Actually A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it, but I'm allowed to paraphrase in titles. And anyway he said it in German, naturally. Today brings us news of another such advancement in science, with the reported death of Robert Carter.
As far as I can recall, he was a minor figure in the Great Climate Wars; at least, I don't seem to have been very interested in him. He gets those usual suspects Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland & Richard S. Lindzen wrote in 2007; a throwaway line ($1,667 per month) from Heartland in 2012. That seems to be it. It's a bit of a sad end when even I couldn't be bothered to attack him. Sou was a bit more interested; or Deltoid back in the day.
* T'was on the Good Ship Venus (NSFW)
* Prescience from Carl Wunsch? - no; he's too nice for that; but I suspect intent by RS
* Brian at Eli's for a characteristically more generous response.
* Death of a salesman
* Veteran Climate Science Denialist Bob Carter Dies of Heart Attack - Graham Readfearn at DeSmogBlog (h/t w)
* Me in the Graun :-)
* I come to bury Schneider not to praise him - James Delingpole in the Torygraph.
* Bob Carter Does his Business - Tamino
* Sick Warmists come to bury Schneider not to praise him and God only managed ten - RS
* So what did he actually do? - James' Empty Blog
* An ironic tribute from JoNova
* Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science Award from the [[The Heartland Institute]] goes
* Bob Carter (1942-2016): Timing of death outdoes Kim Philby (FOGT)
WOW, you really are a sleezbag.
We interrupt your regular scheduled "programming" to bring you this important message ...
IT'S A CONS PIRACY I TELL YOU, A GLOBAL CONS PIRACY!
NOAA, NASA and the UK Met office all release datasets and PR statements at the EXACT same UTC time.
What more PROOF do you need for a NEW WORLD ORDER!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled "programming" ...
(a little temporary sockpuppetry would appear to be appropriate at this specific moment in time, as posted under my usual online screen name Everett F Sargent)
yea, I like both of them! (Stoat and WC) Science deniers hurt the whole planet not somebody's feelings.
Had Planck been a geophysicist, he might have observed instead that the geological column grows one stratigrapher at a time.
A first-rate sedimentary geologist like Carter would surely notice that Watts' eulogy contains a remarkable nonconformity
I wrote a couple of articles featuring him in my previous little blog. Not so much recently, mainly because there was nothing worth writing about. (As someone who chose the limelight and spruiked science denial to the detriment of him and everyone else, etiquette of "don't speak ill" doesn't apply - at least not in the sense that all his misdeeds should suddenly be forgotten or forgiven or swept under the rug.)
BTW - thanks for the plugs lately, William.
Whoah, tha mans dead. Why not leave it at that? This post is totally unnecessary. You start with an interesting premise, but one that's probably wrong. I don't think anyone had to die for the fundamentals of climate change to be accepted within the scientific community. I'd be more inclined to believe it is the case in politics though? Perhaps...
I assume you'll be familiar with the acronym foad - well - if you're going to try dancing on coffins like this there's nothing more to say apart from - it goes for you too Russell baby. Pair of cnuts.
[Dahling, are you sad? -W]
More fun at Tamino's (H/T Sou):
Oh I see............... you don't like science because you don't understand it but you like to think you do so you call science denialism and your limited understanding science........and then gather a few more of limited understanding around to clap and cheer.........
[Science is great. Try looking at some sometime -W]
Congratulations - on making it beyond doubt what a nasty, disgusting individual you are. No wonder [trivial outing redacted -W] hangs out at your site.
[Take the high ground yourself, perhaps? -W]
Your doing a Phil Jones then, how sad.
[That's even less coherent than the others -W]
I've been watching and recording the hate and vitriol coming out of the Warmist camp for years. William Connolley, your post tops them all. This is profoundly sick material.
This is not the way to win hearts and minds, and I'm sorry that you're going through life the way that you are.
[Don't worry, I'm not interested in your heart and certainly not in your mind -W]
I think this is new low, even for you.
[You've lead a sheltered life. Google "site:scienceblogs.com/stoat tosser" -W]
What.... the fuck.... is wrong with you? Are you retarded?
[Look at it this way. You're bothering to reply to what I say. If I was retarded, that would make you super-retarded -W]
SICK !!! SICK !!! SICK !!!
Are you going to try to destroy Robert Carter's memory and reputation at Wyki also, or have you not yet managed to slime your evil way back in there yet?
[You people really are incompetent. Instead of asking to be spoon-fed, why not just look and see? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_M._Carter&action=hist…, or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_M._Carter&action… -W]
Any thoughts that William M. Connolley is a decent human being certainly evaporated with his celebration of the death of an intellectual opponent. Creepy.
Sincerely apologies are in order, William M. Connolley.
[Try reading the post. As far as I can see, Carter never really made the radar as an opponent. He was a denialist, but a fairly dull and non-notable one -W]
This is all dead popular. But some people are struggling with the comment system, so I'll assist them:
James Keil: What a piece of work you are - gloating about the death of a man Bob Carter, who did no harm to you.
Doug Edmeades: Irrespective of where one views the Climate issue, your comments re Bob Carter recent death are depraved.
Patrick Moore (presumably not the Patrick Moore, since he didn't use an ouija board): I feel for your mental sickness, see a shrink. Miserable prick.
lwagnerseq: May he rest in peace! You sir, are void of character!
James West: You belong on another planet, you are sick!
My God, you are a piece of work. Typical of your class. Never can you argue the merits of a position and you damn sure cannot respect those with whom you disagree. You and the rest of your ilk are FASCISTS. However, I will NOT cheer when you inevitably die. I am certain that there will be someone who will miss you. Maybe even one person who didn't agree with you that you somehow managed not to treat like trash.
[You don't like libertarians? -W]
Your discreditable comment on Dr Carter sullies your reputation. Not that which enters the mouth can defile a man, but only that which comes out of the mouth. I have not seen such slime from an otherwise intelligent man in a long while.
What a contemptible sick person you are. A new low
From the same group that calls *living* scientists frauds and charlatans the tone policing is rather ironic ... hypocritic ... down right funny :)
All we need is for Carter himself to chime in with, "I'm not dead yet..." to complete this sketch.
