William Connolley writes about a dodgy-sounding conference on global warming. (Jaworowski is presenting, for example.)

In comments the organizer, Peter Stilbs, explained:


I do not really understand your arrogance against Jaworowski – I have seen that elsewhere on the web too. Reading what he has to say about the problems of temperature reconstructions from trapped air bubble content in ice contrasts starkly to the “no problems at all” – message you see from the Berne(Switzerland) group …

McIntyre and McKitrick were the first to demonstrate that the Mann hockey stick was pure crap and possibly a fraud and huge scientific scandal. Singer, Soon and Baliunas do have a lot to add to the discussion, in my mind – like Svensmark.

Well, as long as Stilbs has an open mind on the issues…

Comments

  1. #1 Pinko Punko
    August 19, 2006

    I would love to be in on that love fest of crazy cats. Sign me up. I can’t wait for the hotel bar.

  2. #2 John Cross
    August 19, 2006

    I think it is a good sign that people like Jaworowski are still being trotted out. If the sceptics think that he actually adds something to the debate it shows the appalling lack of scientific creditability they have to draw on.

    In my opinion the best deconstruction of Jawarowski can be found on Some are Boojums! I found it rather amusing that last week Tim Ball was praising Jaworowski and when I pointed out some errors his reply was basically that since people went to so much trouble to show Jaworowski was wrong – his work must be good! It kind of reminds me of Seixon and the elephant! You really can’t make this stuff up!

  3. #3 jre
    August 19, 2006

    Ha! So that explains the Swedish link to the Jaworowski post!
    OK, the hiatus has gone on long enough. Jaworowski’s recent publication history (contained exlusively, so far as I can tell, in Larouche’s 21stCS&T) is rather, um, colorful. This conference presents the perfect opportunity to review some of those gems.

  4. #4 JB
    August 19, 2006

    “McIntyre and McKitrick were the first to demonstrate that the Mann hockey stick was pure crap”

    Would that be 99.99% pure or just 99.9% pure?

    I wonder, do they “proof” crap like they do alcohol?

    And precisely how does one one demonstrate that something is “pure crap”, anyway?

    Is it based on the “look test”?

    “I’ve seen lots of adulterated crap in my day, but this looks like ‘pure’ crap. Black gold. Texas turds.”

    Or is it based on the smell test?:
    “I’ve smelled cheap immitation crap before, but this smells like the real McCoy to me. This is the Christian Dior of crap”

    Or is it based on the feel test? “It’s got the right consistancy…Yep, feels like pure crap.”

    Or does one give it the ultimate test — the “taste test?:

    “This tastes like pure crap. Bittersweet…not bad. Want some?”

    “I’ll take your word for it, bro”.

    Or does one use a combination of all the above to prove that something is “pure crap”?

    Perhaps we will learn more about all this from the upcoming conference.

  5. #5 John Cross
    August 19, 2006

    Tim: Opps, I just noticed that your link to the Some are Boojums article on Jaworowski is the same and the one I put up. On the otherhand, consider it a second recommendation!

  6. #6 Don Baccus
    August 19, 2006

    I found it rather amusing that last week Tim Ball was praising Jaworowski and when I pointed out some errors his reply was basically that since people went to so much trouble to show Jaworowski was wrong – his work must be good!

    Huh, over on Bill Dembski’s Intelligent Design (sic) blog, his co-host Denyse O’Leary has just started a thread entitled:

    Why I know Darwin doesn’t really matter: Too many people insist too frantically that he does

    There’s an eerie echo in here …

  7. #7 Lurker
    August 23, 2006

    First scientific “conference” I’ve ever heard about that seems to have no scientific committee, no call for papers. By invitation only? But at least the press don’t need to pay the conference fee…

  8. #8 Dano
    August 23, 2006

    Lurker,

    they can’t have a CFP, because they have nothing to write about. No hypotheses to test.

    Best,

    D

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.