April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    April 5, 2014

    @ Lionel #100 page 2 – you may be going foe ‘eejit’, which is an Irish corruption (the soft d) of the French pronunciation of ‘idiot). All would see the printed word as ‘idiot’. More culture after this word from our sponsor.

    AGW is real.

  2. #2 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @Lionel

    I saw that nature article too. One of the best guys on this, Doug Erwin, gets a quote in.

    “Some scientists are not so quick to relegate the volcanoes to a supporting role, however. What the researchers have found is part of the connection between the volcanoes and the die-out, says palaeobiologist Douglas Erwin of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. But he warns that the evidence is “hardly conclusive”.”

    I’ve already posted a couple of links the previous page, worth watching.
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/04/01/april-2014-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-177319

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Chek, AGW is probably real but not your portentology. Get it? What’s bad resaerch, without doubt, is Loo’s smelly turdpaper.

    The latest victim of the evil, well funded, right wing conspriacy against climate science, is Frontiers. ;-)

  4. #4 chek
    April 5, 2014

    The latest victim of the evil, well funded, right wing conspriacy against climate science, is Frontiers

    Nah, they’re just cowards who should have conferred with UWA’s lawyer and told the crank armada to go take a flying one.

  5. #5 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Of course that’s the most likely answer chek. I’m sure Loo agrees with you. Is there no end to the crap you portentologists can believe in?

  6. #6 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    The end-Permian extinction was caused by radiative forcing from GHGs. The only debate is over the source(s). Do you really not get this, GSW?

  7. #7 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Chek’s answer *is* the most likely one. Nobody has demonstrated academic or ethical problems sufficient to justify withdrawing the study. Which leaves barratry.

  8. #8 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Olap, because you’re a chump who can only chump on your chumpstick, your fellow cranks likely haven’t told you this:

    This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article.
    The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”

    Get that? “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study”

    So Frontiers agrees with me, Stephan Lewandowsy and every other rational person not swilling down denier chump.

  9. #9 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    BBD, like you the article is a joke, thus climate scientologic.

    Conspiracy ideation anyone? :-)

  10. #10 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Which article, Olaus?

  11. #11 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Good point BBD, it doesn’t exist anymore. I ‘m referring to the article that was so full of shit that it was retracted from Frontiers. Remeber now? :-)

  12. #12 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Re: Frontiers.

    No ethical or academic issues with the paper. But there were legal threats.

    Scrolling through the 118 pages of correspondence obtained under FOIA by DeSmog (PDF here) we find threats.

    A correspondent wrote (p23):

    I should also remind you that if this proceeds to legal action, any court or tribunal would take a very poor view of you attempting to impose an arbitrary and unreasonable deadline of less than 24 hours for me to supply you with further information.

    [...]

    Please try to understand that academic fraud and defamation are serious matters which cannot be dismissed so lightly.

    That is most definitely a threat. So is this (p24):

    Although I contribute to blogs under the anonymous username of [redacted] I have sought legal advice which has confirmed that, as long as a reasonable number of blog readers are aware of my true identity and professional reputation (which is the case), I could potentially have a defamation action against the authors and publishers of this paper for an outright lie which was told about me.

    I have so far pursued this complaint with [redacted] university, UWA, and they are considering it.

    I hope you will also give it consideration even though (so far) it comes from any [sic] anonymous source. Obviously I understand that any legal action would eventually have to be prosecuted under my real identity.

    And this (p28):

    Remember that your company’s responsiveness to these matters will be a major factor in determining any future legal actions.

    And this (p52):

    My only concern is for my reputation and rights and I will pursue all means at my disposal to protect them.

    The journal appears to have behaved cravenly in the face of the threats of barratry and is now pretending that this is not what happened. But Elaine McKewon’s statement leaves no doubt about the circumstances:

    In any event, the journal’s management and editors were clearly intimidated by climate deniers who threatened to sue. So Frontiers bowed to their demands, retracted the paper, damaged its own reputation, and ultimately gave a free kick to aggressive climate deniers.

