Deltoid

Steve McIntyre says: December 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am

BTW if one browses back through the posting times of Gavin's posts (and those of other realclimate authors), many of his posts (though not all) have been made between 9 am and 5 pm - odd timing for posts supposedly prepared during Gavin's "spare time".

Ah yeah, global warming is a lie since Gavin makes posts about it during his work hours! (Oh, never mind there's stuff like automatic posting, lunch breaks, flexible working hours, different time zones and whatever...). Even if it would be true that Gavin slacks of, how does that diminish his arguments?

Whatever, ClimateAudit and McIntyre are a joke anyway and the commenter even more so.

Thanks for bringing it up though, I was in need of a good laugh. It's really Sadly,No! grade stuff. :D

Posted by: student_b | December 29, 2007 10:52 AM

Ah, I screwed up the quote tags twice in a row. The paragraph after the cursive text still belongs to the quote.

Ashes on my bald head, for I suck at previewing!

Posted by: student_b | December 29, 2007 11:01 AM

I never did quite understand the whole smoking bad for you research issue. For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. Really bad for you.

I understand but disagree with the tobacco lawsuits. Everyone who used tobacco should have known better.

Posted by: ben | December 29, 2007 12:46 PM

Ian Forrester said: "Far better for good honest data to be lost (it can always be repeated) than lies and distortion to be promulgated forever on right wing blog sites."

And how do you (or anyone) know if it's good data if you've never seen it?

Posted by: Paul S | December 29, 2007 3:27 PM

"For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. "

A few years ago, I had occasion to see the Hartford Courant's write-up (a copy, not the original) on President Grant's death from jaw cancer, which the article obviously took for granted everybody assumed was due to his heavy cigar consumption. This in the late 19th century. On the other hand, a few years back, one of my neighbors asked me, in all seriousness, whether cigarette smoking was actually bad for you. What could have happened in the interim, I wonder? Oh well, whatever it was couldn't relate to the climate debate.

Posted by: z | December 29, 2007 7:16 PM

There's more than just parallels between the tobacco, lead, PCB, and fossil fuel lobbying campaigns. Same organizations, same skeptics repeat. You can look them up.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1446868

Am J Public Health. 2001 November; 91(11): 1749-1757. Copyright © American Journal of Public Health 2001

Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms

"Public health professionals need to be aware that the 'sound science' movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/11/1981

November 2007, Vol 97, No. 11 American Journal of Public Health 1981-1991 © 2007 American Public Health Association DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.078014

GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND LAW Pharmacological and Chemical Effects of Cigarette Additives

"more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions"

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 29, 2007 7:37 PM

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/28/2128286.htm?section=australia

Posted by: Alex | December 29, 2007 9:08 PM

I wonder if there is a connection to this conversation a couple of weeks ago at Desmogblog, where John Holliday was busy smearing Realclimate, including asking why their posts were not peer reviewed: http://www.desmogblog.com/singers-deniers-misrepresenting-new-climatology-journal-article

And the RealClimate thread he was referring to: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends

At the Desmogblog post, Ian Forrester figured out John Holliday was brucew4yne, based on a particular phrase he used. I noted that Holliday quoted, without attribution, a comment by Richard Sycamore at the Realclimate post. So possibly John Holliday is also Richard Sycamore?

VJ (aka Holly Stick)

Posted by: VJ | December 29, 2007 11:54 PM

Acknowledged or not Ian, most everyone knew cigarettes were hazardous many years ago. That the smoking threat wasn't taken as seriously or that a few people insisted it wasn't hazardous doesn't change the fact that the perils of smoking was common knowledge back then.

Posted by: Paul S | December 30, 2007 1:34 AM

Im at a loss to understand why Steve Mc gives a rats behind about when and where RC posts are made. If Gavin Schmidt is posting while at work, surely this is a issue for his employers? If NASA was concerned, I'm sure they would take it up with him. Given that he has published 11 peer reviewed articles during 2007 (see: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html) it doesn't seem like his volunteer effort at RC is affecting his output.

NASA obviously doesn't run RC, and is not associated in any way except by association with Gavin Schmidt. US tax dollars don't fund the site, and contributors take full responsibility for the postings. What's the issue?

Posted by: ChrisC | December 30, 2007 3:18 AM

Up until about 30-35 years ago Ben the link between smoking and health wasn't even acknowledged by the US government.

