December 2011 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    December 10, 2011

    Kudos to you GWB’s N – I had the fleeting hope that your own deployment of logic was going to work in this instance. Alas I can now only see the Bernaysian thoroughness with which Watts (and Pielke & Co. of The Best Science Website) has been designed to appeal to the total inertia of know-nothing complacency affecting the comfortable but ill-educated Duffer type demographic.

    It might have seemed depressing at one time, but it’s always worth remembering that ignorance is not a strength. It’s a fatal weakness. Absolutely and 100% fatal.

  2. #2 ianam
    December 10, 2011

    real scientists, like Freeman Dyson

    Definition of real scientist: someone well past his prime who offers off-the-charts crank opinions about fields in which he has no expertise, but says what Duff wants to hear.

  3. #3 ianam
    December 10, 2011

    biology is not a science

    Tim, it really is time to give David a private room.

  4. #4 bill
    December 10, 2011

    Yep, for the entire dreary tribe ‘real science’ is that science that announces results they want to hear, ‘real scientists’ are those that make these announcements. Actual competence and relevant qualifications don’t enter into it. Any buffoon will do; hence Monckton (the ‘science’ advisor) and Morner.

    This has been proved repeatedly, and more conclusively than AGW itself. Constant re-demonstrations are simply tedious, and not a little depressing, as they only serve to remind us that the enlightenment never really penetrated all that far, and there’s no good historical reason to believe that rationality must inevitably triumph over smug, complacent stupidity.

    The joke simply isn’t funny anymore. Sure, we’ll be proved right (though too late to do much, probably), and the likes of Duff will deservedly stink in the nostrils of posterity, but in Durban right now we’re being pulled down to the muck by the muck.

    Could Duff not be confined on the existential-pointlessness thread with the Scandinavian Tobacco Lobby?

  5. #5 John
    December 10, 2011

    Duff my sweetheart, in all your dreary pontifications about Real Science (i.e. classics, nothing has changed since the 1500s) and “Real Scientists” (i.e. scientists who says what you want to hear), you have failed to answer my disarmingly simple question:

    >Duff, tell me how you can believe Morner’s projections are more accurate when his current observations are already devastatingly wrong?

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    December 11, 2011

    >But of course, biology is not a science. It can make no definitive forecasts.

    Duff, if you weren’t so busy being a drunkard you’d be embarrassed to have ever said this.

    If this really is your level of understanding of science, then you have proved once and for all that you are abjectly unqualified to comment on even high school level material.

    Go back to selling used cars. You might actually find a sucker there who will swallow your swill.

  7. #7 Scribe
    December 11, 2011

    Duff is a professional spreader of doubt about AGW. His purpose is to disseminate FUD far and wide, the way a hippo’s tail sprays manure about. Oh look, FUD is DUF spelled backwards — who woulda guessed?

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    December 11, 2011

    Perhaps we should christen Duff’s brand of schtick FFUD, where you can use your imagination to decide what the extra ‘F’ might stand for – but “manure” might be an appropriate association.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    December 11, 2011

    You (the Duff) really are ignorant of science and history

    Sounds perfectly qualified for denying science.

  10. #10 FrankD
    December 11, 2011

    >Tell you what, chaps, I’ll answer yours if you’ll answer mine!

    We’re still waiting David. Are you going to answer John’s question as you promised, or are you just going to throw out more denialist chum? I’m not really to fazed, of course, but evading it seems like…er, evasion ;-)

    Or in you apparently preferred faux-retro-speech: Play up, old boy, can’t be a squibber and let the side down, wot? Gin us up, me old chummoy – what say you to Johnnie’s puzzler, eh?

    Can I suggest that everyone else here help David stay on track? He’s obviously easily distracted, so staying on one point help avoid confusing him. There are many questions here that he might deal with, but John *was* first.

  11. #11 David Duff
    December 11, 2011

    Sorry for the delay – well, actually, I’m not in the least sorry, I do have a life outside of this particular imbroglio, thank God! I will stick to GWB because, despite his icy disdain, it is possible to hold a polite conversation with him.

    Taking your points inorder:
    1. I never spoke of “cutting edge science”, not least because I have n’t the faintest idea what you mean by the expression. I have givenyou Newton’s laws as an example of ‘science’, ie, calculations based on observations which are (more or less) universal and from which predictions can be made. (I would be happy to add the quantum theories of the 20th century if that is more up to date – although what age has to do with it, I do not know.)

    2. Might I remind you that, once again, it was me who asked the question first, to repeat, “let me ask you if you believe that the ‘forecasts’ of Dr. Mann have proved accurate?”. I am eager, even panting, to read your response.