    I would have expected a scientific journal to have more backbone, certainly when it comes to the crucially important issue of academic freedom.

  13. #13 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Bugger, this part “regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”
    should have been bolded too.
    As usual, Olap’s got nothing but he sure quacks a lot of uninformed and meaningless crank word soup confirming it.

  14. #14 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Oh, this one? Now freely available from USW from its own servers.

    With the following statement by the University’s legal counsel:

    ‘I’m entirely comfortable with you publishing the paper on the UWA web site. You and the University can easily be sued for any sorts of hurt feelings or confected outrage, and I’d be quite comfortable processing such a phony legal action as an insurance matter.’

    — Kimberley Heitman, B.Juris, LLB, MACS, CT, General Counsel, University of Western Australia

  15. #15 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    Frontiers disagrees with you BBD:

    “Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.”

    And Frontiers also clarifies that Loo’s paper was retracted bacause it was pure crap:

    “As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

    The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.”

  16. #16 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD

    The Frontier’s retraction link has been posted before:
    http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of__Recursive_Fury__%3Cbr%3EA_Statement/812

    “Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.”

    which seems to be your assertion, and frontiers are pretty clear that this is not the case,

    “As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper”

    Pretty clear again and the interesting bit towards the end:

    “We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research.”

    Seems to imply that as Frontiers is not standing by this paper, they don’t consider it “Valid Research”

    If you read the retraction differently please explain how? It’s all fairly straight forward for even the simplest of minds!

    ;)

  17. #17 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    “Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats.

    Since this is demonstrably not true, it makes one wonder why Frontiers is making incorrect and now contradictory statements.

    I’ve said elsewhere that the answer is obvious. The journal behaved cravenly in the face of the threats of barratry and is now pretending that this is not what happened. But Elaine McKewon’s statement leaves no doubt about what happened. Let’s read it again:

    In any event, the journal’s management and editors were clearly intimidated by climate deniers who threatened to sue. So Frontiers bowed to their demands, retracted the paper, damaged its own reputation, and ultimately gave a free kick to aggressive climate deniers.

    I would have expected a scientific journal to have more backbone, certainly when it comes to the crucially important issue of academic freedom.

  18. #18 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Perhaps Olap and Frontiers can clarify the contradiction with their own referenced statement shown in #8, and further, explain Olap’s little self-penned moronic addition.

  19. #19 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article.

    This, you mean?

    Odd, isn’t it? A screw-up and the usual rather feeble-sounding retroactive arse-covering would explain it all very neatly though.

  20. #20 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @Olaus

    Apologies Olaus, you got in first!
    ;)

    @BBD

    How ridiculous! UWA’s lawyer is not charged with deciding which papers Frontiers should or should not publish! His view is neither here nor there, likewise what the “journalism” student thinks. ;)

    Can I just clarify BBD [and chek] are you calling the publishers of Frontiers liars?

  21. #21 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Actually, I would think it reasonable to assume that Frontiers later statement may be technically correct in that they may not have received any formal legal threats.
    But even that interpretation only makes them doubly cowardly at being afraid of crank comments.

  22. #22 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    GSW

    I think they are obfuscating, which isn’t quite as strong as lying.

  23. #23 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Griselda, if not my comment at #21, how do you account for Frontiers’ two apparently contradictory statements (see comment #8).
    But God, I’m getting bored with the fruitloops denying they’re cranks after they’ve behaved like cranks and spouted their crankology for years and years.

  24. #24 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    How ridiculous! UWA’s lawyer is not charged with deciding which papers Frontiers should or should not publish! His view is neither here nor there

    This is idiotically wrong. UWA’s legal counsel is responsible for deciding what materials are made publicly available from its own servers. The University is now technically liable in the event of further legal action by aggrieved subjects of that study.

    * * *

    And what about this?

    The end-Permian extinction was caused by radiative forcing from GHGs. The only debate is over the source(s). Do you really not get this, GSW?

