Global Warming Skeptics score own goal

Fred Singer and co petitioned the American Physical Society to replace its statement on Climate Change. Instead, it got reaffirmed

The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.

Eli Rabett has more details, while John Mashey has investigated the petitioner’s social network.

Comments

  1. #1 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    97 Marco,

    This is similar to the stunt that Singer pulled recently, where he cited a number of mainstream climate scientists as co-authors and refused to remove their names when asked.

  2. #2 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    Apologies if someone else has already said this and I missed it, but there’s a very obvious point being missed here:-

    206 (0.45%) of APS members signed the petition. When the APS council voted to retain the existing statement, but with changes for clarity, the denialists predictably complained that a small cadre took this action without consulting the membership, i.e. no one knows what the other approx. 47,000 think and there are many more “sceptics” than the council admit.

    Now, why on Earth was that petition signed by *only* 206? Surely if the denialists’ claim had any merit, they could *easily* get many (thousands?) of those 47,000 to sign the petition with some simple advertising, with no access to the membership list required?

  3. #3 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    99 sod,

    I know you don’t have to take any notice of what I say but I wish that the word sceptic wasn’t misused in this way. These are the least sceptical, most credulous, people you will find. I prefer “sceptics” (with scare quotes) or AGWSceptics (one word to indicate a special category).

  4. #4 carrot eater
    November 15, 2009

    Regarding their list of publications: Nothing you tell them about E&E will make them think any less of that journal or its process.

    I noticed Moberg’s paleo-reconstruction on there. That isn’t anti-AGW; it’s just a paleo-reconstruction with a bumpier hockey stick shaft. Somehow these people think that the existence of non-CO2 forced climate changes is proof that CO2 can’t absorb IR.

    I also see a string of ice-age CO2-lags-temperature papers. Yes, it did. We agree it did. And?

    IN any case, after you strip away the E&E, the not actually anti-AGW, the unreviewed commentaries and the such, you do have a handful of papers left. Do we expect the WUWTers to actually read those papers, critically think about them, and see if they have provided any useful contribution? Or do they just embrace them because they like the sound of the conclusions (or sometimes just the press release)?

  5. #5 ohn Mashey
    November 15, 2009

    re: #102
    yes.
    in “Science Bypass”
    p.6; “For example, 2 organizers are senior members of the Physics Department at Princeton University. That Department has 40+ faculty members, most of whom are APS members who have not signed this petition.”

    So, Happer and Austin are both senior (Full Professors, I assume long-tenured, and both members of the National Academy of Sciences). Here’s the list of people, and the list of faculty. Torquaot is also listed there, but his main affiliation is elsewhere, chemistry & PRISM. I would suggest that almost everyone on that list is an APS member. [I sampled, of course.]

    One may note that the next APS President is Curtis Callan, on that list.

    SO, the next time Happer says this, ask him why he was so miserably unsuccessful in acquiring signers from his own department.

    For what it’s worth, although I didn’t do much “seniority chain” analysis (look at comments @ DeSmogBlog), I think there are plenty of cases where some relatively junior, not very-dedicated signer got recruited by a much more senior and sometimes very dedicated one.

    As for risk in general:

    p.12:
    “Of the 119 (A-E) signers, 102 (86%) were born before 1950, compared to about 40% for overall APS. This is a strong effect, and cannot be due to “retired scientists are finally free to tell the real truth”, given that only one plausible climate scientist is a signer, and he is not retired. Few signers have ever published research even vaguely related to climate science, and at least some of them signed similar petitions before they retired.”

    Given the Plimer discussions, people must know that

    Tenured professors are not easily deterred from saying what they want.

  6. #6 John Mashey
    November 15, 2009

    More on Happer &co: see
    Icecap
    In which Roger Cohen strongly criticizes the APS process, and claims the petitioners contacted 10,000 more members (which I think got them that last-minute burst of 43). I am curious how they contacted that many people, especially given the APS note regarding the membership list:
    “The contents of this directory are intended for an APS member’s personal use to facilitate one-on-one correspondence.” Hmmm.

    Meanwhile, Heartland has been organizing a petition for ACS, and Singer has an alternate for GSA, so it will be busy.

    Oh, and a certain string theorist showed up at Greenfyre’s.

  7. #7 TrueSceptic
    November 15, 2009

    106 John,

    Surely no access to the APS membership list is required. You just place ads for the petition where members are likely to see them.

