Pearcegate

Don't bother using Miles Mathis as a reference for anything except as an example of a classic delusional crackpot. His hilarious p=4 will be the cornerstone of his undoing. He knows he's wrong and he won't retract or revise that paper, which is classic crackpot behavior. If deriving the correct value of pi does a number on his head you can understand why the rest of his "papers" are so skewed. It seems every manner of laziness, incompetence, and inconsistency battle for mastery within him. Mathis never got over being called a "genius" once in high school and his life has been wasted in a futile quest to be recognized as a Renaissance man equally masterful in science, mathematics, painting, sculpture, music, singing, writing fiction, poetry, art criticism, book reviewing and political commentary. The truth, though, is that he inept to mediocre in all these fields.
After making the big splash with his absurd science papers he is sinking fast as people test his ideas and, instead of seeing the justness of his assertions, see only the flabby thinking, the unsupported claims, the lack of editing, the long windedness, the lack of understanding of basic scientific principles, the disorganized stream of consciousness writing and the incessant attacks on all scientists and all mathematicians and conclude that Mathis is a jealous, bitter kook.

I'd sue the prick...

I was going to parody this week's issue of NS, and went as far as [knocking up the logo](http://i53.tinypic.com/2eelx0n.jpg), when I discovered that Codling had already nicked the idea for her own internally-ironic purposes. I lost enthusiasm after that.

At least I went as far as using the right font. Codling was too lazy to get even that correct.

The idea that science can be done via 'peace summits' is patently ridiculous.

Really, science by horse-trading instead of fact-finding -- how will that even work? Will Michael Mann say to S. Fred Singer, 'Dr. Singer, as a goodwill gesture, I'm willing to abandon the hockey stick if you'll stop writing about the so-called 1,500-year climatic cycle'? Or what? This is all just totally wrong-headed.

-- frank

Would anyone organise a reconciliation conference for biologists and creationists? Historians and holocaust deniers? Medical researchers and the tobacco industry? The notion is nonsense.

The point where I lost all respect for Pearce is when he constructed that notorious Climategate article around the false notion of peer-review being the "supposed gold standard". It's distressing that he is now resorting to fabricating quotes in order to maintain his position as a champion of the non-existent middle ground.

And why not JamesA??

Afterall, Judith Curry seems to think that science will be done in the comments to her blog.

I think it's just as likely, and a fair analogy to Climate Etc, that you could leave a sheaf of A4 pages and a pencil on a bar in a pub and come back at closing time and collect a Pulitzer Prize winning novel.

**Update:** At Judith Curry's blog tallbloke [writes](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-par…)

>To set the record straight:

>Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined. The organisers inadvertantly included Gavin's response on that email, and when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren't there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin's response. This made it's way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

>I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim. However I would also like to say that Gavin's complaint to the New Scientist does not include any praisee of the passage in his original response which gave rise to my brief summary. I therefore reject Gavin's claim that I 'made stuff up', and respectfully suggest that we can lay this one to rest if in a spirit of openness Gavin simply reproduces his response so people can see for themselves what he said.

>If I am assailed by accusations that I have wrongfully maligned Gavin with my brief summary comment I may feel obliged to defend myself with a closer paraphrase.

Yes, they had [an ether crank](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/confirmation-of-transmissive-…) on the invite committee.

If the letter continues to go unpublished I'd recommend the Press Complaints Commission.

.. then sue the fucker.

Showed up this morning postdated

The article reads like a straightforwards hash up of what the conference organisers and attendees say and think. Which sort of thing has its place, but not if you are trying to report on science, since there appears to be none involved in the conference.
I can imagine a similar sort of write up being done by someone attending the annual get together of, to make up a fictional example on a topic I am interesting in, 'people who want to restore castles and live in them'. The reporter would write down a variety of bitching about the authorities who won't let them do what they want, without any idea of whether the aims of the restorer are correct, useful, accurate, or downright destructive.
So it is here. Pearce has reported the views of a bunch of people who are, scientifically speaking, cranks, as if it merits as much reporting and discussion of a conference on vaccination, or carbon or something, but not included any reference to the actual science and views of the majority of people involved in that area.

..when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren't there I gave a quick praisee..

I thought I had a reasonable vocabulary, but what wtf does "praisee" mean? Does he mean précis?

"what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim"
so, it's not anything like you making stuff up. Got it.

Just be grateful it wasn't "pray see"...

:-)

Mind you, this bloke doesn't seem to know what the words mean anyway:

> I therefore reject Gavin's claim that I 'made stuff up'

But that's what he did:

> I would just stress at this point that what I said constitutes my opinion and not what Gavin said verbatim.

Therefor attribution of his opinion as what Gavin said IS "making stuff up". Avoidance of that claim would be unnecessary if he'd said "my opinion of why Gavin didn't turn up, based on what I read in his response is ...".

You know, say it was an opinion.

1) Postnormal academics create a dumb conference.
2) the ad hoc organizing committee includes Tallbloke, whose website should be consulted. Recall tshirt he gave Curry.
2) Tallbloke is asked for advice on climate scientists to invite, a task fir which his qualifications seen unobvious. Ravetz/Oxford might be asked why.

3) they accidentally give Gavin response to Tallbloke.

4) he comments in it. (if were running an organizing committee, that would be the last time Tallbloke got asked to do anything, ever.

5) but Tallbloke thinks it us ip to Gavin to respond....

Fred Pearce, another interpreter of interpretations....

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that Roger Tattersall (Tall Bloke)-- he outed himself on the NewScientist forum-- is making a veiled threat against Schmidt in his post at Curry's place? Honorable denialist he is.

Now it might be that Schmidt did say something silly in his email to Tall Bloke, that does not change matters:

1) Schmidt is on the record saying the science is not settled,
2) I doesn't absolve Pearce failing to contact Schmidt directly to confirm Tall Bloke's claim and to get Schmidt's side of the story which would have permitted him to use quotes.

Pity Schmidt cannot sue both Pearce and Tall Bloke for defamation. Funny how these folks like to routinely defame, slander, libel people across the pond, or out of country.....

Tim, you might want to correct the following:

>Pearce states ...

>Equally contentious is the charge - the pet subject of several in Lisbon - that the IPCC is "in denial" about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years. [How does a warming ocean cause nights to warm faster than days, the troposphere to warm while the upper layers are cooling, winters to warm faster than summers, measured increases in downwelling heat, and measured decreases in outgoing heat from the planet?]

The bracketed part is Scott Mandias' words. We wouldn't want Pearce accusing you of mis-quoting him, would we? Even if doing so would cast him in a more reasonable light?

*[Corrected. Thanks. Tim]*

Every so often I try to think how this will look to your grandchildren (and my grand-nephews-and-nieces). From their perspective, we're all in this together, believe it or not.

So I find this hopeful:

> January 29, 2011 by Judith Curry:
> I was hoping to put to rest any skeptical debate
> about the basic physics of gaseous infrared
> radiative transfer.

and almost a thousand comments later:

> curryja February 4, 2011 at 2:04 pm
> I am preparing two new greenhouse posts for this eve
> (one science, one etc). hoping this will help.

Yeah, there's notions in between that seem utterly impossible to put together in the same bottle.

But step back in space and ahead in time and we are all in the same bottle, the big round blue one, here and now.

We might as well get good at it.

Schmidt has called Tattersall's bluff and....crickets. Zilch from TallBloke.

Yes, Hank while we play these "games" the planet continues to accumulate energy and the the prognosis for future generations looks bleaker. But I do not know what the alternative is...to let the rabid denialists run amok?

What an effing mess...TGIF.

#10 lord sidcup, I'm sure 'précis' is correct. The moral being: if you're going to use a fancy French word twice in a letter, find out how to spell it first.

How stupid! Discussion with âcontrariansâ in an attempt to reconcile differences with conventional climate science is either impossible or aimed at compromising the truth. It has long been obvious that the position adopted by contrarians is only sustained by manipulating and misrepresenting science and empirical fact , as so ably demonstrated by McIntyre, Mosher and Monckton. I do so hate inherent intellectual dishonesty from either âsideâ.

Cross-posted from CP:

"Now Pearce, Tattersall and the organizing committee of the workshop (including Curry) owe Schmidt a grovelling apology.

Schmidt never said that the science is settled or that there was nothing to discuss. That was Tattersall's tainted interpretation of Schmidt's email (URL below) which Pearce then parroted without having the professionalism or integrity or decency to check with Schmidt first.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lis…"

Well that grudging retraction was like pulling teeth.

What is hilarious is that cranks such as Tallbloke et al who beaver away attaching themselves to Curry in the hope that her erstwhile professional standing will pull them out of the slime, is instead pulling her down into it.

I guess Judy didn't have the stones to rip up that 'awarded' T-shirt, or find it professionally offensive in case that would have spoiled the moment.

Chek @21,

"Well that grudging retraction was like pulling teeth."

Could you elaborate please? I am aware of no retraction or apology from any of the guilty party's.

Hi all,

"Yes, they had an ether crank on the invite committee."

An ad hoc member of the invite committee. I know people from both sides of the debate, so they decided I could help out.

My take on the results from Miller which were confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 is that they were measuring something real. What it is, we donât know. Because we don't know is not a good reason for denying the results of the empirical findings. Please donât characterize me as a âcrankâ, Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.

Einstein said this of Millerâs experiment:
âMy opinion about Millerâs experiments is the following. ⦠Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory.â

â Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, July 1925

Given that our best instrumentation and our interpretation of the data we get confirms general and special relativity, we are left with the puzzle of what Miller and Galaev were measuring. I simply post about interesting puzzles and donât worry overmuch about how they contradict each other. Itâs all good stuff we can learn from, and any of these theories may be suddenly revived by some unexpected experimental result. As Einstein said:

Experimentum summus judex

Perhaps you're more right than I am ML and I've read too much into [this sentence](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/gavin-schmidt-response-to-lis…): "However, I felt that taking responsibility for publishing lay with me and so I have posted it here at the Talkshop. I hope that this will" blah blah blah

On reflection, I don't think it would have satisfied Andrew Weaver either.

Tallbloke @23,

Are you going to do the right and honorable thing and apologize to Dr. Schmidt for misrepresenting what he said in his email?

MapleLeaf @25
Are you going to do the right and honourable thing and apologize for broadcasting my job title and location on the open internet?

Stop obfuscating Roger....that information was made available at DeepClimate (and is available elsewhere as I recall), and you provided more information at NewScientist. And you apologizing to Dr. Schmidt is not contingent on me apologizing or not. That would be a lame excuse no?

Now, I thought that you were interested in reconciliation? At least that is what you claim.

So in that spirit and to set a good example, please apologize for misrepresenting and defaming Dr. Schmidt.

TallBloke,

On second thought, if me posting your affiliation caused you concern or grief, then I sincerely apologize.

It's all up to you Tallbloke.

You can decide to unequivocally do the right thing, or continue to vacillate and deflect and generally act like slime.

But realise it doesn't work in your favour, and it's the place you're dragging Curry down to.

@ 25 Tallbloke
It was part funded by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. Is the JRC exempt from FOIA requests anyway? Get over it, it's not like your name's gonna be headline news. Even Tamino has to publish under his real name, and it's not exactly a big secret.

ML thanks. It does cause me concern, because my rolling contract is at the whim of an employer running a big atmospheric science dept.

Chek, Gavin said:
"None of the seemingly important âconflictsâ that are *perceived* in the science are âconflictsâ in any real sense within the scientific community"

This sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me.

You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from "the scientific community"

I see this as a problem of balance and good judgement. We need a more reasonable dialogue within the *whole scientific community* not just that part of it which all agrees.

A dialogue which includes anomalous data and conflicting interpretations. This is healthy for scientific advance.

The raiative sums say the extra co2 has inflated the diameter of the troposphere by what, 200m?

How much has the diminished solar activity shrunk it if the mesosphere is own by 30%

No-one knows yet. The science is not settled.

What we do know is that OLR has stayed high, and that indicates more energy is leaving the system, while less is coming in from a quiescent sun. How much is that counteracting any co2 effect?

We don't know yet, because the error band on measuring OLR is three times wider than the signals we calculate should be there.

Embrace the uncertainty. It is possible that any one of three or more factors could predominate.

To extract:

"The science is settled"

from:

"None of the seemingly important âconflictsâ that are perceived in the science are âconflictsâ in any real sense within the scientific community"

requires a feat of mental acrobatics that is way beyond anything that I am capable of achieving. I am simply in awe of Tallblokes intellectual dexterity!

This sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me.

If you can't grok the distinction between the original statement and your "paraphrase", then you aren't equipped to reliably comment on the science.

Of course, the other possibility is that you do grok the difference, which leads to a whole 'nother conclusion.

Guys @32&33

Easy now. I accept that people on opposite sides of the divide are going to perceive this differently. Can you?

And just because I find Gavin's effective exclusion of Lindzen, Spencer, Loehle and Soon from the 'scientific community' distasteful doesn't mean we can't debate the uncertainty around TOA energy balance measurement does it?

[Tallcrank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3216743):
>The science is not settled.

How many more times do you need to be told that [that is a straw man](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/)?

>Embrace the uncertainty.

Do you have any reason to conclude that the uncertainty is all in one direction, or do you mean to advocate strong measures to curtail CO2 emissions in case the risk has been underestimated?

Tallbloke -- "This sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me."

Not to me.

Tallbloke -- "You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from "the scientific community"..."

That's your opinion, but if you mean, say, Dr. Bas van Geel of the University of Amsterdam then you might have a point.

[Tallbloke said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3216743)"This sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me. You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from "the scientific community".

Firstly TB, that isn't what Pearce reported.

If he'd reported instead that "some nonentity told me "This sounds a lot like "The science is settled" to me. You disagree, but consider that by saying such a thing, Gavin is effectively excluding many honest researchers from "the scientific community". there wouldn't be this topic.

Secondly you say "excluding many honest researchers".

That'd be those inexperienced and unpublished but ever honest, blogresearchin', self-selected, blogscience "experts" like you, I presume.

It's a tired routine that "Goddard", Mosher and Fuller have already and ineffectively done to death.

Yeah sure Roger,

Gavin explicitly saying in his response that the job of science is to "increase understanding" allows you "percieve" he was saying 'the science is settled'.

That's a very large pile of steaming horse manure.

Or a potentially terminal case of confirmation bias.

Rog Tallbloke:

1) Were you authorized by the organizers to repeat (or really interpret publicly) Gavin's email? If so, I assume you can say who did it.

2) If not, can you state for sure that you believe that as an ad hoc committee member who accidentally got a copy, it is your right to do this?

tallbloke said:

We need a more reasonable dialogue within the whole scientific community not just that part of it which all agrees.

It seems to me that 97% is as close as you can get to the "whole scientific community", the other 3% are cranks, non-scientists and just plain dishonest.

You also admit that your involvement with climate science is a religious effort (from your blog):

yes, thatâs why I mostly pontificate about internal climate changes

pon·tif·i·cate intr.v. (-kt) pon·tif·i·cat·ed, pon·tif·i·cat·ing, pon·tif·i·cates
1. To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way.
2. To administer the office of a pontiff.

Do you not find it ironic that most deniers accuse supporters of AGW of following a religious bent? I don't think you really understand what science is and how it is practiced. You are typical of people who get a first degree in a science related subject then think that they know all about science and how scientists conduct their research.

You are a crank.

> Please don't characterize me as a 'crank', Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science. [...] Do you know the difference between quoting Einstein about doing experiments.

Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein.

So Tallbloke thinks that science can be done by "peace talks", and now he seems to think that science can be done by uttering Einstein quotes.

-- frank

Tallbloke had seen the email, accidentally.
Others who had not seen it, and could not, asked.

The right, honorable answer was:

"I cannot comment."

I'm sure, given the mix of attendees, Tallbloke's interpretation (of something that could not be checked) quickly became fact, at least good enough for Pearce.

tallbloke writes:

>*I accept that people on opposite sides of the divide are going to perceive this differently. Can you?*

But your crime tallbloke (and that of Pearce as well) is that rather than give readers the option to "perceive this differently", you both, instead gave your own biased version rather than letting people decide based on the actual factual statement.

It is so very unfortunate of the 'skeptics' and contrarians cannot being themselves to acknowledge that they erred and correct a wrong. They cannot even, to my knowledge, bring themselves to say "sorry" when they have knowingly damaged someone's reputation and been the source of a myth that will be used by people with agendas to continue to smear Gavinn Schmidt.

It is this dogmatic behaviour that will ensure that the 'skeptics' and contrarians will continue to have a serious credibility issue, will not be trusted and will be alienated. They have no-one else to blame but themselves.

Today Roger had a chance to break that mould, he chose not to, at east not yet.

PS: And if Tallbloke is so concerned about his employer's take on this, then he should not have indicated his official affiliation as he did; instead he should have indicated that he was attending as a private citizen. It seems that he was not there in an official capacity on behalf of his employer-- that is his error in judgement not that of others.

praisee>

Facepalm

Please don't characterize me as a 'crank', Iâm a qualified engineer

Double Facepalm

Puts paper bag over head in anticipation of Roger reinforcing other negative engineer stereotypes.

Hey Lotharsson, welcome back! You were missed.

ML @44 "if Tallbloke is so concerned about his employer's take on this, then he should not have indicated his official affiliation as he did; instead he should have indicated that he was attending as a private citizen. It seems that he was not there in an official capacity on behalf of his employer-- that is his error in judgement not that of others."

The organisers did that for E.U. procedural reasons. I didn't know they were going to. I just flushed your previous apology @28 down the pan, where it merges with your true colours. I should have realised that jumping to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence is the distinguishing feature of alarmists like yourself.

@43 "But your crime tallbloke (and that of Pearce as well) is that rather than give readers the option to "perceive this differently", you both, instead gave your own biased version rather than letting people decide based on the actual factual statement."

And of course if I'd published Gavin's response before he gave permission to do so you'd be accusing me of a different "crime".

@42 The right, honorable answer was:"I cannot comment."

We're not as secretive as the people whose failure to disclose FOI'd information you defend. Attendees had a legitimate interest in the reasons for declining the invitation to dialogue IMO.

@41 "Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein."

Where can I read about the experiments you do? Mine are published openly, honestly and without concern for those who will characterize it as 'crank science' because they don't understand it or have an agenda which makes them attack it.

@40 "It seems to me that 97% is as close as you can get to the "whole scientific community"

I suspect your source is the survey which only selected two of the questions and answers for publication. It's rubbish evidence, but hey there's plenty of that about.

@39 1) No
2) Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output.

@38 Gavin said the community he had just defined as excluding dissenting scientists were furthering knowledge. In fact, by ensuring that only those in the consensus are included in this effort, they fall victim to their own confirmation bias. A much more worrying issue than my off the cuff summary of Gavin's reasons for declining to attend at Lisbon.
Get a sense of proportion

@37 "That'd be those inexperienced and unpublished but ever honest, blogresearchin', self-selected, blogscience "experts" like you, I presume."

No, I'm referring to distinguished scientists with research findings which don't gel with the "97%".

@36 http://www2.glos.ac.uk/accrotelm/uniamst.html Thanks for the namedrop, there's a nugget of gold in every pile of steaming horse manure.

@35 "Do you have any reason to conclude that the uncertainty is all in one direction, or do you mean to advocate strong measures to curtail CO2 emissions in case the risk has been underestimated?"

Well, I'm not as keen on implementing the precautionary principle as you may be. I think resilience and robustness with preparedness to deal with both warm and cold regimes is advisable, given the uncertainty, and the fact that local variation far exceeds the warming signal in magnitude.

Thanks for entertaining my visit and especially to those who posted comments to which non-combative replies were possible. Please do not adjust your mindset - Normal programming will be resumed shortly.

47 Tallbloke -- "Thanks for the namedrop,..."

Here's a quote from him...

Professor Begemannâs claim that on universities it is not possible to present a different opinion about climate change in any case isnât true for the University of Amsterdam. In my professional environment so far there nobody has ever tried to correct me (a skeptic with an opinion based on strong arguments) In the past 10 years, neither did I ever have a problem with finding funding for research on the role of the sun on climate changes in the past. It is (also) because of this research I started having an alternative opinion on whatâs going on with the present-day climate: I still believe that natural variability is much more important than changes caused by mankind.

Tallbloke -- "...there's a nugget of gold in every pile of steaming horse manure."

That's no way to talk about the Three Percenters.

