March 9, 2010 
Thanks to Willard’s necessary-reading Neverending Audit website, I came across (once again) the thread at CA on stripbark: Miracles and Strip Bark Standardization and the infamous CB. Oh, and yes — this was the thread on which the CRU hack was announced…
ETA: I realize I’ve already mentioned this thread before but damn, it all seems to blend into one big mash after a while…
It's a miracle!
Here’s the post by Rob Wilson that starts the fun and games:
Rob Wilson
Dear All,
Please do not take this the wrong way, but the depressing amount of ignorance on this current thread makes it hardly worth the effort to respond. Two quick points:
1. The linear aggregate model is a purely conceptual model – something ideal for teaching to undergraduates to highlight all the environmental factors that can affect tree growth.
2. w.r.t. scarred trees (fire, glacier, avalanches etc) – one would never use tree-ring data from a scarred tree for a dendroclimatic reconstruction – or at the very least one would use a measured radius where the rings were not affected by the accelerated growth around the scar.There is a wealth of literature on these issues.
Rob
Well, let’s just say my keyboard needed a good wipe down after that! Kinda new around here, ain’t ya?
This thread is a great case study of the attitude towards science and scientists exhibited at CA. Imagine if you will a bona fide dendro a little green in the CA department, arriving at CA and witnessing first hand what we are all familiar with — the obvious contempt and holier-than-thou attitude towards dendro exhibited there.
Rob Wilson and CB take on the CA crowd and the results are predictable.
Here is a selection of the most amusing quotes:
Here’s Mosher:
I am going to resist the urge to rise to your comment about the ignorance displayed on this thread. What I will comment on is the lack of understanding about the QUALITY ASSURANCE process. As you note every dendro knows to avoid damaged trees. every dendro knows this. they are not ignorant. Every dendro knows to take at least two cores. So, the very first thing that I must do to check the work of a dendro is to see if they followed their proceedures. Clearly you would agree with this. I must check, did they sample damaged trees. Did they take two cores? If the study in question does not provide evidence for these two very basic QA tests, then the data is junk. It’s as simple as that.
Mosher likes to lecture people on proper everything. If you recall, he lectured — hectored — me on proper etiquette, suggesting I had Asperger’s and the like. Here, he lectures Rob on proper QC, the citizen auditor’s battle cry.
Steve McI steps in and offers some advice on how to improve dendro methodology.
One of the ways of assuring users that QC standards have been complied with is to archive photos of the tree in question. It’s very easy to do and Pete Holzmann did this within minutes of our Almagre sampling.
Another check that seems useful to me is to graphically compare ring widths from two cores in the same tree. If the trees are near-circular, then the two cores should match closely. If they deviate strongly as in the Tree 31 example, then one should check for scarring that might not have been attended to in the original sample.
Then Mosher and Steve and others have a bit of a back-patting session on how smart they are and how much they are advancing the science, talking about the importance of metadata and QA and other such engineering level practice. Shucks, those ignorant dendros might larn a thang or two from them!
Craig Loehle opines:
It is curious that all the professors out there whose work is being criticized, whose job it is to explain things to students (who are “ignorant”), seem unable to come here and explain their work. How hard could that be? And they could reach thousands, not just 25 at a time.
Why would professors want to go to CA? My God these people are deluded… They might come by just for the shock value, the horror…
Finally CB shows up and has the audacity to agree with Wilson:
I have to agree with Rob Wilson – most of this discussion reveals a fundamental lack of understanding and experience with the subject. There has been a great deal of work done with the bristlecones over more than 60 years including felling and stem analysis. Much of the remnant wood used for dendro work is from sections, not cores. People interested in climate reconstruction always try to avoid anomalous growth – surge or suppression – when measuring rings for chronology development as it is considered “noise”. The strip-bark form is NOT scarring i.e. wounding, but represents adjustment for energy balance. Idiosyncratic growth anomalies are corrected for by sample and site replication. Dendrochronologists have been aware of these issues for a hundred years, have studied them and done their best to recognize growth anomalies and mitigate their effects when interested in the influence of common environmental factors on growth (as is the case in climate reconstruction) or to search for them if they are interested in stand or tree disturbance – fire, flood, geomorphology, etc.
He ends his post with this plea (obviously he picked up on the contempt)
Dendrochronologists that I know love their subject, study it intently, do the best possible work they can for the love of and excitement of discovery – not to promote some nefarious “agenda”. It is hard, careful meticulous work that requires attention to detail. Most enjoy fieldwork and have a bit of awe for the objects of their study. How not to be awed by an organism that can live for hundreds or thousands of years, rooted in spot, unable to avoid the elements – wind, snow, ice, drought, cold, heat – take what comes and survive – truly amazing.
