Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 chameleon
    January 28, 2013

    Brad @ 97,
    Now you’re giving hints 50 comments later.
    I’m glad I didn’t take the wager. Terrible odds.
    LB I will pull up your link later and comment if I see the need.
    No time right now.

  2. #2 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    This is really getting old. An incompetent sophist and a brain-damaged sycophant.

    Need better trolls, please.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @Stu, let me share something Gandhi said which really resonated with me.

    Be the better billy-goat you wish to see in the world.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    January 28, 2013

    @chameleon:

    ;-)

    That is all.

  5. #5 luminous beauty
    January 28, 2013

    No catastrophes here

  6. #6 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    Like I said, incompetent. I just forgot to mention insufferably boring.

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    General announcement.

    Do you understand anything about science or philosophy?

    Is your name chameleon, Latimer, Tim, Jeff Harvey, jonas or Mike without an H?

    Do your interests include such things as:

    – thinking
    – knowing
    and
    – reality?

    Well then, if—and only if—I’ve just described you, I know you’re gonna love this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/01/january-2013-open-thread/comment-page-11/#comment-146429

    What is it?

    Oh, nothing much.

    Only the ritual coup de grace of the intellectual humiliation of the simpleton runt of Lothar.

  8. #8 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Luminous:
    From your earlier link:
    Let’s take your quote into its wider context:

    This movement is fairly well funded. What’s interesting is that in comparison to the environmental movement, it actually doesn’t have as much money. The environmental movement actually has more funding, but it’s the nature of the spending that makes the difference.

    When you look at what the environmental movement spends its money on, it actually tries to spend its money on developing solutions to climate change, such as developing a solar panel industry in China, making sure everybody in India has an appropriate solar oven to reduce CO2 emissions, things like that. And they spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes. The climate change countermovement spends all of its money there.

    So you end up with this great difference between the two movements. As one movement is actually out there trying to develop technological solutions on the ground, the other is engaged in political action to delay any kind of action. …

    It appears even a SOCIOLOGIST is aware that there are far greater funds available to the environmental movement.

    As for the rest of the piece:
    It is purely about political ideologies and therefore politics.
    There is NO EVIDENCE that this so called counterclimate movement is any different to any other politcal advocacy group out there INCLUDING THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY’RE ENVIRONMENTAL
    Neither is there any evidence about a comparative % of the massive funding available to ‘environmental groups’ that is actually invested in such things as solar ovens in India.
    Are you claiming that none of their funding is spent on advocacy Luminous?

    I’m now making an appeal to JeffH.
    Don’t you think this particular person (Robert Bruille) is EQUALLY guilty of attracting attention to himself and simply pandering to the ‘adversarial’ hoo haa that the media etc is having a field day with?
    I sincerely wish you would ask BradK NICELY what a different approach could achieve.
    I believe he could explain how much less expensive and time wasting that would ultimately be.
    Unfortunately however, I think he is probably right and we could all come back here in 5 years and STILL NOTHING that anyone could regard as practical or sensible will be achieved.
    I would once again, with respect, suggest that you pick up a copy of Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow”.
    It is quite safe, he’s totally apolitical and totally an academic.
    It’s also very easy to obtain at the moment as it sits on the bestseller shelves.
    He, like BradK and myself, does NOT deny the importance or the value of science and statistical analysis.
    What he has discovered from a lifetime of research is that humans (and particularly experts) are not the paragons of reason that we assume ourselves to be.
    I’m sure you would enjoy it JeffH.

  9. #9 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    It’s SUPER-BRAD
    It’s SUPER-BRAD
    An indomitable legend
    In his own head

    It’s SUPER-BRAD
    It’s SUPER-BRAD
    An insufferable boorish boring
    SUPER-cad

    It’s SU… PER… BRAD!

  10. #10 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    OOPS! sorry moderator.
    Mistyped email address:
    Try again:
    Luminous:
    From your earlier link:
    Let’s take your quote into its wider context:

    This movement is fairly well funded. What’s interesting is that in comparison to the environmental movement, it actually doesn’t have as much money. The environmental movement actually has more funding, but it’s the nature of the spending that makes the difference.

    When you look at what the environmental movement spends its money on, it actually tries to spend its money on developing solutions to climate change, such as developing a solar panel industry in China, making sure everybody in India has an appropriate solar oven to reduce CO2 emissions, things like that. And they spend hardly anything on political or cultural processes. The climate change countermovement spends all of its money there.

    So you end up with this great difference between the two movements. As one movement is actually out there trying to develop technological solutions on the ground, the other is engaged in political action to delay any kind of action. …
    It appears even a SOCIOLOGIST is aware that there are far greater funds available to the environmental movement.

    As for the rest of the piece:
    It is purely about political ideologies and therefore politics.
    There is NO EVIDENCE that this so called counterclimate movement is any different to any other politcal advocacy group out there INCLUDING THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY’RE ENVIRONMENTAL
    Neither is there any evidence about a comparative % of the massive funding available to ‘environmental groups’ that is actually invested in such things as solar ovens in India.
    Are you claiming that none of their funding is spent on advocacy Luminous?

    I’m now making an appeal to JeffH.
    Don’t you think this particular person (Robert Bruille) is EQUALLY guilty of attracting attention to himself and simply pandering to the ‘adversarial’ hoo haa that the media etc is having a field day with?
    I sincerely wish you would ask BradK NICELY what a different approach could achieve.
    I believe he could explain how much less expensive and time wasting that would ultimately be.
    Unfortunately however, I think he is probably right and we could all come back here in 5 years and STILL NOTHING that anyone could regard as practical or sensible will be achieved.
    I would once again, with respect, suggest that you pick up a copy of Daniel Kahneman’s book “Thinking Fast and Slow”.
    It is quite safe, he’s totally apolitical and totally an academic.
    It’s also very easy to obtain at the moment as it sits on the bestseller shelves.
    He, like BradK and myself, does NOT deny the importance or the value of science and statistical analysis.
    What he has discovered from a lifetime of research is that humans (and particularly experts) are not the paragons of reason that we assume ourselves to be.
    I’m sure you would enjoy it JeffH.

