Leakegate: On stovepiping and plagiarism

This story by Heidi Blake in the Telegraph about how Anthony Watts’ findings show that surface temperature records are wrong might sound familiar. That’s because it’s blatantly plagiarised from Jonathan Leake’s story touting Watts’ report. Every element in Blake’s story was drawn from Leake’s story — it’s just been rearranged and reworded slightly. It looks like it would have taken her about 15 minutes to do the whole thing. To be fair to Blake, she has actually improved the story — her version is tighter and flows more naturally, so if the Telegraph fires her for plagiarism she could also get a job as Leake’s editor.

So Blake copies from Leake. But where does Leake get his material from?

Tim Holmes details how Leake got his bogus Amazongate story from global warming denier Richard North:

Blogger Richard North was the originator of one such story. North is a climate change denier who has worked with the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker on a number of publications, including most recently Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth. In the words of sceptical writer Richard Wilson, the book is a “surrealist masterpiece“, claiming to debunk “the dangers of passive smoking, white asbestos, eating BSE-infected beef, CO2 emissions, leaded petrol, dioxins, and high-speed car driving”. Examining the book’s commentary on climate change, one atmosphere physicist noted that its “references are very selective and misrepresentative”; another concluded: “[t]hese people have added two and two and got five”. The book misrepresents and even reverses the findings of published scientific literature, and includes a fabricated interview with a Cambridge astrophysicist that had long since been retracted. As the Guardian’s Robin McKie puts it in his review of the book, Booker and North “accuse other journalists of ‘unthinking credulity’ but commit egregious errors that would shame a junior reporter.” …

While it is wholly unsurprising that the denial lobby should be attempting to push baseless and misleading stories to the press, what is surprising is the press’s willingness to swallow them. In this case, two experts in the relevant field told a Times journalist explicitly that, in spite of a minor referencing error, the IPCC had got its facts right. That journalist simply ignored them. Instead, he deliberately put out the opposite line – one fed to him by a prominent climate change denier – as fact.

Leake’s story about Watts and co seems to have also been fed to him by Richard North. This post from North appeared at almost the same time as Leake’s story was published and contains more extensive details than Leake’s story.

So this is how the British press is promoting global warming denial. Leake stovepipes denialist material into his stories and then other journalist steal it from him for their stories.

Comments

  1. #1 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    81 Rubbish,

    I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!

    Pure genius! I really wasn’t expecting something as good as this. You and John A are reaching a standard rarely seen anyware!

  2. #2 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer is working hard to emphasize my [point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2281271).

    Rubbish, a distinct lack of supporting evidence to back you claims I count zero. Is zero correct?

    Lets start with your first par:

    >*The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change,*

    I think you’ll find that you’ve missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth’s orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. Oh and [greenhouse gas concentrations](http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blog/posts/post_1262067702260.html).

    Rubbish continues:

    >*CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.*

    [Not always](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-3.html), and [not now](http://www.liv.ac.uk/climate/research/carbon.html)!

    < http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm>

  3. #3 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer is working hard to emphasize my [point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2281271).

    Rubbish, a distinct lack of supporting evidence to back you claims I count zero. Is zero correct?

    Lets start with your first par:

    >*The average temperature of the oceans and the level of evaporation from the sun and the resulting cloud cover are the main drivers of climate change,*

    I think you’ll find that you’ve missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth’s orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. Oh and [greenhouse gas concentrations](http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth.blog/posts/post_1262067702260.html).

    Rubbish continues:

    >*CO2 basically tracks the increased warming and reduces as the planet cools, there is always a lag in terms of warming and cooling, this has been proven.*

    [Not always](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-3.html), and [not now](http://www.liv.ac.uk/climate/research/carbon.html)!

  4. #4 Erasmussimo
    February 17, 2010

    RubbishScience, you write:

    In terms of man made CO2 of course there is a slight impact in terms of warming, but its minimal.

    Would you mind presenting your calculation of the effect of CO2 on temperature? I suspect you haven’t the faintest idea how to do so. If that be so, then how can you decide whether it’s minimal or maximal or in between?

  5. #5 John Archer
    February 17, 2010
    If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He’s got it all laid out there very nicely. You’ll be spoilt for choice.

    That’s completely vague.

    [Joseph, 3:10 PM]

    No it bloody well isn’t. It is crystal phckin’ clear.

    OK, here’s what you can do.

    [Joseph, 3:10 PM]

    Whoa. Careful now. That kind of licence taking can escalate.

    Name what you think is the best argument ever at CA, and let’s see what commenters here can do to address it.

    [Joseph, 3:10 PM]

    I guess they have yet to do so for any of “best arguments”, however defined, over at CA, thereby giving McIntyre the turkey-shoot slapping around he clearly deserves, in your eyes, because I haven’t seen them and surely you would have just pointed to them. How remiss of you all. Tut tut. Why the big delay?

    No. Now I’LL tell you what. YOU name what you think is the best argument ever at CA and YOU tell me how you lot have “addressed” it. You do the work first.

  6. #6 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “John Archer is working hard to emphasize my point.” — jakerman (4:04 PM).

    But you never had one, jokerman. You are pointless.

  7. #7 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    >*But you never had one, jokerman. You are pointless.*

    John, you couldn’t have backed [my point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2281271) better if you’d wanted to.

    >*North’s types seem to think Jibber Jabber trumps science.
    North, do you see your supports’ lack of argument or rigor as a reflection on you? You haven’t prepped them very well.*

    Do it one more time, roll over, then sit.

  8. #8 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “John Archer is meanwhile a nasty piece of work bringing the denialists into further disrepute.” — guthrie

    A beaut, that. “Into disrepute”, nice.

    You could usefully apply for a job on Al Beeb’s “Match of the Day” as one of their many pontificating retard commentators, telling us all how some dumbarse fuhbaw players are “bringing duh game into disrepute”, as if that meant Jack Schitt to anyone.

    Heh! Fuhbaw’s another religion, so I guess you’d feel right at home.

    BTW, what is it exactly you claim I am denying?

  9. #9 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    No. Now I’LL tell you what. YOU name what you think is the best argument ever at CA and YOU tell me how you lot have “addressed” it. You do the work first.

    @John: Why should I? Isn’t it you who’s trying to convince readers of something? Your comments are remarkably content- and data-free, if that’s the case.

    Besides, everything I’ve read at CA (admittedly not much) is either unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong.

  10. #10 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    You’re just getting repetitive now, jakerman.

    Come on. Get original. You’ll get points.

    And what do points mean?

    YES. Points mean PRIZES.

    “D’ya fink ‘e’ll gofa go-uld, Bwian?”

  11. #11 RubbishScience
    February 17, 2010

    Your so called science has not proven anything apart from a level of corruption that should not exist in the scientific community.

    For example there is a large volcano under the ice sheet in the south pole which did some of the melting.

    Am I supposed to trust the Guardian, seriously, they are journalists not scientists who are pushing political thinking not science. That is a joke mentioning them.

