chooses to quote Barry Bickmore, who did indeed have a campaign against Monckton. He is a “Scientist on a Mission”, an associate professor of geological sciences at the Mormon Brigham Young University, Utah. He is not a climate scientist, his PhD was entitled, “Atomic Force Microscopy Study of Clay Mineral Dissolution”, but he is an afficionado of Real Climate.

    He is a great believer in the 97% consensus, quoting it in an op-ed in the Deseret News of November 25th 2010, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700085458/Global-warming-consensus-matters.html. He attacked Utah Senator Orin Hatch for challenging consensus claims.

    He started by saying,

    “Two recent studies have shown that 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers who actively publish peer-reviewed research on climate change agree that humans are significantly affecting Earth’s climate.”

    Having thus promoted “consensus” he then refuted it.

    “It would be unacceptable in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, for instance, to brush aside legitimate objections to a theory by saying the vast majority of researchers in the field agree. That just isn’t how science is done.”

    With another volte face, he promoted consensus again, with appeals to authority, that scientists have such great difficulty in transmitting their superior knowledge to the masses, that the only answer is to say that “the majority of scientists agree” on the main issues. Of course this is also how they try to stifle dissenting voices from climate scientists who are just as qualified to address the climate issues, if not more so, than the main protagonists.

    He went on:

    “scientists simply don’t have time (and the audience typically doesn’t have the interest) to lay out all the evidence, the arguments and counterarguments, in full detail. Isn’t it legitimate, then, to simply note that almost all the experts have been convinced of a given point?”

    First of all, choose your expert! So no questioning then, even when the claim that “almost all of the experts agree” is shown to be a total distortion of the real facts, as in the “97%” scenario from the Doran and Zimmerman paper, which turned out to be 97% of 75 self-selected scientists who had published on climate matters. By quoting it without checking the detail, Dr Bickmore put his own credibility as a scientist on the line. Or perhaps he did check the detail?

    But hey, ATTP likes him.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. “Cat,
    Seriously, you have a background in physics, thermodynamics and statistics? Really?”

    Yes, really.

    Originally chemical engineering, particularly including reaction kinetics – a very complex subject indeed.

    After that, utilising my Fortran skills computer modelling of low frequency acoustics for automotive noise reduction.

    And as an engineer, my work wasn’t pal reviewed by others in the same field of utterly unprovable fantasy science, it had to function in the real world, and in some cases had it not done so, there would have been smoking holes in the ground, body counts and really bad effects, which meant I had to be very sure indeed of my theoretical and practical grounding in all three.

    I appreciate that such as you despise those of who work in such rock hard subjects, often with real dirt under our fingernails, but it we who produce the system that permits the likes of you to play with your computers, fantasising about things that can never be proven, with no strictures other than keeping up a stream of publications the majority of which will be gone and forgotten in a decade.

    So keep your snark, your arrogance, your patronising and contemptuous sneers for tormenting your students – God help them, because you are no more of a climate scientist than I am, and I suspect that my impact in the REAL world will in the long run comfortably exceed yours.

    You lost absolutely any claim with your pathetic WottsUpWithThat BS, so go bully somebody else, you pathetic, insecure little (I don’t mean physically) man.

    Like

  33. Dennis,

    But hey, ATTP likes him.

    It’s got nothing to do with liking, or disliking, someone.

    Cat,
    Now that you’ve got that off your chest, maybe you should consider the irony of appealing to your own supposed authority while promoting science denial. That you have the background that you do doesn’t change that you appear to be associating with and promoting scientific nonsense. That you don’t like me pointing that out, does not make it not true.

    Like

  34. So far on this site I’ve been called a liar, a gobshite and a troll, a fop and a sop. So if I say my accusers are all fuckwits, is that allowed too?

    Like

  35. Child having tantrum: Wah wah wah
    Adult: Oh, what an awful noisy child you are. Do try to calm down.
    [there follows a moment or two of peace]
    Child: Wah wah – you called me awful – wah wah

    Liked by 1 person

  36. ATTP says, “How our climate will respond to increasing anthropogenic forcings is largely independent of whatever stupid things we may, or may not, do along the way”.

    To my mind, this is one of the most incoherent sentences I have read. If anthropegenic means “stuff done by humans”, then he appears to be saying that increasing anthropengenic forcings will happen regardless of what human beings do. This truly is cult thinking….whatever humans do, the climate will respond as if anthropegenic forcings are increasing.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Attp says “My main problem is why “the rest” really has any relevance. Reality doesn’t care if some politicians have exaggerated, or some scientists don’t always behave as impeccably as they should, or some papers aren’t as perfect as they should be, or some people can be rude on twitter or on blogs.”

    I suppose he will tell me that I have misunderstood him, but is he really saying that he does not want human beings to alter behaviour in order to ward off the “evil” impacts of global warming, which is being assisted by things that humans do?

    It seems an incoherent position to me. What does grandma say?

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Man,

    To my mind, this is one of the most incoherent sentences I have read. If anthropegenic means “stuff done by humans”,

    Are you trying to not think, or does it just come naturally. The response to a change in forcing depends, to first order, only on the change in forcing. If you think that the response somehow depends on whether or not Mike Mann is rude to deniers on Twitter, then you’re really not thinking.

    then he appears to be saying that increasing anthropengenic forcings will happen regardless of what human beings do.

    No, I’m saying that the response depends – to first order – only on the change in forcing which depends, largely, on how much we emit. Simple. You can whine about all sorts of other things, hippies, leftists, warmists, alarmists, Mike Mann, Stephan Lewandowsky, and all the other things that people on this site typically whine about, but – at the end of the day – what really matters is how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. It’s really just about physics.

    Bear in mind, I was responding to a comment saying My problem with AGW is not the physics but the relation between the physics and the rest. Well, there really isn’t a relation between physics and the rest, not in the sense that the physics somehow depends on the rest; if you’re basing your assessment of AGW on the behaviour of some individuals, or on policy decisions you just don’t like, then you don’t get to claim that you don’t have a problem with the physics, because essentially you do.

    I suppose he will tell me that I have misunderstood him,

    No, based on this, I get the impression that you don’t really have much interest in really thinking about this.

    Like

  39. zso ATTP isa still rocking with his grandma’s skeleton. Did anyone get the impression that he was responding to my posts? So the weaselling process is about “first order” responses. He seems to struggle with words.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. “You can whine about all sorts of other things, hippies, leftists, warmists, alarmists, Mike Mann, Stephan Lewandowsky, and all the other things that people on this site typically whine about,”

    Did I whine about them? Did I mention them?

    One thing is forbidden, to quote words back at people as if they meant them. It turns out that ATTP meant to say something completely different to what his words amounted to. This makes him a difficult person to debate with.

    He uses words as if they do not convey meaning part from the meanings that he decides they have. Wittgenstein would have eaten him for a preliminary glass of orange juice.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Man,
    What I said seems pretty self-evident: if you’re basing your assessment of climate science on the behaviour of some people, then you’re doing your skepticism the wrong way around. It’s really not my problem if you can’t understand this basic concept. Maybe you shouldn’t let your rather twisted imagination run quite as wild as it seems to be doing?