  11. #11 bill
    January 29, 2013

    In recognition of his unique – indeed, transcendent – status I suggest that the only genuinely beneficial engagement Brad could hope to undertake is with appropriately qualified specialists.

    And soon.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2013

    Unfortunately, bill, the first prerequisite for that kind of thing tends to be that one recognises one has a problem, and the second prerequisite is that one recognises the experts know a lot more than you do.

    You can see why those are going to be tricky here…

  13. #13 chameleon
    January 29, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    I also highly recommend the book to you.
    Especially Chapter 22 which is titled:
    Expert Intuition: When Can We Trust It?
    He has conducted some fascinating studies and statistical analysis on this particular topic as well as referencing work from others.
    I was quite surprised by the conclusions.
    However it’s only a recommendation so please don’t bother trying to read anything else into it other than what it is.

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Shorter Brad:

    I don’t get my knowledge of climate science from the IPCC, I get it from crank blogs or I just make it up as I go along, what with me being ever-so-pleased of my own half-baked opinions.

    When asked to support my assertions with evidence, I will produce some random quotes from some random people who do not represent the consensus position on climate science from which policy-making is developed.

    I get it.

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Chameleon, no matter how many examples you can find of experts making a mistake, their performance is always going to be much, much better, on average, than the performance of the untrained.

    In other words, you can’t argue:
    – Thalidomide
    – Therefore Anthony Watts might have a point.

    I *do* find it interesting, and funny, that somebody has suggested you read “Thinking fast and slow”.

    Because “Fast and Slow: is exactly about the methods people such as yourself perform assessments, and which scientists strive so very hard to avoid:
    – Heuristic bias, ie, missing new patterns because you fit observations to known patterns (or, climate change is natural, it’s always occurring)
    – Anchoring, ie, bias based on irrelevant numbers (or, irrelevant photos of snow)
    – Substitution, ie, a failed Kahneman experiment that proved that non-scientists perform poorly at defining the meaning of words.
    – Framing, ie, analyses biased by the method used to describe them.
    – Sunkcost, ie, people throw good money after bad (or, no matter how often Watts is shown to be nincompoop, his fans double-down on support for him)
    – Prospect Theory, ie, not considering the whole of the problem and biasing analyses through over- or under-consideration of small parts of the whole.

    Really, if Kahneman is describing the problems scientific humans face (and scientists are *very* aware of the need to identify and deal with assumptions and bias, and a great deal of their work is based around this process), it is 1,000,000x more relevant to people who haven’t benefited from any kind of rigorous intellectual training.

    For additional information about the latter,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Afv3U_ysc

  16. #16 BBD
    January 29, 2013

    Brad keys @ Page 18 # 100

    No, it was LB and some of the underpinning ecological reasoning was supplied in earlier comments by Jeff Harvey.

    ‘Existential threat’ isn’t a phrase I would use lightly. ‘Very bad outcomes’ sits more easily with my understanding of the consequences of the high emissions scenarios.

    Idiot ‘sceptics’ who mash the entire spectrum of possible outcomes into a single *strawman* labelled CAGW haven’t understood the most basic premise of all: the sliding scale, determined by emissions.

    As I say, it’s painful to behold. You are supposed to be clever, so you ought to be able to avoid basic blunders like this.

  17. #17 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Besides which, complaining that CAGW hasn’t happened is like saying you haven’t died yet.

  18. #18 lord_sidcup
    January 29, 2013

    Here’s a little known tidbit relating to Ridley. The Viscount is currently trying to use the Monckton route into the UK House of Lords. Not by lying about being a member, but by the other route – the anachronistic and undemocratic by-election in which only aristocrats can stand and only aristocrats can vote. Ridley has no shame it seems.
    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/70549/?edition_id=1332

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Yeah, but, Wow, “there’s been no warming since [insert date of last peak warm year]”.

    That’s how clever they are.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    January 29, 2013

    Back on topic – sort of.
    Russell Seitz over on The Rabett’s has linked to a publication by Matt Ridley from, Drum-roll and ‘beat to quarters’, the GWPF..

    Now is it new, maybe, but there is no publication date within the PDF and it contains many of the same old crocks e.g:

    1. I need persuading that the urban heat island effect has been fully purged from the surface temperature record. Satellites are showing less warming than the surface thermometers, and there is evidence that local warming of growing cities, and poor siting of thermometers, is still contaminating the global record.1 I also need to be convinced that the adjustments made by those who compile the global temperature records are justified. Since 2008 alone, NASA has added about 0.1C of warming to the trend by unexplained “adjustments” to old records.2 It is not reassuring that one of the main surface temperature records is produced by an extremist prepared to get himself arrested (James Hansen).

    So, according to Ridley, James Hansen is an extremist.

    Well Ridley you are a disgrace to the human race.

    And look at the supporting citations at the foot of the page where the above is found:

    1 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

    2 https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/how-giss-have-changed-the-temperature-record-since-2008/

    3 http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

    Birds of a feather and all that.

    This from Ridley makes him as much of a laughing stock as the Discount Viscount.

  21. #21 BBD
    January 29, 2013

    Ridley has been on the GWPF’s ‘academic advisory council’ for at least two years.

