Pearcegate

Fred Pearce is going down the David Rose road publishing fabricated quotes. Gavin Schmidt in a letter to New Scientist (so far unpublished there) writes:

In the piece entitled “Climate sceptics and scientists attempt peace
deal”

Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.

“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig,
including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so
there was nothing to discuss.”

This is completely made up. My decision not to accept the invitation to
this meeting was based entirely on the organiser’s initial diagnosis of
the cause of the ‘conflict’ in the climate change debate. I quote from
their introductory letter:

“At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main
scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of
agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off
the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.

The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate
sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups
discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very
familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.”


Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change
debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate
sensitivity or ‘ice’, dismissing this from any discussion did not seem
likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.

At no point did I declare that the ‘science was settled’ and that there
was nothing to discuss. Indeed, I am on record as saying the exact
opposite

Pearce might well note that even I am included in the “spectrum” that
“disagree[s] with Schmidt”!

Fred Pearce did not interview me for this piece. I should like to
request that in future, if my views are of interest, that he (or anyone
else) should actually ask me directly. I am not hard to contact.

Yours respectfully,

Gavin Schmidt

PS. I am not a ‘leader of mainstream climate science’ either.

Commenting on Pierce and the workshop are:

Things Break:

I’d ask whether New Scientist wants this kind of indefensible behavior associated with their brand, but clearly they’ve given Pearce free reign to troll for page views however he sees fit.

William Connolley:

And… if you haven’t been part of the climate wars, you might wonder why exactly any of this matters. But “the science is settled” has been one of the mantras used almost exclusively by climate denialists as a term of insult for those actually doing science (Pearce is fully aware of all this back story, of course. He isn’t using the phrase accidentally or carelessly). It is a feeble attempt at a double bind: is the science settled? ha ha, then you can’t be a scientist because real science is never settled. Is the science not settled? Oh great, then we don’t need to do anything until it is. The answer, of course, is that we know now (and indeed have for years) enough about the science to know that the world is warming now due to human activity, and will be warming more into the future from more anthro stuff.

Tamino: “This isn’t a misquote — it’s just a fabrication.”

Joe Romm:

Any conference where most of the participants are obsessed with the Hockey Stick, consider it “totemic,” and think its underlying science is unresolved simply isn’t a serious scientific meeting. Similarly, no serious journalist should simply publish two sentences questioning the underlying science without any quote from a real climate scientist or citation to the NAS and the multiple, confirming studies.

Scott Mandia:

Pearce states …

Equally contentious is the charge – the pet subject of several in Lisbon – that the IPCC is “in denial” about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years.

How does a warming ocean cause nights to warm faster than days, the troposphere to warm while the upper layers are cooling, winters to warm faster than summers, measured increases in downwelling heat, and measured decreases in outgoing heat from the planet?

What magic are the oceans performing that are mirroring the effects of greenhouse warming while simultaneously stopping the effects of massive increases in heat-trapping gases?

Eli Rabett:

Many have placed their bets on Fred. Eli is not quite so sure, where, better put, from whom would Pearce have gotten his information. Jerry Ravitz who is trying to muscle his way in springs to mind and, of course, luminaries such as the Steves are right up there.

Update: At Judith Curry’s blog tallbloke writes

To set the record straight:

Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin’s response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin’s complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin’s claim that I ‘made stuff up’, and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase.

Yes, they had an ether crank on the invite committee.

Update 2: Gavin Schmidt posts his actual email:

Thanks for the invitation. However, I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are perceived in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.

I don’t think it is accurate to summarise this as “the science is settled”.

Update 3:
Steve McIntyre:

I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.

tallbloke

I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn’t make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn’t remember it very clearly later.

Compare with his earlier comment “to set the record straight”

when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

Deceitful, isn’t he?

Comments

  1. #1 Holly Stick
    February 6, 2011

    frankis’ link is fun but the language is rather inflammatory.

    If a larger percentage of engineers are creationists, one possible explanation might be that a creationist would choose to train in an applied science rather than a theoretical science that involves learning about evolution. They may also now prefer to avoid climate science because it deals with the idea that humans can make major changes to earth and even destroy its capacity as a home for humans.

  2. #2 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Oh poor GSW, he loves speculating on issue with no data, but shirks from it when there is supporting data.

  3. #3 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    Holly, I agree, fun, inflammatory and the data has many possible explanations.

    Still its a step up on that which GSW speculates on.

  4. #4 Chris O'Neill
    February 6, 2011

    @173. Not sure I can teach you what a non-sequitur is.

    BTW, your crap is pretty funny.

  5. #5 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @jakerman

    Ok then, do you actually have anything worthwhile to say? if so what is it, Engineers are bad people? (They have no science degree) what is your degree in? Mines Physics, I only have the two, under and post, have you ever had any education whatsoever? If you had you wouldn’t be half as rude and condescending as you are.

    YFM! ;)

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2011

    121 strange analogy..

    Eh? What constitutes a non-“strange” analogy?

    Personally I would think both the petrol thrower and match lighter were both rather unpleasant people to know… and bot at fault.. though, the match thrower is slightly more the ‘nutter’

    Aw, look, chubby-chops just took a step! Isn’t he growing up so fast?

    well. I seem to have taken the heat off Fred Pearce…

    Uh-oh. Poor Barry just landed on his botty. One step foward, one fall back.

    The clever tyke has mastered self-contradiction though.

    [GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226265) and [Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226335) – it seems that your “highly sensitive BS detector[s]” are broken. Perhaps you need to find a real engineeer to repair them.

  7. #7 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    GSW, when you employ fallacious arguments such as focusing on and making up my opinion about how I feel personally towards engineers you give yourself away.

    Instead of your fallacies, how about you answer [the question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226747).