    Like

  42. MIAB, by your moniker I jalouse you are of a philosophical bent, and your mention of the fearsome Wittgenstein reinforces that. As for engaging with the intellectual toddlers who pop in here to troll their tiresome twaddle from time to time, I think your careful attention to language is adding to the occasional merriment we can extract from them.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. John, I know you and Geoff and others see yourselves as deep thinkers, definitely not “shallow”, as Geoff calls others. So the sensible side of your brains, if it still exists, must find it painful to have to embrace someone so evidently puddle-deep as Delingpole, that interpreter of interpretations whose best efforts amount to no more than a well-thumbed catalogue of insults.

    I can see why you and your co-authors, splashing around knee deep in your play pool, are so threatened by people like ATTP who swim way beyond your depth. You do your best to drive ATTP away, as between you you probably know less of the physics of AGW than Dellers knows of humility.

    Like

  44. Well, Raff, I see no grounds for supposing either Geoff or my goodself see ourselves as deep thinkers. I am but a bemused bystander, astonished and dismayed by the furore over our CO2 emissions, and on the look-out for evidence that could convince me to take the cries of acute alarm seriously. Perhaps you might share with us a few nuggets from whatever it was that convinced you to hold a different view?

    Liked by 1 person

  45. ATTP seems to be suggesting that when I was pointing out apparent inconsistencies and incoherences in his statements I was really stating my views on climate change. This strikes me as a strange conclusion to reach. I can think of 2 explanations. First, he was so tickled by my description of him as a demented man rocking a skeleton that he decided to write in the style of such a person. To be fair, his demented tirades are quite impressive. But it is with sadness that I conclude that he lacks the artistic and creative flair to impersonate a demented man on a rocking-chair, so he probably is that person. I wonder if he has the skeleton with him, though. To confirm this, he throws out his mantra, carefully-clung to like a comfort blanket:

    “what really matters is how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere. It’s really just about physics. ”

    If that’s what you want to believe, feel free to continue believing it. One day, once you start taking your medication, you might even start thinking about “the consensus” and wondering what that means.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Man,

    when I was pointing out apparent inconsistencies and incoherences in his statements

    Except you weren’t really. You were – at best – illustrating that you hadn’t given it any thought.

    I was really stating my views on climate change.

    Fair enough, I can’t really tell from your response what your views on climate change were. I did rather assume that they were similar to those typically promoted on this site.

    One day, once you start taking your medication

    Okay, so you genuinely are a nasty piece of work. Not alone on this site, I guess, but good to have it made clear. Thanks.

    Like

  47. John, there are plenty of nuggets in the IPCC reports. What scientific perspective on the subject do you have that makes you take these reports less than seriously?

    Like

  48. You have to love the way that ATTP says that his writings are not ambiguous, at best, and always rebukes people for nisunmderstanding him. You know in advance that he never says what a resonable reader thought he said.

    And his reactions to criticism never endear him to others do they, because, precious, ATTP is the only one who is right, precious. Precious knows because precious is ATTP and Bishop Hill has the precious!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  49. and Norman Wisdom (ATTP) slopes away into the distance. The folks who let this piece of shit become a professor should be asked questions. ATTP is verging on the moron status and yet he has a tenured position From his writings it is claimed that he writes English..It is never said that he understands English, He doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Well, I suggest we have had enough fun with our drive-by sneerers. I guess Raff is about 20, and the Plonker about 60, but both share a mental age in the vicinity of 15 – an age often of sullen, sulky sneeriness as well as absurd pretensions.

    I’d like to thank all the grown-ups who have added substantially to the post through their comments here – Catweazle666, Paul, Geoff, Manicbeancounter, and Dennis. I’ve added those thoughts and links to my own notes on the Conjectures, and plan to add to them further as and when I come across more examples.

    My personal view has always been that the case for alarm over CO2 is a remarkably unimpressive one, but more recently it has been dawning on me just how remarkably unimpressive are those who are prominent in promoting that alarm. The Delingpole Conjectures provide us with a somewhat melodramatic but apparently useful vehicle for examining the latter notion.

    Like

  51. Physicists like to think they control the argument, just as they like to think that physics is all that matters in the climate conversation. They cheerfully parameterize things they don’t understand and with all that messy stuff in a box, they can proceed with the tromp of doom.

    When it doesn’t happen they ‘struggle to understand.’

    Liked by 2 people

  52. When it doesn’t happen they ‘struggle to understand.’

    On the off chance that you’ll actually give this some thought (which I doubt) “struggle to understand” is a turn of phrase that I should stop using, but which generally refers to my amazement at how someone can say what they’ve just said – in fact it should probably be interpreted as “I can’t understand how you can have said something quite that wrong, surely you must know that it was wrong?”. An example would be the beginning of the above comment which is not only a gross generalisation, but also illustrates an amazing lack of understanding of physicists and physics.

    Is your general argument so weak that you have to make things up, or do you not realise that you’re doing so? Similarly with regards to what others have said, is resorting to insults all that people who associate positively with this site have left? I don’t hugely care as I expect little better, but do you, and others here, simply have no self-respect?

    Like

  53. I think most of us here have plenty of self respect. I know I do. Perhaps you mistake our lack of respect for some of the arguments you put forward as something else. I have an alternative explanation for your turn of phrase, ‘struggling to understand.’ My elegant theory is that you struggle to understand.

    Liked by 1 person

  54. RAFF: “as between you you probably know less of the physics of AGW than Dellers knows of humility.”

    As opposed to you, who clearly knows nothing of either?

    Like

  55. It puzzles me that the warmist group – massively out-funded when compared with the sceptics – can never find anyone to put forward their case with any credibility. Hansen – fuckwit. Mann – moron. ATTP – intellect of a snail. meanwhile their dirty, iliterate scumbag associates mange to get publicity and occupy newspapers.

    An interesting phenomenon. The dirty tree-hugging maniacs and the Greenham Common women, It is strange to think thaqt “scientists” such as ATTP and the Schmidterati rely on eco-twats to get their message acro0ss. Does this suggest that they really do not have a mesaage. That they do not know what or who they are?

    In the case of ATTP, the jury gave the message….MORON.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. MIAB: “ATTP – intellect of a snail”

    Excuse me, you are being very disrespectful to snails.

    Most snails I’ve come across comfortably exceed ATTP in the intellect stakes, and are orders of magnitude less slimy to boot.

    Plus, as a valuable source of nourishment for hedgehogs and song-thrushes, they fulfil a useful purpose in the grand scheme of things, something that climate “scientists” singularly fail to accomplish.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Delingpole is right – lying, third-rate tosspots. The Greek philosopher has just made a comment over at Bishop Hill on the reaction of the climate cult followers to Mills’s GWPF publication on stochastic modelling, pointing out that if deviation from the model invalidates a model, then all GCMs should be binned. Presumably not the message that Schmidt, Betts, McNeall or even the rocking-chair loony meant to convey. I quite like his description of ATTP as an attack chihuahua too.