    If you argue that there is no obvious place for those ads, I’ll counter with saying that APS AGWSceptics would have no problem finding them via CA, WUWT, etc., giving the petition huge momentum.

    Whatever assumptions we make, 0.45% of the membership is *pitiful*.

  8. #8 John Mashey
    November 15, 2009

    re: #107 TrueSkeptic

    Cohen says in the Icecap piece:
    “Rather it was the petitioners themselves who directly contacted more than 10,000 members, and hundreds of them commented to the APS Council before the meeting, with more than 1/3 supporting our Open Letter or a substantial moderation or withdrawal of the existing statement.”

    Whether true or not, that seems pretty explicit; of course APS AGWSkeptics could find CA or WUWT, but I think that your assumption that 10,000 APSmembers read WUWT or CA is problematical. I would think that if there were that many, there would have been far more signers.
    Of course, what Cohen essentially said was they they managed to get 1/3 of “hundreds” to support them.
    [People were supposed to contact their specific Councilors. About a week before the meeting, Harold Lewis widely sent around an email urging people to contact *all* the Council members, providing a handy list of email addresses. The Councilors were immediately deluged with emails.

    Although I have no way to know, I conjecture that a lot of those emails came from the signers.

    If you read my paper, and look at Appendix 4, p59-, you will see some of the advertising they did in July/August, i.e., they put it around the usual places.

    So, I don’t know if they really did “directly contact 10,000 people”, but if they did, they either used the APS Directory or somebody has some big Outlook files.

  9. #9 MarkB
    November 16, 2009

    Re: #95-99

    The Heartland Institute has a similar amusing list with similar results (studies not actually skeptical, studies not published in cited journal, op-ed pieces, etc.). I think they claim numbers in the thousands. What Watts presents is likely mostly a subset, pre-packaged into something that looks “new”, and directed of course to the unsuspecting layperson.

    “Lather-rinse-repeat…always repeat…” – Homer Simpson

  10. #10 TrueSceptic
    November 16, 2009

    108 John,

    Perhaps I’m being simple minded about all this, but my view is that *any* APS AGWSceptics who feel strongly that their views are being misrepresented by the APS council would be the very ones who are aware of Climate Depot, CA, WUWT, etc. It’s not as if the AGWSceptic sites are obscure, hard to find, or shy.

    If there are thousands of AGWSceptics in the APS, they would find their way to the petition with very little effort!

  11. #11 John Mashey
    November 16, 2009

    re: 110 True Skeptic

    I think we are agreeing. Do you think we aren’t?

    [For what it’s worth, I doubt the petitioners directly contacted 10,000 people. They certainly advertised this in APS-NES Newsletter, which gets to a few thousand, but taht is hardly what I’d call “direct contact”. I simply claim taht if they *did* actually irectly contact 10,000 people, they used the APS Directory.]

  12. #12 TrueSceptic
    November 16, 2009

    110 John,

    I wasn’t sure. I had the impression that you thought that the creators of the petition needed to actively find signers, whereas I think that any such would be beating down Singer’s door in order to sign. Whatever, we certainly agree that 0.45% is laughable. :)

  13. #13 ohn Mashey
    November 16, 2009

    Read p.17, and note that about half the signers also signed OISM, an half didn’t. I’d suggest that most of the half that didn’t are relatively new to this, and there enough cases where such folks are “close” to someone else on the list to make me think there was active recruitng.

  14. #14 carrot eater
    November 16, 2009

    Perhaps it’s time for a Project Steve on this issue.

  15. #15 TrueSceptic
    November 18, 2009

    114 Carrot,

    OK, I’ll bite. What?

  16. #16 carrot eater
    November 18, 2009

    Project Steve?

    At some point, the young-earth creationists started making a list of scientists who supported their position. The creationists had no scientific merit, but they had a list of names to wave around, for whatever that was worth.

    In order to poke fun at that exercise, somebody started a list of scientists who rejected creationism, but the list was limited to people named ‘Steve’ or ‘Stephen’ or ‘Stephanie’. The thing took off like wildfire, and they’re up to over a thousand Steves.

    Given that creationists and global warming deniers try to downplay the significance of scientific consensus, it’s somewhat amusing that they still periodically try to boast with a headcount of their supporters. They should save their time for trying to publish something a darn.