Please show a little respect for the trees and those who study them.
Talk about getting off on the wrong foot… Opining on the level of scientific discourse displayed on the thread. Asking that CAers show some respect for dendros?
*slaps knee*
That was quite the yuk.
The response is also predictable: Mosher displays his grandiosity:
In order to document that dendros have analyzed these cross sections correctly can you please point me to the records ( say photographs) of these cross sections? I am open minded about granting the people who do this work respect. Please show me the data to test your hypothesis that they are worthy of respect.
He’s willing to respect CB as long as he conforms to Mosher’s new improved dendro methodology of collecting metadata.
Brian B assures CB that CA is a place where there is real respect for science:
I think you will find an overwhelming level of respect (and relief) from most commenters here when an open-minded, non-agenda-driven scientist shows up. You may also experience a little initial suspicion from some because the experience of the proprietor of the blog and the commenters with climate scientists has often been of the type so recently exposed in the CRU emails.
The truly sad thing to me is that the large majority of scientists, who follow the evidence rather than lead it, find their own work and motives suspect because of the misbehavior of a few. Unfortunately the few usually seem to have a rather high profile.And when those few circle the wagons and are successful at suppressing dissent the idea that science itself is self correcting becomes suspect.
IMO that is the value of a place like this. I hope you’ll hang around and contribute some of your expertise.
The people here are pretty much like scientists in general; most are open minded and looking for the truth whichever way it goes, but there are some with an agenda. Please don’t apply the same thinking to CA that you justifiably object to being directed toward the majority of scientists who act professionally.
Lucy Skywalker — can I say Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds instead? sez this little bit of conspiracy paranoia:
CB, many of us here appreciate that many dendro-climatologists are knowledgeable and dedicated to good science in an area of fairly specialist knowledge. But the issue here is fundamentals, fundamental challenges of the bases upon which the current work has been built up. This is in addition to the evidence of deep corruption now surfacing – but not unconnected either. If there had been more openness, you would already know about Ababneh’s work.
Folk like myself smelled a rat that something was fishy in the whole of Climate Science. We have been motivated by the desire for justice and integrity in Science, and thoroughness and transparency in the climate science issues that affect us all so deeply. In the circumstances, all we could do was to try to sort out the truth for ourselves, even when unqualified in specialist areas. For instance, I discovered that the Yamal treering records seem to bear no relationship to any of the surrounding temperature record stations’ records. That to me was a fundamental piece of evidence challenging at least those Yamal treerings as proxies for temperature. It also challenged the conclusions of “unprecedented global warming” in which the Yamal Treerings were given a degree of significance they had not earned.
Yep, she’s swallowed McI’s innuendo and is very good at reguritation.
Bender shows up to offer his usual insults:
Ababneh? Read the blog! Reconstruction? Mann et al. 2008. Do a little reading before making pretenses at authority. Thanks for playing.
I won’t even comment on his post. It speaks for itself.
DaveJR protecting the reputation of CA:
There is a jaded view of dendro work here because of “sloppy” and obstructive practices by some of your peers and those who use their work. In particular, it appears that some of the problems in the work have been “brushed under the carpet” in order to present a “better message”. When these practices are called on, obfuscation has taken the place of candid clarifications. It would be great to hear how these problems are being tackled by proper scientists to clear up any misunderstandings evoked by others.
.
One thing to bear in mind. The majority of people here (and Steve keeps a lid on any that don’t) will treat you as you treat them.
When CB offers up some basic reading in dendro and the like, bender is having none of it:
This is not a bulletin board. It’s Steve McIntyre’s lab notebook. He’s read all these books. They don’t answer the questions Stve is asking. Read the blog. Example: Search the blog for “Fritts”. Thanks for playing.
Steve McIntyre’s lab notebook? What the frick is he smoking? I’m speechless.
John M is insulted:
Look, you can choose to participate as you please, but you’ll recall your very first post gave us all the impression that you thought you knew it all and were going to enlighten us poor unfortunate boobs. Then, with tail between legs, you admit you’ve never even heard the name “Ababneh”, and started asking people to bring you up to speed. Now, you focus on the noise and pretend that’s all there is.