    Dr Matt Ridley

    Matt Ridley is one of the world’s foremost science writers. His books have sold over 800,000 copies and been translated into 27 languages. His new book ‘The Rational Optimist’ was published in 2010.

  22. #22 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Must be sad when your employment options narrow to the point where you have to take a job working for the shills.

  23. #23 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Matt Ridley is one of the world’s foremost science writers.

    Is that supposed to be another appeal to consensus? Can’t be. Brat wouldn’t stand for it.

  24. #24 Lionel A
    January 29, 2013

    And look who is broadcasting this Ridley nonsense that goes by the title A Lukewarmers Ten Tests

    Sorry about those live links in my last above I didn’t intend them that way.

    So we are now down to global warming is happening, humans may be responsible for some of that but it isn’t going to be that bad, aka the Lomborg-Lindzen pitch, with of course a list of other helpers including Ridley.

  25. #25 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Must be sad when your employment options narrow to the point where you have to take a job working for the shills.

    And even sadder when you have to list them as your references. Just for fun, can anyone locate anyone, anywhere on Google scholar or Web of Science who proudly lists those joke sites as their primary literature?

  26. #26 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Here is a video describing some of Brad’s training:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

  27. #27 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    “Matt Ridley is one of the world’s foremost science writers.

    Is that supposed to be another appeal to consensus? Can’t be. Brat wouldn’t stand for it.”

    I know, outrageous! It’s a CONSENSUS OF ONE!

    I won’t stand for it!

    Just out of curiosity, Wow, have you ever been tested?

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    January 29, 2013

    @Wow, in case I wasn’t clear, this one was for you:

    “”Matt Ridley is one of the world’s foremost science writers.”

    Is that supposed to be another appeal to consensus? Can’t be. Brat wouldn’t stand for it.”

    I know, outrageous! It’s a CONSENSUS OF ONE!

    I won’t stand for it!

    Just out of curiosity, Wow, have you ever been tested?

  29. #29 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    Just out of curiosity, Brad, how long have you been off your medication?

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @Stu,

    “Just out of curiosity, Brad, how long have you been off your medication?”

    Thanks for the reminder! How could you tell? I always take my 150mg Fooltolerin (you may know the US trade name Foolsufferin) with food in the morning, but I was in such a rush today I only had a coffee!

    Damn, today is gonna be a long one…

  31. #31 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Chek,
    I think the saddest thing of all is people like you who think they’re being clever by sneering at others.
    It actually says way more about you than anything/anyone else.
    @Brad,
    Where do you get that Fooltolerin or Foolsufferin precription?
    I have to spend part of the next 2 weeks with some govt employees and some researchers from Canberra Uni discussing the practical application of policy.
    I could really do with some of that stuff!

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    Chameleon says to chek:

    I think the saddest thing of all is people like you who think they’re being clever by sneering at others.

    She forgot to direct that to Brad. I’m sure it was an innocent oversight.

    She then goes on to sneer at “govt employees” and “university researchers”.

    Self-awareness is not strong in this one.

  33. #33 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    No Lotharsson,
    This is a specific and very personal sneer:
    “Must be sad when your employment options narrow to the point where you have to take a job working for the shills.

    And even sadder when you have to list them as your references. Just for fun, can anyone locate anyone, anywhere on Google scholar or Web of Science who proudly lists those joke sites as their primary literature?”
    While this one:
    @Brad,
    Where do you get that Fooltolerin or Foolsufferin precription?
    I have to spend part of the next 2 weeks with some govt employees and some researchers from Canberra Uni discussing the practical application of policy.
    I could really do with some of that stuff!”
    Was an ironic observation that developed from the original personal and very specific example of sneering.
    But I’m absolutely positive that you will argue that was not what happened and that you know better about whatever you choose to know better about whichever topic you happen to want to choose you know much more about or whatever :-)
    However Lotharsson
    If I have inadvertantly offended you, I certainly apologise.
    There was nothing PERSONAL intended in my comment.

  34. #34 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Where do you get that Fooltolerin or Foolsufferin precription?
    I have to spend part of the next 2 weeks with some govt employees and some researchers from Canberra Uni discussing the practical application of policy.
    I could really do with some of that stuff!

    Sounds like they’ll need it.

    I can’t even begin to imagine the pain they will suffer sitting through meetings listening to your inane stream-of-consciousness gabble for hours on end.

  35. #35 Anthony David
    January 30, 2013
  36. #36 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    So you think it’s just fine to sneer about an entire category of people based on where they work (that generally being considered a personal characteristic – and sneering based on irrelevant attributes is generally called “bigotry”) because you claim you were being ironic?

    What strange webs you weave.

    Just out of interest, how do you know chek’s comments weren’t “ironic”? If he were to say they were, just like you did, would that make them alright with you, just like your sneers are when you claim they were ironic, and just like Brad’s smears are with him when he claims they are a joke?

    And…oh, never mind – it’s just not worth asking you to point out the factual differences between your generalised sneer and chek’s comments.

    But you appear to have a massive blind spot for Brad’s very personal sneering (and smearing). It’s astonishing that you’ve missed it. He’s apparently very proud of it and displays it at almost every opportunity. Why do you think you are so one-eyed about this?

  37. #37 chek
    January 30, 2013

    “Chek, I think the saddest thing of all is people like you who think they’re being clever by sneering at others. cranks.

    FTFY.Oh, and probably the worst thing you can do for cranks is to take them seriously. It tends to make them even more whacko, perjoratives notwithstanding.