    Nice of one of you to mention some of the other non-CO2 factors that I did not bother to mention.

    “I think you’ll find that you’ve missed a few other drivers, such as the Earth’s orbit, and albedo (including the proportion of ice and the incidence of light and dark surfaces to the Sun) and ocean conveyors large changes in continental shift. ”

    As such the onus is on you to prove that CO2 is the main driver, it is not and while I admit that it may have a slight impact it is minimal, you have no proof on that and there is new research that looks at the impact of water vapor. The fact is that you have no clear idea because you factored in CO2 as the main driver and your models did not track the actual change over the last 15 years. It is junk, you just do not know.

    That comment about CO2 not being produced before by humans is a laugh, CO2 is produced naturally with warming.

    So the science is not settled and I repeat the onus is on you to prove it is CO2, you have not done so under real questioning science.

  12. #12 Shorter John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    Shorter John Archer,

    Poo poo, wee wee.

  13. #13 Bud
    February 17, 2010

    That comment about CO2 not being produced before by humans is a laugh, CO2 is produced naturally with warming.

    Erm… mate, you do know what [combustion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion) is, don’t you?

    By what mechanism is additional atmospheric CO2 ‘produced’ by warming? Show us you’ve at least tried to understand what you are talking about, even if your handle on logic is such that you believe identifying one cause for something automatically disqualifies all other possible causes.

  14. #14 Joseph
    February 17, 2010

    For example there is a large volcano under the ice sheet in the south pole which did some of the melting.

    Under the ice sheet in the south pole? Fascinating.

  15. #15 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    “Isn’t it you who’s trying to convince readers of something?” — Joseph

    No. Please keep up. I have already stated my purpose here. And I couldn’t have made it phcking clearer.

    “Your comments are remarkably content- and data-free, if that’s the case.” — Joseph

    Well now, as I have already said, it isn’t the case. So isn’t that statement just choice coming from you, or any of you. Your whole holy phcking farticle was content-free, and merely opinion.

    “@John: Why should I?” — Joseph

    Jesus Christ. YOU ask ME that after reading my response to you at 4:36 PM. Are you all right? Should I call an ambulance for you? You might be having a stroke.

    “Besides, everything I’ve read at CA (admittedly not much) is either unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong.” — Joseph

    Unimpressive, irrelevant or wrong, eh? Right. Well, I guess there’s no point in us discussing anything factual then, not that I had any such intention, or even inclination, here.

  16. #16 Erasmussimo
    February 17, 2010

    RubbishScience, perhaps you could clarify your position for us by indicating the statements in IPCC AR4 WG1 that you find objectionable. It should be quite simple for you to simply cite chapter and page and tell us what you think is wrong there.

    You *have* read IPCC AR4 WG1, haven’t you? After all, it *is* the definitive document on climate change science.

  17. #17 P.O.E. Slaw
    February 17, 2010

    I’d like to thank John Archer and RubbishScience for showing us climate science scepticism at its very best, and Tim for not censoring them.

    This thread will be a wonderful reference in the future.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2010

    All ass-hattitude, no cattle.

  19. #19 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    I’d like to thank John Archer and RubbishScience for showing us climate science scepticism at its very best, and Tim for not censoring them.

    This thread will be a wonderful reference in the future.” — P.O.E. Slaw

    Is that you, Neil?

    Never mind that though. Whoever you are you have a very poor grip on what you call “climate science scepticism” if you think I made ‘a contribution’ to any such thing here. That or you don’t read too well. Probably both.

    But then that’s typical of you greentards. Even your feeble attempts at sarcasm are way off target. Can’t you lot get ANYTHING right?

  20. #20 MapleLeaf
    February 17, 2010

    Does someone hear an annoying mosquito?

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2010

    If one were a student of Altemeyer, one might be tempted to hypothesise that this thread demonstrates authoritarian followers defending their chosen authority from perceived attack.

    However, Altemeyer would caution that more evidence would be needed to support such a hypothesis.

  22. #22 P.O.E. Slaw
    February 17, 2010

    101 John,

    And I thought you were doing so well, showing up the warmofascist econazis for what they are. I’m so disappointed.

  23. #23 Shorter John Archer
    February 17, 2010
  24. #24 John Archer
    February 17, 2010

    I’m so disappointed.” — P.O.E.

    Tough.

    But that’s quite enough about you. I’d rather talk about me. I’ve rather enjoyed my time here. And that’s all that matters to me. Mostly.

    I’m getting a little bored now. Anyway, I have to dash.

    I’d just like to say thank you to you all. You’ve been very kind. I appreciate that.

  25. #25 MapleLeaf
    February 17, 2010

    Mosquitos are so annoying are they not? Squish. Aaah, better.

  26. #26 jakerman
    February 17, 2010

    >*Never mind that though. Whoever you are you have a very poor grip on what you call “climate science scepticism” if you think I made ‘a contribution’ to any such thing here. That or you don’t read too well. Probably both.*

    On the contrary John, Neil nailed you with the accountability that you deserve. You represent so called ‘climate sceptics’ here. We just don’t believe you and your ilk deserve the name you give yourselves. You are interested in something entirely different to skepticism.

    BTW in my humble experience your type of so called ‘climate skeptic’ together with “Rubbish” (who at least attempts to deal in pseudo facts) represent the overwhelming majority of delusitionist who call themselves skeptics.

    So your behavoiur here wasn’t as special as you imagine.

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    February 17, 2010

    107 MapleLeaf,

    Nah. Use *tons* of DDT, you know, the stuff that was banned in the 1970s by the greenofascists. It’s completely harmless to anything but mosquitos, so why not make *really* sure you killed it?

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    February 17, 2010

    So your behavoiur here wasn’t as special as you imagine.

    Maybe he hails from Lake Wobegon, where “all the children are above average;-)

  29. #29 MapleLeaf
    February 17, 2010

    TS, Good point. Although there is a certain satisfaction to be gained from taking out a mozzie (J. Archer) by hand– not literally of course, that would be rude, amongst other things.

    Maybe one should use the term mozzie to refer to those self-proclaimed “skeptics” or those in denial. There is a difference though I suppose, mozzies actually do serve a useful purpose other than being a vector for nasty diseases like malaria. Then again the disease which the “skeptics” is spreading is misinformation and lies.

    Hmm, so maybe it is an imperfect analogy. One should probably keep it simple and to the point and call them the “selfish liars” that they are.

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    February 17, 2010

    John Archer:

    I see you don’t heed your pals’ wise warnings about feeding the trolls. So be it.

    Glad you admit you’re an ignorant troll.

    “OK, so you agree that the earth’s surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us.”

    Certainly not. Whatever gives you that idea?

    You said no to the alternative. Couldn’t you keep track of the logic?

    “So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?”

    You said yourself earlier that it was “purported science”.

    OK, irony is a challenge for you.

    In short, what phcking science are you talking about?

    I was asking you.

    Mickey Mann’s hokey hockey stick, for example?