Tallbloke,

Where the science isn't settled is on the outcomes of climate change and not on our understanding of the main forcing agent of the current warming (i.e. Homo sapiens). This is where the denial community has been most dishonest - they have taken the uncertainty over the possible outcomes of warming and have applied it to try and muddy the waters over the main causes of warming.

The fact that you know the names of a few ' qualified' contrarians tells you how many there really are in the scientific community. The fact is that a memo leaked from the American Petroleum Institute in the late 1990s claimed to be concerned that the anti-warming lobby at that time had to rely on the same few scientists over and over to spread their gospel of doubt. Their aim was to 'recruit' - whatever that means - new scientists to their cause to downplay AGW. Here we are more than a decade later and the same crop of names - Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Idso's, Spencer, Baliunas, Soon, Singer etc - are still being wheeled out to present the ' alternate' view from the scientists, joined by the likes of Monckton. Many of these people aren't climate scientists at all. This should be clear evidence that the number of scientists who downplay AGW are indeed very small.

Also, the fact that many of the so-called prominent skeptics have prostituted themselves out to libertarian think tanks or astroturf anti-environmental groups funded by polluting industries should tell you exactly where they are coming from.

@49 our understanding of the main forcing agent of the current warming (i.e. Homo sapiens).

This is assertion. Ok, I don't expect you to reprise all the arguments here, but if no-one here will address the uncertainty over TOA energy balance being several times the claimed co2 signal, we are still at impasse. I'm not really interested in the political accusations and rhetoric, because there isn't a possibility of objectivity there. I want correct assessment on the science, including estimates of uncertainty. And open discussion of them at the policy level.

Perhaps I can interest you in this post on my blog:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-…

Tallbloke read what he wanted to read out of it. Schmidt made the right decision. Problem with deniers is they can't even read a simple email without using it to construct an entire fantasy.

Tallbloke, stop the dissembling, stop the excuses; you have been shown to be ethically bankrupt in this case.

Grow a pair and apologise.

"Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output." - Tall Bloke

Gavin Schmidt must have sleepless nights knowing that someone who has trouble understanding a simple email, doesn't rate his scientific output.

So to sum up, the 'reconciliation conference' actually achieved getting Curry to accept a t-shirt depicting climate science in the trashcan, and falsely attributing a fabricated denialist chum phrase to a respected senior NASA scientist.

Mission accomplished, eh boys?
One wonders what you might cook up when you're not pretending to play nice.

47
@39 1) No 2) Gavin gave me his permission. Something which has increased my respect for him if not for his scientific output.
= = = = = = = = = =
1) Were you authorized by the organizers to repeat (or really interpret publicly) Gavin's email? If so, I assume you can say who did it.
= = = = = = = = = =
I believe the question pertains to the conference. Did you have permission to discuss the contents of emails during the conference? Did you discuss the content of emails during the confrence? Can you describe the rules of confidentiality you were operating under?

Any 'misunderstanding' on this is all Gavin Schmidt's fault over at Curry's blog;

"Itâs beyond me how Gavin could have been so naive as to imagine that statement could not possibly be misconstrued as suggesting that thereâs nothing left to discuss in the science." - Peter317

Tallbloke,

Please tell me what credentials you possess in any scientific field. No need to be modest here. Let's see your prodigious output.

As for Gavin, you ought to apologize immediately as others have said here. Gavin has tremendous integrity as a scientist and I would be livid if my views had been skewed in such as way.

Lastly, IMHO most denialism is not aimed at the scientific community but at the lay public. Its a PR stunt, which has little, if anything to do with science, and it never has, any more than any other areas of science which are being distorted by a small coterie of people and organizations aimed at promoting a political agenda. That's why the , reconciliation' meeting in Lisbon was a massive farce. In my view its like those concerned about the loss of biodiversity meeting up with those intent on destroying wild nature for profit in order to reach a ' compromise' of how much destruction is permissable.

So tallbloke denies being a crank:

Please don't characterize me as a 'crank', Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science. [...] Do you know the difference between quoting Einstein about doing experiments.

Well I suggest that he reads up on what a crank is. If he follows up on this suggestion then he will find himself looking in a mirror:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Here are a few choice quotes from that article:

Step one: Develop a wacky idea.

It is critical that your wacky idea must be something pretty extraordinary. A good crank shoots for the stars.

The presentation of this idea is also important. Remember that really important people with really important ideas don't have time for grammar or spelling.

if you must cite anything, either cite your own name or work, or that of another crank. If you're feeling bold cite some famous scientist, like Einstein

It's also important during your research of this new idea, never to be worried about preserving the original intent of other authors you quote or cite. If any words they say can be construed to mean something else, that's ok too.

I can go on and on but one would think that the author of this piece is using tallbloke as their model.

I'd ask whether New Scientist wants this kind of indefensible behavior associated with their brand

I'd be surprised if they cared.

TallBloke,

If you did not notice, I offered you a sincere, unequivocal, unambiguous apology @28. I did so in the interests of reconciliation, and because I decided that I was perhaps overzealous.

You attended a workshop with the alleged goal of 'reconciliation' and trying to reach a peace deal, yet your actions to date (and those of your peers, including Curry) are wholly inconsistent with that stated objective.

Again in the interests of reconciliation and decency, please offer an unequivocal public apology to Dr. Schmidt. It is really not that difficult and given the gravity of the situation (it is not a "storm in a tea cup" as you falsely claim-- you maligned the character of a gentleman and reputable scientist) it is not much to ask.

Blake @59,

That second link in particular was unbelievable. Something very odd is going on at NewScientist-- pandering and catering to the creationists and those in denial about climate change. NewScientist-- is that now become code for PostNormalScientist (PNS)?

Maybe John Mashey and DC should start looking into the goings on at NewScientist......

>Perhaps I can interest you in this post on my blog: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-…

>Posted by: Rog Tallbloke | February 5, 2011 7:32 AM

Blog Science alert!

Roger, don't you think were there anything to Miller's luminiferous aether bilge it would have long time shown up as a major glitch in satellite telemetry?

Rog Tallbloke:

> > Instead of actually doing experiments, you brandish your college degree and quote Einstein.

> Where can I read about the experiments you do?

Here's one.

> Mine are published openly, honestly and without concern for those who will characterize it as 'crank science' because they don't understand it or have an agenda which makes them attack it.

You didn't do any experiments, and even when publicizing other people's experiments, instead of outlining the experimental method and the experimental results, you blather on and on about conspiracies and misunderstood genius and Einstein.

That's precisely the behaviour of a crank.

Thanks to lord_sidcup @ # 10 & Holly Stick @ # 18 for clarifying that strange wordling. I was totally at a loss to decipher the raisin date for "praisee"...

Re 61 ML.
NS is probably trying to get readership numbers up. Times have been hard and the whips are probably being cracked. I'm not making any judgement, or giving an excuse, just suggesting a reason. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last. A new editor will also bring their own style, and the current editor's an ex-tabloid science editor, Roger Highfield, former science editor at The Daily Telegraph,........Oh...

"Roger Highfield, former science editor at The Daily Telegraph,........Oh..."

OFFs! Explains the reluctance to correct errors......if times are hard I would counsel that it would be unwise of Highfield to solicit an expensive lawsuit.....

Someone in the UK needs to please take this further

Isn't Gavin a climate modeler? I don't think that makes you a scientist any more than being a snake oil salesman makes you a doctor.

For the more thoughtful among you, Chantal Valentine has quite a good article entitled [Torturing the statistics until they confess](http://www.fin24.com/Collective-Insight/Carousel/Torturing-the-statisti…)

Mining a few quotes:

"Despite the fact that the first thing drummed into any economics student is that "correlation does not mean causation" there are still too many instances where a correlation is presented as some kind of "proof".

"The bottom line is that it's very easy to manipulate charts and numbers."

Worth a read, if you start to feel uncomfortable you can always pop back here to exchange comfort statements.

Anyway, Tallblokes paraphrasing of Gavin's reply seems about right from the email presented. I know it is lost on you, but the "Science is settled" bit says the same thing with a little added humour. ;)

Maybe "raison date" is a reference to the [summary weather](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-heatwave-breaks-15…) we've been having here in Sydney.

GSW, stop trolling. And before trying to slander Dr. Schmidt, at least make the effort to first determine his qualifications.

Juvenile quips by you do not trump facts...

Anyhow, there troll I fed you-- now PFO.

GSWs arguments are infantile nonsense. MapleLeaf sums his post up well.

In ecology and evolutionary ecology, predictive models are important tools in our research. The claim by GSW that a climate modeler is not a scientist is pure and utter drivel. Anyone making such a vacuous point does not deserve to be taken seriously.

As for linking correlation and causation, the denialists/skeptics/contrarians are past masters at the art, Lomborg doing this *ad nauseum* in TSE.

I don't know from under which rocks people like GSW crawl, but they ought to stay there.

Simple questions for tallbloke:

1) What engineering degree do you hold?

2) What technical/engineering work have you had during your employment?

3) Why do you have comments closed on your blog regarding this "tempest in a teapot"?

4) Are you willing to make a public statement (reply) concerning your understanding of the true value of pi?

Stu

Here's an interesting nugget re Pearce -

About a quarter of the way into a World Climate Conference 2009 session, Mojib Latif gives a presentation on the problem of decadal variability (about 15 minutes worth - well worth it). You can follow along with the original slides here.

Then compare your own impression of what Latif is saying to one and then two Pearce reports from NS.

Tallbloke complains that he's not a crank, unfortunately he also makes crank posts [like this](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/ozone-hole-hype/), with zero supporting data. Just someone's anon opinion.

BTW Tallblock, I notice you neglected the points raised in [my post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791) in your response.

Please donât characterize me as a âcrankâ, Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.

Right. Because if you were a crank, you'd be the only engineer ever to be characterized as one. You engineers, you really crank out only the really crank-proof stuff. Yes, sir. No cranks have ever been engineers. Nope. Not a one. Engineering is a crank-free field.

Oh, by the way. Have you gotten around to signing the "Dissent from Darwin"? That's quite popular with the other "not a crank" engineers, I think. It's a very good way to tell the world that you're an engineer and therefore not a crank.

Cross-posted from Tamino's:

"So when was Tallbloke telling the truth First he claimed that he told Pearce about the email. Now it comes to light that Tallbloke gave Pearce the email and Pearce then (allegedly) read the email to McKitrick and McIntyre (and others?).

This revelation, IMHO, makes tallkbloke a liar, and irresponsible to boot; and second reflects even more poorly on Pearce than beforeâ he (allegedly) read the email and still completely misrepresented what he said and then made a generalization about the science being âsettledâ applying to mainstream climate scientists. Pearce has a lot to answer for and should be hauled before a press counsel or similar professional association.

And Lucia (and Curry it seems) thinks this is normal behaviour? Well maybe in the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness and a land which is morally bankrupt, but not in the real world.

How much did this farce cost the organizers?"

Always the engineers.

As painful as it is go over to JC's place to read the sheer lunacy of the denialists that frequent her place.

Don't let Judith tap dance her way out of this one.....she is trying hard though.

@MapleLeaf #76

"So when was Tallbloke telling the truth First he claimed that he told Pearce about the email. Now it comes to light that Tallbloke gave Pearce the email and Pearce then (allegedly) read the email to McKitrick and McIntyre (and others?)"

So What?

A stab in the dark - do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id 'onthefence' the pure clarity of the thought process is unmistakable.

As for;

"the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness"

I think you made it there, all on your own..

geez

A stab in the dark - do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id 'onthefence' the pure clarity of the thought process is unmistakable.

Is the incorrect punctuation in a run-on sentence a purposeful satire?

#80

Don't know.

Pough...DFTT. The troll is also wrong @79.

Funny how contrarians and denialists and "skeptics" in the AGW "debate" are so unconcerned about facts and have propensity to give lies, distortion and misinformation free pass.

Goping by events at Climate Etc. and Lisbon, Curry et al. could not organize a piss-up in a brewery. Sarc on.. Yes, please do let us trust you and your cohorts with our future...sarc off.

@ pough
It's a very good way to tell the world that you're an engineer and therefore not a crank.

Perhaps he'd prefer "crackpot". He's a fan of reviving the aether theory, you know, so maybe it suits him better.

GSW -- "A stab in the dark - do you sometimes participate in blogs using the id 'onthefence'..."

Curious. Have we met at CiF, GSW?

re: #77
"Always the engineers."

Please, that is not a useful comment, especially for those of us who are or have been engineers. Are there any studies that show engineers (in general) are more likely than others to have these issues?

Tallbloke says:
"Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science."

That's a slightly odd background for most types of engineers, but then engineer is a vague term, and these days he appears to be a Web Content Editor.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that role, and the website certainly looks fine. However, it is not instantly obvious why that alone makes someone especially relevant to this effort. Perhaps Tallbloke can explain more as to the type of engineer he was and how that is relevant.

It's been 15 years since I visited Leeds U to do a lecture, but it seems to have a substantial climate-relevant school:
http://www.environment.leeds.ac.uk/see with numerous relevant public lectures:
http://see.leeds.ac.uk/typo3/news/calendar

Maybe he attends these often and interacts frequently with the faculty there, a method by which a person can actually gain useful knowledge without the specific training.

@JBowers

Yes, never ventured this far before. Recognized your name - were not on the same side, but reassuring to see you here also ;)

John Mahesy, there haven't been any studies to my knowledge, however this website has been plagued by sceptical engineers in the past, and the Oregon Petition is stuffed with them. Of course I'm not saying *all* engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

>So What?

And so GSW sums up his entire attitude towards science that doesn't fit his political beliefs.

Hey Lotharsson, welcome back! You were missed.

Thanks jakerman! RL has been demanding for a while :-( I skimmed the threads here every now and then and it seemed like everything was going rather well without me ;-)

Of course I'm not saying all engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

I'm an engineer (although I have a Ph.D. which puts me in a minority of engineers).

And yes, in my experience it's not entirely uncommon to see a 'skeptic' tout their engineering degree as if it were a scientific credential. I suspect this is because either (a) they are actually clueless enough to think this to be true, or (b) it works on the rubes who (generally through no fault of their own) don't know the difference.

And this degree touting is usually coupled with at least a hint of the fallacy that "my credentials mean I'm right".

John:
Please think hard about this.

Of course there are engineers. I live in Silicon Valley and know lots of them.

But I've also seen "I'm a research scientist XXX" and sometimes financial modeling types and sometimes high school math teachers.

Now, you are anonymous so have no reputation to lose.
But I am as unimpressed by anecdotal evidence about engineers as I am about "It was cold in these 3 places, so AGW can't be true."

To make a meaningful statement, you need to look at the % of population and other attributes. Perhaps, go look up population numbers of various types of engineers versus other occupations and report back. Finally, we still have no evidence that Tallbloke is an engineer other than his comment, and in fact, many people claiming to be engineers on blog posts may well not be.

John, even if I wasn't anonymous I wouldn't have any reputation to lose. I see your point, but I'm not claiming any other evidence besides my own experiences here and on the many climate blogs I read. Whether they really are engineers or not, I certainly see that card being played a lot - including by our own denier creationist senator Steve "As An Engineer I'm Taught To Look At Both Sides Of The Story" Fielding.

A quick Google of Watts Up With That using the search term "engineer" brings nearly 3,000 hits, many from people claiming to be engineers. Are there be that many claiming to be teachers or chefs? Not even close.

Is there a higher proportion of engineers who deny global warming? Or do engineers use their profession to try and profess some expertise more than other professions? I don't know, but I'd be interested in finding out. I know it's something we've discussed here before. All I can do is use my instincts and unimpressive anecdotal research to say "possibly".

**Update 3:**
[Steve McIntyre](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-par…):

>I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin's email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin's email and observed him reading it carefully.

[tallbloke](http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-par…)

>I got Fred to read it out loud to Steve and Ross. So he couldn't make notes at the same time. And we had a couple of beers, which may be why he didn't remember it very clearly later.

Compare with his earlier comment "to set the record straight"

>when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren't there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin's response. This made it's way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.

Deceitful, isn't he?

Guess who has taken up the story? Over at [Bolt-world](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…) he claims "warmist" scientists are dodging the debate and,

>Schmidt is either blinded by hate ... or scared of debate.

A word of warning: Bolt's post and the comments section are full of such complete and utter nonsense that it will seriously do your head in if you spend any length of time reading them.

Is there a higher proportion of engineers who deny global warming? Or do engineers use their profession to try and profess some expertise more than other professions

Same is seen in creation science debates ...

Also, as a software engineer with a computer science background, I understand that I'm not *really* an engineer (nor scientist). The field (the trivial subset of discreet mathematics that leads to computer science and software engineering) isn't easily pegged (and isn't as trivial as the mathematician who so labeled it back in the late 1970s) ...

Mashey understands that, I'm sure. Before suggesting that engineers are no less likely to be science denialists than scientists themselves, it might be better to qualify who you mean by the word "engineer".

They come in many flavors ...

Guess who has taken up the story? Over at Bolt-world he claims "warmist" scientists are dodging the debate

Elsewhere (Curry's, I think), I pointed out that the denialsphere seems to think that Gavin, once invited, was *obligated* to attend the conference, and in order to get out of that obligation he had to lie about climate denialism, or some such crap.

There seems to be no appreciation that, in the normal world, an invitation is not an order ...

Tim @93,

Thanks for doing that-- that is exactly what I suggested Eli do.

Some comments from the Bolt post:

>Just as bad, is saying SCEPTICS have politicised this? WTF!!!!, AGW has been THE very vehicle the left has used to obtain money and political power, a platform to exert their influence and to engineer society to suit their agenda.

WTF!!!! indeed.

>These Alarmists are on the payroll of government agencies, all which have a lot more money than any big business skeptics are accused of being on the payroll of

>LAD, I disagree that it is about money, at least for the scientists. What scientists really crave is recognition and influence. AGW has raised the warmists from small-to-middling researchers into the most important scientists in the world (some would say the most important people) . The money means something but it is not the central driver.

>Well considering these morons have been wrong on everything and they are spraying the western world with chemicals its clear to see the con [link to chemtrails video removed for your sanity]

>Imagine Bob Brown allowing a free debate on climate change (or nearly any other subject for that matter) or Julia Gillard allowing free debates on climate change and the NBN or Tony Windsor on climate change, the NBN and the Murray Darling. And the list goes on.

Sometimes I forget Bob Brown is the true mastermind behind this ruse. Now he's stifling debate!

>As man-made CO2 emissions are about 3% of all CO2 in the earthâs atmosphere i.e. 11ppm and the rest (nitrogen, oxygen etc.)comprises 999,989ppm, can someone please explain how this insignificant amount of man-made CO2 emissions caused Cyclone Yasi?.
These numbers indicate a probability of around 1 in 100,000, so how certain is the âsettledâ science?.

what

>This all started as a clumsy attempt by the United Nation to get us off fossil fuels. Trouble is the climate is not playing the game they hoped. More and more climate scientists are deserting the ship. It is only the unthinking unquestioning green politicians and their blind followers who think we just have to wave a magic wand and we can have the utopia they crave.

what

>I am a great supporter of Andrew and am worried that he has not confronted this article head on the way he does most other pieces that directly or indirectly attack him or his views.

Yes Andrew tell us what to think and restore our world view.

Has Pearce stuck his head up yet?

Crap.

Just fell victim to the multiple tabs syndrome.

[Insert post here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/the_australians_war_on_science_…).

Cross post [from Tamino's](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/#comme…),

>Why did tallbloke have an email that GS presumably sent to the conference organizers?

Jakerman - conspiracy! Seriously though, it should be obvious to everyone that the conference was a trap. If scientists turn up, the sceptics and their crackpot theories are legitimised. If not, it's proof that scientists are scared of debate. It's lose-lose in the eyes of the denialist media either way.

"I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin's email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin's email and observed him reading it carefully."

Is this necessarily the case, or is McI, realising that the anonymous blogger known as Tallbloke* is now a liability to the cause, simultaneously cutting him loose and sacrificing him to the AGW lions as a diversion?

*Anyone know what Watts has to say about Tallblokes anonymity? After all I hear he's hot on that sort of thing at his place.

Another way of looking at it was Tallbloke was trying to take the heat off of Fred Pearce...

It looks like Fred DID read the email. and paraphrased it into 'the science is settled'. I think he probably regrets it now, don't you..