  38. #38 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Hmmmmm?
    Sneering at an entire category of people based on where they work, or, maybe even where they have worked?
    eeeerrr NOPE!
    Chuckle :-)
    Where have I seen that done before?
    Did you miss my comment some time back about many of my friends, family and associates and where they work?
    and also here:
    If he were to say they were, just like you did, would that make them alright with you.
    eeeeerrrrr NOPE!
    For fox ache Lotharsson!
    That is a totally pointless and redundant question (as well as poorly expressed) because Lotharsson:
    (and here I go stating the bleeding obvious again)
    That is NOT what Chek wrote.
    I’m reasonably confident if he had wanted to write it that way he would have done so!
    Also Lotharsson,
    If Chek was attempting to be ironic, I’m sure he is more than capable of saying so and explaining so himself.
    And Lotharsson,
    If you are not happy with Brad’s comments I suggest you take it up with him.
    He has not attacked me.
    Actually at no stage have I noticed him launching into an unprovoked PERSONAL attack on anyone. (please take note of the word unprovoked)
    In fact you may not have noticed but he specifically asked me not to intervene in his game of semantics with you.
    (At the other thread)

  39. #39 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    And there you go Lotharsson,
    He just explained he was NOT attempting to be ironic!
    :-)

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    That is NOT what Chek wrote.

    Well, at least we agree on something. Shame you think that’s reason to ignore the question.

    He just explained he was NOT attempting to be ironic!

    My question still stands. It wasn’t about chek – it was about your self-justification.

    Actually at no stage have I noticed him launching into an unprovoked PERSONAL attack on anyone.

    Silly me, I totally forgot!

    Of course you haven’t noticed that – your powers of observation are remarkably limited.

  41. #41 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @chameleon exhibits drug-seeking behaviour :

    “[I need what some of you’re on, because] I have to spend part of the next 2 weeks with some govt employees and some researchers from Canberra Uni discussing the practical application of policy.”

    ;-)

    !

    Actually, yeah, tell me about it.

    I once spent a week as a govt employee and I still feel sorry to the taxpayers who paid for the uncompetitive nonsense I and my colleagues were doing.

    The impression I got from that admittedly-brief stint in the sheltered workshop of public service was that the average (though by no means 100% pandemic,) public-sector understanding of the concept of WORK is the opposite of the corporate capitalist ethos… and not in a good way. My colleagues and bosses overwhelmingle seemed to think that

    work = energy dissipated,

    work = heat generated,

    or

    work = hourly pay rate * attendance

    … which is anathema to the midset of a self-respecting private-sector employee. What healthy, productive people want to do at the workplace is more like:

    work = force * distance

    work = change in [final – initial] state of the world,

    or something along those lines.

    That’s the vibe I’ve consistently gotten over the years, anyway.

    Note that there are some major exceptions—such as academia (including science), which is only logical considering that if you want to Get Things Done in those areas, you almost have no choice but to get on the public payroll. Unsurprisingly therefore, academia tends to contain a “healthier,” 50-50 mix of the parasite and the producer personality type.

    So the validity of the public vs private stereotype is logically confined to fields that a person has the option of pursuing on or off the State mammary gland—fields like “business” (compare government business to business-business), IT (compare the average public University website to a proper website), etc.

    Anyway, YMMV. Others’ thoughts?

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    I was working for an area of about 300-odd employees of the civil service in the UK when Tony Blair went on his privatisation spree with his PPI scams and whatnot.
    Some of the privatisations cut out some dead wood.
    Many of the privatisations were scams that resulted in increased spending for reduced service (think the US healthcare system).

    The area where I worked hired a business manager who then set us up as a bunch of business units with strictly defined areas of income and spending as well as quantified and qualified services equating to each source of funding. A proper business plan.

    When it came time to put our services out for tender, not a single private organisation put in any kind of a bid for any of the work we were responsible for. Not one.

    On the other hand, we being able to clearly demonstrate on paper far superior efficiency to any of the private company options, many civil service areas in our and neighbouring counties disbanded various of their sections and re-assigned us their funding to provide those services.

    The upshot was, our civil service section pretty much tripled in size over the space of 2-3 years, while the privatisation wonks in London , including Tony Blair and his army of dishonest ideologues, absolutely shat themselves at having their privatisation myths exploded so very publicly.

    I later heard CSIRO did something similar here and avoided the whole privatisation thing entirely.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Since then, I’ve worked about 50/50 in private companies v. Government here in Australia.

    The main problem in government departments is that the only way to get rid of dead weight is to offer it promotion out to somewhere else.
    So some places work really well, while others have been hijacked from the top by brainless fuckwits.

    Still, the stunning inefficiency and waste in private companies – the vast amount of time wasted on sales activities, on schmoozing with clients, offering them incentives (read: blatant corruption), the ridiculous management-bloat and gross over-payment of the non-productive upper echelons, not to mention the diversion of vast amounts of money away from R&D and into shareholders’ marinas…

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2013

    So some places work really well, while others have been hijacked from the top by brainless fuckwits.

    That also describes the private sector in my personal experience. Once you get a fuckwit high up the management chain, there’s very little you can do to escape the fuckwittery until they get ousted. If they have supporters in high places, that may simply not happen until their supporters have also gone. And if it’s the CEO that’s the problem it can persist for a long time – or until the company goes down the gurgler.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    “Matt Ridley is one of the world’s foremost science writers.

    Is that supposed to be another appeal to consensus? Can’t be. Brat wouldn’t stand for it.”

    I know, outrageous! It’s a CONSENSUS OF ONE!

    So you’re saying that only the writer of that piece thinks Matt is one of the foremost writers, right?

    Doesn’t that mean that most people think he’s a bit crap?

    So does that mean he’s telling a lie or that he’s fluffing up Matt’s resume for personal reasons?