    Why do you single out Mann’s hockey stick? They don’t make them the way he first did anymore.

    You really want a list?

    If you want. The bigger the list, the bigger the conspiracy.

    And you want me to provide it? Why?

    You’re the one complaining.

    If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

    You mean God’s gift to climate science? Let’s see, a couple of papers published in a non-scientific journal and in a lightly reviewed scientific journal several years ago now. Yes, he IS an authority.

    Look, let’s be clear about this if it isn’t already. I’m here merely in my capacity as right-wing nutjob racist trolloid to have a little fun at your expense and not for your edification.

    I don’t see how a nutjob thinking climate science is a giant scam demonstrates much other than what it takes to think that climate science is a giant scam.

    However even I—as nasty a ‘swivel-eyed, fascist, nazi, running-dog capitalistic nutjob’ as you’re likely to come across anywhere—feel I am overstaying my warm welcome.

    Stay as long as you like. I love what you’re demonstrating.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    February 18, 2010

    Rubbish for brains:

    Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain’t so?

    If you weren’t so lazy you could easily find out what the science says about the solar variation hypothesis, with citations, here. It happens to be the most used skeptic argument according to http://www.skepticalscience.com . It points out:

    “a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).”

    The only thing Rubbish has achieved is to help demonstrate that the cry “climate change is completely natural” is a mindless mantra spoken by lazy ignoramuses like himself.

  32. #32 RubbishScience
    February 18, 2010

    First of all I have nothing to do with Dr North or JA.

    As a non-scientist, but moderately intelligent person I have come to a conclusion that the climate is a lot more complex then the AGW’rs simple belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change. In the replies here to my point of view, all you have confirmed is that there are many variables in climate change and that the science is not settled.

    You think that CO2 will create a tipping point, I have read some reports that CO2 levels have been higher in the past, I am not convinced by your arguments and most of all by the way that you make your points. As I suspected this site is little more than a place to carry out intellectural masturbation and name calling. My hope is that scientists start working on this properly, I await to be convinced. all you have done is prove that AGW’rs are irrational nasty pieces of work.

    I will not be back, I hunger for more trustworthy information, I have not found it here…

  33. #33 Chris O'Neill
    February 18, 2010

    A person using the name RubbishScience complains:

    As I suspected this site is little more than a place to carry out intellectural masturbation and name calling.

    What a a shameless hypocrite.

  34. #34 John Archer
    February 18, 2010

    Chris O’Neill,

    Glad you admit you’re an ignorant troll.

    No, I did not. If I were to be generous, the best I could say about that is that you are not a very careful reader. But I have no such impulse — you are a liar. The rest of your questions/points are not even up to half-arsed.

    To wit, for example:

    You said no to the alternative. Couldn’t you keep track of the logic?

    Oh dear, oh dear. You clearly have a severe impediment with logic. It seems you met your personal pons asinorum on page 1, Book 1 of the subject, assuming you got past the preface.

    And:
    You’re the one complaining.

    There you go again — no, I am not.

    Come to think of it, and I guess I had never noticed before, but I rarely complain about anything. Indeed I cannot remember the last time I did.

    You’re a waste of space, and so is what you write — junkthink.

  35. #35 jakerman
    February 18, 2010

    >A person using the name RubbishScience complains:

    >>*As I suspected this site is little more than a place to carry out intellectural masturbation and name calling.*

    >What a a shameless hypocrite.

    You thought that was hypocritical, what about this:

    >*all you have done is prove that AGW’rs are irrational nasty pieces of work.
    I will not be back, I hunger for more trustworthy information, I have not found it here…*

    Which was proceeded [by this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282079):

    >*climate change is completely natural and no one is denying that climate changes, after all the medieval warm period was natural, or was it all those forges turning out swords for the crusades, perhaps that is another one for you to use to make sense of it all, in your own warped minds of course, you AGW’rs are just pathethic.*

    And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282155):

    >*Inquiring minds, what a joke, AGW religious believers with no morals…*

    And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282394):

    >*Lets start off with the sun, now you tell me why with the rubbish science of teh AGW crowd that ain’t so?*

    And [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282688):

    >*I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!
    All you lot of charlies have are a few very doctored models [...]*

    And on, and on…

    Nice chap really.

  36. #36 jakerman
    February 18, 2010

    After a sleep and think time, we get the ‘oh shit’ moment and the sudden rush towards attempted damage control:

    >*First of all I have nothing to do with Dr North or JA.*

    Like anyone would take “Rubbish’s” word given his display here.

    A nice match with John Archer’s [similar attempt](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2283587) after showing himself up.

    *I’m not here as a climate skeptics, no indeed, or at least, please don’t hold us accountable as such.*

  37. #37 Joseph
    February 18, 2010

    @Rubbish:

    As a non-scientist, but moderately intelligent person I have come to a conclusion that the climate is a lot more complex then the AGW’rs simple belief that CO2 is the main driver of climate change.

    How did you do that exactly? Again, let’s see your math.

  38. #38 Chris O'Neill
    February 18, 2010

    John Archer:

    “You said no to the alternative. Couldn’t you keep track of the logic?”

    Oh dear, oh dear. You clearly have a severe impediment with logic.

    Sure. If you say so. Maybe you could learn the following lesson:

    Is X in A or is X in B? Answer: No. ==> the answerer agrees that X is not in A and that X is not in B.

    You’re a waste of space

    The only one who’s a waste of space is the one who suggests that Steve McIntyre has any useful science laid out nicely. How incredibly naïve for anyone to suggest such. You might have some nice rhetoric but the only thing it seems to do for you is make you more arrogant without understanding any science.

  39. #39 P.O.E. Slaw
    February 18, 2010

    109 Jakerman,

    Neil who? We have a Chris O’Neill here but no “Neil”.

  40. #40 Neil
    February 18, 2010

    P.O.E. Slaw – we had me, until yesterday at 11:18 AM, when I got a full house at bingo and left to collect my winnings.

    But it looks like someone thought you were me, for some Nixonesque reason or another…

  41. #41 MapleLeaf
    February 18, 2010

    Damn, thought I had squished that dratted mozzie!

  42. #42 John Archer
    February 20, 2010

    Hello boys. I thought I’d see how things were going. Not much I see. Still, here’s a little something for you.

    Chris O’Neill,

    Anyone can make mistakes, even very simple ones, so don’t beat yourself up about yours too much.

    Is X in A or is X in B? Answer: No. ==> the answerer agrees that X is not in A and that X is not in B.” — Chris O’Neill.

    Correct. Well done. But that example is irrelevant to the circumstances at hand because it is not a model for them. (Ha ha. Just like Man & co’s. How appropriate.) Nevertheless, you are moving in the right direction. Still, you have some way to go yet. Now just for your convenience I’ll lay the relevant statements out again so you can have another stab.

    CO: “Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn’t cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us?

    JA: “No”

    CO: “OK, so you agree that the earth’s surface is actually warming, that CO2 causes warming and the warming is mainly caused by CO2 (not by cosmic rays etc), that the CO2 build-up is caused by us and that the warming will not be good for us.

