I'm going to intermittently keep track of the comments I make on other blogs. I'll spare you the totally trivial ones, but I don't guarantee this to be especially interesting. One point of doing this will be to track the ones that "disappear" on various sites (no names for now) that I've found don't post anything that might frighten the horses.
I move this up to the top every now and again by fudging the date.
Since this is at the top, I can use it for spam-of-the-week. This weeks spam is: the Boston Marathon.
2011/09/06
Editor's Apologetic Resignation Blows Gaping Hole in Over-Hyped Media Story - KK
> the view among many
Many? Just the usual wackos.
Which is to say: you should have left that piece of flame bait out. As
you say, "some... just don't know when to leave well enough alone".
[Note: KK joins the fray a bit late, having been on holiday, the wimp. Alas my fine comment has been censored [*] (not by him, but by whoever runs the site apparently) whilst the trolls are being given free rein. Not a promising start for the new place! OTOH Keith can use this to burnish his anti-AGW credentials in certain quarters if required, which have apparently been wearing a bit thin recently, since it is pretty hard for any sane person to stay -ahem- "balanced".
[*] Actually, it turns out that it just didn't get submitted properly, or something. Never mind -W]
2011/09/05
Spencer and Braswell fundamentally flawed, journal editor resigns
> I am curious why motivation matters in science.
It is not a bad question, but you're using it wrong. You're using it as a statement: motivation doesn't matter, this is a paper, therefore it is right.
The answer is: very very few people in this debate have actually read, and fully understood, either S+B, Or Trenberth '10, or Trenberth's RC post.
Clearly you haven't, for example (please don't go all huffy or pretend).
So people are using short-cuts to try to evaluate who is correct. This is inevitable; if we restricted discussion to those who understood the issues, there would be far less debate (and folks like you would be crying "censorship! gate keeping!).
You seem to be discounting the obvious explanation for Wagner's explanation, the one he actually gave: personal morality. He doesn't want to be associated with this paper, and has used the only means available to free himself. I know that is unpalatable to you, but it seems entirely likely.
2011/09/03
Stratospheric Cooling by SoD
Sorry if this has been said before. I didn't read all the comments. But:
"By contrast, the stratosphere is warmer at the top because of the
effect of solar absorption by O2 and O3. If there was no absorption by
O2 or O3 the stratosphere would be cooler at the top (as it would only
be heated from underneath by the troposphere)."
whilst correct, seems to me mis-direct the attention. The stratosphere
*exists* because of the absorption by O2 and O3. It is defined by it.
If there was no absorption, it wouldn't exist (if it was colder at the
top, it wouldn't be the stratified-sphere; it would just be an
extension of the troposphere).
If you look at it like that, then the explanation for strat cooling
becomes much easier, and does fit into a soundbite: it is:
"the stratosphere is warm, primarily because it absorbs SW (well, UV).
Hence, it must be continually losing heat by emission of LW (because
its temperature is in balance). If you disturb the balance by
increasing its ability to emit and absorb LW radiation, then it will
cool because you have increased the efficiency of the heat loss."
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-does-stratosphere-cool-under-g…
Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper
2011/09/01
> As it happens Roy's material fits better with my conclusions than do the IPCC models.
Well, you said it.
> Can we have some substantive objections to Roy's paper
Certainly you can: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-s…
Its been up for a while though; you really should have managed to find it for yourself.
2011/07/30
Yes, we've been saying this for a couple of centuries now
Even a small govt sets the rules, and so is well worth buying. You'd need some kind of argument like "a small govt sets fewer rules, so instead of a vast number of decisions, there are only a few, so the public can scrutinise them better". Does that argument make sense? You need to make a case for it, or some other.
2011/07/04.
Ah, I wish you'd said that at the start. I'd have pointed you to: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this…
I don't think the "disastrous" bit is part of the scientific consensus (depending, of course, on the undefined word "disastrous". Would halving of GDP be disastrous, or would it need deaths of half the population?). I know you included "disastrous" right at the start, but I just assumed that was strawman stuff (where you started, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-g…, is junk, of course).