Nice attempt at spinning and twisting reality. Gouldiechops. There was plenty bloody of evidence elsewhere.

Here's Harry Clerke's blog to prove just how wrong you are. To suggest big tobacco retarded information on the dangers of cig smoking is simply bullshit, so please stop dissembling, Gouldiechops.

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/09/health-nazis-got-it-right.html

Harry is reviewing a book:

Robert Proctor's, The Nazi War on Cancer, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.

The main startling fact is that German work on the connection between smoking and cancer predated the major English language research (the papers by Levin, Doll/Hill and Wynder/Graham, published in 1950) by more than a decade. It was in Germany in the late 1930s that the addictive character of cigarettes was first recognised and the connection with lung cancer recognised. Indeed in the late 1930s the Nazis launched the world's most aggressive anti-smoking campaign with public health campaigns, bans on certain forms of advertising and restrictions on smoking in many public places.

These discoveries were driven partly by Nazism with its ethics of racial hygiene and bodily purity. Good science was pursued in the interests of antidemocratic ideals.

Cigarettes had not even been produced in Germany until 1860 though it grew massively after 1900 to peak in 1942. The shift from pipes and cigars is of major consequence - as Henner Hess nicely put it we are talking about a 'a revolutionary development in the history of drug consumption, roughly comparable to the invention of the hypodermic needle for opiate addiction' (cited in Proctor, p. 183). Cigarettes got tars and other noxious chemicals into bronchial passageways.

The physician Fritz Lickint wrote a number of papers beginning in 1920 pointing out the connection between smoking and cancer and a monumental survey on smoking and cancer in 1939. He pointed to the fact that women then had much lower cancer rates because they then smoked much less. He identified nicotine as an addictive agent in tobacco comparable in its addictiveness to morphine and identified clearly the dangers of passive smoking. By 1940,anti-smoking activists even initiated much more recent compensation arguments by arguing the low-nicotine cigarettes might cause smokers to increase their smoking to maintain nicotine levels (Proctor p. 202). Lickint was not a Nazi but was heavily involved in Nazi tobacco policies. In the early 1940s German physicians were aware that smoking caused heart disease and accurately observed that smoking reduced

Posted by: JC | December 30, 2007 6:52 AM

ooops Paras.....

Posted by: jc | December 30, 2007 6:56 AM

Back to the "Data Quality Act": What does it actually require the agency to do? Require them to publish their data and protocols?

IANAL,but any internal data relevant to a lawsuit against an individual or a corporation must be turned over to the "other side", on request, during discovery (before the lawsuit gets tried.) So what's the big deal about putting the government in the same situation. They want to take deleterious action against me, I get to see the data first.

You seem to be assuming that the regulatory agencies are populated with saints.

Posted by: bill r | December 30, 2007 9:52 AM

By the mid-'70's (30 years ago) cigarette smoking was a standard risk factor in cardiac and cancer epidemiology studies. The only question was how to code it into the regressions (any/none, packs per day, and so on). It was fairly settled at that point. These studies (e.g. the Framingham and Western Electric studies) were funded/sponsored by the U.S. government, through NIH.

Posted by: bill r | December 30, 2007 11:26 AM

Ah, the tobacco guys play the nazi card. Who should people trust, after all, prominent businessmen with a product to sell, or a discredited loser military maniac and his friends?

Who wouldn't know to rely on studies published in the 1930s in Germany instead of what their own contemporary businessmen were (and as below, are still) saying prominently in advertising, eh?

Is that the logic you're using?

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/diaryofdenial.htm

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/images/lying.jpg

Yep. Same approach, same lobbyists, same lies. That's what the IPCC means by business as usual, eh?

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 30, 2007 1:43 PM

"For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. Really bad for you."

In my dad's time (1920's-2006), it was widely known that cigarette smoking was bad for you. Of course, many other things that were widely known in those times turned out not to be true.

Dad loved a saying, "It's not what you know that hurts you so. It's what you know that isn't so."

What is taken as common knowledge is often neither.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan | December 30, 2007 1:57 PM

Is it just me, or does it seem that the dream of CA to have Gavin, Michael, James, etc. being led away shouting "If it wasn't for those darn kids!" while they (the CA/surfacestations crew) head back to the Mystery Van in triumph. Instead of critiquing papers and data, they now go after RC, Tamino and Eli. And for them it's just about the science. Right.

