Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature algorithm seems to work quite well, with coverage by the Economist, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the London Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, US News and World Report, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Independent and CNN.
Here is the BEST algorithm:
- State that "reported global warming may be biased by poor station quality".
- Collect funding from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.
- Make the utterly predictable finding that warming is not a product of poor measurement.
- Brief reporters.
If only I had used the BEST algorithm, then my own analysis would be in all the papers.
You may have heard this joke before: Q: What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? A: A used car salesman knows when he's lying.
Decide for yourself which of the following are more like the computer salesman and which more like computer salesman.
Earlier Anthony Watts said: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."
He's not accepting their results because 1. they haven't passed peer review (yes, that's hypocrisy) and 2. they used a 60 year period instead of 30 years. Trouble is, BEST can easily recalculate and show that a 30 year period gives the same results, and when the results are published in a journal, Watts won't have a leg to stand on.
James Delingpole has taken a different approach:
In the first half of his piece, Professor Muller sets up his straw man. He does so by ascribing to "skeptics" views that they don't actually hold. Their case, he pretends for the sake of his wafer-thin argument, rests on the idea that the last century's land-based temperature data sets are so hopelessly corrupt that they have created the illusion of global warming where none actually exists.
No it doesn't. It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend - emerging, as it has been, from a widely known phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age.
Compare with one James Delingpole, just last year:
Global Warming: is it even happening?
Check out this magisterial report by our old friends Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and judge for yourself. In brief: the surface temperature records are such a mess that they simply can't be trusted.
Politics
Comments
Excuse me, I was too busy moving those goalposts way over there to hear you. What were you saying again?
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | October 22, 2011 1:07 PM
Thanks for that link to Delingpole's previous nonsense. I glanced at his latest opus and thought it cast a rather different slant to his normal lies.
For those interested, there is more on Delingpole at RationalWiki. Also good for a laugh is his dissection of peer-review. Aside from not understanding anything at all, he lists "Scientific American" as a peer-reviewed journal.
Posted by: hinschelwood | October 22, 2011 1:12 PM
Gangsters can't be shamed and there's nothing to be gained by participating in the mummery of a "discussion" with them.
As Groucho said in Duck Soup, "Begone! And never darken my towels again."
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | October 22, 2011 1:21 PM
Delingpole is obviously an expert in scientific issues. After all, he has published only four fewer scientific articles than Tim Ball, Canada's first climate PhD.
Posted by: Lurker | October 22, 2011 1:33 PM
When Delingpole writes that "professor Muller sets up his straw man", I think that he actually means that Muller sets up a faithful image of Delingpole himself.
Posted by: Andy S | October 22, 2011 1:44 PM
“The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.”
A. Watts 2011
“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.”
A. Watts 2010
First line of the summary in the paper Delingpole liked so much. Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?
Watts was a co-author on Fall et al and contributed to BEST, both of which utterly falsify the SPPI nonsense. But he won't retract or correct it, that's how they roll.
Posted by: Phil Clarke | October 22, 2011 2:20 PM
"Decide for yourself which of the following are more like the computer salesman and which more like computer salesman."
Well, I suspect both of them are so delusional that they really don't know that:-
They can't stop lying;
They keep contradicting themselves.
So Watts is more like the computer salesman ... and Delingpole is also more like the computer salesman!
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 22, 2011 2:55 PM
The thread following the article in The Independent on this had deniers flocking in to say that of course Muller wasn't really a skeptic to start with. There is literally no study, no evidence, no analysis by anyone who isn't a star denier, or doesn't remain one in the face of evidence, that will ever be accepted by these lunatics.
Posted by: David Horton | October 22, 2011 3:37 PM
Well I for one am interested to see what eventuates when Prof Muller is called to testify before Congress again. Willl the usual suspects throw him under a bus, a la Delingpole, or will they actually listen?
Posted by: Johnny-boy | October 22, 2011 4:09 PM
re: 10 of course, one might mention: old Muller article.
Posted by: Johbn Mashey | October 22, 2011 4:11 PM
Eh, isn't that really the Hamster Wheel algorithm?
Posted by: Martin Vermeer | October 22, 2011 4:12 PM
"No worries, down maybe, but not out. I still have the upper hand, they just don’t know what I know at this point. – Anthony”
I'd surmise that what Anthony 'knows' that remains unknown to anyone else could be engraved on the head of a pin with a hockey stick.
Posted by: chek | October 22, 2011 5:00 PM
Those moving goalposts are as unexpected as a Bolt from outta the blue.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 22, 2011 5:22 PM
I imagine follow up funding from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation could be in doubt. Adulation and glory from people Pr. Muller has previously praised as heroes like A.W. and McI will be in doubt too.
Whilst Muller's practice of scientific scepticism seems praiseworthy it might have helped if he'd practiced it prior to voicing support for those heroes... or maybe not. The way this has played out - with the high priests of climate disbelief so eager to find a place amongst the like minded on BEST's comfortable plush rug, the results from having it pulled out from under them has to be more unbalancing than if they'd been circling it warily.
Posted by: Ken Fabos | October 22, 2011 5:57 PM
Isn't this the sort of thing that The Australian's 'Cut and Paste' likes to feature, juxtaposed anomalies highlighting some supposed slip up on climate change. No wait, the quotes are actually in context and reflect real hypocrisy.
Posted by: Acacia | October 22, 2011 6:26 PM
Just to add to the facts about how disingenuous Delingpole is, he was interviewed by Paul Nurse for a TV documentary about attacks on science and he was going on about how science should be open and done on the internet. Now he has got that, he has laid into Muller. In fact many skeptics are going on about the fact that Mullers paper hasn't been peer reviewed yet, these are the people that say peer review can't be trusted and that results and methods should be open for all to see.
Posted by: Paul D | October 22, 2011 6:42 PM
Delingpoles interview with Paul Nurse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0
His views about how science should be conducted is about 4 minutes in.
Posted by: Paul D | October 22, 2011 6:51 PM
You know how some names become part of the language (Boycott, Quisling, etc.)?
Can I suggest delingpole as shorthand for "arrogant, delusional, ignorant, mendacious, offensive, science-denying twerp"?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 22, 2011 7:57 PM
@ TrueSceptic - see also monckton.
Posted by: SteveC | October 22, 2011 8:39 PM
Delingpole's interview with Sir Paul was just embarrassing.....for Delingpole. I mean, he showed himself to be just a complete twit. You can almost see through Sir Paul's overt politeness, the thought cloud above his head saying "oh my god I'm talking to an idiot".
Posted by: Mikem | October 22, 2011 9:18 PM
Where were all those mainstream media outlets when 255 members of the National Academy of Science came out with a strong statement on climate change a year or two ago?
Where was the coverage of the Bloomberg article exposing all the dirty tricks of the Koch brothers? Oh, right, they were too pre-occupied with the Solyndra story to ever notice 100 years of crony capitalism with the fossil fuel industry.
How many of them have covered the economics study showing that coal does more damage than it's worth? Like 17 cents/kWh as a conservative estimate.
I'm sure other readers can think of numerous other omissions by MSM.
Posted by: sailrick | October 22, 2011 9:36 PM
@Ken Fabos, #14: That's what I thought Ian Plimer was doing when he released a book which was indistinguishable from satire. Plimer still hasn't done the rug-pulling yet, though, so maybe his book wasn't satire, just arrant nonsense?
Posted by: Vince whirlwind | October 22, 2011 10:12 PM
.5. Acquire undeserved credibility as legitimate judges of climate science.
.6. Publish followup study supporting Muller's pet "it's the Atlantic cycle" theory or similar.
.7. Brief reporters.
Posted by: Dave R | October 22, 2011 11:04 PM
TrueSceptic @19
The podcast of the British Humanist Association, The Pod Delusion has been using "Dellingpole" as an insult as in referring to someone as "what a Dellingpole" for some time now.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | October 23, 2011 12:12 AM
"One Delingpole" sounds to me like it should represent a standard international unit of something...arrant nonsense, perhaps? Disinformation? Self-fluffery? The half-life of one's memories of one's earlier assertions that are inconsistent with current assertions but conveniently decayed to a state of non-recollection?
Where's Zibethicus when needed? ;-)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 23, 2011 1:46 AM
I fear that it may be another case of skeptic-laundering, where a couple of skeptics are mixed into a peer-reviewed/submitted article's author list, with the rest of the authors being mainstream climate scientists; out the other end, after publication, the skeptics are now considered---by the media machine---as "mainstream climate scientists", because the article is part of mainstream climate science.
Then said ex-skeptics try on their shiny new "mainstream climate scientist" attire, and publish more of their usual ding-bat theories, safe in the knowledge they can point back to the mainstream climate science article as evidence that they are indeed mainstream. Just skeptical, that's all...
Dirty money in, clean money out. That's the trick.
Posted by: Donald Oats | October 23, 2011 2:16 AM
Delling , Divison Definition: difference in opinion
Pole,.... pile , wooden, a thing up your arse
"I think you may have Dellingpole", The medical opinion that you may have a broomstick up your arse but then again it may be your head"
Posted by: john byatt | October 23, 2011 3:48 AM
Well, I recall there was a proposal to make an "Albrechtsen" the amount of time before the standard wingnut line on anything moves from the US blogosphere to the Australian one. (Personally, I think a "Bolt" would do perfectly well, provided that it's accompanied with accusations of GroupThink against "Leftists".)
Posted by: Ezzthetic | October 23, 2011 4:28 AM
and especially if it sits within a post full of whining self-pitying vixtim-playing where he lets everyone know that elites are trying to silence him and are obsessing over his personal life by telling the truth against him.
Perhaps that could be called a "LOLbolt".
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| October 23, 2011 5:50 AM
19 SteveC,
Yes, but there are other Moncktons so it would be unfair on the others. AFAIK there is/has been only one well known Delingpole so that doesn't arise, and in any case, doesn't it sound like a name that should have a meaning?
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 23, 2011 7:02 AM
20 Mikem,
Delingpole claims that the discussion went on for hours and the bits shown were selected to make him look bad. I'd love to see the whole thing.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 23, 2011 7:05 AM
24 MA,
I see someone beat me to it, but that's good. :)
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 23, 2011 7:09 AM
25 Lotharsson,
Well, that's weird. I nearly added that to my comment. Yes, much like a Scoville is a unit of chili heat, a Delinpole is a unit of arrogance/delusion/ignorance/etc.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | October 23, 2011 7:17 AM
I wouldn't have thought it possible, but Delingpole has replaced Tim Ball as my favourite kook-hero.
