Interesting to see that M&M, Landsea and Wegman all get thanked for contributing to TGGWS (from Brian commenting at Deltoid). This contradicts McI, who says I had nothing to do with the Swindle presentation; though of course we don't know who is wrong. Given Durkins history of gross errors, its not unlikely that he is.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Oh well, everyone else has a gate, perhaps I can have one too. Incidentally the picture is there for two reasons: firstly I have far too many pix of Darling Daugther and no-one looks at them. If Jules can put up huts, I can do children. And second, it is a cunning attempt to make me a human bean…
[May 26th: Pulled to the top to update with the Nature editorial which, as well as noting the paper being pulled, also notes the mysteriously dilatory George Mason University investigation.
June 3rd: And pulled again, since Science have a piece on the actual retraction, and again note the GMU lack…
I'm wondering a bit if I took Prof Wegmans credentials a bit too much on faith.
A commenter on the previous post wrote I'm not too knocked out by Wegman's credentials as a prof at George Mason U, nor do I think he, who was leader of Reagan's idiotic "Star Wars Program", could be seen as an…
There's a thread on twitter, started by "@JacquelynGill" noting "The Day After Tomorrow", "@ClimateOfGavin" replying that "it was that movie and lame sci community response that prompted me to start blogging", and continuing "Spring 2004 was pre-RC, Scienceblogs, etc. Deltoid was around, Stoat, @…
Maybe he inspired Durkin?
ANyway, the Observer had a rather poor article on Lord Monckton today.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2073267,00.html
The mans cheek ensures that in less gentle times, I would have to duel him and make him eat his words.
A choice example is this:
"Two things are evident from all this. The first is that Monckton has done the homework. When I mention Naomi Oreskes's famous evaluation of 928 articles referencing 'climate change' that 'proved' the consensus of catastrophe among scientists, he announces not only that he has read the 928 articles in question and would argue 'only 1 per cent explicitly predict doom, while 3 per cent are specifically sceptical of apocalyptic ideas', but also that he has sent a further 8,500 related articles to be evaluated by a team of two dozen scientists across the globe."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the kerfuffle about Oreskes and Peiser was that Peiser claimed that lots of papers doubted the scientific concensus on global warming. Not that global warming would lead to huge catastrophes. See how he twists and lies, and the journalist, due to lack of knowledge accepts it.
[I don't think I've ever seen a piece of GW science journalism that got it really right. In this case, clearly the journo hasn't bothered to take any of it seriously, but is at least half taking the piss out of Monckton -W]
Oh, more than half, I think...
Oh I don't know, Joel Achenbach pretty much got Bill Gray in one.
Oh Christ....I realize it may all be fun and games for you guys in Australia, but for those of us here in the States it's a bit serious. When he's not carrying water for skeptics or performing as the Bush Administration favored scientist, Chris Landsea is supposed to advise our country on hurricanes and hurricane preparedness.
This does not inspire confidence.
They asked Ross and me to schedule time for an interview and cancelled.
I notice that Fred Goldberg, one of the organizers of the KTH conference in Stockholm is thanked. Perhaps that's a clue.
A couple of people from the Wagtv production team attended the KTH conference. I made a presentation at the KTH conference in Stockholm in September and chatted to people afterwards about my presentation, including the Wagtv people. Perhaps they found my presentation stimulating and it reinforced their interest in the topic, although they didn't seem to find stimulating enough to mandate discussion of multivariate statistical methodologies in their program.
I spent much more time chatting with von Storch the same day, who has been, shall we say, less than fulsome in extending credit in circumstances where we merit at least a mention.
William, sometimes try to look for your errors instead of inventing non-existent mistakes of others. Go to realclimate.org, search for "Google that", read the sentence with this phrase, and click the link. ;-)
Good, Michael Mann has fixed the problem already! According to RealClimate.ORG, the global warming is now actually caused by carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide. ;-) What a gang of smart kids you are, William! Wouldn't it be more decent to admit that his statement was just wrong instead of changing chemistry?
William, how do you tolerate Lubos? Maybe "why" is the better question.
[For the last few, I haven't a clue what he is talking about. As for the rest, Lubos can be OK, if he tries -W]
"how do you tolerate Lubos?"
Because we need someone whose specialty is spell-checking.
WRT Durkin and McIntyre, do I have to choose?
More Durkin Graph fakery - and another misrepresented 'contributor':
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2427