April 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Date record was 20.0° (2004), is now 20.2° C.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Oops, 20.4° C, mercury rising.
Until so far the opening of April : )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Wtf, #3.

"Look out your window, can you see global warming?"

Look out your window, can you see the fucking Himalaya??

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Kampen, if you didn't get it, you can switch the senator for Mr. first hand Bicorne, ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

#5, you can't explain? Hint, hint, nudge, nudge, winkie wink?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Are you from Barcelona Kampen? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

I see meathead is now sourcing CFACT for information. Are there no depths to which this idiot will not stoop for his information?

A: No.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Petri, Tina Fey was mocking Sarah Palin's assinine reply to a question about what insight she had gained into Russia by living in Alaska...sheesh.

Meanwhile, looking out your window literally and metaphorically, I understand how you see only what you want to see.

It's difficult for Olap's little pointy head to think rationally, sitting on his little monocorne hardhat.

Eli misses Tim.

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 01 Apr 2014 #permalink

Everyone misses Tim. (Well, perhaps not the ferals that have over-run the place in his absence.)

#7, true, Holland is experiencing the Barcelona climate at present. Or to be sure, we are moving ABOVE that climate. We are actually moving above Gibraltar climate.

You don't even know where all these places are.

#8, it is a kind of honesty for once. CFACT, it doesn't even have a front door. Just a postbox. Coward liars.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Eli, prosecution and sentencing will be done by events. Let us sit back, relax and enjoy the mayhem.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Kampen, even though:

"Lake Superior, the largest of North America’s Great Lakes, is on its way to becoming the world’s biggest hot tub", has the Chicago area set what appears to be an all time low Winter-cold record 2014.

Must be the accelerating global warming, because "according to scientists, climate change is causing the lake to heat up faster than any other lake on the planet."

One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior (and the other great lakes) would balance up the harsh cold weather, or ist it first hand climate. Hmmm...... :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Eli.
So does Stu 2 :-(
He has been missing in action for months.

#15, you are in fact pointing to the much larger regions going through record warmth. Also, you are pointing to the new, and dramatic, climate change re Rossby waves getting stuck. In some places this results in very stubborn cold pools. In one place, really. Of course, the stubborn hot pools are simply more impressive.
Like the period 1-10 April in Holland is set to achieve 13.3° C average temp, the 'old' record was 11.8° C waaayyyy back in 2011.

In Holland, most people love it. They are looking forward to a summer with such anomalies, as we're still due for one. They will cry because such a summer will be unbearable. This is Holland, see, and we have some moisture rendering a 35 degrees day something else than it is in the Spanish interior.
Summer in Holland is still the only season that has not gotten out of hand but our turn will come.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

#15, "One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior" - remembering there wasn't much water to begin with ;)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

I know chek, it' fascinating that your "triple whammy" shows that the planet's fastest warming lake is to be found in a very cold area. But climate science is climate science...

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

#21, yeah, strange, what is a cold area could never ever warm up, of course, and never did, of course, so you'll be snowmobiling on that lake all summer.

Funny, really funny, how the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else... But, well, climate science is climate science and it has predicted that long time before it began to happen.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

#19, this is a really dumb troll. Hilarious really.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Kampen, I agree. Chek's "tripple whammy" isn't any good, like all affectoids he posts here. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

#24, just whammed and you know it, of course.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Kampen, I know, chek's Lake Superior belly flop is painful to watch.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Ah, I see now. Olap went for the fourth dimensional stupid quadro-whammy and thinks those zones in my post at #19 are fixed. Even a time traveller wouldn't see that one coming!

#26, yes, talk about it now, because...

Shy 0.7° C of today's date record here, it was 22.2° waaayyyy back in 2001 and today's max is 21.5° C.
Stretch of 4 days 20+ now, the record for this time of year was 1.
Tomorrow will be added to the stretch and looks like becoming the hottest of em all.

Normal max? For 1-10 April it is +11.6° C, already an inflated number due to drastic warming. Summer in March/April - temps these days are the norm for second half of June.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

15 Open Threads in a row. Must be a record.

cRR Kampen:

"already an inflated number due to drastic warming."

Are you sure? Raw temp data or AGW adjusted?

Chek, the fastest heating lake on the planet – Da hot tub – has got the antarctic accelerating global warming sea ice flue. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

Yes Olap, we know you have that one factoid lodged solid in the pointiest part of your head and therefore impervious to any further data. It must be quite the conundrum for you.

PantieZ @ #30

Raw temp data or AGW adjusted?</blockquote
(for which 'AGW adjusted' = conspissssary!!!!!)
The nutters must be out for their springtime walk.

Chek, why don't you show us your "crippled whammy" again. :-)

Of all portentologists here at Deltoid your the best. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

You are the crippled whammy, Olap. You just can't help it.

NRO continues its message, sceptical of CAGW, with an article by Rupert Darwall (http://www.cps.org.uk/experts/rupert-darwall/),

"Why the IPCC Report Neglects the Benefits of Global Warming -It needs catastrophe scenarios."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374742/why-ipcc-report-neglects-b…

"The summary [AR5 WG2], as the object of intensive political editing by government officials, is a document designed to generate talking points for sympathetic politicians and pundits to re-spin. Scientific coherence is not its goal. Instead of raising the bar in pursuit of objectivity, the current working group doubled down on its 2007 summary: It unfurls a series of distortions designed to magnify the threats, ignore the benefits, and downplay the possibility of adapting to climate change."

The "Scientific coherence is not its goal." well yes, something of an understatement there. Advocacy dressed up as science.
;)

One would think that the hot water reservoir of Lake Superior (and the other great lakes) would balance up the harsh cold weather

Olap - he who puts the 'more' into moron, the tin-pot on cretin and the id into super-stupid.

If by 'one would think' you mean 'what I (Olap) would think', one would think (that is the rest of the sane world would think) sheer experience by now would have warned you off taking the road that your catastrophically limited abilities in reasoning would take you. But I guess you're too thick and vain to even comprehend that.

What other, sane people do to find out is go to people who study these thing - but that does take some effort.
Indeed the Great Lakes do support a micro-climate but that doesn't make them immune to intrusions by polar air masses

If you read the links (doubtful), one of the upsides of the freeze is: " that perhaps it can prevent lake water levels from lowering like they did just last year. "With the ice cover, less water gets evaporated so lake levels stay high and help preserve some of the water"

Predictable Griselda - ignore the Report, go for the NRO's dumb right wing rag conspisssary theory. By Buckley's NRO. Fucking hell.
Shorter Griselda - don't listen to the science, listen to the billionaires. They promise to trickle down all over you.

@chek

Don't be so miserable chek, not everyone has your "lack of education"/ "one world view" of things. Get with the whole "Freedom of speech" thing, it's the future!
;)

Oh sod off, GSW. You have nothing to say and you aren't clever enough to taunt artfully. You are simply dull, repetitive and tedious.

As you most certainly aren't a millionaire Griselda, your 'one world view' of things is from the inside of your arse trying to look out.
'Ignores the benefits' - what a troll. It doesn't divide into the profit and loss columns you worship in your holy books, it deals with 'impacts' and the impacts aren't good, despite the 'good news about global warming' trash you've been pre-primed with on your preferred liar sites.
Oh, and free speech doesn't mean idiocy shouldn't be challenged, or libel be prosecuted. Never did, never will.

@BBD, chek

Well as you both don't seem to have a problem with "Freedom of speech" in principle, some more from Darwall's article for you to ruminate on,

"More egregiously, the summary speaks of rapid price increases following climate extremes since the 2007 report. This negligence amounts to downright dishonesty, as the summary omits mention of one of the principal causes of the 2007–08 spike in food prices, which is highlighted in the main body of the report. It was not climate change that increased food costs, but climate policies in the form of increased use of food crops in biofuel production, exacerbated by higher oil prices and government embargoes on food exports."

Indeed. Thought Chris Field did well at the press conference in front of the Guardian, for want of better word, "Journalists" and sks "scientists". Video here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag
;)

So why won't the increasing radiative forcing from unabated CO2 emissions cause temperatures to increase over time?

As surface/tropospheric temperatures rise, physical climatology predicts several apparently unavoidable consequences:

- Increase in severity of summer heatwaves

- Increase in frequency and severity of drought

- Increase in intensity of precipitation

- Seasonal and spatial alterations in rainfall patterns

Why will these not have negative impacts on agricultural yields?

But BBD, a Heartless employed hack trumps the regiment of scientists who compiled WG2. In Griselda's opinion.

@BBD, chek

Yes BBD, that Rupert Darwall, Huffingtonpost article here

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rupert-darwall/global-warming_b_3615720…

"There is the obsession with secret funding sources and with the ideological motivations of non-adherents, things the philosopher Karl Popper identified as telltale signs of a pseudoscience."

I think we've been there and done that over and over, don't you chek?
;)

Au contraire Griselda, there's no question about the the funding providers and motivation of the think-tank brigade who make assertions but don't actually do any work - other than to gainsay the work of others such as the IPCC.

So Darwall tries the double-bluff routine, and denier half-wits like you think that invalidates their perceived strategy of maintaining BAU. Whether that's because you're an idiot or a motivated idiot who misunderstands and laps up quote-mined Popper is immaterial.

Pointing out that your source is a right-wing ideologue is no more than due diligence, GSW.

Darwall is also, however, an ill-informed parroter of denier memes, which completes the undermining of his reliability as a source:

Instead of relying on speculative models based on the condescending assumption that farmers are robots and don’t adapt, a more intelligent approach would be to examine how farmers and agricultural output have reacted to climate change in the past. But the IPCC rendered this approach impossible when it erased previous periods during which temperatures might have been higher than they are now (symbolized by the Hockey Stick in the IPCC’s 2001 report). In 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, one of the drafting authors of the 2014 summary, e-mailed a colleague, saying he intended to “deal a mortal blow” to the supposed “misuse” of the Medieval Warm Period in the 2007 report. Overpeck succeeded in his aim of getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

Tired old denier memes, long debunked, but apparently good enough for Darwall.

But not good enough for me.

Tired old denier memes, long debunked, but apparently good enough for Darwall.

Well, they bought, devised and paid for them, and they still work on the numpties like Griselda, Olap, PantieZ et al. who still believe mightily in them as articles of their faith.

I'd guess the corporately sponsored support for them is open ended as long as there remains another gullible fool still drawing breath..

@GSW

Have you read the latest on Recursive fury over at Lucia's?

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/furious-reviewer-elaine-mckewon/

Funny indeed that one of the "poor reviewers" of Loo's super-scientific paper was a PhD-student in "journalism" with a couple of conf. papers on prostitution under her belt. Who wold have thunk? ;-)

I'm sure she could hav been a good reviewer if Loo's paper was dealing with the increasing rates of prostitution coming with large amounts of well funded, privileged, heterosexual, (often) white men crounding up an climate scare conventions.

Amazing what kind of crap climate scientologist and portentoigst can get through the rigorous poor review process. ;-) In this case they got caught, but like we say in super-science: "the hidden statistics" is enormous. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

*sigh* It's a psychology paper you moronic imbecile.
Dr. Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist, not a climate scientist. His paper is a study of ... wait .... y'know if you have some time to spare (and you seem to have all the time you need to memorise garbage) you could volunteer as a subject.
Your type of robustly parroted ignorance would be ideal for Stephan's research.

@Olaus

Ha!

"Evidently, “Elaine McKewon is a third-year journalism PhD student at the University of Technology, Sydney”. Presumably, at the time she reviewed the article she was a 2nd-year PhD student."

A predoctoral journalism student reviewing the stats and methodology of a pseudoscience study. Mmm.. what could go wrong there? ;)

Lucia's article is worth reading; McKewons' take seems to be your a "denier" until you can get a certificate saying otherwise. i.e. that's everyone.

"Superscience" indeed Olaus!
;)

Cheek, Loo's paper is a joke regardless of genre and field, and so is a peer reviewer of her calibre. Not to you though, but that's in order. :-)

The one's worthy studies in cognitive psychology is portentologists and sooth sayers with bicorne personality and failblesse for imaginary well funded right wing conspiracies against climate science.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 02 Apr 2014 #permalink

worthy studies in cognitive psychology is (sic) portentologists and sooth sayers (sic)

No comment necessary, but I doubt the cognitive science community (or any other community) are shaking in their boots at Olap's grasp of reality or next pronouncement.

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst "climate sceptics".

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with "climate sceptics" for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact? There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

There are two persistent nutters in this very thread who will go to their graves chanting "the hockey stick is broken" on the say-so of a paranoid Canadian crank and another know-nothing crank's novel.
Nothing any scientist says or shows them will ever taint their faith in cranks.

And neither of them ever answered the question of how we square a global and synchronously warm MCA with a low climate sensitivity to radiative perturbation.

Instead, on we go with the evidence denial: the huge mass of science that demonstrates that there was no global and synchronous MCA as warm or warmer than the present:

PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia

Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

* * *

McIntyre and Montford, the karaoke star vs...

PAGES-2K authors and affiliations:

Affiliations

Department of Botany, Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology, Karachi, 75300, Pakistan
Moinuddin Ahmed

Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis,
Brendan M. Buckley,
Edward R. Cook &
Jason E. Smerdon

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2543, USA
Kevin J. Anchukaitis

School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Asfawossen Asrat &
Mohammed Umer

Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, 411008, India
Hemant P. Borgaonkar

Dipartimento di Matematica e Geoscienze, University of Trieste, 34128, Italy
Martina Braida &
Barbara Stenni

Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Birmensdorf, 8903, Switzerland
Ulf Büntgen &
Raphael Neukom

Département Paléoenvironnements et Paléoclimats (PAL), Université Montpellier, Montpellier, 34095, France
Brian M. Chase

Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of Bergen, Bergen, 5020, Norway
Brian M. Chase

Laboratorio de Dendrocronología y Cambio Global, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla 567, Valdivia, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Antonio Lara

Center for Climate and Resilience Research, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 2777, Santiago, Chile
Duncan A. Christie &
Antonio Lara

Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen

Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7005, Australia
Mark A. J. Curran,
Andrew D. Moy &
Tas van Ommen

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Henry F. Diaz

Department of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, 55099, Germany
Jan Esper

Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yunnan, 666303, China
Ze-Xin Fan

Faculty of Science, Nepal Academy of Science and Technology, Khumaltar, GPO Box 3323, Lalitpur, Nepal
Narayan P. Gaire

Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
Quansheng Ge &
Xuemei Shao

School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
Joëlle Gergis

Departamento Astrofísica y CC de la Atmósfera, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 28040, Spain
J Fidel González-Rouco

Lemaitre Center for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348, Belgium
Hugues Goosse

School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, 2050, South Africa
Stefan W. Grab &
David J. Nash

Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, California 92130, USA
Nicholas Graham &
Rochelle Graham

Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research & Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Martin Grosjean &
Heinz Wanner

Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 00014, Finland
Sami T. Hanhijärvi &
Atte A. Korhola

School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA
Darrell S. Kaufman &
Nicholas P. McKay

International Project Office, Past Global Changes (PAGES), Bern, 3012, Switzerland
Thorsten Kiefer &
Lucien von Gunten

Department of Symbiotic System Science, Fukushima University, Fukushima, 960-1248, Japan
Katsuhiko Kimura

Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Paul J. Krusic

Laboratoire d’Océanographie et du Climat: Expérimentations et Approches Numériques (LOCEAN), Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris cedex, 575252, France
Anne-Marie Lézine

Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 106 91, Sweden
Fredrik C. Ljungqvist

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., National Climate Centre Auckland, 1011, Zealand
Andrew M. Lorrey

Department of Geography, Climatology, Climate Dynamics and Climate Change, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, 35390, Germany
Jürg Luterbacher &
Johannes P. Werner

Laboratoire des Science du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91 191, France
Valérie Masson-Delmotte

Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
Danny McCarroll &
Maria R. Prieto

Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, Reno, Nevada 89512, USA
Joseph R. McConnell &
Michael Sigl

Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales (IANIGLA), CCT-CONICET-Mendoza, Mendoza, 5500, Argentina
Mariano S. Morales,
Ignacio A. Mundo &
Ricardo Villalba

British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Robert Mulvaney

Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Nagoya University, Nagoya, 464.8601, Japan
Takeshi Nakatsuka &
Masaki Sano

School of Environment and Technology, University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ, UK
David J. Nash

Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32308, USA
Sharon E. Nicholson

Department of Glaciology, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association, Bremerhaven, 27570, Germany
Hans Oerter

College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK
Jonathan G. Palmer

Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Jonathan G. Palmer,
Steven J. Phipps &
Chris S.M. Turney

ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Steven J. Phipps

Centro de Estudios Cientificos, Valdivia, Chile
Andres Rivera

Department of Chemistry ‘Ugo Schiff’, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, 50019, Italy
Mirko Severi

Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA
Timothy M. Shanahan

LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China
Feng Shi

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119017, Russia
Olga N. Solomina

Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
Eric J. Steig

National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, Goa, 403 804, India
Meloth Thamban

Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
Valerie Trouet

Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium
Dirk Verschuren

Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada
Andre E. Viau

Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2100, Denmark
Bo M. Vinther

Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
Sebastian Wagner &
Eduardo Zorita

National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colorado 80305, USA
Eugene R. Wahl

Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
James W.C. White

Department of Forest Science, Shinshu University, Nagano, 399-4598, Japan
Koh Yasue

Deceased
Mohammed Umer

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

A predoctoral journalism student reviewing the stats and methodology

Just another freely given pointer to how little Olap and his contingent of moron's know about the higher education system.
Easy to see how the cranks outed themselves, only to regret it laiter. But only when they realised how bad it made them look, not how stupid they actually are.