  17. #17 TrueSceptic
    November 19, 2009

    116 Carrot,

    Thanks. Not heard of that before. I like the idea. :)

  18. #18 Brian D
    November 19, 2009

    TrueSceptic: The Wiki page on the subject is also rather interesting, although it fails to note the poetic coincidence that Steve #1000 is also a Darwin (no relation). It does mention the reasoning behind the name (“Steve” was chosen in honour of Stephen Jay Gould).

    The issue with Project Steve in this context is it only just recently hit a kiloSteve, after running for about six years, and the creationists are still a substantial part of the population. Think we’ve got enough time to do a “Project James” (Hansen) and sway public opinion?

  19. #19 carrot eater
    November 19, 2009

    Project Steve was really more for amusement than anything else, I think; not for swaying public opinion.

  20. #20 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    Funny to see the global warming scare mongers exposed for what they are.

    http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1747257

  21. #21 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Funny to see the global warming scare mongers exposed for what they are.

    Yeah, scientists. Wow, what a relevation.

  22. #22 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    Scientists? Hardly. This is the same CRU that refused to release information after FOIA requests, saying they lost the data. Now it turns up.

    Their credibility was never high, but this exposes their BS for what it is. But hey, don’t let reality ruin your self-important egotism. Keep the charade up old boy, who knows, maybe you actually can put the genie back in the bottle! Hahahahaha!

  23. #23 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Scientists? Hardly. This is the same CRU that refused to release information after FOIA requests, saying they lost the data. Now it turns up.

    No, actually, a lot of the older raw data was never archived after processing.

    And, of course, they don’t have the legal right to release data from some of the various NWS’s whose raw data they’ve been given.

    And, no, they didn’t keep as good a track of what they could release, couldn’t release, etc, in the face of possible FOIA requests a decade or more in the future. Wow, that’s a conspiracy for you.

    The reality is that McIntyre has been trying to use the FOIA to force them to violate the agreements under which they got some of the raw data (which is often sold by NWS’s to commercial users) and has been screaming bloody murder over the university’s refusal to do so.

    So now, it couldn’t be pried out legally, so … it’s been stolen.

    And you think it’s wonderful.

    Figures.

  24. #24 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    I do think it’s wonderful. They are charlatans who make grand statements but won’t let anyone see the raw data and how they came to their conclusions. So I call bullshit and applaud whoever liberated it. If you can’t stand the scrutiny then maybe your conclusions aren’t worth listening to.

    And you wanted to keep the data secret and hidden from everyone.

    Figures.

  25. #25 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    I do think it’s wonderful. They are charlatans who make grand statements but won’t let anyone see the raw data and how they came to their conclusions. So I call bullshit and applaud whoever liberated it

    Great, a skeptic with absolutely no regard for private property, the law, or anything decent.

    I’m surprised!

  26. #26 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    Great, a pseudo scientist with absolutely no regard for the truth, transparency or accuracy (it wasn’t private property, which was why it WAS petitioned under the FOIA).

    I’m not surprised.

  27. #27 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Vindicated,

    Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.

  28. #28 vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    I am stating that I think that organizations like the CRU, message boards like this one, and the whole global warming nazi elite who shout you down and call you names if you dare to disagree with them are dishonest. I think that anyone who actually believed this was as serious as it’s being made out to be would never shy away from transparency, but not only did the CRU do it, they lied about losing the data when it looked like the FOIA request would finally force them to divulge the information. Sort of a scientists “the dog ate my homework” trick.

    I’ve been on this board before and know where your request is headed so don’t bother.

  29. #29 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Ok Vindicated, so your saying you’ve got nothing yet. Your just calling people names, like a [bunch of other smear-and-run agents](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2091221).

  30. #30 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    Ok Janet, so you’re saying that it’s okay to hide information and lie about it being lost to avoid people double checking your conclusions and possibly finding out they are false like a bunch of other smear and run agents

  31. #31 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    I asked your for the evidence for your claims, and you started calling people NAZI, so where is your evidence?

  32. #32 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    My evidence is the CRU itself. Refusing to release the information to keep anyone from proving them wrong. Lying about losing the information to keep anyone from proving them wrong. The evidence is in the story I linked to which paints a very damning picture of them manipulating results to reach the conclusions they will then disseminate as truth, albeit a truth no one is allowed to question due to their deliberate dishonesty.

    There you go, there’s the evidence. Now you may proceed with trying to discredit me when all the evidence is out there if you follow the link. Take some time and read it and then feel free to come back with your chicken little spin on how “the sky is falling.”