Posted by: Lurker | October 23, 2011 8:56 AM
Umm...
The Standard Unit of climate change denial is the 'clie'.
Someone who deals in 'em is, of course, a 'cliar'.
You can measure them in clie-packets named after your favourite denier of choice, I guess.
Example - a little lie caused by refusing to read relevant papers might be a 'delingtwig'. A catenated bundle of delingtwigs (say a full article worth) makes a delingpole.
But then they also come in 'bolts' and even 'watts' - not to mention 'greigs' and 'megagreigs'.
Personally, ever since I found that the denier Lubos Motl was claiming to be "Abbe Hyupsing Qong and I came from the planet called Zetor here" (http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/) he went straight to the top of my own favourites. He adds, for our elucidation; "All of us had to prepare special masks to look just as the people living on the Earth. So whenever you meet me at the Department of Physics and Astronomy in New Jersey or at NASA or our spaceship, you will see a person looking precisely as the terresterial human beings. My mask is able to change its gender so I can look both as a girl and as a boy." (ibid.)
Needless to say, Dr Motl/Abbe Qong has some very decided opinions on the subjects of Einstein and climate change. It is very considerate of him/her to visit our mundane little orbit to let us in on all these revelations, which rival Monckton's story of The Great Chinese Naval Arctic Expedition of 1421, which supposedly found a 'largely ice-free' North Pole.
(We have Monckton's own word for that, so don't scoff.)
The prodigious efforts of Dr Motl/Abbe Qong in, umm, advancing interplanetary understanding ought to be rewarded and remembered, it seems to me, and I therefore like to think of the basic Earth unit of multiples of clies as a 'zetor'.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Zibethicus | October 23, 2011 9:30 AM
Zetor is definitely a make of Tractor. I know I had one once. It broke down constantly, never ran right, made a lot of noise and never did any real work.
Posted by: itsyourself | October 23, 2011 10:58 AM
Delingpole: a game played on a tilted and distorted field, in which the goalposts are moved rapidly by the defensive team.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | October 23, 2011 2:47 PM
I've wanted to have a unit of suffering named after Richard Lindzen -- the skeptical scientist who obviously should know better. 1 lindzen would be the same number of people who died in the Holocaust. The question to pose to deniers, then, is how many lindzens it would take for them to change their tune.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis | October 23, 2011 4:06 PM
Speaking of Bolt, he has been strangely silent on the latest news from the Berkley Earth people. In fact, our favourite lurking sceptics on Deltoid have been strangely silent too.
The scientific conspiracy to fudge global temperature data has now grown so massive that it even engulfs sceptical scientists previously endorsed by sceptical non-scientists. It appears that only a few intrepid Galileos out there on the web really know the truth.
Strange world out there......
Posted by: Mikem | October 23, 2011 8:14 PM
I think that we may be up the Delingpole, time running out
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/
Posted by: john byatt | October 23, 2011 8:26 PM
If we were to create International Standard Units of Stupidity and Malice, how would we rank Albrechtsen, Jones, Bolt, Monckton and Delingpole in the hierarchy? E.g. how many Albrechtsens make a Bolt? Is it ten Bolts to the Monckton? Can I get a couple of Jones change for this Delingpole? And surely the ultimate unit must be a Murdoch?
Just spent the weekend at the inaugural Womad Earth Station in the Adelaide Hills. 3 whole days of the the Science from actual scientists and nary a Wing Nut in sight! Joy! I hope they intend to pod or webcast a lot of the material that was recorded.
Posted by: bill | October 23, 2011 9:04 PM
"Is it ten Bolts to the Monckton?"
No, that would be overly logical. It would need to something like 6.5 or - better still - pi Bolts to the Monckton.
Posted by: Lurker | October 24, 2011 1:46 AM
Good point, Lurker! So it's π Bolts to the Monckton unless the IPCC agrees, and √2 Albrechtsens in a Jones...
Posted by: bill | October 24, 2011 2:09 AM
I wouldn't touch this with a delingpole.
Posted by: Martin Vermeer | October 24, 2011 4:59 AM
Can someone do the maths, perhaps similar to https://www.neatoshop.com/product/Money-is-the-Root-of-All-Evil ?
Posted by: Andrew Strang | October 24, 2011 5:22 AM
36: "Zetor is definitely a make of Tractor. I know I had one once. It broke down constantly, never ran right, made a lot of noise and never did any real work."
So that's why Motl/Qong's flying saucer only goes in circles, and always to the Right.
It runs on tractor beams...
Posted by: Zibethicus | October 24, 2011 5:31 AM
.7. Brief reporters. Posted by: Dave R | Oct"
He did not wait for the follow up it is in paper number 4, see last paragraph of summary...
.
Posted by: john byatt | October 24, 2011 6:57 AM
And i Delingpoles to the Bolt - because (a) it's all about him, (b) complexity makes their head spin, and (c) as everyone knows any two "skeptics" will make orthogonal arguments to each other ... and applying a third will result in two arguments facing completely opposite directions...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 24, 2011 7:00 AM
Let's not forget Delingpole's own claim as an "interpreter of interpretations" because he doesn't read the scientific literature, but he does read those who interpret it and that gives him license to interpret their interpretations (that should be in the interview with Sir Paul Nurse, linked in one of the comments above).
How you manage to judge someone's interpretation of an original source without actually reading the original source itself is beyond me, mind you, but I suppose they teach you that at journalism school (I sure didn't learn how to do that in the sciences...that'd be a useful skill as it would free up lots of my time).
Posted by: Daniel J. Andrews | October 24, 2011 11:39 AM
Revised talking-points distribution delayed over the weekend?
I've always wished someone would turn 'global warming denial bingo' into a tracking study: where each new talking point appears first; how long it takes for the echos to start.
Call it "global warming denial sonar"
Posted by: Hank Roberts | October 24, 2011 12:41 PM
“The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.”
A. Watts 2011
“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.”
A. Watts 2010
To the above, I'd add:
WUWT, posted today: "Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend"
Posted by: MMM | October 24, 2011 2:51 PM
After looking at the footage of the debate between Monbiot and Delingpole, I've suddenly realised that Delingpole dresses and sounds like a really annoying sixth-former.
It all makes sense now, the constant referrals to himself and his complete faith in his own world view. He's seventeen and three-quarters, and just a really irritating schoolboy.
Unfortunately, he won't grow out of it, but at least we know that he's a victim of his hormones, and not that he's simply a prat. Still time to go to journalism school...
Posted by: MikeB | October 24, 2011 4:45 PM
@51 MMM and don't forget : "“And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results." A. Watts, march 2011
Someone at Romm's suggested to bring back this citation everytime BEST is mentioned. I find this idea excellent.
Posted by: bratisla | October 24, 2011 6:57 PM
RealClimate has a dry sense of humour.
There's also some trenchant critique of Muller's spin on the meaning of the results and on some of his claims, and some initial skepticism (in the proper sense of the word) about the methodology behind the claim that the AMO affects global temperature on 2-5 year timescales more than ENSO.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 24, 2011 8:30 PM
I think you left out the most important step:
Posted by: vic | October 25, 2011 12:17 AM
Tamino is looking at the "AMO stronger influence than ENSO" paper, and in the first part of a two-parter, he thinks it has some issues.
He argues that:
a) some of the quoted standard errors are simply quite wrong;
b) the claim that AMO correlates more strongly than ENSO with land temperatures has not been tested by the published analysis;
c) it appears from the cross-correlations that land temperatures probably slightly lead AMO temperatures - and ENSO leads AMO by a realistic period - which suggests AMO is not causal for land temperatures and that if there is a causal relationship here it may be ENSO driving AMO.
I expect it will be interesting to see how this paper evolves prior to formal publication.
And as one commenter points out, to be ignored by denialists everywhere:
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 25, 2011 1:56 AM
@56 Lotharsson : I bet that, once flaws will be revealed by peer review process (as Tamino suspects), denialists will grab these reviews (even though "peer review process is corrupted" to shout "see ? SEE ? This study is flawed THEREFORE global warming is a ecololeftist conspiracy !"
If that doesn't happen, I accept to kiss Lord Monckton.
Posted by: bratisla | October 25, 2011 3:59 AM
Can we now expect that Muller et al will be subject to a blizzard of FOIAs? [Rhetorical question]
Posted by: Donald Oats | October 25, 2011 7:23 AM
Sorry, that's been known for a couple of years already as a 'trenberth'.
Posted by: Rick Bradford | October 25, 2011 8:21 AM
dunno, but i bet his inbox is full of flowers and rainbows and bile right now.
Posted by: ligne | October 25, 2011 8:29 AM
On the other hand, I doubt we will be able to hold back CO2 emissions, and I think that is a fact. Solar and Wind power won't contribute nearly enough to make a difference. Our only hope for bringing down CO2 while the world population continues to increase, is nuclear fusion. I realize this may not be feasible, but the billions being pumped into useless renewables would be better off spent on a solution that at least has the potential to make a difference.
Posted by: ben | October 25, 2011 11:07 AM
what's that, ben? it's too late to do anything? ooh, that's a breath of fresh air after all the "well maybe it is warming, but it's definitely not because of us" i've been hearing these past few days ;-)
Posted by: ligne | October 25, 2011 11:23 AM
It's now warmer than the MWP. So how can the warming trend be because of exiting the LIA?
Posted by: Wow | October 25, 2011 11:41 AM
bratisla, don't buy condoms yet
Posted by: Martin Vermeer | October 25, 2011 2:40 PM
Tim's fellow ScienceBlogger Ethan Siegel, who usually deals with cosmology, has a post up on the BEST project. The comments have been infested with deniers, evidently sent over from a denier blog. There's a need for more reality-based commenters to respond to the deniers.
Posted by: Mal Adapted | October 25, 2011 4:54 PM
ben:
And why, pray tell, is the world no longer in the Little Ice Age? Where is the vast "skeptical" science published in scientific journals explaining why the world is substantially warmer than the Little Ice Age?
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 25, 2011 5:23 PM
I did wonder where most of them had gone, because usually they'd be here...
Posted by: MikeB | October 25, 2011 6:03 PM
Yes, all the warming is just a reversion to the mean since the LIA of the mid-19th century. This obviously explains why most of the warming has occurred since 1980.
Posted by: Area Man | October 25, 2011 10:18 PM
The "emerging from the LIA" is the new parrot-like chant from these clowns.
Hilarious. Makes no sense whatsoever, on numerous counts.