Chek, to you a third-year doctoral candidate may look impressive, but people with insights in higher education and normal peer review standards find it rather strange, to put it mildly.

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Its kinda strange how meatball and gormless throw around their weight as if they are qualified to comment on anything remotely academic (neither of these regular Deltoid morons has anything remotely close to a PhD) and yet they are happy to throw heaps of praise on people who don't have PhDs who challenge the vast majority of the scientific community on AGW. Look at the vat majority of blogs they inhabit: Watts (no PhD), McIntyre (no PhD), etc etc etc.

When scientists do have PhDs, it doesn't matter how excellent their qualifications are: if they argue in favor of the IPCC conclusions, then they are to be smeared, ridiculed, and attacked relentlessly. Look at Mann; Hansen; Santer; Trenberth; and many others. Me included. Meatball and gormless aren't anywhere close to me in terms of scientific standing, but that doesn't stop them.

We have a word for this. Its called 'hypocrisy'. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if that graduate student has been critical of research by Lewandowsky or AGW, meatball and gormless would have been praising her to the hills. It all depends on what side you're on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Jeff, why are you so impressed with a second (or third) year PhD-student reviewing Loo's paper for a academic journal? His paper is crap, but why the smell wasn't picked up by the reviewer seems quite obvious, don't you think?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

But you, Oily, are the archetypal proof that deniers are, indeed, conspiracy cranks. As BBD pointed out above, everyone familiar with the debate knows it's true...

So smiley that up, deadhead!

Bill, the ones shouting about conspiracies are climate scientologists. Their favorite tune is about the right wing fossil fuel lobby obstructing climate scientists. Sounds familiar? ;-)

And Mr Bicorne and his minion chek are both equally impressed with a third year PhD-student in journalism doing peer review for a cognitive psychology journal. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

#30, the freezing point of water went up rendering skating a rarity these winters. We also shift the season twice yearly so a to get plants flowering six weeks early and losing leaf six weeks late.
Dumb question.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Two points in response to meatball:

He says, "Their favorite tune is about the right wing fossil fuel lobby obstructing climate scientists. Sounds familiar?"

Its familiar because its true, at least partially. They don't obstruct climate scientists, but they do invest heavily in distorting or downplaying what we do know about AGW in order to mislead the public and policymakers. they do this through a range of outlets: think tanks, policy forums, astroturf groups and media ownership/advertising as well as 'flak'. If meatball think that corporation that profit from the unlimited use of fossil fuels are honest brokers of the truth, then he is more deranged than even I thought before.

As for Lewandowsky's paper being crap, that's hilarious. Its crap IN YOUR USELESS OPINION because the conclusions reveal what most scientists already know - that there is a huge scientific consensus over the reality and potentially severe consequences of AGW. As someone who works at both a university and a research laboratory, I can say that I've met only a small number of AGW sceptics in my entire career. The fact that Tol was highlighted as one dissenting'scientist'(which he is NOT; he's an economist) among 70 academics who were lead authors in the IPCC shows how thin on the ground contrarians.

I find it amazing that deniers outside of academia can lecture scientists on matters relating to the views of the scientific community. Meatball hasn't been anywhere near a university science lecture hall in his life, and he tries to lecture me about what my peers think about CC. That he even tries is a joke of the most immense proportions.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Here's the crux of it:

Swedish meatball calls me 'Mr Bicorne'.

Actually I am a tenured Professor. I have 140 publications and 3500 plus citations. My research now well outcites any climate change denier he can name (including Richard Lindzen, the pin-up boy of the deniers). But my views on CC fall in line with an overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as other environmental scientists.

For this I am relentlessly smeared by him and a few other equally unqualified idiots (GSW, Jonas etc).

That's the MO for idiots like meatball who camouflage their political views by claiming to be interested in science.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Mr Bicorne, your opinions are a not in harmony with climate science, they are on par with climate scientology. Huge difference, my friend.

And that's why you also think a third year Phd-student in journalism is a good reviewer for an article in a cognitive psychology journal. :-)

You can waive all you want with your bicorne, but that doesn't change a thing regarding the poop-quality of Loo's paper.

The Yokohama-report will give climate scientology a few extra days in the sun, but will soon be pushed back to the fringes again, as reality and real climate science undress its unscientific first hand portentology.

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW does not even know which paper McKewon reviewed. Oh, and PhD students reviewing paper is not unknown. I reviewed at least 15 for two of the top journals in my field during my PhD. Chosen explicitly by the Editors, it should be noted.

I personally would consider someone working in the field of journalism an excellent reviewer for a paper that investigates public comments in electronic media.

@Jeff

Breaking news that may be some interest to Mr Bicorne,

"French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte Had A 1.5 Inch Penis, Documentary Reveals "

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/02/french-emperor-napoleon-bona…

It's not all good news though,

"The Channel 4 programme will be broadcast on Wednesday at 9pm, and sees an apparently unimpressed Evans remark: “I’ve seen a lot of penises, from a Chihuahua to a Sperm Whale. This is so withered.”

Oh dear.

"By the way, Urban Dictionary defines “Napoleon complex” as “a personality complex that consists of power trips and false machismo"

I'm sure you'll be invited to participate in the follow-up jeff - "Reunited at last!"
;)

Marco, so you also think that a third year Phd-student in journalism with a few conf-papers on prostitution for her name, was a good choice, and that she, due to this background, probably was hand picked by the editors? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

I don't think Olap and the howling thickoids realise that a PhD student is not an undergraduate? Why would they? It's not like they've studied past grade school.

Chek, I'm well versed in the academic hierarchy, but not you apparently. :-) Regardless, the peer review quality of a third year Phd-student with interests in prostitution, is meagre, to say the least.

If she rigorously had been singld out by the editors to review an article on, for instance, prostitution problems associated with massive climate scare convention, I might have agreed with the choice.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Its gets worse:

from meatball: "Mr Bicorne, your opinions are a not in harmony with climate science, they are on par with climate scientology"

Says someone who has no formal qualifications in any relevant field. Its too bad that the vast majority of scientists doing the actual research and with the strong pedigrees disagree with you, meatball - hence the conclusions of the latest IPCC reports, the official statements of every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth etc. If anyone is practicing voodoo science, its the AGW deniers.

As for gormless, its a bit rich him accusing me of expressing 'machismo and power trips' given the content of his posts. You write as if you are some kind of expert, when the truth is you are an uneducated idiot where it counts. The point being, gormless, that you have no scientific expertise in any field remotely connected to environmental science. I do, and way more than you. All you have left is bullshit and sour grapes.

And I reiterate: in terms of scientific qualification, I shit all over you, gormless and your sidekick, meatball. Stick that in your craw.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW does not even know which paper McKewon reviewed. Oh, and PhD students reviewing paper is not unknown. I reviewed at least 15 for two of the top journals in my field during my PhD. Chosen explicitly by the Editors, it should be noted.

The monkeys know nothing about that and care even less. They're told to go fling their barely comprehensible shit, and off they go. Reduced to inventing their own inane sub-divisions of science, wishful thinking, projection and penis envy as above. Comments #69 and 71 above aren't in touch with anything of any relevance to anyone.
Maybe Stephan is recording this material for an even more devastating future paper. His work so far won't have captured the half of it.

Regardless, the peer review quality of a third year Phd-student with interests in prostitution, is meagre, to say the least.

What the fuck would you know about it, beyond the two phrases of irrelevance you've been briefed on to go shit-flinging?

Olaus, since you suddenly show some small amount of sanity in #74, I recommend you look through the references of the Recursive Fury paper. You might be interested to learn there are two references to McKewon's prior work on climate science denial in the media, and in particular about narratives.

That is, she actually has experience in an area directly relevant to Recursive Fury.

Perhaps Olaus will now question why he did not know McKewon had published in a relevant area, and that Recursive Fury even references those papers (which , I should note, is the likely reason she was selected as peer reviewer).

Chek, the very smelly shit was found all over the loo-paper, but not by the third year Phd-student in journalism with some kowledge about prostitution.

And Mr Bicorne goes on, missing the essential part, as always. Dear little Napoleon, you distort what real climate science says, and turn it into climate scientolgy and first hand portentology.

The age of unscientific scare mongering is about to end though. Probably because more and more people understands that the accelerating global warming was lobal.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

You're drifting away in your own made up world, Olap.
Can't say we'll miss anything.

Aha, thanks Marco, she has apparently done som work based on the 97%-strawman. Amazing! No wonders that she couldn' feel or smell the Loo-crap.

I stand corrected though, she was probably not elected on the basis of her work on prostitution but as a part of the blindfolded crowd conducting research on false premises, ergo that sceptics are not to be found within the 97%-figure.

Even worse chioce.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

What false premises?
It's been plainly apparent for years that deniers are cranks, idiots and loons. Lewandowsy isn't news, it's just confirmation.
Sane people do not behave as you and your little gang do, Olap.

#81, as good an admission as any. Carry on.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Meatball, get this through your mutton-soft brain: the conclusions of the IPCC lay out the AGW predicament in black and white, This IS the state of the art in the science. And the vast majority of scientists agree. I work with them you clot. You don't. My guess is that you've probably never met a qualified scientist in your life.

Moreover, if the Lewandowsky article is so incorrect, where are all the peer-reviewed rebuttals? As it turns out, the sole source of rebuttals is contrarian mutterings (Tol and the denialsophere). The truth is that the vast majority of scientists concur with the conclusions of the IPCC and with the statements produced by every major scientific body and nation on Earth. If its not exactly 97%, its well over 90%, and represents about as unified an opinion as is possible in any area dealing with the environment. Good grief, if anybody is pushing ludicrous conspiracy theories its meatball, who appears to suggest that most climate scientists do not agree with the IPCC reports, or that most of them are contrarians. He's either insane, or deluded, or both.

What is so remarkable from the likes of meatball and gormless is that they rant on about 'science' and 'non-science' as if they can distinguish between the two. Neither of these fuckwits is a scientist, yet they try and lecture scientists about two. I've asked meatball innumerable times what his day job is, and every time he does not reply. Its not like telling us what he does will give his identity away or anything, but it will give away the fact that he's got no qualifications whatsoever in any area remotely relevant.

As Chek said, it takes unmitigated gall for meatball to lecture anybody here about anything academic. To belittle a PhD student, given meatball's own scientific illiteracy, is galling to say the least.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

"It’s been plainly apparent for years that deniers are cranks, idiots and loons. Lewandowsy isn’t news, it’s just confirmation".

EXACTLY. Couldn't say it better myself. There are very, very few scientifically qualified deniers. If there were, we'd know all about them. They would be given veritable megaphones by the think tanks and lobby groups to bloat their numbers. But they simply do not exist. That's why the few there are become household names, like Lindzen, Singer, Michaels, the Idso's, Balling, Spencer, Soon etc. And now Curry. They are primarily old, most have mediocre publishing and citation records, and they are constantly quoted in denier circles. Many of them have been sniping on for decades. As far back as 1998 a memo from the American Petroleum Institute was leaked in which they claimed to be concerned that they might lose their anti-AGW argument if they continued to rely on the same people as deniers. Here we are, 16 years later, and many of the prominent contrarians are the same old farts that were being used for propaganda purposes in 1998. THE FOSSIL FUEL LOBBY SIMPLY CANNOT RECRUIT ENOUGH YOUNGER SCIENTISTS TO DOWNPLAY AGW. That is clear.

This is proof, if ever there was any, that they are exceedingly few in number. The 97% number? Its easy to arrive at that figure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Mr Bicorne, you are a typical 97%-believer. If I say that CO2 is a GHG, you invent that I don't believe this, If I say that nature itself responds to rising temps, you fabricate that I don't bleive this, and so on....

The 97% is a figure without meaning except when it comes to display the conspiratorial mind-set of climate scientologists and portentologists.

Deal with Napoleon. Your boggey man isn't real and that's also a major explanation behind why Loo's paper has high shit-quality. Everything in it caused by conspiracy ideation and recursive fury. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Good news for OP, GSW and co,

La La La La La La La!

Criminal negligence at work by the GOP.

But in reality,.

When was not knowing an excuse for allowing species wipe-out - including us. If those bozos don't change their tune then they should become extinct otherwise we will have another late Permian grade extinction event.

Great article on the threat of SLAPPs that led to the retraction of the Lewandowsky et al. paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…

The key here is that AGW deniers and anti-environmental groups will use any means - no matter how devious or unsavory - to silence the scientific community by-and-large. This is what they have done using SLAPPs to intimidate grass roots opposition to corporate activities. Note that in retracting the article, the journal made it clear that they consider the paper sound but that the threat of lawsuits from well-funded denier sources threatened to overwhelm then financially. Expect more of this to occur as the evidence for AGW piles up and pressure for mitigation becomes greater.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Meatball, you wouldn't know fact from fiction if it bit you in the ass.

And again I ask you: what is your profession? If you have an ounce of courage you'll tell us all what you do.

But you won't, because it will reveal to all of us here what a useless lying sack of s*** you are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

you are a typical 97%-believer

That's the result of several peer reviewed surveys. Not having any science, just disbelief and denial backing you up, is your own fault for being a credulous idiot.
Nobody cares what a dumbo like you and your pals think, it's what you can show. And you've got nothing to show, apart from moron-level denial.

Chek, I am certainly much more happy to have 97% of scientists on my side than a measly 3%. And the 3% are more often than not on the academic fringe.

What the deniers think is that, by smearing scientists and through the use of bullying and threats, they can silence us. Irrespective of the Lewandowsky paper, there's other studies also showing that the vast majority of published studies as well as qualified scientists support the conclusions of the IPCC as well as their own national academies of science. The idiot denier brigade use the old strategy I have discussed before: that without 100% unequivocal proof of a problem, then the problem does not exist. Thus, they see as a threat any studies showing an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW, and they do everything they can to silence them. Then they argue that there are no accurate surveys, and try to turn this into an argument suggesting that a large proportion of the scientific community - maybe even a majority - downplay AGW. This is their strategy, and why papers like Lewandowsky's are seen as a threat. Its also remarkable that those who are most vehemently critical of Lewandowsky's work are not academics or scientists but ideologues like meathead and the denier weblogs he reads.

Note how they don't do their own surveys because they know full well that the results - if properly scrutinized and peer-reviewed - would also produce results heavily meaning towards >90%.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olaus is doing a great job here of providing fodder for Lewandowsky's next paper.

I'm tempted to say "Surely he realises that's what he's doing?", seeing I'm in the mood to play for the laughs ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Yup, Olaus is doing great work, making further unsubstantiated claims about McKewon.

Ah well, what else can you expect from the dismissives.

What's unsubstantiated Marco? "97%" is given a meaning it doesn't have IRL and from there on the rest becomes crap, like Jeff's bicornish litanies and fabrications.

The scare monger carnival has lost its rythm, thanks to climate scientology.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Bill, the ones shouting about conspiracies are climate scientologists. Their favorite tune is about the right wing fossil fuel lobby obstructing climate scientists. Sounds familiar?

Sounds true. See: Donors Trust.

These are matters of fact, you clueless, dishonest fucking shill.

Ah, Olaus, now says he's just making stuff up anyway!

But nice work moving the goalposts again, after being caught peddling misinformation (again). But, MbW, eh?

It's funny how the clowns can be so noisy yet never actually answer a direct question.

Here are some they skipped earlier:

Dodged question #1:

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact? There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

* * *

Dodged question #2:

why won’t the increasing radiative forcing from unabated CO2 emissions cause temperatures to increase over time?

As surface/tropospheric temperatures rise, physical climatology predicts several apparently unavoidable consequences:

- Increase in severity of summer heatwaves

- Increase in frequency and severity of drought

- Increase in intensity of precipitation

- Seasonal and spatial alterations in rainfall patterns

Why will these not have negative impacts on agricultural yields?

What's true, meatball, is that the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS (certainly > 90%) AND PUBLISHED RESEARCH SUPPORTS AGW. And on this basis most scientists agree that we ought to be doing something about it. And I sure as hell know a lot more working scientists than you do, Petri, because I am one of them and I work with them as well. YOU DON'T. Your worldview comes from blogs and other similar shitty sources.

And see if you can answer my question: what is your profession? Or, like Jonas, will you continue to hide behind the truth that your background has nothing remotely science-y in it?