  25. #25 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    likewise what the “journalism” student thinks.

    Who was a reviewer of the paper and an active participant in the events following publication.

    Unlike you, who argues from assertion about events you know nothing about.

  26. #26 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Oh, and a PhD candidate is no mere ‘student’ as you would try to imply in your Paul Calfesque attempted slur. My son is expected to have published four to five papers by the time he gets his doctorate. Do you have any idea of the amount of scientific research is achieved by those you carelessly dismiss as a ‘student’?
    No, of course you don’t. As with everything else, you haven’t a fucking clue

  27. #27 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD

    “The University is now technically liable in the event of further legal action by aggrieved subjects of that study. ”

    Well again BBD so what? It’s just ridiculous to suggest that Frontiers should listen to UWA’s lawyers then publish and be damned. IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM! What he wants to have go up on UWA’s servers, he certainly entitled to have his say, but Frontier’s have ethics/reputations to consider!

    [Not that it matters particularly, but UWA's lawyer is also a member of greenpeace, so you'd he highly suspicious of anything he had to say on environmental conspiracy ideation matters anyway]

    For goodness sake BBD:

    “Who was a reviewer of the paper and an active participant in the events”

    We know all that, the concern obviously, and more than just in retrospect ,is that she probably just wasn’t up to it. Why anyone would go to a journalism student for input on psychology study “ethics” I have no idea.

  28. #28 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @chek

    Ah, the return of simple. A Phd student is still a student. Half wit.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    As I said, Frontiers was a victim of a threatened SLAPP lawsuit. That about sums it up. Their retractions had nothing to do with the paper’s quality.

    Meatball is really clutching at straws with his latest meme – that although 97% of scientists support AGW theory, only a fraction of these scientists think the problem is serious.

    How many more lies and stories can meatball, not a scientist in any way, shape, or form, conjure up? He creates whatever narrative suits his own views. How can one debate this kind of dishonesty? I am a scientist and I engage with scientists every day of the week at work. I meet many more at conferences and at other academic institutions. As I said, pretty well every one I meet considers AGW to be a major threat to the environment. Meatball makes up his facts on the basis of – what? Where is his evidence? As we know, the IPCC and major scientific bodies in every nation uniformly argue that AGW is a major threat to the biosphere. There are no exceptions. None. Every Academy of Science. Every other scientific organization. Its unanimous. The only dissenters are weblogs, conservative foundations and think tanks – none of which are academic institutions that conduct original scientific research.

    There’s no argument really – burt meatball continues to try, with his faithful equally vacuous sidekick, gormless. I wonder what inside information these two cots bring to the table? None. Neither is a scientist. I’ve asked meatball over and over and over and over and over and over again what his profession is that gives him a unique insiders view into being able to say what scientists think. And he never, ever responds. The reason is clear: he does not want to blow his cover. He’s not a scientist! Geddit????

  30. #30 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    I’m going to be a bit controversial and admit that I don’t like Teles at all. I don’t like the neck, the tone or even the look.

    Of course It has (or had) a classic neck, a classic tone and an iconic look, but as someone who likes a compound radius neck which is flat and wide in the higher registers, a bridge humbucker and a whammy bar… well it was never going to work out.

  31. #31 GSW
    April 5, 2014
  32. #32 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    Gormless, a PhD student is light years ahead of your educational level.

    Makes me wonder why a twit like you thinks you’re so clever. You’re not.

  33. #33 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    GSW

    It’s just ridiculous to suggest that Frontiers should listen to UWA’s lawyers then publish and be damned.

    But I didn’t suggest that. You seem to be utterly confused. The issue is with the publisher of the paper, which in terms of making it publicly available is now UWA. Just go back and read it all again, slowly this time.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    Note again how gormless is mining the denier blogs for his opinions. My gosh he’s stupid. Does he think anyone on here – aside from meatball – cares about the lies these sources peddle?

  35. #35 Lionel A
    April 5, 2014

    An interesting article on the Frontiers brouhaha with some telling punches landed including from Bernard J:

    The Reviewers Tale with apt links to Sou’s HotWhopper landing punches on Willard.