  33. #33 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Vindicated:

    > My evidence is the CRU itself.

    You mean, the conspiracy-laden interpretations of out-of-context quote mines of ‘THE RAW RAW RAW CRU EMAILS’ as rawly interpreted by the raw Stephen McIntyre, the raw Anthony Watts, and the raw Andrew Bolt?

    According to Andrew Bolt, when CRU tried to get everyone to change their passwords after the security breach, it’s evidence of a conspiracy. Yeah, the evidence speaks for itself, through Andrew Bolt.

  34. #34 Vindicated
    November 20, 2009

    It’s all there in the leaked documents. They conspired on how to change their presentation to hide faults in the data that would have cast doubt on their cause. Sorry, but you guys lost big on this one!

    And my evidence is indisputable that CRU refused to release the information requested under the FOIA. Then they fell back on “the dog ate my homework” excuse and said they lost the information. For you to try and defend that reeks of the very political crap that skeptics have been accusing you for years. It seems that the altar of scientists is just as fallible as everyone has been saying for a long time, yet you all refuse to admit.

  35. #35 dhogaza
    November 21, 2009

    Shorter Vindicated:

    Everything in science is a fraud.

    The earth is flat.

    And 6000 years old

    QED.

  36. #36 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Ok Vindicated, so your confirming you’ve got nothing yet. Your just calling people names, like a bunch of other [smear-and-run agents.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2091190)

  37. #37 David Marjanović
    November 21, 2009

    the very political crap

    It’s only a political issue in the USA.

  38. #38 vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Dgz sys y mst blv n th CR dcptn r y r flt-rthr. Jnt rpts mnnglss sttmnts whn cnfrntd wth vdnc f glbl wrmng scntfc dcptn. Dvd sys t’s nl pltcl n th S whn tht s bvsl fls bsd n th lkd dcmnts rfrncd. Ths s wht mn b psd scntsts. Y ll clm t dhr t scnc bt y gnr vdnc tht s ncnvnnt. Y’r th mdrn d qvlnt t th snk l slsmn

  39. #39 zoot
    November 21, 2009

    And my evidence is indisputable that CRU refused to release the information requested under the FOIA.

    Really? What information would that be, and who made the FOIA request?

    Please note: asking you to provide evidence for your assertions is not “shouting you down”.

  40. #40 vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    s Tm’s cnsrshp wys cntn. M prvs pst hs bn ltrd. f Tm s tr t frm h wll sn s tht nyn mntnng cnsrshp wll b bnnd. Y gys r rll s scrd t cnfrnt th trth tht y wll g t ths lngth? Hw sd.

  41. #41 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Hw cld hv dscssn wth y ppl whn th mdrtr f th st ltrs m psts whn pnt t th rdcls ntr f yr rgmnts? Hw pthtc tht “scncs” hs cm t ths pnt.

  42. #42 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    s cttng ll th vwls t f m pst () th scntfc qvlnt f cttng t m tng? r “scntsts” th nw chrch wh pprsss nyn wh dsgrs? Wh dd y ltr m pst Tm?

  43. #43 vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Zoot: All you have to do is Google to find out the information regarding the CRU refusing to release information requested under the FOIA. Do your own homework, the information is readily accessible.

  44. #44 vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Hw sd tht scnc hs cm t ths lwl pnt. M pst pntng t th bvs rrrs f sm flks n hr s ltrd. Thn whn hv th nrv t cmpln tht th mdrtr s ltrng psts tht dsgr wth hm h cntns th bhvr. Lks lk smthng tht mght ntrst rdrs f Dgg, Slshdt s wll s th thr rtnl sts tht qstn th glbl clmt scm.

  45. #45 bi -- IJI
    November 21, 2009

    vindicated:

    Do your own homework, the information is readily accessible.

    You mean, once more, the “raw evidence” as rawly interpreted by raw inactivist trolls.

  46. #46 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Y mn, nc mr, th “rw vdnc” s rwl ntrprtd b rw nctvst trlls. N, tht’s pprntl wht Y mn, bt tht s nt wht sd. sd, “D yr wn hmwrk, th nfrmtn s rdl ccssbl.” Prtt smpl, vn chld cld ndrstnd t wld thnk. Typcl psd scntst, cn’t vn rd mssg brd bt w shld tk y wrd fr t tht y ndrstnd glbl clmt?

  47. #47 bi -- IJI
    November 21, 2009

    Vindicated:

    Do your own homework, the information is readily accessible.