  46. #46 Brad Keyes
    January 30, 2013

    @Vince

    You call attention to “the vast amount of time wasted on sales activities” in the private sector.

    Do you mean to draw a distinction between productive, profitable, rational sales activities and time-wasting ones?

    Or are you suggesting that sales activities per se are a waste of time? But isn’t this “inefficiency” something of a necessary evil when the market is, well, free?

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Not all companies equate sales activities with marketing PR, lies, deception and corruption. But many do. And they do it at crossed purposes, making it a gross inefficiency that drives up prices.

    Umbrellas with company logos on them. Marketing conferences where nothing of any substance is ever said, but where all participants get to go home with a new iPad cover. But worse – from 10am until 4pm, the suits at some of these companies spend their entire day planning that day’s free lunch to give somebody, or to receive from somebody, along with as many other things to put on the expense account, thus driving up prices.
    I’ve recently been watching a group based close by where I am (specialised technology company), and I swear their sales guys aren’t even bothering to come back from lunch 3 days a week – and they’re still at the bar at dinner time.

    Meanwhile, the actual productive members of the company’s workforce, on salaries of 1/3 what the bacchanalian professional liars are being paid, get a grilling if a late train causes them to miss a morning meeting.

    Yes, no matter how bad the public sector can be, the private sector is usually far worse.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    January 30, 2013

    Vince:

    The main problem in government departments is that the only way to get rid of dead weight is to offer it promotion out to somewhere else.

    I recall a term being used to describe this is ‘promoted sideways’ another, but less strong is ‘put out to grass’ – more retired than promoted sideways. A corollary to this is ‘emeritus’ .

    This was prevalent in the old sailing navy when a Post Captain at the top of the list was by seniority promoted to Rear-Admiral but because of an absence of suitable squadrons for one otherwise lacking zeal and initiative instead of being appointed to the ‘Blue’ Squadron (Blue at the Mizzen), the lowest order, (with ‘White and Red being the other two in ascending order of seniority) this new Rear Admiral would be termed as belonging to the Yellow Squadron, a Yellow Admiral thus ‘Yellowed’.

    It was a standing joke in the RN that some brass hats got their next step (up the ladder as it were) by committing a blunder, say grounding their ship, thus Court Marshalled and losing seniority by which they were then back in the promotion zone.

  49. #49 chameleon
    January 30, 2013

    Well for once I can say I agree with you Lotharsson.
    It doesn’t matter where they work, some people are just complete f***wits!
    If Wow behaves the same in real life with real people as he does in this virtual world, I would definitely take a bet that he is one!
    I’d have to say that I would take better than even money that you would be one too Lotharsson if you behave in a similar manner in the ‘real’ world as you do here.
    And Vince?
    Wouldn’t this just be your opinion?
    Yes, no matter how bad the public sector can be, the private sector is usually far worse.
    Having worked in both, I have found the opposite to be the case.
    Most of the time in the private sector people are accountable and need to be responsible for their work and their decisions.
    In the public sector that is often not the case.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    January 30, 2013

    Well it looks like the GWPF have pulled the document I cited here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/14/matt-ridley-responds-with-a-sleight-of-hand/#comment-146505

    this has I have discovered comes via a poster at SkS .

    Maybe calling Hansen names was a problem. Is it that Ridley has looked in here and decided to retreat or something?

  51. #51 lord_sidcup
    January 30, 2013

    @Lionel A

    I think the GWPF just changed the link. You can still download Ridley’s ramblings from the GWPF site and the Hansen smear is still there. Oddly, the GWPF front page also has an article claiming Hansen is a “climate sceptic”.

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    January 30, 2013

    Lionel, one place I worked, they would promote them and then assign them a little office somewhere out of the way and nobody would ever see them again.

    Typically, these were the kinds of people who would take a lot of sick leave if brought into contact with any professional demands on their time.

    A co-worker who had done his first degree in economics once explained to me all the (rationalist) benefits to the taxpayer of keeping these people “at work” rather than turfing them onto the dole. He was fairly convincing.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    January 30, 2013

    “Most of the time in the private sector people are accountable and need to be responsible for their work and their decisions. In the public sector that is often not the case”.

    Yeh – Just ask people who work (or worked) for Goldman-Sachs, Lehmann Brothers or other banking fraudsters or any of the places they’ve driven to hell through their criminal activities; or a former farmer forced from his land by neoliberal policies and forced to work in a sweat shop assembly line for Nike or Disney in some dingy back street of Port-eu Prince or Jakarta for a dollar a day; or any number of economic dead zones in the US when the corporations that used to be based there dumped the workforce so that they could seek some de-regulatory refuge in the south. Yup, the old private sector people are responsible all right.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    In the public sector that is often not the case

    BOLLOCKS.

    Look at how much of a bollocking is given when reports of a civil servant getting a pay rise gets, or how much “council road workers, standing around drinking tea all day” get paid. Or roadsweepers.

    Hell, look at how much stick Dr Pachuri got for getting paid for work outside the IPCC.

    Yet look how little stick Texaco’s CEO getting 24million in bonuses a year got.

    Or Lord Monkfish’s speeches getting him $100k a pop on the denialist lecture circuit.

    Or the payments to lobby groups by private businesses.

    Because every time those wastes of money get bandied about “Well, they’re allowed to do that. Don’t like it? Avoid it”.

    Every penny grudgingly given to government is harried over.

    Companies wasting money (which cost is passed on to either the shareholders or the customers) is “private”.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    January 30, 2013

    lord_sidcup

    Yes the GWPF front page is here, with a new tilt at Hansen, ‘James Hansen Turns Climate Sceptic’ which goes to an article where it is clear that the headline is out of step with the content for Hansen is not newly sceptical of climate change. There is, however, much spin from Pat Michael’s.