CB looks around the site:
I have read a few more threads, really sorry I did. Full of paranoid comments, wild speculations and assumptions about people and circumstances the posters know nothing about and thus reaching foolish conclusions…. with small bits of interesting discussion mixed in by a small minority of participants… What to say? I don’t have the answers you desire.
HAHA! I like this CB person…
AMac has been converted — he’s seen the light.
One month ago, my confidence in the “paleoclimate community” was pretty high, based on my general feelings about the physical sciences. Actual interaction with an issue and some community members came in the form of learning about the Lake Korttajarvi varve series. Specifically, their mistaken use in Mann et al (PNAS, 2008), McIntyre’s calling attention to this error, and the circle-the-wagons response to the problem.
In this affair, the conduct of your community — academic and government researchers, authors, peer-reviewers, editors, prominent pro-AGW bloggers — has been generally disappointing. Well below the standards of any other specialty within the physical sciences (I hope).
I assume you do a conscientious job in your own work. Notwithstanding that, your profession as a whole has some severe structural problems that it has yet to acknowledge, much less address. I’d suggest that the paranoid comments and wild speculations that you’ve found on this blog shouldn’t rank all that high on dendrochonology’s To-Do list.
CB offers some more insight:
Automatically assuming someone has read through several years worth of conversations and should understand the local shorthand is a bit presumptuous. Actually I do know many of the people frequently mentioned here, including Ms Ababneh, and have worked with some of the material that is the subject of various discussions, have visited a number of the specific collection sites, etc.
As I said above, if the participants of this blog/journal/whatever, including specifically Mr McIntyre, are mostly engaged in turning over pebbles looking for evidence to support their latest pet notions there really isn’t much to say.
Pretty much nails CA…
This was priceless:
As for “recent events” let me say this. I came across an incident described and discussed on one of the threads: Mr. McIntyre was attempting to get some data from The Tree-Ring lab at the University of Arizona. He had difficulty and assumed his IP was specifically being blocked. Rather than contacting the sys admin for help to resolve the issue – or simply inquiring regarding the nature of the problem – he assumed nefarious intent, managed to get the data he desired via other means and brought legal action against the University for withholding data. It was a technical problem that affected others as well, took some time to track down and resolve, and had absolutely nothing to do with him. What an egotistical dolt.
You all might do well to consider that many of your dearest assumptions are simply wrong, unfounded, totally without merit. Rather than assuming the worst about people and their motives, people whom you know very little about – and since you have clothed them with your own misperceptions you couldn’t see the truth if it was spelled out in front of you – if you took the trouble to step back, take a breath, and examine the evidence for what it is (a good long look in the mirror might help a bit) without the terrible dark glasses you all seem to be wearing you might get a completely different perspective.
Sigh.
It’s a bit like a mass delusion.
OK, this has been fun, a good yuk and all, but I didn’t only post all this for my own amusement, but because I think it illustrates what is going on at CA quite well. It shows the complete contempt for science felt by the posters at CA such that they feel they are empowered to redefine proper scientific process and procedures and call into question and entire discipline with a century or so of research, holding McI up as if he’s some kind of savior. McI titles his post “Miracles and Strip Bark Standardization” and in a way, the religious reference is apt because seriously, his followers (and that word is truly appropriate as evidenced by the way they protect and defend him) see him as a saviour.
It’s truly scary.
The Policy Lass 
SheWonk,an excellent review. You hit the nail on the head, again. For amusement search CA for the phrase “read the blog”. They continually refer to ‘the blog’ as if it were some holy scripture or cradle of “truth”. Slight problem with that:
It is a blog. So…it is not vetted, it is not reviewed, it is not held to any standard, it is not audited, its content is not verified, and last but not least, there is absolutely no accountability.
It really is just an exercise in group think, an echo chamber for those deluded into thinking that their little fictional and omniscient microcosm actually means something in the great big world. Well no.
For many months now ClimateFraudit has read like the ‘National Enquirer’, full of gossip, conspiracy theories and misinformation. For goodness’ sakes, at least Watts is publishing something ‘scientific’, albeit factually incorrect pseudo science! At least Watts is trying to disseminate his propaganda under the guise of ‘science’. The same can’t be said for McI, who can’t even be bothered to do that much, rather he is much happier “feeding the blog” and keeping his acolytes fattened up on conspiracy fodder.
It shows that the deniers and CA in particular have nothing. Nothing. That and that they have not intention whatsoever in advancing the science or acting in good faith, period.
So very sad, and not a journalist in sight to call them on it. Why not?