[Well, you said it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs -W]
Connolley you were a weedy little snivelling kid and now you're just the same but a little older
[Not particularly entertaining I'm afraid -W]
You can show science deniers all the evidence you want, and they will just circle the wagons and proffer more and more preposterous conspiracy theories. You, however, have your own blind spot - you are oblivious to (at least one of) the basic mores of society. Nothing is gained by appearing to gloat over the death of Carter (whether he was influential or not). He was wrong about climate change, but the day of his death is just not the time to use him for satire. To do so is offensive. Therefore, you should apologize.
[Thank you for explaining your reasoning; however, I disagree with it. RC choose to put himself into the public light, and gets whatever the consequences may be -W]
A runt of a child and now a runt of a man.
You sad cunt.
[You're brave; anon name and throwaway hotmail address. Am I really that scary? -W]
The stoat could have better named himself the polecat, a beast even more foetid.
I guess turnabout's fair play. We'll be cheering your death when it's announced.
Who are you? You're on no one's radar. At least Bob Carter could provide clear, coherent and rational argument against the climate change conjecture from ilma evidence and history (I've heard him speak in person), whereas all you can do is shout "denier". No contest!
[You can look at my pic slightly up-thread, if you're wondering. Or look me up on wikipedia or conservapedia. I'm very proud of that last; few make that grade. As to what I have to say; well, read the blog instead of your preconceptions -W]
I am not asking you to do my homework for me. I would never visit Wikipedia for any information concerned with climate science or its participants, or on any topic where there is even a suggestion of a conflict of views. You have single handedly destroyed that faith of Wikipedia being an authoritative treatise by your actions in trying to distort the reputation of any one who has an opinion which is not your own. My faith in Wikipedia will be restored when they impose a lifetime ban on your loathsome activities.
[Wiki is at its best on things about which there are conflict; it does a much better job of presenting both sides than almost anywhere else. The Global Warming article is particularly good, as so many people have contributed. You hate it because it says things you don't like, and because you're not brave enough to even try to do anything about it; instead, you invent fantasies about wiki, like Anthony Watts does -W]
You are an evil, sniveling dastard. Remember, karma can be a bitch dude.
[You mean that people who call other people "evil" get bad karma? -W]
Felix, while I appreciate your admonishment of the wormy, evil scum Connelly, you're wrong on the science. Carter was right about significant man made global warming, see I even used the correct terms, something you alarmists seem unable to do.
All the evidence supports the skeptics. No tropospheric hotspot, no warming for 18 years, mediaeval, Minoan, Roman Warm Periods hotter than today with far less CO2, record Antarctic ice, Arctic ice recovering from 2007 minimum.
ERBE satellite shows outgoing longwave radiation goes up with increased surface warming not down...
As for the 2 degree threshold, even ignoring evidence that suggests we're now heading for an ice age being at a climactic holocene optimum, we will experience just over 1 degree of warming in the next hundred years due to man made causes. Firstly that's a third of alarmist predictions, secondly it's beneficial and there is ZERO evidence for some 2 degree threshold, it's a completel arbitrary political number with no scientific basis.
You need to learn about science, evidence and logic.
"If the theory doesn't match the evidence, then the theory is WRONG" - Richard Feynman
I'd imagine RP Sr is sweating a bit more...mortality's a bigger ••••• than karma.
(As an aside, "Schlibdiver" may be the greatest German phrase I've never heard.)
It's rather unfortunate that your face reflects you demeanour.Carter would wipe the floor with you( and that twit Sou).Bob was many stations in front of the best of your lot.
So was it a fantasy that you were banned for editing misinformation and propaganda into 5428 articles on Climate Change.
[Yes; its a fantasy. Step outside your walled garden some time and breathe the air; see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/ in the unlikely event of that occurring -W]
Just because you and your other 15 cronies managed to control the output of Wikipedia and effectively prevent any alternative views does not make your views true. But you know that, so why do you attempt to distort the science so much and show vitriol to any one who does not agree with your extreme views in pursuit of your political agenda.
It will be my pleasure to hopefully outlive you and to be able to contribute to your own Wikipedia obituary.
[C'mon big boy. Man up. Edit my wiki page. Look, I'll spoon feed you: it is here -W]
The man was a MAVERICK!
Te Puke, New Zealand
Your discreditable comment on Dr Carter sullies your reputation. Not that which enters the mouth can defile a man, but only that which comes out of the mouth. I have not seen such slime from an otherwise intelligent man in a long while.
As Bob Carter loved a good wine, let us offer the funeral party a glass to raise to him..
Would they prefer the Scottish white or the Patagonian red ?
"At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals." George Orwell
May Robert Carter rest in peace
(White whine is peaking right now, as evidenced by the piercing cries for bordeaux-control.)
I will let others judge who is the fantasist. Beyond your drivelling loyal following who would believe every utterance you make, I doubt very much that any level headed person would (Dana Nuccitelli readers at the Guardian excepted), especially when it is accompanied with the venom that is your style.
William sinks to a new low.
Colin Porter? Where does he hang out? I have to read more of him - such disenlightened confusion and ignorance rarely grow to such heights.
For the Bob Carters past and present, Morrisey sang your tune:
That's an intellectual-sounding but pathetic ad-hominem against a dead man.
"It’s a bit of a sad end when even I couldn’t be bothered to attack him" - you just have - and that's even sadder.
What a disgusting excuse of a man you are. Too gutless and incompetent to debate the man when alive, but real brave when he is dead. Speaks volumes about you and Carter.
[Your logic is faultly. I'm quite happy to debate the denialists. Indeed, I've "reached out" in that hideous phrase onto their blogs -W]
You disgust me so much you give me the dry boke!
To those malicious posters who haven't bothered to engage the critical module of their brains, I quote more Planck:
"When you change the way you view things, the things you view change."
But that might just be too profound for them.
I don't understand why we are expected to be so polite about people who we have reviled while they were alive. If you want to know why I reviled Bob Carter, just read a few pages of "Taxing Air", compare what he asserted with what was actually said in the papers that he quoted, and you will realise how devious he had become - whether unconsciously or not.
Bob Carter did an enormous amount of damage and made a significant contribution to delayed action on climate change (certainly within Australia, where he gave right-wing politicians just the ammunition that they needed to do nothing).
I will not miss him.
More comments via email:
'One day will bring us news of another advancement in science, with the reported death of William Connolley."
Please send me just one piece of scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has an influence on anything.
Until such time as you do, your comments on Carter's death are plain sick in the head.
