Skeptic Faux Pas

February 27, 2011 by Policy Lass 138 Comments

This is entirely yours. Post whatever Skeptic, Denier and Contrarian Faux Pas you find with appropriate citations of course.

 

Have at it! Let’s get it on record.

Uncategorized

About Policy Lass

Exploring skeptic tales.
View all posts by Policy Lass →

138 Responses to “Skeptic Faux Pas”

  1. Former Skeptic Reply February 27, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Richard Muller does his best Mighty Mouse impersonation in the Guardian. I sense a failure of epic proportions for BEST, given his – and his collaborators – proclivities for immature opinions on climate science.

    • shewonk Reply February 27, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      The problem I see is that if Mueller’s team does find that the other teams are more or less right, and the instrumental temperature record is sound, skeptics and deniers will still dispute the science because there is still the issue of past temps, of climate sensitivity, and of course, the models. What about the models?

      These people have disputed the science, not because it has been done poorly or because there are errors in IPCC reports, or lack of data sharing or any of the other claims made by skeptics. They have disputed it because they are fundamentally against climate legislation that in will any way cost the developed world anything, that will limit the freedom of corporations to pollute and develop, or that will require any kind of global treaty or taxation.

      So, Mueller and his team may provide an independent back up of the other temperature groups, but that is not the real problem. All those “issues” raised by skeptics are just “excuses”. This is a policy dispute about values, not a science dispute about evidence.

    • ianash Reply February 27, 2011 at 6:07 pm

      From the Guardian:

      “Muller is fed up with the politicised row that all too often engulfs climate science. By laying all its data and workings out in the open, where they can be checked and challenged by anyone, the Berkeley team hopes to achieve something remarkable: a broader consensus on global warming. In no other field would Muller’s dream seem so ambitious, or perhaps, so naive.”

      Well here’s the thing. The Berkeley team are already politicized, thanks to the inclusiion of Judith Curry as their expert and Koch Industries have partly funded the effort.

      There is also a sly inference that temperature data is not currently available. It is. Has been for years. But it suits his political agenda to look like the only group that is ‘open to all’.

      Here’s another thing. Will they release all their email correspondence as well?

  2. dorlomin Reply February 27, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Muller is doing little more than the likes of clear climate code or Mosher have done. I am happy to welcome his effort. I dont think we can make progress at policy level until something similar to Mullers effort takes place. If he finds generally in favour then it deeply harms the ‘groupthink’ or ‘for the grants’ arguments, if he does find any issues that are not fundamental then the science will move forward and it will enhance his credibility with the less intesnse sceptics.
    If he is dedicating full attention to this project then its a good thing, the only worry is if its a bit of a sideline from the day job.

    • dhogaza Reply February 27, 2011 at 6:14 pm

      Actually I think the stats guy’s involvement is more crucial than Muller, he and the recent physics PhD Muller mentions appear to be doing the real work.

      I don’t think Curry has a problem with the magnitude of warming GISS, NOAA, CRU, UAH, and RSS tell us has happened. She just thinks it’s mostly all due to natural variation (hard to square with her saying that the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 might be higher than 10K!!!!)

  3. PDA Reply February 27, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    My nominee for FAIL of the year:

    Zeke Hausfather: Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system.
    Judith Curry: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.
    David L. Hagen: When some models give results way above your 6C upper found and several researchers publish sensitivities half your 1 C lower bound, what are we to make of your bounds?
    Judith Curry: That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.

    • ianash Reply February 27, 2011 at 7:03 pm

      rustneversleeps resonds to Curry (who has gone strangely quiet):

      “Say WHAT????

      David L. Hagen sez @ February 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm

      “JC comment: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”

      JC On what basis do you set these upper and lower bounds?” (cont’d.)

      He’s actually fishing for her to expand on those bounds. And then, he is obliged with this answer???:

      curryja sez @ February 26, 2011 at 8:04 pm

      That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.