    Guess what, that’s exactly what I did, and what do I get but… the “raw evidence” as rawly interpreted by raw inactivist trolls.

    Nice try attempting to manufacture outrage over the supposed CRU ‘conspiracy’.

    bi

  48. #48 swindled
    November 21, 2009

    The people who released the CRU data are heroes, and the whole world owes you for probably saving us from confiscation by deception. It exposed that these were not just scientists, but activists with a political agenda to start an anti-industrial revolution. The CRU is public funded organization and the data belongs to the public.

  49. #49 bi -- IJI
    November 21, 2009

    swindled:

    Begone, sockpuppet.

  50. #50 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    . th “rw vdnc” s rwl ntrprtd b rw nctvst trlls. dn’t knw f y rlz ths, bt tht sttmnt mks bsltl n sns. D y hv t b mmbr f th Sk s Fllng Pr-GW clt t ndrstnd t? s t n yr mmbrshp kt, rght ftr th sctn n hw t wthhld pblc fndd dt, bt rght bfr hw t cnsr wbst t lmnt dssntng pnns? Nc tr ttmptng t pwn yr clt phrs ff s smthng mnngfl. nd th CR cnsprc s nt “sppsd”, t’s n th lkd dcmnts, th rfsl t rls th nfrmtn rqstd ndr th F, nd th “dg t m hmwrk” l th tld. Nt mch “sppsd” bt tht, t ll hppnd. Whn y cn wrt chrnt sntnc nstd f th nnsns qtd bv myb w cn bgn t hv sm srt f rtnl dscssn. f y cn’t mng tht thn pttn Tm nd myb h’ll cnsr nthr pst fr y?

  51. #51 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    bi — IJI:

    Begone, fear mongerer.

  52. #52 bi -- IJI
    November 21, 2009

    it’s in the leaked documents,

    Then why not simply post the documents here and leave it at that? Why do have to keep repeating, repeating, repeating your conspiracy-laden interpretation of the ‘raw evidence’?

  53. #53 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    There’s no need to post the documents here when you can Google it and find it yourself. You showed me with your last post that you can do that, and your results proved my point that CRU did exactly what I said they did. I’m not doing your homework for you, do it yourself.

    Why do you have to keep repeating repeating repeating your sky is falling climate change doomsday falsehoods? Hmmmm?

  54. #54 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Vindicated, in your eight subsequent post, you’ve confirmed eight more times that you’ve got nothing yet, other than a deeply felt conviction that you are right (about some unspecific thing) in the absence of evidence you are willing or able to present.

    Who would have thought repetition could be so entertaining.

  55. #55 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Janet: You’ve confirmed once again that you choose to ignore any evidence provided. In post 134 I referred you to the evidence, the leaked documents from CRU. And, once again, you have chosen to overlook the very thing you requested and then come back with another ridiculous posting.

    Who would have thought repetition could be so entertaining.

  56. #56 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Refering to the leaked documents is not evidence, [this was your challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2091190).

    And your score on this remains zero from fifteen attempts.

    Try again Vinnie.

  57. #57 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    this was your challenge.

    Referring to leaked documents IS evidence. Granted, it’s not evidence you want to acknowledge, but it IS evidence that the global warming alarmists are frauds. The emails are in the documents, talking about how to modify the presentation to minimize or hide data that does not agree with the conclusion they wanted to bring.

    Your score on your attempt to discard evidence that was provided remains zero.

    Try again Jannie.

  58. #58 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    h, lt m dd n mr pc Jnt. Ths s smthng s s y wn’t vn hv t lv ths pg. Lk p nd ntc th psts f mn tht hv hd th vwls rmvd. Cnsrshp b th mdrtr f th st. vdnc skd fr. . . vdnc prvdd. Y flks dn’t wnt nyn t prsnt n vdnc tht pks hls n yr flms psd scnc. Nw ‘ll jst mk cp f ths pst s t’s sr t rpst ltr whn ‘m cnsrd n gn. Cngrts flks, y r gvng scnc grt rpttn wth yr pn dscssn plc. Cmprd t th flks wh mdrt nd frqnt ths st, th Bsh dmnstrtn (wh wld nrmll cll crmnls) lk lk snts.

  59. #59 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Vinnie,

    You seem immune to facts, here was your challenge:

    >Vindicated, Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.

    Zero from 17!