    You’re not so keen to speculate now.

  8. #8 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @jakerman

    have you had any formal education or not? I’d say not. If so, what is it?

    Words of one syllable will suffice.

  9. #9 pough
    February 6, 2011

    To be honest, I think the perception comes not from engineers being crazy, but from engineers who are crazy insisting on mentioning their career choice as though it has meaning in every situation. A fine case in point can be found in this thread where Tallbloke trots out his engineering status as a crank-proofery, as though an engineer’s card (do you get cards?) is like a Get Out of Crank Free card.

    You will find engineers proudly on anti-evolution and anti-AGW lists of “scientists” and the question is, why? Why are there engineers on those lists? To keep Ginger Spice company?

    And my response to GSW’s silly comment was to point out that the BS detector engineers come with stock seems to be good at finding false positives, too. While engineering is a great skill for engineering tasks, hauling it out and waving it around in inappropriate circumstances (biology, climate science) is about as impressive as Ken Jeong auditioning for a role as John Holmes.

  10. #10 frankis
    February 6, 2011

    GSW @67:

    … a climate modeler? I don’t think that makes you a scientist …

    Let me get this straight GSW – you claim to be an engineer, you are an expert in climate science, and you demand that people compare their qualifications to yours?

  11. #11 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    GSW, Let me point out your double fallacy in your latest short post:

    Firstly my qualifications are not needed to show your false logic.

    Secondly, Well I’ve save the second part of your dumb question, if you were sharp you already pick it. Lets just say that those of us who actually read the thread already know how redundant your question is.

  12. #12 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    #210,

    I’ve worked with both, as a preference I’d with the talented Engineer. A solid reliable opinion is what counts every time.

    What’s the matter jakerman, still can’t remember where you went to school?

  13. #13 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @211

    I’m not an Engineer.

  14. #14 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @212

    Good you have qualifications, what are they?

  15. #15 John
    February 6, 2011

    GSW has a degree in physics. This is the internet so he must be telling the truth.

  16. #16 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @216

    Yeah, Schuster labs in Manchester, James Clerk Maxwell, Edinburgh,

    You?

  17. #17 frankis
    February 6, 2011

    Is @216 some kind of internet shorthand beyond my ken? GSW is also claiming to be James Clerk Maxwell or a reincarnation of him? I am confused. However I believe the two great climate scientists Lubos Motl and Freeman Dyson have degrees in physics so even if GSW’s is only undergrad he can be presumed to be well on the way, too.

  18. #18 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @218

    Your ignorance is amusing!

  19. #19 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2011

    [Frankis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226679).

    I love rational wiki, and ironically I linked to that very page about a month ago on a forum of lay people who were taking engineering woo as the gospel on climate change denialism. Of course, the response there was essentially the same as GSW’s exhortation of “GIGO” – a completely fatuous and unevidenced claim, by the way…

    As the rational wiki link and as others above have pointed out, the presence of a cohort of denialists in the discipline is not a reflection on all engineers. It simply acknowledges that there is a bimodal (at least) distribution of characteristics within the discipline. Such distributions are common in many fields of endeavour, and this is what leads to the stereotyping of people in various disciplines, even if the conspicuousness resulting in the stereotype doesn’t actually represent the majority.

    Within science some of the most common characterisations are those of the absent-minded professor, and of the socially-inept scientist. Both are represented, and almost certainly in proportions above those found in the general public, because the personality characterisics that predispose people to such conditions are allied with, or from a component of, other characterisitcs that draw people to science in the first place.

    Similarly, within climate change denialism, there are characterisations as well, simply because such are actually found in greater abundance here than in the general population. The Dunning-Kruger effect is an obvious one, as is the holding of fundamental ideology and/or vested interests against emissions reduction.

    Within the umbrella classification of ‘science’ there is a distinct locus of climate change denialism, and this occurs in the earth sciences, and most particularly in the economic geology field. Again, in these cases there are unsurprising predispositions that explain why usual scientific rationalism and true scepticism are sidelined.

    And even in examples such as Judith Curry and Fred Pearce, if one scratches the surface sufficiently one will probably discover that there are peculiarities of character and/or of circumstance, rather than of any real analysis of the best science, that explains their jumpings of the sharks. This is perhaps one of the things that most characterises the denialist argument – that if one digs deeply enough, there are at the foundations non-scientific explanations for their views, and almost never – if ever – any actual reliance on real and rationally assessed science.

    That neither Pierce nor Curry have ever actually formulated a coherent and inassailable argument for their argumentum ad temperantiam fallacies of logic is telling. Their adherence to such fallacy also provides an ongoing and self-sustaining stratgey for never addressing the points of science underpinning affairs such as the one that is the subject of this thread.

  20. #20 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @218

    eh frankis, while we are talking, do you have anything in the way of a formal education?

  21. #21 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    >*have you had any formal education or not? I’d say not. If so, what is it?*

    >*What’s the matter jakerman, still can’t remember where you went to school?*

    >*Good you have qualifications, what are they?*

    That is a top secret information, only available to people like Jez, Loth, John, and others who have basic reading comprehension.

  22. #22 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    Thought not. It seemed, at one point at least, that having a University degree(s) was relevant as to what you had to say, you not having any of course means you should remain silent. Ho hum, so be it.

    ;)

  23. #23 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    GSW since you are interested in qualifications how many [active climate scientist](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php) have relevant competence?

  24. #24 jakerman
    February 6, 2011

    GSW, how does if feel having [your fallacious argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227070) exposed by someone who you believe has no formal qualifications?

  25. #25 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    They may have,

    We’ve established you have none. ;)

  26. #26 John
    February 6, 2011

    >Yeah, Schuster labs in Manchester, James Clerk Maxwell, Edinburgh.