Carter had millions more active braincells than you and your alarmist sickos can ever hope to have.
It is you, not Carter, who is a disgrace to science.
retired analytical chemist
Financial coordinator http://principia-scientific.org
How did you categorise the death of Stephen Schneider? He was a committed alarmist about the oncoming ice age who then switched his allegiance to the global warming camp.
[I can't recall commenting on Schneider, or his death. But you're wrong about the ice age stuff; see
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ ("Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"" section) -W]
Bob Carter never wavered, he consistently advocated that only scientific facts should be applied to test the anthropogenic "climate change" hypothesis.
[Carter was indeed consistent in his error -W]
Obviously you find Bob Carter's approach a threat to your cause (and your income source).
[I'm a software engineer. It is hard to see how Carter drivel could affect my income -W]
Director, The Galileo Movement
Kerry Chase <[redacted]@hotmail.com>
I can’t believe your callous comments, especially since you are wrong and Dr. Carter was right. Just think of the benefit to our atmosphere if you were to stop breathing;
Sent from Windows Mail
Your sick comments regarding the death of Dr. Bob Carter demonstrate the warped sense of reality that warmist scientists hold. The public does not support your phony, data adjusted science because they can smell a rat better than you think. Do you not believe what you see from the satellite data? The global warming pause continues.
Frank Burns, PE; SVP Projects; Green Generation Group
[It is necessary to be somewhat cautious about the satellite data; but https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/cherry-cruz-cherry-monckton-che… for example provides a useful visualisation that I have no problem with. What about you? Do you believe it? -W].
Gary Williams <[redacted]@outlook.com>
You sir are a fucking prick.
and a dumb fuck warmist cunt.
I couldn't understand what Hans Schreuder could possibly mean when he said "Please send me just one piece of scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has an influence on anything" - I mean, where do you start? It's like me saying "Please send me just one piece of scientific evidence that aeroplanes are held up by aerodynamics and not by magnetism?" (but then I noticed he was from Principia Scientific, which explained a lot).
My answer to Hans - go and read the relevant bits of the AR5 WGI (I'm sure he knows what it is) and, if he doesn't agree with something, write a paper on it and get it published - I'm sure he knows that this is how science works - easy!
Case Smit - you're just spouting parts of the standard contrarian playlist:
1. The "oncoming ice age" myth - William's two articles deal with this well - another nice treatment is at www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
2. Talking about "hypothesis testing" as if it's the only way science can be done - sorry, Case, it isn't (Lord Rutherford, who wasn't a slouch at science, is reported to have said "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to do a better experiment" (or words to that effect)).
3. Claiming that climate is somehow a money-spinner for climate scientists (and even software engineers!) - again, you obviously don't understand how science works: (a) a scientist doesn't just pocket the grant money and run (they actually have to spend it on science), and (b) all the climate scientists can think of could have just as profitable a career by studying something else (their genes weren't programmed to only study climate science - they are smart people).
A very low and cowardly act, denigrating someone when they have passed away and can not defend themselves.
[I don't think that's fair. As I said upthread, Google “site:scienceblogs.com/stoat tosser” . I denigrate plenty of people who are still alive and who could in theory defend themselves, were they competent -W]
Perhaps these are the only arguments you can win. When you think of it, the hypothesis that small variations in the atmospheric concentration of a minor trace gas are the chief driver of global temperature, climate, weather and ocean chemistry are bordering on the totally fanciful. A rather absurd hypothesis, especially considering that there is 48 times more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere.
Claims that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" are evasion techniques used by LIARS to deflect scrutiny and truth. For liars, the truth will destroy them. We have all had to deal with liars-this type of evasion (and name-calling smear) is so typical of the modus operandi of LIARS. LIARS smear those they fear.
Perhaps Mr Connolly should submit to a full and proper scrutiny of alarmist claims to assess the validity of the claims. Thus far, the success rate of alarmist predictions is ZERO.
Claiming "victory" because you slander someone in death shows what a weak argument you actually have. What a big hero.
If the death of a great scientist who disagrees with your views of a very flawed scientific argument is what you call a good thing, you are a very low act.
[Whatever you think about RC, it is clear that he wasn't a great scientist; at best a middling one. Just look at his publication record -W]
What's that Martha Wainwright song? Bloody motherfucking asshole? Could have been written for you you subhuman pile of shite, Connolley. How do you live with yourself?
Once more Connolley shows he has no honor, dignity or moral. If I was a warmist I would be most embarrassed having such a low life in my camp.
You are a disgusting human being. You and your clique of Jones, Mann, Desler et al should just go away somewhere and die of shame. You would all qualify for a Darwin Award.
And what is your publication record, you pompous arsehole? Mine is 100+ peer reviewed in scientific/engineering outlets. Having examined so-called climate science for nearly ten years, I can unambiguously conclude that it is a pile of politically motivated shit.
[Using the name you claim to have in Google Scholar shows no hits. If you want to claim a publication record, you'll need to uncloak; otherwise you're just blowing smoke. Mine can be found via the same source, sine I'm not a cowardly anon; allow me to spoon feed you -W]
OK I have a publication record and an academic career, including countless experiences as an editor and reviewer, that would be beyond the comprehension of green activists. I do not need to descend to your school-yard level of discourse. I do not need to convince you.
[You're a bit hard of understanding. *Stating* that you have a publication record is trivial; any old windbag can do it. But *demonstrating* that you have a record - as I have - requires a lack of cowardice that you don't have -W]
Anyway, disclosing my identity to you would be opening the door to some social media storm demanding my expulsion from whatever. You know it would, that is why you are asking. You are the online equivalent of the Brown Shirts - make the Green Shirts.
[Godwin. You lose -W]
It's fun to see Morano's "morans" panic as our host holds a mirror to them - it seems to be sinking-in to RickA and the rest of the Hee Haw gang that their corpses will be kicked to the curbs as a result of their aggressive stonewalling.
Wrt #46, it's a bit of a sick joke to imply that the deniers haven't had access to the popular press.
[Indeed. Or command a substantial majority among the Repubs in the US congress. But perhaps Lamar Smith doesn't have access to the press? -W]
Why are all these Bob Carter fans so angry? I assume he went to heaven and is receiving eternal reward in paradise alongside his creator.
Unless they think he went the other way...