    Liked by 1 person

  58. ATTP, you write, “What I said seems pretty self-evident: if you’re basing your assessment of climate science on the behaviour of some people, then you’re doing your skepticism the wrong way around.”

    I am not a physicist. I am not a scientist. On what should I base my assessment of climate science?

    I choose politicians, doctors, dentists and lawyers based in large part on their behaviour. Why would that not work for climate change?

    It is largely based on behaviour that I respect scientists such as Bart Verheggen and James Hansen. It is largely based on behaviour that I developed contempt for Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorff. On the other side of the fence I use the same criteria to respect Freeman Dyson and Richard Lindzen and to ignore Viscount Monckton and James Delingpole.

    How wrong is my assessment of climate science if I listen to Verheggen and Hansen and ignore Mann and Rahmstorff? How wrong if I respect Dyson and Lindzen and pay no heed to Monckton and Delingpole?

    As for the climate conversation the same holds true. I take on board much of what I read from Steve McIntyre based on his behaviour. I discount what I read from Eli Rabett for the same reason.

    ATTP, you know where I stand on climate science. How wrong do you think I am? If I am less wrong than some others, how can you state that basing non-scientific assessments on behaviour of the principals involved is doing skepticism the wrong way around?

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Correct me if I am wrong ATTP:
    i) you consider CO2 the primary first order climate forcing
    ii) you consider the anthropogentic contribution of CO2 the primary contribution to global CO2 growth
    iii) you consider the sum of all other first order forcings to be smaller than the CO2 forcing
    iv) you consider the sum of all second order forcings to be negligeable compared to the CO2 forcing

    Like

  60. And Then There’s Physics says:

    “..if you’re basing your assessment of climate science on the behaviour of some people, then you’re doing your skepticism the wrong way around. It’s really not my problem if you can’t understand this basic concept.”

    Oh yes it is your problem. This article is not about science. It’s about the fact that a number of prominent scientists have proved themselves to be a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots, and it provides evidence to support this assertion. If you can’t even attempt to refute the thesis of this article by dealing with the evidence provided, then your interventions are irrelevant, and your statements on astrophysics or anything else become suspect.

    Would you buy an observed-at-second-hand exoplanet from this person?

    Like

  61. THOMASFULLER2 and RICHARD, I hope I am wrong, but I feel you are flattering the P with your generous responses to his drive-by snideries. I suspect he has given little or no thought to the ‘climate debate’, and has no genuine ‘position’ on it. He comes across to me merely as a somewhat unpleasant would-be smart-alec and would-be bully who has stumbled into the ‘climate debate’ as a means of giving himself an outlet for these propensities. Lots of sarcasm then, and little substance. He knows he has the ‘scientific establishment’ on his side, so feels free to be cheeky to all and sundry who are either somewhat unimpressed by the depths to which that establishment has sunk on the ‘climate debate’, or naively asking challenging questions of the climate orthodoxy in order to seek clarification.

    Here is a long, lavishly illustrated with video clips, but very thoughtful essay which I have just come across and which I think captures a great many of the concerns which I and many others have had about this and other scientific orthodoxies/establishment views in recent decades:

    … but the ever more strident screams and demands of the AGW crowd are getting noticed. When you make unfounded accusations and the repeat them over and over, slandering all and sundry, you lose what little credibility you have left.

    That’s the problem with corrupting science by using it to drive an agenda. That’s especially true when you muddy the water with unfalsifiable claims and name calling. You don’t have a leg to stand on when you get caught out and so you don’t have any choice but to escalate the language. which is how you get the “death trains,” “working big oil” and “deniers should be prosecuted/oppressed/executed” language.

    The problem with the scientist as prophet scenario is that science is ultimately about discovery, not prediction. So when you treat science like a religion you are no longer dealing with discovery of what is, you are preaching what you want things to be. That’s not science, it’s using the appearance of science to legitimize your agenda..

    See: https://theartsmechanical.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/what-is-science/

    Like

  62. Tom,

    I choose politicians, doctors, dentists and lawyers based in large part on their behaviour. Why would that not work for climate change?

    You can do whatever you like, but I see nothing wrong with judging an individual on the basis of their behaviour. I would do the same. However, if your doctor isn’t behaving appropriately, you wouldn’t suddenly decide to go to a homeopath, you’d go to a different doctor. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dismissing certain scientists if you think they lack trust (I do the same) however, you wouldn’t typically base your scientific position on the basis of their behaviour alone. You would try to find others who you think are more trustworthy.

    ATTP, you know where I stand on climate science. How wrong do you think I am?

    I don’t think where you stand with respect to climate science is all that wrong. If anything, I find it quite disappointing that I’m incapable of having a discussion with someone who appears to understand some of this quite well, simply because they seem to think that being insulting and making things up is preferable to actually having a genuine discussion. My issue with you has absolutely nothing to do with where you stand wrt to climate science.

    Geoff,

    Oh yes it is your problem.

    No, it isn’t. This is self-evident.

    This article is not about science.

    Yes, I know. That’s essentially my point.

    It’s about the fact that a number of prominent scientists have proved themselves to be a bunch of lying, cheating, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, third-rate tosspots, and it provides evidence to support this assertion.

    And that’s not far off what I think of people who associate with this site and people that you seem to promote. I, however, typically avoid saying this outright and still try to assess what they’ve actually said, rather than simply focusing on their poor behaviour.

    I realise that people here seem to think that being unpleasant and insulting is somehow the right way to enage in this topic. You’re, of course, free to do so. However, as you yourselves are indicating, you can’t choose not to be judged for how you choose to behave. I might, however, have the decency to avoid actually calling you third-rate tosspots, but I might find it hard to not be somewhat sarcastic and snarky.

    Like

  63. Apart from being somewhat embarrassed about having wasted my time doing it, I don’t have any issues with having criticised what Anthony said or promoted on his blog. As far as criticising him personally, I don’t remember having done so. If you can find an example where I have, feel free to point it out and I’ll let you know what I think of it.

    Like

  64. Tom Fuller is right about climate science in general. Ken Rice, ATTP, is just a partisan who will never admit that there are real problems with transparency. McIntyre is right about Mann and the hockey stick. Even Michael Tobis is more honest. It reflects very poorly on the astronomer who by refusing to admit the obvious does no one any favors.

    Like

  65. ATTP, I think you and other members of your tribe are a bit hypocritical, in that you are free with rather rude comments about those on the other side of the fence and yet seem offended when you are on the receiving end.

    I think it’s okay to be offended–I am, when called a denier or a pimp or a toe rag on alarmist sites. I think it’s okay to call people out on it. I don’t think it’s a valid reason not to engage on the issues being discussed.

    Some prominent climate scientists have behaved very badly. It is obvious to me that this has caused a loss of trust. If you cannot see this (and even if you would quarrel with the extent of bad behaviour), I don’t really know what you hope to gain from discussing this on a skeptic website.

    Like

  66. Tom,

    I think you and other members of your tribe are a bit hypocritical, in that you are free with rather rude comments about those on the other side of the fence and yet seem offended when you are on the receiving end.