    What you really mean is the University Of Google.

  27. #27 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @227

    Nope the real deal. You?

  28. #28 frankis
    February 6, 2011

    GSW reminds me of [John Brignell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/brignell/) of Numberwatch fame, for some reason. Modesty prohibits me, GSW, from showing you mine for fear that you’d be traumatised for life. You may however rest assured that it is really impressive. Actually, too impressive to be fooling around with you like this but we’re all fallible aren’t we.

  29. #29 John
    February 6, 2011

    I believe you.

    ;)

  30. #30 GSW
    February 6, 2011

    @All

    Apologies, don’t like this, but have a real bug bear with “Let the scientists say what is and is not correct”- if you haven’t got a degree then what you say doesn’t matter. You make up your own minds, remember;

    Nullius in Verba

    Its as true then as it is now.

  31. #31 GSW
    February 7, 2011

    Then being 1660. Also, all scientists are a**eholes, sometimes.

  32. #32 frankis
    February 7, 2011

    @231 OK well, hey, I think I did understand that point GSW and it sounds reasonable. You wouldn’t like to apologise for your “… a climate modeler? I don’t think that makes you a scientist …” from earlier, would you?

  33. #33 John
    February 7, 2011

    Are you drunk? You’re barely making sense.

  34. #34 GSW
    February 7, 2011

    @233

    Sorry No, built models myself (Not Climate Models) can get any answer you want just by changing a few innocuous numbers. Either you know your “Stacking the Deck” or you don’t.

  35. #35 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    >*if you haven’t got a degree then what you say doesn’t matter.*

    Who says that GSW? Give us a reference.

    FWIW, GSW doesn’t seem very interested in arguing the science for someone who has been so set on asking about qualifications. Perhaps he’s not as competent as hes been bragging. Undergrad Phys 1001 perhaps, never employed in the field.

    Not that it matters, cos he’s not made a useful augment that would draw on any science.

  36. #36 GSW
    February 7, 2011

    @jakerman

    You found a qualification then?

  37. #37 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    Models, they are [doing well](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/) thanks.

    Then again they are well constrained by good physical data.

  38. #38 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    Found your reading comprehension yet GSW?

  39. #39 jakerman
    February 7, 2011
  40. #40 GSW
    February 7, 2011

    @jakerman

    ;)

  41. #41 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    GSW starts hand waving when [asked for the basis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227365) of his claims.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2011

    GSW.

    You have a real issue with dropping your knickerbockers and exposing your [bootstraps](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3222571), don’t you?

    [Frankis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227296) has yet again pre-empted me on a point, but neverthless I’d be interested to know:

    1. what your educational level is, and
    2. why on earth it matters anyway, if you are not going to back your argument from authority with actual data and science.

    For what it’s worth I can probably safely say that if you’re only bachelor-qualified, I have spend more years enroled at university than you have in the entire education system. And before you use the “perpetual student” gambit, there wasn’t a single year that I didn’t work as well, and for many of the years it was full-time work.

    Thus, by your own measure, Frankis and I would speak with more authority than you, so perhaps it is you who should “[remain silent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227233)”.

    Either that, or you start making some sensible contribution to the discussion.

  43. #43 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    Better still BJ, I want to know what models [GSW has produced](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227359).

    GSW, doesn’t seem the most dependable bloke, so we’ll need to see the model, and its parameters rather than take his word for it. Then we’ need to see how well it perform in hind-cast for a century or so back.

    Please link us to your published results GSW.

  44. #44 zoot
    February 7, 2011

    GSW is doing postgraduate work in trolling. See how masterfully he/she has derailed this thread. And all because he/she either can’t read or doesn’t understand jakerman’s comments.

  45. #45 pough
    February 7, 2011

    I’ve worked with both…

    Both? Engineers and Ginger Spice?

    …I’d with the talented Engineer.

    That sentence no verb.

  46. #46 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @201 Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers”?
    Could it be…

    Or could it be that despite many people who claim know that many people who claim to be engineers aren’t, suspend their skepticism about creationists who claim to be engineers because of their confirmation bias when trying to link creationism with ‘climate denialism’ (A concept so stupid it defies analysis)

    By the way Jeremy and Dhogaza, in the UK, holders of HNC who have completed engineering apprenticeships and two years of full time work as qualified engineers are entitled to join the professional society of registered engineers. This is because they are engineers. This overcomes the old snobbery of differentiating ‘dirty handed mechanics’ with practical engineering training who have also achieved sufficient academic qualification from academically trained engineers who also did a placement with an engineering outfit during their degree.

    Machinist technicians are people trained to be machinists. Usually on a two year course. I was lucky enough to get the full four year engineering training with a Swiss multinational which covers all aspects of engineering rather than boxing trainees into a specialism.

    It does devalue the title when every operative of any description suddenly gets to be an ‘engineeer’ though, rather then an engineering operative, or binman, so I understand and share Jeremy’s defensive attitude to his professional status.

  47. #47 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @243 “if you are not going to back your argument from authority with actual data and science.”

    I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50

    No takers.

  48. #48 Michael
    February 7, 2011

    Rog @ 247;

    I think the problem here is not ‘snobbery’ , but simply what assumptions people make when they hear the term.

    Here in Oz, if someone told me that they were a ‘Qualified Engineer’ my assumption (and it would be correct) would be that they have an undergrad degree from a recognised university where they undertook an intensive course of study that inclucded a large amount of complex maths and physics. If the same person told me they were a ‘Qualified Machinist’ I’d have no expectation of a high level of maths and physics.

    The point – if both say to me ‘I doubt the physics of X in AGW’, I’d be confident that the Engineer had the basics to make some kind of informed critique.