(Bob's just investigating whether the recent warming has been coming from The Pit, as any REAL scientist would do. Have you ever SEEN a CO2 molecule? They're so small, there's NO WAY they could trap energy in the atmosphere.)
If this is how science is done, then let me be the first to celebrate how much science advanced when that hack Schneider (or whatever his name was) blessed us all by dying. We can be saved another of his moronic declarations of how short term trends mean the world is ending. I still remember reading his new ice garbage back in the old days. Science does indeed sometimes advance from passing.
:Just another version of the Galileo Gambit; you forget that they also laughed at Bozo the clown."
And keep an eye out for he namesake of Sideshow Bob 's brother - they laughed at him too.
Another brave anon by email:
Your comments on Dr. Bob Carter's death has brought a lot of attention to your self. Does the words self-sabotage mean anything to you?
Bob Carter may no longer be with us however the Satellite data is and the satellite data is cracking open the CAGW hypothesis like an egg.
[I don't think you've even looked at the satellite data; see #57 above -W]
Good Bye William, not satisfied in harming your reputation in the Wikipedia arena you have now succeeded in destroying the last scraps of your reputation and joined the ranks of infamy. It is simply NOT possible for a person to make comments like you did and be a happy man. How miserable you must be. You phantom enemies of CAGW is the only distraction you must have to avert your eyes on your own despair... Lose these enemies and you will be forced to hold a mirror to your face and see the man you became...
[It seems to me you might more profitably direct your comments to your denialist colleagues above; or indeed yourself -W]
When...and if....you get tired of making yourself and others miserable may I suggest you heal your tortured soul. I would recommend the website whywesuffer.com. It is published by a psychoanalyst named Peter Michaelson. He specializes in self-sabotage.
Clark Trezona: How dare you! What kind of sick individual celebrates the death of a scientist? You are the lowest of low pig fuckers! I welcome you to try and defend your actions! People are waking up and realizing that you are full of lies and untruths.
I hope your skin rots off your ignorant skull!
I had no idea who the dear departed was until he passed. How is it that once someone dies, their memory can only be compared with Jesus?
Anyhow, the post was worth something:
Sniveling Little Rat Faced Git
Good question- Watts seems firmamentally conflicted on this point .
Brandon @ 72: "If this is how science is done, then let me be the first to celebrate how much science advanced when that hack Schneider (or whatever his name was) blessed us all by dying."
His name was Pat Harrington, Jr., and as far as I know, he never appealed to his own authority as regards consensus science. Schneider's penchant for double entendres, however, WAS regrettable.
Robert Carter was a decent man. Not an intellectual coward like you Connolley.
[You've no idea if he was decent. You know nothing about him except he helped prop up your worldview. As to cowardice, I think you're confused. I'm here, un-anonymous, in full public view expressing my views. Why is that cowardice? -W]
How's your mate old fraudpants doing still up to his tricks over at UN RealClimate with the other nobel liars?
[Note: over at Delingpole's, someone called Stacey claims to have posted this comment. Something of a crisis of identity, perhaps -W]
You are a software engineer.
Soft in the head more like :-)
[That is dull. Do better or post elsewhere -W]
Interesting to see the actual article after reading James Delingpole's hysterical tabloid style piece. Your post is short, thoughtful and not particularly offensive; Delingpole on the other hand is spewing bile and ad hominem remarks all over the place - did you once steal his girl friend?
[You mention D... that leads me to this rather interesting post from Timmy's in 2012: http://www.timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-s… Lots and lots of comments. It features not only D, but also Tom Fuller and Steve Mosher acting like utter dickheads. I get the impression they've cleaned up their act since then.
Ah, but you mean http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/22/sick-warmists-gloat-… D really isn't very happy is he? -W]
The unhappy Dellers has blocked me at Breitbart Nothing wrong with a myopic fox hunter chasing stoats , but censoring attacks on censorship?
Whatever will Mark Steyn say ?
(Re: Brandon's 72, Stephen H. Schneider led a life of service, advising every President from Nixon on. Attempts to equate him with an expired disinformer are entertaining, but doomed to fail.)
I worked with a fellow many years ago who thrived in needling and antagonising my fellow work colleagues (long before the PC days) and this fellow not only thrived on mental disintegration but he was also wrong, alot. Information about various topics, dates, places were hopelessly wrong and the scary thing is, he knew it, we knew it and he did not care, he simply just thought he was smarter than everybody he came across. However, try to correct him and the barrage of verbal disparagement flew thick and fast. As such, life went on and this one day came the news that he died in a car crash on the way to work, some of my colleagues celebrated (ordinary behaviour) but most of us in the office just moved on quietly.
Here is the thing William, you want to go thru this life telling people that you're right and they are wrong just simply smacks of a delusion that simply makes me feel sorry for you because in the end, you'll be left alone and friendless. That's how this work colleague passed in his life and your crass lack of respect for the dead embodies a person who just hasn't got their shit together.
William, in death Bob Carter was a giant in the climate field. How do you think you'll be be remembered William, as the guy who fudged Wikipedia or took pleasure in dissing dead people?
[Your analogy is poor; to complete it you'd need to show a number of occasions - though I'll be generous and just ask for one - when you've corrected me on some substantive matter and I've refused to accept the correction. But I find you lot are big on words and fluff, and always remarkably short on substance.
RC was not a "giant in the climate field". He was middling at best. You want to boost him because you think he was "one of your own", but you don't actually bother read his work. Probably his high point was "New Zealand Maritime Glaciation: Millennial-Scale Southern Climate Change Since 3.9 Ma" in 2004 - more than 11 years ago (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5677/1659.short). That's climate, just about, but really stratigraphy / geology, which was what he did. Which is what his wiki entry says: palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist who is perhaps best known as a prominent Australian climate change skeptic -W]
One thing that amazes me is the disgustingly foul language uttered by so many of those people who feel that simply criticising someone's record after they are dead is bad form.
Good lord! Much ado about very little.
Wow, WC you have a really popular blog here,. everyone wants to comment. Will Stoat be making any comments?
William, Are all these denier comments real, or are you making them up? If they're real, what planet are they from? How do they manage to get access to the Internet? How do they even manage to feed themselves?
[All real, alas; I blame Delingpole for a lot of them -W]
When this post first came up, I was thinking about commenting that I found it a bit insensitive. But after reading the hateful and inane comments made by Carter's admirers here - not to mention Delingpole's diatribe in Breitbart - I cannot be bothered. If these are the kind of friends and followers that Carter had gathered, then the kindest thing we can do to his memory is to simply forget him.