By the way, for the record your last post (#94) was about as juvenile as it can get. I do not describe litanies nor do i make up fabrications. The IPCC and every major scientific organization on the planet reach the same conclusion: GW is serious, it is largely man-made, and we need to take serious actions to mitigate its most deleterious effects.

On this point there is almost complete agreement among the scientific community. There are very few dissenting scientists. As I said, if there were, the denial lobby wouldn't have to depend on the same boring old farts as well as people like Richard Tol or Bjorn Lomborg. This very fact shows that the vast majority of scientists - myself included - have moved on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Its really weird watching Petri ritually humiliate himself on here, forever trying to impugn the bulk of the scientific community under his silly 'scientology' banner. He's got very littel of the scientific community on his side, so he;s left with nothing more than to smear most of us as 'scientologists'. Heaven knows who the 'real' scientists are, but I think I listed just all of the ones Petri listed earlier (the old retired farts club plus Tol and Lomborg).

And trust Petri to come out with this garbage only days after the IPCC published its most serious report yet, and only weeks after the joint UK Royal Society-US National Academy of Science article that reached the same serious conclusions. Petri is do utterly deluded its as if these reports don't exist. There aren't any similar studies from esteemed scientists disputing AGW; instead, the denial lobby relies on wafer thin crap from corporate funded think tanks or weblogs. That's 'their science' in a nutshell.

Petri is a typical denier: all bravado with an anonymous monicker on a web site but totally invisible in the real world. He's never been near a science lab in his life, yet he thumps his chest here as if he's some sort of alpha male in science able to distinguish between sound and shoddy research. When challenged on his source of wisdom, its always the same: smear, smear, smear, without a shred of empirical support. When asked what he does professionally to be such an armchair expert, its always the same teflon strategy: avoid, avoid, avoid. That's because this twerp's brilliance is in his own mind. He clearly has a pre-determined worldview but in reality is as thick as a pile of bricks.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Poor Mr Bicorne, I'm also among the 97%, but your conspiratorial mind can't handle that information. And that's why 97% has no meaning what so ever, except for fringe climate scientologist like you. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

And the Loo, of course and the rest of the unscientific scare-gang. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olaus

If you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then why - how can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

This is schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don't really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

And Olaus, since you are still wittering about Lewandowsky:

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact? Yes or no?

There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

Come on, Olaus.

Mr Monocorne - as we've seen with his political ramblings - isn't capable of arguing a consistent point, because he understands none of it. A dipshit denier foot soldier told to go deny without the tools to do so.
Griselda is his 'intellectual' backup, and we've seen how that works out.
A waste of mass to the universe.

What never ceases to amaze me is the... plasticity of intellect displayed by "sceptics". They clearly feel no need for coherent, cause/effect logic or for intellectual consistency. Argument debunked? Switch to some random alternative and regurgitate the original crap a week later. Rational (and intellectually honest) people cannot do this.

If we had an argument about the merits of direct-mounting bridge humbuckers or some such bollocks, I would be constrained by the evolution of the conversation. I couldn't just jump around or go back to something demonstrably wrong and carry on as if nothing had happened. Couldn't.

These people are profoundly odd.

In a nutshell.
Being exposed to the information that is flying about in fora like this one (crank ones excepted) would have a cumulative effect on anyone not a crank. And even a crank would have choose between honesty and maintaining loyalty to the crank theory by being dishonest.

Just while we're on the subject of humbuckers and out of curiosity, have you ever found it necessary to adjust the pole screws on one? And yet not only do the originals all have a row of'em, but there's even the option twin rows of the bastards on some newer offerings.

And even a crank would have choose between honesty and maintaining loyalty to the crank theory by being dishonest.

Not sure about this. Cranks are cranks because they reject (deny) evidence and have bendy, squishy plastic minds that somehow accommodate to the cognitive dissonance.

It's so hard to tell if you are dealing with the merely clinically insane or with conscious and calculated dishonesty. I'm tending towards the view that they are simply barking and the apparent dishonesty is simply an emergent property.

Just while we’re on the subject of humbuckers and out of curiosity, have you ever found it necessary to adjust the pole screws on one?

No, never. I think the magnetic field is strong enough, even with fancy degaussed magnets (tone chasing) that pole height isn't an issue. With weedy Fender single coils, apparently not, hence the factory adjustment with the poles high at D and G and low at B. I suppose neck radius might also be a factor - strat fretboards being being curved; Les Pauls flatter.

there’s even the option twin rows of the bastards on some newer offerings.

DiMarzio's had them way back in the early '80s, if not before. Hex key adjustable. I had one in the bridge of a geetar I once owned...

"And the Loo, of course and the rest of the unscientific scare-gang."

Meatball has nothing new to say. He's a broken record. He doesn't provide any definition of what good scientific practice is because he's not a frigging scientist. He's a complete and utter layman who hates government. He assumes that all of the IPCC documents as well as the unanimous conclusions of every major scientific organization on Earth are examples of 'unscientific scaremongering' (he doesn't say it but it is inferred). Its no wonder that he ends up as detritus in webs where he can anonymously blather on and on ad nauseum. As if scientists listen to him. Any scientists. He should be honored that I dare waste my breath on his nonsense.

If I can figure out his drunken, semi-illiterate babble at #100, I assume he is suggesting that the vast majority of scientists and scientific evidence actually supports the denier meme. If this is true - and given his English writing is about grade school level so I cannot be sure - then he's dafter than I thought. Insanity? Seems to be a distinct possibility. This is like arguing with someone who is convinced that 97% of the evidence suggests the Earth is flat, in spite of the peer-reviewed literature, the views of virtually the entire scientific community, and the consensus of every major scientific organization. Every major organization on Earth takes AGW as a given. I received the British Ecological Society quarterly review today and it reviews several new books that examine the ecological consequences of AGW. The best is by Eric Post, and I will buy it (Princeton university Press). In each of these reviews, AGW is accepted as a scientific fact, and its effects - real and potential - are discussed. I wonder where meathead's narrative fits into this. As I said before, I've met thousands of scientists in my career and I can count those who downplay or dismiss AGW on one hand. That's why its an utter waste of time trying to engage in a discussion with a twit like meathead - no substance, no knowledge, just puerile rants.

I actually think meathead - who has never attended a scientific conference in his life, who doesn't read the primary literature, who has no relevant educational background - somehow thinks that 97% of the scientific evidence and opinion is on his side. Hw does one debate this kind of ignorance? In person, it would be easy. I'd face him anywhere, anytime, at any scientific venue, and see him laughed off the stage. But on a blog?!?!?!?!? He can say whatever he likes and slip away. It's high time to ban this twerp. He was once: to the asylum at Jonas's place. But he slipped the leash and came back here. I for one am sick and tired of his willful ignorance.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Laugh at the idiot, then. Unless he answers a few questions in good faith:

Eg. Olaus, if you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then why – how - can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

This is a schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don’t really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

Help us to understand what is going on in your head by engaging directly and answering questions intended to clarify your position.

I think someone [Lionel?] mentioned the Permian Mass Extinction earlier today. One of the best guys on this is Doug Erwin from the Smithsonian; he has a few books published and a couple of talks on youtube worth listening to,

"8. Doug Erwin - Perspectives on Limits to Growth: Biodiversity: past, present and future"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyLC7yYPsw

and

"The Mother of Mass Extinctions: How Life on Earth Nearly Ended 250 Million Years Ago"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3p_8UvWq44

These are talks rather than documentaries. The thing I like about his "take"/style is that it's refreshingly advocacy free.

The end-Permian extinction was caused by GHG forcing. Nobody now disputes this (except those who haven't kept up with the paleo literature).

The thing I like about his “take”/style is that it’s refreshingly advocacy free.

So what is wrong with advocating measures to avoid another huge mass extinction brought on by us. Have you any idea of the monster positive feedbacks latent in the Earth's oceans, cryosphere and landmasses.

What we are doing could, and probably will be, a trigger for the monster lurking as Wally Broecker understood.

Compartmentalist thinking is not going to help us, that is for the deadbeats of the GOP.

I suppose GSW thinks that a human-caused mass extinction event is OK, and any scientists who express concern over the consequences of it are going beyond their professional remit.

As BBD says, the Permian extinction event was caused by massive short term changes in abiotic conditions, perhaps as a result of intense volcanism. Most importantly, the time scales being envisaged are many times slower than the massive changes being inflicted across the biosphere by humans right now. With climate change the final nail in the coffin, natural ecosystems across the biosphere also have to deal with a suite of other anthropogenic stresses. These are reducing the planet's capacity to support humanity. What we do know is that the combined human assault is reducing a range of critical ecological services that underpin the material economy. If we continue on the current trajectory, the results are likely to be dire.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

ooops good. Its getting late.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 Apr 2014 #permalink

Most importantly, the time scales being envisaged are many times slower than the massive changes being inflicted across the biosphere by humans right now.

The error bars are narrowing down; see Burgess et al. (2014) discussion at SkS here.

So Griselda, your view is that it's the scientists' job to describe stick by stick, curtain by chair how the house (with all of us in it) is burning down, but not to 'advocate' action to halt the fire.

And yet you have no problem with billionaires 'advocating' business as usual by fair means and foul from their supposedly fireproof bunkers while the proverbial fire spreads.

You don't really think things through, do you.

DiMarzio’s had them way back in the early ’80s, if not before.

Just the regular single row screws on my pair from '78

It was a high output DM pickup but I don't remember what model it was. It looked like this. Both sets of poles adjustable with an alan key.

That would be Allen key.

#8 BBD "It’s so hard to tell if you are dealing with the merely clinically insane or with conscious and calculated dishonesty."

Easy: guilty until proven not.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Date max records just being shy from past two days, but worry not, the nights are taking over. Date record minimum temp smashed with 1.5° C difference. Tomorrow's will be annihilated, too.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Interesting post over at WUWT for those following the Lewandowsky/sks mob activism scandal.

"A stunning revelation from a UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson over access to Lewandowsky’s poll data"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/03/a-stunning-revelation-from-a-uwa-…

"One cannot imagine a more egregious abuse of the scientific process as we have witnessed with Lewandowsky’s vilification of climate skeptics using the journal Psychological Science as a bully pulpit."

They even work in a quote from Judith Curry on Michael Mann,

"For the past decade, scientists have come to the defense of Michael Mann, somehow thinking that defending Michael Mann is fighting against the ‘war on science’ and is standing up for academic freedom. Its time to let Michael Mann sink or swim on his own. Michael Mann is having all these problems because he chooses to try to muzzle people that are critical of Mann’s science, critical of Mann’s professional and personal behavior, and critical of Mann’s behavior as revealed in the climategate emails. All this has nothing to do with defending climate science or academic freedom."

The Scandal continues for UWA,

"This episode is turning into quite an ethics quagmire for UWA, I can see why Johnson would purposely violate their own policy by telling Woods that UWA won’t share the data. The data itself must be damning for them to want to protect it this much in violation of their own policy; perhaps with data even showing that some of the responses to the poll that McIntyre wants to examine came from within the University itself, creating another, more culpable conflict of interest and violation of UWA’s own research policy."

Worth reading in its entirety and theres a nice timeline of emails and UWA policies.

Griselda, a bunch of cranks going bananas is not a 'scandal'.
They're just doing what they do best.

Jeff @ #16

From the video:

'Because most of us live in cities isolated from the rhythms of nature...'

Get that OP, GSW, 2Stupid & co?

Biodiversity targets - failed
Pollution targets failed
A CO2 targets - failed
Over harvesting - failed
Economics - failed
Equitable trading society - failed
Future of humanity and fellow travellers on this planet - failing if not failed.

#17

'Field Notes from a Catastrophe' is worth a look for those that have not already, another title on my bookshelf having been read at least twice.

#24

I wonder what Roger Pielke would make of that?

Do you get this OP, GSW etc?

So much ignorant opining on display from the usual suspects, this has to stop.

“One cannot imagine a more egregious abuse of the scientific process as we have witnessed with Lewandowsky’s WUWT & co. with vilification of climate skeptics scientists using the journal Psychological Science crank blogs and third rate media organs as a bully pulpit.”

Fixed.

There are the sources of the real, '...lies straight from the pit of hell', Rep Paul Broun. Who is he representing, he is failing in his duties and should be removed. OF course he makes a useful example of the idiocy on display from the GOP.

h/t to Bernard
for pointing out Bob Ward's identification of Richard Tol's list of '"good news about AGW" 'errors.
It might be read by some that Tol was a GWPF Trojan horse inside the IPCC process, given his (Tol's) eagerness to include his own flawed work, and throwing his toys out of his pram when his ploy was brought to light by a more careful researcher.

#27, yes, that was interesting for me in a white coat; I especially broke a jaw laughing at this whine: "... and WUWT wasn’t even asked.", awww....

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

#31 chek o do I love how facts are so toxic for some : )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

cRR - like coyotes howling at the moon. One seriously wonders if Griselda didn't place it here for laughs, then what?

#36, victims of the floods. Re-faceblogged, thanx.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

#34, exactly, like howling at the moon - and feeling where that saying comes from: a pain in the neck...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Lionel, many thanks for your post. One has to remember that gormless gets much of his worldview from crank right wing denier blogs populated by crank right wing non-scientists.

God only knows who he targets with his bullshit, but all I can assume is that its Olaus Meatball as he appears to be the only anti-science blogger contributing - er - contaminating here lately.

Moreover, I read this with amusement: "Lewandowsky’s vilification of climate skeptics", which should read: "Lewandowsky’s vilification of lying climate-change deniers". A skeptic is someone who changes their mind as new data comes in. A denier is someone who will stick to a discredited meme even as it is sinking beneath the waves. There are very few skeptics in the climate change camp, because it is clear that most are driven by their own political agendas, and damn the science.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Still wittering about Lewandowsk and still no answer to my question:

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact? There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

Come on, you dishonest little shits...

Great news about Tol and Bob Ward btw. Been chortling all afternoon. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Further confirmation that the misnomered "Medival Warm Period" was largely confined to the NH: Neukom et al. (2014).

From the press release:

They compiled climate data from over 300 different locations and applied a range of methods to estimate Southern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years.In 99.7 percent of the results, the warmest decade of the millennium occurs after 1970.

Surprisingly, only twice over the entire last millennium have both hemispheres simultaneously shown extreme temperatures. One of these occasions was a global cold period in the 17th century; the other one was the current warming phase, with uninterrupted global warm extremes since the 1970s.
“The ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon”, says Raphael Neukom. “At the same time, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were only average.”

The researchers ascribe these large differences to so-called "internal variability".

Some of you may recall my insistence on this point in previous discussions with paleoclimate misrepresenters here.

There was no global, synchronous "Medieval Warm Period" as warm as or warmer than the present. McIntyre was always wrong. All the pseudosceptic claims to the contrary were always wrong. The IPCC was in fact correct. Mann was correct.

Predictably, Willard Tony and McIntyre are already fulminating and making false claims about errors etc.

Great post by James Powell, Bernard.

Can't wait to see Petri call the 99% a bogus figure - with no evidence whatsoever.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

McIntyre was always wrong

Strictly speaking, McinTyres was only the crank who provided the number soup for the Barton scam, it was David Deming who claimed in his Senate Committee hearing in 2006 that "a major researcher in the area of climate change ... said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

In a subsequent interview he claimed the email (since eaten by the dog) was from anOverpeck. Of course the world is overrun with Overpecks - the Smiths have a long way to go to catch up - but the most likely would be Jonathan Overpeck, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who denies he - or indeed anyone else - would say something so crassly stupid.

Just a brief thumbnail glimpse, but John Mashey has tracked the saga it in all it's murkey detail in his articles over at DeSmogblog and Deep Climate.

Since I've got the links up, in case anyone hasn't seen this stuff:

Mashey’s summary “dog astrology” Wiki talk page – a very good review comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusio…

Mashey on the fake argument: Lamb’s cartoon vs everything subsequent. IOW pretending that Lamb’s cartoon is The Truth and “The IPCC” is a lie…

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/08/more-use-and-abuse-of-ipcc-199…

chek

Got a Boss DS-1X yesterday. Only the second fuzz box I've ever owned (the first was made for me by a friend at school when I was about 15 and was nicked a couple of years later, probably doing me a favour on the tone front). In-between, it's been preamp overdrive all the way, although I'm not a purist about this and happily used Peavey solid state and latterly Roland amp modelling emulations in preference to valves.

But this Boss thing is startlingly good. Almost shockingly so. If you are ever in the market for a distortion (as opposed to overdrive) pedal, be sure to test one. It took me a couple of hours to nail down the settings but as you know, time spent fiddling around tone chasing isn't counted in the hours of our days, so I will live that bit longer as a result. A claim to this effect is made about fishing, but it is of course, false.