    But that’s not really the issue here – it’s what you did. Showing around an email that you were not the intended recipient of, and then being mealy-mouthed about an apology, indicates that your main problem isn’t your qualifications, but your lack of integrity (an epidemic amongst the ‘skeptics’, in my experience).

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2011

    Several points:

    GSWs and Tallblokes alleged ‘BS detectors’ may work in their own respective fields, but they sure as hell don’t work in the Earth Sciences. GSW makes a big deal out of his physics degree, but he still hasn’t answered me on how many peer-reviewed publications and citations he has in ANY field of science (including his own). I suggested ‘nil’ and ‘nil’ earlier and I will stick with that until he suggests otherwise. Besides, possessing a physics degree is not some key to wisdom.

    Its also amazing how denialists lacking any pedigree in certain fields of science – here, climate science – wade in (like Tallbloke, above) claiming that they want a scientific discussion while at the same time studiously ignoring submitting their contrarian ideas to peer-reviewed scientific journals where they would reach the broader scientific community and more importantly would be rigorously tested for their validity (or lack thereof). Instead they think that the anti-environmental/anti AGW blogosphere is a fine place for their ideas to be aired, and routinely snipe away at the scientists doing the actual research and their output in scientific journals.

    A few years ago I recall the furore here in the Netherlands when a paper was published in Nature suggesting that continued climate warming would generate an extinction event unseen on the planet for 65 million years. The lead author gave an excellent talk at out institute, which, however, was also attended by a few shrill critics of the article. They were very voacal in their criticisms, even during his talk, making such irrelevant remarks as ‘the article will scare the general public’ and so on… I spoke with one of these critics and I suggested that he should write a rebuttal and submit it to Nature or another top ecology journal. That was the last I ever heard from him – no article (as far as I know) rebutting the Nature piece was ever published. Instead, the rebuttals largely were confined to the blogosphere, as they are with climate science with respect to warming.

    People like Barry and GSW give the impression that there is a vigorous ongoing debate over the warming but that ‘debate’ is not being fought in scientific institutions, universities or reputable conferences (Lisbon and Heartland excluded), because in these academic circles the debate (at least with respect to the causes of climate change, as I said yesterday) is over. The debate is now focused on the extent and consequences of warming, and not the underlying causes.

    Speaking as a population ecologist, most of my discussions with respect to global change and its effects on biodiversity are carried out with colleagues at my institute and at conferences and workshops. When I see people making frankly crass remarks about ecology and biodiversity online, as occasionally here when contrarians wade in with their two cent’s worth (I have not the time to counter every bit of nonsense I see online) I respond. But the one thing I have learned as a scientist is that, if one lacks the pedigree, they should stick to the broad scientific views in any given field of research. When I see people like GSW and Barry (and many others – we know who they are) come in here on Deltoid professing wisdom in a field with which they barely understand the basics, espousing their contrarian views, it becomes clear why they avoid the scientific journals. Like the anti-AGW blog sites, they know their nonsense would not stand up to scientific scrutiny but that does not matter because they are not targeting scientists in the field of climate research but the lay public. Just as I said yesterday.

  50. #50 Zibethicus
    February 7, 2011

    248: I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50

    No takers.

    (end quote)

    How about this:

    Why did you say that you had given Pearce a “a quick praisee” of Schmidt’s email – which ‘praisee’ clearly wasn’t accurate – when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt’s actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

    McIntyre isn’t lying, is he?

    But if he’s not lying, you were, weren’t you?

    *

    That scientific enough for you?

    At least it’s getting back to the actual issue at hand…

  51. #51 jakerman
    February 7, 2011

    >*I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50, No takers.*

    That is because in your context Rog, we are very interested in asking you about the topic of this thread, and urging you to grow a pair and apologizes.

    So how about it Rog, can you admit to your [unfair treatment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791) of Gavin?

  52. #52 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    >qualified engineers are entitled to join the professional society of registered engineers

    Look tallbloke, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about how you should be addressed but at the risk of more chippery from you just what UK society of engineers are you referring to, double E? (i.e. the IET), Imech?, civil ? and then the various other bodies such as the the energy institute, etc. The next question is at what level are you allowed to join at: professional or technician grade?

    Just accept what has happened on this thread, you got a freebie to a ‘conference’ and on this thread you shot your mouth off about it and people called you on that and then you tried to appeal to your own spurious scientific authority and when you were challenged on that you tried passing yourself off as something your not.

    D’you think its time to stop listening to your ego urging you on in digging a hole?

    Meanwhile I’ve gotta go out this morning to replace the bell arm on the BS detector. Its got worn out from the alarm going off every 30 seconds on this thread.

  53. #53 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2011

    [Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227927).

    For what it’s worth, [my comment at #243](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227391), about “actual data and science”, was directed to GSW.

    However, as you have raised the matter of your link in the same paragraph as the word “science”, perhaps you’d care to dissect this exchange on that thread:

    Olavi says:

    December 25, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    Have you considered, that collapse of thermosphere has made changes to the whole atmosphere? Radiation works as a soundwave, the longer wave the easier it penetrates all barriers. So if atmosphere shrink’s down longwave IR goes easier through. At the same time density change in atmosphere makes differences to lower atmosphere, like turnig jetstreams. And all this, because radiation spectra from the sun is diffrent and lack of solar wind?
    In this case, missing energy goes to heating atmosphere, because IR throws out more than Sun bring’s in. Simple.

    tallbloke says:

    December 26, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    Hi Olavi and welcome.

    Yes, it does seem that more energy seems to be going out than coming in recently. The shrinking thermosphere could be an important factor, and your explanation makes sense to me. Thanks.

  54. #54 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    Jeff Harvey –
    A few strawmen there, well done.. We will have to disagree.

    Time will tell of course.. As the hard economic reality is that China and India (and africa) will burn their coal. Whatever any of us do say, etc.