" in death Bob Carter was a giant in the climate field."
Craig, Spike Jones couldn't have put it better.
"Carter was a key member of the climate change denial movement’s infantry. It is that movement that has fought for decades to delay any government policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The movement has helped to politicize the science, confuse the public and delay action that has real consequences for the public around the world.
So that’s how I’ll remember Bob Carter."
And this is why we are roasting a few marshmallows over his pyre.
Because he and many others, mostly geologists who have who have a few more clues about the history of this planet than the computer programmers, lawyers, consultants, politicians and sundry idiots infesting the climate gravy train, think as he did. I am proud to say that I knew Professor Robert Carter.
Lazlo writes: "Having examined so-called climate science for nearly ten years, I can unambiguously conclude that it is a pile of politically motivated shit."
LOL. And after a statement like that you expect to be taken seriously?
Oh, and what exactly are "scientific/engineering outlets," BTW? Do they rate as high as E&E :)
I think we can safely assume you're not competent in "so-called climate science." Just another engineer talking out of his field of expertise (sic) and out of his ass ...LOL
Craig writes: "...in death Bob Carter was a giant in the climate field."
WC - you're just sock-puppeting these comments. Either that or there's a lunatic fringe to the lunatic fringe and you have hit the main vein. Are these mainly brits, aussies, amerikans or a mash-up of all three?
A society has to process information to a very high standard in order to function properly - including responding to potentially catastrophic threats like climate change. Bob Carter deliberately interfered with that process and got paid to do it. The man was a fool and a liar for whom I have no sympathy.
Kevin writes : you’re just sock-puppeting these comments. Either that or there’s a lunatic fringe to the lunatic fringe and you have hit the main vein. Are these mainly brits, aussies, amerikans or a mash-up of all three?
Get grip man- Klein and Caldicott get equally gonzo ecomia from the Climate Realty crowd, and both are alive and kicking.
Roger Dewhurst @ 93,
"Because he and many others, mostly geologists who have who have [sic] a few more clues about the history of this planet than the computer programmers, lawyers, consultants, politicians and sundry idiots infesting the climate gravy train, think as he did."
Tom Harris @ 21: "Any thoughts that William M. Connolley is a decent human being certainly evaporated with his celebration of the death of an intellectual opponent. Creepy.
Sincerely apologies are in order, William M. Connolley."
Lest we forget, Bob was a guest lecturer while Tom taught Tim Patterson's...let's call it Denier 101 course at Carleton University.
Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus.
I don't know wether it is entirely safe to quote Planck , but the senitment is fitting in this case. Good riddance Carter , and good work Stoatie.
Has any bodies life been improved by this post? Did it add anything worthwhile? It seems rather a sad reflection not on Bob Carter, but on Stoatie who seems bitter and twisted, who even in death still wants to belittle someone who fought for what he believed in. There's no honour or integrity in that.
[The dead don't become magically right just by being dead -W]
How's your mate Mr Fraudpants doing, you both share something in common having the morals of a floating turd. Are you still lying and cheating on Wiki? Are you the Jimmy Saville of climate change disinformation.
[You've used this one already here; see above. And you've used it over at Delingpole's too. Only you were called Stacey there -W]
Roger Dewhurst @ 98,
Heartland's 2012 Proposed Budget. Note that Bob did not deny taking funds from Heartland. but insisted that his (pedestrian and demonstrably wrong) views could not be bought.
If you believe that i have no doubt that you believe that the earth is flat.
You can express your deep , deep shock at Bob's performance to the bear standing behind him at his Paris chorus line debut.
( ^^^ My hero.)
Sad to say, but his supporters' comments here have provided more entertainment value than Dr. Carter did in life. I'm looking at you, Stuart Harmon.
It is strange that no one seems to have mentioned that Bob Carter died almost to the day when major research organisations in two continents announced that 2015 was the hottest year since records began (my apologies if someone has already noted this). For weeks before, it was clear that this would be the finding. A rather similar thing happened to John Daly, who also died of a heart attack and, at the time of his death, was in the midst of a battle with Geophysical Research Letters, who had just rejected his comment on an earlier paper of mine (see http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm for Daly's jaundiced view of the affair).
These two incidents remind me of the increasing stress ageing climate contrarians will be under, as the climate evolves and it finally dawns on them that they were so wrong.
I'm afraid, for many, it's going to end in tears - or worse.
Mr. William Connolly you are a POS!
Deller's fanbois are a goft that keeps on giving :
Hmmm, all those who came from Delingpole's might want to read the following link, and then tell us why Delingpole is not a hypocritical PoS:
Still at it, I see.
Lots of abuse from the Dellingpole inspired lynch mob but I don't see a substantive comment showing Carter to have been the teensiest bit right about climate change. Why the rabble would bother to accept the word of an interpreter of interpretations I don't know, against the immense stack of evidence. When RSS and UAH catch up and show 2016 to be the hottest year on record, where will the rabble turn to support their unsupportable unscientific nonsense. Oh, I forget. They don't bother. They just go to the childish insult section of Roget and work their way through.
If anyone is too stupid to work it out, I'm with Stoat on this one.
Everybody complaining about this post should read Delingpole's 'obituary' of Schneider that Marco links to above (#112).
Becoming a hero to a creature like Delingpole is the worst possible legacy I can imagine for Carter. Nothing William or anybody else here ever could write could possibly come close to that.
"These two incidents remind me of the increasing stress ageing climate contrarians will be under, as the climate evolves and it finally dawns on them that they were so wrong."
Not just wrong, but dead wrong.
I know it's been rather hot in Australia - did RC die of heatstroke?
Oh, I forgot it was a heart attack - probably caused by seeing the final temperature numbers for 2015.
Not just dead wrong, but dead.
"I know it’s been rather hot in Australia – did RC die of heatstroke?" - I suspect not - I did look up the Townsville temperatures for 9-19 Jan - nothing very spectacular - daily maxima were in the range 29.8-33.0 deg C, the average of which turns out to be climatological average maximum for Townsville for January of 31.4 deg C!
I see our host was featured in The Gruniad this AM.
Thanks for showing us these responses. Many of them look like Poes, but if any of them are genuine I can only say that their delusion is so advanced that they are probably beyond help. I wonder how they speak in person to people they disagree with?