Fellas, the conspiracy of climate sceptics forcing Frontier to retract Loo´s article on conspiracy theories, was a conspriacy theory. As always, in the climate scare narrative (needless to say):

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

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statemen…

Or has the well funed fossil lobby bought Frontier as well? ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Mr. Bicorne, what'syou take on Frontier? How much were the editors paid by the evil right wing fossil fuel lobby to lie about not having recieved any threats. :-)

BBD and the ret of the sect may chip in as well.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olaus

Ahem.

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact?

There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

BBD, who are you qouting? The Loo? :-)

The Frontier says:

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

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

Well, the Loo got a second chance to polish his smelly turd grande, but it remained a smelly turd grande.

So, how much do you think Frontier got from the evil right wing fossil fuel lobby? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Just answer a simple question instead of hiding behind a fog of misdirection.

Oily - just another anally-fixated crank!

Don't forget Aussies: Abbott's calling for you to turn your clocks back tonight; about a century should do it...

I let you rest for the night BBD, inte the comfort of the Loo and his recursive turd.

It never stops to amaze me how vulnerable academia is for activism, and Loo's crap is another proof of that. Good though, that the smell from it was so too great even for the discourse climate scare church. Secularization is coming up, and soon climate scientology and portentology will be outdated, at lest in real science. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Bill, so you believe that Frontiers was bought? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

I believe you're so (anally) fixated about this because somewhere in that sad, foetid, twisted little consciousness of yours, you know Lewandowsky nailed you.

And still avoidance:

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact?

There is an internet-full of evidence supporting this, so think carefully before you respond.

What ever can the matter be?

:-)

I think in themidst of Olap's drivelling babble, he's saying the cranks objected to being identified from their public utterances? That the content of what they published publically wasn't incorrect, but identified the nutters too

exactly? It's hard to tell amongst the catch-phrase loaded rubbish that he passes off as comment. It rather looks like Olap qualifies as a Lewandowsky survey wannabee in his fervour to appear insane..

BBD @ #49 - congrats, Boss gear is boss!
I just used to use a ye olde Rangemaster treble booster with ny trusty old Les Paul, but I switched to a Strat with a Boss DF2 after my son permanently 'borrowed' the Gibby.
'Sgt. Gibby', as the young people apparently call what to me is a precious fucking family heirloom. If he's lucky...

I decided a couple of years ago to get a Boss ME-70 multi-effects really just to get some decent echo, but there's a ton of stuff under the bonnet I haven't really looked into. Although the standard wah tone range is a bit shit, perhaps there's a voicing in there that that'll match the classic Cry-Baby (whose mechanically driven pot lasted about 10 gigs or less in dusty venues, along with the tape-loop Copycat).

This however, is what I'd like to get should the kids win the lottery and I no longer have to worry about their inheritance, ore I do, even though I don't do it. But apparently the odds of finding a winning ticket are only slightly greater than those of buying one.

Chek

With you on rack mounts. That'll be the day.

Incidentally, whoTF is Barry Woods?

Apparently he is making demands of a University chancellor.

But, whoTF is he? I can't find anything indicating he is a real person with a genuine academic presence in the real world that would justify him hectoring a university chancellor...?

By craig thomas (not verified) on 04 Apr 2014 #permalink

Rack mounts?

Give me a Pete Cornish custom board anytime

Swedish meatball:

You are soon going to be extinct. Its gratifying this week to see the immense weight of evidence of AGW is becoming so large that the usual suspects are being forced into retreat. The sheer mass of this evidence is so overwhelming that on inertia alone it will vanquish denial. My only hope is that its not too late. Shell and Exxon were forced to take desperate PR measures in a feeble attempt to ensure that we are not weaned off of fossil fuels any time soon; the corporate media did its best to blow the comments of a go-to-contrarian (Tol) out of all proportion to his actual expertise, in order to desperately give succor to the denial industry.

As of the the decision of the journal to withdraw the paper, I already explained it a few days ago. The anti-environmental lobby is extremely well organized and funded, and they have long used SLAPPs as a means of silencing their critics. Several US multinationals have used SLAPPs to shut down grassroots opposition to their activities, and it appears that the denial juggernaut did the same here. The strategy is simple: threaten court actions that will cost the defendants more money than they can initially afford, even if the case eventually goes to court and the defendants win. Its pure bullying, which the anti-environmental lobby (including climate change deniers, as they fit snugly into the theme) has well honed over the past 20-30 years.

But whatever vile tactics they employ, from SLAPPs to smears to other forms of intimidation, the major weak points of the denial lobby is that (1) they are small in number, irrespective as to their bottomless sacks of money, and (2) they are on the wrong side of science.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

For your benefit I (again) post the relevant part of Fronteirs' motivation for not having to do with Loo's crap paper:

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

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

The fossil fuel lobby has done it again and Frontiers' descision is another solid proof of it! :-)

In Deltoid langue: Loo was right! :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

The paper is crap - in meatball's scientifically illiterate opinion.

Which means its a citation classic in reality. See the last post by Bernard: 2013, 10,885 articles support evidence for AGW, 2 reject it.

This makes even Lewandowsky's 97% look overly optimistic for the denial lobby. The fact is that the science has well and truly spoken, as has the scientific community. The fact that Tol - a conservative economist - was singled out as the sole dissenting voice out of 70 lead authors on the latest IPCC report is further evidence. Just a few weeks ago, the BBC admitted that they could not find a qualified climate scientist in the UK who downplayed AGW, so in the end they were forced to dredge up Bob Carter in Australia. I have said it many times and I will repeat it for meatball: there are very few truly qualified scientists who are AGW skeptics or deniers. That's why we see the same people being interviewed over and over and over again. That's why the same boring old farts dominated Poptech's list. That's why Curry has become the new pinup girl for denial. There are very, very few qualified climate change scientists who downplay AGW. Hence the denial lobby is forced to use economists, non-climate scientists and others on the academic fringe to support them.

None of this is at all controversial, except in the mind of meatball, who appears to like being thrashed here ritually.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Jeff, most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

But then we have the representatives from non-scientists and activists like you Jeff. They believe, oh they believe so much. Tents are shaking and mouths are foaming, en masse.

You scare mongers are like the confused yeit-scholar claiming that his research confirms the existance of the Snowman. In his own mind he knows his results and conclusions are consicered top notch scholarly work among his peers in the research field dealing with the snow and ice conditions in Himalaya.

But his peers, they don't believe in his conclusions wrt the Snowman's existance. They only agree with him on one thing: that there is a lot of snow and ice in Himalaya.

On the other hand he's got a lot of supporters outside the ranks of "Himalaya-researcher" that are dead sure his right: At Deltiod. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

@Olaus

Yes Olaus, I think the Frontiers press release was in part a response to Abrahams and Nuccitelli's piece in the guardian.

"Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper"

Not for the first time have the sks mob been discovered to play fast and loose (aka spin) with the truth. Frontiers simply retracted the paper because it fell way short of their ethical standards and it was right for them to do so.

I think the whole thing is starting to look bad for UWA, not just the sks advocates. UWA have decided not to release the data/metadata for the paper and it's looking as though they're not prepared to support it either.

Olaus, yes, the main problem was that the psychological subjects who have serious problems were identified in the paper.
You have to be kind to nutters.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Jeff @ #66

The strategy is simple: threaten court actions that will cost the defendants more money than they can initially afford, even if the case eventually goes to court and the defendants win. Its pure bullying...

Indeed, and we have seen this sort of behaviour. OP would, maybe, learn something if he looked at the Justin Lancaster v Fred Singer case where Singer objected to being outed as taking advantage of a very sick and dying man, Roger Revelle, to get his signature on a paper where Fred had made included some statements with which Revelle would never have agreed.

Here is a useful starter:

If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it.

more here:

Who framed Roger? Rabett.

Laid out in more detail and with more examples in 'Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming' in a chapter 'SLAPP Science'.

See more context here:

The Deniers? The World Renowned Scientist Who Got Al Gore Started.

Craigh, and given the retraction these morons were most likely your kind. :-) How does that sit with you?

You conspiratorial anti-science guys are somehting extra, that's for sure. With Mr Bicorne in the front(iers).

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

OP studying 'seventh rock from the sun' from inside the rock again.

Joe Romm has another good article up on how big money and greed are driving us to hell:

Another Orwellian Op-Ed From Charles Koch,

NB:

Koch made the same exact absurd hypocritical claim in a 2012 WSJ op-ed. In response, Climate Progress’s Rebecca Leber detailed five ways Koch Industries benefits from policies it has lobbied for:

1. Billions of dollars in oil subsidies

2 Koch Industries has had at least $85 million in federal government contracts

3. They’ve asked for bailouts

4. After launching a campaign on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline, they stand to benefit from taxpayer subsidies

5. Koch Industries contributes millions of dollars to advance anti-environment legislation, and has been accused of outright bribery

So let me get this straight - Frontier retracted their paper because it identified some loons: and at the same time the loons are howling for the data for the paper handed over to any and every web pipsqueak, which is withheld because it would identify even more loons,
There's no accommodating the contradictions inherent in the denier mind, without even considering those inherent to the incoherencies of fruitloops like Olap.

Unbelievable. Still the lying shits on this thread haven't answered a simple question. Still.

It is a matter of fact that conspiracist ideation is quite common amongst “climate sceptics”.

A matter of fact. Anyone who has interacted with “climate sceptics” for a year or two will accept this without demur.

Are you denying that this is a matter of fact?

Because unless you deny this matter of fact, then Lewandowsky's conclusions are validated.

So answer the fucking question.

Fucking lies:

and it’s looking as though they’re [UWA] not prepared to support it [Recursive Fury] either.

You lying shit.

UWA:

Given its popularity, and given that approximately 29,300 viewers did not complain about our work, it would be a shame to deprive the public of access to this article. Because the work was conducted in Australia, I consulted with the University of Western Australia’s chief lawyer, Kim Heitman, who replied as follows:

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

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

Liar.

Jeff, most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

Lies. Prove it. There is a mountain of public statements of concern by scientists on record. You are simply asserting a counter-factual. In simpler terms, you are lying.

joni

Rack mounts?

Give me a Pete Cornish custom board anytime

Well that would be nice too ;-) Can I have a vintage Strat as well? And an old Marshall head? And a fast, shiny car and a beautiful girlfriend and absolutely piles of cash?

Or shall I have to make do with a few scuffed old Boss stompboxes and a fevered imagination?

;-)

Not sure about this. Cranks are cranks because they reject (deny) evidence and have bendy, squishy plastic minds that somehow accommodate to the cognitive dissonance.

Bendy and squishy? I sometimes feel that I'm not only trying to nail jelly to a wall, I'm doing it in a B grade horror flick where the script has the jelly eternally reforming or self-replicating.

I usually have to deal with the physics/ cosmology/ Einstein-was-wrong! type of cranks rather than climate denialists, but the utterly impervious to explanation and evidence style seems to be universal. The self-described original thinkers in physics seem to have much thinner skins than the utterly impervious climate crowd though.

Chek, I know you are always very unlycky when you try to think, but the Loo-paper was retracted because it smelled bad, and after Loo's effort to clean up the mess, the smell was still there.

There were no threats, just a poor review(er) on a very poor article, which Frontiers finally recognized. It's as simple as that. A Conspiratorial mind shall not review the works of another conspiratorial mind.

You are such a sorry bunch, sitting here convincing eachother that you are just paragons of some kind of middle ground in climate science. :-) Soon articles will be written about the likes of you, and in contrast to Loo's paper, these will be based on tons of valid material.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

And a fast, shiny car...

Could try one of these BBD

Wolseley 6/110 BMC Farina

I had one of those, two toned paint, second-hand, in the early 1070s on an E plate 1967 vintage and one near the end of the run after a switch to 13" rather than 14" wheel hubs - much more rubber in the tyre, only Dunlop made tyres for it and at nearly £50 a pop in 73-74. 3 litre twin carbs straight six, but because of the overdrive could still turn in 35-36 mpg on a run. Mine did not have powered steering a pig in the tight in hot weather, leather upholstery, but not so heavy on tyres because of the lack of powered steering.

The person who shot that vid' is an idiot, did not show the picnic tables with glass wells that folded down out of the back of the front seats, maybe they were missing.

I had a police car following me whilst driving along the A38 just SW of Exeter in the early hours of a Monday morning whilst in transit between Plymouth and Portsmouth (well Lee-on-Solent). As he drove in front and pulled me over I was wondering what I had done wrong. After the usual 'pleasantries' the cop asked if he could sit behind the wheel. I of course obliged only to watch him passing his hands over the controls with a broad grin and the words, 'Ah, this takes me back, thanks for this'

Craig Thomas at #63.

Watts' bleating that:

...Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson’s statement of “It is not the University’s practice to accede to such requests” is a bald faced lie

is based on a very mendacious cherry-picking of UWA's policies on data sharing.

Just to be clear, UWA says that data sharing may be based on any of:

1) Restricted access
2) Open access
3) Researcher-mediated access
4) Metadata Sharing
5) Licencing
6) Creative Commons

(Those interested in detailed descriptions of each category should follow the link above.)

Watts is making out that 'Open access' is the only option and that Paul Johnson and UWA are breaking their own data sharing policy when this is clearly not the case.

There's certainly a bald-faced liar in this matter, but it's not Paul Johnson...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olap, don't even try to argue about that which you can neither read nor understand.
Mainly because you're a crank who is lead and fed by cranks.

Chek, please adress your concerns with the editors of Frontiers. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

I ain't the one with 'concerns'.
That'd be you cranks.

Answer the question Olaus.

Or are you going to persist in demonstrating that you are one of the most dishonest little shits ever to wriggle across a blog comments page?

Lionel

I had in mind something far, far more trashy and vulgar ;-)

Olaus

Above, you lied about what the majority of scientists believe. Earlier you ignored something I said about the scientific consensus so here it is again. It underlines just how egregious a lie you told above:

If you accept the radiative physics and the paleoclimate evidence for ECS being around ~3C if not higher, then how can you dismiss the potential for dangerous warming under BAU emissions scenarios?

This is schizophrenic position. IMO either you are lying when you claim to be of the 97% consensus or you don’t really understand what it means to subscribe to that consensus.

The overwhelming majority of public statements by scientists caution that unless CO2 emissions are reduced, there will be substantial and very probably dangerous climate change.

This is a lie:

most scientist accept the CO2-hypothesis. 97% at least. Few believe though in doom and gloom and Loo-crap.

You are a liar.

@BBD

I dream too... And I used to have a lovely red Tele, until my nephew stole it along with my Boss pedals and Peavey value amp.

joni

Don't brood. Have them hunted down by Ninja assassins. Expensive, yes, but you'll feel much better for it.

BBD #88

Those long range driving lights, as the pair down by the side of the radiator grill were something else, would light up the countryside like daylight. One could select just near side, both (or OFF of course) and they extinguished automatically when dipping. This feature caught me out about a week after getting it when having been out on an assignation I drove back and parked behind the billets pointing out over the airfield. Of course the long rangers were out having dipped for the last urban stretch. I turned off the ignition, locked the car and got my head down. The next day a colleague remarked that I had left my lights on. Puzzled, checking my keys were in my pocket, I went out to have a look. There were dim glimmers behind the glass.

Having sorted out that problem and when my Autopress arrived I checked the lecky diagram and sure enough that is what those long rangers were supposed to do, come on again as the ignition was turned off if selected on. Police use on searches maybe, dunno?

Oh, and I had a Motorola 8-track in mine too, Santana Abraxas as they were then known, the miles flew by.

Chek, you have a great problem with Frontiers calling the turd a turd . I'm sure the editors of Frontiers are crancs too. :-)

Did I hear anyone mention "consirpacy ideation"? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olap, you're just mouthing third hand trash, mixed with the invention we've come to expect from a risible little troll, with no indication (as usual) that you know what you're talking about. And you won't get it from williwatts. Try again when you've got something.

Some more commentary on the Lew/UWA scandal over at Bishop Hill:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/4/5/the-lew-letters.html

"This correspondence and the failure of the university to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA is not restricted to one rogue researcher. The ethical failures seem to go right to the top."

Indeed, the very point we've been making here.

“This correspondence GWPF and the failure of the university Charities Commission to act upon any of it suggests that the problem at UWA the dangerous propaganda emanating from this supposed Educational charity is not restricted to about one rogue researcher GWPF member. The ethical failures seem to go right to the top.”

Fixed for the sticky bishop, aka Cardinal Puff master of puff pieces devoured so avidly by other puffs.

@ joni. Yes, a Tele's a beauty and would have a place in my Classic Collection at some point in time (along with the early 60's issue SG-shaped Les Paul, since Lionel mentioned Santana).

Many years ago a friend had an old, chipped, blonde original '50's model - and a Tele (har har) - which had a good solid feel, but as for the brand new ones, not so much.

Lewandowsky et al is now firmly up there with the MBH hockey stick in terms of top crank icons. And look how often they've gnashed their teeth and rent their garments and hacked mail servers and falsely claimed MBH was broken.

Congratulations Stephan - don't let the bastards grind you down.