    JA: “Certainly not.”

    When you finally get it right I think you’ll be a little embarrassed, but don’t let that worry you. Look on it as the price you pay for personal improvement. You don’t need any further answers from me to work this out either. Just as well too.

    Here’s a little hint for you: You have made more than one type of error.

    By the way, if you don’t frame your questions right by allowing them to be ambiguous, say, then you leave yourself open to the possibility that your interrogee will choose whatever meaning suits his purpose. Lithpy Girly-boy Bliar and Bollocky Bill Clinton were keen exploiters of this kind of thing.

    Here’s an example from your own ouevre:

    Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming….“— Chris O’Neill.

    The answer depends on some implied period over which this warming, or otherwise, is supposed to have taken place. If it’s the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming; but if you mean since the Little Ice Age, then it is no, it is warming — of course it is; we’re coming out of a cool period, speaking in terms of a few centuries that is. Bliar and Bollocky, depending on their objectives, would feel free to take the period from anything as short as a week, or even a minute if there were a handy eclipse or big meteorite strike at the time, to as long as the period back to the time when the Earth and what was to become the Moon collided—super hot. Someone else might take the period to be since the peak of the Mediaeval Warm Period, on which Mann, of course, performed one of his hiding tricks.

    If it suited them, Bliar and Bollocky are the type who would even exploit a situation where the question, or its negation, if it were asked twice (effectively), to give a different, misleading, answer each time, by choosing different periods respectively. But that’s not my style.

    Next.

    The only one who’s a waste of space is the one who suggests that Steve McIntyre has any useful science laid out nicely. How incredibly naïve for anyone to suggest such.

    Yes, I agree. It would be very naïve indeed. Funny thing though: I have never heard anyone make that suggestion. So it’s a very strange thing for you bring up.

    Now, I can clearly see you have made another error here. So here’s the relevant passage again, for your convenience, so that you can use it as another opportunity for you to pursue some further self-improvement.

    [Extracted from my comment posted February 17, 2010 2:43 PM (with minor font changes).]

    So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?

    You said yourself earlier that it was “purported science”. A clue to the answer to your question lies in the word “purported”. In short, what phcking science are you talking about? Mickey Mann’s hokey hockey stick, for example? You really want a list? And you want me to provide it? Why?

    If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He’s got it all laid out there very nicely. You’ll be spoilt for choice.

    On a final note, although I think you have your head up your arse on this whole AGW bollocks, and on Steve McIntyre too (are you really acquainted with his analyses, or do you get your opinion of him, and them, second hand? — that was a rhetorical question; I don’t require an answer), I have a gut feeling that you are redeemable, unlike your pals here.

    Become a convert to doubt, for it’s that, not faith, by which science progresses.

    Best wishes.

  43. #43 stepanovich
    February 20, 2010

    Shorter John Archer:

    1. Is Chris O’Neill a closed-minded idiot?
    2. That was a rhetorical question.
    3. Therefore, I’m open-minded.

  44. #44 John Archer
    February 20, 2010

    One giant leap backwards for an idiot, but only one regular, small step for stepanovich.

    You silly fquit. Next you’ll be posting your shopping list.

  45. #45 Eli Rabett
    February 20, 2010

    Ignorant rubbish

    “I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!”

    You know, one thing about a clown is that she never realizes the average person is two standard deviations smarter than she is.

    Emissions from Mauna Loa are low and well studied. Steve Ryan of the Mauna Loa observatory has studied them for decades, and guess what, they contribute much less than 1ppm to the measured concentration except immediately after an eruption (and even then they contribute less than 10 ppm), and since it is easy to see when the wind is blowing down slope from the caldera they don’t use the measurements taken at those times.

    Come back when you have a clue. OTOH. . .

  46. #46 stepanovich
    February 20, 2010

    Shorter John Archer #125:

    1. Is Chris O’Neill a closed-minded idiot?
    2. That was a rhetorical question.
    3. Therefore, I’m open-minded.

    Shorter John Archer #127:

    1. stepanovich is an idiot!
    2. That is all.
    3. Therefore, I’m open-minded.

  47. #47 John Archer
    February 20, 2010

    1. stepanovich is an idiot!” — stepanovich

    You’re far too kind to yourself. You are way below that.

    To paraphrase Rabbet:

    You know, one thing about stepanovich is that she never realizes the average idiot is two standard deviations smarter than she is.

    You’re a minus 5-sigma specimen.

  48. #48 chek
    February 20, 2010

    The one useful purpose of such as “John Archer” and “Rubbishscience” is to confirm that denialand is populated by rank idiots.

    There must be a formula somewhere, along the lines of stupidity times gullibility multiplied by ignorance squared times admiration for Stevieboy.

    And those two represent the articulate ones.

    Oh, such fantasies they must have about their imagined impact on the world!

  49. #49 John Archer
    February 20, 2010

    Oh, such fantasies they must have about their imagined impact on the world!” — shrek

    Interesting.

    Your resident psychobabblist here, Loathesome (or whatever her name is), would probably say that that’s a self-projection on your part. If so, I wouldn’t disagree with her.

    You’d make slightly more “impact on the world” if you jumped out of a top-floor window of the Sears Tower. All beneficial too.

  50. #50 Shorter John Archer
    February 20, 2010

    Shorter John Archer:

    Poo poo and wee wee.

  51. #51 Chris O'Neill
    February 20, 2010

    John Archer:

    “Is X in A or is X in B? Answer: No. ==> the answerer agrees that X is not in A and that X is not in B.” — Chris O’Neill.

    Correct. Well done. But that example is irrelevant to the circumstances at hand because it is not a model for them.

    Sure. If you say so.

    So where, pray tell, is the failure in the purported science behind problematic AGW.

    CO: “Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, or is it that CO2 doesn’t cause warming and the warming is caused by anything but CO2 (choose you favorite cause, cosmic rays etc) or is it that the CO2 build-up is caused by something other than us or is it that CO2 does cause most of the warming but it will be good for us?”

    For JA’s benefit this is equivalent to “Is X in A or is X in B or is X in C” where X the failure of the “purported” science, A is the observation that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, etc. Thus the answerer agrees that the failure of the science is not in the observation that the earth’s surface is not actually warming, etc.

    By the way, if you don’t frame your questions right by allowing them to be ambiguous, say, then you leave yourself open to the possibility that your interrogee will choose whatever meaning suits his purpose. Lithpy Girly-boy Bliar and Bollocky Bill Clinton were keen exploiters of this kind of thing.

    Just like yourself. Although Clinton is more famous for a plain old drop-dead lie. I know what to expect from you.

    “Is it that the earth’s surface is not actually warming….”— Chris O’Neill.

    The answer depends on some implied period over which this warming, or otherwise, is supposed to have taken place. If it’s the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming;

    Absolute bullsh!t. Even the satellite observed lower troposphere has a warming trend over the past 10 years.

    but if you mean since the Little Ice Age, then it is no, it is warming — of course it is; we’re coming out of a cool period,

    And why, pray tell, are we coming out of that cool period, considering that the Sun’s activity does not correlate with that warming?