Why attack TallBloke - FRED is a grown up journalist, he wrote the words, fully aware of how it would be perceived.
He could have commented on Gavins email in many other ways.

I don't know if you are all aware of this, but attacking Fred Pearce, appears to a sceptic like me thet the pro AGW crowd are 'turning on each other'

Fred writes for the Guardian the most PRO AGW paper in the UK, George Monbiot and the Guardian have no less than 2 Deniars Halls of Shame.

Pearcegate, is a massive own goal.

A flip comment that could have been ignored, yurned into something else that actually shows up the worst in the pro-blogosphere.. If you can't keep Fred Pearce onside and the Guardian.. what next, disown Roger Harrabin, Roger Black (oh Romm did that allready)

Barry, you really don't get it. Pearce is not excused if he merely took Tallbloke's words as accurate. Nor is Tallbloke excused for mangling Schmidt's comments.

And unlike some others, many here value factual accuracy higher than being part of a camp. Nor are most pro-AGW: we really do NOT want AGW to be correct, but know that nature has a knack of not caring about what we want.

I'm not talking about any excuses..

Fred read them for himslef, thus he knows what was said by Gavin.. Thus he choose to right them and will have to live with them

I wonder if this will come up at his next little conference...

Follow the link to the invitation at Bishop Hill (I don't know if Deltoid allows direct links to pdf files)

Carbonumdrums.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/5/carbonundrums.html

Panellists include Fiona Fox, Bob Ward, Roger Harrabin, Fred Pearce, Naomi Oreskes and Rasmus Benestad.

"I don't know if you are all aware of this, but attacking Fred Pearce, appears to a sceptic like me thet the pro AGW crowd are 'turning on each other'"

That's pretty silly Barry. What's this imaginary "pro-AGW" crowd? Scientists and indeed most rational people choose to address the evidence (given the chance) and make informed and honest interpretations. Pearce used to make pretty reliable, informative and readable accounts of scientific topics. We can see objectively that he chooses occasionally to misepresent issues on climate science these days (New Scientist seems to find this acceptable...one of the reasons we stopped our subscription some time ago).

It's unfortunate, but not really a big deal. If someone chooses to misrepresent things in a rather blatant manner, we should recognise and point that out. But there's no sense in which most of us consider journalists or other commentators/interpreters are some sort of "spokesperson" for what you seem to consider is a "crowd".

Anyone that tells the truth and represents the evidence honestly is fine by me. Isn't that the bottom line? Pearce (and this curious "tallbloke" person) seem to have different standards...

The Guardian environment journalists, I would describe as the Pro AGW crowd, and people like Baroness Worthington (who helped write the climate change act) she studied English.

my view is that this may turn a molehill into a mountain..

Barry is full of you-know-what.

The Guardian is hardly ' pro-AGW'. Like most of the corporate msm, they may talk a lot about the scientific evidence underpinning the current warming, but they say very little about what should be done about it. This is because they do not want to offend (e.g. ' drive off') their corporate advertisers or offend their corporate owners. This is hardly any different from any of the other mainstream outlets, which juxtapose articles warning of the dangers of climate change with advertisements for cheap flights to some exotic destinations or for luxurious cars or SUVs. Its utter hypocrisy but it characterizes the msm very well. David Cromwell at MediaLens has discussed this issue at length many times.

As for those arguing that the evidence for warming are 'turning on each other', this is ridiculous. The empirical evidence for AGW is growing every year, forcing the denialist camp into more and more desperate tactics. As I have said before, 20 years ago AGW was a 'doomsday myth' according to the denialists; as more evidence came in then it suddenly became 'natural' (e.g. solar forcing) or unexceptional (e.g. MWP) in historical terms; wait for a few more years and the denialist crowd will be vanquished entirely but then they will claim that although the warming is anthropogenic, by then it will be too late for mitigation so we will just have to adapt. We are already headed towards this scenario. In every instance the status quo is retained.

[Barry Woods](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3223342).

Read this carefully and think slowly...

A fellow - let's call him Toby - opens a tin of kerosene and splashes it all over a house. His mate who, for argument's sake, we'll call Percy, lights a match and throws it on the kerosene.

Which one is the arsonist?

>*The Guardian environment journalists, I would describe as the Pro AGW crowd*

Who cares what label you try to bestow on Pearce Barry?

I call it Fred Pearce practicing bad journalism and getting called out on that. And I call out your attempt at hand-waving.

Maybe the Guardian as a whole..

Yet, I'm thinking of the Guardian Environment team, the guardian invested heavily in the environment section a few years ago.. Surley you qould agree that they are pro-AGW?

if only relative to all the other UK MSM media..

Damian Carrington, (environment editor) even thought the 10:10 'no pressure' video was a good idea.

If the Guardian ever back away from AGW, then the rest of the UK MSM will follow.(and the BBC)

I was surprised to see this article today, very critical of windfarms, even quoting the Daily Mail!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism

@79 "Simple questions for tallbloke:
1) What engineering degree do you hold?
2) What technical/engineering work have you had during your employment?
3) Why do you have comments closed on your blog regarding this "tempest in a teapot"?
4) Are you willing to make a public statement (reply) concerning your understanding of the true value of pi?
Stu"

1) My degree is in History and Philosophy of science. I studied this subject after I was forced to take a break from engineering due to an injury. My engineering qualification is HNC-HND

2) Working in the engineering industry I gained experience in the following fields relevant to study of Earth's climate systems in addition to my theoretical learning:
Metrology
Fluid dynamics
Mechanical design
Stats analysis
Stress and shear calculation
Materials science and testing
Vibration and resonance damping and control

I machined the core casting for the CERN particle accelerator with a five axis CNC. And a swine of a job it was.

3) I stated that on the post.

4) Sure, what would you like me to say? DO you think I'd have been able to do the CERN job without knowing it correctly? :)

I did wonder why people seemed to be taking tallbloke's word for it that he was the source.

Basically, we are back where we were - Fred Pearce has descended into cruddy journalism, tallbloke is a non-entity, and Barry Woods is busy trying to distract.

@Harvey
@Jakerman

I think you will find that referring to the Guardian as 'pro AGW' is not controversial. The 'Team' is fairly one sided - Randerson,Moonbat,Carrington, Hickman and even the much criticised Pearce.

Pearce has been peddling Climate Alarmism for years, publishing numerous books on the subject.

e.g. The Last Generation: How Nature Will Take Her Revenge For Climate Change.

How idiotically extreme does the discussion have to get for someone like Pearce to be turned on as somehow betraying "the cause", going "native", or in the language of 1984 "Becoming an agent of McIntyre".

The Guardian Environment Network is pretty one sided; The usual propaganda sites, Realclimate, skepticalscience, even 10:10(?)

Don't spout rubbish about "corporate msm" the Guardian has bought into this, hook, line and sinker.

The term 'pro AGW' is basically meaningless, like 'pro gravity'.

GSW,

You are as full of it as Barry Woods. But this is hardly surprising since you claimed that mathematical modelers are not scientists. Only a Dunning-Kruger disciple could make such a fatuous remark. All this shows is that you aren't a scientist, either.

The Guardian is only reporting on the state-of-the-art with respect to the huge amount of empirical evidence in support of the human fingerprint on the current warming. In this respect at least they are being intellectually honest, which can hardly be said of the right-wing media which routinely distort science in promotion of a brazenly de-regulatory agenda. This is why the corporate media - especially on the political right - are full of pundits who are self-confessed 'interpreters of interpretations'. However, supporting the evidence for AGW is as far as the msm on the left goes - when it comes to saying that much of it is driven by overconsumption amongst the privileged few in the developed world, or suggesting that changes are necessary in ongoing policies in an attempt to deal with the looming environmental and social consequences, they are suddenly mute.

Before you make yourself look more silly than you already have, I suggest you learn a little bit about who funds the msm including the Guardian. Learn a little about the workings of the corporate media before wading in here with lame remarks that show you know nothing about it.

Lastly, your claim that Realclimate is a 'propaganda' site reveals your gross scientific illiteracy. In your view, the thousands of peer-reviewed articles published in the pages of the most rigid journals must all also be scientific 'propaganda', whereas anything you read from wretched sites like WUWT or Morano's, or the Idso's, et al. is probably 'sound science'. This shows that your opinions are weighted more through a political ideology than by scientific facts. But, as I have said, the denial lobby does not target the scientific community with their nonsense but are only interested in reaching a lay audience who are anxious to maintain the status quo. I must hand it to the denial lobby though: with an infinite amount of corporate money sloshing around in their PR fund bucket, they have been immensely successful, at creating controversy where there is broad (> 90%) consensus, and especially amongst the climate and Earth scientists doing the actual research. The denial lobby has scraped together a loose band of mostly pseudo-scientists, most of them retired or who haven't published much in the empirical literature, and have managed to create the impression that what we know about the human impact on the global climate is 'controversial'. Its a remarkable achievement given that the weight of empirical evidence lies on the other side.

Two examples of the 'left-wing' media in the UK with respect to climate change from ML:

First, an [exchange with George Monbiot](http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070704_melting_ice_sheets.php)

@Jeff

Meaningless "Comfort Statements" I think, or late stage paranoia - Take your pick! ;)

[Second link:](http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051213_insane_society_climate_change…)

(See also, 'Guardians of Power' by David Edwards and David Cromwell (2006).

[Who's the arsonist](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3223617), Barry Woods?

GSW says, "Meaningless "Comfort Statements" I think, or late stage paranoia".

This sounds like a good self-description of yourself. I still want to know how many peer-reviewed journals you regularly read and if you are a professional scientist in any field.

My guess is 'very few' (or none) and 'not'. Instead, my guess is that you are another armchair expert who relies on the usual sources (WUWT, C02.corg, Morano, CA etc.) for their 'informed' discussion (if one can call it that).

I am glad to see people you and Barry contribute your useless musings here, though. It shows how much the 'other side' depends on know-nothing libertarians for their support.

@Jeff

Thanks for the clarification Jeff - I'm going for late stage paranoia.

GSW,

The fact that you characterize the best understanding of the science as 'pro-AGW' and represent it as a difference of opinion between journalists, indicates you couldn't give a bloody fuck about the science and would rather ignore it in favor of your own narcissistic political beliefs.

Here's a clue; Nature doesn't negotiate, nor take into account popular opinion polls. On one 'side' of this 'debate' we have four hundred years of progressively refined objective understanding of how the natural world works, and on the other 'side', Mr. Potato Head. You've made your choice. You will have to live with it. Don't expect much sympathy when time reveals you to be a blinkered idiot.

[GSW said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3224343) "Thanks for the clarification Jeff - I'm going for late stage paranoia".

Keep at it GSW, you're nearly there already.

tallbloke is a double ether crank, he believes in some thing that was discredited oooh so long ago and from his insane postings and other beliefs he must have sniffed some ether at some time. Real scientists will tell you that solvent is not good for neurons.

The fact that he would have us believe that they would let anyone with a "degree in History and Philosophy of Science" anywhere near such a complicated effort as a piece of the CERN project tells me a lot about his self deception.

Tallbloke, do you actually mean "I turned on the CNC machine in the morning and turned it off at night and kept it clean for the real engineers and scientists"?

121 strange analogy..

Personally I would think both the petrol thrower and match lighter were both rather unpleasant people to know... and bot at fault.. though, the match thrower is slightly more the 'nutter'

Crucify Fred all that you will.. He is NOT on my side...

I'll sit back and watch, as you eat your own...
Without the media, the CAGW delusion will fade away.

You have done wonders in helping sceptics, by alienating Fred this way.. Gavin could just have laughed and said, silly fred, I said this.. and showed the email...

Fred if you noticed, felt able to call many in attendance cranks!!!

Now, we have an example of the hysteria of the AGW crowd..

Seems to me the lesson here is:

Guys who can't even keep straight which of them said or read what, while they were at dinner together last week, will never "put to rest any skeptical debate about the basic physics of gaseous infrared radiative transfer."

And it's pointless for JC to keep trying with them.

Re. 115 GSW -- "The Guardian Environment Network is pretty one sided; The usual propaganda sites, Realclimate, skepticalscience, even 10:10(?)"

Climate Progress and Skeptical Science as well, now. Good ol' Grauniad ;)

Even though GSW and I are in complete opposition at the Guardin, I actually agree with him to a degree about the Guardian, and I don't see that as a criticism of the Guardian, either. In the UK it basically goes: Guardian and Independent on one side, as a counter to the Telegraph, Mail and Express (and Times I suppose). Both Mobiot and Pearce have been critical of Jones and CRU, although FP far more. This is more to do with the high value they hold on FOIA, more so in Monbiot's case, due to FOIA exposing government corruption. Pearce doesn't actually seem to be too involved with the Guardian these days.

Fair comment, GSW? (does your CIF nickname begin with N or C, by any chance?)

barry woods:

Without the media, the CAGW delusion will fade away

and the earth's surface temperature will sink back to the little ice age temperatures the astronomical forcing says it should be.

Promises, promises.

@JBowers #128

Fair comment JB, thanks.

and No on CiF my nickname does not begin with N or C. I trying to think who you mean though! ;)

GSW,

The fact that you characterize the best understanding of the science as 'pro-AGW' and represent it as a difference of opinion between journalists, indicates you couldn't care less about the science and would rather ignore it in favor of your own narcissistic political beliefs.

Here's a clue; Nature doesn't negotiate, nor take into account popular opinion polls. To paraphrase Bill Maher, on one 'side' of this 'debate' we have four hundred years of progressively refined objective understanding of how the natural world works, and on the other 'side', Mr. Potato Head. You've made your choice. You will have to live with it. Don't expect much sympathy when time reveals you to be a blinkered fool.

Like all trolls, GSW has quite the appetite. Please don't feed him anymore.

Barry Woods:

Why attack TallBloke

1. He publicly shared private e-mail that he got by accident (wasn't even sent to him by Gavin). To the press, compounding the ethical sin. Of course, in a world where people like you defend the stealing and publication of e-mail from CRU I suppose you aren't able to see the problem.

2. He's a liar.

Either reason is sufficient.

Ian Stewart:

The fact that he would have us believe that they would let anyone with a "degree in History and Philosophy of Science" anywhere near such a complicated effort as a piece of the CERN project tells me a lot about his self deception.
Tallbloke, do you actually mean "I turned on the CNC machine in the morning and turned it off at night and kept it clean for the real engineers and scientists"?

He has an HNC-HND and is apparently a qualified *machinist*, which is consistent with his claim to having *machined* such a part used in CERN.

The crap here is that machinists aren't engineers, at least in the US. I don't know about UK usage, perhaps he can claim to be an "engineer" in the same sense that in the US a train locomotive driver is an "engineer".

But that's not how he's been [mis]representing himself, he's been [mis]representing himself as being an engineer, as in someone who has completed an academic course in some branch of *engineering*, such as electrical, electronic, civil or software engineering.

Here's a description of both HNC and HNDs:

You can study for a Higher National Certificate (HNC) and a Higher National Diploma (HND) in work-related subjects.

Higher National Diplomas are higher education diplomas given for successfully completing practical, vocational training that prepares the student for a career in a particular area.

These are practical qualifications offered by universities and many colleges.

You can often go on from an HND to study a degree, if you decide that is what you want to do.

Tallbloke: nothing to be ashamed of, but you were a *machinist*, not an *engineer*, and quit claiming to be so.

133
As far as I'm aware Chatham House rules applied to Fred Pearce as well... Pearce read it for himself.. I'm sure Tallbloke can speak for himself.

Someone ask Pearce...
and frankly I don't care.. if you cannot see that fighting amongst yourselves is not damaging your 'side'. Well good luck to you..

What is the bigger issue... Tallbloke mentioning something, Fred reading it for himself.
OR FRED writing about it.. You decide.

And i agree with J Bowers.. The environment team at the Guardian would be considered pro, as would the Independent... The Daily Mail, is the Daily Wail ;), The Times is behind a paywall, so who cares.. and the Telegraph, well it has Booker and Delingpole.....

But it also has Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean (playing both sides?)

Actually, fair point when did Pearce last write anything for the Guardian?

I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion.. they turn on each other. That is what is coming across (Romm is at it as well)

Upon some googling, it appears that in the UK "qualified engineer" can refer to job classifications that aren't "engineering" as professionals would use the word.

Well, we do hear phrases like "sanitary engineer" in job applications in the US.

So perhaps I'm a bit too harsh above. However, I do think Tallbloke's been using the "engineer" word in order to puff his credentials ... "qualified engineer" makes him sound a lot more sciencey than "machinist".

This new "information" actually makes Pearce look even worse. Pearce read a private email, passed that information on to McIntyre who has a blog and could have shared it with his rabid followers to twist and distort at will (to his credit he didn't).

And even after reading the email Fred still managed to misrepresent Gavin's position. Fred wrote that "who [referring to Schmidt] said....". What Fred wrote is not what Gavin said at all....

Journalistic misconduct much? And of course we have not even begun to highlight the other mistakes in Fred's diatribe.

And for the record, it seems that Pearce long ago went to the dark side, as far back as late 2009 in fact.

The Lisbon farce was a huge fail for the contrarians and wannabe skeptics. So sad that they cannot see that. Instead they have to fabricate claims that the people who value facts and science are fighting amongst themselves, when in fact it was McIntyre who threw tallbloke under the bus, and Curry is trying to calm her rabid and foaming at the mouth band of acolytes. Not to mention the "skeptics" fighting amongst themselves about the greenhouse effect at Curry's place and at Spencer's place, Watts "firing" Goddard and Spencer's scathing critique of L&C09 :)

No, rather it seems the rabid denialists and contrarians and "skeptics" are turning on each other. Delightful.

Maybe someone should file a complaint to the EC for a possible misappropriation of funds by the workshop organizers. After all, I'm sure EC funds are surely not permitted to be used to sponsor the circus that was Lisbon...;)

*I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion*

Utter bilge. This kind of remark belies a complete lack of scientific reality and is proof that Barry Woods is to be ignored. Also, with respect to 'hysteria', I suggest Barry reads some of the choice comments made about scientists (including myself) from the anti-environmental crowd [I would describe the AGW denial lobby as anti-environmentalists because they also distort science in pursuit of a political agenda, and are also largely populated by the same wretched coterie of right wingers/libertarians/pundits and generally poorly qualified scientists]. Some of these comments by the anti's make anything said by the pro-science group who support the large and accumulating body in favor of AGW appear to be bland. Check out 'Rational Readings on Environment Concerns' for some of these slurs; more recently, read up stuff said about James Hansen or Kevin Trenbarth etc. and you'll get the idea.

Lastly, I find it amusing that people like Barry and GSW discuss the climate change issue as if there were 'two sides' embroiled in some rigorous scientific debate. As I said before, only people who are clueless about the way science works could write such flippant remarks. The debate should now be based on (1) how serious AGW is likely to be on natural and managed ecosystems in the near to medium term, and what the concomitant effects are likely to be on the material economy, and (2) what measures are necessary to deal with warming at both regional and global levels. The scientific debate as to the extent of the human fingerprint should be over. Amongst most in the scientific community, this debate IS over. Its only amongst the right wing punditocracy and those who have a vested interest in denial and those laypeople who wish to believe them that the science is still unclear. I have seen the same form of denial used to downplay a range of other anthropogenic threats across the biosphere, including the destruction of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and their biodiversity.

The denial industry is therefore not restricted to climate change. Its an industry that covers a lot more than that.

[Barry Woods said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3225022) "I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion".

Of course that's how you see it Barry, because you're well and truly in denial. You're a walking dictionary definition, even gettin' down wid de street-talk slang as in C-AGW.

But never mind the tawdry, self-serving 'conferences' and their tragic, misbegotten, unseen and uncalculated fallouts as the denail machine media whores itself and desperately tries to grab onto the coat tails of history; those are your heroes.
Meanwhile every major weather event tradedy across the globe, coming as thick and fast as they are, pushing their way onto global front pages will force even the most stupid and intellectually stubborn and downright recalcitrant of the populace to womder does someone have a handle on all this. The answer of course is that someone does. They're the ones who predicted more extreme weather events more often.

But it most certainly ain't McIntyre's menagerie and gaggle of grotesques and stooges comfort whispering amongst themselves about beginning of ends.

>if you cannot see that fighting amongst yourselves is not damaging your 'side'. Well good luck to you..