    I’m not part of a tribe. You can try and put me in one if you wish, but I’m not obliged to accept your designation. I’m also only responsible for what I say, which is why is suggested that you could try and find where I – for example – have been rude about Anthony Watts personally, rather than simply critical of what he says and promotes on his blog. I don’t think I have been, but you’re welcome to try and find an example. I’ve written a lot, so maybe I’ve forgotten having done so. I have certainly be rude on some occasions, but I at least I own those. I don’t specifically get offended if others are rude to me, I just don’t see why they should be taken seriously if that’s how they choose to behave.

    I think it’s okay to call people out on it. I don’t think it’s a valid reason not to engage on the issues being discussed.

    And I don’t see the point if they continue to be rude.

    Some prominent climate scientists have behaved very badly. It is obvious to me that this has caused a loss of trust. If you cannot see this (and even if you would quarrel with the extent of bad behaviour), I don’t really know what you hope to gain from discussing this on a skeptic website.

    Because, when it comes to interpreting the scientific evidence, I don’t think it really matters. It would be wonderful if everyone behaved impeccably at all times, but people don’t. However, if you really want to understand this topic, you should – IMO – be trying to understand our overall position, not focussing on a few individuals who may not have behaved as well as you would have liked. You’re welcome to do so if you wish, but it’s likely to gain you little understanding of this topic if you do simply focus on behaviour. Reality also doesn’t really care.

    Like

  67. I believe I do understand your position, despite what I consider considerable ducking and weaving. I don’t see that you have spent much time trying to understand the position of others in the conversation, one reason you are often struggling to understand.

    I recall a thread where you struggled to understand what lukewarmers actually were–after asking and receiving answers on that subject both at your blog and mine. You settled for ‘mitigation skeptics’ for a while, despite the gross mischaracterization that involved.

    You continuously ask for people to bring you information rather than going outside of your echo chamber to find it yourself.

    For someone involved in science you seem remarkably incurious.

    Like

  68. Tom,
    Bizarre,

    You continuously ask for people to bring you information rather than going outside of your echo chamber to find it yourself.

    I’m here. I’ve been on BH recently. I comment on Judith Curry’s blog. I’m currently actually being criticised for being outside my echo chamber too often on BH.

    I don’t see that you have spent much time trying to understand the position of others in the conversation

    I think I do, hence my view that all the criticism of behaviour is largely missing the point, wrt to climate science at least.

    I recall a thread where you struggled to understand what lukewarmers actually were–after asking and receiving answers on that subject both at your blog and mine.

    I think my understand of Lukewarmers is entirely consistent with at least one publicly available definition. It doesn’t, however, seem to be a well-defined position.

    You settled for ‘mitigation skeptics’ for a while, despite the gross mischaracterization that involved.

    This is Victor Venema, not me.

    Here’s the two key points related to this post. Any site that promotes Delingpole, Monckton, and Goddard is promoting science denial. They should probably own it. You are welcome to criticise the behaviour of individuals, but if you decide to focus on their behaviour when assessing a discipline, you can’t really regard yourself as a sceptic.

    Like

  69. Paul,
    Your post is ridiculous. I won’t waste my time trying to rebut it, but it mainly shows that you really don’t understand the meaning of the word hypocritical. Your modus operandi appears to be to smear anyone with whom you disagree. I have no idea why you think this is an appropriate way in which to behave, but I find it utterly ridiculous. It’s intellectually juvenile and I would have hoped someone in your position could conduct themselves in a more academically robust fashion. My impression is that you are incapable of doing so, and hence rely on insults and smears.

    absolutely nothing of substance relevant to the post itself.

    Rubbish, you just don’t want to recognise what promoting Delingpole, Monckton & Goddard implies. It implies that you’re explicitly promoting science denial. Come on, at least have the honesty to own it. Until you do so, you don’t really get to run around accusing others of hypocrisy.

    [PM: Again you are showing your own hypocrisy by accusing me of smearing anyone with whom I disagree, having just accused us of science denial! Almost every time you make a comment you manage to make a complete fool of yourself.

    And since you seem to have difficulty with the meaning of the word hypocrisy, here is a definition.]

    Like

  70. Paul,

    Again you are showing your own hypocrisy by accusing me of smearing anyone with whom I disagree, having just accused us of science denial!

    From what I’ve seen, you’re incapable of having a discussion with someone with whom you disagree without accusing them of being dishonest or a hypocrite. Maybe this isn’t always true, but seems to be your norm. You’re also promoting three of the biggest science deniers I’ve encountered. What do you expect? Do you really expect to promote this rubbish and not be accussed of promoting science denial? Seems rather naive if you do.

    [This is another of your fabrications which hardly deserves a response. But I often disagree with Dan Kahan at his blog and have civilised discussion with him]

    Like

  71. I just received the following email to my university email address, repeating the same nonsense as above.
    I have deleted it and will not be replying.

    ===================================================================================

    From: Ken Rice
    To: Paul Matthews
    Subject: Problem

    Dear Paul,

    What is your problem? You clearly seem to smear virtually everyone with whom you disagree. I don’t think I’ve seen an example in which you have a discussion with someone with whom you disagree and don’t accuse them of dishonesty, or being a hypocrite.

    The post on cliscep highighting Delingpole, Monckton, and Goddard is bizarre. Do you seriously not realise the science denial that those three continually promote? It’s utterly bizarre. You can’t promote that kind of trash and not be expecrt to be regarded as promoting science denial.

    I don’t particularly like responding to you as I do, but you’re the one who has chosen to write a post accusing me of being a hypocrite. You welcome to do so, but don’t expect me to not respond in a similar fashion. You’re probably lucky that others are typically far more decent and polite than you seem to be. I’m not quite that nice. You could always decide to behave in a less appalling fashion, but it’s neither here nor there to me.

    Regards,

    Ken

    Like

  72. Paul,
    Strangely, I don’t remember you asking if you could post that to a public site and – consequently – I don’t remember saying that you could. I actually hadn’t considered that you would actually do so. I thought that even you wouldn’t quite sink that low. I guess I was wrong. Anyway, keep promoting science denial and I’ll keep wondering why an academic doesn’t understand the basics of genuine scepticism.

    Like

  73. I was trying to get back to doing some work this afternoon when this appeared in my inbox:

    =======================================================================

    Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:38:52 +0000
    From: Ken Rice
    To: Paul Matthews
    Subject: Amazing

    Dear Paul,

    Strangely, I didn’t consider the possibility that you would post my email publicly because I naively thought that even you wouldn’t do something like that. I guess I was wrong. I don’t know if doing so is actually formally wrong, or not, but it is pretty despicable, in my opinion. I guess you really don’t have any great interest in behaving in a manner conducive to any kind of constructive exchange. I had rather assumed so, but it’s quite good to get it confirmed. I’ll post something suitable on your Climate Denialism blog shortly.