      I am having trouble beleiving what I am reading… This is an astonishing assertion, Professor. For a feedback sensitivity of BELOW zero????”

    • shewonk Reply February 27, 2011 at 7:59 pm

      This exchange got me. I think this deserves its own post, but I am fed up with the hubris.

      I believe it will be the general public, discussing these issues on venues, such as this blog site, that will eventually be the judges, not as a committee but as rational individuals.

      This means you, me, and all the others here and on other blogs. There may be an “epistemic weighting” (as Judith Curry has suggested), but I would not put too much weight on that, since the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is too broad for any one single expert to master in its entirety.

      And I commend Judith for actively recognizing the importance of the blogosphere and actually doing something about it.

      Believe it or not, PDA, we are all making history here.

      Max

      PDA | February 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
      I believe it will be the general public, discussing these issues on venues, such as this blog site, that will eventually be the judges, not as a committee but as rational individuals.

      So if Oliver K. Manuel, Ph. D. gets enough votes, that means that the sun’s core will suddenly change from hydrogen and helium plasma to a big hot ball of iron?

      Maybe you and your cohorts will be successful in your Great Leap Forward into scientific correctness, and the Western world will gain its understanding from polls on the blogs. I doubt it, but I’m telling all my friends to make sure their kids learn Mandarin just in case.

      • Deech56 Reply February 27, 2011 at 8:17 pm

        So a consensus by a different group acting not as a committee but as individuals. Nice. And nice try by PDA to infuse some rational thinking.

      • dhogaza Reply February 27, 2011 at 10:27 pm

        Thank you for not providing a link to Max Anacker’s post.

        I won’t go searching for it.

        The dumb, it rules at Curry’s 😦

        • PDA Reply February 28, 2011 at 10:48 am

          It’s hard-core anti-intellectualism. Not that I’m concerned about what the relative handful of Climate Etc. commenters can do… it’s more the idea that there are millions like them – presumably with more limited computer skills – throughout the Anglosphere. I’m really surprised at how many of them appear (from dialect) to be British.

          Not why I thought Old Blighty didn’t have this sort of aggressive know-nothingism… maybe it’s a sort of reverse patriotism. “America! We’re the dumbest! Fuck yeah!”

    • MarkB Reply February 28, 2011 at 2:08 pm

      Aside from the absolute absurdity of allowing for climate sensitivity of less than 0, it’s notable that Curry never supports her claims. She invents newfound uncertainty and claims the IPCC is wrong (and corrupt). A review of existing literature indicates the IPCC likely range of 2-4.5 is about right, with the 90% range extending down to 1.5.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

      What deniers want to do is throw in the Lindzen stuff as if it’s credible, and use its lower bounds as the true lower bounds for climate sensitivity, although they are out of the range of every other study conducted using a variety of approaches. This is typical obfuscation – climate sensitivity bounds determined by the union of all published ranges. By that logic, it’s possible there’s no such thing as a greenhouse effect (G&T).

  4. Holly Stick Reply February 27, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    I implied Sven there was dishonest for posting one of those woodfortrees graphs starting in 1998. I have seen deniers posting those graphs several times lately in various places.

    Do you think I will get rebuked there for implying someone was dishonest? As if they don’t throw around those accusations like confetti at a wedding?

    • PDA Reply February 27, 2011 at 11:08 pm

      You will get rebuked there for saying the sun rises in the East. You will get rebuked there for pointing out that someone spouting a contradiction is actually spouting a contradiction. It’s like Bizarro World: anything that gets you a rebuke is probably praiseworthy.

      • Holly Stick Reply February 28, 2011 at 12:05 am

        Well, I follow a number of political blogs and find many partisan rightwingers project their faults onto whoever they are attacking. They are not necessarily the only ones who do this, but it seems to be part of their training.

        The ones with some knowledge of science post at climate blogs and use the same sleazy tactics they learned in fighting about politics. The ones too dumb to follow the science at all stick with the political blogs.