All the same, I think that giving the denialist mob any opportunity to exaggerate your post into "dancing on someone's grave" was probably not a good move. Nasty though many of them are, we should be above all that.
That wasn't an insulting post. This is, but it's also true:
Officials postponed the funeral after a huge mob stormed the funeral procession, destroying his wooden coffin in order to get a last glimpse of his body or touch of his coffin. In some cases, armed soldiers were compelled to fire warning shots in the air to restrain the crowds. At one point, his body fell to the ground, as the crowd ripped off pieces of the death shroud, trying to keep them as if they were holy relics.
Then the body, wrapped in a white burial shroud, fell out of the flimsy wooden coffin, and in a mad scene people in the crowd reached to touch the shroud. A frail white leg was uncovered. The shroud was torn to pieces for relics and his son was knocked from his feet. Men jumped into the grave. At one point, the guards lost hold of the body. Firing in the air, the soldiers drove the crowd back, retrieved the body and brought it to the helicopter, but mourners clung on to the landing gear before they could be shaken off.
Thanks to M for pointing out Delingpole in the Torygraph on Schneider: "I come to bury Schneider not to praise him" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100048085/i-come-to-b…
I'd like to ask any of those who have come here to complain - those that are rational - to address why you're complaining about what I've written, but not about what Delingpole wrote?
"those that are rational"
WC: I too thank M, and have juxtaposed the two pieces on the same page
At Sciece Blogs you get paid by the comment? Thought so
Here is Delingpole on Piers Sellers:
Wheelism (12) gave us this link:
Like many I suspect, I like to think that people who make false statements or misleading presentations might be merely misguided. Tamino's examination of Carter's presentations on temperature trends shows Carter to be dishonest beyond any doubt, and anyone who cannot see that is in denial.
Thanks Robert Carter for pointing out the misinformation: That alarmist models have consistently exaggerated projections of AGW and that numerous alarmist scare stories never come true.
The 'hardest hit' stories, which obviously all can't be true, demonstrate very clearly the deluge of misinformation we are fed globally on a daily basis: http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/hardest_hit
or perhaps A Complete List of Everything that has been caused by Global Warming:
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth".
George Orwell, "1984"
Rest in peace Robert Carter.
The world is a better place without Bob Carter in it.
You are correct that science advamces one funeral at a time. One down, more to go.
Lars' contribution to the Delinpole retrospective reveals the great writer's insight into history and the arts":
"Interesting biographical details and personal tragedy have nothing to do with the scientific method. (Well, not unless it’s Francis Bacon killing himself while experimenting on a frozen chicken)."
Albeit it's hard to say which.
Nothing better to do?
Ted Cooper: If what I read is true then it reflects the mind set of alarmists preferring ad hominem attacks to rational discussion of the data. Bob Carter, like Sgt. Friday, just stuck to the facts in a graceful and respectful manner.
[I'm a touch baffled by this, and by some of the other comments. It is as if they haven't bothered to read my post, only other people's attacks on it. Because I haven't really attacked RC in this. At least, not by my standards, or those of the blogosphere -W]
Ben Picard: In the subject matter you have been described as someone who needs help.
There are today institutions that can provide assistance to keep you sane.
Clearly this type of gloating is bordering a level of insanity.
You need help and also need to take a look at the present weather in the USA.
Record snow falls and you are like the proverbial ostrich.
Shameful and unforgiveable.
urbanbluecoyote: Your AGW religion in the guise of science can't even acknowledge the greatness of this man of science. You and the rest of faux scientists should learn to chew gum and walk at the same time before espousing your Cassandra like dribble.
[He wasn't "great". As a climatologist he clearly wasn't. As a geologist or stratigrapher he was middling, perhaps -W]
Russell the Stout:, IIRC that was the scene at Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral was described. One presumes Carter's admirers aren't quite so unhinged by his death, but one has ceased to be amazed at AGW-deniers' flights from reality.
It's possible to sympathize with the deceased's family and note their positive works while decrying the damage they have done in other respects. Redfearn's take on Carter is quite good.
Most of the prominent "skeptics" are near or beyond the proverbial threescore and ten. We'll be seeing this more and more as time goes on.
The perfect AGW rejectionist Xmas/ New Year gift: you're a crowd -pleaser, WC!
What more do they want than little soapboxes from which to shout their impotent and resolutely ignorant rage?
"What more do they want than little soapboxes from which to shout their impotent and resolutely ignorant rage?"
Not a damned thing. The opportunities to imagine themselves as martyrs are few and far between, and Bobby's death is an excuse to wallow in their mutual social/intellectual rejection, and nothing more.
Glen Michel writes: "Carter would wipe the floor with you( and that twit Sou)."
Fear the zombie Carter. You have been forewarned.
Paul Krugman's favorite Alan Rickman line (not as the character Snapes in Harry Potter):
"You think I’m an arsehole. And I’m not, really. I’m just British."
Harry Kal: [snipped for now -W]
[The "me too" comments have become dull; I think we've got enough of them now. I'll unsnip you, though, if you'll answer the point I posed in #122 -W]
Seen at Sou's,
Sou: "Roy Spencer is a rather nasty little man who has said some horrible things about his fellow scientists as well as leaders of nations all over the world. "
Anonymous January 25, 2016 at 1:46 AM
"As someone who has known Roy for decades, though not well, let me correct your characterization of him in your first sentence. Roy is not little."
Thank you, Anon :)
Jeff Id, seriously? Or is this someone just pretending to be Jeff Id?
The "happy gas chambers" Jeff Id? The "The idiots pushed me over the edge" Jeff Id? The "No I'm not going to apologize for any of it." Jeff Id?
[It's a fake email address, so who knows? Not that I know his real one anyway. Might be from Michigan, if that helps -W]
Back when the ClimateGate emails were hacked, Patrick Condon (Jeff Id) lived in Morris, IL. But he was hunting in Michigan when the files were uploaded to his server. Of course that was some time ago, he could have moved to Michigan or be up there visiting.
Perhaps he'll write a post at The Air Vent lambasting you for not publishing his comment - then we'll now :)
144 comments on this? That's gross.
It's what happens when squares play the dozens.
Some are just triangles.
(Perhaps this is the wrong time or place for numerate punmanship.)
(Or maybe David B. Benson is BBD's very own Bizarro. Either way, I blame dave s.)