    To stray back on topic. I would be interested to hear what New Scientist and Fred Pearce have to say on ‘Pearcegate’
    Does anybody have any idea if they are going to give a response, Is Gavin going to pursue it, or will it just get forgotten about?

  55. #55 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    Barry,

    sensible to bring t back on topic. Thanks. My lack of discipline.

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2011

    Barry,

    Care to expand upon your ‘strawman’ comment?

    China’s economic miracle is an ecological disaster. More than 80% of its rivers are biologically dead and they are extracting groundwater at rates far exceeding rates of natural recharge. Many pollinators have been lost, songbird populations have never recovered from the 1970s, and the Gobi Desert is expanding rapidly. The ecological debt will have to be paid one day.

    As for climate change, aside from some pretty banal pieces you have contributed to WUWT (I assume you and the Barry Woods there are one and the same) what unique qualifications do you possess to make substantial contributions to any scientific field?

  57. #57 GWB's nemesis
    February 7, 2011

    Jeff (#257), not just an ecological catastrophe, but a social one too. I spent some time visiting rural areas of Sichuan this summer as part of the development of a project on ecosystem services. The picture is dreadful – village after village was left with just the elderly and children (often, but not always, a single child per household of course). The working age people had gone to the cities to make a living, but could not afford to take the kids. The result is a generation of dreadfully socially-isolated children, and an impending decline in agricultural productivity as the elderly pass away. The old are suffering dreadfully as they are having to continue to work, and then are in grinding poverty from the point at which they can no longer look after the land.

    There is a social catastrophe unfolding in China – strangely enough the economic models in which the west is so fascinated do not capture this issue.

  58. #58 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > “The Science is settled” is a favored strawman, frequently invoked by your ‘side’, without so much as a single primary sourced reference to any scientist, much less any kind of compelling argument that it is a widespread belief

    However, Vic Monckton has stated that the science is settled.

    Another case of projection.

  59. #59 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > Could it be us engineers are more genetically susceptiple to that terrible affliction, *Emeritus Syndrome, than scientists are?

    > Posted by: Jeremy C

    I suspect it is more that a good career as a qualified engineer doesn’t rely so heavily on citations and good papers in prestigious journals as it does with physicists etc.

    Therefore spouting garbage isn’t as detrimental to the career whilst good relations with big business helps your career.

    Note how the still publishing “skeptical” scientists are very moderate in their denial.

  60. #60 J Bowers
    February 7, 2011

    Re. 259 Wow

    Here’s one quote, for the record…

    “…And I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.”
    — Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation

    H/T to Citizen’s Challenge

  61. #61 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @253 “tried passing yourself off as something your not.”

    Jeremy, I’m IENG and you are a snob.

    I’m also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too.

    I should think you can guess my opinion about where you should relocate your BSc certificate.

  62. #62 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    257
    I agree China is a disaster. Part of that cause for the disaster is Green Technology ‘devasting the land for rare earths, for all those western windfarms..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    “This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1DHRpIhlE

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241872/EXCLUSIVE-Inside-Chinas-secret-toxic-unobtainium-mine.html

    I said part, the rest is a dash for economic growth, fueled by coal powered powerstations and proposed nuclear. (and some wing/solar power from all sources) which returns to my point, whatver we do, (you and I)

    I believe China, India and africa will burn all their coal. we are all in the West on the sidelines. They will ignore us. Neither of us may like it, nor agree with it, but there is nothing we can do to stop them.

    “Coal makes up 70 percent of China’s total primary energy consumption, and China is both the largest consumer and producer of coal in the world. China holds an estimated 114.5 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Russia and about 13 percent of the world’s total reserves.

    There are 27 provinces in China that produce coal. Northern China, especially Shanxi Province, contains most of China’s easily accessible coal and virtually all of the large state-owned mines. Coal from southern mines tends to be higher in sulfur and ash, and therefore unsuitable for many applications.

    In 2008, China consumed an estimated 3 billion short tons of coal, representing nearly 40 percent of the world total and a 129 percent increase since 2000. Coal consumption has been on the rise in China over the last eight years, reversing the decline seen from 1996 to 2000. More than 50 percent of China’s coal use in 2006 was in the non-electricity sectors, primarily in the industrial sector. The other 50 percent is used in the power sector.

    Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/China/Coal.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/pollution-carbon-emissions

    Perhaps so you no where I am coming from, I am sceptical of carbon trading, carbon offsets, sudsidies of clean energy (massive taxes)..

    If we want to save the planets, why is the banking system wetting itself with the thought of all those lovely bonuses, commisions and rent seeking and a multi trillion dollar carbon market and the governments with a carbon taxation idea that is ripe for expolitation/corruption.

    I bought a JP Morgan carbon offset for my car, just out of curiousity… and thought..

    why can’t saving the planet be ‘Not For Profit?

    That is where I’m most cynical.. Would you agree on carbon trading is NOT the solution, if for the sake of discussion, we both think we need a solution?

    If I heard some personally convincing evidence of AGW tommorrow (say 4C)

    I would be demanding solutions that are totally NOT what the politicians and bankers are doing.. Millions will be kept in poverty (fuel and otherwise).

    and by their own calculations the cost will be trilions for, an tiny tiny hundredth of a degree or 2 of temperature..

    Why not BAN flying for holiday.. Billions of the world poorest will never fly.. how can we say to them you can’t have electricity, whilst we are off sking/malidives, etc,etc (I haven’t flown for ten years)

    BAN all CARs over 200g/km Oh look the luxury car makers will whinge (I don’t care we would be saving the planet)

    For the record I have a sports car. Yet a lightwieght, modern engined one, is just as much fun and as CO2 friendly or better than a golf.. Think ariel atom, caterham, etc..