  36. #36 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @Jeff

    Ah, the oracle wind bag returneth. Can you just confirm to simple chek that a PhD Student is still a “Student”.

  37. #37 chek
    April 5, 2014

    My point is not just a student, which you attempted to half-wittedly imply about Elaine McKewon, so that your idiot posse of pig-ignorant cranks could assume she had barely left school. Which you already knew of course, but it has to be spelled out for your dishonest cranks.

  38. #38 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    GSW

    And what about this?

    The end-Permian extinction was caused by radiative forcing from GHGs. The only debate is over the source(s). Do you really not get this?

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    Gormless,

    Better to be an oracle windbag than a brainless dolt. And one who can’t tell up from down, to boot.

    A PhD student is still well ahead of a guy with a basic chemistry degree.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    April 5, 2014

    Chek,

    You say it correctly. PhD students are often asked to review submitted manuscripts as a part of their training. My PhD students have reviewed a few that were sent to me. But of course, meatball and gormless wouldn’t now that because neither has come within a light year of a PhD.

  41. #41 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Griselda, much a I respect Jeff’s opinions (and would happily solicit his advice) I take enough of an interest in my childrens’ education to recognise your dog whistle bollocks for what it is.

    All ‘students’ are not equal as you clumsily (what other way would we expect?) attempt to imply, especially if they have a Masters under their belt and are progressing to their doctorate, as I expect is similarly the case with RF’s reviewer ‘student’ Elaine McKewon.
    But then redneck crank deniers who flumped grade school are hardly likely to know that, which is the constituency you’re dropping your crank chum for.

  42. #42 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD
    “The end-Permian extinction was caused by radiative forcing from GHGs”

    That’s kind of simplistic BBD, I subscribe to Erwins “Murder on the Orient Express ” scenario.
    ;)

    @jeff

    “Better to be an oracle windbag than a brainless dolt”

    I certainly wouldn’t rule you out being both Jeff. And thanks for explaining to simple chek that Phd students are students, he couldn’t grasp the concept earlier.

  43. #43 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @chek

    You’re just wittering on and on chek:

    “All ‘students’ are not equal”

    Read it all thru again chek, nobody said anything about all students being equal or even “implied” they were all equal.
    That’s just you “ideating”.

    @jeff

    Can you have a go with chek again, he still doesn’t get it.

  44. #44 chek
    April 5, 2014

    You seem to have some major discriminatory malfunction Griselda. And all so that your crank masters can feel better about Elaine McKewon.
    But then shameful ignorance is your thing, isn’t it.
    It’s what you do.

  45. #45 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    That’s kind of simplistic BBD

    No, it isn’t. The *warming* caused the extinctions. And the warming was caused by radiative forcing from GHGs, arguably methane, but any sustained and large injection of methane into the atmosphere will increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 because methane CH4 is oxidised into CO2 and water by the energetic input of solar shortwave radiation.

    Something Rothman et al. (2014) affirms, not disputes.

  46. #46 Olaus Petri
    April 5, 2014

    And not any PhD sudent GSW, she’s also a believer grande of a well funded right wing conspriacy against climate sience. Probably the very same conspiracy that made Frontiers retract Loo’s paper. :-)

    And the quality of Loo’s paper is good regardless of what Frontier claims, says Jeffie. Only at deltoid. :-)

  47. #47 chek
    April 5, 2014

    #46 Babble babble babble

    At least try to say something sane Olap.
    Griselda’s failing miserably.

  48. #48 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD

    You should watch Erwin’s video’s BBD, I found them really good. From memory, in one he states that unlike the rest of his colleagues, he doesn’t *know* what caused the end Permian mass extinction, the problem is even though they all *know*, they don’t all agree.

    H2S/ acid rain destroying land vegetation is in the mix as is ocean acidification. Your GHG radiative forceing is just simplistic, you don’t just get a bit of “global warming” with a volcano the size of the continental US spewing out crap for ~1million years. Idiot.