  5. Gavin's Pussycat Reply February 28, 2011 at 12:42 am

    This is a thing of beauty, pity I suspect it shouldn’t be quite taken at face value:

    http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com/2011/02/on-hiding-decline-and-rebuilding-trust.html?showComment=1298844727483#c884463585840053109

    Susann how do you do it?

    🙂

  6. Michael Reply February 28, 2011 at 6:39 am

    This is close to my all-time favourite Curry quote. The lack of insight is profound;

    “If anonymous bloggers with no apparent understanding of the subject are misled, it is not my problem but your problem” – JC.

  7. MapleLeaf Reply February 28, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Face Palm? How about Lisbon….?

    • dhogaza Reply February 28, 2011 at 11:37 am

      It strikes me that she has really taken that t-shirt to heart, maybe it’s my imagination but her attacks on the honesty and credibility of climate scientists have really stepped up since that conference.

      Of course, having just learned that Mosher was asked to come as an “AGW proponent” – he of “Piltdown Mann” fame – it shouldn’t surprise me that she walked away with an even stronger conviction that she’s chosen the right side.

  8. dhogaza Reply February 28, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Hmmm, along with Mosher’s admission that he was asked to come as a “pro-AGWer”, he mentioned that Hans von Storch and Nick Stokes were the only other two on the “pro-AGW” side.

    Not Curry.

  9. Hank Roberts Reply February 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    > partisan rightwingers project their faults
    > onto whoever they are attacking.

    “In its vain attempt to make the incredible plausible, however — or perhaps as an intended second goal …. the court makes itself the obfuscator of last resort.” — Justice Scalia

  10. Graeme Reply February 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    any views on this?

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/28/the-muir-russell-contract/

    • J Bowers Reply February 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm

      How much did McIntyre’s ticket to the Lisbon workshop cost the EU taxpayer? $4000 or $1000?

      How many attended?

    • shewonk Reply February 28, 2011 at 6:09 pm

      I’m not too worried about the cost of the Inquiry. I’m more interested in how much taxpayer money went to tax breaks and subsidies for the oil bidness. We’ll see who’s really chowing down at the public trough.

      Here are a few of the subsidies oil and gas corporations are able to tap into to offset their costs:

      – Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
      – Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
      – Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
      – Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
      – Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
      – Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
      – Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
      – The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
      – Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
      – Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
      – Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

      Estimates range from $10B – $35B a year in the US and $10B a year in Europe for such subsidies but others are as low as $4B a year in subsidies.

      Here’s an article from Grist on Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

    • Marco Reply March 1, 2011 at 12:54 am

      LOL! First responder there is the kiddy-fiddler…

      Of course David Holland, serial FOI’er, is the one who is involved, and Steve McIntyre tries to stir up yet another faux controversy. Upon which an investigation needs to be started which costs the taxpayer money which…well, you know the drill of the eternal obfuscators.

  11. Graeme Reply February 28, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    a large amount to pay but maybe worthwhile as long as shewonk can sleep happy at night…knowing that the peer-reviewed climate scientists are batting for us.

  12. Graeme Reply February 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    hopes shewonk has no central heating…uses sticks to cook her food…etc…an then extend it to China.

  13. Holly Stick Reply February 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Egad, the worm turns and turns again:

    “curryja | February 28, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Reply
    Gary, when there is disagreement among scientists, this is a sign that one side or both is probably over certain/confident (not dishonest or stupid) . I am basically saying Gavin is over confident in some of his pronouncements; he may be right but I argue that there is sufficient uncertainty out there, or counter arguments/evidence, that a high level of confidence is not warranted by the evidence”

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/28/agreeing-part-ii/#comment-50634

  14. dhogaza Reply February 28, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    Just so you know who we’re likely dealing with … here’s graeme bird’s website.