If you're entirely happy with all the IPCC WG I report (in which case, I fail to understand why you're quibbling about logarithmic, or WV) the we have no real difference of opinion on the matter.
(followup to the above, when I noticed a bit more of the wording to the post:)
> will have catastrophic consequences... no one has explained clearly to me why this should matter.
Ah, I sense more confusion. Are you asking for proof of catastrophic consequences, or proof of why GW would matter? The two issues are quite different, and I'm sure you'll appreciate. The former phrasing is usually used by denialists as a strawman argument. The latter version makes sense.
An obvious counter-example to show the difference: if my GPS stops working, that isn't catastrophic: I can still go running, I just won't know how fast. But it matters, because I have to go to the time and expense of getting a new one. You see the point?
2011/06/01
1979 NCAR Forecast : Sea Level May Rise 15-25 Feet Before The Year 2000
Ha ha, how funny. Not a single one of your commentators noticed that the quote said "initiation cannot be ruled out as a possibility". Brian noticed, though: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/05/forbes-james-taylor-initiation-means…
For a prediction made in 1979, that seems entirely reasonable. Indeed, you could argue (depending on how you read initiation) that it turned out to be correct.
[Comment added here: as Brian says, the quality of denialist drivel is deteriorating.]
2011/05/26
Climate change is not a problem
von S heading further off the rails:
This seems rather incoherent.
If GW isn't a problem, why is "a reduction in 'greenhouse gas' pollution is desirable as this will slow down the increase of average global temperatures"? If GW is no problem, then why would you wish to slow down increases in temperature?
And continuing: "(though with the the complexities of the science of climate change it is difficult to point to any one predominant cause)" - this is just std denialist tripe.
[Update: Hmm: I guess I should clarify: von S didn't write that directly, one of the other bloggers at the site did. But the site is von S's and all the others are non-entities; no-one would bother with it were it not for von S's imprimatur. He is, effectively, responsible for everything posted there.]
2011/05/13
Zoe Williams misses the obvious
> So, let's relax those regulations and make child care cheaper, shall we?
Yes, the current situation is insane, including after school clubs. There, again, there are adult-child ratio rules, and a requirement for a minimum of 2 adults to be present (which is a killer, for small clubs at small schools). That is, unless it is sport-related, in which case you only need one adult (so there are limits to their insanity, which they replace with incoherence).
Given that we're supposed to be on a national money-saving-and-regulation-burning jag, these rules should be a prime target. But they won't, because one cute fluffy bunny might get hurt. I'd vote for anyone who was prepared to abolish ofsted.
2011/05/05
Forget the speculation, it is nonsense. Have you considered that food and oil are both wanted by growing economies? Neither causes the other (correlation does not imply causation, as you know).
2010/11/27
I'm rather surprised you don't mention the use of uniform /Jeffries prior in estimates of climate senstitivity - JA has been banging on about this for years.
2010/11/18
Nature editorial on Climategate
Well, you already know the answer, because Eli posted a comment and you deleted it (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/wayforward-machine.html), but at least part of the answer is:
Nature's policy on materials and methods only was established in January 1997: "As a condition of publication authors are required to make materials and methods used freely available to academic researchers for their own use." Before that, the only condition was that "Nature requests authors to deposit sequence and x-ray crystallography data in the databases that exist for this purpose."
2010/06/23.
IPCC: This Time Will be Different (Not), A Guest Post by Richard Tol
Richard - stop whinging, and stop making fake accusations of political interference. they nominated you, after all. You'll find the money without any great problem.
Roger - well, at least when the next report comes out, you'll be able to say: "not my fault guv, I didn't do it". Of course, when they say "*why* didn't you do it" you'll not look so sensible.
2010/01/05.
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
Hello children I came to play.
Lets play "how many obvious factual errors can you spot in the article"?
Answers at:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php
2009/12/23.
William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism
Come on over if you think you're hard enough:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/poor_old_watts.php
Continuing: Watts isn't hard enough. I ask "It would seem natural to ask the people who are doing it rather than me. Do you have diffs?". Watts doesn't supplly the diffs. I ask:
I've asked you for a diff of whatever it is you're complaining about. You've ducked the question by refusing to reply. If you want an answer to "why was text X removed from wiki" yuo'll need to tell me what piece of text X is, and the best way to do that is a diff. If you're not interested in an answer, that's fine.