    Having a few problems with chek understanding a PhD student is still a student. He seems to think I should have put the word “special” or “not ordinary” before it. Can you try explaining it to him as well?
    TIA!
    ;)

  49. #49 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @Olaus

    Yeah, as we learn more about the lew/loo/sks paper process, it should’ve been fairly obvious early on that things were going “off rail”. And as you say, chek’s “special” journalism student reviewing a psychology paper’s as a “gold standard” was never going to fly.

    The fun thing about the Deltard’s though is they defend everything, even the indefensible – and that’s were the entertainment is.
    ;)

  50. #50 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    GSW

    You don’t understand this topic. The end-Permian extinction trigger events are still unclear. The kill mechanisms are not: ocean acidification, acid rain and sustained global warming. All three consequences of a substantial and sustained release of GHGs into the atmosphere.

    Before further argument, re-read your own sources.

  51. #51 chek
    April 5, 2014

    “chek’s “special” journalism student reviewing a psychology paper’s as a “gold standard” was never going to fly [with the ignoramus crank constituency, even though they reinforce the findings with everything they utter]“.

    There that reads so much better and more true to life now, Griselda.

  52. #52 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    As for Lewandowsky, if there were academic and/or ethical issues with the study, why have they not been acknowledged as the reason for its withdrawal? Why make a clear statement to the contrary in the retraction announcement and point to legal threats as the main cause?

    Why would a journal withdraw a paper and then make misleading statements about its reasons for doing so?

    It almost sounds as though you suspect some kind of conspiracy is taking place.

  53. #53 GSW
    April 5, 2014

    @BBD

    “Before further argument, re-read your own sources.”

    No need BBD, you were one with the “simplistic” GHG radiative forcing “did it all”, not me. Back track all you like you worm.

  54. #54 chek
    April 5, 2014

    BBD, GSW is Olap’s guardian …erm … ‘intellectual’.
    But unlike with students, a floon is just a floon, and always will be.

  55. #55 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    chek – FG has just confirmed this hypothesis elsewhere.

  56. #56 chek
    April 5, 2014

    GSW @ #53 translation: I have no effective rebuttal from williwatts or McinTyres available for that.
    Please ask me something about kittens instead.

  57. #57 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    chek, #55 was follow-up to #52.

    GSW

    No need BBD

    But there is. You do not understand this topic. See above. Read the words.

  58. #58 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Back track all you like you worm.

    I’m not back-tracking. I’m saying exactly the same thing over and over again. Which is that you do not understand this topic and need to research it further.

  59. #59 chek
    April 5, 2014

    Cheers, BBD @ #55.
    They can’t help themselves, can they?

  60. #60 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    Chek

    Nailed the fucker ;-)

  61. #61 BBD
    April 5, 2014

    They can’t help themselves, can they?

    No. It’s the frog and the scorpion, every time.

  62. #62 craig thomas
    April 5, 2014

    Talking of PhDs, has John McLean found his yet? It went missing a few years ago and doesn’t seem to have been found.

    Retraction Watch is also interested in Frontier’s apparently contradictory statements:
    http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/#comment-89750

    Richard Tol gets the first comment in. So nice to see him at Retraction Watch, don’t you think?

  63. #63 chek
    April 6, 2014

    Interesting thread Craig.
    Of course, my own view is that the threats (in whatever form) should be faced down.
    And then beaten into the ground.
    And then when there’s nothing lefty apart from pounded, pink, frothing jelly, turn a flamethrower on the remains.
    Then take off and nuke the gelatinous, frothing crispy fuckers from orbit.
    It’s the only way to be sure.
    Otherwise, from a liberal/lefty perspective, they’ll be back demanding double.

  64. #64 BBD
    April 6, 2014

    You missed out ploughing with salt. But I suppose the old ways will wither and die now there’s all these new-fangled orbital lasers and such.