Au contraire, M. Woods. Robust debate over reasonable and rational disagreements in the good faith interest of arriving at mutual objective consensus is how fruitful science and scholarship is done.

Given this is a disagreement about semantics, allow me to deconstruct it for you. Refuting the notion "The Science is settled" is a favored strawman, frequently invoked by your 'side', without so much as a single primary sourced reference to any scientist, much less any kind of compelling argument that it is a widespread belief among researchers professionally involved in climate science. Such a general all-inclusive statement having scientific meaning is not something to which any well trained scientist should agree, given the long since unlamented death of the philosophy of Logical Positivism. In the case of Gavin Schmidt there is, indeed, compelling a priori evidence that he does not hold any such belief. To smear him with such a willful semantically biased interpretation of his words is dishonest and self serving.

This is not to say that some particular collection of widely corroborated and mutually consilient empirical findings and their explanations may not be well enough established, if not perfectly and completely established, to the point of being robust consensus theory, even though still open to further refinement and correction to specific remaining uncertainties and incompletenesses. Such is true of all scientific theories.

OTOH, the seeming solidarity displayed by your 'side', despite the sprawling incoherent plethora of mutually inconsistent contrarian arguments is indicative of group think.

1) Whether Tallbloke is or was an engineer is fairly irrelevant. As noted, "engineer" is a vague term and even an engineering PhD is no guarantee of credibility with regard to knowledge of climate science. Even a physics PhD, a NAS membership in physics, or a Physics Nobel are no guarantee either, see study on APS Petition, in which examples of all can be found.

2) If Tim wants to have a thread devoted to serious discussion of which disciplines correlate with climate anti-science, we could have one, and get serious.

3) But, the following is *not* serious:

#77 "Always the engineers"
Let X = set of deniers, anti-science advocates, whatever
Let E = set of those with {academic degrees, actual work experience, calling themselves engineers

#77 appears to be:
ALL X ARE E

In support of that, people keep saying:
SOME E ARE X. absolutely true.
(Again, I live in Silicon Valley, I've hired dozens of engineers, I've been an engineering Director or VP in 3 different engineering-oriented computer companies, have often interacted with engineers in manufacturing, automotive, aerospace, petroleum.)

Anecdotal evidence is not support for:
ALL E ARE X
E ARE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT-E TO BE X

and neither of those is support for:
ALL X ARE E

Whether Tallbloke is or was an engineer is fairly irrelevant.

I disagree. I wondered why a webmaster would be picked to help lead an international conference on resolving climate science. He's not even a particularly notable member of the denialsphere or blogscience crowd. My guess is that his "I'm a qualified engineer" puffery may well have had something to do with it.

barry woods = postmodern man.

well. I seem to have taken the heat off Fred Pearce... ;)

what will the general public do, if the anomalies go negative/

I did say IF... and of course a year or 2 negative, would not disprove AGW either. ie short term entirely possible weather variability..

but what would the general public and politicians say.
food for thought?

@Barry

Is this a reference to NOAA 'Scientist' post on the extended La Nina over at WUWT?

gsw - it might be a reference to something current, but I'm absolutely certain I've seen **exactly** the same question posed before - some time last year. Can't track it down just now, but I'll see if I can find it.

139: "Barry Woods said: "I just see this as the beginning end of times for the CAGW delusion".

Let's see if I've got this correct:

1) Petro-funded 'charity' organises 'reconciliation' conference.

2) 'Ad hoc committee' invites 75% Rent-a-Pseudo-Skeptics, 25% scientists to said 'conference'.

3) Invitation announces that no politics will be discussed, but rather the usual suspects, i.e. MWP etc etc.

4) Schmidt refuses to attend, /NOT/ because 'the science is settled' but because "[y]our proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important âconflictsâ that are *perceived* in the science are âconflictsâ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions." (Schmidt, per. Rabett Run.)

5) Despite this e-mail from Schmidt, Pearce claims in print that Schmidt had refused because 'the science is settled'.

6) Denialists engage in onanistic glee.

7) Schmidt protests and publicises his actual reasons as given.

8) Ether-crank Tallbloke rushes in to try to take the heat off Pearce, claiming that he, Tallbloke, had given Pearce a 'praisee' of Schmidt's email, which he claims that Pearce did not see.

9) McIntyre says that "I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavinâs email" because he saw Pearce read it. (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/what-gavin-said-gate/)

10) Tallbloke engages in vertiginous gymnastics, in order to avoid answering the question as to why he said that Pearce didn't see the email, while McIntyre, no less, says that Pearce did.

11) Pearce engages in silence.

12) The 'reconciliation' conference closes with the following 'achievements': a) Gavingate, b) Tallbloke and Curry celebrate the spirit of reconciliation and open-mindedness with a appropriate T-shirt, c) not much else.

*

Questions:

1) Is this about right?

2) If so, is this denialism in action, an incredibly bad Monty Python sketch, or both and business-as-usual as such?

3) If this is, as claimed by Woods, doing "wonders in helping sceptics", what happens when 'sceptics' REALLY screw things up?

*

Supplementary question: can the Luminiferous Aether Theory co-exist with the Iron Sun Theory? Surely the 'science isn't settled' on /this/ matter, either...

Thanks Adelady,

[NOAA ENSO expert: âodds for a two-year (La Niña) event remain well above 50%â](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/04/noaa-enso-expert-odds-for-a-two-y…)

I don't think the post originated from WUWT but is a cut and paste from the NOAA site. The year or two of cooling posited by Barry just struck a cord, wondered if we were talking about the same thing.

It seems that the trolls have an insatiable appetite ;)

Now back to Pearce misrepresenting Schmidt....has anyone in the UK planning on reporting him and Roger Highfield (Editor of NewScientist, a.k.a PostNormalScientist) to a press council or equivalent? Yes, probably a waste of time, but it still should be done.

Barry Woods and GSW seem strangely intent on lumping in Pearce with every other journalist from the Guardian Environment desk.

Its a hand-waving and distraction strategy. They can't defend Pearce so they try and make some other bizzare nonsense the focus.

@MapleLeaf @jakerman

This is Barry's point I know, but in his absence, are you seriously suggesting;

"Climate Loonies report new scientist Climate Alarmists for regurgitating email from petulant Climate Modeler"

If you are going to do something about it, do it, STOP the ineffectual rambling!

GSW, your last post in unintelligible. Interestingly the value of that contribution is on par with much of your posts in this thread.

What is obviously missing here is the input of Pearce and PostNormalScientist (PNS) magazine. Pearce and PNS have both been mum since this story broke. That in itself is unprofessional.Why? Perhaps they are speaking to their lawyers? I know that had this had happened in Canada the complainant would have excellent grounds for suing as Weaver has done.

I have a strong suspicion that their way of dealing with this matter is going to involve another article by Pearce in which he makes some sort of half arsed apology intermingled with yet more innuendo and misinformation.

Complaint has been sent to PNS....

Anyone else going to please make the effort?

Actually I think I understand GSW to be pushing the meme of "alarmists" attacking each other. Clearly it's time to get away from the computer for a while.

Maple, yes Pearce is so far allowing tallbloke to give several versions of the the steps leading to Pearce's misrepresentation. Pearce's stay quiet strategy does not seem wise given tallblokes contribution. But then again, what is Pearce going to say? He's misrepresentation is indefensible.

>John Mahesy, there haven't been any studies to my knowledge, however this website has been plagued by sceptical engineers in the past, and the Oregon Petition is stuffed with them. Of course I'm not saying all engineers are deniers, however in my experience a large number of them lean that way often using their engineering credentials as some kind of proof they are scientifically adept.

A number of people here have commented on how vague the moniker 'engineer' is. It is if you are here in the UK where lots of people are called engineers e.g. the guy who comes to repair the heating is always called an engineer and the repair guy won't even have an HND.

Now HNDs and HNCs are very good qualifications but they don't make you an engineer, they are technicians qualifications and technicians think differently from engineers (my own opinion as an engineer is that one of the roles of the engineer is to keep scientists honest). When I did my undergraduate engineering degree back in the 80's, if I remember correctly Engineering Australia wouldn't grant Aust graduates with a BSc in engineering full membership, it had to be a B.Eng (you can tell I'm an engineer, I can't spell, its a prerequisite, like a doctor's handwriting being illegible).

However, as an engineer I am worried about the number of denialists who are engineers but I am not puzzled about it. The problem is not so much with engineering as with the way in which people are encouraged to go into engineering. There have been a number of times when I have looked at colleagues and thought they would be much happier as accountants or insurance adjusters rather than being engineers. I just think the wrong sort of people are quite often encouraged to go into engineering, e.g. lacking curiosity.

I don't know what tallBoy is on about, its good he has a degree in sci hist and phil and he has done some work to first get an HNC then upgrade that to an HND and I am sure his work at CERN was precision work but it doesn't sound like to me that he is an engineer and this has all just been a distraction.

Sorry if this is OT.

@barry woods

Please can you ensure you always correctly capitalize your name.

One of your posts got through my killfile plugin, resulting in major brain trauma.

Regards.

Sorry if this is OT.

I don't think so, the info on common usage in the UK was useful to me, a Yank. We tend to call such people "techs" or "repairmen" here, though in the computer industry, back when they needed near-constant babysitting, we had plenty of "Field Engineers" - techs, but actually, not all that infrequently techs with undergraduate engineering degrees.

So tallbloke is off the hook with his "qualified engineer".

The second sentence of the second paragraph of his "About" page makes me even more doubtful he's qualified to overturn much of modern science, though ...

Did tallbloke's "quick praisee" include the following?

Thanks Nasif. I tried to get an invite for you but apparently, because some very high profile people such as the Pielkeâs are attending, some of the warmers have decided not to attend and effectively ceded the field. The organisers are trying to find more people from âthe consensus of 98% of all climate scientistsâ but itâs proving to be difficult. Maybe theyâre not so confident about defending their science on neutral ground as we are.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/flying-to-lisbon-on-official-…

Where did he get that sort of information?

If only deniers would realize that the quickest way for reconciliation is for them to be honest then we could move forward on the next step which is coming up with a solution to the problems being caused by AGW.

DaveH@159 - post of the day!

John Mashey, FWIW, I read "Always the engineers" as sarcastic hyperbole using an idiom that is relatively common (especially in the US), rather than as a precise claim that (say) "ALL X ARE E".

@135 Dhogaza.
"I don't know about UK usage, perhaps he can claim to be an "engineer" in the same sense that in the US a train locomotive driver is an "engineer"."

Doesn't this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

Ian Forrester:

Where did he get that sort of information?

Apparently, he was one of the people asked to help with the invite list. So it would make sense that they'd come back and say, "hey, we're getting turned down, any more ideas?"

Mapleleaf #151 - making a complaint to the useless PPC is as you say a waste of time. there's no point in making one unless you are Gavin, which you aren't. They operate a typical regulatory capture scenario, in which anyone not the person directly involved has no standing. You would be better writing to Pearce and New scientist.

>Doesn't this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

Does anyone else find this sentence as funny as I do?

@158 JeremyC.
"its good he has a degree in sci hist and phil and he has done some work to first get an HNC then upgrade that to an HND and I am sure his work at CERN was precision work but it doesn't sound like to me that he is an engineer"

That's right Jeremy, I'm just a dirty handed mechanic.
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/image_117.jpg

Still a better Engineer than most BSc's though, because I understand materials and turbulent flows and measurement in the real world beyond the textbook and computer intimately and thoroughly.

@All following the "Why are Engineers Sceptics Meme"

Speculation on my part: I understand that today Science undergraduates are instructed in [Critical Thinking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), in my day this was the focal part of every lab exercise. For Engineers it is an implicit day to day methodology for operating effectively - Hence the apparent high percentage of Engineers sceptical of Climate 'Science'.

For those of you without Science degrees (or seemingly any critical faculty whatsoever) you could liken it to a highly sensitive BS detector.

I am scratching my head. Has Tallbloke misspelled precis as praisee?

I am scratching my head. Has Tallbloke misspelled precis as praisee?

eadler, yes.

In a similar vein, checkout the raison date linked to in the post I've just linked to (above, #68)

Tallbloke:

Doesn't this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?

I wasn't aware Pachuri was a train locomotive driver. We learn something every day from Tallbloke.

@172. Not sure I can teach you how to get a sense of humour.

@169 GSW. Spot on brother!

Especially after checking out [Pachauri's education and career:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Background)

@Tallbloke #173

Not a prob. ;)

Yup GSW,

>For those of you without Science degrees (or seemingly any critical faculty whatsoever) you could liken it to a highly sensitive BS detector.

And as an engineer my highly sensitive BS detector has for years rung loud and clear whenever a denialist steps into the building.

Tallbloke,
I see you didn't read my post but there is a type or personality amongst technicians who are snippy at not being called engineers and then there are the type of technicians such as the one I had on my first project out of university, who was proud to call himself a 'techie' and who had the patience with-me-wet-behind-the-ears to sit me down one day on packing crates at Andrews Antennas in Melbourne and to draw out for me on a piece of paper how a TWTA worked so that I understood it.

Just don't try to pass yourself off as an engineer, instead be proud of being a technician

Tallbloke keeps ignoring [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791), to instead side with GSW's drivel.

GSW writes:

>*@All following the "Why are Engineers Sceptics Meme"*

Then goes on to ignore the point that that its a meme. Typical denialist logic failure. Lets see your data on what proportion of Engineers are so called "skeptics"?

For the portion who are deniers, a simple hypothesis exists, a significant proportion of Engineers jobs, carers (and that extent identity) have been based on extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

>*And as an engineer my highly sensitive BS detector has for years rung loud and clear whenever a denialist steps into the building.*

Jeremy, FWIW from the small sample in this thread who have outed themselves as engineers, you can add Lotharsson, John Mashey and I a Engineers with similar BS detection skills.

And we share the same ability in spelling, not. Well, perhaps not John Mashey b'cause if his spelling was bad the deniers would scream about taht all over the place with his reports.

Don't be so hard on yourself Jez, spelling as bad as mine is rare indeed.

167 - "Doesn't this qualify me to talk crap about climate as well as Rajendra Pachauri?"

No. You don't have two PhD's in fields that would probably make you eligible to be an author on AR5 WG2. You're overreaching, ill informed, and demonstrating why those who chose you for a conference on resolving issues in the climate debate were doomed to fail from the start. Experiment? Yes. Full-arsed? No.

@JBowers

Agreed. One Rajendra Pachauri talking crap is more then enough ;)

That last comment exposes GSW lack of argument and lack of honesty further.

Tallbloke's only qualified to talk crap, that's established.

Hence the apparent high percentage of Engineers sceptical of Climate 'Science'.

And Evolution; don't forget all those Engineers who are skeptical of Evolution. After all, it was the "biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity" long before AGW was and much like AGW its demise has been ever-imminent.

@pough

Are they? I didn't know that. Let's find out...Hands up all the Egineers here sceptical of evolution?

Roger, quick, raise your hand! Your ally is in need of some confirmation.

@luminous

;)

Sorry Pough,

Can't let that go by. I'm not sceptical of evolution, I don't know why engineers might be sceptical of evolution, oh.....and......I'm a christian from the evangelical protestant tradition and many people (not from any christian tradition) tell me that because I'm a christian I am supposed to be sceptical of evolution..... but I just put that down to ignorance on their part.

Oh, and there is nothing in the bible that tells me I have to be polite to deniers, look at the language Jesus, John the bap and Paulie of Tarsus used about similar types, burns your ears off it does!

There Jeremy is a sample size of one, that should be enough data for GSW to create a meme about the whole population of Engineers (which was how I read pough's point Jez).

Or to state's pough's point another way, GSW may as well be making up reasons to explain why so many engineers are denialst as for why so many engineers reject evolution. As neither memes are based on sufficient data.

Here is question to emphasis the point: GSW, do you think that more engineers reject the theory of evolution than do scientist?

@Jeremy C

That's ok, I believe one's own personal religious belief is a complex issue, with an obligation to family, community and others, resolve it as best you can.

Whether AGW is true or not has no relevance to this. ;)

Here's a fun piece on the [problem with engineers](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Engineers_and_woo)

John Mashey, please read the 3rd paragraph of it ("This does not mean that engineers are likely ... ")! [my italics]

@191

This was in response to an earlier post, I think the poster was having a go at people without degrees saying, "why is it always the engineers?" implying a higher proportion of Engineers are Sceptics. I have no data on this, but suggested a possible reason.

Ask the original poster? if I were you.

@193

If you are going to link to something, actually link to something worthwhile. Garbage In Garbage Out.

frankis, very interesting, thanks for the data.

Good point Jakerman,

My mistake in not getting your comment Pough.........And looky is GSW trying to be as deft as Pough......if so he don't get it.

Frankis,

That was funny....Y'Ouch!

But, hey, I strongly object to engineers being described as politically conservative, I have never voted conservative and think that Abbott is more dangerous than Howard ever was (and he's deranged as well) and can point to lots of engineers who wouldn't vote conservative (e.g. Jimmy Carter and the Australian playwright David Williamson). But yeah, sometimes we can be real berks, hence my self serving point earlier that a lot of the wrong sort of people get pushed into engineering and then you get people like Tallbloke trying to pass himself off as an engineer - hmmm, perhaps that adds to the thesis of the author of "Engineers and Woo".

>*I have no data on this, but suggested a possible reason.*

Perhaps you could also suggest a possible reason for why "Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers"?

Or why *"data gathered in 1984 found 46% of male American engineers describing themselves as both conservative and religious, compared with 22% of scientists."*

@196 197

Garbage In Garbage Out. ;)

@195

Ah Frankis,

Dare it looks like you may have touched a nerve there with your link.

Off course being an engineer I never pontificate on any thing till I've thoroughly researched the back of the cornflake packet and then I hand it back to Andrew Bolt or James Delingpole to use.

>Perhaps you could also suggest a possible reason for why "Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers"?

Could it be us engineers are more genetically susceptiple to that terrible affliction, *Emeritus Syndrome, than scientists are? An affliction that denialists have so cruelly exploited.

frankis' link is fun but the language is rather inflammatory.

If a larger percentage of engineers are creationists, one possible explanation might be that a creationist would choose to train in an applied science rather than a theoretical science that involves learning about evolution. They may also now prefer to avoid climate science because it deals with the idea that humans can make major changes to earth and even destroy its capacity as a home for humans.

Oh poor GSW, he loves speculating on issue with no data, but shirks from it when there is supporting data.

Holly, I agree, fun, inflammatory and the data has many possible explanations.

Still its a step up on that which GSW speculates on.

@173. Not sure I can teach you what a non-sequitur is.

BTW, your crap is pretty funny.

@jakerman

Ok then, do you actually have anything worthwhile to say? if so what is it, Engineers are bad people? (They have no science degree) what is your degree in? Mines Physics, I only have the two, under and post, have you ever had any education whatsoever? If you had you wouldn't be half as rude and condescending as you are.

YFM! ;)

121 strange analogy..

Eh? What constitutes a non-"strange" analogy?

Personally I would think both the petrol thrower and match lighter were both rather unpleasant people to know... and bot at fault.. though, the match thrower is slightly more the 'nutter'

Aw, look, chubby-chops just took a step! Isn't he growing up so fast?

well. I seem to have taken the heat off Fred Pearce...

Uh-oh. Poor Barry just landed on his botty. One step foward, one fall back.

The clever tyke has mastered self-contradiction though.

[GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226265) and [Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226335) - it seems that your "highly sensitive BS detector[s]" are broken. Perhaps you need to find a real engineeer to repair them.

GSW, when you employ fallacious arguments such as focusing on and making up my opinion about how I feel personally towards engineers you give yourself away.

Instead of your fallacies, how about you answer [the question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226747).

You're not so keen to speculate now.

@jakerman

have you had any formal education or not? I'd say not. If so, what is it?

Words of one syllable will suffice.

To be honest, I think the perception comes not from engineers being crazy, but from engineers who are crazy insisting on mentioning their career choice as though it has meaning in every situation. A fine case in point can be found in this thread where Tallbloke trots out his engineering status as a crank-proofery, as though an engineer's card (do you get cards?) is like a Get Out of Crank Free card.

You will find engineers proudly on anti-evolution and anti-AGW lists of "scientists" and the question is, why? Why are there engineers on those lists? To keep Ginger Spice company?