  60. #60 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    h, lt m dd n mr pc Jnt. Ths s smthng s s y wn’t vn hv t lv ths pg. Lk p nd ntc th psts f mn tht hv hd th vwls rmvd. Cnsrshp b th mdrtr f th st. vdnc skd fr. . . vdnc prvdd. Y flks dn’t wnt nyn t prsnt n vdnc tht pks hls n yr flms psd scnc. Nw ‘ll jst mk cp f ths pst s t’s sr t rpst ltr whn ‘m cnsrd n gn. Cngrts flks, y r gvng scnc grt rpttn wth yr pn dscssn plc. Cmprd t th flks wh mdrt nd frqnt ths st, th Bsh dmnstrtn (wh wld nrmll cll crmnls) lk lk snts

  61. #61 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Zero from 18!

  62. #62 Vindicated
    November 21, 2009

    Pretty hard to provide any evidence when my posts are censored. But you won’t even ackknowledge that will you? Add that as another piece of evidence, only this one shows you are all for the censorship too. I satisfied your request a long time ago and you know it.

    Your turn Tim. Censor away!!

  63. #63 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Another chance, another fail.

    Zip from 19.

  64. #64 Tim Lambert
    November 21, 2009

    Well I’m bored with Vndctd’s trolling. No more comments from him/her will be accepted unless they are attempts to adress Janet’s challenge:

    >Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.

  65. #65 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Dear vindicated unstoppable failure,

    And for late comers who don’t know if Vindicated Failure is telling porkies, here another opportunity for him to set me straight, please cite the post where you answered this challenge:

    >*Please state who you are accusing of being dishonest, and cite specific emails you are relying on to make this accusation.*

  66. #66 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    Havng trawled thru v’s ranting I can confirm that the number of names named and emails cited by v is – ZERO.

    Anyone surprised?

  67. #67 pough
    November 21, 2009

    I’m going to argue for refreshing honesty, and unlike Vndcnt I know the meaning of “be more specific”: 1228330629

    One of the problems is that I’m caught in a real Catch-22 situation. At present, I’m damned and publicly vilified because I refused to provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to McIntyre’s initial request for climate model data, I’m convinced (based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully and written: “You see – he’s guilty as charged!” on his website.

    You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we’ve had to do science in “reactive mode”, responding to the latest outrageous claims and inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. For the remainder of my scientific career, I’d like to dictate my own research agenda. I don’t want that agenda driven by the constant need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly don’t want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of Steven McIntyre.

    In their private moments, they still think the denialists are full of shit and, in McIntyre’s case, a dick. How’s that for honesty?

  68. #68 Tyler DiPietro
    November 21, 2009

    I’ve just walked in on this apparent controversy. One observation that I’m making is that most of these supposedly damning emails about “covering up” contrary data are quoted without technical context. That’s an extremely dishonest tactic. Gavin Schmidt has been providing technical contexts to most of the emails I’ve seen quoted over at RC, and in context the statements sound entirely reasonable. I’m no expert, however.

    And of course, there seems to be one particularly stubborn commenter here when it comes to citing any emails at all. More and more it seems like this whole brouhaha is shaping up to be yet another climate denialist nontroversy.

  69. #69 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Vinnie, no tricks required from me , just the facts.

    Zip from 22.

    What will be your ultimate score?

  70. #70 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Zip from 23!

    A fine example of denialist traits.

    How many opportunites will you pass up to answer [the challenge?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2091190)

  71. #71 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Did you catch the admission of a porky pie by Vinnie?

    Firstly Vinne claims that he has s provide the evidence required, then says that he doesn’t want to play my game, that I should provide the evidence and that the details are irrelevant.

    Vinnie your pants are onfire!

  72. #72 Tyler DiPietro
    November 21, 2009

    “Stubborn because it’s an old trick used on this site, to try and lose the overall point by talking about irrelevant details.”

    On the contrary, it appears to be you who would rather make vague accusations and smears based on airy generalities. Technical details and context are hardly “irrelevant”, we are talking about scientific topics here.

    “Or, more appropriately, why am I censored because I disagree?”

    I’ll leave Tim to answer this one, but I suspect that it’s because your shtick has grown tiresome and annoying.

  73. #73 Tyler DiPietro
    November 21, 2009

    I don’t quite understand why you have to play the victim and imply that you’re being “intimidated”. All that I saw Janet request of you is that you provide one explicit data-point to justify your accusations, and given how zealous you and other denialists have been on this particular beat that should be a small hurdle. You have stubbornly refused to comply, and are being justly ridiculed.