Watts replies; I reply:
AW: my answer to LS is here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php so I don't need a guest post from you. If you've got any questions on that post, feel free to add them there.
You say "The number of articles you've edited and people you've banned from making edits to articles you've been involved in on Wikipedia is documented by an independent source here" where "here" is http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/William+M.+Connolley
That's a std edit counter. It doesn't tell you who I've banned or from what articles. I've banned (or more correctly, blocked) loads of people from loads of articles - but most of them had nothing to do with climate change. Most of them were to do with WP:3RR (see-also WP:AN3).
You don't understand how wiki works, so you're thrashing and embarassing yourself in public. Talk to GoRight (privately, by mail, if you want to avoid embarassment). He is one of you: he'll be happy to explain.
I notice the top of this blog still says "There's now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system". That is all wrong. There is no doubt. None of those messages were sent by me. You commenters have explained this to you, as has my blog post if you can bear to read it. So you need to update your posting.
2009/11/28.
"The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available". These are noble sentiments. Alas, you neglected to link to your web page where you do this; would you be kind enough to supply this link?
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is Dissapointing
Your spelling is disappointing too :-(
Don't worry, I'll be back once I've read it :-)
The rest looks quite reasonable. Rats, I was going to be snarky about the CD. Now I'll have to write a post pointing out why you're wrong, which may not be that easy :-)
2009/11/27.
JEB: Those Japanese budget cuts, in full, in brief
"the 100-person-year project that has cost tens of millions of dollars and generated about 1o minor publications (and nothing else)" - sounds like a scandal to me. Have you tried posted the relevant text on a server in Russia and mailed that Paul Hudson from the beeb?
2009/11/15.
2009/11/14. I'm now very confused. What is this post about? "There's a fair bit of back and forth going on at RC and at Roger's blog" suggests it is about Klotzbach, as does Eli's comment. But K isn't an author on the AGU paper, which the vast majority of us, being non-AGU members, can't read. So is the "interesting" part of the AGU paper the 3 competing hypotheses (in which case the other relevant interesting piece of philosophy / rhetoric is the way RP Jr tries to fool us into thinking that we're obliged to chose at least one of them as correct). As I say, I can't read their paper. But if this is indeed about the 3 hypotheses, then (a) this is RP Sr pushing his "there are more things in climate change than your CO2, Horatio" stuff again (b) its yet more turf wars stuff (supported, I think, by a very brief analysis of the author list): as global climate change has become more important, the mirco-met people have become less important (you can see similar stuff in the way the geologists often lead the skeptic charge). So I don't think you can understand it purely from the science; this is politicking. @SB: we're past 350, so it isn't interesting. 350 would probably melt Green land in the long run, but that too is uninteresting to the Great Unwashed because the timescales are too long. [nb: the RC post is http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/muddying-the-peer… updated: it turns out that the EOS thing is at http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-354.pdf; why RP Jr couldn't have linked to that is a mystery, but not an interesting one. Or maybe it is resolvable: having read it, I'm now firmly convinced that this is the same old stuff] 2009/11/13. As a philosopher, I'm sure you noticed that RP Jr's post began with a fallacious appeal to authority. As for the substance, this looks like RP Sr's favourite hobby-horse of regional effects and land use changes. What's new? And if there is a "chicken-coop of shitstorms brewing over this paper" I want to know about it - where is it? It hasn't made my blogroll's radar; Eli (http://rabett.blogspot.com/) is generally good a picking this stuff up but hasn't. Stratospheric Cooling by SoD Sorry if this has been said before. I didn't read all the comments. But: "By contrast, the stratosphere is warmer at the top because of the whilst correct, seems to me mis-direct the attention. The stratosphere If you look at it like that, then the explanation for strat cooling "the stratosphere is warm, primarily because it absorbs SW (well, UV). http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/03/why-does-stratosphere-cool-under-g… Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper 2011/09/01 > As it happens Roy's material fits better with my conclusions than do the IPCC models. Well, you said it. > Can we have some substantive objections to Roy's paper Certainly you can: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-s… Its been up for a while though; you really should have managed to find it for yourself.