    Enjoy! To get the ball rolling, I offer this: “The reality that 9/11 happened via controlled demolition is a proven fact.”

    • joe Reply February 28, 2011 at 8:57 pm

      To his credit, he appears to be perfectly capable of carrying on a conversation with himself.

    • pointer Reply February 28, 2011 at 11:56 pm

      I’m certain that’s a parody site. No one could be that far gone.

    • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 6:18 am

      Bird in a loon, but….

      I can’t swallow most of the stuff push in the 9-11 conspiracy theory, but Building Seven is like Kennedy’s head being shot backward by the force being hit in the front, and the huge exit wound in the back. Do I believe my lying eyes or a political commission?

      If you’re not familiar with this video, this guy is a demolition engineer. He didn’t know building seven was one of the building to fall on 9/11. He saw the collapse without prejudice.

      As and engineer I can imagine the amount of work required to make a build fall clear down into its footprint. You’d need to cut almost every vertical support to prevent leveraged toppling. Without this huge amount of structural cutting there is no way that the path of least resistance is straight through a mass of structural supports.

      • shewonk Reply March 1, 2011 at 6:30 pm

        It’s fun to be part of a conspiracy group — just think of it. You against authority, against the official story. You possessed of incredible insight that everyone else is lacking, you are a chosen one, a favoured person, one of the few, the non-gullible. You and the small group of fellow conspiracy theorists reinforce each other’s sense of being special.

        It does look suspicious to me, building 7’s fall, but what the heck do I know about building and engineering? People say it looks like a controlled demolition. That it implodes and falls from the bottom, but perhaps it was damaged badly enough from the towers falling that it couldn’t stand up. Perhaps because it was host to the CIA offices, it was already spechully prepared so that they could “pull” it if the need arose — say, if Osama invaded New York and was closing in on the building and all America’s secrets…

        Where’s my tinfoil hat???

        • graemebird Reply March 1, 2011 at 6:55 pm

          The problem with all this psychologizing is that its an ad hom, and therefore a logical fallacy and no serious argument.

          We’ve all seen molten iron pouring from the South Tower. If anyone cannot see that this fact has grave implications thats a failure of capacity to think things through right there.

          • shewonk Reply March 1, 2011 at 10:29 pm

            An ad hominem would be for us to say 9/11 truthers are crazy and therefore anything they say is crazy. It’s not an ad hominem to say that the 9/11 government conspiracy theory claiming that the towers were brought down by drone airplanes and controlled demolition is crazy and that the people who believe such things are kooks. The two are different. So, no. It would be an ad kookinem or whatever the appropriate logical fallacy is. 🙂

            • graemebird Reply March 1, 2011 at 11:12 pm

              Thats more or less what you are saying. You haven’t dealt with the molten iron in all three basements. Nor the iron coming out of the South Tower, nor he multiple explosions. All you’ve done is lay out an ad hom saying that all this evidence can be dismissed in view of alleged truther neediness.

              • J Bowers Reply March 2, 2011 at 3:03 am

                Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
                http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

                In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

                WTC7 is addressed.

                • jakerman Reply March 2, 2011 at 3:23 am

                  Here is what they model the WTC7 collapse to look like http://www.popularmechanics.com/video/#v1745050112

                  Localized collapse propagating further, with unspecified extent.

                  But it actually looked like this, universal synchronous collapse with near perfect central crowning

                  And detonations along several vertical columns as per 47 sec in.

                  • Michael Reply March 2, 2011 at 3:59 am

                    The ‘detonations’ at 47 secs might be best described as an ‘interpretation’.

                  • J Bowers Reply March 2, 2011 at 4:00 am

                    All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Remember? 😉

                  • jakerman Reply March 2, 2011 at 4:07 am

                    Michael, quite right, I was inexcusably using short hand. The event at 47 sec that appear consistent with explosions along vertical lines.

                    J.Bowers, yes model are imperfect but useful. I find this model result supports the hypothesis that something else caused the collapse other than what they were modeling.