Near the end of another page, this may have come up before WRT Permian extinction but I was having trouble with the Nature site that day:

Archaeageddon: how gas-belching microbes could have caused mass extinction

Something our posse of ijuts don't grasp, even the smallest of organisms can have a big effect when there are ENOUGH of them. I used to get the old argument about man being too puny to modify the planet. Sheesh, more ijuts with their heads up a dark smelly place.

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

AGW is real.

@Lionel

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

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

I've already posted a couple of links the previous page, worth watching.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/04/01/april-2014-open-thread/comme…

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

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

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy ideation anyone? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Which article, Olaus?

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

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Re: Frontiers.

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

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

A correspondent wrote (p23):

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

And this (p28):

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

And this (p52):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frontiers disagrees with you BBD:

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

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

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

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

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

@BBD

The Frontier's retraction link has been posted before:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of__Recursive_Fury__%3Cbr%3E…

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

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

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

Pretty clear again and the interesting bit towards the end:

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

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

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

;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This, you mean?

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

@Olaus

Apologies Olaus, you got in first!
;)

@BBD

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

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

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

GSW

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

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

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

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

* * *

And what about this?

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

likewise what the “journalism” student thinks.

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

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

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

@BBD

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

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

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

For goodness sake BBD:

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

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

@chek

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

@Jeff

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

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

GSW

And what about this?

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

Gormless,

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

Chek,

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

@jeff

"Better to be an oracle windbag than a brainless dolt"

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

@chek

You're just wittering on and on chek:

"All ‘students’ are not equal"

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

@jeff

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

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

That’s kind of simplistic BBD

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

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

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

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

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

#46 Babble babble babble

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

@BBD

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

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

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

@Olaus

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

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

GSW

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

Before further argument, re-read your own sources.

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

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

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

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

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

@BBD

"Before further argument, re-read your own sources."

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

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

chek - FG has just confirmed this hypothesis elsewhere.

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

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

GSW

No need BBD

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

Back track all you like you worm.

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

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

Chek

Nailed the fucker ;-)

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

Retraction Watch is also interested in Frontier's apparently contradictory statements:
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy…

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

By craig thomas (not verified) on 05 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

GSW is back reading shit from his hero, Steyn...

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

By craig thomas (not verified) on 06 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He he - THEY'RE UP TO NO GOOD remember?

:-)

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

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

Where?

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

And the present rise in GAT?

How?

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

Anything's better than nothing.

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

Revisiting a Retraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

'breaking ice' , chasing Ice (Balog) maybe otherwise ?

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

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

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

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

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

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 08 Apr 2014 #permalink

Ugo Bardi resigns over Frontiers handling of Lewandowsky:

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

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

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

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

Scorpion and frog.

BBD @ # 70:

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

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

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

Remains true.

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

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

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

Are you seriously disputing the effortlessly demonstrable matter of fact?

Are you so profoundly incapable of parsing reality?

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

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

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

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

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

CIC Briefing: Craig Idso Heartland Institute NIPCC Climate Denial

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

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

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

chek, wot, Lomborghinis?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

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

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

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

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

As to the ganglette, let them proceed!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

#100, thanks chek - I even tried to reconstruct the link from the page source but nothing doing : )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

Ah yes. I went through the sinking mentioned in #94 done by BBD in the second article on today's page there.
My that prof has garnered evidence of virtually mathematical power in those threads alone. Also I'm sick of the abuse done on him. If vomiting blood is not ebola.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

I'd hazard a guess he's now up there with Mike Mann and Phil Jones in the denier hate-osphere

And the attack on Lewandowsky will ultimately do the deniers as much damage as the attack on Mann. It shows them for what they are.

Ignorant arses for one thing. Notice how they keep confusing 'conspiracy' with 'conspiracy ideation'?

Like the von Stauffenberg plot was merely an Austrian house painters 'ideation'. Fucking clots the lot of them.

Which is I would love them to proceed and invest.

Meantime, the way they help the prof's research is quite impressive, for a change... Also total public attention gathered is equal to sunlight turned onto what squirms beneath rocks, moss and manure. Yes, Lewandowsky is prime target like Mann now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

Ignorant arses for one thing. Notice how they keep confusing ‘conspiracy’ with ‘conspiracy ideation’?

Funny you should mention that...

The really funny thing is the absolute disregard for factual consistency exhibited by FG. He either doesn't care that he is obviously lying at times and then exposing himself as dishonest, or he doesn't really grasp what kind of impression this behaviour makes on third parties.

cRR

Which is I would love them to proceed and invest.

Me too. But I qualify this by saying that I do not treat the embuggerance it will cause Lewandowsky and co-authors, or Frontiers, or USW lightly. Even though the journal might have avoided this by not backing down initially to the threat of barratry. Now it looks weak, and that encourages the mob. Or class action, as I should say.

FGit is a puppet who thinks he's a real boy.
It's all beyond his paygrade (if he were getting paid, which he' isn't) or the payout I believe he's truly dreaming of (for the next five minutes).

Third comment below 'The analysis of speech' surprised no little:
---
Jonathan Cook at 13:39 PM on 9 April, 2014

The link to Graham Readfearn is broken. Plus I think you need to take a holiday Stephan, these posts about your retracted paper are increasingly erratic.
---

While my impression was like Sou's in comment #23:
---
Sou at 04:39 AM on 10 April, 2014
Wow, how easy was that? Almost too much material for Recursive Fury II. (Human nature has a dark side.)

Top article, Stephan. Some people are weird, in a not nice way. It seems to be the same "small number" of people.
---

Real Cook? Real Sou, I gather.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

#8, same qualification /w gusto.
The journal, though, is all but done for, I think - a tough punishment but imo quite adequate. We need men, not whimps.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

Bang, now I wonder who I shot at.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

"We need men, not whimps."

"Give me a hundred men like Katherine Hayhoe!"

(modelled after Galland's quote to Goering during the BoB campaign 1940 )

Those men exist, all of them run Hotwhopper : )

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Apr 2014 #permalink

'Real Cook' - um, there's not some confusion with John Cook here, is there? I rather wonder about this,um, coincidence...

Also, Stoat deals with li'l Mikey, Potty-Training Casualty beautifully on that thread...

he doesn’t really grasp what kind of impression this behaviour makes on third parties.

I think that's it. On an entirely different subject yesterday, I came across one of those blokes who maintains that everyone is always out to take advantage of others. He honestly, sincerely, truly did not understand all the people who said that just wasn't so - not just for themselves but for other people they knew. He just dismissed them as dishonest about their own motivations or being oblivious to others' nefarious intentions.

I'm pretty sure FG is blessed(?) with the same lack of comprehension of others' motivations as well as attributing his own inconsistencies to absolutely normal human behaviour. No need to reflect on what others might perceive or even misperceive about what he says or how he says it. I think it is largely a mystery to him why anyone would challenge him, on either the details or his motivations. People who see things differently obviously must have some weird way of looking at the world.

When you think you're absolutely normal as well as 100% right, what's the problem?

#17, you diagnosed psycho-/sociopathology there. That bloke unknowingly projects his character on everyone. I have kind off an eye out for that type.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2014 #permalink

erratum, I have kind of an eye out for that type (reserve the ffing 'f' something else)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2014 #permalink

Bradthing fell through again (well observed by Sou) over at the psych.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2014 #permalink

He's an idiot. A wordy one, but simple nonetheless.
A bored third rate rural solicitor's clerk would be my guess.

Fuck but I loathe "Brad Keyes" aka "Darrell Harb" etc. One of the very, very vilest people I have ever encountered, although most voluble deniers are vermin, eg FG.

#22 thanks BBD for reminding dnftt, though the thing had to be sunshined. Crikey.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Apr 2014 #permalink

cRR @#20

Bradthing fell through again (well observed by Sou) over at the psych.

at psych?

Sorry, first baby steps on ubuntu after a day of mayhem with Windows of various flavours. Ubuntu not properly configured yet had to gohunting for @ and #, and Firefox lurks behind app's stack on screen.

Manyana.

cRR #23

Thanks for that. He's the perfect troll - sucks you in, every time. Let's hope the moderators at STW wake up to what is going on fairly soon.

Lionel A

Brad is running a sock called "Darrell Harb" at Lewandowsky's blog at Shaping Tomorrow's World.

cRR

See now that the troll is trying to hook you back in...

:-)

And since I have a shrewd suspicion he is with us as we speak, let me just say hello to Brad. And now off you fuck, there's a good chap.

Keyes is an idiot:

He says, "consensus is an opinion".

He works so very hard at not getting it.

By craig thomas (not verified) on 10 Apr 2014 #permalink

#26 BBD, simply doesn't work with me... I use trolls sometimes to make points for others, and I wished to make a point yesterday. I quit direct response yesterday anyway.

At some point I sit back watching the troll undo himself during a rattle of increasing incoherent posts, my job done once more - I pull back the moment he needs me :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

He loves me, he loves me so, he loves me...

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

Fellas, latest news from the Frontiers:

"The retracted Recursive Fury paper has created quite a blogger and twitter storm. A sensational storm indeed, with hints to conspiracy theories, claims of legal threats and perceived contradictions. It has been fury - one of the strongest human emotions - that has (perhaps understandably at first sight) guided the discussion around this retraction. Not surprisingly though, the truth is not as sensational and much simpler."

:-)

http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_…

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

Translation: Some paranoid delusional subjects didn't like light being shone under their rock, and furthermore were too chickenshit to stand by their previously published statements.

On a similar note, I often think that the disclaimer at the end of movies should read: "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely their own fault".

However it does raise the question of how study can be made of delusional ravings, even in a simple effort to map their origin and propagation, if text can be searched across the internet at a click. That capacity has already had major implications for detecting plagiarism.

I'm not sure what the answer is, if people refuse to take responsibility for what they utter online, other than to say "tough luck, but those were your words"..

#33 chek, this sounds interesting, but I'm somehow not understanding what exactly you are trying to bring up. I must lamely ask you to rephrase.

For now I only got to thinking whether the question is not so much how study can be made, but how and if it can be published.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

@Olaus

Thanks for the link Olaus. From your quote, the article continues:

" .....Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain."

and

"Post-publication review is facilitated by the Frontiers’ commenting and social networking platforms. This process may reveal fundamental errors or issues that go against principles of scholarly publishing. Like all other journals, Frontiers seriously investigates any well-founded complaints or allegations, and retraction only happens in cases of absolute necessity and only after extensive analysis."

So the Lewandowsky paper was "unethical" then. More "blog" abuse masquerading as a scientific paper, and with the sks mob involved, that's not going to come as a surprise to anybody.

The Frontiers post was authored by Henry Markram
Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers. Bio here:

http://www.frontiersin.org/people/henrymarkram/74/profile

"Henry Markram is a full professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland. He was born in the Kalahari desert in South Africa in 1962, finished school at Kearsney College (1980), studied medicine and neuroscience at Cape Town University (1988), obtained a PhD in neuroscience at the Weizmann Institute (1991), completed postdoctoral work as a Fullbright Scholar at the NIH (1992) and as a Minerva Fellow at the Max-Planck (1994). "

Seems to know what he is talking about too. Cheers Olaus.
;)

Skipping the day at the psych.
If moderation doesn't rid the troll, I'll have to surmise this is for the purpose of the prof's research and might want to add some evidence. The Wow-way.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

#35, good to hear you have a problem with that, ”…..Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.”, you can fo now.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

cRR, yes, sorry for my sloppy sentence.

You're correct that the study could still be done.
But publishing it would be a nightmare, with need to redact or modify quotations somehow so that they couldn't be traced to their owners by third parties.

@cRR #37

I know, Frontiers appear to be accusing the paper authors, Lewandowsky, Cook and the others of "abusing science" and who would argue.

Frontiers could have been a little more careful with the peer review - a "special" journalism student was never going to cut it as a reviewer on a cognitive psychology paper. Frontiers are not entirely blameless here themselves..

#39 GSW, are you new to the discussion?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

#38 chek, crystal, thanks. Ultrarelevant, unfortunately, once more in history.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

It can never be that samples from the internet have to be used without giving the names or nicks they are posted under, plus source links.

Otoh I see a problem with nicks whose real id's have been outed by e.g. hackers or dishonest people who are in the know. Also even with those who post under nick while their id is common knowledge given free by e.g. the author in other sources on internet.
This looks like a dangerous AND distracting puzzle. There is a danger for free speech & internet involved as soon as legislation is considered.

Apparently the names of peer reviewers and editors cannot be disclosed anymore, either.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

"... with need to redact or modify quotations somehow so that they couldn’t be traced to their owners by third parties."

I'm having a bad day (citations cannot be traced to a certain with this wording. Newspeakery. : ) )
It has finally sunk in what you're saying here.
Well, it can't be done. Writings on internet on places anyone can visit and read are public property.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

The Frontiers statement is absurd. They are finished.

Fuckwits should note that so far three editors have resigned in protest over this. Anyone who thinks the journal has a case simple hasn't got the first clue. They would have been better advised - far better advised - to stick to the truth: they caved in under the threat of legal action. A wrong call, but everything that they have done since to hide this fact has made the situation progressively worse.

As I said, they're scuppered now.

Well, it can’t be done. Writings on internet on places anyone can visit and read are public property.

And have been especially since Wayback.

And Keyes by sock I smell a rat. Thanks for the pointer BBD I have been otherwise distracted, one such was another load of bafflegab and obfuscation from David Rose in the Mail now answered at SKs.

Rose is a walking bulls***ing serial cereal hazard and conspiracy ideationist.

Problems with IRB review of social science

"While the federal regulations and Belmont principles were formulated with biomedical and social-behavioral research in mind, the enforcement of the regulations, the examples used in typical presentations regarding the history of the regulatory requirements, and the extensiveness of written guidance have been predominantly focused on biomedical research.

Numerous complaints by investigators about the fit between the federal regulations and its IRB review requirements as they relate to social science research have been received. Broad complaints range from the legitimacy of IRB review, the applicability of the concepts of risk as it pertains to social science (e.g., possibly unneeded, over-burdensome requirements), and the requirements for the documentation of participants' consent, i.e., consent forms). Social scientists have criticized biomedical IRBs for failing to adequately understand their research methods (such as ethnography). In 2003, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), in conjunction with the Oral History Association and American Historical Association, issued a formal statement that taking oral histories, unstructured interviews (as if for a piece of journalism), collecting anecdotes, and similar free speech activities often do not constitute "human subject research" as defined in the regulations and were never intended to be covered by clinical research rules.[15]

Other federal agencies supporting social science have attempted to provide guidance in this area, especially the National Science Foundation. In general, the FAQ assures IRBs that the regulations have some flexibility and rely on the common sense of the IRB to focus on limiting harm, maximizing informed consent, and limiting bureaucratic limitations of valid research.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board

So, at least in the USA, bloggers (social media) are not "human research subjests" the wy they are in the clinical/medical context.

By EFS_Junior (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

@BBD

"They [Frontiers] are finished."

I think you are overreacting BBD. There are some lessons here for Frontiers certainly; don't accept papers from shysters:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shister

Don't let Elaine McKewon review papers:

http://uts.academia.edu/ElaineMcKewon

I still can't get over some genius thought a "special" journalism student was an appropriate choice for reviewing a cognitive psychology paper; don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to a point of view, but she was so obviously out of her depth (ethics issues, her background's in prostitutes? go figure), it's no wonder it's all gone"tits up" now.

Being positive though, Frontiers will tighten up their review processes and the journal will be better for it.
;)

Griselda barfed up this gem: "I still can’t get over some genius thought a “special” journalism student ", once again showing he has no idea how much original research graduate students actually do, nor comprehension of their abilities. But smug innuendo is good enough in amongst the cranks. I wouldn't be surprised to find that she's female sticks in a few under-educated craws too.

Barry Woods, again, and again, and again. The man is a great, soft sack of tiresome victimhood who is completely incapable of understanding that he did this to himself.

Nik from NYC is good though: in one comment he demonstrates that he hasn't read Marcott13, doesn't understand the first thing about it, gets his ideas from idiots and liars, is a conspiracy theorist to the core and an anti-vaxxer to boot. Not bad going for a couple of paragraphs.

NFNYC is a quality crank.
Utterly impervious.

As others have pointed out, the behaviour of the cranks seems to be a determined and concerted attempt to vindicate Lewandowsky and co-authors.

#39 GSW, are you new to the discussion?

cRR wins a shiny new Internetz.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

I was also fascinated by one of the cranks at STW (responding to BBD pointing out Donors Trust, IIRC) demonstrating an apparent complete conflation of climate science with any and all businesses that are predicated on the implications of the science.

Sharp thinkers, these mostly are not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW, isn't it cure whenever the religious buffs, especially BBD, decide that something "is finished". :-)

Frontiers seems to have indentified the core problem with the Loo-paper though. That there is a large quantity of people in academia:

1. That believs there is actual substance in the 97% figure.

2. That there is a well funded and coordinated attack against climate science.

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

"1. That believs there is actual substance in the 97% figure"

We believe it because there is. An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that humans are driving climate change and that we need to take actions to mitigate the potentially serious consequences. This isn't remotely controversial - except to uneducated laymen like Swedish meatball who have never been near an academic science lecture in their miserable lives.