  56. #56 BBD
    January 30, 2013

    That GWPF misrepresentation of Hansen is laughably blatant. Exactly the sort of thing that should send up a big, red flag to visitors to the site saying *Don’t trust us*.

    What must they think of their readership to pull stunts like that?

  57. #57 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    Well, you have to admit: they’re right about most of the readership, aren’t they.

  58. #58 chek
    January 30, 2013

    The GWPF distorting the facts? Blimey.

  59. #59 bill
    January 30, 2013

    Anybody who can imagine that The Shining and Exalted Private Sector is the Saviour of Civilization after the fiasco of 2008 is an idiot. Or 12 years old.

    Really.

    Especially if they imagine they’re ‘Philosophers’.

    Just because it’s always worth giving it another spin, here’s John Rogers’ famous quote –

    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

  60. #60 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    Anybodywho can argue that anyone here said that either the private or the public sector is ‘shining and exalted’ and/or ‘the saviour of the world’ has had what some would call here a ‘massive comprehension fail’.
    But ‘idiot’ will suffice :-)
    Good job of totally missing the point Bill!

  61. #61 bill
    January 31, 2013

    type type type

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    I’d have to say that I would take better than even money that you would be one too Lotharsson…

    Oh, goodie! :-) How much money are you willing to put up? Would performance reports from employers that address not only outcomes but behaviours provide sufficient evidence to adjudicate the claim?

    Oh, wait, your betting talk was conditional:

    …if you behave in a similar manner in the ‘real’ world as you do here.

    Ah, but in many respects I do. I have been specifically valued for being uncommonly effective at detecting and highlighting bullshit and poorly supported assertions as well as subtly mistaken claims. Companies generally try to stay out of denial because they know that reality doesn’t respect wishful or mistaken thinking and they make money by acting in the real world, not the world as they wish it was.

    What differs there and here is that “there” has a filter that weeds out a lot of stupidity once it is pointed out, rather than having it re-asserted time and time again. If you’re an employee routinely seen to be promoting Teh Stupid in your role you don’t last long. (The counter-example is the one pointed out above – where the stupidity is protected from a management level above, and that stupidity is ingrained rather than inadvertent. The great managers appreciate being quietly pulled up when they propose something stupid because they know reality doesn’t respect stupidity – and they respect those who pull them up for helping them out. The fuckwits take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”…wait, why does this sound familiar?)

    If you acted there in your job function like you act here you wouldn’t last more than a week. The negative feedback would be strong, and your complaints about it clearly unjustified. That means that most of the critiques that you find objectionable from me and others would never occur.

  63. #63 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    In my experience, douches like Chameleon prefer to have their copies of Atlas Shrugged on their desks at work, and any conflict that results is the OTHER person’s fault for laughing at them, or for bringing it up.

  64. #64 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    The difference of course being that people I work with would not take it upon themselves to launch into a lecture about their negative opinions of my abilities.
    The other marked difference is that the people I work with possess a sense of humour, postive mindsets and they also focus on practical and workable solutions to clearly identifiable risks.
    Interestingly they work in private & public sectors.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    The difference of course being that people I work with would not take it upon themselves to launch into a lecture about their negative opinions of my abilities.

    Well, the primary difference is that this is the comments section of a blog, not a work environment! Trying to apply work standards of relationship to a blog full of people you are not in a working relationship with is folly (but you’re apparently going there anyway). Peers in a collegial relationship often self-censor things they would say if they weren’t peers.

    That, and another key difference (I suspect) is that you’re not launching into lectures there all the time like you are here based on clear falsehoods, bad incomprehension and unsupported claims – and then arguing in bad faith with the responses, which is very impolite. The negative opinions about your abilities are a response to your own persistent and ongoing form of impoliteness. (Managers doing performance reviews, however, are supposed to be free with negative opinions of abilities when they are accurate, so even the work environment isn’t free of what you’re trying to rule out of bounds as somehow being impolite. If you tried applying the kind of sophistry and incomprehension that you routinely try on here to your work within earshot of your manager, they would quite likely express a negative opinion…either immediately or during a performance review. If they don’t they aren’t doing a good job and they certainly aren’t doing you any favours by withholding information you need to improve your performance. And if you got huffy and launched into irrelevant attacks in response like you routinely do here, that behaviour would also be noted as a negative that needs improvement.)

    The other marked difference is that the people I work with possess a sense of humour, postive mindsets and they also focus on practical and workable solutions to clearly identifiable risks.

    Ooooh, you’ve been reading my performance reviews again :-)

    Do you realise that a “positive mindset” without critical thinking amounts to “wishful thinking” which employers don’t want because it increases risks and costs them money? And that critical thinking requires expressing negative judgements when they are warranted? And that accordingly the fact that one expresses negative judgements does not imply that they don’t have a positive mindset? Whereas the fact that someone tries to rule out negative opinions indicates they are probably avoiding critical thinking?

    It seems your quest to infer an individual’s value at work from their commenting style here isn’t doing very well. (Ooops, is that an impolite negative opinion?)

  66. #66 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    Hmmmm?
    So in other words you are indeed an f-wit Lotharsson?
    Thought so.
    :-)

  67. #67 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    Hmmmm?
    So in other words you are indeed an f-wit Lotharsson?
    :-)

  68. #68 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    Oops!
    Said it twice
    :-)

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    So in other words you are indeed an f-wit Lotharsson?

    And…you interpret my words to say the opposite of what they say.

    Again.

    Are you the same serial misinterpreter and fact denier in your work as you are here?