Posted by: Deech56 | December 30, 2007 3:28 PM

Rabbet,

Tell that to your Democrat colleagues as they were the ones who ran both houses 40 odd years ago. Your hero, Algore, supported the tobacco industry, buddy.

And we're on science denial, you may wanna explain just what's wrong with GM crops and why the environmental industry is so opposed.

Posted by: Jc. | December 30, 2007 6:04 PM

"Thompson's fridge is in the basement, still you wanna chip in to buy him an UPS? That is really cold concerntrollism Hans."

Nope, if you're an american citizen it's your tax money he has used to sit comfortably on his now unique ice cores. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to publish detailed core logs, or he is simply hiding controversial information.

Posted by: Hans Erren | December 30, 2007 7:35 PM

Morphing your nick again, Jc (or jc, JC, jC)? Some trolls never deserve an amnesty.

Posted by: mndean | December 30, 2007 8:11 PM

Am I imagining things or did JC call the US government nazis?

Gouldiechops: Up until about 30-35 years ago the link between smoking and health wasn't even acknowledged by the US government.

JC: Not true! "Indeed in the late 1930s the Nazis launched the world's most aggressive anti-smoking campaign with public health campaigns, bans on certain forms of advertising and restrictions on smoking in many public places."

Posted by: pough | December 31, 2007 2:13 AM

re: #43 Once again, Firefox, Greasemonkey+killfile works here & some other places. A Good Thing, although I still pine for good old newsreader KILLFILEs.

Posted by: John Mashey | December 31, 2007 2:57 AM

McIntyre continues his personal attacks on Gavin, in the "it's all about the science" mode of personal behavior, of course (cough cough):

Just thinking out loud, suppose that Gavin had posted an account of the 1934 events that was critical of Hansen and contained details known only to insiders. Would Hansen have been content with Schmidt saying that he did so in his "personal capacity"? Of course not. There's an obvious bias for underlings to flatter supervisors.

And this

But do Americans want a system where federal employees can discuss work-related matters on blogs in their "personal capacity"? Gavin is setting a precedent here. If Gavin can do this, why can't all federal employees?

It's true that federal agencies at times have worked hard at stifling employees who want to speak their minds about science-based issues. So much so that there's an NGO that was created pretty much to lend support and a voice to those who wish to do so (unfortunately I forget their current name, originally it was set up by an ex-USFS employee who'd earlier won a grievance or possibly lawsuit establishing his right to speak his mind on his public time, after having been previously disciplined for having done so).

I'd love McIntyre or a proxy to make a federal case out of this. While it wouldn't be as much fun as Dover, it would be just as educational for some of those poor self-proclaimed libertarians over at CA who so deeply misunderstand our Constitution.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 3:38 AM

And, at the end of the day, McIntyre closes the thread, and says that Steven Mosher "is one of the few people who caught my nuance". And what is this "nuance"?

And when HE is slighted on a NASA web site, slighted with government funds, slighted by an employee passing off his activities as Private...

Apparently the "nuance" of McIntyre's position is that Real Climate is a "NASA website".

Oh my.

Lord preserve us (and the internet wayback machine, this thread on CA...)

And in regard to McIntyre's allowing the claim of scientific misconduct on the part of NASA scientists to stand ... not only was that particular post edited, but when McIntyre closed the thread, he said he deleted some posts entirely (and the numeric references to posts by following responses make it clear that he did so). So claims of scientific misconduct are still welcome at CA, despite endless protests on the part of certain CA participants that "this doesn't reflect McIntyre's personal view".

CA, it's all about improving the science, oh yes.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 4:04 AM

No need to foulmouth dhogazas, perhaps statistics of noisy data is not your speciality.

I'm afraid statistics will be of little use in analyzing the noise that passes for "the scientific revolution that will overturn Climate Science" over at CA ...

You don't need statistics to understand phrases like "has since transgressed into active scientific fraud". Those are direct, unsubstantiated accusations which, if taken seriously, could end the careers of Mann, Schmidt, Hansen etc.

Which appears to be one of McIntyre's goals at CA.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 7:28 AM

"There is a scientific debate going on" Tell me Hans, are they still debating if the greenhouse effect breaks the second law of thermodynamics over at CA?