    All the best,

    Ken

    Like

  74. Paul,
    Strangely, I don’t remember you asking if you could post that one either. Given what you did with the first one, I’m not surprised that you did, though. Since this is a post about the behaviour of scientists, why is it that you think its okay for you to behave with no basic common decency while criticising others for behaving in ways you don’t like? Is it just others who have to behave impeccably, do you think your poor behaviour is justified because people have been mean to you in the past, do you not realise how appalling it is?

    [Is there an echo in here? I shouldn’t need to spell this out to any normal civilised human being. But for you- what’s appalling and lacking in common decency is for you to not only repeat your fabrications and smears here, but to bug me at my work email address with the same false accusations.]

    Like

  75. ATTP, I’m curious–do you consider Monckton, Goddard and Delingpole to be the same ‘flavour’ of denier?

    Specifically, what is it you feel they deny? I had a million-post discussion with Monckton over at my blog this summer. I did not get the impression that he denied science at all. I completely disagree with his conclusions–he’s extremely skeptical–but he acknowledged that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that our emissions have ‘probably’ caused some of the warming, that the globe has warmed (at the time of our discussion) by 0.8C and that future emissions of CO2 could cause further warming.

    What does he deny?

    Delingpole is a journalist making a name for himself. If it weren’t global warming it would just be something else. Even so, what has he written that you consider ‘denial’, and of what?

    As for Goddard, he uses crazy graphics that don’t indicate what he thinks they do a lot of the time. But what does he deny?

    It has become very clear in an age where Bill McKibben can call Barack Obama a denier and Naomi Oreskes can call James Hansen a denier that ‘denial’ has f*** all to do with science. It’s enough to oppose a very specific policy agenda to earn the label. As someone who has been called a denier and much worse for over a decade, I finally can be relaxed about the term, given the august company I am now keeping. Yeah–me, the President and James Hansen.

    As for the hosts of this blog, same question. What exactly do you say they are denying? Can you show quotes to back up your accusation?

    Like

  76. Tom,

    I’m curious–do you consider Monckton, Goddard and Delingpole to be the same ‘flavour’ of denier?

    Specifically, what is it you feel they deny?

    I’m curious, where did I say they denied anything? I’m talking about promoting people who typically have ideas/positions that are so at odds with the scientific evidence that promoting it is essentially promoting science denial. Call it something else if you like, but I do genuinely find it bizarre that people who have been associated with this topic for as long as they have can’t seem to work out that what Delingpole, Monckton & Goddard promote is largely nonsense. That also ignores that the most recent of Delingpole’s articles – highlighted in the comments – appears to be suggesting that a climate scientist should shoot themself.

    [Oh dear now you really have lost it. Several times on this thread you’ve accused them of denying science, now you’re saying you didn’t. This thread is turning into a Ken Rice Classic Comedy. Please carry on!]

    Like

  77. It just gets better and better from ATTP. The man who writes:

    “Rubbish, you just don’t want to recognise what promoting Delingpole, Monckton & Goddard implies. It implies that you’re explicitly promoting science denial.”

    Then says in a later post:

    “I’m curious, where did I say they denied anything?”

    So for ATTP a person can promote something he calls “denial” without him claiming that those people “deny” anything. Words, as usual, fail ATTP.

    How deep is the hole now? Words mean what ATTP wants them to mean, except that he is not really sure what he wants them to mean. Id Willard were around, no doubt he would point to the section in the Tractatus where this is said.

    Like

  78. It is also a trifle strange that ATTP lumps Goddard, Delingpole and Monckton together when their approaches and focuses are so different. They are attacking this strange “consensus” animal from very different directions and yet he regards themas the same. It is as if he were a military strategist in WW2 with the idea that the way to combat Japan is exactly the same as the way to combat Germany.

    Truly bizarre. truly stupid.

    Like

  79. ATTP:
    “Any site that promotes Delingpole, Monckton, and Goddard is promoting science denial.”

    Not true. There is absolutely no logical connection between denying science and proposing the hypothesis that Mann a tosspot. It would be perfectly consistent for a warmist convinced that we’re about to fry to look at the evidence provided by Monckton, Goddard et al and agree with Delingpole that the scientists named are tosspots.

    There is a grave inconsistency however in claiming the superior understanding of a scientist and refusing to look at the evidence for an assertion. You’ve been invited dozens of time to look at the evidence provided by the article and comment. You’ve refused.

    The Tosspot Hypothesis is not irrefutable. But you can’t refute it unless you examine the evidence. If, like Galileo’s cardinals, you refuse to look at the evidence, your behaviour becomes in itself evidence in favour of the Tosspot Hypothesis, which is on its way to becoming the most important hypothesis in contemporary science. You read it here first.

    Like

  80. Geoff,

    Not true. There is absolutely no logical connection between denying science and proposing the hypothesis that Mann a tosspot.

    Yes, I guess you can be both a site that promotes science denial and a site that proposes a tosspot hypothesis. Of course, one can then propose a counter hypothesis, which is that proposing a tosspot hypothesis immediately makes one a tosspot. Feel free to try and refute that.

    Like

  81. Paul (I’m assuming this is you)

    Several times on this thread you’ve accused them of denying science

    No, I haven’t. I’ve pointed out that you are promoting science denial (the difference should be obvious). I realise that this is maybe a little embarassing for someone in your position, but you really should have the honesty to simply own it. Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard may not know better. You should.

    I do apologise for bothering you at your work email. I mistakenly thought that you might at least have the decency to reply via email, rather than simply posting my email without even bothering to ask. I realise it was naive of me to think that you might respond privately, given that you clearly lack such basic decency, but it was still my mistake for thinking that there was a chance. It won’t happen again.

    [As I’ve already said, you are the one lacking in basic decency]

    Like

  82. Geoff,

    Illustrating my point. Irony is lost on you

    No, it’s not, but sometimes trying to sound ironic doesn’t really work. I’m guessing that any kind of actual discussion is now no longer possible? Actually, that’s a silly question. It should have been obvious the moment the site hosted a post promoting Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard. You really should change the name to “Climate Denialism”. I know many people object to being associated with science denial, but one way to minimise the chance of that happening is to try to not associate yourself with science denial. Getting upset with those who point it out doesn’t change that it’s what you’re doing. This is not a complicated concept.

    Like

  83. The message in ATTP’s emails to Paul’s university address seems to be: “What’s an educated chap like you doing associating with riff (not to mention raff) like this?”

    The message in his comments addressed to Paul here (“I don’t know if doing so is actually formally wrong, or not, but it is pretty despicable, in my opinion… why is it that you think its okay for you to behave with no basic common decency? … do you not realise how appalling it is? … I realise that this is maybe a little embarassing for someone in your position… you clearly lack such basic decency…”) remind me of something – of letters from long long ago lying in a dusty drawer, letters I’ve been meaning to throw away, but which I’ve somehow never got round to…

    Paul, Ken, I think you should be frank with us. Out with it. You owe it to Science.

    Liked by 1 person

  84. Geoff,

    The message in ATTP’s emails to Paul’s university address seems to be: “What’s an educated chap like you doing associating with riff (not to mention raff) like this?”