And my response to GSW's silly comment was to point out that the BS detector engineers come with stock seems to be good at finding false positives, too. While engineering is a great skill for engineering tasks, hauling it out and waving it around in inappropriate circumstances (biology, climate science) is about as impressive as Ken Jeong auditioning for a role as John Holmes.

GSW @67:

... a climate modeler? I don't think that makes you a scientist ...

Let me get this straight GSW - you claim to be an engineer, you are an expert in climate science, and you demand that people compare their qualifications to yours?

GSW, Let me point out your double fallacy in your latest short post:

Firstly my qualifications are not needed to show your false logic.

Secondly, Well I've save the second part of your dumb question, if you were sharp you already pick it. Lets just say that those of us who actually read the thread already know how redundant your question is.

#210,

I've worked with both, as a preference I'd with the talented Engineer. A solid reliable opinion is what counts every time.

What's the matter jakerman, still can't remember where you went to school?

@211

I'm not an Engineer.

@212

Good you have qualifications, what are they?

GSW has a degree in physics. This is the internet so he must be telling the truth.

@216

Yeah, Schuster labs in Manchester, James Clerk Maxwell, Edinburgh,

You?

Is @216 some kind of internet shorthand beyond my ken? GSW is also claiming to be James Clerk Maxwell or a reincarnation of him? I am confused. However I believe the two great climate scientists Lubos Motl and Freeman Dyson have degrees in physics so even if GSW's is only undergrad he can be presumed to be well on the way, too.

@218

Your ignorance is amusing!

[Frankis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3226679).

I love rational wiki, and ironically I linked to that very page about a month ago on a forum of lay people who were taking engineering woo as the gospel on climate change denialism. Of course, the response there was essentially the same as GSW's exhortation of "GIGO" - a completely fatuous and unevidenced claim, by the way...

As the rational wiki link and as others above have pointed out, the presence of a cohort of denialists in the discipline is not a reflection on all engineers. It simply acknowledges that there is a bimodal (at least) distribution of characteristics within the discipline. Such distributions are common in many fields of endeavour, and this is what leads to the stereotyping of people in various disciplines, even if the conspicuousness resulting in the stereotype doesn't actually represent the majority.

Within science some of the most common characterisations are those of the absent-minded professor, and of the socially-inept scientist. Both are represented, and almost certainly in proportions above those found in the general public, because the personality characterisics that predispose people to such conditions are allied with, or from a component of, other characterisitcs that draw people to science in the first place.

Similarly, within climate change denialism, there are characterisations as well, simply because such are actually found in greater abundance here than in the general population. The Dunning-Kruger effect is an obvious one, as is the holding of fundamental ideology and/or vested interests against emissions reduction.

Within the umbrella classification of 'science' there is a distinct locus of climate change denialism, and this occurs in the earth sciences, and most particularly in the economic geology field. Again, in these cases there are unsurprising predispositions that explain why usual scientific rationalism and true scepticism are sidelined.

And even in examples such as Judith Curry and Fred Pearce, if one scratches the surface sufficiently one will probably discover that there are peculiarities of character and/or of circumstance, rather than of any real analysis of the best science, that explains their jumpings of the sharks. This is perhaps one of the things that most characterises the denialist argument - that if one digs deeply enough, there are at the foundations non-scientific explanations for their views, and almost never - if ever - any actual reliance on real and rationally assessed science.

That neither Pierce nor Curry have ever actually formulated a coherent and inassailable argument for their argumentum ad temperantiam fallacies of logic is telling. Their adherence to such fallacy also provides an ongoing and self-sustaining stratgey for never addressing the points of science underpinning affairs such as the one that is the subject of this thread.

@218

eh frankis, while we are talking, do you have anything in the way of a formal education?

>*have you had any formal education or not? I'd say not. If so, what is it?*

>*What's the matter jakerman, still can't remember where you went to school?*

>*Good you have qualifications, what are they?*

That is a top secret information, only available to people like Jez, Loth, John, and others who have basic reading comprehension.

Thought not. It seemed, at one point at least, that having a University degree(s) was relevant as to what you had to say, you not having any of course means you should remain silent. Ho hum, so be it.

;)

GSW since you are interested in qualifications how many [active climate scientist](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…) have relevant competence?

GSW, how does if feel having [your fallacious argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227070) exposed by someone who you believe has no formal qualifications?

They may have,

We've established you have none. ;)

>Yeah, Schuster labs in Manchester, James Clerk Maxwell, Edinburgh.

What you really mean is the University Of Google.

@227

Nope the real deal. You?

GSW reminds me of [John Brignell](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/brignell/) of Numberwatch fame, for some reason. Modesty prohibits me, GSW, from showing you mine for fear that you'd be traumatised for life. You may however rest assured that it is really impressive. Actually, too impressive to be fooling around with you like this but we're all fallible aren't we.

I believe you.

;)

@All

Apologies, don't like this, but have a real bug bear with "Let the scientists say what is and is not correct"- if you haven't got a degree then what you say doesn't matter. You make up your own minds, remember;

Nullius in Verba

Its as true then as it is now.

Then being 1660. Also, all scientists are a**eholes, sometimes.

@231 OK well, hey, I think I did understand that point GSW and it sounds reasonable. You wouldn't like to apologise for your "... a climate modeler? I don't think that makes you a scientist ..." from earlier, would you?

Are you drunk? You're barely making sense.

@233

Sorry No, built models myself (Not Climate Models) can get any answer you want just by changing a few innocuous numbers. Either you know your "Stacking the Deck" or you don't.

>*if you haven't got a degree then what you say doesn't matter.*

Who says that GSW? Give us a reference.

FWIW, GSW doesn't seem very interested in arguing the science for someone who has been so set on asking about qualifications. Perhaps he's not as competent as hes been bragging. Undergrad Phys 1001 perhaps, never employed in the field.

Not that it matters, cos he's not made a useful augment that would draw on any science.

@jakerman

You found a qualification then?

Models, they are [doing well](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-m…) thanks.

Then again they are well constrained by good physical data.

Found your reading comprehension yet GSW?

Another [good article](http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_we_trust_climate_models_increasingly_t…) on climate models.

@jakerman

;)

GSW starts hand waving when [asked for the basis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227365) of his claims.

GSW.

You have a real issue with dropping your knickerbockers and exposing your [bootstraps](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/01/open_thread_58.php#comment-3222…), don't you?

[Frankis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227296) has yet again pre-empted me on a point, but neverthless I'd be interested to know:

1. what your educational level is, and
2. why on earth it matters anyway, if you are not going to back your argument from authority with actual data and science.

For what it's worth I can probably safely say that if you're only bachelor-qualified, I have spend more years enroled at university than you have in the entire education system. And before you use the "perpetual student" gambit, there wasn't a single year that I didn't work as well, and for many of the years it was full-time work.

Thus, by your own measure, Frankis and I would speak with more authority than you, so perhaps it is you who should "[remain silent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227233)".

Either that, or you start making some sensible contribution to the discussion.

Better still BJ, I want to know what models [GSW has produced](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227359).

GSW, doesn't seem the most dependable bloke, so we'll need to see the model, and its parameters rather than take his word for it. Then we' need to see how well it perform in hind-cast for a century or so back.

Please link us to your published results GSW.

GSW is doing postgraduate work in trolling. See how masterfully he/she has derailed this thread. And all because he/she either can't read or doesn't understand jakerman's comments.

I've worked with both...

Both? Engineers and Ginger Spice?

...I'd with the talented Engineer.

That sentence no verb.

@201 Many prominent figures in the creationism movement are or have been engineers"?
Could it be...

Or could it be that despite many people who claim know that many people who claim to be engineers aren't, suspend their skepticism about creationists who claim to be engineers because of their confirmation bias when trying to link creationism with 'climate denialism' (A concept so stupid it defies analysis)

By the way Jeremy and Dhogaza, in the UK, holders of HNC who have completed engineering apprenticeships and two years of full time work as qualified engineers are entitled to join the professional society of registered engineers. This is because they are engineers. This overcomes the old snobbery of differentiating 'dirty handed mechanics' with practical engineering training who have also achieved sufficient academic qualification from academically trained engineers who also did a placement with an engineering outfit during their degree.

Machinist technicians are people trained to be machinists. Usually on a two year course. I was lucky enough to get the full four year engineering training with a Swiss multinational which covers all aspects of engineering rather than boxing trainees into a specialism.

It does devalue the title when every operative of any description suddenly gets to be an 'engineeer' though, rather then an engineering operative, or binman, so I understand and share Jeremy's defensive attitude to his professional status.

@243 "if you are not going to back your argument from authority with actual data and science."

I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50

No takers.

Rog @ 247;

I think the problem here is not 'snobbery' , but simply what assumptions people make when they hear the term.

Here in Oz, if someone told me that they were a 'Qualified Engineer' my assumption (and it would be correct) would be that they have an undergrad degree from a recognised university where they undertook an intensive course of study that inclucded a large amount of complex maths and physics. If the same person told me they were a 'Qualified Machinist' I'd have no expectation of a high level of maths and physics.

The point - if both say to me 'I doubt the physics of X in AGW', I'd be confident that the Engineer had the basics to make some kind of informed critique.

But that's not really the issue here - it's what you did. Showing around an email that you were not the intended recipient of, and then being mealy-mouthed about an apology, indicates that your main problem isn't your qualifications, but your lack of integrity (an epidemic amongst the 'skeptics', in my experience).

Several points:

GSWs and Tallblokes alleged 'BS detectors' may work in their own respective fields, but they sure as hell don't work in the Earth Sciences. GSW makes a big deal out of his physics degree, but he still hasn't answered me on how many peer-reviewed publications and citations he has in ANY field of science (including his own). I suggested 'nil' and 'nil' earlier and I will stick with that until he suggests otherwise. Besides, possessing a physics degree is not some key to wisdom.

Its also amazing how denialists lacking any pedigree in certain fields of science - here, climate science - wade in (like Tallbloke, above) claiming that they want a scientific discussion while at the same time studiously ignoring submitting their contrarian ideas to peer-reviewed scientific journals where they would reach the broader scientific community and more importantly would be rigorously tested for their validity (or lack thereof). Instead they think that the anti-environmental/anti AGW blogosphere is a fine place for their ideas to be aired, and routinely snipe away at the scientists doing the actual research and their output in scientific journals.

A few years ago I recall the furore here in the Netherlands when a paper was published in Nature suggesting that continued climate warming would generate an extinction event unseen on the planet for 65 million years. The lead author gave an excellent talk at out institute, which, however, was also attended by a few shrill critics of the article. They were very voacal in their criticisms, even during his talk, making such irrelevant remarks as 'the article will scare the general public' and so on... I spoke with one of these critics and I suggested that he should write a rebuttal and submit it to Nature or another top ecology journal. That was the last I ever heard from him - no article (as far as I know) rebutting the Nature piece was ever published. Instead, the rebuttals largely were confined to the blogosphere, as they are with climate science with respect to warming.

People like Barry and GSW give the impression that there is a vigorous ongoing debate over the warming but that 'debate' is not being fought in scientific institutions, universities or reputable conferences (Lisbon and Heartland excluded), because in these academic circles the debate (at least with respect to the causes of climate change, as I said yesterday) is over. The debate is now focused on the extent and consequences of warming, and not the underlying causes.

Speaking as a population ecologist, most of my discussions with respect to global change and its effects on biodiversity are carried out with colleagues at my institute and at conferences and workshops. When I see people making frankly crass remarks about ecology and biodiversity online, as occasionally here when contrarians wade in with their two cent's worth (I have not the time to counter every bit of nonsense I see online) I respond. But the one thing I have learned as a scientist is that, if one lacks the pedigree, they should stick to the broad scientific views in any given field of research. When I see people like GSW and Barry (and many others - we know who they are) come in here on Deltoid professing wisdom in a field with which they barely understand the basics, espousing their contrarian views, it becomes clear why they avoid the scientific journals. Like the anti-AGW blog sites, they know their nonsense would not stand up to scientific scrutiny but that does not matter because they are not targeting scientists in the field of climate research but the lay public. Just as I said yesterday.

248: I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50

No takers.

(end quote)

How about this:

Why did you say that you had given Pearce a "a quick praisee" of Schmidt's email - which 'praisee' clearly wasn't accurate - when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt's actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

McIntyre isn't lying, is he?

But if he's not lying, you were, weren't you?

*

That scientific enough for you?

At least it's getting back to the actual issue at hand...

>*I tried introducing some scientific discussion here two days ago@50, No takers.*

That is because in your context Rog, we are very interested in asking you about the topic of this thread, and urging you to grow a pair and apologizes.

So how about it Rog, can you admit to your [unfair treatment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3217791) of Gavin?

>qualified engineers are entitled to join the professional society of registered engineers

Look tallbloke, you really do seem to have a chip on your shoulder about how you should be addressed but at the risk of more chippery from you just what UK society of engineers are you referring to, double E? (i.e. the IET), Imech?, civil ? and then the various other bodies such as the the energy institute, etc. The next question is at what level are you allowed to join at: professional or technician grade?

Just accept what has happened on this thread, you got a freebie to a 'conference' and on this thread you shot your mouth off about it and people called you on that and then you tried to appeal to your own spurious scientific authority and when you were challenged on that you tried passing yourself off as something your not.

D'you think its time to stop listening to your ego urging you on in digging a hole?

Meanwhile I've gotta go out this morning to replace the bell arm on the BS detector. Its got worn out from the alarm going off every 30 seconds on this thread.

[Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227927).

For what it's worth, [my comment at #243](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227391), about "actual data and science", was directed to GSW.

However, as you have raised the matter of your link in the same paragraph as the word "science", perhaps you'd care to dissect this exchange on that thread:

Olavi says:
December 25, 2010 at 9:51 pm

Have you considered, that collapse of thermosphere has made changes to the whole atmosphere? Radiation works as a soundwave, the longer wave the easier it penetrates all barriers. So if atmosphere shrinkâs down longwave IR goes easier through. At the same time density change in atmosphere makes differences to lower atmosphere, like turnig jetstreams. And all this, because radiation spectra from the sun is diffrent and lack of solar wind?
In this case, missing energy goes to heating atmosphere, because IR throws out more than Sun bringâs in. Simple.

tallbloke says:
December 26, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Hi Olavi and welcome.
Yes, it does seem that more energy seems to be going out than coming in recently. The shrinking thermosphere could be an important factor, and your explanation makes sense to me. Thanks.

Jeff Harvey -
A few strawmen there, well done.. We will have to disagree.

Time will tell of course.. As the hard economic reality is that China and India (and africa) will burn their coal. Whatever any of us do say, etc.

To stray back on topic. I would be interested to hear what New Scientist and Fred Pearce have to say on 'Pearcegate'
Does anybody have any idea if they are going to give a response, Is Gavin going to pursue it, or will it just get forgotten about?

Barry,

sensible to bring t back on topic. Thanks. My lack of discipline.

Barry,

Care to expand upon your 'strawman' comment?

China's economic miracle is an ecological disaster. More than 80% of its rivers are biologically dead and they are extracting groundwater at rates far exceeding rates of natural recharge. Many pollinators have been lost, songbird populations have never recovered from the 1970s, and the Gobi Desert is expanding rapidly. The ecological debt will have to be paid one day.

As for climate change, aside from some pretty banal pieces you have contributed to WUWT (I assume you and the Barry Woods there are one and the same) what unique qualifications do you possess to make substantial contributions to any scientific field?

Jeff (#257), not just an ecological catastrophe, but a social one too. I spent some time visiting rural areas of Sichuan this summer as part of the development of a project on ecosystem services. The picture is dreadful - village after village was left with just the elderly and children (often, but not always, a single child per household of course). The working age people had gone to the cities to make a living, but could not afford to take the kids. The result is a generation of dreadfully socially-isolated children, and an impending decline in agricultural productivity as the elderly pass away. The old are suffering dreadfully as they are having to continue to work, and then are in grinding poverty from the point at which they can no longer look after the land.

There is a social catastrophe unfolding in China - strangely enough the economic models in which the west is so fascinated do not capture this issue.

> "The Science is settled" is a favored strawman, frequently invoked by your 'side', without so much as a single primary sourced reference to any scientist, much less any kind of compelling argument that it is a widespread belief

However, Vic Monckton has stated that the science is settled.

Another case of projection.

> Could it be us engineers are more genetically susceptiple to that terrible affliction, *Emeritus Syndrome, than scientists are?

> Posted by: Jeremy C

I suspect it is more that a good career as a qualified engineer doesn't rely so heavily on citations and good papers in prestigious journals as it does with physicists etc.

Therefore spouting garbage isn't as detrimental to the career whilst good relations with big business helps your career.

Note how the still publishing "skeptical" scientists are very moderate in their denial.

Re. 259 Wow

Here's one quote, for the record...

"...And Iâm going to show you the latest science, which now doesnât leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.â
-- Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation

H/T to Citizen's Challenge

@253 "tried passing yourself off as something your not."

Jeremy, I'm IENG and you are a snob.

I'm also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too.

I should think you can guess my opinion about where you should relocate your BSc certificate.

257
I agree China is a disaster. Part of that cause for the disaster is Green Technology 'devasting the land for rare earths, for all those western windfarms..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-c…

"This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-c…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241872/EXCLUSIVE-Inside-Chinas…

I said part, the rest is a dash for economic growth, fueled by coal powered powerstations and proposed nuclear. (and some wing/solar power from all sources) which returns to my point, whatver we do, (you and I)

I believe China, India and africa will burn all their coal. we are all in the West on the sidelines. They will ignore us. Neither of us may like it, nor agree with it, but there is nothing we can do to stop them.

"Coal makes up 70 percent of China's total primary energy consumption, and China is both the largest consumer and producer of coal in the world. China holds an estimated 114.5 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Russia and about 13 percent of the worldâs total reserves.

There are 27 provinces in China that produce coal. Northern China, especially Shanxi Province, contains most of China's easily accessible coal and virtually all of the large state-owned mines. Coal from southern mines tends to be higher in sulfur and ash, and therefore unsuitable for many applications.

In 2008, China consumed an estimated 3 billion short tons of coal, representing nearly 40 percent of the world total and a 129 percent increase since 2000. Coal consumption has been on the rise in China over the last eight years, reversing the decline seen from 1996 to 2000. More than 50 percent of Chinaâs coal use in 2006 was in the non-electricity sectors, primarily in the industrial sector. The other 50 percent is used in the power sector.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/China/Coal.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/pollution-carbon-emis…

Perhaps so you no where I am coming from, I am sceptical of carbon trading, carbon offsets, sudsidies of clean energy (massive taxes)..

If we want to save the planets, why is the banking system wetting itself with the thought of all those lovely bonuses, commisions and rent seeking and a multi trillion dollar carbon market and the governments with a carbon taxation idea that is ripe for expolitation/corruption.

I bought a JP Morgan carbon offset for my car, just out of curiousity... and thought..

why can't saving the planet be 'Not For Profit?

That is where I'm most cynical.. Would you agree on carbon trading is NOT the solution, if for the sake of discussion, we both think we need a solution?

If I heard some personally convincing evidence of AGW tommorrow (say 4C)

I would be demanding solutions that are totally NOT what the politicians and bankers are doing.. Millions will be kept in poverty (fuel and otherwise).

and by their own calculations the cost will be trilions for, an tiny tiny hundredth of a degree or 2 of temperature..

Why not BAN flying for holiday.. Billions of the world poorest will never fly.. how can we say to them you can't have electricity, whilst we are off sking/malidives, etc,etc (I haven't flown for ten years)

BAN all CARs over 200g/km Oh look the luxury car makers will whinge (I don't care we would be saving the planet)

For the record I have a sports car. Yet a lightwieght, modern engined one, is just as much fun and as CO2 friendly or better than a golf.. Think ariel atom, caterham, etc..

The future for cars is light weight, shrt trem solutions like, clever lotus range extender 90Bhp gas turbine hybrid, etc not stuck in the technology rut of oil... One good thing in car design, and the irony is that they were forced to, is car manufacturers can now produce cars with 70-80-90mpg gallon, the very similar sized car a decade ago would get halve that on average.

Oil prices (peak oil or not, a whole different discussion) are not going to get any cheaper.. A lower O2 emmiting car, is ALSOcheaper to run, more miles for the same amount of fuel.. I'm all for saving money

Why not stop making cars/trucks at all for a year, think of all the co2 saved, jsut spare parts..

Of course that is ridicuous, as we have now moved from science, into politics, economics, ethics, JOBS....