There is not a pentagon in the bunch.
You are indeed a very small person.
[Thank you, try this -W]
Carter was a lying charlatan and deserves to be attacked for it. If he wanted respect in death, he should have not been so dishonest in life.
Manic Beanflicker @ 149 plays "Spot the stoat in the pack of weasels." If a man is judged by the company he kept ("[t]his includes Jo Nova, James Delingpole, Steve McIntyre, Ian Pilmer at the GWPF, Joe Bast of The Heartland Institute and E. Calvin Beisner of Cornwall Alliance.
"), Bob should have wished for anonymity.
(For DBB: 144 = a gross = a dozen squared)
Some of the denialists are now resorting to faking up quotes; https://archive.is/vnueY
Imagine if all the venom Delingpole released here was put to a good use instead, one could make a mountain of anti-venene.
No-one need ever die from snake or spider bite again.
[That reminds me: https://www.facebook.com/702ABCSydney/photos/a.364968469014.156091.1105… -W]
May I just congratulate wheelism on the ingenious reference to "what happens when squares play the dozens."
If i'm not mistaken, this is transatlantic slang for something which I first came across in ditties such as Mr. Speckled Red's "The Dirty Dozen", boogie boogie piano piece with vocal refrain.
Don't think it was covered by Mabel Lucie Attwell who did so much to introduce the genre to these shores.
oops, memory malfunction.
I did of course mean Winifred Atwell who did so much to introduce the genre to these shores.
"Becoming a hero to a creature like Delingpole is the worst possible legacy I can imagine for Carter."
I'm saddened by Carter. Curry is similar, someone who could've finalized a career providing a moderate contribution to human understanding but had to blow it and harm all of us instead. Curry still has time to change her mind, but that seems pretty unlikely among the dwindling number of denialists.
Delingpole, by contrast with them, hasn't done anything I'm aware of to balance the harm he causes.
But since getting Delingpole's praise is a sign of dishonor, the opposite is also true. Congrats, William!
Handy of Connolley to put this post up.
I'd always assumed there must be a decent human under all that righteousness and arrogance.
But, it plainly is not so.
At least we have that settled, once and for all.
Is MarkX commenting on Carter's righteousness and arrogance, or is he doing the dozens on our host? Rather gross either way.
In other mustelid news, The War of the Weasels is back!
What a disgusting piece of work you are Connolley, at least Carter was a scientist.
[I'm a software engineer. If you thought otherwise, you've failed to do your homework. Like all the other denialists -W]
[Tedious repetition of a previous comment -W]
What a poisonous little twerp you are Connolley. Prof Bob Carter made a significant contribution to science and his research and writing are testament to it. What have you achieved you sniveling non-entity? You are a scientific nobody. Have you ever published in a peer-reviewed journal? I certainly hadn't heard of you prior to the childish rubbish posted here. Non-entity Connolley. Crawl back into your hole little boy.
[Argument from personal ignorance is invalid. My publication record is available to anyone intelligent enough to use google scholar; evidently, that doesn't include you. If Carter made significant contributions to science, then why don't you try naming one? -W]
Having access to Web of Science, I can check the scientific contributions of William Connolley and Rober Carter. According to my search, Robert Carter published 86 papers, hist first in 1967, they've collected just under 2300 citations, and his h-index is 27. William Connolley has published 43 papers, his first in 1989, they've collected just under 1800 citations and he has an h-index of 22.
Given the different career lengths, and that WMC is still collecting citations at around 150 per year, these sound at least comparable. If people think that one should be judged on the basis of their scientific contributions, and that Robert Carter's is some kind of benchmark, there are many here who are not giving WMC the respect he so clearly deserves :-)
[Thank you. By my calcs, that gives Carter ~27 cites per paper, which is quite healthy. Mine is ~42. I find both of those somewhat surprising actually - I'd have expected lower (ah: looking closer via google scholar at me (me, me, I tell you: me!) I find Recent rapid regional climate warming on the Antarctic Peninsula headed by David "ear-shaped" Vaughn got 644 all by itself; and Dvil got 280. So perhaps not too unexpected. By comparison, Carter's 2004 Science paper only gets 47, thin for Science. What are his popular ones? (its hard to find him via scholar, there are too many Carters) -W]
Re your count of 86: Carter's wiki page has said "over 100" for years now. I recently removed it on the grounds of no good source, since the only source appears to be his self-written bio -W]
I think I missed a couple from when he was in Cambridge, so I now get 90, but it doesn't change anything else. Web of Science also misses some (such as conference papers) that might take his overall total to more than 100. However, it's unlikely to be more than 100 peer-reviewed.
Actually, that Science paper is his 26th most cited paper. His most cited paper is this one with 154 in Web of Science (193 in Google Scholar).
[Thanks. I wonder how many of those insisting that Carter was a great even know what "Cainozoic" is? ?I certainly don't. I feel a blog post coming on... -W]
"Cainozoic" is an accepted alternate spelling of Cenozoic. It's not used much any more. Or maybe it's British; they spell things oddly over there.
At the other end of the week's obituary spectrum, we have :
I worked with a fellow many years ago who thrived in needling and antagonising my fellow work colleagues (long before the PC days) and this fellow not only thrived on mental disintegration but he was also wrong, a lot.
I thought Craig was talking about Bob Carter until he made it obvious he was not.
Wherein this thread is the chasm in its own (brilliant!) cartoon, and the Denialati dutifully line up to throw themselves into it...
Are you going to try to destroy Robert Carter’s memory and reputation...
Carter did that all by himself.
You would all qualify for a Darwin Award.
Not if they have children. And they would have to die in inventive fashion, so your mere exhortation to expire would also seem to render invalid their applications for a Darwin.
Having examined so-called climate science for nearly ten years, I can unambiguously conclude that it is a pile of politically motivated shit.
Oo, please, do present us with your best, "unambiguous" killer abstract explaining why!
You sir are a fucking prick.
and a dumb fuck warmist cunt.
Who knew… the Stoat’s a hermaphrodite.
More Climate Depotage:
John C. Turmel, B. Eng. • 6 days ago
God, William Connolley, the mole who deleted all those Wikipedia articles critical of the fraud? ... When the frozen corpses start coming in and people start ruing the trillions spent on preparing for warmth because of guys like Connolley, nice to know we'll be able to find them. What an offensive troll who committed such damage.