  12. #12 chek
    December 11, 2011

    Duffer, as it does not appear to have sunk in yet, GWBN skewered your Newtonion ‘pure science’ nonsense pretensions and your carefully constructed little fences between ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ (‘bad science’ being a euphemism for climate science of course) by introducing you to the classic three body problem – which itself predates Principia Mathematica. Incredibly, you can look it up on the very same infernal machine you’re using at precisely this moment, don’tcha know.

    What you actually seem to have in the intellectual space your brain reserves for scientific and technical information is a cobweb of half-baked, unexamined ideas and perhaps some truisms which have probably served you well enough for one who aspires to affect the mannerisms of a long-dead class, but make you woefully unequipped to discuss science anywhere outside of the retiree’s golf club bar.

    No wonder disinformers like Watts and McinTyres welcome you with open arms.

  13. #13 GWB's Nemesis
    December 11, 2011

    Mr Duff, I defined “cutting edge science” in my earlier post (you appear to have a short term memory problem – perhaps you should lay off the sauce for a bit). To remind you – this is a research area in which new data has been published in a peer reviewed journal in this current year. Newtonian mechanics does not qualify. Over to you.

    Regarding Mann’s forecasts, see my earlier post too. As far as I am aware Mann’s work focuses on palaeoclimate reconstruction. You are clearly aware of a paper in which he has made some forecasts that can now be teste against data. I am not – and being a good scientist I even did a Web of Science search to try to find such a paper. So please do elucidate which forecasts you mean. I cannot answer your question unless you are more specific. If you provide this information I will reply (I think it is so rude to ignore a question that has been posed, and being a man of such integrity I am sure you feel the same).

    It is therefore a surprise that to date you have answered none of the questions posed to you in this thread – are you actually going to do so now?

  14. #14 Dave H
    December 11, 2011

    @David Duff

    Your example was that using Newtonian mechanics you could accurately predict the positions of the planets in 10,000 years.

    But you can’t. Again, Mercury will be off by something like 1.2 degrees over that timescale.

    You also change the subject, quoting from a highly controversial and plagiarised document to make further points, and preemptively dismiss the (far more numerous and credible) rebuttals and counter examples as “he said/she said”. This is just childish, and *nobody* with half a brain is impressed by your evasion.

  15. #15 David Duff
    December 11, 2011

    GBW, thank you (and I mean it) for the polite exchange. Alas, as you are bright enough to see as well as an old Duffer like me, our conversation is going nowhere useful except into a never-ending circle.

    I will end by restating my basic premise. The hypothesis of AGW cannot be accepted by neutral outsiders because the those who disagree with it, whilst they might not have proven the opposite, they certainly have established what m’learned friends call “reasonable doubt”. That is not the end of the story because, of course (and quite properly), you and other practitioners in the field will strive mightily to prove your case to the same level of exactitude as , say, Newton’s Laws. I applaud you for that because I have no wish to perpetuate a system which might cause global damage on the scale you warn us of.

    Needless to say, and all opinion polls confirm it, the great unwashed, in which I am proud to take my place, are even more sceptical now than hitherto concerning your dire predictions. Even so, keep at it! You will not be alone in pursuing a chimera, indeed, you will be in distinguished company – Newton went to his grave believing in alchemy and virtually the entire Royal Academy believed in phlogiston!

    I shall continue to watch your efforts with interest, and now I must leave you so that the various grunt-snufflers can shamble out of the undergrowth and indulge their less than impressive vitriol.

  16. #16 ianam
    December 11, 2011

    Duffer, as it does not appear to have sunk in yet, GWBN skewered your Newtonion ‘pure science’ nonsense pretensions and your carefully constructed little fences between ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ (‘bad science’ being a euphemism for climate science of course) by introducing you to the classic three body problem

    And, as Dave H pointed out, even with two bodies, what Newton tells us “exactly” is wrong, as has been known since 1859 when the precession of perihelion of Mercury was calculated.

    I have givenyou Newton’s laws as an example of ‘science’, ie, calculations based on observations which are (more or less) universal and from which predictions can be made. (I would be happy to add the quantum theories of the 20th century if that is more up to date – although what age has to do with it, I do not know.)

    Here Duff shows that he is clueless about the difference between physical laws and science, clueless about the difference between quantum mechanics and relativity, clueless about the fact that Newton was never “exactly” right, and clueless about the refinement of scientific understanding over time.

    The notion that something is only science if it can predict exactly what will happen in 10,000 years is so mindbogglingly stupid that I didn’t think it possible even of Duff. For him, it seems, science consists solely of “laws” that are so powerful that they can offer exact predictions even in the face of numerous contingent unknowns. And he is so arrogant that he imagines that, even with his nearly complete lack of knowledge of or competence in science, his notions override the dictionaries, the encyclopedias, and the whole of educated intellectual society on the matter of whether biology is a science. And we see this same sort of arrogance, to varying degrees, in Andy, Jonas, Brent, and every other so-called “skeptic”.

