|Image credit: The Phytophactor|
After a hard day down the lint mines realigning brackets, its nice to turn to the comic section and such greats as:
rpielke says: January 3, 2014 at 1:21 pm: ...Your work really should be funded by the NSF or other such grant awarding organizations.
I hasten to add that RP Sr is not speaking of me, no, he is talking of renowned blogger Bob Tisdale. BT has, he says, been spending 8 to 16 hours-per-day blogging, writing books and producing videos over the past few years, but alas it doesn't pay the rent so he needs to get a job. I don't think I need to say any more about that.
The "*" is another great one:
*You are a Ph. D. de facto; Einstein’s doctorate from Oxford was “honorary.”
As you'd expect from the Dork Side, this is wrong/misleading: Einstein had an earned doctorate from Zurich.
[Update: 2014/01/17: BT has yet another whinge up at WUWT (don't bother follow the details) in which he says I am an independent climate researcher and regular contributor at the award-winning science blog WattsUpWithThat. But this isn't really true. He's retired, as he says himself, and no longer a regular at anything.]
And here is the comment that "Dr*" Bob couldn't cope with, so I'll record it here in its full glory:
> *You are a Ph. D. de facto; Einstein’s doctorate from Oxford was “honorary.”
Einstein had an earned doctorate from Zurich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Academic_career
Oh come now. You can’t possibly imagine that NSF would fund this stuff, can you?
And as for cowardly: here I am. Under my real name, not hiding as anon.
If he needs a title, he can talk to Scottish Skeptic (sic).
Amazin' Dr. Roy signed on.
[He wasn't dumb enough to endorse RP's NSF stuff though -W]
Although he apparently used his real name, Mr. Tisdale was remarkably invisible on the internet, with no background info, no resume, and no evidence of his education, occupation or location.
In general, in public conversations it is better to be more forthcoming about your identity.
Are you sure Bob Tisdale is his real name? He is very coy, saying at one stage that he values his privacy. He's never attacked anyone for using a pseudonym despite there being times where he was almost put on the spot by Anthony to denounce an anonymous coward (specifically me).
I'm not saying it's not his real name, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that it's not. (Not that it matters one way or another, except it would be a slap in the face for Anthony Watts.)
[Its interesting that his books are by "Bob Tisdale", according to Amazon. He can't possibly be called Bob, really: that's just short for Robert. So the books ought to be by "Robert Tisdale" which suggests fakery (and they aren't really books either, they're Kindle-only) -W]
"I deny nothing" -- Bob Tisdale
There's the problem.
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." -- Terry Pratchett
Pielke Sr to Tisdale: "I hope you do keep active to the extent you can as you have made very major contributions to climate research."
Yes, the theory that ENSO has caused global warming is truly a very major contribution to climate research. /sarcasm
Lifting my image without giving me credit? What kind of blogging manners is that?
[Not quite. If you click on the pic, it goes to your blog. But I'll make it clearer just to be on the safe side -W]
"The new job isn’t anything special. I could leave it without a second thought if something unusual happened—like my ebook sales skyrocketed or I found funding for my research."
Either he's not very bright or Tisdale isn't his real name or he's working at McDonalds, because the above isn't something I'd want my employer to read.
I take back what I said at #5. Not about Bob's name, but about the "not attacking" anyone. Poor old Bob was upset that way back I didn't address something he wrote point by point. Instead of addressing my article point by point he wrote about how upset he is that William and I made a point :)
(I won't let Bob's flattery go to my head. Despite what Bob says, I'm not in the same league as William or realclimate - not by a long way.)
[He and his ilk are not very discriminating -W]
Refute his contributions directly decries.Typical leftie snarks.
[Pardon? That's a touch difficult to decode. Are you complaining that I'm uninterested in his "science"? -W]
William M. Connolley wrote: "Einstein had an earned doctorate from Zurich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Academic_career"
Well you could have expected they would be allergic to WMC linking to WikiPedia, couldn't we? :) You probably faked that article and Einstein removed the part about Einstein being highly skeptical of the IPCC.
[I find it funny the way they object violently to wiki, errm, unless they happen to like the article in which case they're entirely happy. Its almost as though they do some ideological vetting before reading. Which must be tricky; perhaps they're psychic -W]
Maybe you should have linked to conservapedia. They state he got a PhD in 1905, and surely they won't object to conservapedia?
his paper on the photoelectric effect, which eventually got him his Nobel, was published barely a week after he was granted his PhD. but don't tell Donna LaFramboise that -- she'd do her nut.
Its almost as though they do some ideological vetting before reading. Which must be tricky; perhaps they're psychic -W
I believe the correct term is "crimestop".
I just wrote a comment at WUWT on the suggestions that WMC should debate Mockton. If Mockton wins WMC should stop editing WikiPedia. If WMC wins Mockton will not longer write for WUWT. I am under moderation, thus I thought I would also publish it here.
"A debate would be interesting. Connolley, knowing the climate "debate" well, would be a very good candidate to debate Mockton. A much better candidate as most scientists that know the scientific literature well, but not the kind of things that are discussed here.
The win/lose part does not make any sense whatsoever, however. Who would "win" the debate would depend on who is invited to sit in the audience. I am sure you do not really expect "alarmists" in the audience being convinced by Mockton, just as I have never seen and no longer expect a climate ostrich being convinced by scientific evidence."
[Ha, it won't happen. Not just because M would refuse - but I really don't think a real-time debate format is sensible. Gavin Schmidt has said the same elsewhere, I think. Real time in front of an audience favours repartee and sharp wit, which is useless at arriving at the truth. In fact a debate in blog comments is about the perfect way of doing it (it would need to be strictly moderated to either no third party comments, or only very strictly relevant and helpful 3rd party) -W]
These people are in the business of constructing an alternate reality. That includes imagining they matter to science -- otherwise the whole charade collapses.
Saul Bellow: "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for delusion is deep."