David Appell has quit blogging and deleted his blog, Quark Soup. William Connolley writes:
it was the first blog I read; perhaps DA somewhat lost his place when other climate-type blogs (RC mainly; perhaps even Stoat) took some of his niche. Deltoid was the next one I read... I trust they won't be going out in order.
I'll stop blogging when I run out of opinions, so this blog might be going for a while.
Certain commenters have continued a discussion that was on Quark Soup under an unrelated post here. I've deleted their comments and banned them moved their comments under this post.
More like this
There's a thread on twitter, started by "@JacquelynGill" noting "The Day After Tomorrow", "@ClimateOfGavin" replying that "it was that movie and lame sci community response that prompted me to start blogging", and continuing "Spring 2004 was pre-RC, Scienceblogs, etc. Deltoid was around, Stoat, @…
Every man and his lagomorph has a post taking the piss out of the "Ship of fools", so I won't bother. But (since I seem to have managed to get censored by every denialist blog I try to post on) I thought I'd make a handy list of said blogs and comments. Warning: there's no useful content anywhere…
I'm going to intermittently keep track of the comments I make on other blogs. I'll spare you the totally trivial ones, but I don't guarantee this to be especially interesting. One point of doing this will be to track the ones that "disappear" on various sites (no names for now) that I've found don'…
As those of you who read other ScienceBlogs are probably already aware, the ScienceBlogs overlords have decided that all bloggers on this network must blog under their own names -- no more pseudonyms. I don't understand or agree with this policy. Some of my favorite ScienceBlogs are written by…
(I apologize for being off topic, responding to a request on a recently deceased blog)
Dano: [Here's](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR20050…) a [couple.](http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142004_1372.htm)
Thx cs,
the NIH has been a fundie/political hit target for some time (as the FDA, EPA, etc). The second link is not as you say - it is a presser stating B. wants to regulate POPs.
My point is that B. should be looking at individual scientists in, say, chemistry, medicine, nookyoolur generation, etc. that don't make their notes available for amateurs to look over.
Me, I sure do want to scrutinize nookyoolur generation and pester those scientists with my uninformed questions and analysis of their notes.
I could do a lot of good - shoot, I could publish a character-assassination website, and get some chest-thumping regressed teens to post there about how great I am at missing the big picture. Empowerment, at last!
Best,
D
Dano:
I am missing your last reply since Quark Soup vaporized earlier. ba1950rolls@yahoo.com Thanks.
I didn't save what I wrote, ba. Do you remember what your last post was?
D
Dano: My best recollection of my last QS post with a cache link to the previous 39 QS comments: http://qs-end-of-file.blogspot.com/
Many pardons, Tim and gentle readers.
This is truly a sad development.
Quark Soup will be missed.
As others have noted, there is a large volume of valuable content in QS' comment archives, which I hope David Appell will make available in some form.
In the meantime, snapshots as recent as 26 Sept. 2004 are available at the Wayback Machine.
I had occasion once to cite Yelling's excellent critique of Jaworowski on Quark Soup. QS was down at the time, so I linked to the Google cache. Now I'm glad I did.
I never posted a good bye to the Quark Soup site but if Tim doesn;t mind I will make an observation here (Tim if you do mind then feel free to delete or disemvowel me). Quark soup gave me my start in looking at the science of Climate Change. It also led to my involvement in some other interesting web sites that discuss Climate Change plus through it I met a number of interesting people. I am sorry to see it go and wish David all the best in what ever he does. I will note that the only Scientific American I have bought in the last 10 years was one that had one of David's articles in it.
However on a cheerier note, if you have not already, I would encourage everyone to check out JRE's site (linked in his previous post below) - Some Are Boojums. The lyrics to I am the Very Model of a Modern Christian President have taken the prime location on my door!!!
John.
John was a good antidote to Dano's "suffer no fools at any time" philosophy on QS. David was a good blend of angry guy tempering with a good head on his shoulders.
D
You may already realise this, but just in case you don't - David has a blog a MIT Technology Review which still seems to be getting updated :
http://www.trblogs.com/authors/77
Dano:
Still interested in your answer. I have tried to remember my words as closely as possible, but it's not perfect.
I had trouble with blogspot after 24hr, so here it is again. Thanks for the space, Tim.
Google cache of the 39 previous comments:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:fdhJMthGDIQJ:davidappell.com/archive…
----------------------------------
ba replied (to Dano):
"Nice change of subject, ba." I'm trying to focus on a missing puzzle piece.
"...how much more GHG contribution is acceptable" That is not what I asked. I asked for your technical POV [to better understand your position about GHG severity and timing].
"... a societal decision [which you don't believe in]"
No. In my previous "social issues" comment, I simply rejected my inclusion in an artificially defined and ad hom'd group as well as asserting my analytical individuality. You always cynically refuse to credit my analytical individuality; from the start. Long discussion on what constitutes a valid societal decision.
"[...GHG...climate change..] for continued short-term gain"
Unfortunately too many people/groups grab for short term gains. Long term fraudulent gains and power grabs are even more dangerous. This kind of discussion quickly degenerates, so be analytical pls...
I would say [climate] science has problems looking into the past and present as well as the future here.
The last 3 paragraphs, calm down (slow down?) - you're beginning to froth.
ba: thanks for the link to the cache, from it:
Dano wrote:
"Barton's move would be less blatant if he had done the same thing for medicine or, say, the chemical industry"
Dano: (post 2) You're right about the second link, but the first describes exactly what you were asking for. Have another look, and note:
"An internal investigation of 103 current and former employees of the National Institutes of Health has found that 44 violated conflict-of-interest rules and 37 did not, while 22 are still under review, *according to interim* **data supplied** *by NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni* **to a congressional committee**" (emphases added)
We can take this over to ba's place, cs.
D
"QS end of file with Dan0"
Dano said...
>well, i lost the spirit of the thread, ba. At least you have a blog now and we can take it here.
hmmm. Not looking for my own blog. I set the temporary site up just to minimize my intrusion in TL's Hitchens comment space.
My understanding is that the gist of your original answer (a) begged off any technical POV commitment; (b) suggested that I should muzzle my opinion in "science...past, present...future" because it might enhance others' criticism or credibility.
Ok, see you online. The "QS end of file with Dan0" site will self destruct in....
ba: I wouldn't have minded commenting on your blog, but I think I'd prefer to not be obligated to register, and so...
I found your 'electron mirror' (from previous quark soup posts) hypothesis quite interesting, however, I think that considering the temporal scales, to look for an effect, you might have to be looking at warming of at least 30 or so meters in depth, (if the influence will have influence on major storms, right?) which might be well delayed (considering slow, mostly wind-based oceanic heat mixing scales from the surface?)
I think the idea should be examined further, no doubt. Yet, considering physics, as it seems to be standing as of now, doesn't seem to always be used properly in some of these applications.
Don't ask me why.
Thanks Tim for opening this thread, I sure hope that all familiar names from quark soup come here!
I did see Jeff Harvey and Dan[0]
I remember, ba, that you asked what I thought was OK for a future CO2 ppmv level. I keep trying to explain to you that it is a societal decision - how much disruption folk are willing to put up with. That isn't begging off any technical answer, because it's not a technical question - it's a political one. And I don't recall saying you should muzzle anything, either.
Best,
D