    No, I emailed another academic thinking (naively) that they might actually respond privately and that maybe some kind of dialogue might develop. FWIW, I think there are decent people here. I don’t know why you associate with Paul.

    Like

  85. Ken Rice repeats his pattern. You deny what you clearly said, attack personally those who disagree and then whine when they post your email as if people you personally attack in public should be nice to you. This is what my brother would call childish behavior.

    Liked by 4 people

  86. ATTP
    “I think there are decent people here. I don’t know why you associate with Paul.”

    Are you psychic or what? I’m pretty sure there’s a phrase like that in those letters I mentioned.

    Look Ken, don’t take it badly. “Hell hath no fury like an astrophysicist scorned” and all that, but you shouldn’t take it personally. Dellers wasn’t talking about you, he was talking about tosspots – people who lie and dissemble and make baseless accusations about their critics and refuse to look at the evidence.

    It doesn’t matter if CAGW has let you down. You were too good for a two-timing theory like that. There’s plenty more hypotheses where that one came from. Go out and find yourself a new one, more your type. Trust me. I’ve been there too. And I’ve come through.

    Liked by 3 people

  87. Geoff,
    I no longer have any idea what you’re on about.

    Paul,

    As I’ve already said, you are the one lacking in basic decency

    Do you somehow think repeating it makes it true? Was it indecent of me to email you? Sorry about that, how silly of me. Why don’t you go through my site and find all the posts where I call people hypocrites, or dishonest…oh no, that’s all on your site. Maybe you can find my posts where I promote an article calling for someone to commit suicide…oh no, that’s your site. Look, I appreciate that saying that your behaviour is appalling isn’t nice, and that you can’t be happy about me highlighting your science denial. The ideal solution, though, is to stop doing it.

    Like

  88. “Look Ken, don’t take it badly. “Hell hath no fury like an astrophysicist scorned” and all that, but you shouldn’t take it personally. Dellers wasn’t talking about you, he was talking about tosspots…”

    Heh, if the cap fits…

    Liked by 1 person

  89. Ken Rice shows himself to be trying now to intimidate people. He essentially says: “If you don’t like me libeling you in public and possibly harming your livelihood, just stop doing what I don’t like”. That’s called racketeering in some countries and is just despicable. Ken, you should apologize to Paul and just accept that honorable people can disagree. Why can’t you just do that? It is really easy and you will feel better in the morning. I thought a couple of weeks ago that you had turned over a new leaf, but the dictatorial personality is hard to eradicate without real intellectual honesty.

    Liked by 1 person

  90. ATTP, in case you return, I’d still like an answer to the question I posed yesterday. Regarding Monckton, Delingpole, etc. ad infinitum, “What exactly do you say they are denying? Can you show quotes to back up your accusation?”

    As I mentioned yesterday, Monckton does not appear to deny science. He uses it subjectively in my opinion, but that’s hardly unique to him or even to skeptics.

    What is he denying?

    Liked by 1 person

  91. DY,
    Your blinkers are on good and tight.

    He essentially says: “If you don’t like me libeling you in public and possibly harming your livelihood, just stop doing what I don’t like”. That’s called racketeering in some countries and is just despicable.

    I’ve said no such thing and it’s utterly bizarre that you would suggest that I have. In fact, it’s despicable to suggest that I have. I imagine you have no interest in withdrawing it?

    Paul is publicly associated with a site that is clearly promoting science denial. That’s not my fault and he’s of course welcome to do so. However, there is no reason why I shouldn’t point this out. He could also have chosen to respond to my email and maybe some dialogue would ensue (despite the tone, that was why I chose to email). He chose not to.

    I probably will stop pointing this out, partly because I don’t really enjoy these types of exchanges and partly because I would really like to not sink to Paul’s level.

    Ken, you should apologize to Paul and just accept that honorable people can disagree.

    I absolutely agree that people can simply disagree. However, if Paul is going to accuse me of hypocrisy then I see no reason why I should treat him with kid’s gloves. I realise Paul will fail to accept this, but his norm appears to be smear people with whom he disagrees. I think it’s an appalling way to behave, but he’s, of course, welcome to do so. I, obviously, have no interest in apologising.

    Tom,
    And I have no intention of answering your question. It’s a silly question. Do you really think that someone can only be accussed of promoting science denial if they explicitly state that they deny something? Bizarre. With one exception (I think) all I’ve said is that this site is promoting science denial. If you think that promoting Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard does not mean that the site is promoting science denial, fine, but I do and so do many others. That people may not like this does not make it not true.

    Like

  92. I don’t think my question is silly at all. What is ‘climate denial?’ If someone is a ‘climate denier’ what do they deny?

    I think it’s pretty silly to put a label on someone if you can’t understand it.

    Liked by 1 person

  93. I think it’s pretty silly to put a label on someone if you can’t understand it.

    And it’s pretty silly to claim that I’ve done so when I really haven’t. Okay, I think I did once call them “science deniers” but mostly I’m pointing out that promoting them is promoting science denial. There is a difference, which I have little confidence you will acknowledge. So, I’m not trying to label Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard. I think they’re simply clueless. I’m pointing out that a site that claims to be doing Climate Scepticism is promoting people whose views are so at odds with the evidence that its essentially promoting science denial.

    I will stop pointing this out as its clear that people here don’t like it. I also, maybe mistakenly, assumed that those who’ve been engaged in this topic for as long as they have have at least determined what are extreme positions and, hence, what should be dismissed if one wants to at least appear partly credible. I may have been wrong about that. Of course this site can promote whatever it likes, but it can’t do so and expect to not be judged on the basis of what it chooses to promote. Delingpole, Monckton and Goddard are sufficiently extreme that it pretty much indicates that either those running this site are extremely poorly informed, or quite happy to promote extreme positions that have little credibility.

    Like

  94. Tom,
    <blockquote
    What does a climate denier deny?

    And you still seem to fail to understand that this is irrelevant to the point. Are you trying to simply deflect, or do you seriously think this is a worthwhile question?

    Like

  95. ATTP, you wrote “mostly I’m pointing out that promoting them is promoting science denial.” May we take it that that is in fact the point?

    I am asking you to define your terms. As I, along with Barack Obama and James Hansen, have been labeled a denier, I am intensely interested in knowing what I’m accused of. I don’t have much in common with Monckton, Delingpole or Goddard. Sadly, I don’t have as much as I’d like in common with Barack Obama or James Hansen. It’s actually a fairly wide spectrum of beliefs and personalities that have been labeled with the same abhorrent slur, usually employed with the specific intent to associate the target with Holocaust deniers.

    So forgive my insistence. What precisely is it I am accused of? What is science denial? What does a denier deny?

    Liked by 2 people

  96. And ATTP, above you asked Paul “why is it that you think its okay for you to behave with no basic common decency?”

    I believe that question is appropriate for any one who uses the term denier.

    Liked by 1 person

  97. Tom,

    you wrote “mostly I’m pointing out that promoting them is promoting science denial.” May we take it that that is in fact the point?

    I am asking you to define your terms.