2011/09/03
effect of solar absorption by O2 and O3. If there was no absorption by
O2 or O3 the stratosphere would be cooler at the top (as it would only
be heated from underneath by the troposphere)."
*exists* because of the absorption by O2 and O3. It is defined by it.
If there was no absorption, it wouldn't exist (if it was colder at the
top, it wouldn't be the stratified-sphere; it would just be an
extension of the troposphere).
becomes much easier, and does fit into a soundbite: it is:
Hence, it must be continually losing heat by emission of LW (because
its temperature is in balance). If you disturb the balance by
increasing its ability to emit and absorb LW radiation, then it will
cool because you have increased the efficiency of the heat loss."
- Log in to post comments
Oâ which we see bâspoke ân sea oâ willy nilly:
NYCToDAY1: http://oi52.tinypic.com/n5sk6u.jpg
NYCToDAY2: http://oi54.tinypic.com/vhry4j.jpg
NYCoODAY3: http://oi55.tinypic.com/2781g.j
NYCToDAY4: http://oi55.tinypic.com/2dh5f60.jpg
NYCToDay5: http://oi54.tinypic.com/2v9c0hx.jpg
NYCToDay6: http://oi51.tinypic.com/2nur61g.jpg
NYCToDay7: http://oi54.tinypic.com/2yzla1x.jpg
Raphael: http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/italian/raphael1.jpg
I had a desire to start my business, but I did not have enough of cash to do that. Thank God my close fellow said to take the home loans. Hence I took the financial loan and realized my desire.
I guess that to get the loan from banks you must present a great reason. However, once I've received a bank loan, because I wanted to buy a bike.
I took my first loan when I was not very old and that helped me a lot. However, I require the auto loan once more time.
It's well known that cash can make us independent. But how to act if somebody doesn't have cash? The only one way is to receive the mortgage loans and just car loan.
I have great skills in writing. Nevertheless, I cannot aid everyone who requires essay papers. They can to Buy academic papers if I don't have free time to assist.
We understand that often you do not have got free time for optimization. Thence, we offer you to utilize our rss blog submission service. That will economize your free time!
Students go to academic writing jobs service, with the aim to useful knowledge close to this good topic.
Thanks a lot, because you share the facts just about this good post . Buy an essay or pre written essay if you want know more!
Your fact referring to this post seems to be great! Therefore scholars not should compose the dissertation and dissertation idea by their efforts, they would use your support.
If Stoat can double post, Eli can too. That was last months shit storm. The RPs are trying for two bites at the apple.
The really funny thing is Jr. is hawking a paper that says that land use changes have been overestimated, because it says âthat the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not changed with increasing emissions, suggesting that the Earth system may have a greater capacity to take up carbon than previously thoughtâ
RTFR
[Oh, this is K again? I hadn't realised. Thanks -W]
Whee! This'll be fun. I won't delete your comments. Promise. But how the hell are you gonna keep it all organized? Too bad there aren't cross-posting bars that have pingback lists of comments across blogs. That'd actually be pretty cool.
Klotzbach again.
Great. Is that the Knorr paper Eli references? What is it about that paper that makes these people think all sorts of weird things that don't at all follow from that paper?
carrot eater, that sort of thing is a tradition among denialists. Purposeful misunderstanding is a lot of what they do.
Carrot Eater, I think you call it wishful thinking.
One of the more interesting of these, to me, is how the fact of WMC's being chummy with climate experts somehow should exclude him from editing wikipedia entries. (The Delingpole blog saves the 'worst' for last, and it's a picture of WMC -- is there nothing more substantive than that?)
I don't know the first thing about how wikipedia editing works, and neither do the people who are accusing WMC of something nefarious (Solomon, Watts, Delingpole). Is there somewhere that this hullaballoo is summarized neatly and correctly?
Much has been said about the procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But at the end of the day, everything comes down to people. The average IPCC author is smart enough to violate the spirit of any rule while complying with its every letter. The right group of people would produce a sound and honest report even if there were no rules at all.