  74. #74 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    Why do the denialists think they need to come here and demonstrate their fact-free style of ‘debate’.

    We know already!

  75. #75 Tyler DiPietro
    November 21, 2009

    You can’t seem to get it through your thick head that we’re trying to get you to justify a particular accusation with particular evidence. So I’ll do you a favor and relax the requirements a bit: quote at least one thing from the emails that you merely find objectionable from a scientific standpoint and tell us why.

  76. #76 pough
    November 21, 2009

    More honesty (1083962601):

    Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them.

    Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we’ve used in the RoG plots available from the CRU web page. Can we do this with the series we’ve got from you?

    Phil Jones from way back in 2004 before he got totally fed up with Steve McI’s “winning” ways.

  77. #77 Steve Chamberlain
    November 21, 2009

    155: “In post 134 I referred you to the evidence, the leaked documents from CRU.”

    Wrong. The “documents” were not leaked, they were illegally retrieved from the UEA server by person(s) unknown, then (probably illegally) spread about the web by the likes of CA, WUWT and JeffID. It has not been shown yet that all of the emails and files are entirely genuine. It has been stated that the illegally obtained files were “a random selection”, yet the basis for that randomness is not known, and we certainly don’t know the selection is representative.

    Even less clear (to me) is the whole “sceptic” approach. They make much of relatively minor differences between two authors or two papers in what is a complex field (climate science) – “I’m purely sceptical” they cry, “I’m only interested in the facts” they protest, “I’m simply being open-minded” they profess. OK, fine, I’ll take you at face value. Insofar as this scepticism may help tighten up the scientific basis, I’m all for it. But when it comes to this CRU issue (the initial illegal copying of the files off the UEA server, the possibility that its dissemination is illegal, the numerous unresolved doubts regarding the validity of the stolen information and the direct statement that what was presented was only someone’s personal choice), given all that, where’s all that high-minded search for the unbiased truth? Where’s all that noble scepticism? Gone, vanished, evaporated. Peculiar.

    But even assuming the files distributed are genuine and unaltered, that the selection is truly random (never mind representative), and even ignoring the criminal activity that led to this, where has any of this even made a dent in the laws of thermodynamics? How has it disproven the forcing effects of CO2? How has any of the science underpinning climate change been invalidated?

    To me, nothing much of significance has changed. The denialist camp still has not produced any convincing alternative hypotheses that adequately explain the mechanisms of the current change in global climate. Until they do so, all the shrieking and wailing is just noise, not signal; hand-waving, not signalling. And it’s been morbidly fascinating watching the reactions of the “sceptics” on here and elsewhere. When all the fuss dies down and the truth emerges (as it will), I’ll be quite happy to remind the likes of DA, vindicated, lank et al of how their self-professed “scepticism” went MIA when it was most required of them. By your own words shall ye be judged and all that.

  78. #78 Chris O'Neill
    November 21, 2009

    “Vindicated”:

    For you to try and defend that reeks of the very political crap that skeptics have been accusing you for years.

    You’re right, “skeptics” accusations are just political crap.

  79. #79 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2009

    Steve Chamberlain’s [last paragraph](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/global_warming_skeptics_score.php#comment-2092758) recalls for me the words of the Immortal Bard, who sagely wrote of:

    … a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

    [Macbeth (Act V, Scene V)].

    Th current stink has had me reciting this in my mind for a day now…

  80. #80 pough
    November 22, 2009

    More honesty (1257532857):

    Difficult to detail with MM when they won’t publish anything. They also know the global temperature record is robust, the millennial records less so. Taking one or two records out makes no difference and they know that. They go on about issues that have no effect.

    Does it sound like he has something to hide, or does it sound like he honestly thinks MM are scoundrels?

  81. #81 pough
    November 22, 2009

    In which Phil Jones admits it all, ceding victory to McIntyre (1254832684):

    Getting a bit fed up with these baseless allegations.

    Hold on. That doesn’t sound like an admission at all…

  82. #82 Steve Chamberlain
    November 22, 2009

    Bernard, exactly.

    To those “sceptics” who want to make mileage out of this UEA thing: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves” (Confucius).

  83. #83 swindled
    November 22, 2009

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones

    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Phil,
    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean — but
    we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
    ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
    ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
    forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
    these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
    1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
    plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
    consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

    Bring in the police!

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