    Bliar and Bollocky, depending on their objectives, would feel free to take the period from anything as short as a week, or even a minute if there were a handy eclipse or big meteorite strike at the time, to as long as the period back to the time when..

    Tell me about it. We still get ignoramuses who say “If it’s the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming” which is a hangover from when there actually was a short-term cooling trend starting from the strongest El Niño in more than 100 years in 1998. The thing that matters is climate and it’s not possible to determine climate in 10 years, let alone a change in climate. That doesn’t stop the ignoramuses from spouting on however.

    “So what, pray tell, is the shortcoming in the science?”

    You said yourself earlier that it was “purported science”. A clue to the answer to your question lies in the word “purported”. In short, what phcking science are you talking about? Mickey Mann’s hokey hockey stick, for example? You really want a list? And you want me to provide it? Why? If you are serious and genuinely enquiring why not toodle over to Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. He’s got it all laid out there very nicely. You’ll be spoilt for choice.

    So what are you saying , pray tell, does Steve McIntyre have laid out there? Piles of bullsh!t like yours?

    On a final note, although I think you have your head up your arse on this whole AGW bollocks, and on Steve McIntyre too (are you really acquainted with his analyses,

    His website was from where I downloaded his version of Wahl and Ammann’s version of the MBH98 reconstruction. McIntyre pointed out a problem with the MBH98 method, but that’s totally irrelevant now because that method is simply not used anymore. McIntyre is just living in the past.

    that was a rhetorical question; I don’t require an answer)

    I know. You’re too arrogant for anything other than a rhetorical question.

    Become a convert to doubt, for it’s that, not faith, by which science progresses.

    Thanks for the parting strawman.

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    February 20, 2010

    The not-so-ironically-named RubbishScience [blathers at #81](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282688):

    I also loved the way that some charlie stuck a CO2 monitoring site next to an active volcano and then started saying that there has been a increase in CO2, it says everything about your science…, inept!

    [Guthrie immediately pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2282759) Rubbish’s own ineptness, and [Eli followed up](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2290460), but I thought that it might be instructive for said inept numpty to consider what he said, by comparison with [the Cape Grim CO2 profile](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-cgrim.html).

    If he wants to play clever boy and graph the data himself, [he can do that too](http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/pubs/274/atm/a_07_greenhouse_carbon_dioxide_dl.xls).

    Bottom line – the Mauna Loa data is clearly not contaminated with volcanic emissions. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing exactly as scientists say that it is.

    Sadly for RubbishScience, the evidence shows [his claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2284369) to be “a moderately intelligent person” to be a rather significant exaggeration of his capcities.

    Another Denialist lie topples to the ground…

  53. #53 TrueSceptic
    February 20, 2010

    123 Neil,

    My faculties are poor. Can you link to one of your earlier posts in this thread?

  54. #54 jakerman
    February 20, 2010

    [Correction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2283323):

    >*On the contrary John, Neil [P.O.E. Slaw] nailed you with the accountability that you deserve.*

  55. #56 Lotharsson
    February 20, 2010

    Shorter John Archer (1) – the equivalence set for “no” contains “yes”.

    Shorter John Archer lemma (1a) – you are all stupid for taking my weasel words at face value. [The derivation from (1) is trivial.]

    Shorter John Archer corollary (1b) – the scope of “science” does NOT include “showing shortcomings in published scientific work”. [The derivation from (1) is left as a gentle exercise for the reader.]

    Shorter John Archer (2) – my mad kindergarten namecalling and condescension skillz still provez my adult arguments!

    Shorter John Archer (3) – doubt is their product, and I’m a consummate undoubting consumer.

    Please continue to post, John. Your scornful comedic stylings extolling the virtues of selective doubt coupled with complete arrogant certainty are truly outstanding in the field, i.e. standing several sigma beyond the mean. Furthermore, they are not only highly entertaining, but the ancillary edification of this audience is perhaps unparalleled in perhaps the entire history of science blogging!

  56. #57 John Archer
    February 21, 2010

    You dumbarse, O’Neill. Your general Boolean/set theoretic APPROACH for expressing the logic is NOT in contention — I am perfectly happy with it, although I would have preferred to use the simple propositional calculus here. But it makes no difference which is used as they are equivalent.

    The fact that you have laid out an explanation of that general approach (“For JA’s benefit this is equivalent to….“) shows you have COMPLETELY missed the phcking point. The problem is NOT in the FORM in which you have chosen to express the logic, nor is it, as you imply, any misunderstanding of that form on my part, but in your actual fumbling attempt at APPLYING it. You simply have not done the job right with the tools you have chosen.

    Now, it is interesting that you jumped to the conclusion that I did not understand what amounts to a very basic standard approach to simple logic, rather than actually examining your own faulty application of it.

    No points for you boy.

    As for the rest of what you wrote, that’s a pile of shit too.

  57. #58 John Archer
    February 21, 2010

    Loathesome,

    You yourself are a member of the equivalence class of stupid cunts.

  58. #59 John Archer
    February 21, 2010

    Jakerman,

    I see you’re on about that accountability thing again.

    Your original:
    On the contrary John, Neil nailed you with the accountability that you deserve. You represent so called ‘climate sceptics’ here.” — Jakerman

    What you think I represent is entirely up to you. For myself, I represent no one but me, and I speak for no one but me. Furthermore, I am not beholden to anyone and therefore am not accountable to anyone.

    Finally, I don’t give a shit what you or anyone else thinks. FWIW to you, that includes ecofreaks and sceptics alike.

    Speak to Mann, Jones et al about accountability. They need lessons.

  59. #60 Lotharsson
    February 21, 2010

    You yourself are a member of the equivalence class of stupid cunts.

    Score – SJA(2)!.

    The problem is NOT in the FORM in which you have chosen to express the logic, nor is it, as you imply, any misunderstanding of that form on my part, but in your actual fumbling attempt at APPLYING it.

    JSA keeps trying it on. His initial full and unqualified answer to the relevant question was “no”.

    When that “no” was interpreted as “no” and boolean logic applied, JSA claimed that the application of said logic was “flawed” because his answer actually meant “yes under some circumstances, no under others”:

    The answer depends on some implied period over which this warming, or otherwise, is supposed to have taken place. If it’s the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming; but if you mean since the Little Ice Age, then it is no, it is warming — of course it is; we’re coming out of a cool period, speaking in terms of a few centuries that is.

    ..and when called on it tries to blame the questioner for an “ambiguous question” rather than his own disingenuous answer. No, John, the application of boolean logic to your unqualified answer was entirely correct. You can’t complain that the logic wasn’t applied to a different answer you had not yet given. (Well, you can – and will – but it makes you look childish, and piss-poor at logic to boot.)

    One may indeed conclude that the equivalence set for an unqualified “no” from JSA includes the value “yes”, a.k.a. SJA(1).