Every person in the IPCC is corrupt, in other words. It's a conspiracy on a global scale. This man is a lunatic.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-time-will-be-different-n…
It is very interesting to me that you make the comment about comment deletions. I have visited many sites on both sides of the AGW issue, and found a strong use of deletions (on my comments) on most supporters of CSGW's sites, and the opposite on skeptics or lukewarmers sites. There are exceptions in both cases, but it is clearly the opposite from what you say. I personally have had many comment deleted, even though I never use improper language or make snide remarks. I have heard comments from many others that this is a common problem. I will say that SOD always shows my comments, and responds in a polite and clear way.
[SOD? CSGW? -W]
@William: SOD=Science of Doom. Steve Carson is a patient man...
And I think CSGW should have been CAGW=catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Just guessing on the latter, pretty sure of the former.
And isn't it odd that AGW'ers are complaining about being deleted on septic sites, while septics are complaining their messages are deleted on AGW sites? No really, really surprising...
I started reading that Delingpole column you linked to, adn came to where he qutes Lawrence Solomon. I want my cortex back!
These chaps are on a par with creationists and JFK/Diana assassination conspiracy nuts. They set up their own alternative reality in which no mainstream commentator is trustworthy and any primary source has a sinister meaning. Like creationists they generate interpretations that cannot survive close examination and they deny any inconvenient fact that may challenge their view while accusing the mainstream of exactly the same practices and worse.
Long before I became interested in global warming on its own account I observed that these bores would immediately clog up any internet discussion of global warming, or even extreme weather, with their nonsense. Like most people I tuned them out and listened to more reliable sources of information, who not surprisingly told a very different story that I could easily check out.
As for the various conspiracy blogs, it's my opinion that they should be ignored except as sources of unintentional humor.
Your are a narcissist and an archivist. Welcome to the club.
For me, Real Climate is the worst site for selective posting of comments. I've asked several reasonable questions which have never appeared. One major difference between the two sides is that the Warmists
[Ah well, there is your hint right there. You have the wrong language, and probably the wrong attitude -W]
never advertise the Sceptic blogs in their sidebars, yet the Sceptics always advertise the Warmist blogs. You are an example. I always get to your blog via Climate Audit. This seems to me a basic PR mistake. New visitors to the debate will inevitably regard the Warmists with suspicion.
As for your comment on childminding, I didn't have you down as a Libertarian. Where do you stand on private smoking clubs staffed by their members?
[Outside, I suspect. But if that is what they want to do, I can see no reason why I sohould object -W]
I have vague memories of your temporariliy joining the anonymous cabal which controls the Wikipedia Passive Smoking page, but I offer my apologies in advance if this isn't true.
[Never been there -W]
That would certainly include all the "skeptic" blogs, since their arguments rest, at bottom, upon a grand conspiracy.
Eli (actually Ms. Rabett, she was there) sees you and raises you with the Czech beer fest
The scientific consensus is that we are heading for disaster!
That was what James Lovelock found when he visited the Hadley Centre and is what he reported in his book "The Revenge of Gaia." They scientists were all too afraid to speak out because they would be ridiculed, or at least of being unscientific. That was about 10 years ago, but only James Hansen has put his head above the parapet since then. However, there are more rumblings.
Cheers, Alastair.
> Posted by: canlı sohbet | May 14, 2011
that's the copypaste spambot again; google carefully for the tricky link it has hidden with redirect behind the name used
[Removed. You are paying attention, thanks -W]
You might want to add this one to the pile:
--------------------
Demands that Eli take a position for or against are somewhat of that ilk. Eliâs position is that he trusts the weasel. That and the update over there.
-----------------
"One major difference between the two sides is that the Warmists never advertise the Sceptic blogs in their sidebars, yet the Sceptics always advertise the Warmist blogs..."
Policy Lass debunks that black and white generalisation.
"Skeptics"
Climate Audit
Watts Up With That
Pileke Jr, too.
Whoops, Freudian slip, perhaps.
At RC Jonathan and Leonard each have a comment in The Borehole, and they can be read.
And the spambot *again*. What kind of world do we live in when poor innocent spambots are forced to quote Judy Curry? :)
[Well spotted. Gone -W]