2. That there is a well funded and coordinated attack against climate science.

Again, totally uncontroversial. Its a huge industry, climate change denial. There's proof for it everywhere, not least in literally thousands of sources. Climate change denial is part of a well funded anti-environmental movement. The fact that meatball thinks there isn't such a thing shows how utterly deluded and out of touch he is.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

The this from gormless:

"Don’t let Elaine McKewon review papers"

That doesn't stop totally incompetent unqualified twits like him and meatball acting as if they are referees of studies or papers they don't like. Its part of the stinking hypocrisy of the anti-scientific, anti-environmental crowd. They smear qualified scientists all the time, and act as if they are qualified arbiters of scientific research in any number of fields.

This takes us back to old Dunning-Kruger: the less someone knows about something the more they think they know. Meatball and gormless aren't qualified to judge a pile of fresh dog shit. But that doesn't stop them acting as if they are experts in anything to do with climate or environmental science, and to overrule the views of the majority of qualified scientists. That's the reason they are (1) anonymous and (2) stuck on blogs. Its one blessing. Nobody knows who the hell they are or cares in academia. Yet they act like silverbacks on here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

And out of the shadows steps the high priest himself, topped off with a silly hat no less. :-)

Mr Bicorne, my views on AGW are also captured by the 97% figure. Go figure....while eating a Curry:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/11/curry-versus-trenberth/#more-15205

She explains to anyone without bicorne-ears why the 97% figure says nothing wrt sceptical views.

And the conspiracy you are mouth frothing about is only in your head, which you have proven times and times again.

Good though that it's dawning that studies based on imaginary figures and ghosts are good for nothing, scientifically that is.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Compared with you, meatball, I AM a high priest.... and my professional scientific qualifications prove it. What are yours, by the way?

OH! I FORGOT! You don't have any!!! How rude of me to ask. I just thought that readers here should be reminded that you are a complete and utter idiot. As if they needed reminding.

As for Curry,she's one scientist against thousands. And my scientific qualifications match hers easily. You are so thick as to assume one dissenting voice makes a crowd.

I got news for you meatball: it doesn't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Sorry Jeffie, Curry is rather mainstream among real climate scientists. Among you unreal climate scientists, aka the acitivist cult distorting climate science, she might be fringe, but not wrt what real science says.

The 97% figure is just number, you silly mad hatter. Please open the window an let out the delirious fumes you have been inhaling for the better part of your life. Let reality in Mr Bicorne.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

#59, bill, hey! I did win an internetz! Wizard hat tip.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

@bill

Thanks for the Jo Nova link bill, nice article.

"Deniers are continually pressing for a scientific debate. Why? Because they can’t refute the political reality (that climate change necessitates a new world order). So they attack the weakest link—the science—instead."

Ha! ;)

Brad Keyes appears to have his own blog now:

"CLIMATE NUREMBERG"
"Because we need a sort of Climate Nuremberg."
http://climatenuremberg.com/

In case you don't get it straight away, he's having a go at the alarmist blogosphere, Deltoid like, and other sites, and quite amusing it is too.

This post caught my eye:

"Communication Dilemmas #1: Wishing Death on People Without Losing Them"
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/11/communication-dilemmas-1-wishing…

"Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow."

Yeah, there's behind this cheering on all natural disasters and that somehow they are good for the cause ;)

"The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone."

Indeed, a few ideated megadeaths would help enormously.

"Cognitive scientist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need:"

which all seems to have triggered by cRR's post here:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=104&&n=219#3617

"Knowing this, I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map. Because the sooner the lesson is learnt by early confrontation, the better one more population will be suited to anticipate and mitigate the vast weather and climate (+ related) disasters that lie in the immediate future and to lose all distractions on the way."

Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole?

Brad's blog has started well, makes the point and is entertaining at the same time.
;)

#63 GSW - "Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole?"

Climate revisionist.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Griselda channeling Brad said "Is there a psychological label for those that ideate/hope for thousands of deaths for the greater good? other than arsehole/climate arsehole? "

And just how many Katrinas and Sandys and Haiyans and Gustavs and Fays per decade can the global economy afford?
It's not like the Earth is cooling down, so even more energetic weather systems can be expected in the future.

Olaus at #55 says that the 97% figure has no substance.
Olaus at #58 says that his views are captured by the 97% figure.

Conclusion: Olaus' thinks his own views have no substance.

QED.

At least its something we can all agree on.

It's no great surprise that Griselda promotes the Keyes social site for climate ignorami. But anyone sane would wonder why idiots prefer to listen to other uninformed, (not to mention unhinged) unleavened idiots when they could use the same time learning something real by actual, recognised experts.

#65, chek, exactly the question I'm positing with some tanks around it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Rich pickings indeed for future Recursion with this from bradsock on 'The analysis of speech':

Meanwhile, for whatever reason, our friend Dr Kampen's seemingly-banal remarks are proving to be of some interest to people outside STW.

by blowing his own trumpet being worth its weight in socks.

Foxgoose making out like a braying ass is another, and I note his 'Foxgoose Foxgoose' moniker elsewhere which could be another variable in the code.

They just cannot help themselves.

Meatball laments, "Sorry Jeffie, Curry is rather mainstream among real climate scientists"

Incorrect. She is an outsider on the fringe. If she were mainstream, then ever scientific organization on the planet would espouse the same views as she does. But they don't, for the simple reason that the vast majority of scientists, as well as the scientific research, shows that AGW is very real and potentially very serious for humanity.

Again, given that you are an arrogant idiot, please tell us all what your profession is, how that relates to science and, if not, why you, of all people, has an insiders view of the views of the scientific community.

The facts are these: you are not a scientist, have no links whatsoever to the scientific community, and thus make up your own 'facts' on the spot. I am a scientist and I know a lot more than you about the mainstream view on CC.

Its just a shame that after a few relatively quiet and peaceful days on Deltoid you and your idiotic sidekick return with your willful ignorance. Why don't you take same advice and ritually humiliate yourself on the denier blogs where you are in good company?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Frank:

You are correct, meatball actually believes that 97% of scientific evidence and 97% of the views of scientists support AGW denial. Now I don't know whether this is some form of insanity or not (methinks it is) but if anybody wanted proof for a supposed conspiracy theory then meatball is the man to see. Remember, folks, that this is a guy (meatball) with no scientific qualifications whatsoever, no publications, no access to the online journals, no knowledge of any remotely relevant fields, erstwhile telling me, a scientist, that the prevailing wisdom in academia is on his side.

Of course, as I have said many times, in a public venue debating actual scientists (I would gladly do this anywhere, anytime) meatball would be tarred, feathered and laughed into the intellectual abyss from which he emerged, but on a blog he can say that 97% of scientists believe the moon is made out of cheese and seemingly get away with it.

For instance, when confronted with the facts (e.g. every major scientific organization on Earth and every National Academy verifies the existence and seriousness of AGW) he can use the Jonas slither: claim that the rank-and-file membership didn't get to vote on it and thus claim that it isn't representative of the general scientific view. Now, on an issue as important as CC and its implications, one would wonder why a few scientists in the upper echelon of every one of these major scientific organizations are AGW believers while most members are not (now THERE'S a conspiracy theory for you!) or that its some incredible statistical quirk that this happens across the planet; on the other hand, we would also have to wonder why, if there is so much scientific resistance to AGW that is somehow 'suppressed', that more scientists who are members of national academies are not speaking out against the statements released by their respective bodies. Are most of them terrified of speaking out, or else, as is true, do they for the most part support the positions of their academies?

I have been or are a member of several major ecological organizations, and I periodically receive newsletters and bulletins from them. In discussing CC, AGW is taken as a 'given' by all of them. There are no exceptions. Discussions and articles in them which mention CC all take the position that it is largely man-made and that it is potentially very serious. One will find this in every newsletter and bulletin of every major scientific organization. The exceptions are on blogs and in think tanks, none of which conduct scientific research and many of which are on the corporate payroll.

The bottom line is this: AGW is accepted by most scientists, across many disciplines. Meatball hasn't got a clue and makes his facts up on the basis of a few denier blogs he visits. He's not even an academic, for heaven's sake, but an anonymous blogger. I have to admit that i question myself for even responding to his kindergarten-level antics and posts.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Brad’s blog has started well

Brad's blog has been around for a while, GSW. It started - and continues - as a means for him to have a go at me (amongst other things). Trouble is, nobody reads it. I think the stench of intellectual arrogance from Brad puts people off.

Brad can't get over the fact that whenever we meet, his nose gets metaphorically broken.

I had a look for Keyes self-incriminating quote (to no avail) and then googled - the boy gets around and in almost every case to rubbish consensus as he understands it.

It's actually quite sad to see well-meaning, informed people obviously encountering it for the first time, trying to explain that consensus formed from observation and evidence is not the popularity vote Keyes insists it is and must be, every time. He refuses, for obvious reasons, to see the difference relying on tricksy semantics and assertion. Every time.

I sincerely hope it's not using his real name, as I really can't see any use for a mini-Dellingpole wannabee who's already exposed itself as a terminal and stubborn cretin at so many venues.

@BBD

Brad's pretty bright BBD and I'm sure his nose, metaphorically or otherwise, is fine. You're joining jeff in his fantasy league "triumphs" I see. Didn't we work out you'd been banned from a few blogs and you didn't know why? It was over on the Jonas thread I think where you:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/#comment-161948

” I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again.” and

” I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well”

It was like listening to a later day Oscar Wilde, the wit and charm just oozes from you. Do keep us updated with your own personal " Viereinhalb Jahre (des Kampfes) gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit" or whatever you're calling it these days.

It's all projection by deniers Jeff. The 97% of IPCC aligned scientists are suddenly (and magically) their consensus.

The same bi-polar switcheroo makes Curry and Lindzen the mainstream too, and never mind about the huge international effort by thousands of research scientists that produce the IPCC reports.

You really need to have Olap and Griselda's pointy little heads and little pointy monocorne hats to accommodate the thought process required, otherwise it just sounds like an insane equivalence to offer. I was going to say argue, but then they never argue because they don't have any evidence to make any argument, just attitude they pick up from the FF industry-favouring blogs..

Griseldsa, liars invite being exposed, otherwise people wouldn't know they were liars. Don't tell lies, is the motto, even if they're lies you don't understand devised for your convenience.

GSW

Didn’t we work out you’d been banned from a few blogs and you didn’t know why?

No, we didn't. I've been banned from only one: Bishop Hill, and only for correcting the errors of other commenters ;-)

It was like listening to a later day Oscar Wilde, the wit and charm just oozes from you.

You expect me to respond to the repeated iteration of ignorance and lies with charm?

Shouldn't you be kissing Keyster and his new blog elsewhere Griselda? What on Earth are you wasting your time here getting all prissy for?

Yes cheek, the 97% figure is empty of controversial content. In your little conspiratorial and fabricating mind it isn't, but in the awful reality it is. Learn to live with it, and the hiatus needless to say. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olaus

For the record:

The strong scientific consensus (we need not go further than that) is that AGW is real, and potentially dangerous if CO2 emissions continue to increase.

Hey BBD, the CO2-emissions are increasing, true, but accelarating global warming is lobal, even though Jeffie noticed it first hand. 15 years of no significant warming...

It's no fun being a portentologist of doom and gloom these days. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Olap, a dog standing on its hind legs and yapping little barks that, if you strain your ears just so, might sound like words is, for the first time, a PT Barnum style wonder. But even so, the dog doesn't understand what the words it's imitating mean.

But you've done that little trick so often now, it's just boring and conveying nothing except what a one-trick mutt you are.

Put this down to one more try for the poor and afflicted.

Olap, do you why your hiatus meme begins in 1998?

You probably don't, because reason isn't important to you and you'd believe any old shit your pin-brain liked the sound of.

But there is a reason - oh yes, indeedy there is.
And the reason is this: 1998 saw a super El Niño (where stored heat exited the ocean) and caused a for the time, massive spike in surface temperatures, unprecedented in the modern record.

We haven't seen such an event since, because while all that 'missing heat' you deniers like to chuckle to yourselves about is being stored in the oceans, surface temperatures have been edging up to the level of that spike without needing an El Niño to boost them.

Another super EL Niño is expected (ENSO is after all one of those natural cycles deniers like to witter about) and a corresponding boost to global surface temperature will ensue.

That's the point at which the denial industry will be stuck for answers and you, my little pointy head, will have a whole headful of new tunes to learn.

Olaus

Essentially, what chek said. Until you understand the basics of physical climatology you will be confused by liars.

You cannot determine the energy balance of the climate system from short samples of surface temperature variability. It's just a fact that falls out of a basic understanding of physical climatology.

So here's me, understanding this, trying to explain it to you against your vigorous attempts not to understand what I am saying. Shockingly, we get nowhere. But that doesn't mean that you are correct.

For how long has the swedish crook been around?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

For too long, I'm sorry to report, cRR.

Of course this comment will not appear for days but I simply can't resist.
Look at all of you carrying on about Brad Keyes ????
Yet you had him banned and/or corralled here.
From people who claim they care about truth and 'intellectual honesty' ?????
Would you call this even remotely fair?????
You merrily throw insults and make snide, rude comments and he has no way to defend himself or to reply to your snide and thoroughly rude behaviour.
But, on the other hand, if he discovers that you are discussing him here I have little doubt that he is ROFL & LOL and considering it a goldmine.
:-) :-) :-) :-)
BTW.
Craig Thomas says:

Keyes is an idiot:
He says, “consensus is an opinion”.
He works so very hard at not getting it.

NOT GETTING WHAT?????????
The dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus) says:

con·sen·sus
[kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA

noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

By chameleon (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

Chek @ # 84.
That will be an El Nino event & not incontrovertible proof of CAGW.
Cherry picking is cherry picking & both sides of this debate are doing it.
After reading the CN blog, it looks like you are playing straight into the trap that this Keyes character has laid.

Nope, I ain't gonna add a single click to The Keyster''s page count on his dumb - his consistent performances elsewhere confirming that - blog..

Brad’s pretty bright...

...if, by "bright", you mean capable of spinning the most egregious fallacies and red herrings using a bunch of big words that impress people who aren't capable of seeing the distinction between the bigness of the words and the validity of the argument.

He's also the kind of "bright" who can convince himself so thoroughly of something that's just wrong that nothing will ever change his mind.

Accordingly his alleged "brightness" has very little bearing on whether his claims are valid or not.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Apr 2014 #permalink

So are you Lotharsson.
Come in spinner!

Gee, Pid's back!

Except of course, Pin-dopey-o, that the next major El Niño will put paid entirely to the hiatus myth, which is a very big deal in your sad little world because you've little else to run with!

How about dealing with Chek's point that now, less than 2 decades later, neutral years are as warm as this hitherto unprecedented freak?

And CAGW is a 'I've drunk-the-kool-aid' term, plonker, so deploying it rather jars with the whole faux-evenhanded schtick, don't you think? See, let no-one say we're not giving you useful hints here...

D'oh! italic closure fail (after neutral) but meh!

After my last two demolitions of meatball, he retreats back to his original vacuous position:

"It ain't so!!! It ain't so! I know because I am a Dunning-Kruger acolyte who has never done any scientific study or research in my miserable life, so I, above all people, should know better than anyone what the prevailing scientific views are on CC!!!"

....and so on and so forth. This is the thrust of meatball's arguments. He cannot prove anything because he has no relevant qualifications and is therefore incompetent. All he can try and do is attack those who are scientists who do the research, and feebly try and marginalize them.

I've challenged him to explain why, if the vast majority of scientific opinion is on his side, that 100% of major scientific bodies have released statements of policy agreeing over the causes of AGW and of the serious threat it poses for humanity and nature. He won't say it, but the only answer he can give is that there must be some vast conspiracy - exactly what Lewandowsky says in his excellent studies. Otherwise its impossible to explain why 97% of scientists and of the empirical evidence are on his side.

I think this is partly what meatball actually thinks. the other part is purely pathological lying, with a tad of insanity thrown in for good measure.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

Again Jeffie declares a "demolition" of me. :-) Hilaroius, since it comes from the guy who witnessed climate change first hand, and bragged about it. :-)

A lot of things happens between Jeffie's ears, but seldom in real life.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

So are you Lotharsson.

I doubt you can back that up as I tend to publicly change my mind when I'm shown to be wrong, but feel free...

Or perhaps you were responding to "his alleged “brightness” has very little bearing on whether his claims are valid or not." In that case, I totally agree that it also applies to me. My arguments stand or fall based on evidence and logic, not any allegations or otherwise of "brightness" on my part.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

That will be an El Nino event & not incontrovertible proof of CAGW.

Chek didn't say it was.