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | October 26, 2011 12:34 AM
Clarification: The majority of surface temperature records are a mess and indeed cannot be trusted. This statement is true.
Posted by: Billy Bob Hall | October 26, 2011 12:56 AM
Perhaps I'm not reading the newspapers right, but I haven't noticed this BEST (non-)result making the rounds among Australian media, of late. I snuck a look at the Oz in the library today, and saw nothing on topic, just the usual imported Neo-Con rhetoric and yelling from the rooftops about censoring of freespeech, even as parts of the Australian are put behind a paywall - risible stuff. Free speech, so long as you can pay for it!
Anyway, easy to find stories on the BEST results at the BBC or at the Guardian websites, respectively. Honestly, our media is worse than some tinpot dictatorship's efforts.
Posted by: Donald Oats | October 26, 2011 7:20 AM
re: 69 return from LIA It's not new. SkS, #32 on the fixed list.
Posted by: John Mashey | October 26, 2011 9:11 AM
You almost have to like the sort of reporting that the denialist community is coming up with in the aftermath of the BEST reports. This one is a doozy of false reasoning and blatant tautological thinking.
http://oilprice.com/Environment/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-Debate-Finally-Over-Five-Questions-For-Richard-Muller.html
Posted by: spyder | October 26, 2011 5:06 PM
Oh dear, not, er, Best pleased, are you?
Well, I keep telling you but you won't listen, it's all over. Nobody believes any of that AGW twaddle anymore but as you chaps and chapettes obviously need an 'End of the World is Nigh' scenario in your lives (everyone's hobby is always incomprehensible to everyone else) I do try to help with some suggestions - not that I get much in the way of thanks!
However, did you know that some fearfully brainy cosmology swot has just discovered that the universe is not only expanding - heh, even I knew that! - but that it is hurtling away at an increasingly faster rate. If gets any faster we're all likely to lose our hats in the wind! It could be the end of the universe as we know it!
There, feeling better? Good, no need to thank me.
Posted by: David Duff | October 26, 2011 5:13 PM
Oh dear, you don't or won't comprehend the BEST results at all, do you?
Indeed. Your Deltoid hobby, for example ;-)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 26, 2011 5:23 PM
Uh, except Muller and the BEST team, of course... Oh, and all those other tedious people who believe in an evidence-based reality! How's the weather in Epistemic Closure World? How's that beloved Free Market™ treatin' ya?
Beyond that, Captain Skidmark is up to his usual standard of rambling incoherency.
Posted by: bill | October 26, 2011 6:09 PM
The more popular terminology is 'recovery' from the LIA. For maximum rhetorical power!
Posted by: barry | October 26, 2011 6:23 PM
Well David, if your suggestions were even remotely intelligent, then maybe you would get thanks.
So the BEST team headed by a sceptical scientist supported by Anthony Watts have confirmed that the temperature record indeed says exactly what climate scientists originally determined that it said. This is a real conundrum for sceptics like yourself which you can't quite wrap your head around, isn't it?
We are already seeing the emergence of the sceptical argument "umm, aaah, well, yeah we always said it was obviously warming, I mean, clearly it is, but the cause is not humans and industrialisation" to replace the "that temperature record is all lies!!" argument.
Gotta admit you sceptics are highly flexible creatures when it comes to putting forth an argument.
Posted by: Mikem | October 26, 2011 6:25 PM
I'm trying to think of a forum where David Duff's senseless garble would be appropriate.
"hat blowing off in the wind of galactic expansion"?
Is he insane or on drugs?
Posted by: Craig Thomas | October 26, 2011 6:28 PM
You can come here and make yourself feel better any time you like.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 26, 2011 6:31 PM
Definition for Duff:
Noun:
Seems about right.
Posted by: Rattus Norvegicus | October 26, 2011 9:21 PM
To add to that:
3) Duff [informal (British English)] - bad or useless, as by not working out or operating correctly; dud: (Collins)
4) Duff (beer): relentlessly promoted over-priced, tastless, poor quality fizz. (Simpsons)
Posted by: SteveC | October 26, 2011 9:36 PM
Pity that comments aren't enabled -
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/be-prudent-with-climate-claims/story-e6frgd0x-1226177730473
Pell wants less religion and more evidence in the global warming debate!
Posted by: KiwiInOz | October 27, 2011 1:17 AM
@82,If that's what he wants,then it's very decent of Pell to introduce himself ,then show himself the door....ah,if only! News Ltd is back like that shaggy dog that's found something old and dead to roll in.
Posted by: Nick | October 27, 2011 2:56 AM
Nick, that's an excellent metaphor - though I'm not sure whether Pell is the shaggy dog, and the Murdocracy the old dead thing, or the other way around.
Posted by: rhwombat | October 27, 2011 3:53 AM
Pell^fn1 speaks of climate science as a religion, and of the "religiously-held" views of AGW proponents. The ol' master of superstitious things^fn1 commenting upon scientifically validated claims as though they are mere superstition - sheer chutzpah, that!
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my science from the climate scientists who've spent a lifetime doing the climate science.
Fn1: Pell is better known as Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney (Australia).
Posted by: Donald Oats | October 27, 2011 4:30 AM
As an amateur Shakespeare buff I would remind you that in the 16th c. he and his company dismantled an entire theatre in north London in December/January and then dragged the timbers across the frozen Thames to rebuild it on the south bank. So of course neither I and anyone else is suggesting that earth temperatures do not change. Like a whore's drawers they go up and they go down, and in fact stasis for any length of time would be a real disaster. It's the 'A' in AGW the rest of us doubt. Sure, it has an effect but ... well, perhaps Best puts it best:
“The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”
Happy to go along with that, are you?
Posted by: David Duff | October 27, 2011 4:59 AM
Yes.
Or And.
Posted by: Wow | October 27, 2011 4:59 AM
Ah David, the Twilight Home for the Terminally Bewildered beckons...
Posted by: bill | October 27, 2011 5:08 AM
Odd thing to do when they could have merely waited until spring and ferried the timbers across the Thames by boat. Actually, I think that is what they did.
Posted by: lord_sidcup | October 27, 2011 5:16 AM
Although to be fair, it must be an impossible task to construct an internally consistent opinion from amongst the club mix mashup that comprises the ever-shifting kaleidoscope of self-contradictory denier talking points.
Compounded by the lack of ability to compare like-with-like.
Posted by: chek | October 27, 2011 5:54 AM
@ Dud:
No, because (probably not for the first time and certainly not the last) you failed to put that sentence in context. IOW you cherry-picked.
Posted by: SteveC | October 27, 2011 6:06 AM
82-85
Also posted this on the Open Thread but since it is mentioned here, you can get the full text of Pell's lecture (21 pages) via the GWPF website. I haven't read the full thing but a quick scan shows the usual guff, including Australia's most influential RC, with ease of access to politicians and the Australian's opinion pages bemoaning:
Posted by: lord_sidcup | October 27, 2011 6:08 AM
@ 92,to correct the fool Pell, Carter et als "succinctly stated case for the sceptics" has been exclusively noted by members of the Australian 'media and political class' because that's the audience for which it is intended. Apart from a succinct rebuttal or two,t's been ignored by the 'scientific class' and most of the public.
Posted by: Nick | October 27, 2011 6:34 AM
@ lord_sidcup:
Beg your pardon, m'lud, but it was December/January because:
a: They started immediately after Xmas when the ground landlord was absent, there were legal implications, and,
b: It was imperative to have the 'new' theatre built and ready in time for Spring and the opening of the new season.
The point being, of course, that the Thames was frozen solid which it has been on fairly frequent occasions in our history because the climate is in perpetual flux. Happily for them in their day, when it stopped freezing over there didn't have to put up with a bunch of exciteable adolescents leaping up and down crying "The end of the world is nigh and it's all the fault of the Catholics/Spanish/Jocks/Lord Burghley (delete to taste).
Posted by: David Duff | October 27, 2011 6:50 AM
He's obviously never heard the saying "People who live in glass houses..".
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 27, 2011 6:51 AM
No, the point being that it was cold.
Now, why was it cold? Why was it not as cold when the Thames DIDN'T freeze? What changed?
And, when you include all the known parameters and get a model that describes the freezing of the Thames well enough to plan for it, you have a model that predicts that our actions are causing unprecedented warming.
AGW.
You see, Duffer ol pal, the Thames doesn't freeze just because it feels like it. The climate doesn't change just because it's bored of the old climate. They change for reasons.
And one of those reasons is CO2 concentration.
Which we're increasing by our actions.
AGW is the natural result of the forces that make the climate what it is.
Posted by: Wow | October 27, 2011 7:03 AM
@94
I got my information from Wikipedia which cites a book by James Shapiro. Wiki isn't always reliable, but in this case there is a reference. The Thames was wider, shallower and slower flowing in the days before the embankments were built. Also, old London Bridge had small arches and acted as a partial barrage.
Anyway, your logic that human can't influence climate because climate changes without human incluence does not hold. The mechanism by which humans can change the climate is clearly set out in scientific literature.
Posted by: lord_sidcup | October 27, 2011 7:16 AM
With the recent furore surrounding the publicity around Muller's BEST [sic] project, and considering how hysterically frantic the denizens of WUWT and similar sites have been in their shifting of the goal-posts, I started to compile a table of Denialist fall-back stances on the reality of global warming. It's basically in the vein of Skeptical Science's responses to Denialist arguments, but where Skeptical Science lists and deconstructs Denialist arguments, this list is simply an approximate chronology of the contrarian anti-science meme-of-the-day.
I'd be curious to see people add to or modify this initial list, or any that follow. For ease of future reference, it'd be handy if people posted their own complete versions.
What I jotted down in 10 minutes:
Of course, that last is simply idle fancy that rusted-on denialists might actually ever admit to themselves that they were completely ignorant of the truth.
And then there's ocean acidification…
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 27, 2011 7:22 AM
The Thames was also substantially re-engineered in the early 19th Century with a new London Bridge and Embankment specifically to improve flow rate and deter freezing.
Which illustrates the importance of comparing like-with-like and not swallowing any random denier factoid that happens along by design from some malignant think tank that's ten times more intelligent than you, David Duff and knows what it's sucker clientele will readily buy into.
Posted by: chek | October 27, 2011 7:23 AM
@94: The point being, of course, that the Thames was frozen solid which it has been on fairly frequent occasions in our history because the climate is in perpetual flux.