  70. #70 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    Sorry about that moderator,
    Feel free to delete one or both.
    Wasn’t actually necessary to point out the self evident :-)

  71. #71 chameleon
    January 31, 2013

    And hilarious that I inadvertently did it twice!

  72. #72 bill
    January 31, 2013

    Me can computer screen brain can thing can did. :-)

    Type Type Type

  73. #73 lord_sidcup
    January 31, 2013

    Off-topic, but since the GWPF were mentioned above – the GWPF’s Lord Turnball has a letter in today’s Financial Times which contains this eye-watering bit of stupid:

    As for Arctic ice, its coverage is now back almost exactly to where it was in January 2007.

    The surface of the Arctic sea freezing in January is a big deal for him. Why would any self-respecting scientist or ‘science-writer’ associate themselves with the GWPF?

  74. #74 Lionel A
    January 31, 2013

    In that execrable document A Lukewarmers Ten Tests, which is not composed of tests at all but poorly supported opinion pieces, Ridley offers this at number eight, my emphasis (for Jeff’s attention):

    6. Given that we know that the warming so far has increased global vegetation cover, increased precipitation, lengthened growing seasons, cause minimal ecological change and had no impact on extreme weather events, I need persuading that future warming will be fast enough and large enough to do net harm rather than net good. Unless water-vapour-supercharged, the models suggest a high probability of temperatures changing less than 2C, which almost everybody agrees will do net good.8

    8 http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    As for Arctic ice, its coverage is now back almost exactly to where it was in January 2007.

    In other GWPF news, it has been discovered that adult obesity and anorexia are merely alarmist medical pseudoscience because the people who have those “conditions” are just as tall as they used to be.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    Ridley claims warming has:

    …had no impact on extreme weather events,…

    WTF?! He could start with this, and that’s far from the only study.

    What a hack.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 31, 2013

    @Lotharsson

    FTFY:

    “The great scientists appreciate being quietly pulled up when they propose something stupid because they know reality doesn’t respect stupidity – and they respect those who pull them up for helping them out. The fuckwit scientists take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”

    …wait, why does this sound familiar?”

    Because of Michael Mann.

  78. #78 BBD
    January 31, 2013

    lord_sidcup # 73

    The surface of the Arctic sea freezing in January is a big deal for him. Why would any self-respecting scientist or ‘science-writer’ associate themselves with the GWPF?

    Because they are a libertarian ideologue first and scientist or science writer second. Obviously.

    ;-)

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    Because of I suffer delusions about the work of Michael Mann.

    FIFY.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    January 31, 2013

    B of Kindergarten:

    >blockquote>The fuckwit scientists take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”

    How would YOU know?

    About the spurious reasoning that is.

    Cue quote from Feynman. Oh, but you just have used that tactic again on another thread.

    Is that the only quote of Feynman you know, and that because it appears at the top of a denier blog site, I pointed to that way up thread somewhere.

    Familiar with ‘Lectures on Physics’ in three volumes are you? Doubt it. Perhaps you should try that collection. Real science not woo woo stuff from woo woo think tanks, like GWPF, WUWT, JoNova, Morohissyfit, Morono, ClimateFRaudit, Cardinal Puff etc. Once again I pointed to a woo woo blog that listed all these down a right hand column – see up thread again.

    Seriously this latest effort from Ridley makes him a laughing stock with credibility dropping through the floor like Lindzen and Michaels, the later having gone through through about fifteen years or so ago when with the Greening Earth malarkey – now that was and Orwelian title.

    Now Aunt Sallys all.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    January 31, 2013

    Drat these banana fingers!

    The fuckwit scientists take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”

    How would YOU know?

    About the spurious reasoning that is.

  82. #82 Brad Keyes
    January 31, 2013

    @Lionel A asks:

    The fuckwit scientists take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”

    How would YOU know?

    About the spurious reasoning that is.

    Because of Michael Mann.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 31, 2013

    This is the Michael Mann who has been the subject of an unrelenting campaign of libel and bullying and whose “hockey stick” has since been confirmed as correct by the Koch-funded BEST study?

    Turns out he’s one of the excellent scientists.

    Turns out all the idiots who said he was wrong were doing so in the absence of any contrary knowledge.
    Liars, in other words.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2013

    Vince, you need to point out explicitly to Brad that the “hockey stick” was validated by BEST only as far as BEST went back in time. He gets awfully confused and upset otherwise.

    You can try pointing out that it was validated by about a dozen earlier reconstructions much further back than BEST goes, but he gets even more confused by that concept and starts spittle-flecked ranting about sending Mann to jail or something.

  85. #85 Vince Whirlwind
    January 31, 2013

    I realise that, but as I have already caused Brad to forget who was trolling whom at least twice now, I was going for the trifecta.

  86. #86 Vince Whirlwind
    February 1, 2013

    The difference being that he has to lie to troll us here, whereas all I have to do is tell the truth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tGB8Uuffi4M

    So, Ridley is justfying himself with weblinks to Judith Curry’s nonsense?

  87. #87 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
    Geeze,
    I dunno Lotharsson & Vince,
    According to your own arguments re ‘professional experts’, we should be paying attention to Judith Curry.
    According to the googleable information, one can’t help noticing that she is a recognised ‘expert’ on matters concerning the atmosphere.
    In fact one can’t help noticing (again according to your own arguments re ‘professional experts’) that she would perhaps be better qualified to comment and to be referred to on these matters than say perhaps…ummmm… a biologist or a sociologist?
    She has even co authored a text book and encyclopaedia on matters to do with climate and the atmosphere:
    here :
    Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002),
    Mind you,
    That doesn’t automatically mean that I am arguing that anything she says MUST be infallible just because she says it.
    What I do respect about her however is that she has the ability to admit an error when she makes one and then work towards to corecting the error.