    Hey, just had an idea, we could make a complete taxonomy on a bingo card and…oh, wait.

  60. #61 TrueSceptic
    February 21, 2010

    141 Archer,

    What are you doing? The only thing that springs to mind is that you are testing the tolerance limits of one of the most tolerant blogs to be found anywhere.

    I really, really, hope you are a Poe. ;)

  61. #63 John Archer
    February 21, 2010

    You’re dim, Loathesome.

    JSA keeps trying it on. His initial full and unqualified answer to the relevant question was “no”.

    It still is. In fact there were two of them. And both my answers still are/were “no”.

    ..and when called on it tries to blame the questioner for an “ambiguous question”…

    No. I didn’t blame anyone. I merely pointed out the simple fact that the question in question was not well-defined. Are you trying to tell me that that question ["Is it that the earth's surface is not actually warming...."— Chris O'Neill] is well-defined?

    No, John, the application of boolean logic to your unqualified answer was entirely correct.

    No. Wrong again. That application was a fumbling amateur attempt. (You can drop that “boolean” tag — it’s irrelevant/redundant.)

    You can’t complain that the logic wasn’t applied to a different answer you had not yet given.

    I didn’t. And I don’t. You have missed the point. You see, Chris O’Neill is just plain wrong. Now, I know, since we are on opposing sides here, that it would be natural for him to consider the possibility of me playing word games or whatnot a la Bliar & Bollocky Bill for example. My point in bringing up their ruses was specifically to exclude them in my case (I said, “But that’s not my style.” — something you have chosen to ignore) and to let you know thereby that I am playing this dead straight. Yes, really — dead straight; no funny business.

    But you have chosen to take it differently. Ha ha. Now that’s funny. I suspected you would too, and that you would see only what you wanted to see. And you did.

    You all really do need to go back and look at the logic. Why don’t you really break it down and attempt something like a strict proof that your formulation is correct. I know you haven’t done this yet and that you have skipped past it lightly, taking Chris O’Neill’s ‘model’ as correct. It just plain isn’t. Straight up.

  62. #64 Chris O'Neill
    February 21, 2010

    You fʊckwit Archer. You can take your piles of sh!t about it not warming in the last 10 years and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and swallow them whole. Actually you’ve already done that. No wonder you talk such sh!t.

  63. #65 John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    You fʊckwit Archer. You can take your piles of sh!t about it not warming in the last 10 years and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit and swallow them whole. Actually you’ve already done that. No wonder you talk such sh!t.” — Chris O’Neill.

    Now, now. That wasn’t very nice, was it? Tee hee.

    Look, I’ll translate it for you so you can see how it should be done.

    It says, “Touché”, which apart from being the graceful way to put it has the great advantage of brevity. But clearly that would go against the grain as neither of those is your style. Tut tut tutti doos.

    Upshot: you didn’t come back on the logic thing then. Now why was that? :)

  64. #66 Shorter John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    >*Now, now. That wasn’t very nice, was it? Tee hee*

    A bit rich from the person who [wrote this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_on_stovepiping_and_p.php#comment-2292157):

    >*Loathesome, You yourself are a member of the equivalence class of stupid cunts [sic].*

    And the same John Archer who highest level of comment aspires to reach the heights of:

    >*Poo poo, wee wee.*

    Got anything else Archie?

  65. #67 John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    You silly sod. You can’t even get your attributions right. The latter wasn’t mine.

    Go on, do a search and check who said that. Or would that be too taxing for you?

  66. #68 Shorter John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    Shorter John Archer:

    More: poo poo, and wee wee.

  67. #69 Chris O'Neill
    February 22, 2010

    John (the last decade is not warming) Archer:

    That wasn’t very nice, was it?

    Boo hoo hoo, my heart bleeds for you.

  68. #70 John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    P.S. Woops. I nearly forgot.

    About it being “a bit rich” of me: I have never made any pretence here that I am being nice. Quite the contrary indeed. Look, I’ll say it again as you appear to have missed it:

    Look, let’s be clear about this if it isn’t already. I’m here merely in my capacity as right-wing nutjob racist trolloid to have a little fun at your expense and not for your edification.” — John Archer, February 17, 2010 2:43 PM

  69. #71 John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    Boo hoo hoo, my heart bleeds for you.” — Chris O’Neill

    :)

    But never mind that. Tell me all about the logic — you know, your ‘model’. You haven’t forgotten about it already, have you?

  70. #72 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2010

    I suspected you would too, and that you would see only what you wanted to see.

    Yeah, that’s not a classic “tell” and you’re not post hoc rationalising at all. No way. That’s just not credible. BTW, I have this bridge for sale, one owner, going cheap…

    I am playing this dead straight. Yes, really — dead straight; no funny business.

    About that bridge, it’s in a great location, is a really good deal and would round out your portfolio rather nicely…

    Dead straight includes:

    = participating in conversation using norms that most humans do

    = granting that English isn’t as precise as we would sometimes like, so when a poster is not as clear as you would like you ask for clarification – and when your position is misunderstood you proactively provide a clarification.

    = assuming that context informs meaning rather than assuming none at all

    = when someone asks for your opinion or reasoning you provide a meaningful response rather than making them guess what your position is and then quibbling about it

    = reserving vitriol and namecalling for exceptional circumstances rather than standard practice.

    Not seeing much of any of that in your posts. So far you are just a fairly standard vitriolic troll with a self-designated superiority complex and a lower than average willingness to put forward a case.

  71. #73 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2010

    You silly sod. You can’t even get your attributions right. The latter wasn’t mine.

    I didn’t read it as attributing “poo poo, wee wee” to you, it was sarcastically paraphrasing you.

    But I didn’t write it, so I could be wrong.

  72. #74 Shorter John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    Lotharsson, I did write it and you are not wrong.

    If Archer had done what he suggest poor sods do, would would have found that for himself. But Archer don’t care for fact checking he just aspires to:

    >*Poo poo and wee wee*.

  73. #75 John Archer
    February 22, 2010

    Yeah, that’s not a classic “tell” and you’re not post hoc rationalising at all. No way. That’s just not credible.

    Oh dear! There’s just no trust these days.

    It’s pity this isn’t a poker game though — you’d be out of money as well as being out of your mind. Hey, just in case you accuse me of arrogance about my poker playing abilities (I sense one coming) don’t bother. A neophyte could take your money.

    Just to be clear, your clutching at straws here (in accusing me of post hoc rationalisation) provides me with one of your ‘tells’. Oh dear! Silly me. A good poker player would never have let on. Note to self: I must be more careful.

    As for your “participating in conversation using norms that most humans do“, have a look at the farticle and the first few comments here. They do rather set a certain tone, wouldn’t you say? But now you want things all gentlemanly, or at least to put limits on the invective etc. Very funny.

    I didn’t read it as attributing “poo poo, wee wee” to you, it was sarcastically paraphrasing you.

    Fair enough.

    How’s the attempted proof of the logic ‘model’ going?