  17. #17 ianam
    December 11, 2011

    our conversation is going nowhere useful

    Due entirely to your own dishonesty.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    December 11, 2011

    *But of course, biology is not a science. It can make no definitive forecasts. For example, even the most highly respected Darwinists cannot tell us which species will exist in 10,000 years, let alone which species will be produced. Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be*

    I echo Bernard’s description of the old Duffer’s verbiage as being pure swill. Where to deconstruct this vapid remark? I won’t even bother. Even a young public school student in the 6th grade would be on the floor when reading this. If anybody is interested, I will rebut, but given the senility factor in the old Duffer’s splendidly hilarious comments, I think we can put this kind of nonsense to bed.

  19. #19 John
    December 11, 2011

    >I shall continue to watch your efforts with interest, and now I must leave you so that the various grunt-snufflers can shamble out of the undergrowth and indulge their less than impressive vitriol.

    This is the fourth or fifth time he’s made a dramatic exit. He’ll be back to gloat when Watts finds the next “final nail in the coffin”.

    Even more disappointing than this latest fake exit, he still can’t answer my basic, basic question:

    >Duff, tell me how you can believe Morner’s projections are more accurate when his current observations are already devastatingly wrong?

    Real Science = forming an opinion and then looking for facts to support it

  20. #20 Composer99
    December 11, 2011

    That David Duff is uttering the term ‘Darwinists’ (in addition to rubbishing biology) indicates that perhaps he is the victim of crank magnetism in more than one field of science.

    And how about this…

    Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be

    Perhaps you have heard of something called general relativity?

  21. #21 bill
    December 11, 2011

    Perhaps he is the victim of crank magnetism in more than one field of science

    http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/.services/blog/6a00d8341c5caf53ef00d8341c5cb353ef/search?filter.q=Darwin

    Yep. One gives us –

    I am a semi-, and mostly, self-educated second-rater

    Never were truer words spoken in supposedly ironic mock-humility.

    If you want to see just how deep the crankery runs with this one, try searching his site for ‘birth certificate’.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    December 11, 2011

    > …biology is not a science. It can make no definitive forecasts.

    It’s good to know that Duff thinks there’s no such thing as medical science either. I’m guessing he refuses all modern medical treatment on principle, eh?

  23. #23 ianam
    December 11, 2011

    Better yet, search for “Glenn Beck”.

  24. #24 bill
    December 11, 2011

    Monckton for PM, Glenn Beck for Chairman of the BBC!

    Do I sound like Glenn Beck? Good!

    Do we really need to waste any more time on this buffoon?

  25. #25 jakerman
    December 12, 2011

    Duff writes:

    >*I have a lifetime’s experience of being wrong about many things*

    Then he adds yet another to the long list:

    >*But of course, biology is not a science. It can make no definitive forecasts.*

    Here David, widen your reading. Start with [some basics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology), then ask yourself if we can predict with certainty that you won’t live for long if your heart stops pumping your blood? Or if loss of sea ice will affect kill?

    Or if your body can cool itself to 37 deg C in an enviroment with wetbulb temp [over 35 deg C](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Heat-stress-setting-an-upper-limit-on-what-we-can-adapt-to.html)?

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2011

    >The hypothesis of AGW cannot be accepted by neutral outsiders because the those who disagree with it, whilst they might not have proven the opposite, they certainly have established what m’learned friends call “reasonable doubt”.

    In other words, you have no understanding of science.

    Back to selling lemons, Duff. Oh, of course – you’ve never stopped…

  27. #27 Mercurius
    December 12, 2011

    Emphasis added:

    I am a semi-, and mostly, self-educated second-rater

    Ahhh, and therein lies the problem.

    The trouble with autodidacts is that they are teacher’s pet.

  28. #28 Berbalang
    December 12, 2011

    Just a heads-up!

    The past two days there have been two attempts to download malware to my computer from Climate sites I regularly visit. I think either the site or one of the advertisers has been hacked. The one from SwiftHack was a rootkit and the one from Climate Progress was some sort of a remote code execution. The timing on these bothers me.

  29. #29 David Duff
    December 12, 2011

    Sorry, sorry, I didn’t mean to return but I bring you urgent news from, er, … Dur … glug-glug … ban … where rapidly rising … glug-glug … seas … have brought an ubrupt … glug-glug … ending to the climate conference.

    So I suppose this global warming isn’t all bad, then!

  30. #30 Wow
    December 12, 2011

    > Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be

    [Wrong](http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/solarsys.html), even in the absence of General Relativity.