    The future for cars is light weight, shrt trem solutions like, clever lotus range extender 90Bhp gas turbine hybrid, etc not stuck in the technology rut of oil… One good thing in car design, and the irony is that they were forced to, is car manufacturers can now produce cars with 70-80-90mpg gallon, the very similar sized car a decade ago would get halve that on average.

    Oil prices (peak oil or not, a whole different discussion) are not going to get any cheaper.. A lower O2 emmiting car, is ALSOcheaper to run, more miles for the same amount of fuel.. I’m all for saving money

    Why not stop making cars/trucks at all for a year, think of all the co2 saved, jsut spare parts..

    Of course that is ridicuous, as we have now moved from science, into politics, economics, ethics, JOBS….

    Why, not ban private jets completely.. what right do an elite have to pollute by private jet than an african nomad?

    This is why I am climate cynical..

    It is not about sceptics/ denairs vs deltoid and similar blogs. We are all an irrelevance to what is happening in the world. Some environmenatlists are waking up to this and challenging things.

    In the UK the government is due to sell of the forests, thus no doubt someone somewhere will deny the public access, whilst making some money somewhere on mananging carbon….

    I have science qualifications BSC Chemistry and MSc computing, but for the argument above – ie let us for the sake of discussion assume 4C – and my cynicism, science is not required but a view on politics, economics, corruption and ethics, etc…

    (yes I do post at Watts Up, and Bishop Hill, make of that what you will)

  63. #63 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @254 Barnherd, at last, someone willing to debate science.

    Pity you fell at the low hurdle of spelling someone’s name correctly. A crime more heinous than my pidgin written French.

    Bet I’ve pulled more French women with my oral French than Lord Sidcup has though.

  64. #64 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    I think i have a comment stuck in a filter (more than 3 links?)

    Is it possible to agree that many of the proposed solutions from the bankers/politicians, ete are useless..

    If for the sake of argument that a solution is needed.

    Thus, I am cynical because the solutions do not solve a problem that is proposed and the solutions that might do something are ignored for political/economic reasons.

    We could be on common ground, as many who do believe in the urgent need for a solution, would also agree that the route of carbon trading, offsets, deals, etc. is the wrong one…

    IF I agreed with the need for a solution(for the sake of a discussion), I would agree with Hansen, ie a carbon tax…
    I also realise, politically, economically that this will never happen.

  65. #65 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    Wow @ 260.

    Yes, I think that does express some of the problem.

    Tallbloke,

    >*Jeremy, I’m IENG and you are a snob*

    You can call me a snob but you are still misrepresenting yourself as IENG aint C.Eng and its for a reason as you have demonstrated as per the following:

    >*I’m also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too.*

    You haven’t demonstrated that at anytime during this thread.

    >*I should think you can guess my opinion about where you should relocate your BSc certificate.*

    Temper! How about instead you display some scientific understanding and also some undertsanding of why engineering is just not knowledge but thinking as well.

  66. #66 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @265 Ah, so IENG isn’t good enough either. Your snobbery is complete.

    “You haven’t demonstrated that at anytime during this thread.”

    Haven’t had the chance. Whenever I’ve tried I get told my only business here is to issue a groveling apology to the man who thinks skeptics only utter the criticisms they have about the science because of their preconceived policy positions.

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2011

    Tallbloke writes:

    *Jeremy, I’m IENG and you are a snob. I’m also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too*

    This is absolute tripe. I have a PhD (in Population Ecology), have >100 papers in the scientific literature and almost 2,000 citations, was a former editor at Nature, and I still very much defer to the expertise of climate scientists who know a lot more about the field than I do or ever will. If you have any acumen you’d try and publish your ‘theories’ in the peer-reviewed literature than parading your ignorance on web sites like this one. Your scientific ‘views’ don’t cut any ice here, I am afraid. These views, like those of Barry’s and other rank laymen, go against those of the vast majority of thoe scientists doing the research, attending the relevant conferences and publishing in the empirical literature.

    The bottom line is you are no better qualified to assess the validity of ‘scientific theories’ than anyone else lacking qualifications in climate science. The difference is that Jeremy is wise enough to support the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists. Most scientists, like myself, is out on a limb.

  68. #68 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > If for the sake of argument that a solution is needed.

    > Thus, I am cynical because the solutions do not solve a problem that is proposed and the solutions that might do something are ignored for political/economic reasons.

    That second para doesn’t follow on, there’s not predicate assertion that requires a “Thus”. Your statement is very much of a line with:

    “If we need to move to another city. Thus I think we should wear beige”.

    You also seem to have nothing but negativity.

    One of the solutions is: stop funding fossil fuels to the tune of 1/2 trillion a year.

    Another solution is: sunbidise the nascent renewable market to increase uptake and let the economies of scale kick in as happened with fossil fuel and nuclear industries when they were similarly new.

    Another solution is: reduce wasted energy.

    All three are being promoted actively in the face of great opposition (see Desmog blog for many examples).

    Why will they not work?

    And, to seed this back to Calum’s point of view regarding the denialist fear of democracy being suspended, here’s a denier who thinks that democracy is the problem (hence WANTS its suspension).

    I wonder what this datapoint does to that thesis?

  69. #69 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2011

    I should have said that your views are way out on a limb, TB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stand corrected (bloody thing deleted part of my last senetence)! The bottom line is that I would like to know how many of your ‘theories’ are published in scientific journals.

    A simple answer will suffice.

  70. #70 barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    climategate was about a small group of scientists NOT all scientists.

    A medical parallel – cancer reaserch scandal, with refusing to share data, etc, I think you will get the analogy.

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/data-availability-cancer-climate/

    Could someone drag my comment out of the filter, as it explains to Jeff where I am coming from, we could probably agree about a lot of things, if we both got over our pre-conceptions of each other..