                    • J Bowers March 2, 2011 at 4:22 am

                      When someone does a thousand model runs I’ll take notice either way, and that goes for both sides of the non-debate. Until then, I’ll stick with rational experts and not armchair experts. Sorry, but I have little time for conspiracy theories, especially when they are without supporting documented *multiple lines of* evidence.

                    • jakerman March 2, 2011 at 4:44 am

                      Fair call, I suppose I agree.

                    • J Bowers March 2, 2011 at 4:57 am

                      I’m not having a pop at you. But, this whole climate debate has made me incredibly suspicious of so-called “experts”. If I were you, I’d check out the “expert scientists and engineers”, etc, just like you would when a Monckton appears on the scene. Assuming you’re not a demolitions expert, I doubt they are, either. 😉

                    • jakerman March 2, 2011 at 5:00 am

                      I had a look at the NIST report, It showed more damage the the structure of the building (pre-collapse) than you can see on the video. But this damage is hidden behind smoke- which is why the video don’t pick it up.

                      Still, lets get a price on carbon!

      • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 8:36 pm

        I agree with your points on the fun of conspiracies. And writing on this makes me feel for uncomfortable moments like a Google Galileo similar to those who say wild things about climate conspiracies. This highlights an important sceptical lens that should be applied to check oneself when disusing such theories.

        Similarly I cringe at many arguments I hear, and the circular logic employed by some 9-11 truthers.

        But after internal conflict and the perspective that come with years of digesting I am satisfied that Kennedy was shot at least once in the front through his head.

        Likewise I’m satisfied that building seven’s collapse has remarkable visual similarities to a controlled demolition, enough so to persuade an unprejudiced demolition expert. I’m satisfied that the fires in WTC7 were not visually intense. I’m satisfied that the commission report found no other instance of any fire causing a steel sky scraper to collapse.

        I’m curious a 100 meter wide building like WTC7 could fall evenly by chance at free fall acceleration for more than 2 seconds.

        And I’m gob smacked by the explosions coming from the windows @ 47 sec in this vid.

        As you say perhaps there are reasons than can explain these seemingly implausible events. If I thought it were more important than climate change I might dedicate more time to it. I hope our democracy is not as undermined as such a conspiracy might imply.

        Is there a democratic deficit that is delaying action to mitigate against climate change? That might be a less controversial topic.

        • Michael Reply March 1, 2011 at 9:39 pm

          I don’t see anything too implausible.
          It had been burning all day, and it was feared it would collapse- and then it did.

          • shewonk Reply March 1, 2011 at 9:57 pm

            If this had happened to another building in another city on a different day, people would have wondered what conditions existed that made it appear to be similar to a controlled demolition. Because of the special significance of 9/11, it all becomes so much more meaningful — every event and moment is magnified. I’ve seen Loose Change and admit that it is quite compelling but here again I am skeptical. I don’t know enough about engineering and demolition and combustion and buildings falling to be able to judge if the towers were brought down by a confluence of the impact, the fires, damage to the structure and the particular design of the building — or the CIA sneaking in while people were working weeks before and preparing the building for the big event…

            I’m a big fan of espionage novels and political thrillers, but this conspiracy theory about 9/11 is too good to be true and therefore I would need to see some serious big time politicians, former CIA types, whistleblowers and engineers — including some irrefutable documentary evidence before I would give it more consideration.

          • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 10:24 pm

            Out of interest, have you got another example of are fire causuing a steel skyscaper building to collapse?

        • shewonk Reply March 1, 2011 at 10:01 pm

          I seem to remember that some fireman said they had to pull the building — perhaps this much I could believe — that it was too important a building to let it be demolished after the fires ended. Perhaps because of the CIA element in the building? Could they have technology in it they would want to protect? That is about as far as I might consider going and only if I had more evidence from significant experts. BUt it’s fun to speculate. And for a lot of people in the skeptic crowd for AGW, this may be what it’s all about — fun.