I think journos feel McI is off limits because he’s got such a popular following — millions of hits. Let’s face it, you gogle climate audit and the majority of material is skeptic/contrarian/denialist dreck with only a few neutral or AGW science supporters on the first two pages of hits.
Contrarianism / denialism is the popular imagination now. That sells. Journos should be kicked in the butt for not doing their jobs researching a bit and writing something informative rather than merely entertaining. That’s it, isn’t it? The rise of the blog — yes, even I have to say that — and instant pundits — yes even I have to admit it — and twitter and facebook and iReporters and the like have dumbed down journalism to the sound byte — a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing… well, you get the drift.
The best bits followed a few days(?) later when the stolen code had been digested by a code guru Robert Greiner on wuwt and they found the “smoking gun” – The code that adjusted the tree ring decline:
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
They found IT the holy grail of AGW fraud. However they neglected to note that it was commented out!
It does not matter they said “it could have been used”!!!!!
Just because I have a garden I would hate to get arrested because I could have grown Marijuana in it.
They are now going after Jones for having misinterpreted the SMHI letter saying:
“SMHI do not want the data to be released on your web site.”
to mean that they had refused to release their data!!!!!!
It’s all about destroying trust in scientists and their data. But what is their agenda?
Hi SheWonk.
Sigh. So what then do we do? Some of us are trying to pressure groups like CanWest, but they just ignore you. They don’t even bother to send a PFO in the mail, even after you file an official complaint. That is pathetic, and something I’d expect in a corrupt dictatorship.
We have tools, like FIPPA, but everyone I mention this to goes very quiet. Why? You’d be surprised how many of my scientific colleagues run for the hills when it comes to ask someone to fight the good fight. It is not b/c they do not think AGW is not a legit threat, they know that all too well, but it is b/c they think that if we ignore the cranks they will go away.
The way things are going I’m almost at the point of letting it all go to the dogs, we are practically there anyways. But then my conscience gets the better of me.
We have witnessed how powerful the media are with how they have fawned over the deniers the past 5 months. How do we stem the tide and then reverse it? George Monbiot’s recent missive was depressing in the extreme. We do seem to be royally screwed? Or are we?
Please tell me that someone on The Hill understands what is going on here, and that someone with some will and political clout are willing to step up to the plate.
On that note I’ll go and watch ‘Big Bang Theory’ with my significant other…
PS: That reminds me. Did you know that Ross McKitrick, Tim Ball and Tom Harris are all creationists?
I’m pretty much agnostic leaning to atheist, but I don’t think creationism is unreasonable as long as it is understood to be faith and only faith, and not based on any science. The universe is far too huge and unfathomable at this point in time for us little hominids that I can allow for some belief in a creation / creator of some kind. Have you seen the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image? I’m not religious (more spiritual if you get the difference) but I get quite mystical and awe-filled when I see it.
Now, young earth creationists? Whole nuther kettle of crazies, that. 😉
As to ‘what is to be done?’ That’s the question, isn’t it?
Excellent post, thanks.
I’d like to have a link regarding McKitrick’s creationism.
Creationism, at least as the word is used in the US, implies rejection of evolution, even “theistic evolution”. Young earth or old earth flavor, it implies the rejection of common descent.
Perhaps MapleLeaf can clarify if this is what he means by “creationism”, rather than the (say) official catholic position that though God created the universe, evolution best explains the history of life on earth.
I should have specified a “belief in creation / a creator” rather than “creationism” to be precise. My bad!
Sent from my iPhone
You have Mosher nailed – IMO he’s the most pretentious and condescending of the lot, much worse than McIntyre himself.
It is he who came up with the nickname “Piltdown Mann”.
No direct reference to creationism.
Click to access a-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf
But when we look at the Cornwall Alliiance itself..
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/
I know what I think after finding all that.
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, (ISA), of which McKitrick is a principal member alongside Spencer.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=142
The Traditional Values Coalition haad this to say on the ISA’s launch:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/2512/interfaith-stewardship-alliance-officially-launched/
If you look to the left of that webpage you can find a link to a homophobic website, “Homosexual Urban Legends”. Nice.
You are the company you keep, and I know whose company I prefer to be in.
In a nutshell, McKitrick and Spencer made a pledge to combat environmentalism because they believe it contradicts God’s design. They believe that CO2 enriches the poor, and it is their religious duty to God to promote the use of fossil fuel in order to fulfill God’s pre-ordained role of Man to be stewards of the Earth.
Yikes and double yikes! This news is just beyond belief. I’ve never had much respect for McK, seeing him as just an idealogue, and this just puts him in the trash bin I’m afraid.