    It does not require science qulaifications to realise that solar farms in the UK (vs Africa, etc) are a scandal awaiting to happen. (I gave mine, in the post stuck in the fiter)

    Even in spain they have just caught solar panels generating between midnight and 7am, of course on a cloudy day, fire up those diesal generators, to get your guaranteed income as well. Green energy subsidies are disapearing across Europe…

  71. #71 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @260 Wow:

    Looked at from another perspective it could be that engineers are freer to give their honest opinion than the members of the self policed parade who have to toe the line with biased journal editors and the reviewers they are leaned on to use.

    Consider that we have documentary evidence of this before replying. Also consider the substance of the Institute of Physics submission to the Parliamentary committee charged with studying that evidence.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

    And before assailing me with crap about the members of the panel which drafted that submission, be warned in advance that slurs against them are easily refuted by reference to the Institute of Physics statement following the outcry from the alarmist contingent, and the personal statements of members of that advisory panel.

  72. #72 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @267
    Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

  73. #73 Dave R
    February 7, 2011

    [Tallkook](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3230056):
    >with biased journal editors

    Go to the open thread and provide a list of papers you believe have been unfairly rejected.

    On this thread, instead trying to derail it with more off-topic nonsense, answer the pertinent questions that you have been asked, [for example](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161):

    >Why did you say that you had given Pearce a “a quick praisee” of Schmidt’s email – which ‘praisee’ clearly wasn’t accurate – when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt’s actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

    >McIntyre isn’t lying, is he?

    >But if he’s not lying, you were, weren’t you?

  74. #74 chek
    February 7, 2011

    Tallcrank – [in comment #251 you were asked by Zibethicus:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161)
    “How about this: Why did you say that you had given Pearce a “a quick praisee” of Schmidt’s email – which ‘praisee’ clearly wasn’t accurate – when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt’s actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

    McIntyre isn’t lying, is he?

    But if he’s not lying, you were, weren’t you”?

    Perhaps you’d care to pick the logical fallacies out of your own twisted story before pointing out the mote in the eyes of others and obscuring the point of this thread.

  75. #75 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    272

    I would qualify what tallbloke is saying

    ‘climate science’ I percieve is too immature to have a voice of authority, ie many disagree within the IPCC consensus….

    Yet, I would agee, with a voice of authority, in this context…

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/7/taxonomy.html
    “there exists an established body of what I call prevailing scientific opinion.”

    as there is undoubtly scientfic voice of authority, in many aspect of science. ie prevailing accepted theories.

    but, on the issue of attribution of man made CO2 being a current primary driver of climate, in ‘climate science’ as we have IPCC projections of temps that vary by 600%. (which we are observed to be under) and new things being learnt every day, solar, oceans, landuse, vegetation, etc,etc

    we also have ‘most likely’ type statements, that the IAC say were overstated in their review of IPCC statements.

    ‘climate science’ I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

  76. #76 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @275 spell my name correctly, apologise for calling me a crank, and I’ll answer your question.

    Otherwise it’s sex and travel for you.

  77. #77 John
    February 7, 2011

    hahahahaha

  78. #78 John
    February 7, 2011

    >’climate science’ I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

    And I would argue that when a majority of scientists in the field of either climatology or earth sciences accept a prevailing theory there is a voice of authority, regardless as to how many politically motivated engineers machinists, dotty peers or fake physics majors dispute it.

    Any rational person would look at my flawless argument and agree.

  79. #79 chek
    February 7, 2011

    @275 – You’re really not in a position to demand conditions especially that which for most folk would be common decency – i.e. the truth.

    Plus, in view of your by now customary evasive and weaseling response, I think I’ll get a better understanding when Deep Climate pulls together all the threads regarding the Lisbon circus, no doubt including your own minor part.

  80. #80 John
    February 7, 2011

    I would also argue that when a particular group starts applying loaded labels to themselves like “dissenters” it becomes clear that they don’t just perceive themselves as having a different opinion, they perceive themselves as fearless contrarian rebels and not driven by (shock) a desire to find truth through science.

  81. #81 J Bowers
    February 7, 2011

    Re 273 Tallbloke — “@267 Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.”

    Strangely enough, you’re the one using the most argument from authority here.

    As has been suggested, publish. Ryan O’Donnell and Jeff Id did so on Antarctica, so why not you?

  82. #82 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    281

    I would prefer ‘facts through science’ – not ‘truths through science’ ;)

  83. #83 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @280

    common decency? You don’t show enough of that to merit any serious response.

    So you’ve lost interest in what you were making a big beef about a few minutes ago?

    OK.

  84. #84 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

    And isn’t “I’m an engineer” argument from authority (with the added bonus of being a fallacious authority)?

  85. #85 Rog Tallbloke
    February 7, 2011

    @282
    Not ready yet. Working on this paper at the moment.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/47023810v8100nk0/

    My hunch is that once we are able to predict solar activity levels well, a lot more interest will be taken in its effects on atmospheric chemistry, affecting sea surface biology, affecting cloud nucleation, and thus ocean heat content. OHC is the biggest driver of climate(s) on Earth, and the best metric for understanding it.

    And the Sun is the biggest factor affecting OHC.

    So I’m giving up this convo for now to do some more on that, entertaining though this diversion has been.

    Bye for now.

  86. #86 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    If anybody else on this site uses the I’m-an-engineer-argument-from-authority once more i will take them out the back of the school dunnies and beat them senseless with a dead sheep. Good grief!

  87. #87 Hank Roberts
    February 7, 2011

    How about this:

    Why did you say that you had given Pearce a “a quick praisee” of Schmidt’s email – which ‘praisee’ clearly wasn’t accurate – when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt’s actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

    How many paragraphs did you have? Did you show him both?