    In a prediction of only million years, we know that Pluto will still be in the same orbit, but we don’t know which side of the sun it will be. Heck, we don’t know the location of the Earth in its orbit in a 100 million year prediction!

  31. #31 ianam
    December 12, 2011

    `#`330

    Cretin troll.

  32. #32 John
    December 12, 2011

    >This is the fourth or fifth time he’s made a dramatic exit. He’ll be back to gloat when Watts finds the next “final nail in the coffin”.

    Correct again, because as usual the trolls have waited for Watts to tell them what to think about Durban after all that scary news there might be an agreement.

    Duff, stop being an unfunny sad old man for a second and answer my simple question:

    >Tell me how you can believe Morner’s projections are more accurate when his current observations are already devastatingly wrong?

  33. #33 PB
    December 13, 2011

    I thought I’d lost the capacity to be shocked by the denialists until I heard Howard on ABC this morning. What sort of reality do these guys live in?

    Anyway, it had a coda this afternoon when I was listening to PM and Plimer was on there. The guy is incredible. I hadn’t understood what ‘going emeritus’ meant until I heard him raving this afternoon. Mark Colvin asks him some reasonable questions and Plimer just goes off his face. How dare anyone question his credibility! As well as his usual drivel about how volcanoes cause climate change (or not) he denies asbestos is asbestos and that it causes cancer. The guy really has lost it.

    Here’s the link (masochists only) http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm

  34. #34 Mercurius
    December 13, 2011

    There once was an old troll named Duff,
    Who posted a whole lot of guff,
    From each stinkin’ word
    Grew a great pile of merde
    That no-one but no-one could flush.

  35. #35 John
    December 13, 2011

    Oh PB, that is *gold*.

    >IAN PLIMER: I’m sorry. You are just a journalist. I have spent my life studying minerals. Look up any basic mineralogy textbook, the sort of thing that we give to 18-year-old students at university, and you’ll see that chrysotile is a serpentine mineral.

    >MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

    >IAN PLIMER: A family of serpentine minerals.

    >MATT PEACOCK: Called asbestos.

  36. #36 John
    December 13, 2011

    Let’s play a game. How many lies can you spot in these paragraphs?

    >And we’ve only got to our present climate from past climates. The climate industry ignores the past.

    >Climate science is a very new science. Geology is a great part of climate science. You cannot ignore geology. If you do, you get a completely different view of the way the planet works.

    >But that’s the way that the climate industry wants us to look at climate because geology has those really uncomfortable questions. It shows that sea level goes up and down and climate goes up and down and the land goes up and down and it’s much more complicated than traces of a trace gas in the atmosphere.

    And they wonder why they get called “deniers”. Plimer is precious, and it is astounding that anybody would believe these lies. I’m sure Duff is eating it right up though. What a sucker.

  37. #37 Andy S
    December 13, 2011

    For connoisseurs of stupidity: Gosselin at NoTricksZone.

    >[**Renowed Warmist Scientist Mojib Latif Says Humans Could Be Responsible For Only 0.35°C In 100 Years**](http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/12/renowed-warmist-scientist-mojib-latif-says-humans-could-be-responsible-for-only-0-35%C2%B0c-in-100-years/)
    >
    >Usually warmists screech that humans are 95% responsible for the recent warming, and that huge positive water vapor feedbacks will get involved in the future. So it’s not very often you hear a warmist admit that humans perhaps could be just half responsible for the warming of the last 100 years.
    > …

  38. #38 David Duff
    December 13, 2011

    Mercurious @ 335:

    Well done, very witty, in fact so good I am going to publich it over at my place.

  39. #39 adelady
    December 13, 2011

    Oh dear. I’m going to have to hand in my membership card at the masochists’ club. That Plimer interview was unbearable.

    But, but … he seemed almost pitiful. Talk about setting yourself up to fail. He seems to have gone like a lamb to the slaughter following whoever led him down the chrysotile-is-not-asbestos-and-isn’t-carcinogenic-anyway path.

  40. #40 Berbalang
    December 14, 2011

    After having seen little to contradict it, I have a hypothesis that the rejections of logic and other justifications that Climate Deniers have to accept bleeds into other areas of their thinking, making them more and more deranged. I also suspect that the long term effect of this is to induce brain cancer. Of course it is possible that the early stages of brain cancer make one more likely to accept climate denial.
    Just for the record, I have watched an individual go through stages of replacing logic with conservative political thought (including climate denial) with the result of increasingly bizarre behavior resulting from it. He has now been diagnosed with brain tumors. Despite having what tumors they could reach removed, radiation treatment and chemotherapy, he seems just like he always did to a number of people who knew him. To me he seems more like an old Eliza program and has for many years.
    It makes me wonder if there will not be a long term correlation between the rise of conservative political thought and an epidemic of brain cancer. I would find it reassuring if the conservative Republican candidates would release MRI scans of their brains to prove they don’t have brain cancer. I’m not saying they do have brain cancer, I’m just concerned they might have brain cancer.