Why, not ban private jets completely.. what right do an elite have to pollute by private jet than an african nomad?

This is why I am climate cynical..

It is not about sceptics/ denairs vs deltoid and similar blogs. We are all an irrelevance to what is happening in the world. Some environmenatlists are waking up to this and challenging things.

In the UK the government is due to sell of the forests, thus no doubt someone somewhere will deny the public access, whilst making some money somewhere on mananging carbon....

I have science qualifications BSC Chemistry and MSc computing, but for the argument above - ie let us for the sake of discussion assume 4C - and my cynicism, science is not required but a view on politics, economics, corruption and ethics, etc...

(yes I do post at Watts Up, and Bishop Hill, make of that what you will)

@254 Barnherd, at last, someone willing to debate science.

Pity you fell at the low hurdle of spelling someone's name correctly. A crime more heinous than my pidgin written French.

Bet I've pulled more French women with my oral French than Lord Sidcup has though.

I think i have a comment stuck in a filter (more than 3 links?)

Is it possible to agree that many of the proposed solutions from the bankers/politicians, ete are useless..

If for the sake of argument that a solution is needed.

Thus, I am cynical because the solutions do not solve a problem that is proposed and the solutions that might do something are ignored for political/economic reasons.

We could be on common ground, as many who do believe in the urgent need for a solution, would also agree that the route of carbon trading, offsets, deals, etc. is the wrong one...

IF I agreed with the need for a solution(for the sake of a discussion), I would agree with Hansen, ie a carbon tax...
I also realise, politically, economically that this will never happen.

Wow @ 260.

Yes, I think that does express some of the problem.

Tallbloke,

>*Jeremy, I'm IENG and you are a snob*

You can call me a snob but you are still misrepresenting yourself as IENG aint C.Eng and its for a reason as you have demonstrated as per the following:

>*I'm also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too.*

You haven't demonstrated that at anytime during this thread.

>*I should think you can guess my opinion about where you should relocate your BSc certificate.*

Temper! How about instead you display some scientific understanding and also some undertsanding of why engineering is just not knowledge but thinking as well.

@265 Ah, so IENG isn't good enough either. Your snobbery is complete.

"You haven't demonstrated that at anytime during this thread."

Haven't had the chance. Whenever I've tried I get told my only business here is to issue a groveling apology to the man who thinks skeptics only utter the criticisms they have about the science because of their preconceived policy positions.

Tallbloke writes:

*Jeremy, I'm IENG and you are a snob. I'm also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too*

This is absolute tripe. I have a PhD (in Population Ecology), have >100 papers in the scientific literature and almost 2,000 citations, was a former editor at Nature, and I still very much defer to the expertise of climate scientists who know a lot more about the field than I do or ever will. If you have any acumen you'd try and publish your 'theories' in the peer-reviewed literature than parading your ignorance on web sites like this one. Your scientific 'views' don't cut any ice here, I am afraid. These views, like those of Barry's and other rank laymen, go against those of the vast majority of thoe scientists doing the research, attending the relevant conferences and publishing in the empirical literature.

The bottom line is you are no better qualified to assess the validity of 'scientific theories' than anyone else lacking qualifications in climate science. The difference is that Jeremy is wise enough to support the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists. Most scientists, like myself, is out on a limb.

> If for the sake of argument that a solution is needed.

> Thus, I am cynical because the solutions do not solve a problem that is proposed and the solutions that might do something are ignored for political/economic reasons.

That second para doesn't follow on, there's not predicate assertion that requires a "Thus". Your statement is very much of a line with:

"If we need to move to another city. Thus I think we should wear beige".

You also seem to have nothing but negativity.

One of the solutions is: stop funding fossil fuels to the tune of 1/2 trillion a year.

Another solution is: sunbidise the nascent renewable market to increase uptake and let the economies of scale kick in as happened with fossil fuel and nuclear industries when they were similarly new.

Another solution is: reduce wasted energy.

All three are being promoted actively in the face of great opposition (see Desmog blog for many examples).

Why will they not work?

And, to seed this back to Calum's point of view regarding the denialist fear of democracy being suspended, here's a denier who thinks that democracy is the problem (hence WANTS its suspension).

I wonder what this datapoint does to that thesis?

I should have said that your views are way out on a limb, TB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stand corrected (bloody thing deleted part of my last senetence)! The bottom line is that I would like to know how many of your 'theories' are published in scientific journals.

A simple answer will suffice.

climategate was about a small group of scientists NOT all scientists.

A medical parallel - cancer reaserch scandal, with refusing to share data, etc, I think you will get the analogy.

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/data-availability-cancer-cli…

Could someone drag my comment out of the filter, as it explains to Jeff where I am coming from, we could probably agree about a lot of things, if we both got over our pre-conceptions of each other..

It does not require science qulaifications to realise that solar farms in the UK (vs Africa, etc) are a scandal awaiting to happen. (I gave mine, in the post stuck in the fiter)

Even in spain they have just caught solar panels generating between midnight and 7am, of course on a cloudy day, fire up those diesal generators, to get your guaranteed income as well. Green energy subsidies are disapearing across Europe...

@260 Wow:

Looked at from another perspective it could be that engineers are freer to give their honest opinion than the members of the self policed parade who have to toe the line with biased journal editors and the reviewers they are leaned on to use.

Consider that we have documentary evidence of this before replying. Also consider the substance of the Institute of Physics submission to the Parliamentary committee charged with studying that evidence.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…

And before assailing me with crap about the members of the panel which drafted that submission, be warned in advance that slurs against them are easily refuted by reference to the Institute of Physics statement following the outcry from the alarmist contingent, and the personal statements of members of that advisory panel.

@267
Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

[Tallkook](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3230056):
>with biased journal editors

Go to the open thread and provide a list of papers you believe have been unfairly rejected.

On this thread, instead trying to derail it with more off-topic nonsense, answer the pertinent questions that you have been asked, [for example](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161):

>Why did you say that you had given Pearce a "a quick praisee" of Schmidt's email - which 'praisee' clearly wasn't accurate - when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt's actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

>McIntyre isn't lying, is he?

>But if he's not lying, you were, weren't you?

Tallcrank - [in comment #251 you were asked by Zibethicus:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228161)
"How about this: Why did you say that you had given Pearce a "a quick praisee" of Schmidt's email - which 'praisee' clearly wasn't accurate - when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt's actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

McIntyre isn't lying, is he?

But if he's not lying, you were, weren't you"?

Perhaps you'd care to pick the logical fallacies out of your own twisted story before pointing out the mote in the eyes of others and obscuring the point of this thread.

272

I would qualify what tallbloke is saying

'climate science' I percieve is too immature to have a voice of authority, ie many disagree within the IPCC consensus....

Yet, I would agee, with a voice of authority, in this context...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/7/taxonomy.html
"there exists an established body of what I call prevailing scientific opinion."

as there is undoubtly scientfic voice of authority, in many aspect of science. ie prevailing accepted theories.

but, on the issue of attribution of man made CO2 being a current primary driver of climate, in 'climate science' as we have IPCC projections of temps that vary by 600%. (which we are observed to be under) and new things being learnt every day, solar, oceans, landuse, vegetation, etc,etc

we also have 'most likely' type statements, that the IAC say were overstated in their review of IPCC statements.

'climate science' I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

@275 spell my name correctly, apologise for calling me a crank, and I'll answer your question.

Otherwise it's sex and travel for you.

hahahahaha

>'climate science' I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

And I would argue that when a majority of scientists in the field of either climatology or earth sciences accept a prevailing theory there is a voice of authority, regardless as to how many politically motivated engineers machinists, dotty peers or fake physics majors dispute it.

Any rational person would look at my flawless argument and agree.

@275 - You're really not in a position to demand conditions especially that which for most folk would be common decency - i.e. the truth.

Plus, in view of your by now customary evasive and weaseling response, I think I'll get a better understanding when Deep Climate pulls together all the threads regarding the Lisbon circus, no doubt including your own minor part.

I would also argue that when a particular group starts applying loaded labels to themselves like "dissenters" it becomes clear that they don't just perceive themselves as having a different opinion, they perceive themselves as fearless contrarian rebels and not driven by (shock) a desire to find truth through science.

Re 273 Tallbloke -- "@267 Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy."

Strangely enough, you're the one using the most argument from authority here.

As has been suggested, publish. Ryan O'Donnell and Jeff Id did so on Antarctica, so why not you?

281

I would prefer 'facts through science' - not 'truths through science' ;)

@280

common decency? You don't show enough of that to merit any serious response.

So you've lost interest in what you were making a big beef about a few minutes ago?

OK.

> Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

And isn't "I'm an engineer" argument from authority (with the added bonus of being a fallacious authority)?

@282
Not ready yet. Working on this paper at the moment.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/47023810v8100nk0/

My hunch is that once we are able to predict solar activity levels well, a lot more interest will be taken in its effects on atmospheric chemistry, affecting sea surface biology, affecting cloud nucleation, and thus ocean heat content. OHC is the biggest driver of climate(s) on Earth, and the best metric for understanding it.

And the Sun is the biggest factor affecting OHC.

So I'm giving up this convo for now to do some more on that, entertaining though this diversion has been.

Bye for now.

If anybody else on this site uses the I'm-an-engineer-argument-from-authority once more i will take them out the back of the school dunnies and beat them senseless with a dead sheep. Good grief!

How about this:

Why did you say that you had given Pearce a "a quick praisee" of Schmidt's email - which 'praisee' clearly wasn't accurate - when Steve McIntyre says that he saw Pearce reading Schmidt's actual email, which he says you showed Pearce?

How many paragraphs did you have? Did you show him both?

oops.. thanks Tim.
263 was a bit of a polemic wasn't it,
sorry for not making it more concise and shorter..
Time for me to disappear now, school pick up time and ballet (my 6 year old, not me!)

Tallbloke @ 286

Huh!

The abstract you linked to sets out that the paper is about the effect orbiting bodies could have on the internal mechanisms of stars such as the sun.

How the heck do you get a link from that to measuring solar levels at the earth environment boundary and then observing the effect of solar actvity levels on the earth's environment???

> Yet, I would agee, with a voice of authority, in this context...

> bishophill.squarespace.com

Ah, another fallacious authority. He's not a bishop, you know.

> but, on the issue of attribution of man made CO2 being a current primary driver of climate, in 'climate science' as we have IPCC projections of temps that vary by 600%.

It doesn't matter if there is a 600% range.

2C-4.5C per doubling (not 600% btw), but if that works out to 0.8C in the median warming when all other contributions is less than 0.2C, then even taking the worst/best case to view the human contribution in the lowest possible light, you still have "man made CO2 is the current primary driver of climate".

> Looked at from another perspective it could be that engineers are freer to give their honest opinion

But why does such honest opinion require so many lies, Rog? Or, if not lies, then they are such humongous mistakes that any validity of their other opinions must be in serious question.

Looked at another perspective, it could be that some engineers fear losing their jobs.

> Consider that we have documentary evidence of this before replying.

We do?

Where?

PS have you read Merchants of Doubt? Or the lies about funding a "skeptic" who stood before congress made? We have plenty of documentary evidence that the same arguments were made to keep kleptocrats in money whilst they hid the dangers from their consumers.

[Tallblock](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3229769).

Pity you fell at the low hurdle of spelling someone's name correctly.

It seems to have passed over your head that I've used that spelling several times now - deliberately. Why do you think that is?

And what is even more precious is that you're the guy who patently can't spell "précis".

But moving to matters of science, I am still curious to know if you continue to stand by [your comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3228657) that "Yes, it does seem that more energy seems to be going out [of the atmosphere] than coming in recently".

Barry keeps on giving (bullshit)

> we also have 'most likely' type statements, that the IAC say were overstated in their review of IPCC statements.

IAC being a voice of authority makes this:

> 'climate science' I would argue, can not use the voice of authority to any great degree..

rather ironic.

And this:

> climategate was about a small group of scientists NOT all scientists.

climategate was smoke and mirrors. That they had to butcher 0.3% of the emails and (which brings us nicely to the point of this thread) MISREPRESENT the statements to cast them in a deliberately incorrect light, it was more about how the self-proclaimed "skeptics" were nothing of the sort, since they showed no skepticism of the claims on the contents of the emails.

> It does not require science qulaifications to realise that solar farms in the UK (vs Africa, etc) are a scandal awaiting to happen.

It does require mind reading skills to know what the heck you're on about with "scandal".

Do you think that MPs will be found Rog-ering the scaffolding? Or will the solar panels paint a naughty picture from goatse into space?

Update 4?

http://deepclimate.org/2011/02/07/post-normal-meltdown-in-lisbon-part-1/

But the naivete and gullibility do not end there, for Pearce missed the truly fascinating part of the whole story. âTallblokeâsâ passing around of the email he wasnât even supposed to have was not just a supremely ironic coda to a workshop ostensibly dedicated to building trust and reconciliation (a circumstance which seems to have completely eluded the befuddled Pearce). Somehow the fringe blogger and WUWT regular managed to forge a connection between a highly respected science philosopher and the contrarian blogosphere, and then put himself in the inner circle planning the resulting workshop a year later, providing a fascinating insight into this misbegotten enterprise.

Tallcrank:

Not ready yet. Working on this paper at the moment.

Yes, we know you are going to claim "it's the ether that done it and all the calculations on area of the oceans are wrong because they used pi=3.14.... instead of 4".

What a crank this idiot is, no wonder he gets no respect here, he doesn't deserve it. Is this how all graduates of history and philosophy of science behave? Shameful.

Apologies if the quick scan I made above didn't pick this up, but it seems the "Pearce article" has been amended:

who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. [Gavin Schmidt has asked us to clarify his reasons for not attending: see the bottom of this post.]

and Gavin's e-mail contents added at the end.

No mention of whether FP actually saw or did not see the e-mail before the piece was published.

Deep climate,

Thanks for the link to your thread on Lisbon.

Reading it just demonstrated for that the deniers never quit. They will shamelessly seize any opportunity to further their ideological and ego driven agenda. I found the the quotes you used quite interesting in the thought they are putting into controlling the language used to talk about AGW, climate science and science in general. Its much more subtle than anything MCarthy ever used and straight out of the warnings in the novel 1984.

These people will stop at nothing and I'm beginning to wonder if monckton is just a diversion and we are paying too much attention to the wrong target?

Thanks P. Lewis. Only took them four days and still no apology.

They should also correct the part about McIntyre being a 'statistician".

Jeremy C @300-- you could be right, who do you think we should be paying attention too? (Certainly not Roger, Barry and GSW et al.).

Roger,

Tallbloke isn't your name, it's a pseudonym, right? You are a crank. You appropriate authority in a field in which you have no expertise. [see: Google Galileo. You espouse a 'real effect' that cannot possibly be true or we'd have satellites falling inexplicably out of the sky. Why should anyone apologize for saying what is so obviously true.

There really is no need to answer the question. It is rhetorical. The quotations are incontestable. The only honorable thing for you to do is confess and apologize.

Which you are apparently willing to do. Because you are dishonest.

RogTallbloke still refuses to answer the questions posed here.

Instead, choosing to invoke all kinds of juvenile excuses.

So this is how NewScientist decides to address an egregious error and defaming of a well-respected and prominent NASA scientist:

"But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA's Gavin Schmidt. who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss. [Gavin Schmidt has asked us to clarify his reasons for not attending: see the bottom of this post.]"

That is not a correction, nor a retraction, nor an apology. They are still biasing the reader, because one can read what the text below the strikethrough. Although one could argue that to reasonable readers who read Gavin's email, NewScientist and Fred Pearce are once again demonstrating their bias.

I'm just trying to figure out why GSW felt the need to specify not only the Universities at which he studied physics, but the buildings too. I mean, it's not like there's anything unusual about studying physics in the JCMB. That's where the physics department is.

The guardian is now printing articles critical of solar and wind(the guardain wouldn't have made this point a while ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/06/solar-farms-threaten-…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/04/wind-farms-nimbyism

I think I could have a sensible discussion with J Harvey, if we could get our pre-conceptions of each other out of the way..

As neither of us, I imagine is going to go away from our positions and we each only have One vote. Would it not be a good idea to find common ground.. Scientists are NOT politicians, economists, bankers, etc,etc. Many of these people are driving policies based on AGW, that do not make sense (in the short timescales) whether you believe or not..

I have friends and relatives that are climates cientists and Green Party activists, we can be civilised and not leap to assumptions about individuals. Why not try here..

Of course as I have made clear, it does not matter a jot, what is said here or at Watts Up or Bishop Hill. China, India and Africa (with the Chinese 'helping them') will do whatever they want. Which will include burning all the coal tey can, to make electricity. 2 billion people plus in those countries will demand this - ie increasing living standards.

Given that, why sink to name calling, it does not matter what we do or say, all we can do is influence our own politicians - if that is possible (the bankers have got them all tied up)

Oh, I'd say it was a correction (certainly not an apology), but it is about as minimal as they could reasonably get away with, unless GS pushes it. And life's too short...

> Which will include burning all the coal tey can, to make electricity.

So if you stop burning coal, there will be less coal burned.

I would also like you to look at how many wind turbines China is producing and deploying.

> 2 billion people plus in those countries will demand this - ie increasing living standards.

Living standards isn't US-level consumption. Sweden uses less than 1/3 of the US average despite being more entirely near the arctic circle and therefore having a higher need of it for both warmth and lighting.

And they have a better standard of living.

And this is ignoring the other energy production possibilities (see again about wind turbines).

> and we each only have One vote.

CO2 doesn't count votes.

luminous beauty

Tallbloke isn't your name, it's a pseudonym, right?

:-) Given the propensity for (certainly some) septics to want to "out" pseudonymous bloggers, I wonder why anyone shouldn't publish Roger Tallbloke's real name. It's trivially easy to locate on the intertubes, if anyone really wants to.

Across

1. Over and out! It's all in tatters, apparently.

Tallbloke's name and affiliation were released by the conference - he is

Mr Roger Tattersall
Web Content Editor
School of Education
University of Leeds

http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/modx/people/staff/support/tattersall

308

yes americans waste lots of energy and gave fuel inefficient cars.. (low taxation)

Europe, is better because of higher taxationI just filled up my car 70l cost £94, over 60% is taxes.

YET, the chinese will aspire to Swedish living standards and energy consumption.

the Chinese will not waste energy either. the best designs for them, as they accelerate their growth.. to match Swedish living standrads for their citizens.. There are an awful lot more chinese than there are people in Sweden..

We are all on the sidelines.

309
the chineses don't count votes either ;)

Meanwhile, in the real world, while we are all bickering with cranks and D-Ks, this is going on:

Droughts, Floods and Food

We are so screwed.

Jeremy C @ 290:
>The abstract you linked to sets out that the paper is about the effect orbiting bodies could have on the internal mechanisms of stars such as the sun.

>How the heck do you get a link from that to measuring solar levels at the earth environment boundary and then observing the effect of solar actvity levels on the earth's environment???

The Lavoisier Group had a [presentation](http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/Ia…) about a similar idea. In their case it was really just a smokescreen to cover the fact that they were blaming GW on the PDO and other ocean cycles.

There was some discussion of Tallcrank's version of it [here](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/70431-General-AGW-discussion-th…). Don't click if you're allergic to nuts!

Dave R.. are you realy saying that the climate is not effected by PDO and oceans cycles? at all?

Tallbloke:

Jeremy, I'm IENG and you are a snob. I'm also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too

Later tallbloke:

Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Apparently only when Jeff points out his qualifications in response to Tallbloke's original argument from authority ...

Dave R.. are you realy saying that the climate is not effected by PDO and oceans cycles? at all?

Of course it does, by redistributing heat in the ocean-atmospheric system.

Redistribution will not, however, affect the long term *trend*, and Dave R spoke of "GW". You can't have "GW" without a *trend*.

Tallbloke says:

"My take on the results from Miller which were confirmed by Yuri Galaev in 2003 is that they were measuring something real. What it is, we donât know."