  88. #88 Barry Woods
    February 7, 2011

    oops.. thanks Tim.
    263 was a bit of a polemic wasn’t it,
    sorry for not making it more concise and shorter..
    Time for me to disappear now, school pick up time and ballet (my 6 year old, not me!)

  89. #89 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    Tallbloke @ 286

    Huh!

    The abstract you linked to sets out that the paper is about the effect orbiting bodies could have on the internal mechanisms of stars such as the sun.

    How the heck do you get a link from that to measuring solar levels at the earth environment boundary and then observing the effect of solar actvity levels on the earth’s environment???

  90. #90 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > Yet, I would agee, with a voice of authority, in this context…

    > bishophill.squarespace.com

    Ah, another fallacious authority. He’s not a bishop, you know.

    > but, on the issue of attribution of man made CO2 being a current primary driver of climate, in ‘climate science’ as we have IPCC projections of temps that vary by 600%.

    It doesn’t matter if there is a 600% range.

    2C-4.5C per doubling (not 600% btw), but if that works out to 0.8C in the median warming when all other contributions is less than 0.2C, then even taking the worst/best case to view the human contribution in the lowest possible light, you still have “man made CO2 is the current primary driver of climate”.

  91. #91 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > Looked at from another perspective it could be that engineers are freer to give their honest opinion

    But why does such honest opinion require so many lies, Rog? Or, if not lies, then they are such humongous mistakes that any validity of their other opinions must be in serious question.

    Looked at another perspective, it could be that some engineers fear losing their jobs.

  92. #92 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > Consider that we have documentary evidence of this before replying.

    We do?

    Where?

    PS have you read Merchants of Doubt? Or the lies about funding a “skeptic” who stood before congress made? We have plenty of documentary evidence that the same arguments were made to keep kleptocrats in money whilst they hid the dangers from their consumers.

  93. #93 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2011

    [Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3229769).

    Pity you fell at the low hurdle of spelling someone’s name correctly.

    It seems to have passed over your head that I’ve used that spelling several times now – deliberately. Why do you think that is?

    And what is even more precious is that you’re the guy who patently can’t spell “précis”.

    But moving to matters of science, I am still curious to know if you continue to stand by [your comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228657) that “Yes, it does seem that more energy seems to be going out [of the atmosphere] than coming in recently”.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    Barry keeps on giving (bullshit)

    > we also have ‘most likely’ type statements, that the IAC say were overstated in their review of IPCC statements.

    IAC being a voice of authority makes this:

    > ‘climate science’ I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

    rather ironic.

    And this:

    > climategate was about a small group of scientists NOT all scientists.

    climategate was smoke and mirrors. That they had to butcher 0.3% of the emails and (which brings us nicely to the point of this thread) MISREPRESENT the statements to cast them in a deliberately incorrect light, it was more about how the self-proclaimed “skeptics” were nothing of the sort, since they showed no skepticism of the claims on the contents of the emails.

  95. #95 Wow
    February 7, 2011

    > It does not require science qulaifications to realise that solar farms in the UK (vs Africa, etc) are a scandal awaiting to happen.

    It does require mind reading skills to know what the heck you’re on about with “scandal”.

    Do you think that MPs will be found Rog-ering the scaffolding? Or will the solar panels paint a naughty picture from goatse into space?

  96. #96 Deep Climate
    February 7, 2011

    Update 4?

    http://deepclimate.org/2011/02/07/post-normal-meltdown-in-lisbon-part-1/

    But the naivete and gullibility do not end there, for Pearce missed the truly fascinating part of the whole story. “Tallbloke’s” passing around of the email he wasn’t even supposed to have was not just a supremely ironic coda to a workshop ostensibly dedicated to building trust and reconciliation (a circumstance which seems to have completely eluded the befuddled Pearce). Somehow the fringe blogger and WUWT regular managed to forge a connection between a highly respected science philosopher and the contrarian blogosphere, and then put himself in the inner circle planning the resulting workshop a year later, providing a fascinating insight into this misbegotten enterprise.

  97. #97 Ian Forrester
    February 7, 2011

    Tallcrank:

    Not ready yet. Working on this paper at the moment.

    Yes, we know you are going to claim “it’s the ether that done it and all the calculations on area of the oceans are wrong because they used pi=3.14…. instead of 4″.

    What a crank this idiot is, no wonder he gets no respect here, he doesn’t deserve it. Is this how all graduates of history and philosophy of science behave? Shameful.

  98. #98 P. Lewis
    February 7, 2011

    Apologies if the quick scan I made above didn’t pick this up, but it seems the “Pearce article” has been amended:

    who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. [Gavin Schmidt has asked us to clarify his reasons for not attending: see the bottom of this post.]

    and Gavin’s e-mail contents added at the end.

    No mention of whether FP actually saw or did not see the e-mail before the piece was published.

  99. #99 Jeremy C
    February 7, 2011

    Deep climate,

    Thanks for the link to your thread on Lisbon.

    Reading it just demonstrated for that the deniers never quit. They will shamelessly seize any opportunity to further their ideological and ego driven agenda. I found the the quotes you used quite interesting in the thought they are putting into controlling the language used to talk about AGW, climate science and science in general. Its much more subtle than anything MCarthy ever used and straight out of the warnings in the novel 1984.

    These people will stop at nothing and I’m beginning to wonder if monckton is just a diversion and we are paying too much attention to the wrong target?

  100. #100 MapleLeaf
    February 7, 2011

    Thanks P. Lewis. Only took them four days and still no apology.

    They should also correct the part about McIntyre being a ‘statistician”.

    Jeremy C @300– you could be right, who do you think we should be paying attention too? (Certainly not Roger, Barry and GSW et al.).

Current ye@r *