The Thames was not frozen solid "fairly frequently", even when hydrological conditions favoured it (ie prior to the Embankment and London Bridge changes). It was thickly cover in ice only 24 times between 1400 and 1814 - a rate of once every seventeen winters.
I wouldn't call that frequent, but YMMV.
Posted by: FrankD | October 27, 2011 7:47 AM
@ Lord Sidcup: I beg pardon, m'lud, and throw myself on your mercy. 'Twas 6 years ago when I read Shapiro's book which relates the tale in detail and indeed you are right, it was ferried over because whilst London was snowbound the Thames that year was described as 'nigh frozen over', that is, unsafe for the passage of heavy goods. Alas, in mitigation I can only say that I put my memory down somewhere but I can't remember where!
@Check: Setting aside your charming remarks I am grateful for your information that the Thames was re-engineered and thus freezing has been averted in recent years. So nothing to do with global warming then!
Posted by: David Duff | October 27, 2011 8:02 AM
Dai, does this mean you'll correct those who believe that the Thames freezing is proof AGW doesn't happen, then?
Posted by: Wow | October 27, 2011 8:25 AM
Tell it to the judge.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 27, 2011 8:28 AM
Give me strength. No David, it's just another factor independent of climate to be taken into account before rushing to judgement as you are wont to do about AGW.
Posted by: chek | October 27, 2011 8:28 AM
Dave
mate,
Erm, ummmm.....
The Thames was wider, shallower in Shakespeare's day hence the water flowed much more slowly and so you know what that means......Yep, it froze just like the Serpentine froze in Hyde Park did during last winter because it is shallow, wide and hardly flows, while the Thames didn't freeze at all......
So Dave if you don't believe me then here's a challenge. I will meet you outside Thommies one Sat or Sun morning with a map of the Thames in London from Shakespeare's time and we will walk down past the Eye and the Tate Modern to Sam Wanamaker's heroic reconstruction of the Globe using the map to mark out the boundaries of the river as it was then compared with today.
Then Dave you can tell me if you will continue to stick to this denier meme about the Thames freezing over.
(BTW Did you catch Kevin Spacey's Richard III at the Old Vic this summer - magnificent production and incandescent performance by Spacey)
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 27, 2011 8:48 AM
Last night, the Daily Show aired an absolutely terrific segment on Richard Muller's report, and the way it's been covered in the media.
Posted by: Bruce Sharp | October 27, 2011 9:35 AM
THanks, Jeremy, but that has already been pointed out.
No, I pondered the expense of getting up to town to see Spacey but, truth be told, Dick III is not my favourite history play. The temptation for leading actors to ham it up is usually irrestistible. The play, I feel, is as lopsided as its 'hero', partly, I suppose to make the first of the Tudors as heroic as possible. BUt did you see the 'Henries' at The Globe? Terrific!
Back to (semi) serious matters, I came across this site which is fascinating to skim through for anyone interested British climate in the last two centuries:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/1850_1899.htm
In the meantime, I am preparing myself for lots more freezing winters, like last year, over the near future and if any of you lot even whisper the words Anthropological Global Warming I shall not be responsible for my actions!
Posted by: David Duff | October 27, 2011 4:01 PM
Y'know David, if you had any real curiosity you might have marvelled at how temperatures in Greenland were 10-15° warmer than here in the UK last winter.
Or perhaps wondered what was going on when trucking in snow was considered at the end of 2009 for the winter Olympics the year before when February 2010 temperatures were still at 44°F.
But then that might entail examining some of the rubbish misinformation you prefer to believe about what AGW means, in order to be able to deny it.
Posted by: chek | October 27, 2011 4:53 PM
Thanks Bruce @#105, I'd certainly like to see that - but my Aussie IP address means I can' watch the piece!
Posted by: bill | October 27, 2011 5:49 PM
Who needs science when you have such a wit and can reference Shakespeare?
It was cold in England in the early 1600's? Who knew? Surely this will end the scam!
Posted by: John | October 27, 2011 6:47 PM
Dave, I see from your comment about "ham" that you didn't see Spacey. Re the Globe, I had to book a month ahead to stand for MAAN this summer, it was much better when you could just turn up on the night.
I'm curious about your switch to the topic of british weather once the Thames freeze meme you parroted was so easily swept aside. My curiosity is why did you put the Thames freeze up in the first place, did you actually think it was true or did you think we would fall for it? Why didn't you investigate it yourself? If you did believe it to be true why aren't you now questioning the surrounds of your faith/ideology especially as an example supposedly buttressing your worldview was flicked away so easily by those you don't consider your equal?
I can understand you not being responsible for your actions when hearing the words 'Anthropological Global Warming' as having your worldview continually dissolved by reason and logic must stretch your personality to breaking point.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 27, 2011 6:54 PM
Climate change includes both natural variability and human influences and the apportionment into the sub-reasons within each is usually called attribution.
Here's a graph of CO2 over last ~1000 years. Increasingly-good evidence is appearing to refine and support Bill Ruddiman's hypotheses about human depopulations and resulting reforestrations and CO2 drawdowns, the big one being the 1600AD drawdown from the largest human-die-off in history in the post-Columbian Americas.
For the general idea, read Plows, Plagues and Petroleum. For more current detail, see the recent special issue of The Holocene, especially Nevle, Bird, Ruddiman, Dull (2011) "Neotropical human–landscape interactions, fire, and atmospheric CO2 during European conquest."
It's possible the CO2 drop was a part of the LIA.
Posted by: John Mashey | October 27, 2011 9:28 PM
Since we're on Shakespeare...
Posted by: bill | October 27, 2011 10:30 PM
Wow - the nutters are out in force in response to Steve Shirwood's article in today's Austrayin.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | October 28, 2011 2:26 AM
Yes, imbecile, we do ... or rather, we know the accurate version. (Saul Perlmutter ... where have I heard that name before?)
Ignorant gits doubt a lot of things that are true.
Posted by: ianam | October 28, 2011 4:35 AM
Jeremy, the reason I mentioned the Thames freezing was simply to point out the obvious fact that what goes up, in climate terms, goes down again - and then up again - and then down again I have no beef with people who claim that the 20th c. shows signs of warming (although even that is not 100% proven given the inadequacy of the measuring techniques) I only suggest that the 'proof' that it is man-made is so unconvincing that I personally would not want a penny of my taxes spent on rectifying a purely speculative hypothesis. Alas, Jeremy, "reason and logic" do not seem to play a large role in AGW agit-prop! Anyway, irrespective of what you adn I think, the fact of the matter as indicated by various polls is that you have lost your argument. Fewer and fewer people outside 'the church', so to speak, believe a word of it.
Also, I should add that I personally hope there is some global warming. I like a warm globe. Warm is good! Cold is bad! But alas, I fear that cold is coming.
For God's sake, Bill, don't get us on to the 'who wrote Shakespeare' shtick. The enraged arguments on that subject make debates on AGW look like a mild disagreement at the Womens Insitute!
Posted by: David Duff | October 28, 2011 5:00 AM
Really? So Venus' climate will go back to the non-runaway-greenhouse-effect climate it used to have a few billion years ago?
It's also obvious that there has to be a REASON for the climate to go down again and that if the reasons for climate going down don't appear, then it won't.
But then again, you're seriously clueless about what physical processes mean, you think everything is a cycle and repeats. To you, there is no causation, just curve fitting.
Posted by: Wow | October 28, 2011 5:43 AM
to an ignorant cretin. I already gave one convincing-to-non-cretins link; here is another.
The validity of an argument isn't determined by polls, you imbecile.
Great, we'll buy you a one-way ticket to Venus.
Posted by: ianam | October 28, 2011 5:59 AM
Be careful what you (ignorantly) wish for. You may find you intensely dislike the ecosystem that results from a rapidly warmed world.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 28, 2011 5:59 AM
The moron's ethic can be found on his web page:
Posted by: ianam | October 28, 2011 6:02 AM
. My god we have been Pell-ted with crap
(Archbishop Pell GWPF), sounds like Plimer's nonsense
.
Posted by: john byatt | October 28, 2011 6:27 AM
King DickDavid the Duff #106So, enlighten us, what conclusions do you draw from reading therein oh clever one?
You may like to consider an old saying we have here in Britain, 'we don't have climate we have weather', now couple this with the very apt statement,'weather throws the punches, climate trains the boxer', and you have an accurate explanation for events that have unfolded in the UK over the last few years.
And in Italy recently, Thailand too, also much of central and southern US, Russia, Australia and many many more places across the whole globe.
Consider this article and reflect on its meanings.
Also consider the disconnects that are being caused in the food chain that supports our privileged life style as the globe warms bringing on earlier breeding cycles in many insect species causing migrating birds to starve because their migration is driven by hours of daylight and not temperatures. That is but one example from a legion.
If you don't have a clue what I am on about then a reasonable primer is: Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity by Dr. Richard Pearson
PS. don't forget the High-Z team too, and Vera Rubin and ....
Posted by: Lionel A | October 28, 2011 7:10 AM
bill,
You should be able to see it at desmog blog
Cheers
Posted by: Chris W | October 28, 2011 7:21 AM
Lionel, I'm wondering why Dai the Dick thinks that British climate is telling us anything about the global one or why we'd be interested in merely the British climate when 99.8% of the population of the world doesn't live in Britain.
Posted by: Wow | October 28, 2011 7:25 AM
A good editorial in Nature taking Muller to task for seeking publicity for his study "before the scientific process has run its course."
Scientific climate
Posted by: lord_sidcup | October 28, 2011 7:31 AM
Chris W - Desmogblog's link is blocked as well (I'm in the UK), so hopefully someone has kindly put it on You tube.
BTW - I thought the actual saying is 'we doesn't have climate, we have (mostly really rubbish) weather'. Although its really nice today...
Posted by: MikeB | October 28, 2011 7:39 AM
Then move to a warmer part of the world you dopey turnip.
Turning up the thermostat a degree or two on a whole planet is a profoundly heavy price to pay in order to give a egocentric nimrod like you the opportunity to take his shirt off at high latitude, and thereby frighten the local children - doing so* would/will trash whole ecosystems in the process...
(* Turning up the thermostat, that is...)
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 28, 2011 8:21 AM
Dave......
It was pointed out to you by a number of people here that the Thames freezing over during the times period you mentioned was due to water flow and not climate - as you acknowledged.
So how can you say we are part of a 'church' (wrong terminology on your part but we will let that pass) when you had the Thames history wrong. Do you not see a teensy weensy contradiction in your thinking and outlook?