  74. #76 Lotharsson
    February 22, 2010

    But now you want things all gentlemanly…

    Read it again. I didn’t say it was what I want; I said it’s what I see as “playing it dead straight”, in contrast to your behaviour and presumably to your definition.

    How’s the attempted proof of the logic ‘model’ going?

    Silly me, here’s me thinking you’re mature enough to know that you should do your own homework.

    Since no-one here seems to be helping you out, and you’re so convinced of your intellectual superiority despite apparently espousing any number of known fallacies, I reckon it’s quite likely you won’t be able to resist pointing out the model issue you have in mind. But who knows – I may be wrong.

    And should that prediction come true, I further estimate that your concerns will quite likely be of import somewhere between zero and trifling. You know, like McIntyre & McKitrick’s criticisms of MBH98 – accurate, but the consequent change to the MBH98 results was piddling. On the other hand, I could be totally wrong.

    (As a side prediction, I reckon that your concerns will be based on reading precision into an English conversation that is not normally expected or imputed, and that only coming about because you refused to “play it dead straight” by outlining the basis for your position. But hey, what do I know?)

    And should my previous mainline predictions come true, I reckon it fairly likely that you will do a McIntyre & McKitrick in at least one of the following two parts:

    1) You will remain (or pretend to remain) blissfully unaware that your big correction will bring your total edification of this audience on your position to … just about zero, because you provided no evidence or logic to back up those positions, choosing instead to nitpick about the process of the conversation.

    2) You will crow (here and elsewhere) about how stupid everyone here is and how important your big correction was, conveniently failing to point out that it does not support your key positions in any way.

    But as I said, I could be wrong.

  75. #77 Chris O'Neill
    February 22, 2010

    John Archer:

    the last decade .. is not warming.

    Bullsh!tter.

  76. #78 TrueSceptic
    February 24, 2010

    160 Chris,

    A much shorter word is more accurate. It’s “liar”.

  77. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    February 24, 2010

    A boring and unfunny liar who thinks he’s clever but is so far off cleverness he can’t even see his lack of it.

  78. #80 John Archer
    February 25, 2010

    Chris O’Neill,

    Tell me about it. We still get ignoramuses who say “If it’s the last decade, say, then the answer is yes, it is not warming” which is a hangover from when there actually was a short-term cooling trend starting from the strongest El Niño in more than 100 years in 1998. The thing that matters is climate and it’s not possible to determine climate in 10 years, let alone a change in climate. That doesn’t stop the ignoramuses from spouting on however.” — Chris O’Neill, February 20, 2010 8:43 PM [my emphasis in bold]

    (And that hangover was what again?)

    cf your link to the Bullshit-2000-to-now graph.

    I suppose in your February 20 comment you had the loose interpretation of “decade” that I had in mind too. Easy mistake of course. It’s nice to see you have now tightened things up in your link and taken “decade” pretty much exactly.

    That graph is nice by the way. Thanks for your value-added input here.

    Anyway, I instead of the “last decade” I now wish I had said…..

    wait for it….

    no, not “since 2002″, although that would have been somewhat more convenient for me…….

    but…..

    “last decade and a half”, where the upward ‘trend‘ is even more marked (gradient of trend line about 35% higher) because I’d prefer to defer to St Phil Jones for the final significant word on this (link here):

    Roger Harrabin (al beeboid) – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    St Phil Jones (“climate change” martyr) – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    Hey, if it’s not statistically significant since 1995 then it’s even less statistically significant since 2000. “Yeah, but it’s warming nonetheless.” Yeah. Right. Whatever you say.

    Of course, all these data are completely reliable. Scouts honour! That’s why the Met Office now intends to re-examine 160 years of temperature data. Ha ha.

    What’s the betting that an exponential will turn out be the curve of best fit to this new super deluxe version of their value-added data?

    Don’t miss this bit. It’s a hoot:

    The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

    That’s on a par with, “The Government is attempting to stop the Audit Office from examining the Treasury’s books, arguing that it would be seized upon by fraud busters.

    There’s just no end to the laughs this AGW nonsense produces.

    Incidentally, these “climate change sceptics” the government mentions – do they really exist? Surely no one doubts that climate changes, do they? At least I have never met or heard of anyone who held that view. Perhaps they mean AGW sceptics. Yes, that must be it. There are plenty of those, and their numbers are growing — much to the chagrin of you nutjob alarmists I hear.

  79. #81 John Archer
    February 25, 2010

    Loathesome (February 22, 2010 6:56 PM),

    You will remain (or pretend to remain) blissfully unaware that your big correction will bring your total edification of this audience on your position to … just about zero

    Thanks for the feedback on this confirming my “total edification of this audience” will be “just about zero”. Zero was the upper bound I set myself — although I had aimed for a lower score it’s good enough. But then you know that already as I have made it very clear here on more than one occasion that my intentions are entirely negative.

    You will crow (here and elsewhere) about how stupid everyone here is and how important your big correction was….

    You are pshycobabbling again.

    But as I said, I could be wrong.

    Yes, in this case you are right — you’re wrong. Well done.

    On the same subject:

    and you’re so convinced of your intellectual superiority…

    Ha ha.

    Look, a word of advice — stay well away from any poker table.

    Oh, I nearly forgot. Your response to the logic model thing. Lots of bluster there but I see the penny has finally dropped — my “concerns” … “accurate” …”your big correction “. How graciously straight up of you to openly admit to the error like that.

    And by the way, I wasn’t in the least “concerned” — it was your (Chris O’Neill’s) mistake, not mine.

    I hope none of this has helped you.

  80. #82 Shorter John Archer
    February 25, 2010

    Shorter John Archer:

    Whaaaa! Whaaaa! I don’t want to go to bed. Whaaaa! Whaaaa!

    BTW please don’t count me as an n=1 sample of a denialist. What I say shouldn’t count as evidence of denier’s disorder. I’m just here to say things in an unaccountable way, and not to represent my ‘skeptic’ views.

    Get it, my septic practice don’t count against my ‘skeptic’ practice. I’m barlies.

  81. #83 John Archer
    February 25, 2010

    Apparently one of my comments (a reply to Chris O’Neill’s latest) is awaiting approval.

    I wonder if it will be put up.

    Come to that, I wonder if this one will be put up.

  82. #84 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2010

    …but I see the penny has finally dropped — my “concerns” … “accurate” …”your big correction “. How graciously straight up of you to openly admit to the error like that.

    Dearie me, try reading it again – this time with comprehension. For one of such superior intellect you exhibit a surprisingly high rate of misreading my comments.

    I have not admitted any error, although unlike you I admit the possibility. Hint:

    “I could be wrong”

    is not equivalent to

    “I am wrong”

    …not even if you wish really really hard that it is. I leave the proper interpretation of comments about “your concerns” or “your big correction” – especially modified by various conditionals – as an exercise to the reader.

    Should you bother to prove your claim of an error I’ll be happy to admit it. In fact, it would be great if you did so, because then we could all take a good look at the import of your point, and note that you regretfully declined all invitations to make other – perhaps more substantive – points.