Glad I can get his name up on my facebook Global Warming Hoaxers Wall of Shame.
Walther11 • 6 days ago
What a waste of skin.
Milty • 6 days ago
What would one expect from a guy who looks exactly like Himmler. Hence the term "enviro-nazis."
desertspeaks • 6 days ago
when will the fraud connolley die?
Johnny Canuck • 6 days ago
There is no proof CO2 is a warming gas. If it were true, the whole room would heat up incredibly when these lying Bastards open their yaps. They are basically Eugenicists.
[Great stuff. I've left them a note asking them to name one of the articles I'm supposed to have deleted -W]
Just for the fun of it I looked at Turmel's disqus page. Crank magnetism was easily identified, with negative comments about vaccination and fluoridation,
You'll love his homepage, William:
[It is certainly, errm, striking -W]
Oh, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionist_Party_of_Canada
Carter was a scientist. You are a propagandist.
Does anyone really doubt whether the alarmists have mental problems?
[Rene "doubty" Descartes certainly would. Meanwhile, is "alarmist" just a word for people you don't like, or does it have some semantic content? -W]
I don't agree that Planck's Principle (PP)
"Science advances one funeral at a time"
applies to Bob Carter (BC)
The extension of PP to include non-experts (a big change) is discussed below the bold headline near the end. There are a very small number of climate contrarians who are also experts, but BC was not one of them.
To hold up the progress of a branch of science is not easy, you need to be a major expert in the field itself
Having experience in another branch of Inquiry is not enough.
Some people regard PP as a joke , others, such as sociologists of scientific knowledge, take it quite seriously. This comment is designed to stand on its own and has nothing to with the views of Planck the person *.
First however, some quotes from Graham Readfearn's (GR) article (linked above) which must be one of the most balanced in WMC's useful resource:
"So when I say that I extend my thoughts and sympathies to his [Bob Carter (BC)'s] wife, Anne, and his family and friends, I doubt many will think that I mean it. But I do. Losing loved ones isn’t easy."
"Now, it is generally expected that after a person dies, you only stick to writing about the good stuff. Others argue that failing to point out criticisms ignores those indirectly impacted and could help myths to embed themselves."
and to exemplify the bad stuff he writes:
"In a response in the same Journal of Geophysical Research, a team of genuine expert climate scientists concluded the central claim made by Carter and colleagues was “not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in their paper [i.e. In the one peer reviewed paper co-authored by BC] ”
GR also links to some bad stuff promoted by the BBC
John Ashton on the BBC's interview with BC just before it announced the IPCC's AR5 report
[Remarks in square brackets are mine]
What then about PP? It might help if we can find a possible example of it.
How about Ernst Mach?
In his "Science of Mechanics" (9th.Edition 1960) there is an introduction by Karl Menger who on p. (vi) quotes Einstein as saying that "This book [referring to an earlier edition] exercised a profound influence on me ..while I was a student".
So it is odd that the later edition did not discuss Einstein , the theory of relativity or Brownian motion.
This makes it clearer:
"Not long after Mach’s death in 1916 his son Ludwig found the following note in his father’s papers ”I do not consider the Newtonian principles as completed and perfect; yet in my old age I can accept relativity just as little as I can accept the existence of atoms.”"
For the second of these topics please see
Bernstein: Einstein,Robert Brown and the existence of atoms
"Mach started out as an atomist, but he became disillusioned when he could not use classical atomic theory to explain the spectra of atoms. He became an extreme positivist and thought that the only legitimate role of theoretical physics was the economical description of observed facts."
Wilhelm Ostwald shared Mach's anti-atomic views but changed his mind as an old man. Mach on the other hand appears to have become quite fixed in opposition to the growing consensus. Did he have any influence? It seems so:
"Boltzmann described such
"Suddenly Mach spoke up and said tersely, ‘I don’t believe that atoms exist.’ This sentence went round and round in my head.”
In similar encounters Mach was fond of asking, “Haben Sie eines gesehen? Have you seen one? .” By 1900 Boltzmann had had enough of Mach and went to Leipzig until Mach retired in 1901. Boltzmann returned to Vienna the next year"
Although we don't know whether Mach's death advanced relativity or the atomic theory, we can see the sort of person who might have had a chance. He would have had to belong to an extremely talented elite.
In spite of some limitations, Mach's book the "Science of Mechanics" is still one of the best books on Newtonian mechanics. For example it includes a Newtonian definition of inertial mass. This was probably an original contribution which Newton himself missed. This is evidence that Mach knew enough mechanics to understand the atomic theory of Brownian motion which he ignored.
Mach's problem was described thus:
"In a 1922 lecture in Paris Einstein said of Mach that he was a “bon mécanicien” but a “déplorable philosophe.” " (Ref.Bernstein above).
Off Topic: Mach also made impressive contributions to science outside the controversial areas just mentioned:
What if we had chosen another example instead of Mach? Fred Hoyle perhaps? or Wilhelm Ostwald_TT? (WO_TT). The latter refers to my thought experiment in which Wilhem Ostwald tragically died in 2011 as result of an explosion in his laboratory. In contrast to WO, WO_TT did not live long enough to abandon his disbelief in atoms. The real Ostwald
As WMC's resource confirms, BC's qualifications were in no way comparable to those of Mach, Nobel winner Ostwald, or Hoyle or anyone capable of holding up the growth of the scientific consensus.
On the other hand BC's absence can be easily compensated by the same public relations industry which supported his efforts. This process is under way even on this blog (below the line). PP is silent about such vested interests.
(EPP). Extension of the PP to non-experts who try to influence the lay public.
That would allow BC to be included. Are there any examples?
There are some HIV/AIDS contrarians who may have the necessary expertise to be covered by
the original PP but CM was not one of them.
Sadly, she probably caused the death of her daughter and then of herself. Her death came too late to have influenced the resignation of her disciple Thabo Mbeki who had previously banned anti-retrovirals in South-Africa.
I should be interested to hear if anyone has evidence that CM's death hastened the advance of science and the acceptance of anti-retrovirals in South Africa or anywhere else. **
*.Brandon Brown's new biography of Planck is probably not relevant to my comment.
**. There had also been a short delay caused by arbitrary behaviour from prejudiced scientists ending in Feb.1984
This morning's interview of Peter Piot by Jim Al-Khalili