What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good? What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?
Interesting that you see this whole thing as a popularity contest - that is ideology all the way with you needing to push science out of the way......... for now.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 28, 2011 8:52 AM
D. Duff may be wishing for AGW to "hurry up"
But alas, (for him) he is also correct when he saysA simple explanation may be found at How Global Warming will make the British Winters Colder
I have sailed the coasts of Newfoundland and the UK in the month of July, not the same year, and for some reason I didn't see icebergs as I approached the Scillys, unlike the rather massive one we sailed around leaving St John's harbour on a sunny July morn.
Posted by: Somerville | October 28, 2011 10:07 AM
I'm in the UK too. Try the "Modify Headers" extension for FireFox.
Posted by: MartinM | October 28, 2011 10:48 AM
Do any of you ever re-read your comments? I ask because I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound? You're like the bloke in the pub wagging his finger under an opponent's nose and shouting louder and louder whilst issuing forth a stream of insults! Why isn't it possible for you to undertake a pleasant, even amusing, debate with people who are not convinced by your arguments? I never heap abuse on you, although I pull your legs gently - at which point you all begin to froth at the mouth.
Anyway, here is a link to a highly intelligent essay on why it is that on the subject of economics Keynesians and Hayekians can never agree. It has implications for 'warmers' and 'deniers'!
http://cafehayek.com/2011/10/my-challenge-to-paul-krugman.html
Posted by: David Duff | October 28, 2011 12:26 PM
Delong's Law violation!
Duff, all troll, all the time.
Posted by: elspi | October 28, 2011 12:42 PM
David Duff:
I certainly can't think of why people might get upset at your disingenuous intransigence.
Wait... wait... maybe it has something to do with:
(1) Your failure to be convinced by the mass of evidence showing AGW is real & bad is not the fault of the evidence; rather it is a failure of your reasoning faculties. What is causing this, I am not privy to say, not being you.
(2) Your continual insistence on re-hashing long-debunked arguments against the reality & gravity of AGW, often couched in snide implications following largely irrelevant references (e.g. to the freezing of the Thames & English weather) to trivia which are simply not up to the task of refuting AGW.
(3) The fact that the continued obstruction by AGW denialists, whether on the blogosphere, "in the street" or among policy-making circles, is delaying action which will be required, lest the consequences involve, as predicted by the evidence, intensive property damage and economic deterioration, collapse of agricultural systems, and widespread human suffering, particularly to millions of the poorest people of the world (who live in the two most badly-affected areas, the tropics & the Arctic).
That you continue to whinge about tone (usually disparaged as tone-trolling), particularly in the light of point (3), is scarcely likely to change anyone else's responses.
Posted by: Composer99 | October 28, 2011 1:15 PM
@ Composer33
I was thinking more of:
'The moron's ethic'; 'Duff, all troll, all the time', 'you dopey turnip', 'Dai the Dick', 'an ignorant cretin', 'you imbecile', 'Yes, imbecile', 'Ignorant gits' and that sort of thing. You see what I mean about the drunk in the pub wagging his finger!
On what you would no doubt call 'the denier sites', I rarely see that sort of vituperation and when it does occur the hosts usually issue a warning to the commenters, even snipping the worse offenders. I should emphasise that I'm not about to burst into tears but that sort of slagging off approach is soooooo boring.
Posted by: David Duff | October 28, 2011 1:32 PM
Dave,
Let me repeat:
1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?
2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?
Is that unpleasant enough for you?
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 28, 2011 2:26 PM
Dave,
Let me repeat:
1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?
2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?
Is that unpleasant enough for you?
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 28, 2011 2:44 PM
Oh The poor tone troll!!!
I feel so bad.
Wait, no I don't.
Rule number one: If you don't want spanked, don't Godwin or Delong.
F*cking internet, How does it work?
Posted by: elspi | October 28, 2011 3:10 PM
David the Duff, or is it deaf?
You still have not answered my question above.
Do you bother reading and understanding the replies of others and to examine the evidence presented to back up their arguments?
It would seem no, for if you did you would not continue to spout long debunked nonsense.
As for this pearler:
And you are like the bloke in the pub who likes to pontificate loudly about matters on which he has little knowledge and even less understanding, the bloke having forgotten, or never heard over his raucous utterances, the maxim 'it is better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than open ones mouth and remove all doubt.'
You come across as rather juvenile, could you be Delingpole in disguise perhaps?
Posted by: Lionel A | October 28, 2011 4:03 PM
Surely any unit of denial must be based on imaginary numbers!
Posted by: Alan | October 28, 2011 6:11 PM
David Duff:
So you are grievously offended by me pointing out that you're a dopey turnip? Poor petal.
Consider it this way... Anyone who would cut a 200 year-old oak tree, rather than walk around it, because it is in his way during a forest walk, it a "dopey turnip" - at the least. Anyone who needs to catastrophically warm the planet (yes, the 'c'-word) in order to be able to take off his own shirt, is a "dopey turnip". Anyone who takes a cannon to shoot a sparrow is a "dopey turnip".
You're a dopey turnip.
That you think the crime here is being called a "dopey turnip", rather than the one of wanting to wreak global ecological disruption and/or destruction in order for your mere transient personal comfort, indicates that you are rather more* than just "dopey turnip"...
[* Magnitude changes, not the sign...]
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 28, 2011 8:48 PM
Alan:
Actually, the unit itself could be a real number. It only needs the coefficient i in order to become appropriately imaginary!
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 28, 2011 8:50 PM
Finally, a journalist's article on BEST is listed in an Australian newspaper, online at The Age's website. Eugene Robinson's article, originally in the Washington Post, is worth a read, in preference to some other duffer's stuff.
Posted by: Donald Oats | October 29, 2011 12:49 AM
Indeed :-) (I attempted to introduce that concept earlier ;-)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 29, 2011 1:57 AM
I just quickly googled David Duff and Deltoid, and discovered that he's been pulling the same schtick for a long time, including monotonously arriving to announce 'the catastrophe is called off' and 'no one believes that stuff anymore'.
I wonder if you're honest enough to admit that your own behaviour contradicts your chief assertion?
I mean, there's the BEST team who believe that stuff, for a start; that being the subject of this thread, and all.
Every time the actual scientific method has to get used to evaluate the issue - as in BEST - rather than measuring the dB output on the blowhard squawking index; whaddyaknow, it's, over and over, brainy science guys (and reality's well-known liberal bias) 1, blowhards 0. Those who are not terminally wedded to idiocy might even begin to detect a pattern here...
So it's risible, and not a little pathetic, to repeatedly announce that you're winning, as the evidence against you piles higher and higher. Your pathetic serial triumphalism might even qualify as gloating, Mr. Tone Troll, if it weren't so palpably wrong in the first place! You just look daft.
(It's like those turkeys who repeatedly turn up at Warmist blogs announcing that "No-one reads your blog! no-one cares what you say! Nyaah nyaah!" Well, clearly you do, mate.)
Sure, due to the power of The Stupid a whole bunch of people may well have been herded around in to an anti-intellectual hysteria by various powerful interests and their corporate media mates; however, in the field of actual science, you're on a hiding to nothing! So reality will eventually overwhelm even the awesome majesty of Stupid, and then, beware; a lot of that unfocussed rage an sourness you guys have helped to foster will most likely be aimed squarely right back at you!
During the time you've been breezing in playing the old codger who assumes his arrogance and intellect somehow corellate your cause has been winnowed down by evidence until only the ignorant, fanatics, the silly old buggers (as our former PM described them) and the talk-back radio xenophobes are left. The BEST results really are a shattering blow to your cause, and the sheer incoherence and vindictiveness of their response indicates that many of your movement's 'shining lights' are only too aware of it.
Those hanging on to denial post-BEST are an anachronism, and that's the kindest thing that can be said about them. This isn't all a big joke, you guys really have helped to fuck-up the world, irreversibly to a large degree, and a little bluntness is looooong overdue.
Posted by: bill | October 29, 2011 3:32 AM
Duff in denial:
Obviously doesn't spend much time reading WTFUWT:
But as we all know, science denialists have a pathological hatred of facts.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 29, 2011 5:22 AM
It was noted above that the surface temperature record prior to 1980 is sometimes considered to be dodgy by skeptics (depending on what mode of argument they are using). The choice of 1980 is interesting. Its when satellite records became available. So after 1980, was it necessary to do wholesale adjustments to the surface temperature records to bring them into line with the satellite temps? Well, no.
So there seems to be no grounds to suddenly start trusting the surface temperature record after 1980, except that the existence of the satellite temperature record would make you look like a right twit if you didn't. But before 1980, you can sew doubt......
Posted by: John Brookes | October 29, 2011 6:18 AM
Christ, David. Grow a pair. If you're going to come here to ridicule people don't whine when you get ridiculed back.
Posted by: John | October 29, 2011 6:46 AM
Bill,
The reason the denialists talk about winning is because in places like Australia they have scored very solid public gains in public opinion. This has been due to their tireless efforts to confuse the public at large with disinformation and smears plus outright lying.
Its a tactic that has worked. Examples of these tirteless efforts are seen in people like Bob Carter traipsing around towns in Australia taking public meetings on his anti AGW stance while scientists involved in climate research are just too busy grappling with the difficulties of the science to give the amount of time required. Carter has been extremely successful in 'capturing' various LNP MPs in the Australian Federal parliament.
The thing is the denialists do this for free. They are not oil shrills, they don't sit beside the phone waiting for some one to ring offering them money to say a line publicly publicly. When that has happened the money has followed these people not the other way around.
In short a number of them are fanatics, a much better word than the mis applied word, fundamentalists. But note not all are fanatics. Its why they keep on when all the scientific evidence is against them. And it has been extremely successful in Australia.
I wouldn't say David Duff is a fanatic, I just can't work out if he believes the stuff he puts out or not. If he does believe what he puts out then I can understand the annoyance he has expressed above because the condescending attitude he displays could be because he really does believe those who deny AGW are smarter than the rest of the population. Then his world view is shown to be extremely deficient as soon as he comes on this site. The guy must suffer abrupt cognitive dissonance and has to go away to patch his worldview back together again. Hence why he has disappeared these past 24 hours.
So when the denialists, such as Andrew Bolt, say its all over, move on etc it is because of they have been so victorious in Australia and their zealotry gives them far more energy than the rest of us. They wont go away.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 29, 2011 8:13 AM
Oh, Jeremy, and just when we were beginning to get along! The reason I have been away is because I do have a life elsewhere, however I now have time to respond to your two questions:
"1.What is your evidence that a warmer planet is going to be good?