And he doesn't need to. Firstly, CAGW is a term largely used by denialists to denote a strawman. Secondly, depending on what you understand "incontrovertibly" to mean that is likely to denote an inappropriate standard. Thirdly, the AGW part already is very strongly backed by evidence.

Chek actually said that "... the denial industry will be stuck for answers...".

Me, I think on that last point he's being over-optimistic. Most denialists double down when presented with evidence that rebuts their denial - and that goes double and triple for those paid to put out superficial memes to gull the rubes.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

No Lotharsson @# 97.
I was actually referring to my comment to Chek.
Sorry. I didn't mean to confuse.
This Keyes personality has laid a trap.

Sorry Stu 2, I obviously misread you.

I also don't understand what this trap is. Can you clarify?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

Meatball again proves he can't debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag. Of course I've destroyed his arguments. The sheer fact that he cannot answer my points raised in the last few posts is proof positive of that.

So all meatball has left is to parrot smears made by Batty some months ago. That's all he has left. And of course I have witnessed climate change first hand: in the Netherlands there are many species colonizing the country from the south, as well as dramatic seasonal shifts in life cycles of many others that I have noticed over even only 15 years that I have lived here.

Again, another demolition of meatball. Expect another humorless smear in response.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

This Keyes personality has laid a trap.

Yeah yeah, he's Moriarty to Lewandowsky's Sherlock. Oh, the cunning, oh the humanity...

If there's a trap here I suspect it's you guys most likely to be caught. Seems to me becoming a Keyes acolyte ain't likely to be good credibility CV material.

@cRR

I think you're being fingered over on Climate Nurmeberg again:
"UPDATE: Dr Kampen defends himself"
http://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/13/update-dr-kampen-defends-himself/

I don't know how you've managed to get on the wrong side of him cRR, but brad's got you pegged as some sort of homicidal maniac/idiot - and all because you can see the positives in a few thousand people being killed in weather disasters.

Meanwhile, Lewandowsky claims that Frontiers are ... well, not telling the truth (which looked like the case purely from comparing their public statements, let alone anything else Lewandoswky et al might know about the affair).

Cue more shrieking from the usual suspects, plus the odd arguably libellous claim.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

Oh ffs GSW, Olas-Olas you are like Brad Keys who is behaving

lost like a blind man in a pharmacy trying to echo locate the contact lens fluid.

Thanks to Tim Minchin for that phrase found here as he addresses a gathering at UWA.

Jeffie Bicorne, I'm sure it must be a sign of grave significance that your stay in Holland has the same amount of years as the hiatus. :-)

You portentologists are so good at what you are doing.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

And OP, you are good at doing what you do, grinning like an idiot during your intellect free posts.

#2, bill, yes, exactly. Moreover, the mob knows nil of mirrors. They are inadvertently voicing their agenda so simply cued by me.

#3, GSW, thanks - the more exposure, the better!

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

"... all because you can see the positives in a few thousand people being killed in weather disasters." - example of the agenda projection I mean. For I have studiously avoided any mention of body count, until, in some comment, I differentiated between disasters happening to the rich arrogants causing merely property damage, and e.g. Haiyan.

Mere statistics, like: 'Tacloban, 4.500'. Do you care, GSW?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

"... I don’t know how you’ve managed to get on the wrong side of him cRR", how about: by outing this troll not once but twice?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

GSW

Brad Keyes is a vicious, dishonest little shit and a sociopath. There are fitter subjects for your admiration even among the denialati.

#11 BBD, indeed. Keyes is not interested in climate change at all, he just uses the debate as a vehicle for his sociopathy.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

One of the more amusing things over at the Rabett Run is that his hammer to beat on Peter Gleik with is an 'analysis' of "a babyish forgery" provided by Megan "Not a Denier" McArdle's piece in The Atlantic.

"Megan McArdle is just as opposed to everything HI (Heartless Inst) stands for as you", The Keyster assures us.
"McArdle found 8 separate, substantive reasons not to trust the "Strategy Document", yet you people still appear to be in denial of its obvious fraudulence. Years later. You still fantasise that HI actually produced it".

What The Keyster doesn't mention is that Ms. McArdle is actually Mrs.Peter Suderman, and her husband works for one of Heartless' largest named donors, William Dunn.

Having failed to get any traction as well as being exposed as completely out of his depth, Clueless Keyster is now imploding (or should that be expiring) in bold text and all caps. Links and the spectacle itself all in the link at beginning of this post.

With self-appointed 'science communicators' like Clueless Keyster providing the background muzak, it looks like you're succeeding in getting the moles to come out sniffing, cRR.

I still think Brad's apotheosis might be his claim that it's okay to run a sock and comment in a forum from which you have been banned because you changed your screen name. A nom de guerre, you see, is not a sockpuppet, especially if it's a really clever one (in its creator's opinion).

Shorter Brad: it's okay for me to do what the fuck I like because compared to me, you are all scurrying morons and rules are for little people.

As I said, sociopath.

#15 chek, looks good, yes, also risky. The trap is deadly as those who accuse me of 'gloating' re my small suggestion are the ones that effectively gloat at the fucking end of world as we know it within a mere couple of generations starting with that of our parents.
The question is: who will realize this, and who won't.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

The question is: who will realize this, and who won’t

One (more) litmus test will be when WGIII is released this week. Stand by for the usual clown acts and tactics.

Good catch on the McArdle thing chek

chek, I'd say: bring it on, were it not that the subject matter is too bloody serious. The distractions must end.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 13 Apr 2014 #permalink

Hello Shub

What a surprise to see you here. But a welcome one. I have even considered asking you to pop over in the past so we can continue our conversations without gloves on.

Not me Shub, that'd be commenter SM But hey, I only checkout the links, plagiarise, then report. You decide.
Not quite as snappy as the original.

BBD, surprised to see me here? I've been here before you buddy. ;)

chek, the Atlantic is a centre-right-of-centre magazine, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong as my impression comes from a couple of train station copies bought and read almost 4 years back in NY.

McArdle is no pushover. She can think for herself, and she supports 'the cause'. (Heh, guess whose 'side' that puts her on).

And, she's been honest about her indirect links with the Koch Foundation in her articles, since Koch was being fingered at the time.

So the suddenly insightful article where she laid into Glieck when the others were still looking around ...the possibility that could have been due to from insider information, makes you feel you''ve been had, doesn't it? That's how I feel.

McArdle says she's always been interested in fake documents etc and owing to this, people might have brought this to her attention. But, if true, she could have gotten the crucial lead that the strategy memo was a fake document from Suderman. Would take the shine off her investigative work.

In any case, Mosher, if we still believe that story, guessed the whole thing cold.

The bottom line is why fake something already in the public domain? There's no reason to fake other than to introduce an even more dastardly lie. But there were no lies, everything was already in the public domain.

The whipped up fuss about fakery only served as a distraction, as it was intended to do.

Shub

BBD, surprised to see me here? I’ve been here before you buddy.

Yes, but you haven't been seen here for a long time. Hence my surprise.

Re Gleick, it was, and remains, blah, blah, blah. The key point is that yes, there is a denial industry, yes it is sowing misinformation, and yes, those funding it are in some cases (Anonymous Donor anyone? Donors Trust? GWPF?) striving to keep their identities secret.

Why the secrecy? Who is paying for the misinformation and why?

Yeah, nice conspiracy theory. Why come up with theories that can never be proven or disproven?

bbd, the above was for chek

One gnat at a time, shub.

Shub

Why come up with theories that can never be proven or disproven?

Smokescreen to cover embarrassing disclosures?

Shub

Why the secrecy? Who is paying for the misinformation and why are they hiding the fact that they are doing it?

Why the secrecy?

Why it always is. Special interests working against the common interest.

But we need to hear this admission from Shub, *or* an explanation for all the furtiveness.

One or the other. Nothing less will do.

Agreed, but self-appointed footsoldiers like Keyster and shub are only splashing about in the paddling pool in what they think are their cool duds.

They don't have a line to the puppet masters, they're only aping what those connected puppets do..

If someone doesn't tell you what they do with their money, that doesn't mean they are being furtive. Heartland used to have their donor names in the open. It was a bad idea given the targeted Holocaust denier hunting by the likes of Greenpeace. Which fundamentally boils down to the stupid incomprehension of the banner dropping proto-violent teen mentality that goes with it.

A few years ago, I dug into a California based electric car company whose investors were a nest of Goldman Sachs boys, including Hank Paulson and Mr Tom Steyer of Farallon Capital. Steyer is dining the president today at his ranch (shameful in a democracy) and funding McAuliffe's elections, thus potentially benefitting Michael Mann indirectly.

I didn't catch any outrage from Thinkprogress et al.

We are talking about Western democracies. Everything's awash in money. The money is on both sides. Let's work toward putting some in our own pockets (the little guys) and keeping it there. Instead of hyperventilating like conspiracist ideators. Money always cancels, it is the ideas that matter.

So what you're saying is that some of the rich will jump in the 'correct' direction in preparation for the world of tomorrow, and others will jump in the wrong direction in an effort to shore up the unsustainable.

Well my!
Aren't we lucky to have you pointing out those basics for us.

And, of course, if you're really crazy, you'll make dumb, hand-waving, magical, ahistoric and absurd claims, like, oh, I don't know; 'the money always cancels'?

Of course, this phoney 'balance' inanity (and classic projection) fits hand-in-glove with the risible claim of the dastardy warmist scientists 'all being in it for the grant money' - pause to note the absence of conspiracist ideation here - and this is what has distorted the world's perception, as opposed to, say, the Kochs and Exxon, being merely among the wealthiest entities to have ever existed...

'Ahistorical'?

Not the last time you encounter Marx-oid kooks hanging out in the periphery, like the non-coding regions that become junk DNA owing to lack of pressure on survival fitness.

Harping about Heartland betrays the impotence of 'the cause', doesn't it? Here we are, interested people of climate, potentially having been taken for a ride l'affaire Gleick's Fakegate, and you are worrying about fitting your fellow commenters into some comforting historic framework and becoming angry at people for being wealthy.

Money always cancels, ...

That's a demonstrably stupid claim.

Money promoting false ideas is simply not cancelled by well financed promotion of rebuttals to those ideas, as any good propagandist from now back as far as living memory goes could tell you - along with a whole bunch of scientists who have researched those kinds of questions.

One might be tempted to speculate as to why you feel the need to advance such an unrealistic claim, and whether your position is tenable without relying upon it.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

If shrubbery or anyone else for that matter actually thinks that there isn't a huge, well funded and well organized anti-environmental lobby that includes, climate change denial, then methinks they are living in a cave on an isolated island. Put t another way: corporations spend billions of dollars in the US alone in lobbying members of Congress, and that much more in influencing elections. Its easy to argue that the US has long ceased to be a healthy functioning democracy on the basis of this. Essentially, as Sheldon Wolin has written in his recent works, the US has undergone a coup-det-tat in slow motion, into a fully fledged corporate state (what he refers to as "Inverted Totalitarianism". Chris Hedges alludes to this in many of his writings. The thrust of their arguments is that, by co-opting power, their aim is to ensure profit maximization.

The fossil fuel lobby of course is at the heart of this. They see any measures aimed at reducing our dependence on the se of fossil fuels as a threat to the way they do business, and to the bottom line. So of course they will do everything within their power to ensure that the status quo is retained. Given their bottomless sacks of money, they invest in all kinds of third parties (the classic strategy coined by Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann a century ago) which include public relations firms, think tanks, astroturf and front groups etc. in order to generate doubt as to the reality of climate change and other environmental threats. There's nothing really conspiratorial about it; it just IS.

That anyone with half a brain would deny the reality of the well funded denial lobby is quite a feat. It takes ignorance of the highest order.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

One last point. Shub's arguments are utterly vacuous. This has nothing to do with bitterness or sour grapes over some people's immense wealth. It has everything to do with corporations profiting massively on the planet's ecological destruction, in full knowledge of the implications. Therein lies the rub.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

'Marx-oid'?! Wow, another Libertarian™* pseudo-intellectual channeling li'l Mikey!.. (Don't fret, pet, the others know who I mean.)

Ahistorical simply because no-one who'd ever read any would believe such crap. Period.

* that's the US variety; i.e. Corporate anarchists.

'Marx-oid'?! Wow, another Libertarian™* pseudo-intellectual channeling li'l Mikey!.. (Don't fret, pet, the others know who I mean.)

Ahistorical simply because no-one who'd ever read any would believe such crap. Period.

* that's the US variety; i.e. Corporate anarchists.

Whoops: duplication caused by server failure during posting.

Shub the climate liar writes:

becoming angry at people for being wealthy.

No, you fucking moron, what makes us angry is that vested interests are subverting democracy and hiding their identities while doing it. Just because you are too insane and too stupid to parse reality does not give you any right to critique those of of who understand what is going on.

Now fuck off. The stench of madness and lies coming off you would make a hyena flinch.

Olaus

What the fuck has that to do with the subversion of the democratic process by stealth? K-12 programs to distort the minds of children. Lying to congress to distort the minds of policy makers. That sort of thing.

Actually, don't bother. Just fuck off with your diversion trolling somewhere else, you moronic worm.

@BBD

" the subversion of the democratic process by stealth"

You're ideating again BBD.
;)

Heartland's K-12 curriculum project. The Anonymous Donor.

Donors Trust.

You are lying again, GSW.

The GWPF and its refusal to disclose its sources of funding.

The GWPF injecting climate lies into the UK media (Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and associated website, Telegraph, BBC).

@BBD

So you are not "ideating" a conspiracy then BBD, you're sure there definitely "is" a conspiracy. Makes sense.
;)

The Murdoch press in general and The Australian's war on science in particular.

Gina Rinehard and Fairfax Media.

No, GSW, you moronic liar, I am providing evidence for what I am saying. And you are ignoring it, which is the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

So you can fuck off.

As can someone called "Volpoca".

@BBD

Ha! When accused of "conspiracy ideation", who would then try and defend themself by rattling off a whole load of other conspiracy theories. ;)

Why is it you guys are incapable of actually dealing with the real issues? You use "conspiracy theories" like slime mold "signaling", a method of establishing group behaviour without actually requiring any intellect effort whatsoever:
:
http://www.lumennatura.com/2012/07/14/slime-mold-and-signaling-molecule…
"When secreted cAMP signal molecules bind to cAMP-receptors on the cell membranes of the other slime mold amoebas, it signals them to activate a swarming behavior wherein the amoebas congregate and form a large multicellular “slug.” The slug community is the reproductive stage of slime mold."

Are you attempting to reproduce BBD? or just drawing the community together to form a giant conspiracy ideation "slug"?
;)

GSW

You are confusing conspiracist ideation with matters of fact.

And you are persisting even though this has been pointed out. This is monstrous intellectual dishonesty.

Fuck off.

Incidentally, the sociopathic conspiracy theorist loon Brad Keyes did exactly this on his defamatory blog. Since you have never demonstrated any capacity for original thinking (or indeed mentation of any kind) I assume you have simply copied your latest error from Keyes. The dangers of parroting!

@BBD

"You are confusing conspiracist ideation with matters of fact."

Yeah BBD, "matters of fact" that you build conspiracies out of. Maybe the other slime mold will turn up soon to help you out.
;)

Loth

"Money promoting false ideas is simply not cancelled by well financed promotion of rebuttals to those ideas, as any good propagandist from now back as far as living memory goes could tell you – along with a whole bunch of scientists who have researched those kinds of questions."

Good argument, I guess. ;)

If we take this, it's not the money but the deviousness of the propaganda communication devices that matter, isn't it? As in, you can spend a bucketload of money but if evil mastermind Frank Luntz's got ya there is no winning.

BBD, Looks like a few screws have come loose, as usual. Compare your unhinged rage that Donor Trust is not telling you who their donors are, and the innocent coyness in asking "Why so secret"? I'm sure Donors Trust would feel they would be criticized by the man bouncing up and down like Iznogoud asking for their names.

In a more serious note, corporations are spineless and, importantly, do not have the intellectual capital or vision to think they can fight back for their right to support their causes. Companies give money when they are approached. They don't want to deal with the headache that adverse media attention brings (when darlings like Brad Johnson write sweet protest letters). Not always the case though. Remember the Whole Foods CEO (US audiences will know). The ability to bend which ever way the wind blows is considered a virtue in business, and in many ways, it is. Unfortunately, it is such an attitude gives power to the stink bombers like Brad Johnson.

Ultimately however, let us be honest. The Alinksy solution is declaring the domain of climate change too toxic for anyone to enter and establish a voice, i.e., street-thuggery. Good for the GWPF they're able to do it.

2nd para

I’m sure Donors Trust would feel they would be criticized by the man -for their ideas- bouncing up and down like Iznogoud asking for their names.

BBD, Looks like a few screws have come loose, as usual.

Nope, just sickened to the core by your stupidity and denial of the facts Shub. Prolonged contanct with your peculiar brand of insanity in years passed has used up my store of patience.