Tallbloke,

Aether drag hypotheses made specific predictions regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment claiming that some perturbation of the speed of light would be observed corresponding to the motion of the Earth relative to the aether. Indeed, the aim of the experiment was to distinguish between different aether theories: theories that proposed a stationary aether, and theories that proposed an aether with motion relative to the Earth. Given that the Earth has a velocity of 208 km/s and the observed perturbation to the speed of light in the MM experiment is at most only 10 km/s this completely kills aether drag theories contemporary to the Michelson-Morley experiment. After Michelson and Morley's experiment scientists did try to account for the apparent null result by adapting contemporary aether theory and by deriving new theories. Initially this was done by Lorentz with the proposed Lorentz contraction suggesting that the aether in fact exerted electromagnetic force upon the apparatus causing it to shrink in the axis of the Earth's motion and to create a result that could be interpreted as a change in the speed of light smaller than previously anticipated. Conversely, Einstein independently derived the same 'length contraction' equations (without directly meaning to) in special relativity and therefore phenomena leading to apparent length contraction are a fundamental prediction of both General and Special Relativity. By this way relativity theories are reconciled with the small observed apparent perturbations to the speed of light in experiments trying to detect aether drag. So rather than refuting Relativity these experiments' results are consistent with its predictions. But there are many other experimental results and data consistent with the wide variety of predictions made by Relativity, so there are many other good reasons to believe it to be a good theory. The same can not be said of Aether theories, which catastrophically fail at their principle prediction. Lorentz's length contraction hypothesis meanwhile is now viewed as an ad hoc fix to save a previously supposed assumption regarding the frame of reference. In summary, Relativity is consistent with the MM and MM derivative experiments and makes a wide variety of other predictions that have subsequently been shown to be correct.

Tallbloke summarizes his expertise in assessing scientific theories as:

"Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science."

"I'm also BA(hons)Hist/Phil Sci and not only better qualified to assess scientific theories both on their scientific merit and within their societal context than you are, but also better able to conduct rational discussion concerning them too."

In my time observing Deltoid comment threads I've noticed that respect for one's claimed credentials is not given blindly by commenters, but only given after someone has demonstrated their competence in a particular area of expertise. I'm sorry but in this case you fall well short living up to your own hype having demonstrated your own ignorance of what Miller's work shows or measured.

Just catching up with the topic..
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sce…

Is the update in New Scientist going to be the end of 'Pearcegate'? (or should it have been called 'tallblokegate') ;)

Tallbloke is a member and adviser at the "Cycles Research Institute" (not bikes).
http://bit.ly/hLXByv

CDL

Barry Woods has been working overtime attempting to derail this thread. Congratulations on not taking his bait.

Barry, if you want to discuss you peeves and revelations, and what ever else appears in the Daily Mail, take it to the open thread.

303: RogTallbloke still refuses to answer the questions posed here.

Instead, choosing to invoke all kinds of juvenile excuses.

(end quote)

And, while we're still waiting, I might as well introduce this again. It's tallbloke's response to McIntyre contradicting tallbloke's original 'praisee' story:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/what-gavin-said-gate/

Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68053) February 5th, 2011 at 12:08 pm

Thanks Steve. Iâve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out. :o )

Oh well, round twoâ¦

(end quote)

So, tell us, tallbloke - since you're being so loquacious on other subjects - are you the same 'Rog Tallbloke' who wrote this comment?

If you are, what makes you think that it's acceptable to blatantly lie in this way?

Do you think that it's sufficient reparation when detected lying to simply cybershrug and -smirk in this way?

Can we take this 'ethical' stance as indicative of your general approach to climate science?

Can we take it as representative of denialist 'ethics' generally? (After all, you were invited to the conference, presumably as 'representative' of /something/, clearly not climate science...)

Can you explain to us how this conduct on your part does /not/ thoroughly justify Dr Schmidt's characterisation of the agenda of the conference and the political motivations of those of its attendees who, as Schmidt says, "are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position"?

*

I'd be very interested to have some answers to these and my earlier questions.

d'hogaza,

When tallbloke writes, "Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy" he is being a complete hypocrite.

For tallbloke: the reason I pointed out my scientific qualifications - which are miles ahead of yours by the way - was to illustrate the ridiculous assertion you made earlier, whereby you said to Jeremy C that you were "better qualified to assess scientific theories on their scientific merit". So when someone comes along better qualified than you are, using your inane logic, you claim it to be a ' fallacy'. You can't have it both ways. The fact is, that on issues of science, you are speaking out of you butt.

I also pointed out that having scientific qualifications in any scientific field is not a key to wisdom in fields well outside of their own. I feel quite confident to discuss issues related to my field of expertise (ecology and evolutionary biology) but on issues of climate science I defer to those who have spent years of their lives in this field of endeavor. Like many in the denial lobby, people like you hold no such reservations, and appear to believe that they have been imbued with some kind of wisdom that did not require professional training in the relevant field. The fact is that 90% or more of professional climate scientists with years of expertise believe that the empirical evidence in favor of AGW is very strong. There are a few scientists who disagree, but few of these publish in the scientific literature these days and many are known to have received significant funding from polluting industries with an axe to grind.

So if you want to play the credentials game, be prepared for people who have considerably more expertise in science than you to wade in here. That leaves you fumbling for excuses. Let's get down to the nitty gritty and see how many of the laypeople, including you, who are contrarians are not driven by an interest in science but by a political ideology. Because IMHO this lies at the heart of the denial industry. Science has nix to do with it.

Finally, if you want to discuss science that is 'closer to home', and if you want evidence for rapid regional warming since 1980, I can give you piles of studies of biotic indicators covering a range of taxa. It IS warming at rates that have not been experienced so widely in tens of thousands of years at the very least. And all of this occurs against a background of a wide array of other anthropogenic assaults across the biosphere. In combination, they pose a massive threat to the health and vitality of our global ecological life-support systems and we should be doing everything in our power to deal with these threats.

d'hogaza,

When tallbloke writes, "Sorry Jeff, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy" he is being a complete hypocrite.

That was sorta my point.

BTW try "dho gaza" not "d'hogaza" - it's a raptor trap, and the arabic name reflects its history. I've done a bunch of raptor banding as a USFWS, BLM and USFS volunteer over the years ...

I've helped build quite a few varieties of net traps over the years, yet you don't see me touting my credentials as a Raptor Trap Engineer to convince people I know more about ecology than you do :)

[H/t Zibethicus](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/what-gavin-said-gate/):

>Steve McIntyre (Comment#68048) February 5th, 2011 at 11:30 am

>Lucia, you say:
>Of course, Fredâs praphrase also kinda-sorta is unfair for a number of reasons. First it appears that Fred Pierce never read what Gavin actually wrote. If I understand correctly, he wrote based on someone elseâs paraphrase; this is always dangerous.

>Your surmise here is incorrect. I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavinâs email because I was sitting with both Pearce and tallbloke at dinner (we set out as part of a larger group and got separated) when tallbloke showed Pearce the email in question, which Pearce read carefully.

Then:

>Rog Tallbloke (Comment#68053) February 5th, 2011 at 12:08 pm

>Thanks Steve. Iâve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out. )Oh well, round twoâ¦

So Pearce is responsible for misrepresenting Gavin, and Rog Talbloke was deceiving people with his story to take the heat off Pearce.

Now over [to DC's](http://deepclimate.org/2011/02/07/post-normal-meltdown-in-lisbon-part-1…):

>Pearce missed the truly fascinating part of the whole story. âTallblokeâsâ passing around of the email he wasnât even supposed to have was not just a supremely ironic coda to a workshop ostensibly dedicated to building trust and reconciliation (a circumstance which seems to have completely eluded the befuddled Pearce). Somehow the fringe blogger and WUWT regular managed to forge a connection between a highly respected science philosopher and the contrarian blogosphere, and then put himself in the inner circle planning the resulting workshop a year later, providing a fascinating insight into this misbegotten enterprise.

This is exactly the sort of conference which I wished to convene with my critics. Unfortunately, Soviet scientists were just as close-minded as Western scientists. The science is settled! Lamarck was wrong! You don't even have a real degree! You're confusing politics with science! First of all, real science is never settled. Second of all, we should wait throwing around things until the uncertainty IS settled. Third, they all had an agenda.

Good try Zibethicus @ 322 but Tallcrank, as with other narcissists like James 'right about everything' Delingfool, cannot admit to being in the wrong. If he were to go down that road, where might it end? Better to bow out with a would-be grandiose gesture.

For even now as we can see at comment 286, with nought but a smattering of Wattsian hubris and contempt for the IPCC he's preparing to take solar physics and oceanography apart on a Brentian scale to see what makes them tick and spit out the right kind of answers. The type that don't interfere with business as usual. Watch and learn ;)

When the history of this is written, will anyone know why Curry, an actual, working scientist, decided to become the Steve Fuller of climate creationism/intelligent warming?

@Lysenko

Sounds like a good place to start ;)

@jeff

"I also pointed out that having scientific qualifications in any scientific field is not a key to wisdom in fields well outside of their own."

I'd go further, having a scientific qualification is not a key to any wisdom whatsoever ;) . What matters is your ability to evaluate evidence objectively, it's a completely different skill ;)

@Barry

Link to New Scientist. Agreed, that's it done a dusted. Cleverly done too. Crossing out the original text and using Gavin's own words at the bottom. Let the reader decide, Fred's take vs that of the petulant Modeler. V good!

They might, Marion, if they consider the influence of popular fervor on interpersonal relationships, interpersonal relationships on longing, longing on will, will on the subconscious and the subconscious on cognition. Judith Curry lives and works in the Deep South in the time of the American Right's Cultural Revolution, and her sense of self was insufficiently moored to transcend it. It's a cautionary tale as old as the hills.

Nathan Poe! Thou shouldst be blogging at this hour! The Internets have need of thee! They are a fen.

dhogaza is right to nail down - hard - the reasons "tallbloke" having anything to do with said conference raises reconciliation concerns all by itself.

People with closed minds are by definition non-scientists as I see it. Gavin is a computer programmer, who by definition go about their work by defining the variables before they start. See Feynman on scientific method.

Technically, Gavin's got a BA and PhD in mathematics, with an emphasis in climatology in both graduate and post-doc. As a computer programmer, my guess is he'd not have been a quick and reliable go-to guy to convert popclient into fetchmail until it could be replaced by getmail. Then again, he's never to my knowledge publicly misidentified IDL climate code as Fortran. We all have things we're good at. Some people tweak a single UNIX program and then write about it the rest of their lives. Other people work with observational scientists all over the world, publish 70 articles on climate science in peer-reviewed journals, etc. It's a confusing world. No evidence that the close-minded computer scientist without any real background knows what the hell he's talking about, when he's disputing with climate scientists.

By the above, I clearly mean Gavin Schmidt, by the way, in case you had any other ideas!

I was lucky enough to talk with Feynman on a couple of occasions (once before a presentation, and once in a physics class), and on the first occasion, precisely about open-mindedness, the scientific method, and roughly what Curry is calling post-normal science. The idea that he was "open-minded" in their sense is really startling.

In fact, Feynman was dismissive of any popular physics book with even a trace of woo or hype, and he famously said he didn't see any value in (history/sociology/)philosophy of science for scientists.

If there was a less post-modern (or post-normal) great 20th century physicist, I'd like to know who it was.

>I would prefer 'facts through science' - not 'truths through science' ;)

Either way you still lose.

Marion Delgado @336: you might find the following quote to be apropos:

"The 'work' is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something that is correct and self-evident, but worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or (4) a claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, known and checked for years, is in fact false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten) or (6) just plain wrong."

Richard Feynman, from a letter to Gweneth Feynman, in _What do you care what other people think_, W.W. Norton, 1988, p. 91.

...but few of these publish in the scientific literature these days and many are known to have received significant funding from polluting industries with an axe to grind.

Perhaps even more importantly, the record shows that post-publication scrutiny has pretty consistently demonstrated that their alternate hypotheses have been nowhere near strong enough to compete with established consensus.

That's not to say they might not succeed in ... er, unsettling the current scientific consensus some time in the future, but as more and more evidence is amassed their chances seem less and less likely.

And until such time as they succeed, there's little point in holding off action just on the off chance that they might.

Gavin is a computer programmer, who by definition go about their work by defining the variables before they start.

What a beautifully illustrative example of ignorance - never mind the illogic in the surrounding context.

...cannot admit to being in the wrong. ... Better to bow out with a would-be grandiose gesture.

How many times have I seen that gambit? Surely there must be a pithy nomenclature for it by now. Maybe Zibethicus can nominate one? I seem to remember him/her creating a doozy or two in the past.

bowing out? grandiose gesture?

More like the final 20 minutes of a couple of well-known operas. The dying and the apparently dead always seeming able to muster yet another prodigious breath for another futile declamatory gesture. But they do eventually die.

The dying and the apparently dead always seeming able to muster yet another prodigious breath for another futile declamatory gesture.

...as demonstrated by the never-Brenting-story and the Curtin that just won't close?

In response to this debarcle of a conference, check out this [awsome quote](http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/open-thread-3/#comment-4041) from Chris Colose at CE reposted and Shewonk:

>What is clear to me is that climate scientists are now being held to standards which are not typical of any scientific discipline, or for that matter, held to standards which skeptics do not want to put upon themselves.

>On the first point, it is now apparently perceived as âbadâ when scientists come to a conclusion that is robust enough to be well accepted by the majority. I have never seen claims of the sort that âgravity peopleâ are engaging in indoctrination, or the indoctrination of cell theory, the indoctrination of soil science, or the dogma of electrons. Strangely, this only applies to conclusions about climate change, or maybe evolution (and especially in America).

>In most fields, consensus is thought of as a consequence of a convergence of evidence over time in a particular subject-matter, and one goes to authorities (doctors for medical diagnosis, lawyers for legal advice, etc) for insight. Most people seek the explanation with the most support, which is then echoed by the experts in the field. Some, on the other hand, will leave 100 doctors that give them a certain diagnosis, and then approve of the one that tells them to meditate, take secret forest herbs, and pray five times a day to cure their illness. People go to calculus textbooks to learn calculus, and yet no one goes to an sociologist to learn by the segments of the heart and brain. However, in climate science, apparently âauthorityâ is a logical fallacy, and textbooks and classrooms can be replaced by random opinions on a blog.

>Whatâs even more startling, is that the personal communiation of scientists through e-mails can actually change the laws of physics!

>What all of this shows is that many people simply cannot think rationally about climate change, nor do they have the capacity to diagnose proper information from nonsense. And once they pursue nonsense, it is very difficult to convince them that they are wrong. You cannot convince such people that Pat Michaels, Singer, Marano, etc donât actually have anything to say, or that WUWT is a disinformation source. Itâs not that the information to show they are nonsense is unavailable, itâs that the information MUST be wrong.

>It is also clear to me that climate scientists must now become babysitters to every half-baked idea out there, otherwise they are being dogmatic. They must write detailed responses to people who think the greenhouse effect isnât real.

>It is also clear to me that the so-called âskepticsâ are allowed to make up whatever they want at will without consequence, and create a large but ill-thought out laundry list, and that we must play this game or else weâre being âdogmatic.â If a climate scientist make one mistake, or a date gets screwed up in the middle of a 1000 page document about glaciers, it will receive international attention. However, if âskepticsâ toss out 8 conspiracy theories, 10 logical fallacies, and 17 arguments with ZERO thought put into them, then it is a good thing that we get to hear all sides. Then, when one item on the bucket list is knocked down, they can just jump tot he next item. In the meantime, they are just as valid as everyone elseâs idea, since the criteria for acceptance is 101% certaintly in everything.

I'm not so sure about "praisee" or "debarcle", but this thread has been worth it for "raisin date" alone.

Incidentally, Tallbloke has pulled off quite a coup: his "praisee" is a totally unique mistake, according to Google!
(There is one "praisee", but that's some illiterate who couldn't write "phrase").

And it's not like he can blame a spellchecker either, like the "raisin date" bloke can.

As for the "ether" thing - isn't it funny that when an experiment comes up negative, enthusiasts of anti-knowledge move the goalposts so they can assert the contrary. Like with the dry Siljan oil well and the abiogenic oil enthusiasts.

Time to relax a little:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iSZMD7d53Ag

Robert P...

If Feynman was this dismissive of his peers who had a solid education in physics, what do you think he'd say about people like Tallblock who apparently think the value of pi just might be 4?

Or the other crap that pseudoscientists put forth?

Your mistake, of course, is that the fact that Feynman, being a much better physicist than most of his peers, would think a machinist - a *machinist* - like Tallblock is also a better physicist than his peers.

@dhogaza

I think you will find that Feynman would be unimpressed with an argument in support, or otherwise, of a theory based on one's job title.

>*I think you will find that Feynman would be unimpressed with an argument in support, or otherwise, of a theory based on one's job title.*

Are you just making stuff up GSW? Any evidence at all to support your bald faced assertion?

338: ...cannot admit to being in the wrong. ... Better to bow out with a would-be grandiose gesture.

How many times have I seen that gambit? Surely there must be a pithy nomenclature for it by now. Maybe Zibethicus can nominate one? I seem to remember him/her creating a doozy or two in the past.

(end quote)

Best I can come up with offhand is 'cyberautotomy', autotomy being the sacrifice of a part of one's body to confuse/distract a predator, as commonly seen in the case of a lizard under pressure parting company with its tail to cover its escape.

Like the lizard, the denialist leaves part of its (grossly inflated) ego behind, but like the lizard, alas! it all-too-soon grows back. Pretty soon afterwards you might see the denialist boasting on home grounds (e.g. WUWT) about how they 'bested' the 'warmists'.

But, of course, the tricky questions which precipitated the flight remain unanswered - don't they, tallbloke?

*

On reflection, while writing this, I think that a better term for bowing out with a would-be grandiose gesture might perhaps be 'to bombust'...

'to bombust'

I like it :-)

GSW writes, *I'd go further, having a scientific qualification is not a key to any wisdom whatsoever ;) . What matters is your ability to evaluate evidence objectively, it's a completely different skill*

I beg to differ. Let me put it this way - if you are correct, then going to university, studying for a degree, doing postgraduate research and then years of research in a scientific field means nothing. We should instead trust 'experts' who read a little about the topic in books or on the internet, and assume that their views are as valid as the scientists who have spent years in their field of research. Please forgive me is I break out into fits of laughter. On issues of science, I prefer to stick with the prevailing wisdom of those doing the actual research and not wannabes.

Yes, GSW, you have spoken like a true denialist, a graduate of the Dunning-Kruger School of self-professed intelligence. My point was that people like you and TB and other armchair 'experts' in climate science is not driven by science but by an underlying political ideology. Its just that in admitting this your whole edifice would come crumbling down, so instead you have to 'package' your denial in science. Heck, this should be obvious is one looks at some of the most prominent contrarians - Morano, Milloy, McKitrick etc. Others, like the WUWT crowd, IMO do the same. My point is that there is nothing whatsoever objective in the way that most denialists evaluate the 'science' of climate change. Many, perhaps most of them cannot evaluate the science objectively because they lack the scientific training in the field to be able to do so. I was trained in the field of population ecology and have spent the past 20 years researching various aspects of it. If I had not studied this field, I would be quite circumspect in criticizing a scientist in the field because I did not agree with the way he was testing, for example, neutral models in niche theory or optimal defense theory in plants. I may have read about these models in a book but I would certainly defer to someone whose career had involved empirical research on them.

Climate science is incredibly complex. As I said yesterday, I defer to the people who have invested years of their lives in this field. When people like you come along and challenge conventional wisdom, they must have a profoundly good scientific reason for doing so. Thus far, much like those involved in peddling creationism, I have not seen this wisdom. I have seen the goal posts shift from warming being a 'doomsday myth' to the point now where it is acknowledged but where the contrarians now claim that it is either 'natural' or unexceptional. Long before Mann et al's Nature paper, concern had been raised about AGW. For their part, the denialists hardly publish anything, but seem content to snipe away from the sidelines, attacking each and every peer-reviewed article showing that the human fingerprint on the warming is significant.

[*Deleted. I've had enough of your attempts to derail discussion. Tim]*

@Jeff
@Jake

Quote mining Feynman; should a least give you a feel for the man.

"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

;)

GSW, so your insistence on persistently asking my qualifications yesterday, and your claiming that your qualifications were the the 'real deal', were left pretty empty by the last quote you just presented.

Thank you GSW.

@jake

;)

GSW @ 353;
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Unless it's Feynman.

@Michael

No! Feynman was quite clear on that. He was aware of his own ignorance most of all!

My comment wasn't directed at Feynman you twit!

My comment wasn't directed at Feynman you twit!

Coffee -> keyboard

Thanks M!