  41. #41 David Duff
    December 14, 2011

    Well done, Berbalang, I would have no hesitation in placing your hypthesis right up there alongside AGW. Good show!

  42. #42 Berbalang
    December 14, 2011

    David, could you please post an MRI scan of your brain just to add another data point toward confirming or disproving my hypothesis?

  43. #43 David Duff
    December 14, 2011

    My dear chap, it is too fine a thing to be found by an MRI scan, a bit like a Higgs Boson particle, tiny but precious!

  44. #44 John
    December 14, 2011

    Duff’s post rate hasn’t dropped since he made his fifth dramatic exit. How sad.

    What’s wrong Duff? So out of depth on basic science all you can do is snipe from the sidelines? Because that’s exactly what it looks like.

    Suddenly my words of two weeks ago seem remarkably prescient:

    >[The sad, unfunny old man routine is] so Duff can back out of any statement he makes as “just having a laff!”.

    >Duff, like most deniers, is a gutless coward too frightened to stand by his own words, hence the endless caveats on his insipid blog that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s such a cad and a wit, you see!

  45. #45 bill
    December 14, 2011
  46. #46 bill
    December 15, 2011

    Climate Crocks reports: Denier bloggers raided ‘in what seems to be a coordinated effort by Metropolitan Police, the Norfolk Constabulary and the Computer Crime division and the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division. [A bloggers] home was raided and computers were taken for ‘examination’.’

    Perhaps now we’ll get a gander at how the sauce that was perfectly fine when it was served for the goose tastes now…

  47. #47 Marco
    December 15, 2011

    @Bill: wouldn’t it be fun if this raid resulted in the “whistleblower” release of e-mails of these guys?

    I’m sure there’s a treasure trove of stupidity in there (especially from Roger Tattersall), and definitely a lot of quotes that can be mined for whatever purpose deemed necessary for “the cause”.

    Now, THAT would be karma…

  48. #48 Adam
    December 15, 2011

    Wonder how many deniers are frantically clicking ‘delete delete delete’ right now… Sounds just like chickens coming home to roost, doesn’t it?

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    December 15, 2011

    Pigeons, meet Cat.

  50. #50 lord_sidcup
    December 15, 2011

    Cue upsurge in George Orwell 1984 references on denier blogs.

  51. #51 John
    December 15, 2011

    Read the WUWT comments thread. And here I was thinking their conspiracy theories couldn’t get any stupider.

  52. #52 bratisla
    December 15, 2011

    @349 and I wonder why they are so afraid and so busy spreading the word (“quick ! warn X and Y !” I am not kidding, this was one of the first comments over tallbloke’s blog)
    After all, they have nothing to hide since they are innocent, aren’t they ?


    Just LOOOOVE the karma kicking back. Let’s place bets on the number of minutes a comment at WUWT reminding that will stay before it gets deleted.

  53. #53 Berbalang
    December 15, 2011

    This may seem like an odd question, but how do we know that the deniers actually got these emails from the Department of Justice? Something about this whole thing just doesn’t seem right on some level. Could this “raid” be a hoax by the hacker FOIA in order to try and restore life to Climategate2? It would be a logical step for the hacker to take.

    You can be sure the Climategate hacker is using another name, lurking in the background and pushing Climategate2 as “the real thing”. My bets are he/she/it has become a lot more obvious over time…

  54. #54 Berbalang
    December 15, 2011

    I’ve been Googling information on the story and turned up interesting information, including a name for FOIA. I don’t know yet if the name is correct, so I am not going to post it. (Frankbi if you see this drop me an email and I will share it with you.)

  55. #55 silkworm
    December 16, 2011

    There has been a breakthrough in the police investigation of the stolen CRU emails.

    Police officers investigating the theft of thousands of private emails between climate scientists from a University of East Anglia server in 2009 have seized computer equipment belonging to a web content editor based at the University of Leeds.

    On Wednesday, detectives from Norfolk Constabulary entered the home of Roger Tattersall, who writes a climate sceptic blog under the pseudonym TallBloke, and took away two laptops and a broadband router.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire?CMP=twt_gu

  56. #56 ianam
    December 16, 2011

    Genuine skeptic Christopher Hitchens is dead at 62.

  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    December 16, 2011
  58. #58 Wow
    December 16, 2011

    What’s going on is that the gullible are still reading WUWT and believing themselves very fine fellows for having found “teh troof”.

  59. #59 chek
    December 16, 2011

    … and perhaps Anthony can get Christopher to lend him his Nobel Prize pin should the IPCC win again.