2.What is your evidence that we are headed for global cooling?"
I, personally, have no proof because I am a non-scientist. However, as a reasonably intelligent man (just) I take an interest in the world around me, and my interest is always heightened if my government uses somebody else's, er, 'proof' of something or other as an excuse to raid my wallet. Hence myintense interest in this climate warming lark. I have spent the last few years breezing through the internet reading the pros and the cons and, I freely admit, not always understanding them (but, heh, that's scientists for you, can barely write a grammatical sentence!) and I came to the conclusion that the 'deniers' have shot enough holes in the 'warmers' theories to cast considerable doubts (which is not the same as 'disprove') and also, and for me, more telling, the behaviour of the 'warmers', in various ways, has been less than exemplary, thus casting even more doubts.
In the comment above you used the phrase "world view". That, in my opinion, is a key phrase as Russ Roberts makes clear via the link I provided above. If, in his article you replace the word 'economics' with 'AGW', exactly the same thing is going on. In other words, were I to trot out a list of scientific papers casting doubt on AGW, you would instantly trot out an equal number in favour of it. And neither of us would be swayed by the other's 'proofs'! Because, of course, we hold opposite 'world views'. This entire 'syndrome' was once summed up by the late, execrable Nikita Kruschev who, whilst banging the lecturn with his shoe at the United Nations (probably before your time), shouted words to the effect of, 'there are no neutral men', Possibly that was the truest thing the little thug ever said.
Do read Russ Roberts: http://cafehayek.com/2011/10/my-challenge-to-paul-krugman.html
At least you, Jeremy, are shrewd enough and honest enough to tell it the way it is - that the AGW argument is losing its grip in what passes for the public mind. On that proposition, of course, you risk outraged attacks from your own internal, er, 'deniers' - I trust you are good humoured enough to enjoy the irony!
Posted by: David Duff | October 29, 2011 10:12 AM
David the Duff at #150
Let us put that to the test eh and using an excellent resource that you should use as an educational opportunity.
BTW. That earliest skeptic paper that pops up there has been soundly rebutted and one such rebuttal can be found in the excellent The Warming Papers by David Archer and Ray Pierrehumbert .
David Archer's excellent lectures on the physics of climate change can be found on the web, you should look, learn and inwardly digest for you will then realise how we know that the globe is warming and that GHGs are responsible. For your further elucidation I suggest the latter author's, Pierrehumbert, book 'The Principles of Planetary Climate'.
This last of yours was a real duff of a pudding. Practically indigestible without a large jug of grog. Believe me I have known such.
Now, what about your mention of the British climate (whatever that may be), what are your conclusions from reading therein.
Posted by: Lionel A | October 29, 2011 12:02 PM
See what I mean, Jeremy?
Posted by: David Duff | October 29, 2011 3:29 PM
Its all about the PR for Duff, he just runs from the science.
Posted by: jakerman | October 29, 2011 4:52 PM
Duff -
No, what 'I' have is an illimitable supply of pompous waffle.
How many years have you been running that ridiculous line about Kruschev, for example? (Though I notice that as the geniality veneer slips and self-affirming narrative bites he's become an 'execrable' 'thug' and was banging his shoe on the lectern at the time of making this very statement. Google yourself and note your descent into believing your own fantasy. Do you think that might be part of a pattern?)
Do you imagine you've scored a point against the evil Leftists here? Apparently so! Yep, we're all secret Soviet fifth-culumnists here. I feel greatly undermined by your pointing to the bizarre antics of a man who ceased to be Premier (of a totalitarian state that disintegrated 20 years ago) when I was 2 years old.
You really are an anachronism!
And a link to 'Cafe Hayek' - what a giveaway! Your obsessive reiteration of the line about 'no neutral men' is a palpable projection; if it's true of anyone, it's certainly true of you! You are the one who thinks like Kruschev, David. And then you outrightly admit you won't be swayed by mere evidence!
And your opponents must be the same as you - they're just believing what they want to believe, too. Tell that to NASA, NOAA, the NAS, BoM, CSIRO, Met, NIWA, and all the Academies of Science of the Free World!
The real irony of this morass of projection, hostility, and wilful ignorance is just how representative of your whole tribe you truly are.
Rightist windbag spends declining years goading the people he can't admit to himself he resents chiefly because it's increasingly evident that they're right, and he's wasted his life. That's what you amount to?
Posted by: bill | October 29, 2011 6:01 PM
David Duff denies science for ideological reasons. Stop the presses.
Posted by: John | October 29, 2011 7:41 PM
The major difference being "ours" would be consistent with each other, and "yours" would be inconsistent and contradictory.
Posted by: John | October 29, 2011 7:47 PM
Duff mangling the facts:
That should be:
in the USA.
The 29th October edition of New Scientist has an article on science illiteracy in the USA. It has a graph showing acceptance of climate science has never been stronger amongst liberal voters but has dropped among Republican voters.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 30, 2011 2:23 AM
John:
Duff's list would also be much shorter in total number compared with the body of papers supporting the science of climate change. Duff is using a little semantic trick in an attempt to garner an impression of equivalence.
It's just another a sordid little strategy - and mundanely characteristic of those who deny the science.
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 30, 2011 2:41 AM
Judith Curry has stuck her oar in again, in a piece in that excellent science journal 'The Mail on Sunday'.
‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’...says Curry.
Posted by: Dibble | October 30, 2011 3:51 AM
No need for me to add anything more, Jakerman, Bill, John, Chris and Bernard illustrate my point better than I could myself!
Posted by: David Duff | October 30, 2011 4:50 AM
Indeed we have, Duff, but probably not in the way in which you delude yourself.
If you disagree, you could start by listing all of the scientific paper that you believe "cast... doubt on AGW". We'll count them, and see how the number stacks up against the real scientific literature.
After all, that was my original point...
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 30, 2011 5:59 AM
Dibble @ #159 - My reading of it is far worse.
Ms. Curry now seeks to brew up her own little version of 'climategate'.
"There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped," she said. "To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate".
"As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline".
"To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled."
Posted by: chek | October 30, 2011 6:57 AM
Chris O'Neill tried improving the duffer's text as follows:
That's better, but more accurate still would be:
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| October 30, 2011 6:59 AM
Dibble #159
Ah yes, Curry in the Daily Fail that haunt of the nutty Melanie Phillips. Very sensible arguments promoted by that organ - not.
That tells us something about how Curry should be recognised as being an arbiter of sound debate - she isn't. Another one with a career, in science at least, in a tailspin joining such as Michaels, Spencer and Lindzen.
Posted by: Lionel A | October 30, 2011 7:01 AM
Whatever one may say of Ms Curry, Chek, she's certainly not hiding her decline ...
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| October 30, 2011 7:02 AM
The Sunday Mail piece was written by David Rose, who has quite some track record.
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | October 30, 2011 7:07 AM
David Duff
This excellent lecture has just popped up at SkepticalScience.
I suggest you watch it David and learn why you think the way you do.
Posted by: Lionel A | October 30, 2011 7:25 AM
I think I missed something. You had a point? I thought you were just sniping like a spoiled child. I don't think there's any need for you to add anything more, either. You've sufficiently embarrassed yourself here enough.
Posted by: John | October 30, 2011 7:46 AM
Judy Curry continues to embarrass herself:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Posted by: SteveF | October 30, 2011 8:28 AM
I didn't take that Daily Mail article seriously (look at that hideous GWPF graph: where is the 2008 La Niña?), but hearing that David Rose wrote it, puts the cherry on top.
It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.
Ah yes, it hasn't been settled whether it is insignificant or non-existent. Is this woman insane?
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 10:51 AM
Dr Richard Milne in his excellent lecture Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial sure has a sense of humour with some nice lines such as this:
You really need to watch that David Duff to discover, apart from anything else, the difference between justified criticism and genuine unpleasantness of which Watts calling out his attack dogs from time to time is but one example. But then you must install a vitriol filter when you read over there, or at Nova et. al.
Posted by: Lionel A | October 30, 2011 12:29 PM
I thought this thread was about BEST, but it seems to have gotten diverted into discussions with (people in my KILLFILE).
Let's return to BEST: For good fun, see Marc Morano's views.
Circular firing squads are such fun to watch from a distance.
I foresee interesting times at Santa Fe Conference this week. In diplomacy, they might speak of "a frank exchange of views".
Curry's session should be fun:
"T-II: Observations (Judy Curry and Manvendra Dubey):
T-5: S. Wofsy (Harvard) HIAPER Pole to Pole Observations (HIPPO) of climatically important gases and aerosols 10:35-10:55 T-6: R. Muller (UC Berkeley) The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Land Results 10:55-11:15 T-7: R. Rohde (Berkeley Temp Project) A new estimate of the Earth land surface temperature 11:15-11:35 T-8: F. Singer (SEPP) Is the reported global surface warming of 1979 to 1997 real? 11:35-11:55 T-9: J. Xu (NOAA) Evaluation of temperature trends from multiple Radiosondes and Reanalysis products 11:55-12:15"
Sadly, the Viscount is in a different session, but he is certainly not the only other "interesting" speaker. See if you can find them all.
Posted by: John Mashey | October 30, 2011 12:54 PM
I see Judy's got three appearances. I suppose she could always hawk a few extra copies of LaFlameout's well-received (by her) new anti-IPCC book from some suitably shoddy cardboard kiosk in the foyers between gigs.
Posted by: chek | October 30, 2011 1:11 PM
John M,
Regarding the Viscount's contribution!?!
He is not leading the science presentations but instead is talking on the cost effectiveness of mitigation i.e. accountancy, not once but again and again and again.
As the editor of Private Eye would put it...."Shurley some misthake"....
Enjoy the conference. Should you attend one of the Viscount's sessions do shout out from the pews, "Dr PINKER IS A WOMAN" as I won't be there to do it.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 30, 2011 1:15 PM
Are my eyes deceiving me or is La Curry implying that David Rose has ran off with her quotes and turned them into something his friends from GWPF really love?
Time, Rosegate number how much is this going to be?
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 1:18 PM
I do like the link to David's blog called "Duff and Nonsense". It is unintentionally hilarious! I am curious about David day job and educational background and whether he is financially compensated by fossil fuel interests. It might provide a reason for why he continually wastes all of your time when you could be getting on with doing something about mankind's terrible experiment on the planet's climate.