  65. #65 Jeff Harvey
    April 6, 2014

    GSW is back reading shit from his hero, Steyn…

    My advice to Lewandowsky is to resubit his paper elsewhere. Its excellent (having read it) and will certainly get through peer-review when Frontiers doesn’t have the guts to stand by it. Their second statement is really a humiliation for themselves, backtracking on the original statement.

  66. #66 craig thomas
    April 6, 2014

    Interesting website, RetractionWatch – not just moderated, it’s actually *edited*. Several of my comments have been extensively reworked to spare the feelings of the liars and cranks.

  67. #67 Lionel A
    April 6, 2014

    craig @#66
    Indeed, I have just been browsing through that and groaning frequently at some of the utter ballcocks spouted by some of the usual suspects as well as those who like to maintain an argument with rhetoric and sophistry, I note the presence of Brad Keyes and omno there.

    Alvine Stone produces some sensible arguments, sidestepping such waffle, particularly in his April 4, 2014 at 4:33 pm post and those which follow. The NIWA case in particular sheds light on the situation as does John Mashey from thereon.

    But of course don’t expect the usual suspects to understand the nuances for GSWs responses on the end Permian extinctions in posts above here demonstrates that they cannot consider more than one valid fact at a time.

    All this kerfuffle, as it continues unabated, demonstrates that Lewandowsky was onto something and the public exhibition continues with Lucinda, Shub and others joining in as contestants for the gurning team.

  68. #68 BBD
    April 6, 2014

    Couldn’t face commenting on the Retraction Watch thread. Another herd of idiots too stupid and too inexperienced to understand what happened – not to mention too insane and sunk in paranoia and denial to parse normal real-world events objectively.

  69. #69 Lionel A
    April 6, 2014

    Indeed BBD, well done craig for having a go, its like feeding the chimps in the zoo.

  70. #70 BBD
    April 6, 2014

    What leaves me gasping with disbelief is the sheer pointlessness of all this fuss.

    Everybody sane knows that conspiracist ideation is rife amongst climate change deniers. So there’s no doubting that Lewandowsky’s conclusions are supported by the evidence. All we’ve got here is a weak editorial board caving in to threats of barratry by some very nasty denier scum who are now crowing foully about what they have done.

    Which is to corrupt science using bullying and threats. The wretched irony of it all, given that that phrase has been on the lips of so very many denier vermin for so long.

  71. #71 chek
    April 6, 2014

    Everybody sane knows that conspiracist ideation is rife amongst climate change deniers.

    Absolutely true. Scratch a denier and not many layers down you get ‘but… CLMATEGATE!!!!!’

  72. #72 BBD
    April 6, 2014

    He he – THEY’RE UP TO NO GOOD remember?

    :-)

  73. #73 chek
    April 6, 2014

    I wonder if there’s a way to get some expansion on that – tee hee.

  74. #74 BBD
    April 7, 2014

    The same old question: where’s the evidentially-supported scientific counter-argument to the established scientific consensus?

    Where?

    If all the atmospheric physics is wrong, then how do we explain deglaciation of Snowball Earth states? The end-Permian extinction event? The PETM? ETM-2? MECO? Orbitally-triggered deglaciation during the Pleistocene?

    And the present rise in GAT?

    How?

    Oh, okay, we go legal on a paper that outs us as nutters and caper and cavort beside the resulting bonfire.

    Anything’s better than nothing.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    April 7, 2014

    Directed via a post at Eli’s to Lewandowsky laying out the Frontiers territory with:

    Revisiting a Retraction.

    I guess it is all too complex and nuanced for our band of eejut [1] followers who cannot grasp nuance.

    [1] OK chek, :-) (a rare occasion for using one of those unlike another grinning eejut around here) thanks for the phonetic spelling alternative. I sometimes use idiosyncratic expressions as a leavener.

  76. #76 Lionel A
    April 7, 2014

    If anybody else has tried the ‘provided by Graham Readfearn earlier.‘ link and failed then this could be it:

    Science Journal Set To Retract Paper Linking Climate Change Scepticism To Conspiracy Theorists After Sceptics Shout Libel.