  60. #60 lord_sidcup
    December 16, 2011

    Watts fills out an online application to see a draft report. Petri is impressed?

  61. #61 Lotharsson
    December 16, 2011

    Well, it’s a fact that Petri is *very easily* impressed…

  62. #62 Olaus Petri
    December 17, 2011

    Fellas, let us hope for the best, shall we? :-)

  63. #63 Russell
    December 17, 2011

    In a move calculated to bring IPCC 5 into compliance with Sturgeon’s Law , Anthony Watts has been accepted as an Expert Reviewer.

  64. #64 ianam
    December 17, 2011

    Russell, read the six posts before yours.

  65. #65 John
    December 17, 2011

    Anthony Watts is a peer reviewed scientific expert, remember. He proved once and for all that the UHI conspiracy theorists were wrong.

  66. #66 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2011

    From Watts’ site about his reviewership:

    >An invitation letter is available from < https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/PDFs/WGIAR5_ExpertReview_InvitationLetter>…

    >[snip]

    >Your username and password will be required to access the WGI AR5 FOD Chapters and to submit a review. The drafts, review form, and additional supporting material are available from the WGI AR5 FOD Expert Review website:

    >https://fod.ipcc.unibe.ch/fod/

    >Expert Reviewers are kindly reminded that all materials provided from this website are available for the sole purpose of the Expert Review and may not be cited, quoted, or distributed.

    Given that Watts has already published material from the domain from which recipients of the letter are not supposed to quote, it seems that Watts’ expertise is in not following the instructions given by the acceptance letter he received.

    Or perhaps his ‘expertise’ is in making out that he was invited to join AR5 by the IPCC’s initiative, when in fact it is clear from the text in the comments that he applied off his own bat, and received the ‘invitation’ in response, rather than having been sought out by the IPCC.

    I note that those links indicate that AR5 material is apparently hosted by La Universidad Iberoamericana in the Dominican Republic. Firefox didn’t like the site, which makes me wonder – is AR5 really working out of the Dominican Republic, or is someone going to a lot of effort to have a lend of some Denialati? Either way, I was not sufficiently moved by curiosity to follow the links.

  67. #67 John
    December 17, 2011

    If Watts genuinely reviews for AR5 we can expect two things.

    1. Draft documents to mysteriously spread far and wide over the denialosphere.

    2. His resignation/blog posts attacking “The Team” when it becomes clear AR5 will merely confirm what we already know.

  68. #68 Mike G
    December 18, 2011

    @John (368)

    I think there are a few other plausible alternatives to your proposed #2.

    a) He resigns in feigned disgust over the “lack of openness” when he is reprimanded for publishing drafts/comments which he has agreed not to publish.

    b) After violating the confidentiality agreement, his “expert reviewer” privileges are revoked, at which point he whines that he was forced out for not toeing the consensus line.

  69. #69 Marco
    December 18, 2011

    Errrr…Bernard J, that’s a Swiss URL from the University of Bern: unibe.ch

  70. #70 David Duff
    December 18, 2011

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I use the term loosely, of course, but just a small word of warning; have a care when referring to ‘Tallbloke’s’ travails. Matters have taken a serious turn and I know what an excitable bunch of kiddies you are and I would hate any of you and/or our distinguished host to get into trouble with m’learned friends.

    No, no, don’t thank me – just the usual in the plain brown envelope!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/14/uk-police-seize-computers-of-skeptic-in-england/

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2011

    [Marco](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6197386).

    I’ve just figured the same thing out, after I followed a link from That Search Engine to the reference page of a heritage-breed site and got the photos from that site, with thousands and thousands of repetitions of words relating to ‘enhancement’ products.

    I tried the home url and got back to the same reference page url but with the correct text. As soon as I realised this, something twigged and I tried the Bern page, et voila…!

    I seem to be having a severe issue with my computer. I have scanned it with several different high-profile malware applications and it always comes up clean, so if anyone here has any idea about tracking down this bizarre redirection thingie I’d be most interested to hear…

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2011
  73. #73 bill
    December 18, 2011

    Yep, duffer, not only old news, but if you follow the link you’ll note that nobody engages in defamatory speculation regarding criminal activity, though the words ‘stupid’ and ‘karma’ do get tossed around a bit.

    Contrast this to the constant string of libelous accusations integral to the conspiracy theory that is the larger portion of your side of the debate.

    Note how the discussion tailed off pretty quickly? That’s because the reality-based community tends to take Mr. Holmes’ advice, and doesn’t speculate well head of the evidence.

    We shall see, and while I’m sure many would experience just ein bißchen of the old schadenfreude at the prospect of some ‘the biter bit’ style entertainment, few will be surprised if little comes of it all.

  74. #74 MikeH
    December 18, 2011

    Bernard @ 374

    Check your “hosts” file in C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc for spurious entries.