In a more serious note, corporations are spineless and, importantly, do not have the intellectual capital or vision to think they can fight back for their right to support their causes.

This is so utterly idiotic I can't really respond to it. You, the apologist for corporate lobbying thinks they're all just shy, retiring cuties too scared to stand up for themselves?

You utter loon. Why do I waste time discussing matters of fact with someone too deranged or too dishonest to parse reality?

"in years past"

Yep, where would you even start? How many freaking lobbyists are there in Washington, for a start?

GSW

Yeah BBD, “matters of fact” that you build conspiracies out of.

Yet another lie. Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

And you, like Shub, condone this.

What does that make you?

Australian academic Alex Carrey summed up what BBD says in a single quote:

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy"

The propaganda has to be paid for and it is, to the tune of many millions of dollars channeled through the corporate media, advertising, PR firms, think tanks and front groups. There have been countless books written about it, evidence procured time and time again, and against this background we have the meatballs and shrubs and gormlesses of this world claiming it ain't so. I will agree on one thing, though: its not a conspiracy. Its out in the open. At least for anyone who bothers to look. Its too bad the deniers on here have their heads stuck well up their respective a**** to follow the money trail.

Speaking of conspiracies, meatball has admitted to one anyway. He cannot fathom why every major scientific organization on Earth has released statements accepting AGW as a fact and saying urgent measures are needed to deal with it. It must be a conspiracy because meatball has come on here claiming that 97% of scientists are of scientific evidence actually supports him and a few other idiots on blogs. If that's the case, then how does one reconcile 97% of meatball's 'reality' against 100% of the statements released by major scientific organizations?

I've so utterly hammered meatball on this point time and time again and his only rejoinders aren't rejoinders at all but witless quips.

Speaking as a scientist (and stick that in your collective craws, shrub, gormless and meatball) the fact is that a huge majority of qualified scientists agree that humans are the main drivers behind CC and certainly almost 100% of published scientific articles support this as well.

Science spoke some time ago. Its a measure of the influence of BIG money that policy is still in neutral on the issue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

@BBD

Ah!, the other slime mold arriveth!
;)

And you are still a liar, GSW.

GSW

How about answering my previous question? How about some interaction that doesn't just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

And you, like Shub, condone this.

What does that make you?

@BBD

"concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself"

Unlike Gore, Suzuki, McKibben, Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace and the WWF - How awful!
;)

Still more:

http://scottvalentine.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/dunlap_cc_denial…

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348

Anyone who denies the existence of a massively well funded climate change denial movement is, frankly speaking, out of their minds. And the budgets of the environmental organizations that right wing loving gormless cited are a fraction of that of the combined efforts of PR industries, front groups, think tanks and others working on behalf of the industries that fund them. Furthermore, environmental groups depend on public support in terms of membership fees. There's no comparison whatsover with the CC denial corporate-funded juggernaut.

Honestly, this is an issue beyond debate. The fossil fuel lobby sees any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a threat to the way they do business and to their profits. Thus, they invest heavily in PR aimed at misleading the public and in buying favor in the corridors of power. This isn't any more controversial than AGW. That its projected that way by anyone shows how successful the oil, gas and coal industries have been in promulgating disinformation.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

Oh dear, GSW has evaded my question again. So I will repeat it again:

How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

And you, like Shub, condone this.

What does that make you?

From the Guardian article Jeff linked about Brulle (2013):

Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

“I call it the climate-change counter movement,” said the author of the study, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle. “It is not just a couple of rogue individuals doing this. This is a large-scale political effort.”

[...]

Some of the think tanks on Brulle's list – such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – said they had no institutional position on climate change and did not control the output of their scholars. In addition, Brulle acknowledged that he was unable to uncover the full extent of funding sources to the effort to oppose action on climate change. About three-quarters of the funds were routed through trusts or other mechanisms that assure anonymity to donors – a trend Brulle described as disturbing and a threat to democracy.

“This is how wealthy individuals or corporations translate their economic power into political and cultural power,” he said. “They have their profits and they hire people to write books that say climate change is not real. They hire people to go on TV and say climate change is not real. It ends up that people without economic power don't have the same size voice as the people who have economic power, and so it ends up distorting democracy.

“That is the bottom line here. These are unaccountable organisations deciding what our politics should be. They put their thumbs on the scale … It is more one dollar one vote than one person one vote.”

@BBD

I hope you're sitting down BBD, this is going to come as a bit of shock- There are "left wing think tanks" as well! and not only that, not everybody agrees with them, and they get money from people that not everybody like. For example,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress#Center_for_Am…

"The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations, but it declines to release any information on the sources of its funding. No funders are listed on its website or in its Annual Report. From 2003 to 2007, the Center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.[32] In December 2013 the organization released a list of its corporate donors.[33]"

From the list of corporate donors - Covanta Energy - who? They're a renewables company - oh, oh, I think we know were this is going. George Soros, renewable energy companies - don't they have vested interests here?

Must be a conspiracy, let the slime mold signaling continue BBD, you can use it a substitute for higher order brain activity!
;)

Stop your noise, GSW.

Answer the question.

Climate change denial is misinformation, GSW. AFAIK, the Centre for American Progress doesn't peddle climate change denial.

@BBD

"the Centre for American Progress doesn’t peddle climate change denial."

That's right BBD, it happily peddles "Climate Change Alarm via, amongst others, Joe Romm. Not that I'm ideating any conspiracy out of it, it just is. I'll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you.
;)

These on the other hand, do:

ExxonMobil Corporation
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
US Russia Business Council
Air Quality Standards Coalition
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute
ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council
American Conservative Union Foundation
American Petroleum Institute
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
Centre for the New Europe
American Recreation Coalition
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
Aspen Institute
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Capital Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
Public Interest Watch
Cato Institute
American Spectator Foundation
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Chemical Education Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
Clean Water Industry Coalition
Consumer Alert
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
FREE - Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
George C. Marshall Institute
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
Global Climate Coalition
Great Plains Legal Foundation
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Heartland Institute
Koch Industries
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
Hudson Institute
Independent Institute
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
International Republican Institute
James Madison Institute
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Media Institute
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Wetlands Coalition
National Center for Public Policy Research
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
PERC - Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Reason Foundation
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Center for American and International Law
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Washington Legal Foundation
New England Legal Foundation
American Coal Foundation
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Center for the New West
National Wilderness Institute
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
Landmark Legal Foundation
Lexington Institute
Stanford University GCEP
ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
National Policy Forum
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
World Climate Report
Independent Commission on Environmental Education
American Policy Center
Greening Earth Society
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Americans for Tax Reform
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Center for Security Policy
Cooler Heads Coalition
Defenders of Property Rights
Junkscience.com
Seniors Coalition
60/Sixty Plus Association
Small Business Survival Committee
Institute for Biospheric Research
Center for Environmental Education Research
National Council for Environmental Balance
Institute for Regulatory Science
International Policy Network - North America
Fraser Institute
Alliance for Climate Strategies
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Media Research Center
Congress of Racial Equality
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
National Black Chamber of Commerce
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Institute for Energy Research
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
International Council for Capital Formation
Africa Fighting Malaria
United for Jobs
Illinois Policy Institute
Earthwatch Institute
Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
The Locke Institute
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
Communications Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute
Lindenwood University
National Association of Neighborhoods
University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
Institute for Senior Studies
Western Fuels
National Mining Association
Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
Peabody Energy
European Enterprise Institute
Climate Research Journal
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
DCI Group
World Affairs Councils of America
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
International Climate Science Coalition
Centre for the New Europe
Science and Public Policy Institute
Institute for Public Affairs
Cascade Policy Institute
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Affordable Power Alliance
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
Business Civic Leadership Center
Committee For Economic Development
The Tax Foundation
Wyoming Heritage Foundation
Institute For Liberty
Consumers Alliance for Global Prosperity
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis
Australian Climate Science Coalition
American Energy Freedom Center
TSAugust
Global Warming Policy Foundation
U.S. Department of Energy
Americans for Prosperity
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
Hawthorn Group
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
American Electric Power
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Senator James Inhofe's Office
Philanthropy Roundtable
Donors Trust
Donors Capital Fund
Charles Koch Institute
State Policy Network
Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation
Knowledge and Progress Fund

Lies again, GSW. Just because *you* are a climate change denier doesn't mean that what CAP does is misinformation. That's just how it seems to you because you are insane.

So, back to the question you are strenuously dodging.

How about some interaction that doesn’t just involve you delightedly rolling around in dishonesty like a dog in fox shit?

Everything I listed above is a matter of fact and all are concrete examples of vested interest injecting misinformation into the public discourse and by extension eventually into the democratic process itself.

And you, like Shub, condone this.

What does that make you?

Umm, stupid lying fuck...

I’ll leave the giant conspiracy slug ideation to you.

I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation.

So stop doing so. It is a lie.

Can't you understand that you are being blatantly fucking dishonest? Don't you get that?

Really?

Can anyone be that stupid and or morally bankrupt? What is wrong with your brain?

The thing is that if you're an amoral stunted fuck like Griselda, 'output' is just 'output'. Means and ends don't matter to winners, as long as they win.

Thus Soros backing renewable energy for example isn't developing an alternative which will be required anyway as Peak Oil bites, nor is he helping develop solutions that cease or reduce CO2 emissions, nor is he promoting good guardianship of Earth, our only home. No sir.

What he's actually doing is termiting away at the bottom line of the FF companies and their bought and paid for power structure, both formal - from Inhofe and his domestic and Atlantic Bridge/Trans-Pacific Partnership cohorts on down infecting the democratic process (by the people, for the people) - and the informal ones - the feral morons bred and fed by Ebell, Watts, Lawson, Montford, Nova etc..etc. etc.

Which is why the smugly and ugly insane like GSW and Olap can't understand why, out in the informed world, their half-baked ideas and counter-attacks strangely lack the equivalence that seems all too plain to them.

@BBD

"I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation."

You obviously are BBD. Think tanks get money from people, even ones you don't like, so what? Why use that as an argument for anything? Sorry forgot, slime mold ideation as a substitute for thinking works for you.
;)

Political corruption as consumer choice.
Brilliant, Griselda!
And just when you were making us think you couldn't sink much lower.

Griselda - and any members of your slop-skulled posse passing. A quick question for you.

Subject:"Stewardship of the Earth"

a) An unquestionably wise long-term policy guide.

or

b) Hippy Greenwash eco-fascist bollocks all of it.
Rape, pillage and be happy for tomorrow we die.

Gormless opines:

"There are “left wing think tanks” as well"

Sure there are. But they represent a tiny fraction of those on the far end of the political right. This argument is like saying that there are qualified AGW denying scientists too, when their numbers are dwarfed by the number on the other side of the debate. In other words, a smokescreen.

My gosh, gormless, you stink as a debater. You might even be worse than your sidekick, the Swedish meatball. What's ridiculous is that you actually think you are clever and have good arguments. Un-be-lieve-able.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

BBD, and on top of those think tanks throw in the multi-billion dollar public relations industries and you might get some idea...

for instance, Edelman PR, Hill-Knowlton, Burson-Marstellar, Ketcham, Porter-Novelli, and hundreds of others just for starters. Then go to the front groups, astroturf organizations, etc., and it gets bigger and bigger still...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2014 #permalink

hope you’re sitting down BBD, this is going to come as a bit of shock

The only shock here is that you are even more simple and selective than previously thought.

Now I note that others\have answered you whilst I was sourcing info to counter your propaganda where you come up with just one, so called, liberal think tank. It is about social justice, nothing less, nothing more.

I'll up you with this: ALEC which includes (but better viewed at source):

Trade Associations and Foundations

Corporate trade groups and other non-profit groups also make donations to ALEC of undisclosed sums. Examples include the NRA, the American Bail Association, and the American Petroleum Institute. There are also others listed here.

Additionally, ALEC has received millions from right-wing foundations created by corporate CEOs or their heirs over the years and which advance a corporate agenda through donations. Here are some of the foundations that are or have been donors to ALEC:

The Charles G. Koch Foundation and Claude R. Lambe Foundation-- both are Koch Family Foundations that Charles Koch is centrally involved in. Charles Koch is the CEO of Koch Industries, the "largest privately owned energy company in the nation."[11] Other groups it has funded include the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, the Institute for Humane Studies, the Heartland Institute and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The Koch Associate program of the Charles G. Koch Foundation also provides ALEC and other groups with “Koch Interns” and “Koch Fellows.” Some Koch Fellows go on to become ALEC staffers, such as Jonathan Williams, Director of ALEC's Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force. Research from CMD and Greenpeace documents that the Koch foundations have given ALEC at least $600,000 in the past decade or so, and Koch Industries has donated an untold amount.

Allegheny Foundation – This is one of the Scaife Foundations, which have been heavily involved in financing right-wing causes supported by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, whose wealth was inherited from the Mellon industrial, oil, uranium and banking fortune. Other groups it has funded include the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation.[12]

Castle Rock Foundation -- Founded in 1993 with a $36.6 million endowment from the Adolph Coors Foundation (which was in turn founded in 1975 with funds from Adolph Coors, Jr., the son of the founder of the Coors Brewing Company).[13] Other groups it has funded include the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, among others.[14]

JM Foundation -- Founded in 1924 by Jeremiah Milbank. [15] Other groups it has funded include the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Cato Institute, FreedomWorks and the Heritage Foundation.

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation -- Founded in 1942 as the Allen-Bradley Foundation, its "overall objective... is to return the U.S.-- and the world-- to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force."[16] Other groups it has funded include the American Conservative Union Foundation, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Focus on the Family and Freedom Works.[17]

John M. Olin Foundation -- Founded in 1953 by John Merrill Olin, a chemical and munitions inventor and industrialist, the foundation closed down in 2005. It has funded ALEC and other right-wing groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research and the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace.[18]

Also watch the vid' pointed at by Jeff @ #72 where 91 organisations are indicated with many of them being bankrolled by the very rich at the expense of taxpayers from having charitable status. George Orwell was prescient.

And then there is this: one of many I have at the ready.

You really are 'lost like a blind man in a pharmacy trying to echo locate the contact lens fluid.'

GSW, you may like to consider what 'conspiracy ideation' actually means. The big clue is in the second word.

Sorry, borked link at #89, my banana fingers having more trouble with this laptop keyboard whilst I sort out Linux elsewhere.

I’ll up you with this: ALEC which includes (but better viewed at source):

BBD, and on top of those think tanks throw in the multi-billion dollar public relations industries and you might get some idea…

I would imagine that the PR industry spits out any decent people, those with ethics, or separates people from their decency so that ethics then takes a back seat.

GSW

You obviously are BBD. Think tanks get money from people, even ones you don’t like, so what? Why use that as an argument for anything?

It is a matter of fact (you agree) that think tanks get funded. So how is my pointing out that they are funded by conservative billionaires and corporations to produce misinformation about climate change conspiracist ideation? How?

It is not.

It is simply a matter of fact.

The exact same definitional process applies to the misrepresentation of climate science by the right wing media. Once again, there is no conspiracist ideation; this is simply a matter of fact.

I keep on coming across this: deniers and conspiracy theorists who have no idea what 'conspiracist ideation' actually means despite being enmired in it themselves.

I don't suppose I should be surprised, really. It's just par for the course.

Try to understand, GSW. Try.

I have pointed out several times now that the examples I proveded were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation.

So stop doing so. It is a lie.

Lying is wrong, GSW.

@BBD

"were matters of fact and you cannot therefore claim that I am indulging in conspiracist ideation"

I've tried to explain it in terms that even a simpleton would understand, but for obvious reasons that isn't going to work here - people you don't like give money to think tanks/advocacy groups, therefore democracy is being "subverted" (and you ideate reasons why based on a set of values that not everyone shares). When people you do like give money to think tanks/advocacy groups it's a moral crusade like the one below.

"Soros-Funded Group Admits Lying to Acquire Heartland Climate Documents"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/iris-somberg/2012/02/21/soros-funded-group…

"Head of the George Soros-funded Pacific Institute admitted to releasing documents from the Heartland Institute that he falsely obtained. The group’s sleazy attack was then promoted by liberal bloggers and quickly gained steam. The story was picked up by the New York Times, Politico and other media outlets.

Pacific Institute, the group that lied in order to obtain the documents, received $275,000 from Soros’s Open Society Foundations since 2006. This vicious attack by the left resulted in the release of information on the Heartland Institute’s fundraising strategy, budget, and plans to combat global warming alarmism."

Slime mold signaling, or just slime? You just have to mention exxon, heartland, gwpf. etc and you lot fall into place as one big conspiracy ideation slug.
;)

You are now simply ignoring my main point: your incessant accusations that I am engaging in conspiracist ideation are false because I am dealing only in matters of fact. Well documented, undisputed, fully established matters of fact.

I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret.

Are you denying this matter of fact?

@BBD

"I posit no hypothetical conspiracy. I merely point out that there is a large, well-funded denial industry that tries very hard to keep its inner workings secret."

I can't trump that BBD, brilliant!
;)