Tweaking the wackos

Via Eli I saw that there was some odd stuff at WUWT (nothing new there you might say). The weirdness is the ATI vs Mann case, or whatever it is called, and the ATI are complaining that Mann is allowed to be a party to a case about his own emails. Or something; the legalese is dull, obviously. The ATI counsel appear to have been doing some very dodgy things, like running the case whilst working for the EPA.

Anyway, I thought it would be entertaining to tweak them a bit, and did so for a while. What is funny (apart from their inability to count to 4) is the way they are happy to leap upon complete misrepresentations by their opponents of what people have said, and then attack those words. And the weird assertion that IPCC AR4 didn't use MBH. And their apparent belief in complete openness for all emails... except their own. And their friends.

It was fun for a bit, but got rather repetitive after a while.

This is more fun!

More like this

David Schnare is a climate change denier, right-wing activist, and lawyer, and he works for the conservative “free market” think tank American Tradition Institute (ATI). Evidence has come to light suggesting that Schnare acted unethically during the course of a recently settled legal battle over…
You've heard about "ClimateGate." ClimateGate was a very successful but illegal campaign by anti-science to discredit climate science and climate scientists. Rest assured, the climate science is fine and the climate scientists are just trying to do their jobs, and doing quite well at that.…
I am a skeptic. Not a climate skeptic, not in the sense of the improperly commandeered word we use in the climate debates. In my experience they know little of real skepticism as a general rule. But me, I really do dislike taking assertions on their face if I don't have all the facts and I really…
Well yes, as is slowly becoming obvious. Deltoid reports USA today (or you can also look at the full Mashey). In the curious world of academe (which I presume Wegman aspires to) plagiarism is a no-no far more serious that just getting the wrong answer; and has the virtue of being fairly easy to…

Ah, but ...

"Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three."

And five is right out. Right?

W - "The ATI counsel appear to have been doing some very dodgy things, like running the case whilst working for the EPA."

It gets better.

"Schnare, it turns out, was actually a federal civil servant with EPA(!) until a few months ago. According to Nature News, he misrepresented himself in communications with UVa, furthermore, he was not granted permission to engage in outside activity for ATI by his federal employers. This is not surprising either, since ATI has worked on lawsuits associated with challenging the EPA Endangerment Finding which would be a conflict of interest - and doubly so for a lawyer. Thus work that Schnare did as a litigator for ATI while on EPA payroll was a clear violation of Federal ethics rules."

I've been there too. It never ceases to amaze; every response to one of my posts gives me an opening to present the correct information in another post.

By John McManus (not verified) on 04 Nov 2011 #permalink

I am not a "science oriented individual", but I have a feeling that

...if you can generate a âHockey Stickâ from random data, that is the very definition of âgarbage in â garbage outâ

is not correct.

[Well, *if* you could generate HS from random data that would be a problem. But that work turns out to have been faked -W]

The detour into IPCC WG IV was fun, but then Smokey is one of the dimmer commenters at WFUWT. And that is saying something given the basic neanderthal level of intellect displayed by many of the most vociferous people there.

[WG4 was particularly bad. Other bits are more interesting though - the HS-from-noise stuff they clearly believe, and have never seen DC's piece. What I find harder to understand is the all-emails-should-be-public stuff: clearly, they've worked themselves up into a froth and kinda believe it, but only for other people, so there is a basic lack of thought there -W]

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 04 Nov 2011 #permalink

Well, in looking for folks to tweak, "Tufty" (not to be confused with Tufte), appeared on Andrew Gelman's blog to advertise The Hockey Stick Illusion, asking if anyone had heard of Mike Mann. This was a curious choice of venue, given the frequency of posts about Ed Wegman there.

However, it did remind me to reprise some August 2010 events in which The Stoat was helpfully involved, along with dogs subject to the stars. I've been too busy with other things, so thank Tufty for bringing this up.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 04 Nov 2011 #permalink

Guess who...

A) Was a prosecutor for the Virginia Attorney General's office.
B) Received his Juris Doctor Cum Laude from the George Mason University School of Law.
C) Is, or was, Director of the George Mason University School of Law Alumni Association Board.

Clue; rhymes with 'snare'.