    Should only have a reference to “localhost”

  75. #75 John
    December 18, 2011

    Simpering coward Duff has now posted here five or six times in the week since he announced he was quitting commenting after he couldn’t justify his startling claim that biology wasn’t a science, explain why he felt Morner’s projections were so accurate when his observations were so wrong, or tell us exactly what projections Dr. Mann (who studies paleoclimate) has made.

    Duff, there is a line of people here still waiting for you to answer these questions.

    Why are you so afraid of scientific debate? Why have you resorted to weak trolling and link spamming instead of actually standing by your own arguments like any person of intelligence or integrity would?

  76. #76 John
    December 19, 2011
  77. #77 lord_sidcup
    December 19, 2011

    Kudos to Christian at Carbon Brief for challenging, via Press Complaints Commission, misleading claims published in the Daily Fail:

    [Daily Mail prints third correction to its energy bills coverage](http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/12/mail-makes-third-correction-to-energy-bills-coverage)

    Christian 3, Fail 0.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    December 20, 2011

    Interesting [account](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference) of the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global And Regional Climate Change. Impressions of Curry are … interesting, as are those of Monckton (I will post a link and quote on the Monckton Debunks Monckton thread).

    > The main lesson I took away from the conference was this: there is no consistent contrarian science, and there is no defining contrarian ideology or motivation. Some are sincere. Others are angry at their lack of funding. Some appear to be envious of the IPCC scientists’ success, and others have found a niche that gets them attention they would not otherwise get. Only a few appear to be motivated by politics. No single label applies to them, and I found myself referring to them as “contrarians/skeptics/deniers/enablers/provocateurs/publicity-seekers”.

    > The one common thread I found among them was the fervent belief that “Climategate” was a conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged. This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism. Those I met were uniformly cynical about the honesty and motivations of mainstream scientists. If I were forced to use a single label, I would be inclined to call them “science cynics”.

  79. #79 David Duff
    December 20, 2011

    “there is no defining contrarian ideology”

    Precisely and exactly so, which is part of what makes them so attractive. You see, the don’t have “the cause” to push.

    ‘Warmers’, on the other hand . . .

  80. #80 chek
    December 20, 2011

    Duffer, if you for one nanosecond imagine you’re not being led by the nose into what you should think by those who knowingly play to your own ignorance and vanity, you’re already several stages beyond delusional.

  81. #81 bill
    December 20, 2011

    I vote for several stages beyond delusional. Plus –

    This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism.

    – is also a neat summation of the Duff world view. Don’t you love it when hoary old tories play at being ‘outsiders’?

  82. #82 John
    December 20, 2011

    Hey Duff, still any word on why you believe Morner’s predictions when his observations are so very wrong?

    Got a list of more fields that aren’t Real Science? Perhaps ecology this time, or maybe physics?

    How’s that list of incorrect projections Dr. Mann has made coming along?

    More importantly – why are you such a scientific and ideological coward?

  83. #83 John
    December 20, 2011

    It seems the blubbery, shambling carcass who calls himself “Duff” likes to give it but he can’t take it. How pathetically gormless.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    December 20, 2011

    > You see, the don’t have “the cause” to push.

    They’re quite clearly pushing “their cause” for which they cannot marshal decent argument or evidence. But they’ve certainly pulled the wool over Duff’s eyes on that front – which is apparently quite easy.

    That would be the same Duff who quote-mined but failed to note that the original said they all disagree with one another’s arguments, and the only unifying factor is a belief that “‘ClimateGate’ shows a conspiracy and the IPCC is rigged”.

    And the very same Duff who won’t defend his assertions; see what John said, including:

    > More importantly – why are you such a scientific and ideological coward?

  85. #85 John
    December 20, 2011

    Duff likes to boast he doesn’t have a cause, which is odd because his cause is posted on top of his blog:

    >“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”

    Just in case you needed more proof that Duff is a politically motivated troll who bases his scientific views on his ideology.

  86. #86 lord_sidcup
    December 21, 2011

    They are calling it ‘pollgate’. Murdoch organ The Sunday Times hides the results of a poll they commissioned on renewable energy, because it undermines the editorial line they relentlessly plug:

    [Sunday Times bury wind farm survey after it reveals majority support](http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/12/sunday-times-wind-farms/)

  87. #87 lord_sidcup
    December 21, 2011

    They are calling it ‘pollgate’. Murdoch organ The Sunday Times hides the results of a poll they commissioned on renewable energy, because it undermines the editorial line they relentlessly plug:

    [Sunday Times bury wind farm survey after it reveals majority support](http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/12/sunday-times-wind-farms/)

  88. #88 lord_sidcup
    December 21, 2011

    Sorry about the double post. I seem to have something in common with D Duff (grimace).