    I have, numerous times. If you promote scientific ideas that are completely at odds with the evidence, then you’re promoting science denial. For example, promoting people who regularly claim that the temperature datasets have been fraudelently tampered with to show warming. Promoting people who claim that there has been no warming since (choose a suitable start date that varies with time). I guess I could use a different term, but there isn’t one that wouldn’t still be slightly insulting.

    I believe that question is appropriate for any one who uses the term denier.

    I don’t hugely care, but – with one exception (that I’ve already acknowledged) – I haven’t used “denier”. You can’t change the words I’ve used to suit your criticism.

    Like

  98. The P who so degrades these and other discussion threads here, and other places such as Bishop Hill is beginning, with all his specious squirmings to remind me of Vicky Pollard. Here’s a clip of her in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zExc6SK4kpA . Not a perfect match perhaps, but if you could do Venn diagrams of personalities, there might be considerable overlap. Both provide amusement, but perhaps our time being used up is not really worth it here?

    Liked by 2 people

  99. Hi ATTP, yes, it’s obvious that you don’t hugely care about insulting other people. You’re a bit touchy yourself, however.

    So Wegener was a denier of geology. Got it.

    I don’t really see how pointing out the hiatus, which famed denier James Hansen called a ‘decadal stall in temperaures’ actually qualifies as denying science. Perhaps you’ll enlighten us all.

    As for questioning adjustments to temperature, it’s obvious that adjustments need to be made. For some to think that others are putting their finger on the scale is just an expression of the aforementioned lack of trust in climate science. Something that Mann, Gleick, Oreskes, Cook, Lewandowsky, Prall, Phil Jones and others have contributed greatly to. Hence the ‘tosspot’ stuff.

    You’re not part of the solution, ATTP. I doubt if that bothers you–you run your blog for the choir, not the congregation and that seems to keep you happy until you have to scratch the itch to go slummin’ among the skeptics. I hope you enjoy your time here half as much as I do.

    Liked by 2 people

  100. Tom,

    it’s obvious that you don’t hugely care about insulting other people.

    It’s obvious that you’re not recognising that I haven’t called people here deniers.

    So Wegener was a denier of geology. Got it.

    Nope you don’t.

    <blockq

    Like

  101. Somehow my comment got posted while I was writing it.

    As for questioning adjustments to temperature

    I didn’t say “don’t question it” I said “fraudulently tampered with to show warming”.

    You’re not part of the solution, ATTP. I doubt if that bothers you–you run your blog for the choir, not the congregation and that seems to keep you happy until you have to scratch the itch to go slummin’ among the skeptics.
    I’ve never claimed to know what I’m doing with my blog. That hasn’t changed. I simply write things and people who can abide by my moderation policy are free to comment.

    I hope you enjoy your time here half as much as I do.

    You don’t enjoy it either?

    Like

  102. “As for questioning adjustments to temperature”

    How can you adjust surface temperature data which lacks calibration, quality control, standardized measuring equipment, routine instrument upkeep and maintenance, controlled siting, uniform recording, data gaps, site movement, elimination of urban heat island effect, etc.??? In any other field of “physical science”, a data base of similar quality would be laughed out of existence. If you adjust such data, it isn’t science…it’s manipulation, most especially when the ‘adjustments’ are continually being ‘refined’ and missing data is in-filled. Goddard calls it fraud, and I tend to agree with him.

    Liked by 1 person

  103. I think the Rice approach to science can best be summed up thus:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    Upton Sinclair.

    Like

  104. The distinguished Viscount Monckton, and others I hold in high esteem, have been sneered at by one of our regular trolls here on this thread – the truly tiresome plonker one. He is not fit to hold a candle to any of them. This new post on WUWT recounts some developments around the piece of music Monckton wrote to mark the untimely passing of another outstandingly good guy in the ‘climate debate’, Bob Carter: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/27/ghent-cathedral-bells-ring-out-bob-carters-peal/

    A contrast to the tosspottery, the deviousness, the deceitfulness, and general all round tawdriness to be found amongst the leaders of the ‘scientists for CO2 hysteria’ community.

    Liked by 1 person

  105. Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that Rice has been allowed to say pretty much anything he wants including repeating a libel about the blog proprietor. Paul Matthews really believes in freedom of speech and open dialogue, even if it gets mean and nasty. Contrast this noble and principled policy with that at Rice’s own blog where Tom Fuller for example has been banned and even technical comments are regularly removed by the moderator. Some people are fundamentally dictatorial and self righteous and very hypocritical about it. I will leave it to readers to determine who that might be in this thread.

    Liked by 1 person

  106. DY,
    I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the word libel. I think it, at least, requires saying something that isn’t true. However, if Paul wishes to complain about what I’ve said, he’s – of course – free to do so. However, he may like to reflect on the fact that he would be doing so based on comments I’ve made on a post on his site that has accused a NASA director of being a tosspot, accused named scientists of lying, accused a senior scientist of committing high crimes against the planet, and accused climate scientists generally of committing both scientific fraud (tampering with temperature data, cherry-picking), and actual fraud (grant-troughing). Despite this, you somehow think that my suggestion that Paul appears to typically smear those with whom he disagrees is somehow libel. Are you sure you’ve really thought this through? Which bit of it isn’t true? You should probably treat these questions as rhetorical as I have no expectation of your answer being one worth actually reading.

    Like

  107. Slightly O/T, I have just been banned from the Fabius Maximus blog.

    How about this beauty?

    “I’ve lost interest in people explaining why scientists are wrong. Take it elsewhere.”

    I shall cherish that!

    Like

  108. Rice, You are proving my point. Paul allows your silly hypocritical comments here and doesn’t feel the urge to control the dialogue Far milder technical comments are deleted at your blog. That’s called self righteous hypocrisy. Do you finally get it?

    Paul has responded above to some of your false libels.

    Liked by 1 person

  109. DY,
    I was right. Your response wasn’t worth reading.

    Paul has responded above to some of your false libels.

    No, he hasn’t (well not in any way that actually addresses it), but it appears that your blinkers are on so tight that you can’t see anything that doesn’t fit your chosen narrative. I’m slightly amazed that people who seem to be supportive of this post while criticising what I’ve said, think they’re in a position to accuse others of hypocrisy. Maybe I shouldn’t really say that I’m amazed, as it doesn’t surprise me greatly these days.

    Far milder technical comments are deleted at your blog. That’s called self righteous hypocrisy. Do you finally get it?

    No, I’m fully supportive of blog owners moderating their blogs as they see fit. I fail to see how letting people say whatever they want is somehow something to applaud.

    [PM: jeez, what kind of sad sicko spends his Saturday repeating the same incoherent gibberish about “science denial” that he already wrote umpteen times on Friday? Don’t you have a life? Something better to do? You need help.]

    Liked by 1 person

  110. For those who actually care about science and fixing the very serious deficiencies in climate science, there is a good and really rigorous and honest conversation going on about modeling at Climate Audit. Gerry Browing has a great post there with real references where stuff is actually mathematically proven. Rice, instead of adding more proof to the settled science that you are a propagandist masquerading as a scientist, you might try reading something actually really right for once.