  77. #77 Lionel A
    April 7, 2014

    Heads up for James Cameron’s Years of Living Dangerously Premiere Full Episode.

    I have not watched it through yet, it being late here, only just found this at SkS and will watch tomorrow.

    I have been trawling through some of the FOI stuff linked to through #76 above, whilst trying to get Linux to play ball off of USB thumb drives.

  78. #78 chek
    April 7, 2014

    Good find Lionel, thanks very much. I’d heard about it.
    I’ll watch it after the breaking ice extra features to**ent I’m currently viewing.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    April 8, 2014

    ‘breaking ice’ , chasing Ice (Balog) maybe otherwise ?

    Living Dangerously, Plainview Texas, with over 70 churches, ‘biblical drought’ and then later ‘…everything runs in twenty year cycles…’ and ‘there is only one man who knows how much rain were goin’ to get and that’s God, he’s not a scientists so I am not putting much faith in what they say, Heh, heh” then ‘Genesis 9 says that there will always be seed-time and harvest, this business of people saying that there is going to be a calamity in weather is not true.’

    So much ignorance on display. Well done Jim Inhofe and Fox plus a long list of others – see what you have allowed to persist, you are beneath contempt, false prophets all.

  80. #80 sped
    April 8, 2014

    Oh yes Climategate. The gate which never opened. The denialists really tried with that one.

  81. #81 chek
    April 8, 2014

    Lionel – yes chasing ice, of course.
    I don’t think it was a Freudian slip, but then where does our collective responsibility begin and end.

  82. #82 cRR Kampen
    April 8, 2014

    So where’s the Swedish cook? We did some more date records yesterday but now its over for a week, I promise!

  83. #83 BBD
    April 8, 2014

    Ugo Bardi resigns over Frontiers handling of Lewandowsky:

    The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don’t take a strong stance on this issue. Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can take, that is I am resigning from “Chief Specialty Editor” of Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the “Recursive Fury” case. I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.

    I am not happy about having had to take this decision, because I had been working hard and seriously at the Frontiers’ specialy journal titled “Energy Systems and Policy.” But I think it was the right thing to do. I also note that this blunder by “Frontiers” is also a blow to the concept of “open access” publishing, which was one of the main characteristic of their series of journals. But I still think that open access publishing it is the way of the future. This is just a temporary setback for a good idea which is moving onward.

  84. #84 chek
    April 8, 2014

    Interesting (but not surprising) that the immediate denier reaction to Bardi’s statement is to attack the messenger.

    I do hope the relevant people are drilling a core sample through multiple blogs as this affair progresses, as it seems to me that the reactions to the original story are blossoming much more than the parent root.

  85. #85 BBD
    April 8, 2014

    Scorpion and frog.

  86. #86 Stu 2
    April 8, 2014

    BBD @ # 70:

    “Everybody sane knows that conspiracist ideation is rife amongst climate change deniers. So there’s no doubting that Lewandowsky’s conclusions are supported by the evidence.”

    Obviously, despite your assertion , entirely qualified and sane people have raised doubts about Lewandowsky’s methodology to reach those conclusions. While you may not personally agree with the final result (the paper withdrawn) your assertion here is not based on fact, it is only a rather poorly expressed opinion.

  87. #87 bill
    April 8, 2014

    Everybody sane knows that conspiracist ideation is rife amongst climate change deniers. So there’s no doubting that Lewandowsky’s conclusions are supported by the evidence.

    Remains true.

    Contentless ‘refutations’ by a nuttter who subscribes to the ‘Hitler was Left-wing’ loony-Right shibboleth merely implode into a black hole of irony.

  88. #88 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    Obviously, despite your assertion , entirely qualified and sane people have raised doubts about Lewandowsky’s methodology to reach those conclusions.

    We can argue methodology until the cows come home, but everybody sane knows that conspiracist ideation is rife amongst climate change deniers. So there’s no doubting that Lewandowsky’s conclusions are supported by the evidence.