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    December 21, 2011

    Newspaper article on [permafrost melt and methane release from lakes in polar regions](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/science/earth/warming-arctic-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-worries.html). They report a lot of uncertainty and worryingly high upper bounds, which will be no surprise to anyone who’s been following along.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    December 21, 2011

    [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6199367).

    I wonder if this methane release might be the equivalent of one of Ben Elton’s Swords of Damacles?

    If it is, I wonder if humanity will be as recalcitrant to acting on what is visible and instead wait for an Avalanche, as they were – and did – in Stark?

  91. #91 John Mashey
    December 22, 2011

    Remember NAS, last summer?
    Kerry Emmanuel has another good article, which sadly falls on deaf ears.
    However, it was fairly useful as it was a response to Sterling Burnett, a fellow I’ve been reading some of lately.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2011

    > Impressions of Curry are … interesting…

    …and she turned up in comments, mostly focused on making a few denials and claims that weren’t exactly convincing, and flounced off inviting anyone who cared to discuss it on her blog.

    As one headline example, she claimed that her cartoon of Mann apparently “hiding the uncertainty monster” under a sheet with a hockey stick and the cover of The Hockey Stick Illusion…was not attacking Mann!

    Other commenters appear to be [taking apart some of her pseudo-scientific bafflegab and hand-waving fluff](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference/comment-page-3/#comment-222872):

    > Judy, Risk assessment is my day job, and I can say without any uncertainty that you don’t understand it. …

    > When a risk with severe consequences cannot be bounded, standard risk assessment prescribes risk avoidance as the only reasonable strategy, since intelligent allocation of resources toward risk mitigation is not possible for situations of unbounded risk. …

    > …Indeed, without reliable models–as you contend–the only reasonable strategy is to slam on the brakes HARD.

    > Judy, uncertainty is not the friend of the complacent.

    > In short, Judy, your talk contains 3 sorts of contentions:
    1)trivial
    2)wrong
    and
    3)so vague that they fall into the category of “not even wrong”

    And dhogaza points out that:

    > …her “uncertainty monster” only has one eye and its neck is fused and unable to turn. It is genetically programmed to stare in one direction, the direction that claims that all of uncertainty is on the low range – actually, far below the low range – and apparently is incapable of examining the full realm of uncertainty …

    And [this one](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/climate-cynicism-at-the-santa-fe-conference/comment-page-3/#comment-222892) is worth reading too.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2011

    > Kerry Emmanuel has another good article, …

    I second that.

    And the first commenter demonstrated pretty much exactly what the author was pointing out.

  94. #94 lord_sidcup
    December 23, 2011

    [Stan Lipmann](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/correction_andrew_bolt_likely.php) is continuing his campaign of hate emails directed at climate scientists (female climate scientists in particular it seems):

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/elsu4d

  95. #95 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 23, 2011

    Berbalang:

    I think I lost your e-mail address when my Hushmail account was disabled. I’d like to know more — please contact me at 4u2 at inactivism dot tk (or the e-mail address on this blog, or both). Meanwhile, also consider making a WebCite cache of whatever you found…

    — frank

  96. #96 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 23, 2011

    s/this blog/my blog/

    — frank

  97. #97 David Duff
    December 23, 2011

    Now is the season of goodwill, they tell me. So, in that spirit let me wish you all well but urge you to try and do much better in the future! When that chap Hansen promised us some scorching summers and warm winters I rubbed my hands in anticipation. And you lot keep warning me that really, really, hot weather is just about to happen. Sorry but I can’t wait much longer. My sun creams are all past their sell-by date and the canvas in my deckchair has rotted. And now I can’t even remember where I put my BBQ because it has been so long since I last used it what with the miserabley cold summers we’ve had for teh last three years. I’m beginning to lose faith, fellas, teeny-weeny doubts are entering my mind. Well, I mean, if this is global warming it’s pathetic!

    Anyway, I hope all of you enjoy an excellent Christmas and that you make a point of cooking on a coal-fired oven – every little bit helps.

  98. #98 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 23, 2011

    > you make a point of cooking on a coal-fired oven – every little bit helps.

    Hey David Duff, if you wanted us to give presents to rich CEOs of coal companies, instead of giving them to people we love or donating them to the needy, you could simply ask.

    Merry Christmas!

    — frank

  99. #99 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    December 23, 2011

    And Bernard J

    I’m not sure how well this’ll work, but you may want to get a known clean system with its own boot drive, disable AutoRun and AutoPlay, move your suspicious hard drives to the known clean system (without booting them up), and then scan the hard drives using only programs on the clean system. This should reduce the chances of any active malware on your system messing up your anti-virus program’s analysis.

    — frank