@290Jeremy:

"How the heck do you get a link from that to measuring solar levels at the earth environment boundary and then observing the effect of solar actvity levels on the earth's environment???"

Well Jeremy, there are several distinct engineering problems to be addressed here which I deal with at length in various posts around my blog. If you pick your way between the 'for fun' stuff people ridicule here, you'll discover something about my investigations of this fascinating area of study.

The noise around here means I can't hear myself think so I've answered you in a new post on my own blog. Take a look if you feel like it.

Tallbloke,

I'm quite happy for you to precis it here and that will allow other people to test the elements of your idea are because its not clear. However, the absract is fairly clear so at the risk of repeating myself it sets out the idea that orbiting bodies around a star can affect that star's internal processes. What the abstract doesn't say is anything about the well known effect of the sun's output on life on earth and the things we have in place to measure it.

Rog, in other words:

"I can't."

(I know this os OT & I apologise but I feel the burning desire to ask)
Barry #352

I looked at your link but only scanned through until the "best" bit so it may have been said earlier. O'Donnell states: "I have known that Eric was, indeed, Reviewer A since early December. I knew this because I asked him. When I asked, I promised that I would keep the information in confidence, as I was merely curious if my guess that I had originally posted on tAV had been correct."

Other than Ryan's assertion is there currently any evidence for Steig to be reviewer A? Also, is there any evidence that the reviewer A for one draft was the same person as reviwer A for the next?

I'm sure O'Donnell has checked this before breaking a confidence in such a public forum of course...

> I think you will find that Feynman would be unimpressed with an argument in support, or otherwise, of a theory based on one's job title.

Of course, he would have little problem with an argument in support or otherwise of a theory based on one's evidence AND one's job title.

After all, you don't get a heart transplant from someone who is a sanitation engineer.

GSW writes, "Quote mining Feynman; should a least give you a feel for the man.
'Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts'.

So what are you saying GSW - that instead of scientists we ought to believe the words of nitwits like you? That science should be left in the hands of laymen? That going to university, studying a specific field, and researching it for years is a waste of time?

I suspect you've never been to see a doctor in your life, or a dentist, or had your car repaired in an auto shop because people trained in these fields are not to be trusted. Is that not so?

No, what you are effectively saying is that anyone can be an expert PROVIDED THEY SAY WHAT I BELIEVE OR WANT TO BELIEVE. THE VIEWS OF ANYONE ELSE, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR EXPERTISE IS, ARE TO BE IGNORED. This is the thrust of it. It explains why people like you probably think that the views of North, Booker, Monckton, Morano, Milloy, Delingpole, Ebell, the WUWT lot, and other contrarians are sound whereas those of thousands of eminently qualified climate scientists are nonsense. I'm sure you are a big fan of the Forrest Gump school of expertise. What good is an education? The ironic thing is the Feynman, were her to be alive, would distance himself by miles from the climate change denial lobby. Just as Carl Sagan did. They would be appalled that you were using their names in such utter vain.

Let's face it GSW. You've been humiliated here. Your views have been demolished. You've been left clutching at the thinnest of straws.

@wow

I think you'll find evidence is the ONLY thing that is required. If you base your decisions on what someone has written on their business card, well,... you could be fed any old crap.

@Michael. #358

Being aware of one's level of ignorance is a virtue. Your compulsion to demonstrate yours does you credit ;)

@Jeff,

You've misunderstood. Can't tell whether this is deliberate or not. That is not what Feynman was saying.

In simpler language "If someone tells you that you should believe them because they are an expert" that in itself is not an adequate 'proof' of anything.

It's been the mainstay of science for 400 yrs. From the Royal Society's "Nullius in Verba" to Feynman's "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

I think you interpret this as "ALL Scientist's no Nothing", that is just not the case. Is that a little clearer?

@Jeff

Actually I prefer the following wording;

In simpler language "If someone tells you that you should believe them because they are an expert" that in itself is not an adequate cause to do so.

Apologies for the late amendment. ;)

[GSW said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3244387) "ALL Scientist's no Nothing" (sic).

Quote mining famous scientists does not make you clever GSW, but while you may well feel it does, permit some of us to draw different conclusions from your display.

@chek

No it doesn't. But if I could spell, well who no's? ;)

It ain't your spelling GSW, so much as your quaint belief that Feynman was empowering an army of know-nothing trolls.

Maybe you should try reading slower and understanding more.

@chek

On the subject of 'trolls', Feynman, I believe, was silent. But then he wasn't a 'know-nothing'(your words) proofreading pedant.

GSW,

My advice is that is if many scientists who have spent years in a specific field publish a large number of articles that say basically the same thing, then you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, particularly if that field is not one in which you have pedigree. By contrast, if you come across internet sites frequented by a loose band of people with various professional backgrounds, few of which are actually relevant to the field of research covered, and if those people have not published much of anything in the peer-reviewed literature, then one should take what they say with a huge grain of salt.

I also think you should read the paper I wrote with Stuart Pimm in 2000 in the journal Oikos, in which we outline several steps that should help one separate sound from shoddy science. Anthropogenic climate change denial falls firmly into the latter. IMO the fact that it is considered 'controversial' is in fact one of the great PR victories of the anti-environmental lobby. As I said before, the only controversy as I see it lies in the potential range of temperature increase, both regionally and globally, as well as on its ecological and societal effects, but not on the underlying causes.

Wow nails it. Feynman was certainly not speaking out in an attempt to motivate every brainless Tom, Dick or Harry to question the motives of scientists or their findings.

@jeff

Firstly, I read the 'tone' of your response as being conciliatory (I had to spell 'chek' this) which I appreciate ;).

"then you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt"

I can't, I really can't, that is genuinely not how it works.

"I also think you should read the paper I wrote with Stuart Pimm in 2000 in the journal Oikos"

If I can find the paper, I'll read it. Forewarned though, I have some, long standing, preconceived ideas myself as to what constitutes 'shoddy' as opposed to 'good' science and my expectations are not high.

"Anthropogenic climate change denial" - I'd re-phrase this as

"Ok then, show me. If you have a case to make, make it. I may not agree, but make it"

Your last point.

"Wow nails it. Feynman was certainly not speaking out in an attempt to motivate every brainless Tom, Dick or Harry to question the motives of scientists or their findings"

Remove the word "brainless" and replace the words "motives of scientists or their findings" with the "findings of scientists" and I think he actually was.

This the one?

Pimm, S and Harvey, J, The world at our fingertips, OIKOS, vol. 91 no. 2 (November, 2000), pp. 209-212, ISSN 0030-1299

@jeff (apologies again)

I've found a version online dated, 15 APR 2003, is this the same?

@jeff

Do you have a pdf JH?. I got the first page, the rest is behind is behind 'Wiley wall'.

So you used to review papers for Nature? I'm impressed.

gourdonboy?

How about this Feynman quotation, which to me explains the problem with the "science is settled" meme:

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnât know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty â some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donât know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question â to doubt â to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman#Surely_You.27re_Joking.2C_…

Here is the reference for the quotation above:

"The Value of Science," address to the National Academy of Sciences (Autumn 1955)

And the main link from which you can go to section 1.4 (there is an underscore after "Richard"):

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Is that directed at me JB?

@Holly

Have you watched any of Feynman's on-line videos? They are a good rainy afternoons entertainment. Thoughtful post by the way ;)

GSW:

Isn't Gavin a climate modeler? I don't think that makes you a scientist

Staggering ignorance and arrogance.

>*Staggering ignorance and arrogance.*

I'm still waiting for [GSW's claimed models](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227439).

Or just the source for his [initial claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3227365).

Seems like GSW is replelled by such verifiables when it comes to his own claims.

"then you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt"

I can't, I really can't, that is genuinely not how it works.

If the conditions pertaining to Jeff Harvey's "then" that you (conveniently?) excised from the quote are in force (my emphasis):

My advice is that is if many scientists who have spent years in a specific field publish a large number of articles that say basically the same thing, then you ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, particularly if that field is not one in which you have pedigree.

...then you really can and must if you care at all about robust decision making, because you (almost always will) have no mechanism to more reliably determine the levels and areas of uncertainty of the matter than the body of scientists engaging in ongoing research and the back and forth of peer review collectively do.

Ot to put it yet another way, when you say "that's not how 'it' works", your 'it' appears - intentionally or not - to be something rather like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Don't you get it Jakerman? GSW knows The Truth about the Global Warming Scam so he doesn't have to provide evidence. His personal beliefs are all the evidence he needs.

"I think you'll find evidence is the ONLY thing that is required. If you base your decisions on what someone has written on their business card"

See, this is the problem with an idiot like you, ginny, you don't read anything you don't want to know.

I think you'll find that evidence is available. As well as their business card.

You, however, in your inerrant faith, demand that since a business card is offered, the evidence doesn't exist.

GSW, here.

@Martin Vermeer

Downloaded it, thanks!

GSW's line of argument has long been [refuted.](http://xkcd.com/793/)

This is dedicated to the engineers who are not feeling the love lately. I have great confidence in their sobriety and their practical training. See the video here entitled "Rick and Concrete Toboggans":

http://www.rickmercer.com/Rick-Mercer-Videos.aspx

I heard Canadian engineering students singing the same song some 35 years ago. Do they sing it in other countries too?

I don't know if they sing it in other countries Holly but years ago I was on a short power course run by an engineer who always asked us to speak up when asking questions because of his time as a drummer in a rock band. The some time later I was doing a contract in the US and my American colleagues upon finding out I am Australian told me they spent a fair portion of their time at university going to ACDC concerts across the states when they should've been completing engineering assignments. There's hope for us engineers yet

So Tim has created all sorts of "-gates" over the years, from Leakegate to Rosegate to Tolgate and now Pearcegate. In the same vein, Eric Steig has created O'Donnellgate, in an attempt to set the record straight in the Steig vs O'Donnell disagreement (a minor dispute that the WUWT mob and the Denialist Chum(p)s over at Curry have worked hard to blow out of all proportion).

As Steig says:

Sadly, attacking climate scientists by mis-quoting and mis-representing private correspondences or confidential materials appears now to be the primary modus operandi of climate change deniers. To those that still donât get this â and who continue to believe that these people can be trusted to present their scientific results honestly, and who continue to speculate that their may be truth in the allegations made over the years against Mike Mann, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Stephen Schneider, Andrew Weaver, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Gavin Schmidt, Darrell Kaufmann, and many many others, just because they âread it on a blog somewhereâ â Iâd be happy to share with you some of the more, err, âcolorfulâ, emails Iâve gotten from OâDonnell and his coauthors.

Tallbloke feses up about [being untruthful](http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/) about some of his prior untruths.

In the end Tallblock hasn't sheilded Pearce from anything, and shown himself up as being what he is.

Holly Stick: nice video...and Oz engineers of my acquaintance sang the same song 35 years ago, albeit with less politely Canadian lyrics: we don't give a bugger for any old bugger who don't give a bugger for us!. Slainte

I guess my English teachers were remiss. They must have been. I just can't see how so many words that clearly and unambiguously accept the AGW science as established fact, could be interpreted as meaning other than, "The science is settled." But so says Gavin Schmidt. So it must be true. Gavin says so. The science is not settled. And indeed it is not.

> I just can't see how so many words that clearly and unambiguously accept the AGW science as established fact, could be interpreted as meaning other than, "The science is settled."

Well, first off, you need to say what you mean by "the science".

I guess your English teachers were remiss in teaching you how to phrase a statement.

*The science is not settled. And indeed it is not*.

The science examining the various factors that are forcing warming is certainly settled, and quite clearly and unambiguously shows that we are the primary culprit. As for the regional and global rates of warming, and the consequences for natural and managed ecosystems, well that is what it still to some extent conjectural and being debated (and is thus 'unsettled'). But the prognosis is not good.

But, alas, I sense that Roy Hogue did not mean this by his statement. If so, then Roy can join a sadly long list of other lay contrarians in misunderstanding what the term 'settled science' actually means with respect to climate change.

The science is not settled.

I think you're confusing the science with the result. You could say a 95% sensitivity confidence interval of 2 K - 4.5 K is not settled. So what are you going to do about this non-settled result? Ignore it? That seems to be your attitude.

The science is also 'not settled' in the debate on the relationship biodiversity and ecosystem functioning - one side argues in favor of the redundancy hypothesis whilst the other argues in favor of the diversity-stability hypothesis. This doesn't mean that its fine for humans to continue extirpating species at rates higher than has occurred on the planet for at least the past 65 million years. But the science is settled with respect to the existence and cause of the current mass extinction - us. What isn't settled is in our understanding of how much diversity can be reduced before critical ecosystem processes and services break down.

There is clearly a corollary here with AGW - there is broad scientific agreement over the 'anthropogenic' part, but the outcomes are still unclear, although many scientists think that they are likely to be severe.

Gavin says so? Question for you Roy: how do thousands of scientists get it so wrong for so many DECADES? Is all encompassing incompetence specially confined to that particular field (perhaps by consequence of ritual forcible lobotomy), or is this evidence of a thus far failed communist plot to take over the world?

Or- hold the phone- could it be, just maybe, that the sorry poll tested misconceptions in your head began on a white board at some pr outfit as hired by some very wealthy and very powerful individuals?

You figure it's a coincidence that 'is the science is settled?' is an ambiguous phrase that can be uncharitably spun no matter how addressed, (i.e. 'see, it's not settled which means we know nothing and carbon rationing is clearly an idea before it's time', or alternatively 'see they think it's settled and are thus close minded and fallaciously appeal to authority')?

If so, you may want to review the storied history of duplicitous denialist scumbags utilizing just this sort of rhetorical fallacy in lieu of honesty, fact or argument. So then- coincidence? Or something a little bit more plausible? What would the trusted friend of the skeptic, Mr. Occam Razor, have to say about this?

@397: yes Roy, your English teachers were remiss; they appear to have left you functionally illiterate. Sue them. Now.

People are being too hard on Tallbloke.

A while back, I made a visit to Tallblokeâs site to see where he was coming from, at least in part because my wife is from the Leeds area, I have lectured there (years ago), and it has a sizeable environmental sciences school.

Really, a visit to his site will tell the interested reader much, with pieces from/lauding Willie Soon, Oliver Manuel, Nicola Scafetta, Nasif Nahle (biocab), Gerlich&Tsceuschner, Douglass/Knox, Piers Corbyn, etc.

I didnât notice any mention of Rhodes Fairbridge, but then he is deceased or I may have missed it.

dhogaza reminds me , I missed one (so many, so little time) Miles Mathis, who has disproved much of modern physics and is quoted:

"In physics and math, nothing much does get done, as I have shown. The history of physics and math has not been a wonderland of brilliance and fast progression; it has been a shocking wasteland of deflection, misdirection, and complete incompetence, and it is only getting worse. I expect the response to my papers to continue to be vicious, since there is nothing more reactionary than a field of sinecures. It will be like trying to overthrow the Aristotelians or the French Academy or any other nest of nepotism and privilege and corruption. But they had best put on their waders, because the water is high. I am coming right at them, and I am used to deep currents."

TB says of this "Go Miles!"

The reviews at Amazon are interesting.

Re: John at 404, I found the 2-star review and his follow up comments to his review the most convincing. I laughed at the one comment to that 2-star review where one commenter stood up for Mathis' 'no links to peer-reviewed science' by claiming Mathis used the scientists names.

The reviews at Amazon are interesting.

Wow.

re: 405

But the 2-star review is convincing, but so ... boring.
"This is a vanity-published collection of theories by a self-styled "scientist" who, at the beginning of his bio blurb, anoints himself "the new Leonardo." Such a pathological absence of humility should be taken as a warning."

The 5-star reviews are more fun.. For example:

"I will say of Miles Mathis what alchemists of old say of other alchemists who have found the "philosophers'stone": "He is a Good Man". "

"Almost anyone can enjoy this book because it, while serious on serious, sometimes deep, scientific subjects, uses almost no mathematics ... "

"Help is on its way...Miles Mathis has published his first book and hopefully many will follow. It will take more than one book to clean up centuries of mathematics and physics theory mess-ups swept under the carpet. This one however provides a fine start. ...
To wrap it up: IMHO the most lucid scientific mind I've ever seen, now in paperback. A modern day polymath on its way to history as a new Leonardo. "

Tallbloke presents Mathis. Again, thanks to dhogoza for reminding me.

In todayâs printed version of The Guardian (I canât find the article online) Fred Pearce reviews [The Heretic](http://www.royalcourttheatre.com/whats-on/the-heretic) - a climate change themed play currently on in Londonâs West End. The Heretic stars Juliet Stevenson as Diane, a university researcher who is ostracised for concluding sea levels around the Maldives arenât rising, and recycles a lot of standard denialist stuff (âhide the declineâ becomes âbury the downturnâ). To his credit, Pearce says the play âoffers formulaic boffin-bashing culled from nasty blogsâ (scientist would have been a better word to use than boffin). However, the really interesting and relevant bit comes in the final paragraph where Pearce mentions Lisbon and name drops Judy Curry (but, rather ungratiously, not tallbloke) who he thinks is worthy of a play:

Last month I shared a conference table with Judy Curry, a US climate scientist. She was labelled a âhereticâ in Scientific American for criticising colleagues over the East Anglia (emails) row. Her story is better than Dianeâs - a riveting drama of big egos, corrupt institutions, divided loyalties, conflicted motives, personal anguish, and, yes, real debate about science and saving the planet. I can see Juliet Stevenson playing Judy. It would be more exciting and more real â but also more ambiguous â than this nicely written but ultimately boorish and confect conspiracy tale.

The review by Fred Pearce [is here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/11/the-heretic-climate-c…).

Doh! Thanks Tim.

Last month I shared a conference table with Judy Curry, a US climate scientist. She was labelled a "heretic" in Scientific American for criticising colleagues over the East Anglia (emails) row. Her story is better than Dianeâs - a riveting drama of big egos, corrupt institutions, divided loyalties, conflicted motives, personal anguish, and, yes, real debate about science and saving the planet.

Forgive me for being insensitive to the dear petal, but if she hadn't thrown her lot in with the "big egos, corrupt institutions, divided loyalties, [and] conflicted motives" of the climate change denialists, then Curry wouldn't have suffered the personal anguished alleged by Pearce.

Simple, really.

And what's with Pearce's casting of Juliet Stevenson? I have this strange urge to sing "Freddy and Judy sitting in a tree..."

The irony is delicious though, as Stevenson is notable for having hitched a lot of her credibility star to Andrew Wakefield's MMR wagon, and we know how the wheels fell off that one.

Fred Pearce's "real debate about science" comment can't be allowed to pass without comment either.

If he honestly, truly thinks that the "real debate" is about climatological physics versus denialism, and about some negotiated intellectual compromise based upon argumentum ad temperantiam, then he is no longer fit to write for anything more than the National Enquirer.

The Feynman the libertard solipsist troll is presenting here has no points of tangency with the real Feynman. Call him Bizarro Feynman and everything will make sense.

In all seriousness, the Feynman Lectures wouldn't exist if Feynman didn't believe in university degree programs. When he came to my university, which classes did he address? If you guessed "Business MBA Program?" you fail. If you guessed "Metalsmithing?" you fail. If you guessed "Austrian Economics 101?" you fail. If you guessed any other program that a Randite would endorse as being Objective, you fail.

No, weirdly enough, Feynman selected the upper level physics courses. It was sheer credentialism on his part. He even knew and had worked with one of my instructors.

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason why the New Scientist page currently claims 90 posts on the subject, but only displays 50? From what I can see there's no second page link or similar...

Surely this isn't censorship of a sort, is it?

Please donât characterize me as a âcrankâ, Iâm a qualified engineer with a degree in the history and philosophy of science.

Swell fallacy you have there. Those are not inconsistent, and the evidence that you are crank is ample.

I just can't see how so many words that clearly and unambiguously accept the AGW science as established fact, could be interpreted as meaning other than, "The science is settled."

That could well be a consequence of stupidity.

[This](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php) was pointed out to me today.

It could have been written with Pearce in mind...

BJ, check your link.

Cheers, J.

Oops, thanks Jakerman.

Copied from the wrong tab's url field.

[This should make things clearer](http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2011/02/science-scepticism-a…).

Of course, when *Monckton* states specifically that "The science is settled", it's not any sort of proof he's closed his mind...

Don't look, but
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110511/full/473125a.html?WT.ec_id=NATUR…

FP slams the UN in Nature.