    Are you seriously disputing the effortlessly demonstrable matter of fact?

    Are you so profoundly incapable of parsing reality?

  89. #89 chek
    April 9, 2014

    2Stupid, not a single denier will disown the Kleimitgate fiasco, or admit they were wrong in the face of nine separate investigations when challenged. They are incapable of giving up their prize ju-ju.

    Indeed, they invariably dig an even deeper hole in the seam of stupidity they’re mining and write off those multi-agency reports as whitewashes. Perhaps your own rather poorly formed opinions wouldn’t survive contact with that reality.

    entirely qualified and sane people have raised doubts about Lewandowsky’s methodology to reach those conclusions

    Like who? Mealy-mouthed apologists like you, perhaps? Or maybe that’s too unkind and you’ve a list of peer-reviewed articles doing what you claim. But I don’t think you have any at all, and you’re just an ideating wanker.

  90. #90 Lionel A
    Sanityshire
    April 9, 2014

    And Teh Stupid continues with one of those who baffle-gabs our idiot brigade through CO2Science:

    Heartland Institute NIPCC Climate Denier Craig Idso: “Climate Change Is Good For You”

    One cannot just make this s*** up!

  91. #91 Lionel A
    April 9, 2014

    Adding to the info in #89, just in case the numpty brigade don’t bother with links within the article cited in that above here is more:

    CIC Briefing: Craig Idso Heartland Institute NIPCC Climate Denial

    following the history of this particular branch of climate change denial. Another ‘scientist’ recruited by Western Fuels was Pat Michaels who has continued with his own brand of obfuscation over recent years in Forbes and the WSJ. Expect another piece of bafflegab from Michaels soon (aha Soon there is another who indulges).

  92. #92 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    #82, exit Frontiers. What a sorry sight, but well deserved.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    April 9, 2014

    And I note that The Weasel has had a pop at the NIPCC and JoNova on the way.

    You get around BBD.

  94. #94 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    The Hydra is many-headed, Lionel. I wish I had more time.

  95. #95 BBD
    April 9, 2014

    At least I have managed to spoil a few hairdos over at Lewandowsky’s blog though. Got Foxgit square amidships.

  96. #96 chek
    April 9, 2014

    It’s pitiful watching those cranks at STW.
    I’m half expecting them to start bragging to each about what yachts and Lamborghinis they’re going to spend their imaginary ‘damages’ on next.

  97. #97 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    #94, shattering, unfortunately the very light headed will never sink.

    chek, wot, Lomborghinis?

  98. #98 chek
    April 9, 2014

    Lionel @ #79
    That Years of Living Dangerously is well worth watching, and recalling every time the term ‘alarmist’ is used as an attempt to diminish.
    I found myself torn between wishing there were another 500 Katharine Hayhoes doing what she’s doing there, and tearing down that whole bible-belt theocracy somehow, without it descending into a nihilistic meth hellhole.
    The Syrian and Indonesian excerpts both showed the utter irresponsibility of quite different leadership classes There are mile after mile after mile of rusting jet bombers, figfhters and attack aircraft for further than the eye can see at Davis Monthan in Arizona, and the same numbers of decrepit MiGs and Suckhois on the Russia steppes since the CFE treaties in the ’90s.

    And yet that’s what those countries’ leaders spent vast amounts of their their wealth on, and now near disaster that there aren’t enough bullets for washes round their feet.

  99. #99 chek
    April 9, 2014

    cRR, yes McinTyre’s ganglette are busily convincing themselves (by rehearsing it in their own heads) that they’ve got a case for libel and that USW’s insurers pretty much guarantee they’ll come out loaded.
    The top three articles’ comments by the same small band of fantasists will give you enough of a flavour. Enough to make you want to wash your mouth out afterwards.

  100. #100 cRR Kampen
    April 9, 2014

    #98 chek, could you please repair the link, it does not work.

    As to the ganglette, let them proceed!

Current ye@r *