          • Marco Reply March 2, 2011 at 5:30 am

            The “pull it” remark came from the owner, which is what really fuelled the conspiracy nutters. Of course, at present those same nutters have a bit of a problem to explain why Larry Silverstein would deliberately let his buildings be demolished, and at the same time has lost many, many billions on that little deal…

            See also:
            http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
            on the “pull it” issue.

        • pointer Reply March 2, 2011 at 4:57 am

          For a while back then, I was caught up in the whole 9/11 Truth movement, if not an active promoter of the theories. As a non-technical observer, the questions raised seemed plausible. And people often like to believe there’s someone behind the curtain.

          But I finally realised that the whole thing falls apart for completely non-technical reasons. Namely, the idea that thousands of people were in on the scam is just utterly implausible.

          You don’t have to be an expert to know that worldwide conspiracies only happen in books, movies, and Fox News.

          It’s the same with climate change scepticism. If you climb far enough down that rabbit hole, you get to the point where you’re asked to believe that thousands of greedy scientists and shadowy UN Marxists are conducting a massive conspiracy.

          That’s when it’s time to climb out of the rabbit hole and breathe some fresh air!

          • Gavin's Pussycat Reply March 2, 2011 at 8:55 am

            > the idea that thousands of
            > people were in on the scam

            Precisely… this only works in societies significantly more closed than the American one.

            Like Russia?

      • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 10:29 pm

        Here is what uncontrolled collapses can look like, and why engineers cut the supports in precise way:

        http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/4/dangerous-building-collapse-Unbelievable-489505

        • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm

          Here is perhaps a better reference collapse for comparison

          http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1297190596

          • Gavin's Pussycat Reply March 2, 2011 at 12:41 am

            Yep, this you could call a ‘reference collapse’ (except this apparently not being a steel frame building).

            The structure is compromised at about 2/3 to the top, just like the WTC. The top comes down vertically, taking the rest of the building below with it.

            Where’s the problem?

          • jakerman Reply March 2, 2011 at 12:54 am

            This collapse was more convincingly like WTC collapse. But my problem with this is where the fire appears to be and the lack of congruitity with the universal collapse.

            The whole WTC7 collapsed with fire visible under only small sections. (Also as the commission found not other steel framed high rise has been found to collapse due to fire)

            This reference building only collapsed on the side that was destabalised.

            The explosions I refered to in the video above are still a problem, and the near perfect crowning visible at the top that is consistent with sequencing the central collapse to engineer an implotion.

    • jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 6:25 am

      This guy has a skeptical attitude that I can appreciate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWs7VUI4gPI&feature=related

  15. John Mashey Reply February 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    Along with Bore Hole, Very Deep Hole, Dunce Corner, etc, she may need a Policy Lost or something like that.

  16. pointer Reply March 1, 2011 at 12:13 am

    You mean this: “[N]ot only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”
    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

  17. MapleLeaf Reply March 1, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Who or what is graeme bird? Is it real or a sock puppet? Or a Poe? And I thought Anthony held sole rights to the “microWatts’ label?

    OMG, the USGS are allegedly in on the ‘conspiracy’ too! Tin-foil hats for sale….ours have three layers for the price of one…tin-foil hats for sale…

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

  18. GGS Reply March 1, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Ah, the oft-banned Graeme Bird. My favourite Bird monument is the Graeme Bird Memorial Thread on Pharyngula, which eloquently demonstrates his calm, rational approach to debate and highlights his novel theories concerning industrial civilizations on Mars and the extraterrestrial origins of the Sphinx. I should warn you that should you refuse to except the self-evident truth of his propositions, Mr. Bird will be forced to describe you as a [expletive deleted] moron, a dummy, a bed-wetter, a girly-man (where applicable; to the best of my knowledge, he has yet to call anyone a manly girl), a committed (or compulsive) liar, a stooge (see above), and/or a parasite, who has no chance of debating him, ever.