    Although admittedly it might lead to speculation as to why someone as bright as yourself needs to get his jollies dishing out abuse on largely unsubstantiated bases to people he doesn’t even know. But mustn’t psychobabble – that would never do.

  83. #85 Shorter John Archer
    February 25, 2010

    John Who cares, stop sooking mate. It not as if you are even trying contribute anything except:

    >*Wee wee, poo poo*.

  84. #86 John Archer
    February 26, 2010

    Lotharsson,

    I have not admitted any error….

    Right, but only not in so many words.

    I could be wrong‘ is not equivalent to ‘I am wrong‘…not even if you wish really really hard that it is.

    No one here said it was.

    Either ‘I could be wrong‘ or ‘I could not be wrong‘. Since, in fact, you were wrong, ‘I could not be wrong‘ is false. That leaves ‘I could be wrong‘ to be right, which is what I said. Right? Or am I wrong?

    Should you bother to prove your claim of an error…

    I have already said that I have no such intention. But thanks for another invitation all the same.

    [I] note that you regretfully declined all invitations to make other – perhaps more substantive – points.

    Well now, how funny you should say that just at this point because, oddly enough for once, there were some “more substantive” points in that as-yet-unposted reply I made to Chris O’Neill about 17(?) hours ago. It seems it’s still awaiting approval. SHOCK HORROR….

    And on such an otherwise free site.

    I don’t know what the problem is here. Possibly the mention of certain names and my quoting of the owners’ words? Or maybe my quoting your/”The Te4m’s” statistics?

    Judging by the speed in which I was informed that approval was needed, and the fact that my two other posts (forming the ‘bread’ in a 3-post ‘sandwich’) both went through all wonderfully tickety-boo, I suspect some automatic filter on certain key words, that my ‘meat’ post contained one or more of them, and that PERHAPS the admin here hasn’t “looked in the bin”. But as you say—and, strangely enough, so do I, on the odd occasion—I could be wrong. Very wrong.

    I’ll tell you what. I’ll have another go at posting the ‘meat’ job immediately after this and if it doesn’t get put up straight away I’ll let you know. I’ll make some minor modifications to what I suspect could be key words too in the hope that that will grease its passage up the fundament here, so to speak.

    Although admittedly it might lead to speculation as to why someone … get[s] his jollies dishing out abuse….

    Yes, I have been given over to wondering about things like that too on a few occasions, mostly when I pay a rare visit to reelklymate (objectionable filter-word avoidance attempt).

    Finally, I think that in practice it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion, such is the intensity of the mutual animosity. In any event, it is not a case now where sides can simply agree to differ as they could/should in other areas of science, generally speaking. The thing has huge political and financial implications and as such it’s a fight to the death. Such is the way of things. Pity.

  85. #87 John Archer
    February 26, 2010

    Nope. No luck. Yet again.

    Thank you for commenting.
    Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

    I’ll have to try another tack. Don’t hold you breath though.

    Woops! No. On second thoughts, DO hold your breath. I’ll be back in a moment. Promise. :)

  86. #88 John Archer
    February 26, 2010

    Still there?

    Good. I won’t be long. Keep that breath on hold now.

  87. #89 Jeff Harvey
    February 26, 2010

    John Archer,

    There is a reason that “it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion”.

    One side (the deniers) lies, distorts and mangles science to bolster a clear agenda, whereas the other side (the side actually doing the bulk of the research) has generated a large body of empirical evidence and broadly agrees that this evidence strongly suggests that humans are forcinbg climate.

    Given the protagonists (one side lying and manipulating in order to pre-empt any action to deal with the problem and the other basing their arguments on a growing body of scientific evidence) the debate was always going to end up being more of a street fight than an intellectual debate. The fact that many of those denying AGW are the same sordid lot who have long downplayed such areas as the rates of biodiversity loss, impacts of acid rain on freshwater and terrestrial ecocystems, ozone depletion and a whole gamut of other areas should make one realize that this motley bunch were never interested in science. They hate science because it impacts on policy. Instead, science has become a useful tool for them to downplay a complex array of areas of serious concern, all because of short-term profit and a right wing political ideology.

  88. #90 John Archer
    February 26, 2010

    There is a reason that “it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion”.

    Etc.

    Yeah, yeah….

    I disagree with pretty much all of that.

    For one VERY brief moment I thought I’d give the reasons too at the end of my “February 26, 2010 9:09 AM”. But the problem with that is, as you can see here, there will be no agreement on those reasons. So, it was pointless doing it.

    It was a good call on my part, even if I say so myself.

    P.S. “denier” ha ha. Given your topic, well done. Neat!

  89. #91 Jeff Harvey
    February 26, 2010

    John Archer said, “I disagree with pretty much all of that”.

    That’s fine by me. But I call it as I see it, and I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the debate is not at all about science, at least for those in denial. They will always be in denial, no matter how much the science tells them they are wrong. This is because the scientific evidence and its policy-related repercussions conflict with their political ideology. The fact that many of those in the denial camp have shifted their tactics over the years – from saying that the warming is a doomsday myth, to its a natural process etc., represents a cycle that aims at maintaining the status quo. In time, as some already are, the denialists will accept the human fingerprint over the warming, but claim that it is a good thing or that it is tool ate to do anything about it except to adapt. In each scenario nothing changes; that is the aim of the denial camp. Lobbying for lethargy.

    So, I do not really care if you agree with me or not; I think the facts are pretty well clear if you bother to loook beyond the end of your nose.

  90. #92 Lotharsson
    February 26, 2010

    John Archer,

    Your assertions that I was wrong, coupled to your apparent argument that therefore “I could be wrong” is an admission of error on my part are amusing. But engaging in such “logic” may explain why you think people are so stupid as to come to a different opinion to you.

    It seems it’s still awaiting approval.

    That happens from time to time to most of us. There appears to be some sort of automatic filtering; I presume that when a post is tagged by the filter it has to wait until a human approves it – which may take longer on weekends or the middle of the night.

    I think that in practice it is as good as impossible now for our two sides to have any civilised discussion, such is the intensity of the mutual animosity.

    I don’t have any particular animosity for “your side”. I have at times spent a fair bit of time in patient unheated conversation with people who think AGW is bunk.

    But if you start off with a vituperative attitude and twin it with bald assertion backed by zero evidence or argumentation, then I rapidly conclude you have no interest in a civilised discussion, let alone attempting to ascertain any kind of approach towards scientific understanding.

    I have already said that I have no such intention.

    Good to know. All hat, no cattle. And no real loss here either.

  91. #93 A. Lurker
    February 26, 2010

    John Archer: I believe that posts with several links in them are invariably held up for moderation.

  92. #94 John Archer
    February 26, 2010

    All hat, no cattle.

    Like this?

    I don’t have any particular animosity for “your side”.

    I cannot say the same.

    This thing will just have to work it’s way through Darwin’s Meat Grinder now.

    Lurker, thanks.