Sent from my iPhone
SPencer’s name is on this document:
Click to access cornwall-stewardship-agenda.pdf
You couldn’t make it up if you wanted to. The irony of this blog post’s title.
Spencer and Christy I’ve known about, McK, not.
(Christy, to my knowledge, has not publicly stated he’s a creationist as Spencer has, but his background as a southern baptist with a MS (IIRC) in theology who opened and ran a church for something like five years before going back to grad school in meteorology makes me suspect he is.)
Hi all,
Sorry for the silence, away from my Mac most of the morning, and for not being more specific as to what I meant by “creationist”. J Bowers, thanks for all the sleuthing and for shedding some light on what their belief system is. I originally came across the information at Deltoid.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/what_do_the_moranogate_emails.php
I also did some googling and came across this bizarre rant Tim Ball and Tom Harris:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1272
Reading that was a surreal experience. And they had a series…groan.
Tom Harris is the head of the astroturf denier group “International Climate Science Coalition. Ball has very close ties to the infamous ‘Friends’ of Science out of Calgary. I wonder who else on the board of FoS cater to the same belief system as Ball, McKitrick, Spencer and Christy? Right there you have most of the famous deniers.
PS: The poll results in the Deltoid story are also interesting.
@ MapleLeaf.
Yup, it was after I found the links above that Deltoid and DeSmogBlog also came up.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=142
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD: Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Chris de Freitas, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Dr. Tim Patterson, Dr. Tim Ball.
More familiar names? They have a link to the classic ‘500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming’ which includes… oh, hang on… 90+ Energy & Environment papers. Just scratching my head because its own editor has gone on record saying E&E isn’t peer reviewed. Confused now, hmmmm…
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
But it has at the bottom of the page…
But according to E&E’s entry on Wiki:
Who to believe?
Sorry, this is OT…well maybe not in light of some of the comments above. I was pretty depressed last night, and then this morning this story was emailed to me which did not help:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget-deep-freeze-will-lead-to-end-of-climate-research-lab/article1495628/
but then Eli Rabett directed readers to this piece by Dr. George Woodwell over that ClimateProgress.
Is that a glimmer of light I see on the horizon?
In an attempt to say on topic. Mosher, bender and RomanM are despicable, but IMO Craig Loehle is an arrogant egotistical and omniscient so and so….who firmly believes that he is “special” and not like those other riff-raff academics. Wow.
I couldn’t read the whole thing (sorry, I’m a wimp), but I got as far as the bit about Lyell and Uniformitarianism, and found myself wondering:
Tim Ball.
Young earth, or old earth?
(the word that follows “earth” is a given)
More on “Friends” of Science:
Exposing “Friends of Science” as Big Oil mouthpiece, Part 2
by BruinKid
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/26/11550/9864
I might start an astroturf group and call it ‘In Love With Fossil Fuels’.
Friends of Science my ass. Talk about doublethink… Orwell would be aghast.
J Bowers, FoS are a bunch of anti-science fossils out of Calgary, oil country. They paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a national misinformation ad campaign in the lead up to Copenhagen, and also jointly paid (I think) for a tour by Monckton around the same time– they refuse to disclose their funding.
Not sure how it happened but they may have planted a mole on the CMOS board and said mole forwarded them and Tom Harris private CMOS emails. What is not known is whether the mole planted himself or if he was instructed to become part of the board and spy.
FoS are the same group who used a UofC research account to essentially launder money. DeepClimate has looked into the antics of FoS. It is truly scary what they have been allowed to get away with.
I think there’s a strong “we’re taking down the scientific ‘establishment'” mentality at sites like CA and WUWT – kind of an anti-elite thing. The narrative is that McIntyre’s just a humble former mining industry guy with a 4-year math degree putting in tireless mostly free effort to objectively “audit” the science. Watts has no science degree at all – even better since he’s not at all part of the higher education establishment and thus has no axe to grind. The part about McIntyre’s behavior regarding the University of Arizona is indeed priceless. While CB seems to conclude that such behavior is indicative of a large ego, I think it’s more deliberate – in the sense that it’s designed to further push the clearly false narrative that the scientific community is hiding something from McIntyre and others.
Kudos to CB. Patience is required at such blogs. CB also had a comment on the fact that the actual relevant questions brought up and CA (among all the innuendo and childishness exhibited there), are things have have been discussed/resolved within the scientific literature for decades. Certain bloggers seem to think they are breaking new ground – making some major finding that those dumb scientists never considered, and certainly an audience with little knowledge of the topic being discussed can easily buy into that.