My point was that his (wrong) claim of sneaky code that turns anything - even good data - into garbage is not the definition of garbage in, garbage out. Shouldn't that expression be about garbage coming out because garbage went in?

A mistake like that is an indicator of a person having confidence that far outstrips his intellect, in my opinion. But I'm not a "science oriented individual".

[I did wonder if that is what you meant. But arguably random noise is garbage. Though the HS result isn't, but I suppose he thinks it is -W]

"so there is a basic lack of thought there -W"

Well, yes.

Take that commenter who couldn't figure out that you were talking about the paraphrase of Mann in the court proceedings, not anything he said in the emails. He knows he's on the right side and your on the wrong side, so his idiotic interpretation of your point must be correct.

By blueshift (not verified) on 05 Nov 2011 #permalink

Smokey's idea of the scientific method:

You have the scientific method backward as usual. It is up to you to falsify my hypothesis, it is not up to me to prove a negative.

In response to my request that he provide evidence to support his hypothesis that CO2 at current or projected concentrations in both not harmful or even beneficial.

BTW, I'm reading up on FACE experiments which show that projected levels of CO2 (550ppm or so) will indeed have harmful effects on crops.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 05 Nov 2011 #permalink

CO2 will also encourage some plants to increase their defense response of produce more toxins rather than growing more, while others will grow more but become less nutritious.

Hey, I'm confused. I was working on the SourceWatch page for the American (aka Western) Tradition Institute (which doesn't pay any wages, according to its 2010 Form 990, which seems curious) and went looking for its reputed related 501c4, the American (aka Western) Tradition Partnership, but I can't find either "parnership" org name on Guidestar.
(I can find it on the Colo SoS website, it's #20081173078 as American Tradition Partnership, but shouldn't it be on Guidestar if it's a true 501c4? - and with enough revenue, if it could give ATI $40k, to have to file a 990, right?)

I think this is the wrong place to ask, but if you know...

[This is the wrong place :-). I suspect you'd be better off asking Eli -W]

By Anna Haynes (not verified) on 05 Nov 2011 #permalink

I've run into the "MBH was debunked and thus removed from the IPCC report" argument before. But usually when you link to the AR4 graph that includes MBH, people shut up or change the subject. Pretty impressive that Smokey keeps on chooglin' with that argument so that we observers can plumb the depths of his ignorance.

Could someone else ask Eli? I'd like to, but something's been amiss forever with his blog commenting setup so I can't submit comments there using FF, and now also MSIE.

(I also have trouble with DeSmogBlog, can't select text & the links aren't linky)

By Anna Haynes (not verified) on 06 Nov 2011 #permalink


I don't know, but if something's confusing, perhaps because it's because it was deliberately made confusing, as John Mashey once said. Speaking of that, I think Mashey knows more about obfuscatory money flows than pretty much any of us here.

And about the WUWT comment thread, how can we be sure that the majority of 'people' commenting on the thread aren't actually sockpuppets created by the likes of HBGary Federal? :)

- frank

"Could someone else ask Eli? I'd like to, but something's been amiss forever with his blog commenting setup so I can't submit comments there using FF, and now also MSIE."

Get a new PC.
Upgrade your copy of IE
Try Firefox or Chrome.
Upgrade to windows 7.

re: 15 Anna
I've had trouble at Eli's as well, but you might check your FF options:
at least at one point, turning on "Accept third party cookies" made it work. I tried the same post without that ON, and it just disappeared.

Frank: thanks, but I'm only an amateur ... on the other hand, I have gotten used to reading From 990s a... and interesting tidbits will appear in the near future.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 06 Nov 2011 #permalink

frank -- "And about the WUWT comment thread, how can we be sure that the majority of 'people' commenting on the thread aren't actually sockpuppets created by the likes of HBGary Federal? :)"

Probably not, in the same vein of why vampires won't attack lawyers; professional courtesy.

> I've had trouble at Eli's as well
Yeh, it's happening again for me also over there.
No doubt the filter's been improved again. Or something.

Blogspot (Eli style) blogs work better if you use an Id - eg Google. It's easy to get one. That solves the pasting text problem, for example.

A lot of people think you can't comment without an ID. That's not so, but the options for that are not easy to find at the bottom of the menu.