    Like

  111. “PM: jeez, what kind of sad sicko spends his Saturday repeating the same incoherent gibberish about “science denial” that he already wrote umpteen times on Friday?

    Someone desperately insecure?

    Like

  112. Paul,
    Whenever we interact, I typically do regret some of what I say, until you then come along and prove that you really are an incredibly nasty individual. I guess it’s possible that you will somehow end up on the right side of history. Maybe climate scientists are third-rate tosspots, who are committing fraud and engaging in high crimes against the planet, and you will be lauded for highlighting these issues. I wouldn’t bank on it and one day you may actually realise that you’ve not only been on the wrong side of history, but at an extreme end of it. I will endeavour to stop pointing this out as clearly you have no interest in actually thinking about this and it is rather tedious dealing with someone as unpleasant as you very obviously are.

    Like

  113. ATTP
    Paul’s been snappy, but hardly unpleasant, let alone incredibly nasty. It’s a commonplace of blogging that you can say something nasty/unpleasant/snappy without being an “incredibly nasty individual.” It might be a good idea if you could acknowledge that simple fact so that reasonable dialogue can continue.

    Speaking personally (I have no idea what Paul thinks) I’d like that dialogue to continue because I think you’ve just said something interesting that merits discussion.

    Like

  114. Geoff,

    It’s a commonplace of blogging that you can say something nasty/unpleasant/snappy without being an “incredibly nasty individual.” It might be a good idea if you could acknowledge that simple fact so that reasonable dialogue can continue.

    What am I meant to acknowledge, that nice people can say horrible things online? Yes, I’m sure that’s true, but I don’t see it as a good excuse. In my view, people should be aiming to say online what they’d be willing to say in person. If this is what Paul does, then my comment stands. If not, then he really shouldn’t be calling other people hypocrites.

    Speaking personally (I have no idea what Paul thinks) I’d like that dialogue to continue because I think you’ve just said something interesting that merits discussion.

    I’ve said it, you can think about it if you wish, or not. I don’t have any interest in discussing it further and have no expectation (even if I did) that it would be a discussion worth having.

    Like

  115. It seems as if ATTP has gone. His final message contained an incredible admission when he said to Paul: “I guess it’s possible that you will somehow end up on the right side of history.” This deserves highlighting.

    If this means anything, it can only be that he considers it possible that temperatures will not rise as dramatically as the “science” (= the model-based predictions of the IPCC consensus) suggests.

    To a neutral observer, this may seem a small admission, but it contradicts a hundred posts in which he has proclaimed that the Science and only the Science is the arbiter of what will happen to future temperatures. By making this admission, ATTP rejoins the human race, acknowledging that the future is unknown, and is not to be deep-search’d with saucy looks or general climate models. Well done.

    Like

  116. “until you then come along and prove that you really are an incredibly nasty individual.”

    Says the nastiest, most thuggish, downright patronising troll in climate “science”.

    You really are a piece of work, Rice.

    You can – and I have no doubt do – bully your unfortunate students unmercifully, but it doesn’t work on other peoples’ blogs.

    Like

  117. Geoff,
    I’ve never said any such thing. Let me ask you a couple of questions that I hope you will answer as if we were talking in person and not playing blog games. Do you know you’re misrepresenting me or not? If you’re doing it on purpose, why? Do you think it’s okay because it’s a blog? Do you think integrity and honesty are only things others should endeavour to maintain? If this post is about conduct and how we should judge those whose conduct is apparently less than perfect, why would you apparently do something dishonest? Is this just a game to you? In which case do you think it’s funny to smear academics and professional scientists?

    Like

  118. ATTP
    ”I’ve never said any such thing.”

    You said (to Paul): “I guess it’s possible that you will somehow end up on the right side of history.”

    I interpreted that as meaning that you consider it possible that temperatures will not rise as dramatically as the “science” (= the model-based predictions of the IPCC consensus) suggests. I added a gloss, saying you were acknowledging that the future is unknown, that physics and general climate models are not the only factors in play, and that the Science is not the only arbiter of what will happen to future temperatures. (By “Science” with a capital S I meant the official IPCC position – I hope that’s clear.)

    If you didn’t mean that, what did you mean?

    Like

  119. ATTP
    Here are the answers to your questions:
    Do you know you’re misrepresenting me or not? – No.
    If you’re doing it on purpose, why? – Not applicable.
    Do you think it’s okay because it’s a blog? – Not applicable.
    Do you think integrity and honesty are only things others should endeavour to maintain? – No.
    If this post is about conduct and how we should judge those whose conduct is apparently less than perfect, why would you apparently do something dishonest? – I wouldn’t.
    Is this just a game to you? No.
    In which case do you think it’s funny to smear academics and professional scientists? No.

    Now could you answer my question? What did you mean by saying: “I guess it’s possible that you will somehow end up on the right side of history.”

    Like

  120. It’s a funny thing, over the years – decades even – I have known a fair few academic types with doctorates, professorships and so forth – Hell, I’m even related to one or two, quite high powered at that.

    But I have NEVER come across a single practising high level academic with enough time on their hands to spend many hours a day farting around indulging in utterly frivolous activities such as trolling and clown dancing on numerous blogs.

    What with research, the publishing rat race, supervising their project students, chasing grant money and all the myriad things that the ivory tower brigade have to do to maintain their position in a highly competitive environment, there are just not enough hours in the day.

    Just a thought…

    Like

  121. Cat, I’ve also wondered about Ken Rice’s claims to be a first rate scientist. To maintain a decent publication record and also do first rate work is a full time job. I know from first hand experience. Rice would appear to have little time left for these activities, leading me anyway to question his commitment to science.

    Like

  122. BTW, I really don’t care how Rice spends his time, except that it does have implications about his credibility and commitment to science.

    Like

  123. DY,
    Do I take it that you’ve looked at my publication record and deemed it not decent, or have you not bothered? You claim to know who I am, so it wouldn’t be hard to check.

    it does have implications about his credibility and commitment to science.

    And you haven’t considered how associating positively with this site might have implications about your credibility and commitment to science?

    Like

  124. ATTP, if you think commenting on a site associates your career with it, you have a somewhat over-inflated view of the power of blogs. You might however consider how the commenters you allow to appear on your site might reflect on you. I’m sure you can point at every blog and say the same thing, but you have some very nasty people who put in regular appearances at your venue.

    Like

  125. Tom,

    if you think commenting on a site associates your career with it, you have a somewhat over-inflated view of the power of blogs.

    It wasn’t really me who suggested that it did. I was responding to someone who seemed to think that how I spent my time reflected on my credibility. I tend to agree that it is largely irrelevant; at least in terms of the impact that it actually has.

    I’m sure you can point at every blog and say the same thing, but you have some very nasty people who put in regular appearances at your venue.

    Possibly, but I typically encourage them to tone down any potential nastiness when they comment on my blog. I don’t always succeed, but it is a goal. With – I think – one or two exceptions, I’ve only ever banned people from my blog for how they conduct themselves on my blog, not how they conduct themselves elsewhere.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s