  88. #88 Stu
    February 1, 2013

    And for every Judith Curry, there’s hundreds of climate scientists that disagree. What does that tell you?

  89. #89 Vince Whirlwind
    February 1, 2013

    …not only that, but you can check Curry’s claims yourself to discover that her blog specialises in nonsense.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    According to your own arguments re ‘professional experts’, we should be paying attention to Judith Curry.

    Nope.

    You’ve misapplied the criterion.

    She is an expert about one corner of climate science, but frequently wanders out of it and makes claims about other bits that (a) go against the people who work in those areas and (b) like Humlum, she prefers to publicise on her blog rather than publish in the peer-reviewed literature.

    Why does she do (b)? Why does Humlum? Why does Lindzen do the same when talking to the public?

    Inquiring minds want to know. You do not.

    What I do respect about her however is that she has the ability to admit an error when she makes one and then work towards to corecting the error.

    She doesn’t use that ability very often, especially on her blog. She seems to prefer, like you, to dig in and double down.

    As I told Latimer and you have probably forgotten I checked out her blog the first few weeks it was up. She made a horrible mess of something, had people patiently explaining it to her, and she was having none of it.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    I realise that, but as I have already caused Brad to forget who was trolling whom at least twice now, I was going for the trifecta

    Bugger. Sorry for ruining the play.

  92. #92 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    Hundreds of climate scientists Stu?
    What do these hundreds actually disagree with?
    Is it Her ability to be a ‘professional expert’ in atmospheric sciences?

  93. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    February 1, 2013

    Have a read of the nonsense on her website and make up your own mind.

  94. #94 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    But Vince?
    What about her co authoring and peer reviewed papers in respected scientific publications?
    Don’t they count?
    And Lotharsson,
    You seem to have forgotten the lecture you gave me re Tim etc at the other thread.
    What are all of those people doing wandering out of their corners and commenting on their blogs INSTEAD of in peer reviewed literature?
    How come no one objected to LB putting up a piece by an ‘attention seeking’ sociologist earlier in this thread?
    Is there a special reason why they can wander out of their corners and make comments about others’ work on their websites yet someone like Judith Curry can’t?
    She does indeed have expertise in climate science and she is indeed a recognised expert in the field of climate science.

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    You seem to have forgotten the lecture you gave me re Tim etc at the other thread.

    No, I haven’t. But I’m almost certain you’ve misinterpreted it.

    What are all of those people doing wandering out of their corners and commenting on their blogs INSTEAD of in peer reviewed literature?

    Which people are you talking about? You have a bad habit of being non-specific.

    And as I said on that other thread, here is the key question. Are the people you have in mind going against scientific consensus without meeting the same standards of evidence as the evidence that led to the consensus, or are they applying the consensus position which means that they are applying the same standards of evidence, indeed applying the same evidence as the consensus?

    These two scenarios are markedly different in the evidence (or lack of evidence) that supports them, as anyone with “academic science credentials” can tell you.

  96. #96 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    Well you must have indeed forgotten Lotharsson because I did name some of them earlier, including the person who runs this blog.
    Selective memory perhaps?
    And your ‘key question’ is indeed purely and simply YOUR key question Lotharsson.
    It wasn’t even remotely similar to MY question.
    If you want to answer your own questions, you go right ahead.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    Well you must have indeed forgotten Lotharsson …

    Your comments were insufficiently specific to know which persons you were talking about. That’s what I pointed out, that’s why I asked you.

    …because I did name some of them earlier, including the person who runs this blog.

    If your clarification of who you were talking about is limited to Tim Lambert, then no further response is needed. That question was already answered when you asked it last time and the answer does not change because you ask the same question again. Furthermore, experience has shown that repeating the answer does not lead to any improvement in your comprehension.

    But I will provide one hint, because you appear to be additionally confusing yourself in a different manner:

    It wasn’t even remotely similar to MY question.

    Of course not! Why would you think I would ask your question back to you in response to you asking it to me? That’s foolish.

    I ask my question because answering it – which I am confident you will absolutely refuse to do – will answer your question, either directly or by bringing back to mind my previous answer.

  98. #98 chameleon
    February 1, 2013

    Nonetheless Lotharsson,
    The person who runs this blog posts on subject matter that he has not published in peer reviewed journals and which also is not from his ‘corner’.
    Judith Curry on the other hand is in fact a ‘professional expert’ in climate science.
    Another little saying about geese and ganders comes to mind.
    Tim & JC both obviously have the right to do what they’re doing BTW.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    February 1, 2013

    Nonetheless…

    …you will ignore my initial answer and re-assert your rebutted false equivalence.

    Noted.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    February 1, 2013

    BK

    @Lionel A asks:

    The fuckwit scientists take it as a personal attack and get very huffy and attack back with spurious “reasoning”

    How would YOU know?

    About the spurious reasoning that is.

    Because of Michael Mann.

    Michael Mann took action because of the libellous statements made against him. That was the personal attack and not the concerted campaign to discredit MBH98. It should be noted at others of that team have had cause to move against certain parties since e.g. Wegman & Said of GMU. Look out articles by John Mashey and deep Climate for the trail there.

    Cue evasion on this score as you slalom around this inconvenient truth too. Now cue another tilt at Gore, who BTW is NOT thought of as our leader, and your repeated attempts to claim that are pathetic and tiresome, for we have many. All those scientists like Mann et. al. who have provide the hard, and hard won, evidence that tells us how and why you are so, so wrong.

    This is the truth that you cannot handle as evidenced by your prolix posts proving that ‘so few can write so much to so little real effect’ (sorry Winston).

Current ye@r *