Posted by: Mark Schaffer | October 30, 2011 1:25 PM
'Time' should be 'Tim', of course.
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 1:31 PM
Yes Neven, it seems like the foul smell comes from Rose and not from Curry.
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | October 30, 2011 2:00 PM
Lars, most of it, perhaps, but not all. As Curry notes, Rose quotes her accurately (apart from that "climategate" quote). It's the framing she doesn't like. Well, Judith, welcome to the world you yourself have helped maintain.
Posted by: Marco | October 30, 2011 2:25 PM
Curry replied to my comments:
"Well, I have a rule about not talking to reporters on the phone, asking for submitted questions and I respond by email. Its a rule I extremely rarely break, and Rose caught me on the phone and I spoke with him. Back to enforcing my rule.
IMO Muller overplayed his hand in his media statements, why I am not sure.
I am getting a substantial number of press queries, I will do my best (lowercase) to set all this straight (via carefully crafted email replies)."
and
"At the moment, I’m feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST. This is one reason I started a blog, to get my words out there and minimize my personal exposure to manipulation."
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 2:26 PM
I know enough to paint a pretty accurate picture in my mind of what happened now. Let's see what Curry decides to do. My guess is she won't take Rose/Mail to task. But maybe she'll surprise me.
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 3:10 PM
C'mon Neven, you're not still under the impression there's anything honourable going on with her, are you? Fallen into bad company or somesuch?
First her promotion of GWPF stooge Montford's novel, then more recently promoting LaFlameout's rubbishy IPCC hitpiece, and then lately she delivers another dogwhistling 'hide the decline' - in those words into yet another GWPF stooge David Rose's lap. Unconvincingly backpedal as she may.
As Oscar Wilde might have said: "Once is a misfortune, twice is carelessness". Thrice is a bona fide serial killer on the loose.
Posted by: chek | October 30, 2011 4:12 PM
Well, at least she's saying that Rose misrepresented what she has said to him on the phone.
Maybe she'll now see what happens when a lie races halfway round the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.
Not that I have any high hopes of that happening, but who knows...
At least she can't claim 'Ich habe es nicht gewusst'.
Posted by: Neven | October 30, 2011 4:20 PM
Its interesting how the deniers are out in force to destroy BEST. They had high hopes of BEST but are now moving fast and ruthlessly to smear and denigrate any comments, results etc coming from BEST. I guess the objective is to stop the building of a media narrative consisting of 'even skeptics believe the science' that could run for years causing the media to drop mentioning things like climategate from its collective memory and give a whole host of problems to deniers everywhere.
I would guess thats why you seeing the Global Warming Policy Foundation move so quickly with the article in the astrology promoting Mail.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 30, 2011 4:54 PM
Tim's War on Science can continue. The Australian is allowing everyone to view their dumbest articles on climate change, first Pell and now Matt Ridley.
Posted by: Acacia | October 30, 2011 4:59 PM
re: #174 A few weeks ago, I was idly toying with the idea of signing up to attend and flying down there for this ... but then shelved it and made other commitments. This was before the BEST fireworks, but it's too late to change my mind, alas.
Elsewhere: "Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action. (taken from Ian Fleming's novel Goldfinger)"
Speaking of GWPF, see Lord Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation is spreading errors. He ends with:
"Perhaps it is time for the Charity Commission to review the campaigning and political activities of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and its trustees?"
Posted by: John Mashey | October 30, 2011 5:31 PM
The link between Donna LaRaspberry's ridiculous book and Curry's glowing endorsment of it may be explained when you notice this line it contains:
“How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. . . Rather than recruiting real experts like Reiter the IPCC enlisted young, inexperienced, non-experts instead.”
Gee....I wonder who Donna borrowed this shoulder-chip from?
It's a bit bizarre, but it seems a sinogle incident of professional jealousy is all it took to push Curry over the edge and into the cess-pit of ignorance and lies that is the deniosphere.
Posted by: Craig Thomas | October 30, 2011 6:35 PM
When I asked for David Duff's educational background this is what I received via email: "Ah, I suspect you are a young man, or at least, one of the new style ‘gentlemen’ who discount such minor matters as courtesy and good manners. You suppose that you can barge, unasked, into my ‘In-box’ demanding personal information and expect an instant and full reply. Sorry! However what you can expect is my usual response to people with no manners – fuck off! Come back when mummy teaches you to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’. David Duff"
Posted by: Mark Schaffer | October 30, 2011 6:47 PM
Tamino has a post up on Curry's pirouetting over BEST and her suggestion that she was done wrong by Rose.
It's a great post that appears to me to leave the SS Uncertainty with several gaping holes below the waterline.
Posted by: SteveC | October 30, 2011 7:10 PM
I urge you to go read the article by Tamino that SteveC linked to. (And ponder whether the analysis will ever reach the consciousness of those who were exposed to the Morano bullshit.)
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 30, 2011 7:26 PM
Well, in ways perhaps never intended, it looks like Judith is getting her very own 'currygate' weekend
Posted by: chek | October 30, 2011 7:31 PM
And where does that 1.5 deg cooler point in 2010 come from?
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 30, 2011 9:57 PM
Re the last two plots on the Mail 10 year graph
at Tamino
Nick Stokes | October 31, 2011 at 2:18 am | Reply I did a count of the data that BEST has for 2010. In March they have 14488 stations reporting. In April and May there are 47. And in June, none. And April and May are all Antarctic.
Rattus Norvegicus | October 31, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply Well, that pretty much settles it then. Those months clearly should not have been analyzed because of inadequate coverage of the data. Good catch.”
This then explains the deep drop in the last two plot points (apr. may) on the Mail graph
Posted by: john byatt | October 31, 2011 1:25 AM
Curry is now back peddling so fast that her bottom bracket is smoking...
"Re the recent trend, Muller reiterated that you can’t infer anything about what is going on globally from the land data, but the land data shows a continued increase albeit with an oscillation that makes determining a trend rather ambiguous. He thinks there is a pause, that is probably associated with AMO/PDO. So I am ok with this interpretation."
Posted by: dibble | October 31, 2011 3:42 AM
And where does that 1.5 deg cooler point in 2010 come from?
According to Nick Stokes - who has looked at the BEST data -over at Tamino's the number of recording stations at the start of 2010 dropped from 14488 in March to 47 in April, and what happened in April...oh yes...Paul Clark reminds us of that...Eyjafjallajökull
Posted by: Hasis | October 31, 2011 4:27 AM
Sorry, this is a totally tedious sidetrack but as young Master Schaffer (age 14) of the Third Form raises the subject, not once (176), but twice (188), allow me to give you the full thread because he, in a manner which reminds me of something similar in other fields, cuts the full story to suit his own ends.
This arrived, not on my blog but in my personal 'In-box' by e-mail out of the blue from a perfect stranger:
What is your educational background and what do you do for living? Simple questions not answered by you anywhere that I have read.
To which I replied, not unreasonably to a stranger:
Why do you want to know and who’s asking?
Back he came again with this:
I am asking because it isn't on your blog where it should be to allow people to judge if you might have any expertise in what you claim to know about. Who I am doesn't matter until I make a claim.
Given the hectoring, arrogant, unpleasant tone I instantly guessed where he was from! Actually, as it happens, I frequently make references on my blog to my many former occupations and my appalling educational standards - indeed, I think I have confessed all here on occasions! Anyway, I responded thus:
Ah, I suspect you are a young man, or at least, one of the new style ‘gentlemen’ who discount such minor matters as courtesy and good manners. You suppose that you can barge, unasked, into my ‘In-box’ demanding personal information and expect an instant and full reply. Sorry! However what you can expect is my usual response to people with no manners – fuck off! Come back when mummy teaches you to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.
Unabashed and unembarrassed, this juvenile actually publishes the rebuke with pride! But, somewhat stuck for words and lacking one of those pithy three-word slogans which is an absolute requirement for the 'youf' of today, he offered this final, pathetic sally:
I will assume you have very little education from your response and what you have gleaned is little. A good "fail" student on a pass fail basis.
Oh God, re-reading that last bit, please don't tell me he is actually a teacher!
Posted by: David Duff | October 31, 2011 5:35 AM
What is interesting is just how much BEST has upset the denialati. If the "skeptics" were a boil, I'd say they aren't far off blowing.
WTFUWT is now schizming between contrarians who think Curry is a hero, and those who think she's a villain.
We do indeed live in exciting times.
Posted by: John Brookes | October 31, 2011 7:18 AM
The fawning 'progressive' global media love Muller, of course.
You should be anointing this guy as a Hero Worker, or whatever you call them -- that's the best ink the alarmist movement has had in years.
Posted by: Rick Bradford | October 31, 2011 9:57 AM
Rickybabes,
When BEST was announced with great fanfare (go read the Anthony Watts link at the top of this - he was particulalry enthusiastic) the denialati thought it and Muller the greatest thing since sliced bread. Now that it looks like BEST may just confirm the existing science its a bit of a media own goal for the denialiti especially as dumb journalists are now going to bring it up for years and years and might just compare it to climategate and finally figure out how the deniers have been playing the media - then watch out for revenge.
Posted by: Jeremy C | October 31, 2011 10:06 AM
You know who pushed a lot of money to the BEST project, don't you, Dick? Heartland Institute, Koch brothers, and similar.
They were touted as the nail in the coffin that would show that the temperature record was fiddled and the decline in temperatures hidden.
You ought to recognise that last phrase since you've parroted it several times before.
Posted by: Wow | October 31, 2011 10:26 AM
Dick Bradford:
Sorry, the science denialists did that first.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 31, 2011 10:30 AM
What is going on at The Australian?
Apart from cleverly framing the photo to show a notice about the "The Coming Ice Age", their November 1 report on Muller seems to be dispassionately factual, without verballing him or distorting his results. I know that is what newspapers should do but on matters of climate science I have learned to look for trickery, deviousness and outright lies from The Australian. Alas, being an actual physicist myself, I am ill-equipped by temperament and training to find them.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Alan | October 31, 2011 5:17 PM
Alan, Alan - you're reading the paper upside down...
Posted by: Bernard J. | October 31, 2011 5:37 PM
I see that Rick Bradford has joined us; a daft puppy always front-and-centre for its masters, pathetically eager to swallow the dog's breakfast that is Jo Nova's incoherent ball of spite 'aimed' - if such a sodden, tangled mess could ever be considered to be aimed at anything - at Muller:
'Creepy' eh? Oooh, cutting; bet the alpha-dogs love that one! May I just point out to you what you clearly already know only-too-well; just what a blow to your motley pack this really is? Your enraged howls that only amount to 'not fair - they're using facts' really only reinforce the point! What exactly do you imagine you're achieving?