Just wanted to point to this excellent post at the Guardian, made more appropriate after MarkB’s comment there.
MarkB, good comments and insights! Thats aid, what we need to understand is how to counter it without sounding like we are “appealing to authority” or consensus. Presenting the public with the facts does not seem to be working, even though the evidence (across many metrics and disciplines) in support for AGW is overwhelming. How do we scientists get the message across?
Yes, like TomP, CB should be awarded a medal for patience and stamina. I could not so what s/he does.
Scientists need a media strategy.
I might be a bit thick tonight, but what about McIntyre’s behavior regarding the University of Arizona? We all crave for sound bytes.
Besides, the evidence showed so far is that McKritick is in the neiboughood of religious group, but what about his own creationist’s beliefs?
PS: Thank you for the hat tip, shewonk. Did not know anybody was reading this scraplog. Just a notebook, anyway… Might need to tidy it up, then. Hope you follow it with an RSS reader, by the way.
Willard,
Near the end of Susann’s post, CB writes:
“As for “recent events” let me say this. I came across an incident described and discussed on one of the threads: Mr. McIntyre was attempting to get some data from The Tree-Ring lab at the University of Arizona……”
And so I was thick. Thanks!
SheWonk, your ‘friend’ has some serious apologizing to do:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/10/mcclimategate-continues-yet-another-false-accusation-from-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
This is the problem with the emails. They cannot be taken at face value. What counts is actions, not pixels on a website.
Here’s a test of how much ‘good faith’ McI is operating in — will he retract, correct and apologize for any of his ‘overreaches” wrt the emails?
Priceless post!
SW, great post.
At some point I will have to do an overview of all the, well, paranoid, ravings from McIntyre about being blocked on the internet in various ways.
In the mean time, you might enjoy this thread:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/07/banned-at-sudbury-airport/
Some interesting comments start here:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/07/banned-at-sudbury-airport/#comment-184953
Here is the missing screen grab from that comment (the old CA allowed inline images):
And be sure to read this subsequent exchange between Steve and me:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/07/banned-at-sudbury-airport/#comment-185024
Steve:
“I hadn’t been blocked before. I don’t know why I was blocked and didn’t speculate on it. It could be something in the software, but it;s also possible that some individual caused it to be blacklisted.”
Deep Climate:
“That’s highly unlikely based on available evidence. The message I got was unambiguous: ‘Data transmission was interrupted due to an inappropriate word or phrase.'”
Yep, in denial.
Hee hee! What that thread does it show the dog whistling that goes on at CA. Steve McIntyre posts something that just hints at some nefarious scam or hoax or fraud but never rises to it, and then the chorus chimes in with the rest. Then, if anyone points out the reference to fraud, hoax and scam, people defend McIntyre and say “Steve is pure! Steve is surrounded by a halo of objectivity! He would never say anything bad! That’s our job!”
It’s quite disingenuous and ingenious at the same time.
Speaking of creationism, here is an interesting way to “promote critical thinking”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?ref=science
Balance. How can one be against balance, except the imbalanced ones? Let’s Solomon all the way down.
Balance can be defined in a number of ways: a story can reflect the actual balance of opinion (eg. consensus, majority, etc. on one side, minority on the other) or providing equal time to two equal but opposing approaches. The former is proper for the issue of global warming — the latter for those situations where there is a true dichotomy. There isn’t a true dichotomy in climate science, hence providing equal time to skeptics is actually to give short-shrift to AGW.
Problem is that the QC was not done.
In some cases it is common practice to preserve the entire cross section or records of it.
And when you take cores you are supposed to take two cores or more at 90 degrees angle.
You dont need to be an expert in anything to check that a published proceedure is followed.
Now, shall I bring up mails from the climategate files to show this?
You see that’s the thing I love about you guys. Whatever you want to say is just a phrase away from something I can demonstrate in the mails. If you read them you’d know that.
ta ta.
Hello does an expert on here mange to visit this forum and see it clearly on their mobile phone eg. blackberry? Any guidance gratefully accepted as to which is the best way to access this place on the move. I am looking to change my mobile phone shortly
Heart of the matter? Confidence intervals on temperature reconstructions? Crickets? Or did you not understand that bit?
Dhogaza is wrong. Moshe admits I have precedence over him for ‘Piltdown Mann’, but we came up with it independently. At one time I searched CA for the first mention of Michael’s immortal moniker, and someone had beaten me to it, but I can’t find that reference now.
=====================