I make the big time!

Congratulations! Oh, hang on...

DD (not the blind superhero): "No, so far I have never been wrong and it would be odd if that had changed. Anyway I was there. I saw the smoking guns. I read the emails. Even Harry who wrote all the IPCC climate models admitted they are all bogus."

Umm, are you sure he's talking about the right Stoat and Rabbett? He got everything else wrong so far.

It's a joke, J Bowers, though Poe's Law is so strong with this one that I had to read the "About" panel before I clued into it.

Duh. Back to the corner.

[Its good, isn't it? -W]

I hope that when the Uof V compiles the info it is left on an open server. The Virginia AG is hardly about to let his mistakes be seen publicly.

Even more embarassing for the AG will be the cost of this snipe hunt. Of course, the University, having to account for their spending of public money, will total their expences for this task. Unfortunately, this type of information often leaks.

thanks

[Its good, isn't it? -W]

It certainly is! I'll read more once teacher lets me return to my desk without the pointy hat sporting the big D on the front.

Step aside, Connolley.

Last week, and I quote below, I was elevated to the Nobel Realms of Paul Krugman and Al Gore.

On another blog some self-styled libertarian wrote: People like ronbroberg, Al Gore and Paul Krugman simply deny the conclusions that a century of climate science has produced.

I await my Nobel.

Ah, but I apparently worship at the Temple of Al Gore, or so I've been told a number of times. Mine transcends your feeble and earthly Nobel gong, Mr Broberg.

Honestly I tried reading one entire thread involving Curry at Kloor's blog, and it's very depressing. About the only good things to come out of them were some excellent lessons in debunking from some mainstream editors who easily demonstrated that they're much more on the ball than Curry.

The skeptic bloggers and their fans are a lost cause, for the most part, united only by an uneasy feeling that nobody takes them seriously. Except Curry and one or two other charitable (or deluded) souls.

I think it would be amusing to see Judith Curry as a guest on the Colbert report. She seems to think she is dealing with a bunch of skeptics wanting to know the truth, while my impression is that these people are convinced they already know the truth and just want confirmation, and Colbert is in a good position to poke a hole in that illusion.

I have a post in my head for Kloor's thread, but it needs some developing, and I need to get out and garden before it gets too hot. A couple of points I would make (with the caveat that I have not read the latest comments, and not all of Curry's other postings and comment threads):

Kloor asked some very good questions, but I would have liked to see follow-up: how does the fact that "good" and "bad" temperature stations have similar trends affect the worth of the surfacestations project? The there's the whole McI-engineered COI request spamming.

I think Curry's idea of a civil dialog is a good one, but CEI?

Leaving funding sources out of the dialog only helps to legitimize industry-funded think tanks whose purpose is to oppose policies that would reduce the profits or wealth of the funding organizations or families (Exxon, Scaife, Koch). As much as I respect Curry as a scientist and her efforts to open up discussion, she is on a fool's errand trying to get CEI to vary their message, unless she is going there with checkbook in hand.

I think a few people are getting down in the weeds and having productive discussions - Hausfather and Verheggen and the whole temp records effort immediately come to mind - but I would be more interested to see how this effort affects the posts at CA and WUWT.

Someone needs to define the term "catastrophic". The term CAGW (for catastrophic AGW) has crept into usage over the last year. I see this as a position that accepts AGW, but argues that it will not be bad - why? Low sensitivity? Long time frame? Adaptability?

RE: CAGW or (C)AGW

I've noticed that too. I think it is used to separate "luke-warmers" from the "alarmists." In other words, people who are willing to accept the basic physics but distrust either a) the models (and thus sensitivity) or b) just object to the 'alarmist' message that is wrapped around the models.

You might want to engage JeffId at noconsensus (tAV). My sense is he is one that does not deny the physics but doubts the predictions and objects to the 'alarmism.'

@13: You might want to engage JeffId at noconsensus (tAV).

Id is a conspiracy theorist through and through:

"No global warming again but that won't stop the media onslought. The media won't let the data slow them from continuing our march toward world-wide socialist governance. You may find that statement extreme, in which case my opinion is - you aren't paying attention."
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/data-or-politics/

Good luck penetrating that kind of delusion.

CAGW would be
Conspiracy About Global Warming?
Communist Alleged Global Warming?
Corruptly Ascertained Global Warming?

I'd like to think that the Curry dialog is her way of providing the less denialist skeptics with a path out of the closed off world of outright denialism. She is obviously not pitching her words in such a way as to court other mainstream scientists towards her position, but by saying that some skeptics have a point about some methods she is likely to shave off an appreciable proportion of intelligent skeptics who are either sickened by the actions of the conspiracy nuts or are becoming convinced of he robustness of the science.

I don't think she's likely to change the science much, but her stance could bring skeptics to the point where they will be ready to engage in less antagonistic dialog. If it works for some skeptics, that's a good thing.

[I suspect that it Curry's intent. However, talking about IPCC "corruption" just provides meat for the further-out skeptics. But then again, perhaps that doesn't matter - they are lost anyway and not really listening. Perhaps worse is that she'll get written off by the rest of science, which would be regrettable. I think she could solve much of this if she would just take my advice (ha!) and actually create a coherent single statement of her views, instead of scattering stuff across blogs -W]

A huge confession from me: I was so taken with Denial Depot that I made a few parody comments of my own on the "Crap" thread. My baffling, utterly impenetrable gibbering about Michael Mann and Al Gore unfortunately "poed" some earnest chap called David Appel, hook, line and sinker.

[You Bad Person. I'm not sure they have UHT Over There -W]

I thought the ridiculous Monckton references, and the "United Nations Nobel Peacekeeping Committee" would be enough to give the game away. Apparently not!

Now that the University of Virginia has become involved in all this, wouldn't it be fascinating if the investigation were broadened to involve other former UVa faculty such as Pat Michaels and Fred Singer?

#19

That is a jaw-droppingly bad notion, whether it's a wish, a hope or worse still a suggestion for future action. Present or former scientists being subject to this kind of demand, absent compelling evidence of criminal activity, is a very bad thing for the whole of science. It is not something to wish on any scientist.

John McManus @ 4: "this snipe hunt".

i think you'll find that was a quail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

;-)