Posted by: Thaumas | December 31, 2007 10:15 AM

If Dr. Schmidt wants to promote a particular conclusion as a (very knowledgeable) private citizen, he should. When he starts using NASA to do, then he needs to play by the big kid rules, even if he is right.

Real Climate is not a NASA site, and carries a disclaimer making it clear that the opinions are those of the bloggers, not their employer, dipthong.

But if you feel you have a case, and care to hire a lawyer, and sue NASA, please please please do so.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 5:23 PM

I find the discussion here intriguing -- largely because regardless of the value (or lack therein) of the citations and references, both sides show an appalling lack of sociological knowledge relevant to the question actually possed about who knew what, when, about smoking. A discussion of who published what research when, and what government agency released what report when, has little to do with what ordinary people know and when they know it.

Smoking is (and has been) a habit that is disproportionately practiced by lower and working class persons, and as one person did point out the majority of these smokers begin when they are teens. These lower and working class teens don't read newspapers or warnings on packages, much less scientific articles or government resports on any topic (nor do they watch news on TV for that matter). They observe their grandparents and parents smoking, and smoking is an intregal part of social and cultural patterns that are difficult to disassemble.

Tnere are many ordinary people walking around this country today who do not know that smoking is potentially deadly. If you get outside the world of highly educated people, you discover that what people in this country don't know is enormous and frightening.

[This does not mean that lawsuits by individuals against tobacco companies are warranted.]

Posted by: Sue | December 31, 2007 5:43 PM

re: #57 Sue Read Brandt's book. In the US, smoking may now be mostly lower-class, but it certainly didn't used to be. It is particularly noteworthy that the smoking rates for doctors have dropped rather strongly. The smoking rate also differs rather strongly by state, and while there is some correlation with income/educational levels, there is still a lot of variation, i.e., local culture and anti-smoking education matter. Utah is low at 11.1% smokers [Mormon], CA is at 15.2% [relatively fierce attention, lots of local anti-smoking rules, and at one point, some brutally-effective anti-smoking ads and commercials targeted at teenagers]. At the other end, Kentucky does 28.7%.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a2.htm

See table 1.

Posted by: John Mashey | December 31, 2007 9:41 PM

what would be the implications if steve won?? would he get to review every post before it go's public?? just every article??

gavin's data "model E" is available to all http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Posted by: jacob l | January 1, 2008 1:52 AM

If I could (and I feel kinda dirty for saying this)...

I feel I should stick up for CA a little. Over a considerable period of time, Stevie Mc has raised some interesting points, and legitimate critiques. The fact that his site wass jumped upon by every wing nut in the universe has led to the sites downfall and with it Steve Mc. While these days the site is nothing more than a clearing house for unfounded alegations, name calling and just about every denialist talking point in the book, back in the day I found it an interesting read.

I seriously don't know what's gotten into him lately.

And Lance, Stevie Mc's fantasy lawsuit has nothing to do with the aviliability or quality of data. Indeed, the data quality act never had anything to do with the availability and quality of data. Gavin Schmidt is a respectable scientist and publishes his data in complience with accepted standards. He plays by the rules and publishes in peer reviewed journals. Indeed GISS publishes most of their data freely on the web:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/

Think before you post next time.

Posted by: ChrisC | January 1, 2008 6:50 AM

As a minimum Steve Mc has revealed that the IPCC is based on extremely sloppy science: grey unpublished data, wrong data, reused wrong data, omission of data that doesn't fit the theory, truncation of data that doesn't fit the theory, arbitrary splicing, poor understanding of statistics, wrong use of statistics, unpublished statistics, and to top that off, lame excuses to not archive original data...

Posted by: Hans Erren | January 1, 2008 8:52 AM

Nice rhetorical trick, dhogaza. Lot's of bla bla from you, but you fail address the content of my post:

As a minimum Steve Mc has revealed that the IPCC is based on extremely sloppy science: grey unpublished data, wrong data, reused wrong data, omission of data that doesn't fit the theory, truncation of data that doesn't fit the theory, arbitrary splicing, poor understanding of statistics, wrong use of statistics, unpublished statistics, and to top that off, lame excuses to not archive original data...

Posted by: Hans Erren | January 1, 2008 10:04 AM

Hans,

As per your content; a pig with lipstick is still a pig.

Just keep whacking yourself in the head with that hockey stick, pal. You'll break it yet.

Posted by: luminous beauty | January 1, 2008 10:35 AM