  19. pointer Reply March 1, 2011 at 1:12 am

    “You see you just such thickos that anyone sane would want to vomit on you.”

    Straight to ad hom. Congratulations, that’s got to be some kind of record.

  20. Michael Reply March 1, 2011 at 2:49 am

    Oh no, someone let the bird out of its cage.

    If only we could confine the two loons to their own little island.

    Graeme Bird and Oliver K. Manual – a match made in heaven.

  21. chek Reply March 1, 2011 at 3:16 am

    Bird Manual Beck

    Only other crank science is good enough for cranks.

  22. Dave H Reply March 1, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Oh no! Like Girma, all you need to do is speak Graeme’s name 3 times, and he appears in your thread, wreaking havoc upon logic and reason.

  23. jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 4:37 am

    Welcome to Australia’s 3rd worst climate denial export Graham Bird (Yes that is a picture of his hero the lowly Senator McCarthy).

    Susann, save your self the time with this troll, ban him early.

    Or if you want waste some time and fun ask him about how E.G Beck’s great disappearing CO2 trick. Bird loves the Beck chart! He hasn’t worked out that pushing that chart wrecks any claims to skepticism he might pretend to.

  24. jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Oh my God, Girma! Fortunately he’s raising the ave IQ level over at Curry’s.

  25. Michael Reply March 1, 2011 at 5:36 am

    Wonder why Bird hasn’t made it to Climate Etc?

    Could it be, to Curry’s minimal credit, that it hasn’t sunk quite low enough yet to be a suitable habitat?

  26. jakerman Reply March 1, 2011 at 5:47 am

    Birdy, why haven’t you blessed the people at Climate Etc with your wisdom?

  27. J Bowers Reply March 1, 2011 at 6:39 am

    Birds of a feather like to flock together
    Ducks like to play in the rainy weather
    They wiggle and they waddle and they nibble their backs
    When they are happy they go quack quack quack

    • MarkB Reply March 1, 2011 at 11:21 am

      An ode to the denialosphere…

      Down by the river they would go
      Wibble wobble wibble wobble to and fro
      But the one little duckling with the feather on its back
      It ruled the others with a quack, quack, quack!

      – Three Little Ducklings

  28. dorlomin Reply March 1, 2011 at 7:24 am

    S_ormfront closed for the day?

  29. dhogaza Reply March 1, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Hmmm Bird over at Curry’s place, duking it out with Girma and Kim for a fight to the bottom?

    I like it.

    Graeme: http://judithcurry.com awaits you!

  30. Lars Karlsson Reply March 1, 2011 at 11:41 am

    Behold the duck
    It does not cluck.
    A cluck it lacks.
    It quacks.
    It is specially fond.
    Of a puddle or pond.
    When it dines or sups,
    It bottoms ups.

    The Duck – Ogden Nash

  31. Lars Karlsson Reply March 1, 2011 at 11:45 am

    One fat turkey went strutting by
    He shook his feathers and he winked his eye
    He flapped his wings and his head gave a wobble
    He looked and my and said, “Gobble, gobble, gobble”.

    Anonymous.

  32. pointer Reply March 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    I’m still sorry I fed the troll, but one thing about him really struck me at the time, and that is that the guy seemed incredibly angry. I mean, livid. Cranky uncle on the veranda angry. It’s just speculation, but I don’t think he’s angry over climate change.

  33. John Mashey Reply March 2, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Shewonk:
    Really, really consider having an equivalent of the Bore Hole, if there’s anyway you can get the software to do it.

  34. Michael Reply March 2, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Graeme can’t find a graph of background CO2 levels on his own (hint: Becks isn’t).

    No wonder he can’t get come to grips with much else.

    Quite appropriate that Graeme is saying this on the “Epic Fail” post.