Now, run along, whelp, and do your yapping elsewhere...
Posted by: bill | October 31, 2011 5:44 PM
It appears that Jonas had a very short run over at Tamino's place,one and done.
Posted by: JohnL | October 31, 2011 7:31 PM
[As I don't see an open thread but do see #201 & 202 ...]
The innumerate, illiterate Murdoch Australian is at it as usual and still can't get itself past primary school level educational failure:
The Oz - so much less than just typos and stupidity.
Posted by: frankis | October 31, 2011 7:39 PM
Jonas at Tamino:
Er...doh!
And that attempted point by Jonas entirely misses the point of Tamino's response to Curry's "There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped".
Tamino doesn't suffer fools much...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| October 31, 2011 7:45 PM
@ Alan | October 31, 2011 5:17 PM
You may have accidentally inserted the contents of a real newspaer inside the cover of a pretend one.
Posted by: SteveC | October 31, 2011 10:27 PM
@ frankis | October 31, 2011 7:39 PM
Are they still touting that LaRaspberry (pace Craig Thomas) tosh? What next - a 5-page "Special" in the weekend colour supplement by Prof. Dr. J. Curry on what the NIPCC can teach us all about nepotism?
Posted by: SteveC | October 31, 2011 10:34 PM
@197
Gee Rick, you almost sound really pissed (off).
Yet another review/reanalysis of temperature data concludes that it does actually say exactly what climate scientists have always maintained it said. This continual smacking down, getting back up and yelling conspiracy, smacking down again, getting back up and yelling conspiracy, and smacking down yet again must be really getting to you by now, eh?
Just how many more smackdowns can you actually take before you lose your mind even more than it has been lost already?
Posted by: Mikem | November 1, 2011 12:18 AM
Ad hominem fallacy. Respond to the substance, asshole.
Posted by: ianam | November 1, 2011 12:42 AM
Not even close, as you have repeatedly demonstrated here.
Posted by: ianam | November 1, 2011 12:55 AM
@199
Finally we agree on something. Most of the journalists from the MSM, and especially the 'progressive' media are so dumb that regurgitating press releases is all they're capable of. And even that's a stretch, sometimes.
If only they had the brains to 'bring up' things that Muller actually said, such as:
or
Posted by: Rick Bradford | November 1, 2011 7:59 AM
Rick, why do you believe either of these quotes is relevant and telling?
The quotes you selected are prosaic and in no way support your claims about the journalists you seek to smear.
Posted by: jakerman | November 1, 2011 8:14 AM
He doesn't, jakerman. All he's trying to do is put a lot of words out whether they support his position or not, because it takes no effort to make shit up completely and lots to show why it is a load of crap.
So Dick spouts irrelevant nonsense, knowing that The Team (His Team) will accept it as being important because "he wouldn't have posted it otherwise".
Just remember how many denialists point to a paper "proving" AGW false and when you go in and read it, find out it does no such thing.
A Watts is a journalist blogger. And since he fluffed up BEST and Muller's qualifications, Dick's assertion that mere journalists lifted him up erroneously is correct. Dick's just knows that his matey denialists won't let themselves notice that he's dissing Watts as a source of reliable information, since it doesn't gel with their faith.
Posted by: Wow | November 1, 2011 8:18 AM
Question from me: "I wonder if any of you realise how deeply unpleasant you all sound?"
Answer from Ianam: "Ad hominem fallacy. Respond to the substance, asshole." (My emphasis)
In one sentence, 'fallacy' turns into reality.
Perhaps, who knows, one day AGW will do the same!
Posted by: David Duff | November 1, 2011 9:43 AM
Duff, I wonder if you realise how sensitive you seem? So you were called a name on the internet. Harden up, tone troll.
As I have already said, you are only here to ridicule, mock and condescend. No reason to chuck a sobbing wobbly when your tactics get turned back on you.
Posted by: John | November 1, 2011 9:50 AM
Another denialist who doesn't know what ad hominem means.
Posted by: Richard Simons | November 1, 2011 10:00 AM
In one post: doesn't understand ad hom.
You're an asshole, but if you can give some evidence that stands up to scrutiny, you will be a correct asshole.
However, no matter how unpleasant we sound, the evidence doesn't change.
Posted by: Wow | November 1, 2011 10:03 AM
I can't recall exactly how long Duff has been trolling around, making snide comments and ignoring science. At least 3 years, on a wide variety of blogs.
Posted by: guthrie | November 1, 2011 10:35 AM
A trivial point but just for the record, when you've experienced an Aldershot drill sergeant at close quarters, being called names has no effect whatsoever. I was only trying to drop you a hint, although I realise that many of you are a bit slow slow on the uptake, that if anyone trying to find out the rights and wrongs of this AGW lark came here (as I did years ago) to hear both sides of the argument the unpleasant nature of some of you would instantly put them off (as it did me years ago) both you and your argument. It's a bit like listening to a salesman with bad breath and BO, very off-putting!
Posted by: David Duff | November 1, 2011 1:17 PM
Then why do you whine incessantly about it, Dai? If it meant nothing to you, why even bring it up?
Here's a hint: stop being an asshole and people will stop calling you an asshole.
But nobody has said you're wrong BECAUSE you're an asshole. Just that you're so wrong so often, you're an asshole.
Posted by: Wow | November 1, 2011 1:35 PM
Difficulty reading, 'Wow'?
Posted by: David Duff | November 1, 2011 5:51 PM
Blowhard on the Far-Starboard Bow!
Seriously folks, why waste time arguing with a pathological attention seeker and fabulist like Duff? His own thread is long overdue, methinks.
Incidentally, this is what the great man considers to be funny, apparently. Note that even the Birthers get a run on his site!
Posted by: bill | November 1, 2011 6:49 PM
David Duff makes an excellent point, as commenters on skeptical websites are so polite and never abuse anyone.
Oh wait, he is being a tone troll, and a remarkably sensitive one at that.
Posted by: John | November 1, 2011 8:38 PM
Wow, it's spelled "arsehole", and you can shove your inferior american spellings where you like.
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | November 1, 2011 9:14 PM
Sense of humour failure, Bill?
Posted by: David Duff | November 2, 2011 5:00 AM
Yes, you do have difficulty reading your own posts.
You complain about insults but don't care about insults. At least one of those is fake, Dai.
Posted by: Wow | November 2, 2011 6:11 AM
That one sentence was intended (obviously, I thought) to elicit from you the very stupidity and ignorance that you in fact demonstrated. Avoiding substance by deflection to such personal characteristics as tone is ad hominem fallacious; calling you an asshole is simply a conclusion from evidence. Again, you pathetic coward: respond to the substance.
Posted by: ianam | November 2, 2011 7:54 AM
BTW, moron:
What I wrote was not, and was not intended to be, an answer to your question.
All or some? Make up your mind ... not that it matters, because you're a dishonest imbecile either way and your opinion isn't worth anything.
Posted by: ianam | November 2, 2011 8:09 AM
I’m quite surprised that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature groups findings aren’t being embraced by climate change believers. As far as I’m aware this is only the beginning of their investigations and they will be looking at further evidences of global warming.
My take is (as I’ve written elsewhere): The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) - led by Richard Muller – has given us the independent review and analysis of global climate data that was so desperately needed to get this “debate” back on track. This is one the climate change sceptics can't touch. First it confirms that the so-called ‘Climategate’ emails were a deceptive trick by climate change sceptics to stall action on climate change. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group have cleared The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and by imputation the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), much better than a thousand investigations could have.
BEST's independent analysis of the data gave the same result: global warming is real. Thus the CRU could not have doctored anything - or Richard Muller's investigation would have shown no warming.
The climate change sceptics arguments are now shown to be false. They should have no real input into the climate change debate from now on. But this time the debate should begin at a grass root's level with town hall style meetings telling the truth ie that the latest survey showed that 97%-98% of climatologists agree that man-made climate change is real and presents one of the greatest threats to mankind ever experienced. The emphasis is (and always has been) on the climate change sceptics to show they are right. Climatologists have never been shown the respect for their profession, and the presumption of innocence, that they deserve as professional scientists. Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group have changed all that.
IMHO the climatologists made a rod for their own back by refusing to sue climate change deniers for libel, slander, defamation, and scientific fraud. I recently posted this thought at another forum - only to get a reply that suing would be “vindictive”. Which prompted me to consider these comments (as a reminder that I’m not the only one who thinks like this):
“Can't these scientists club together and take people like Monckton to court for libel/slander/defamation or something?
If he is using the names of respected scientists, and the organisations they represent, to support falsification, distortion and outright lies, then surely this is a legal matter for the courts?
As mentioned previously, few people are fighting for the scientists, so they're going to have to adapt and fight for themselves, tooth and nail.
For now there is little other choice it seems.”
Source: Mezzum 3 June 2010 3:55PM http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial
“…Certainly if scientists were to approach their respective nation's courts with this issue then they would have to consider deeply how it may be perceived in the wider public sphere with respect to freedom of speech.
However from what I understand, Monckton has misrepresented the facts, he has distorted the work of professional scientists; scientists who are attached to academic institutions and private companies.
Further, Monckton has sought to not just discredit the work of these men and women, but ridicule them and sully their professional reputation, and that of their sponsors in the process.
That any individual or organisation should not have recourse to the law in these circumstances is madness.”
Source: Mezzum 3 June 2010 8:59PM http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-climate-change-talk-denial
Posted by: Matthew | November 11, 2011 2:13 AM
Your implication appears to be counter-factual.
Except that they are applying their usual maneuvers - goalpost shifting, inflating uncertainty, indulging in creatively "interpreting" the results for their legion of fans whilst dissing more fair-minded reportage as "biased", tribalism - including casting the offending researchers out of the tribe, rewriting (their own) history, and blatant application of double standards.
For example, you write that this investigation has definitively cleared the CRU.
The trouble is, this investigation is itself now being cited by "skeptics" as untrustworthy and methodologically suspect - even by one who was involved early on and announced that their methods were really good and he'd trust the results - and the media releases are being dubbed propaganda.
You also write a number of things that should happen to explain the evidence to the public - except that most of those have already happened, and have been rejected by those who don't share your assumptions that we all want a rational assessment of the best evidence we have - even if they say they do or think they do.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| November 15, 2011 11:27 PM