  35. Michael Reply March 2, 2011 at 2:19 am

    And this one covers since 1960. But you’ll need a sub to access. The short version – steadily increasing OHC.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/full/nature07080.html

  36. Sou Reply March 2, 2011 at 3:39 am

    Shewonk – please ban graemebird if your software allows it. He pollutes all he touches and is not a well person. A bit like a self-replicating virus. Once he starts on a website he cannot stop unless banned from posting.

    He would be better off at Curry’s site 🙂

  37. PDA Reply March 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Oh. My. God. My God. Oh.

    • J Bowers Reply March 3, 2011 at 12:49 am

      I like the idea of Curry bumping into Sereze one day soon, so he can just ask her to run that past him again.

  38. shewonk Reply March 2, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Graeme, I’ve had enough talk about 9/11 conspiracy theory. It’s fun for a bit to speculate on the similarities between 9/11 truthers and climate skeptics, but enough is enough.

  39. sharper00 Reply March 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Another fine example of “Blog Science”, the one voted best science blog naturally has a measured analytical tone regarding a failed satellite launch

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/nasas-glory-satellite-fails-to-reach-orbit/

  40. pointer Reply March 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    The first comment is totally awesome:

    sharper00 :
    Another fine example of “Blog Science”, the one voted best science blog naturally has a measured analytical tone regarding a failed satellite launch
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/04/nasas-glory-satellite-fails-to-reach-orbit/

    So, the failed launch was really planned by NASA to foil sceptics who wanted better climate data.

    Inspiring as this comment is, it’s nowhere as good the Scarlet Pumpernickel’s complaint that NASA should stop wasting money on climate research and instead waste it on space exploration. There’s your ideological base, Judith.

    • pointer Reply March 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm

      Sorry, bad html! The first comment at WUWT reads:

      According to the BBC: “It is the exact same failure which befell Nasa’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) in 2009. It too launched on a Taurus XL rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, and again the fairing failed to separate properly.”

      It almost seems like someone doesn’t want better quality climate data.!

  41. dhogaza Reply March 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    Graeme’s posting up a storm at Curry’s … (patting myself on the back) mission accomplished!

  42. willard Reply March 5, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Science is Corrupt:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/

    Yup.

  43. dorlomin Reply April 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Fred Pearce was at it again in December in the Daily Fail

    Daily Mail making up rubbish again. Who would have guessed.

    He is the U.S. Navy’s chief oceanographer and director of its climate change task force. Yes, the U.S. Navy has a climate change task force. With 450 staff.

    David Titley, Rear Admiral of U.S. Navy and Director of Task Force Climate Change, has asked us to clarify the following points. He said: ‘Task Force Climate Change has a staff of five, but through our partnerships with other federal agencies and scientific institutions, we interact with about 450 persons. I have frequently expressed, on the record, that I believe the Arctic may experience three to four weeks of relatively ice-free conditions by the mid to late 2030s. Just to be clear, I believe that for at least the rest of this century, the Arctic will refreeze after the summer melt, and continue to be a very hostile environment in which to operate.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339475/Global-warming-Sandal-wearers-wont-save-greed-US-Navy-will.html#ixzz1IgdaqzSQ

    Hmmmmm

    And what I heard was staggering. People you would never suspect of being wedded to fighting climate change – rear admirals and farmers, shipping magnates and loggers – were all discussing their plans to cut their pollution and create a new low-carbon world, without the UN or any other global agreement. Because they wanted to, and because it will make them money.

    Many environmentalists hate them for it. They want burden-sharing and hair shirts. They insist we must all suffer to fight climate change. But the truth is we are at a tipping point where green burden-sharing gives way to green profit-seeking.

  44. dorlomin Reply May 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Heads up its now out
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/a-summary-of-our-new-paper-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-station-exposure-on-the-u-s-historical-climatology-network-temperatures-and-temperature-trends-by-fall-et-al-2011/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: