November 15, 2011 
I am gobsmacked — literally gobsmacked at the latest from McIntyre…
A long detailed post about the a scandal around one of Yale’s star academics and its failure to deal with the allegations of child molestation raised against him. McIntyre links this to the current Penn State scandal. Of course we’re all familiar with another Penn State academic and inquiry …
Say no more. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind man!
As usual, he’s chumming, throwing bait out in the water so that it’s bloody enough to attract the sharks and then standing back all innocent-like to deny he meant anything sinister.
But his sharks circle and can’t resist — they’re drawn by the scent of blood and here’s Richard Drake with the first real bite:
The way things come to prominence is a mystery. But eventually they do. The fact that abuse of minors can be tolerated or overlooked by ‘upstanding academic leaders’ is something that should not only attract national press attention but cause a lot of hard questions to be asked about how these institutions have reached such a pass.
That’s the link with the very different concerns we have with climate academia. Atrocious leadership in one area is unlikely to excel in the other.
And in the involvement of Neil Wallis in the phone hacking scandal still unfolding in the UK and in lending a hand to UEA’s dreadfully dishonest PR efforts post-Climategate we have another example where one part of the story is very prominent within the mass media and the other completely ignored.
Till now. Such artificial boundaries between openness and self-censorship cannot forever endure.
Never mind that no one has been charged with anything when it comes to climate science inquiries and all have been exonerated of any charges of academic misconduct. We won’t let that stand in the way of a convenient smear! Unwilling to accept the conclusions of the various inquiries, McIntyre and his followers continue to chum and churn, hoping to keep the appearance of wrong-doing alive, despite the official findings.
But it’s Geoff Sherrington who stirs up the waters the most and takes the biggest bite:
We are in strange territory here. Earlier I posted (while travelling and away from my library) that Lasaga was not a name tossed around at the time in the geochemical world that I infested. Given Steve’s longer header above, the reason is probably because geochemists fall into two main groups, those who aim to dicover valuable goods (exploration) and those who aim to publish (academic). This classification is a little rough on individuals in both groups and nothing personally insulting is meant to anyone.
No, no personal insult meant! Just one huge sweeping smear against those who do academic work! Pedophiles and perverts all!
See — chumming really works!
Wait — there’s more!
Because this is a blog about climate auditing, it comes to mind that there seems to be a personality type that inhabits the climate science world, just as in academic geochemistry. Maybe the strong point in common is the immersion of this psychological type in matters of science that are hard to impossible to prove. I know some eminent geochemists and geologists who would contest even the presence of water in silicate melts in Nature, let alone publish extensively among a close group that awards mutual medals. One wonders how much Science can be advanced with the apparatus and opportunities available in a prison cell. Is there such a place as a dreamland for scientists, a dreamland that forms into a clique with a cloak of respectability?
Those academic geochemists! One is a pervert and therefore one concludes that the field attracts perverts!
It is too difficult to generalise far down this path, [but note that he does anyway] so we won’t go into the unacceptable private conduct area. In the exploration geochemistry world, I have never encountered strange sexual or intellectual conduct, not even gossip about it, nothing I can recall about anyone going to the little room to break big rocks into small rocks.Climategate was something of a window, albiet an alien one, into the minds of several. For example, read the sign-off from Keith on Mon May 12 21:26:29 2003. This was probably a joke, but Climategate did give a strong impression a cult behaviour; and when there are cults, who knows how strange they can be.
Exploration geochemists are normal red-blooded men! Men of normal tastes! It’s those damn academic types, wot! Cults! Perversions! Pedophiles!
Steve, thank you for once more drawing attention to the strange personal properties that can be acquired by some scientists. The one that bothers me most is the departure from the generally accepted “scientific method” in the loose sense. It seems that it is often accompanied by departure from the norms of general social conduct, such as a reticence to conduct an honest inquiry, a dogged defence of inventive methodology that is plausibly flawed and so on to areas seldom discussed. [my emphasis]
Yes, be very afraid of those academic types who do not follow the rigors of science and its methods — down that path lies perversion!!!!
CHE has this to add:
A month or so ago, Judy Curry had a thread on a study of Jungian psychological profiles of climate scientists vs other physical scientists, and the results were quite striking. They are indeed, very, very different. It isn’t just your imagination.
You can read that Jungian drivel here.
Of course, the denizens of CHUM-O-RAMA deny they mean to link the Penn and Yale sex scandals to Mann and the various inquiries — O NOES! That would be very very bad! So when such a thing is suggested at Deep Climate, they’re all a-twitter about being so misunderstood!
In keeping with the sexual theme, Steve has a new post up in which he features a “deep throat” source into the Penn State Inquiries into Michael Mann – whom Steve calls PS. More porn-chum for his sharks.
Seriously gobsmacked here. This really must be preserved for posterity.
The Policy Lass 
What we have above are deranged minds fantasizing about imaginary evil leanings of others whom they hate with a passion.
We are clearly dealing with some very sick and vile creatures at Climate Audit, with Mr. Steve McIntyre egging on the pack, or maybe he is letting them say what he actually thinks. A psychologist (and perhaps the cops) would have a field day analyzing their posts.
What worries me a great deal is what one of these sick individuals might actually do to a climate scientist or their loved ones. I wonder how Mr. Steve McIntyre would feel then? How would the courts view his role?
Doesn’t the content at CA amount to hate speech, isn’t that actionable?
Re: the Jungian drivel
I read Curry’s post and all that psychobabble seemed to say was that climate scientists (and, of course, scientists generally) were smarter than the general public because they use “theory”, “looking at the big picture”, “thinking”, “focus on theories and ask ‘why’ questions”. They are also “interested in the bigger picture more than small details” and all the rest of that geeky malarkey that gets things done, establishes the truth and cuts through the mistaken bullshit too many of the public believe in.
It claims that communication of the science could be better if scientists realised that because the general public “are interested in the present, and tend to relate the present to events in the past” that science should concentrate more on talking about present day impacts at the personal level i.e. not even present day effects in far off lands. Boiled down, this is saying that there is no point warning the public that death and destruction, hell and high water are on their way unless it’s next week, and in their town because they simply won’t listen – so don’t bother. Breathtakingly stupid.
Well, this “they won’t listen scenario” might be the case when there are so many irresponsible, nay insane, siren voices telling the public that there’s no problem but I don’t believe the public are totally immune to absorbing the nature of a gathering threat and deciding to take action, provided they are not being relentlessly propagandised to the contrary. This is what this P.R argument misses about the “debate” because P.R. training is to view all people’s views of being of equal value and go on to manipulate those views without value judgement.
This whole study is selling the idea that a frog won’t jump out the water if you boil it slowly. Well, slow heating does not prevent frogs trying to get out, and telling the general public the truth will galvanise them to demand action if the liars and the fools and the irresponsible are neutralised with knowledge.
Since you are both a defender of Mann and obviously care about any appearance of bias, perhaps you would be able to do a much better job of presenting the case that McIntyre flubbed so badly in your view.
It’s clear that Penn State has a sorry history of nurturing a culture where success in raising funds and getting published is treated as evidence that a person’s ethics and actions are beyond question. (If anyone is unable to see that, then I suggest spending some time in quiet reflection. This is not about politics nor global temperature but the moral fabric of society.)
As a blogger, how would *you* assemble the story in such a way as to avoid “chumming”? The three best examples I’ve seen are the Lasaga story, the Mann story, and the current story. I’m honestly curious how you would tell the tale while ensuring your readers don’t go down a prohibited thought-path.
Oh! Come on! You cannot be serious!
Mcintyre:
“Last year, I reported that the “Mann Inquiry Committee has probably made about as many procedural errors as it’s possible to make in the compass of a short report”, also noting that not all of them were to “Mann’s benefit”. ”
Why is that relevant?
McIntyre:
“In 1997, Ihinger was co-author with Lasaga in “Influence of water on nucleation kinetics in silicate melts”. In early 1998, Ihinger joined Jeffrey Park as co-leaders of Yale Geology and Geophyics course GG120b “Global Change”. Park later emerged from the debacle as a leader of the department’s effort to recover from the scandal and was quoted on a number of occasions in later articles. In the early 1990s, Park had co-authored several articles with Michael Mann, then a graduate student in the Yale G&G department, receiving his PhD in May 1998. ”
Why is Mann even mentioned in this tenuous connection?
Why!? Just to stir up the acolytes.
Legally defamatory messages are removed (McIntyre NEVER stops people posting! HA!!!). But possible defamatory messages are left to be embroidered by a host of expert needlecrafters.
These messages will be picked up by watts and HIS acolytes will not care about defamation. There is real libel on WUWT (Fraud, criminal etc). Its time that those libelled took action!
I have collected a few of McIntyres previous “Chum-Throws” here
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/search/label/mcintyre
In the UK (is Canada the same?)it is very easy to get people hauled before the courts for defamation (cost is less than £2000 and you do not need to get the legal vultures involved at that stage). Defamation is the only law that currently you are guilty of unless you can prove your innocence. And the internet is global so many cases get prosecuted in UK.
It is worth remembering that if you vet posts on the blog as watts and mcintyre do, then it means that YOU are responsible for posting those words.
Some of the attacks on Jones and Mann have genuinely appalled me.
No one should be subject to such abuse.
“As a blogger, how would *you* assemble the story in such a way as to avoid “chumming”? “
In your view what;s the story that needs to be told?
How many enquiries has Penn State run which found people innocent of all charges? Why is Mann notable amongst them?
McIntyre’s juxtaposition of the Penn State/Yale scandals to the Penn State inquiries into Mike Mann is so obviously crass that only those who are willfully blinding themselves due to loyalty fail to see it. The lurid details of the two sex scandals so lovingly described is pure intellectual-porn chum, IMO.
There is no story.
This refusal to accept the repeated confirmation of the temperature record, of the paleoclimate record, of current signs of warming in the ice and sea level and other markers of climate change, of the CO2 record — it’s just like those cranks who mentally masturbate by refusing to accept the preponderance of evidence on the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, the moon landings and UFOs and recycle bogus arguments ad nauseum.
Now it is difficult to generalize, so i won’t go there. But there are some strange personal properties that are acquired by some sceptics. One such typical climate sceptic specimen is Breivik. Now I an not saying that all sceptics are mass murderers from the extreme right…
Yes, I agree. Let’s not generalize. No way should we even entertain the possibility that there could be similarities in personality — or, shudder, in standards of personal ethics — between McIntyre and Watts, and these extremist mass murderers. No sirree, that would be entirely inappropriate… let’s not even go there 🙂
“let’s not even go there”
Now that Mr. Steve McIntyre has opened pandora’s box, can we please go there?
http://www.desmogblog.com/norwegian-terrorist-anders-breivik-reveals-climate-denial-influences
Are recent events a classic case of projection by Mr. Steve McIntyre?
Oh Christ. He doesn’t understand the intricacies involved in the Sandusky case cover-up. Basically he used his “good mind” to go after academics, Mann, and climate gate. Ho hum. Just like he did with the News of the World controversy. Funny how every major controversy on the planet makes its way back to climate-gate, no matter how tangential the connection. And the reaction from his adorers shows that Climate Audit truly is the trough that the piggies feed at. Just like everyone always said it was.
I thought McIntyre and his followers couldn’t sink any lower. Shows how wrong you can be.
This is utterly disgusting.
First, I haven’t followed any of this debate, and because of that, the connections that everyon here seems to be so upset about didn’t even occur to me. I stumbled across McIntyre’s post somewhat randomly. But as someone who was very involved in the Lasaga case, I’m glad to see it getting more coverage, regardless of the forum. The Sandusky case has brought all of it back to mind, 13 years later, and the parallels are very striking.
If you study the material of which you complain, instead of taking a cursory horrified glance, you will see substance that is worthy of public expression. Each year of my 70, I seem to have been made aware of more public cases of deviant group conduct than I had hitherto thought existed. Whereas before I would not be bothered by reports such as these, I am now feeling that society has an ugly and growing side related to cliques or cults. When these get to a position of power or influence, they can cause policies and actions that are alien to me. In saying this, I express no position on the relative merits of nominated football teams, on the cases for or against global warming or on my beliefs relative to deviant behaviour that has been extensively linked to some churches. I am merely saying that it seems to be increasing; that it is becoming easier, but not necessarily more accurate, to associate deviant conduct with certain types of people; and that I do not like it.
Note that I do not hide behind an alias. I am not ashamed of what I write.
You are now free to argue sensibly.
Errr…why is worthy of public expression to equate(!) a situation where an official investigation was done (Mike Mann), with one where some people did not take their concerns further and NO investigation was performed?
Worse even, Mann’s been the subject of multiple investigations by multiple different organisations, and none have found anything of significant concern!
Marco,
I was a participant in some of these investigations. If you read the public detail about their conduct, you might perchance perceive the existence of a clique or two of the type of my complaint. These were not inquiries. They were public relations cover-ups. We know the firms involved in the PR, we know the main sources of funding for the PR, we know many of the financial beneficiaries of a ‘clean’ outcome. These are not without some overlap.
Marco, enlightened societies have strong and independent judicial structures, staffed by qualified and experienced people, to conduct inquiries. Increasingly, there is confiscation of monies obtained from the proceeds of crime – it is but a short step to extend this principle to the proceeds of dodgy science.
What utter tripe Sherrington. Please give us evidence that you were “a participant in some of these investigations”. Reading about it on lying denier blogs does not count as “participation”.
Are there no limits to the depths that you deniers will go to further your dishonest vicious treatment of climate scientists?
Geoff Sherrington, you were never a participant in these investigations. You are active on blogs, that’s it.
The NSF, which is independent and has qualified and experienced people to handle claims of misconduct or fraudulous science, concluded CASE CLOSED.
But we already know that you will never ever accept the outcome of any investigation that does not confirm with your prejudicial position. They must all be wrong, because you must(!) be right. Must, because you don’t want to accept the conclusion if you do accept the outcome of those investigations: you were wrong.
Everything is one big conspiracy, and only you and some others can see it. The typical description for a conspiracy nutter. There is no other description for people like you.
Marco, you are wrong. Read the lists of people who made written submissions. You cannot know because you have no access to it, but there is also private correspondence with various Government committees linked to inquiries in other countries.
So do stop making false assertions unless you wish to be labelled in the nasty clique camp. Think for youself, do not be led by propaganda.
FYI, I started my investigation of number fiddling in climate records in 1992, was corresponding directly with Phil Jones in 2005-6, got to know a lot of early info that people are now trying to sweep under the carpet.
Now bring out your marbles.
Sherrington, just what “number fiddling in climate records in 1992” are you referring to. You deniers make such bold pronouncements but never have any facts to back up your outrageous claims.
You are a despicable and pathetic person, and don’t believe a word of what John O’Sullivan is saying, he is even a bigger liar than you.
Geoff, being one of those attacking the climate scientists STILL does not make you part of the investigations.
Penn State…
Is that a state of pennitentiary? That’s where they should all belong.
Indeed, McIntyre belongs there, along with many of his commentors.
More importantly, with Wegman.
The sad part about people like Geoff and McIntyre is they miss the point about the nature of sexual abuse cases. This type of secretive, hush-hush behavior is prevalent within our society, in all facets, most notably in our religious organizations. So to take the track that is a case of university investigations being protective of it’s financing or funding, it completely ignores the real reasons why this information didn’t get out — that’s just what people do in sexual abuse cases. We may be adding Syracuse and Bernie Fine to the list if the new accusations are true.
Of course, not wanting to get too much into this, it is actually much more costly to a university to get an investigation wrong, when many other investigations got it right. As we know, that’s not what happened in Mann’s case. The people clinging to these hopes are deeply deluded individuals.
Why do you assume that you know the inner thoughts of people like Steve Mc and me? That’s assumption similar to promoting that GHG production is greatest where there is most industrialised population, without doing any original research or validation. And that, dear grypo, is why climate ‘science’ is so deeply troubled. It’s an overdose of unproven assumption and noble cause corruption, which sadly has almost killed the patient. Have a think about the plausibility of this recent Japanese Government animation at the end of Smith’s intro on this site:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
I don’t know your inner thoughts, I only point to the outer thoughts, the ones where you two apply another obvious case of hidden sexual assault, a scourge on our society, to your pet obsessions with finding something wrong with Micheal Mann and investigations that have no tangible connection besides that they happened at the same school. Your following rant is merely a good indication of why you have this obsession.
Geoff, grypo is not trying to fathom your or McIntyre’s innermost thoughts. He is pointing out the weird nature of sexual misconduct charges which both you and McIntrye seem to miss. Hint, they are very different in nature from academic misconduct charges.
As for the PSU investigation of Mann, the NSF IG did a review of the PSU investigation. The NSF found that on 3 of 4 charges PSU did a good investigation of the charges (unusual because nobody filing a spittle flecked denunciation of Mann bothered to make a formal complaint) but that charge one (falsification and fabrication) was not adequately investigated.
As a result they did a de novo (from the start) investigation of this charge. In doing this they contacted your favorite drama queen Steve and still found no evidence to support this charge. Please see the IG report here.
The NSF IG report about the PSU investigation has buried your, and Stevie’s, complaints about the conduct of the original investigation under about six feet of dirt, which is where they belong.
Ah, Geoff, you are referring to that denialist BS about what Japan’s JAXA is learning? Not what you think, because your source picked out a map from a specific time of year when plants in the northern hemisphere are busy breathing in CO2 and breathing out O2.
http://www.jaxa.jp/article/special/geo/nakajima_e.html
Holly, can’t blame Geoff for believing John O’Sullivan, right?
;-). He’s the guy who started it, and no surprise to see it lapped up by the deniosphere, including “chiefio” (who started the false discussion that ‘removing’ high lattitude and altitude stations would inflate warming, because, you know, those tend to be colder…).
Here is a good animation of carbon dioxide concentrations vs latitude and time which shows why O’Sullivan’s cherry pick of August is so wrong:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/co2/co2_intro.html
Geoff SherringtonGeoff Sherrington.
“FYI, I started my investigation of number fiddling in climate records in 1992, ”
Still no proof of number fiddling then? Or if there is where and when was this Exposé published. What was fiddled way back then?
Of course what you say may be the truth ” I started my investigation ” but where are the results? Where is the proof?
tfp. If you had been following the story since 1992, you would not have to ask me what I meant. It’s all in print or on the Net. Go look. You are a serial offender by asking people to do your work for you.
Here’s a bit of burley, cast upon the water to bring some more fish around, making them easier to catch:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2006/03/geoff-sherrington-responds-to-chattering-class/
Hop back to the 1990 Jones Nature letter on UHI where he uses data from Australia, China and Russia. Then form a scientific conclusion. Next, compare it with what has been discovered since such as http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/90lettnat.htm and
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html
Fiddling is a kind word.
Sherrington, do you honestly (I know that word does not occur in your persona) believe that we are going to accept denier web sites, one of which is a comment by you, and comments from well know lying deniers such as Warwick Hughes and Doug Keenan? As for your third cite here is a quote by Phil Jones from your link:
“”The science still holds up” though, he adds. A follow-up study verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. “They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion,” says Jones of his critics”.
Sherrington, you have shown over and over again that you have no morals and will use the vilest methods you can find to attack honest scientists who, for some reason, produce science which goes against your political, religious or economic views of reality.
Get a life.
But the data, Ian Forrester. Forget about what you imagine my personality to be and talk about the data. Can you show that Hughes, Keenan, Sherrington have produced WRONG data in these quotes? I think not.
Oh, and as to morals, I’m Chairman of a Society’s Ethics sub-committee and was deeply involved in writing groundbreaking work on corporate governance manuals. Where have I shown a lack of morals and where have I used vilest methods? Specific examples are needed.
Sherrington whined:
“Specific examples are needed”.
I have read enough of the vicious nonsense you write about climate scientists to know exactly what your morals are. You are one of the worst I have come across and that is saying a lot when you are compared with Monckton, Ball, McIntyre, Singer et al.
Why do you hate science and scientists so much? I find your attacks on science very disturbing coming from some one who professes to be one. i guess you must have got failing grades in most of your classes and just managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with your qualifications and found it hard to compete with more intelligent peers. Finding yourself in this situation you decided to become anti science and have the morals of a slime-ball.
The sludge on the bottom of a septic tank has more moral values than you.
Specific examples are still needed, Ian.
You might be interested to know that over a 15 year term, a group of us whom I helped manage as Chief Geochemist, average number of graduates about 50, discovered new wealth in mineral resources worth, in terms of dollars and metal prices of today, many tens of billions of dollars. We discovered and developed enough uranium to offset about a billion tonnes of CO2 into the air by substituting for fossil fuel. I’d hardly say that was scraping the bottom of the barrel. The success we achieved (which, of course, is trivial when compared with your contributions) was due to the rigorous application of top science – not just good, but cutting edge – and by unrelenting internal quality review. If you have never worked at the top of asuccessful, accountable organisation, you’ll have little idea of what I am talking about.
Some of the “tricks” of the climate “science” mob would have led to immediate dismissal. There are some good climate scientists, but there are many who have given science overall a lesser reputation than it deserves. I love science, it is my Life. I dislike those who maul it, especially with premeditated skullduggery.
Sherrington, you have self diagnosed your psychological problem:
“I love science, it is my Life. I dislike those who maul it, especially with premeditated skullduggery”.
I have never seen such an apt description of “self hatred”.
You fit the diagnosis to a T:
“Self-hatred ( also called self-loathing) refers to an extreme dislike and hatred of oneself, or being angry at or even prejudiced towards oneself. The term is also used to designate a dislike or hatred of a group, family, social class, mental illness, or stereotype to which one belongs and/or has. For instance, “ethnic self-hatred” is the extreme dislike of one’s ethnic group or cultural classification. It may be associated with aspects of Autophobia.
The term “self-hatred” is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as “persons with low self-esteem”.[citation needed] Self-hatred and shame are important factors in some or many mental disorders, especially disorders that involve a perceived defect of oneself (e.g. body dysmorphic disorder). Self-hatred is also a prime feature of many personality disorders. It can also be linked to guilt for something a person did that he or she views as a wrongful action”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred
Well, Ian, with a great sense of timing you now have Climategate two to read, replete with numerous examples of scientific skullduggery. Come back a while later and tell me that you think it is innocent material or that you agree with this assualt on proper science by the chaps in the UEA circle. On one hand we are told the science is settled, then we read, somewhat to the contrary, from former Australian Ed Cook that –
“Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fuck-all).
Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of
seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an
empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions
because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal
and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons
differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any
direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed
temperatures.”
See, Geoff, here’s good evidence that you’re either a bad scientist, or just ideologically biased. The science is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that increasing atmospheric concentrations will lead to increased global temperatures, and that this will lead to significant and only partially predictable changes to our environment that will cause major upheaval to our current way of life.
You complain about variability in the past, which has little to do with that what we know for certain.
Ah Marco, we agree. Yes, more CO2 in the air will raise the temperature. We’ve known that for decades.
Now, tell me with certainty, by how much will a given amount of man-made CO2 raise the temperature? We do not know if the change will be significant and we have essentially zero evidence to suggest that bad will come out of it (because we don’t know its magnitude and it has not produced bad so far).
That is what the discussion has been about since the 1990s.
That’s partly what is meant by the expert saying “We know with certainty that we know f—all.”
Where have you been all that time, Noddy? Have you contributed more to science than I have? How about a description to up your cred?
Geoff, we know with reasonable certainty that we’ll see at least a 2 degree rise in temperature with doubling of CO2. History tells us that this temperature increase will lead to significantly higher oceans, higher than those that are ALREADY giving trouble. Texas also knows what it can expect when temperatures increase by 2 degrees: goodbye Brazos (already this year it came really, really close to running dry). Thailand is wondering where all that water came from (it shouldn’t). Etc. Etc. Etc.
And your ‘contribution’ to science of late is being anti-scientific, letting your ideology trump scientific insights. The way you interpret an informal comment about paleoclimatological reconstructions is very clear evidence of that.
BTW, I mentioned the formation of cliques further up. Here is an example of several in formation by the Open University of the UK, being paid in part by the ‘neutral’ BBC, part of the aim being to deflect critics as referred to in the video. That sounds to me like an official attack on free speech. I do not like this trend.
Looks like Curry is once again providing denier chum with her selection of Pielke Sr’s. selective quotes from a Greenwire article.
The author objected to Curry’s selective quotes, and she lamely excused that her post is too long to correct.
‘Course, the thread has 500+ comments, no doubt (I don’t read Curry’s fanboys anymore, I don’t like brain pain) all adoring of her. She’s a real piece of, ahhh, *work*.
susan – you have used a term i’d like explained:
” it’s just like those cranks who mentally masturbate”
just so i can visualize this better, are we talking big boners or turgid clitori?
rather than leave an unembellished image throbbing in my consciousness, please do specify some detail so i can be sure of what you think, in your literaryt fecundity, you are sticking in my ear.
TPL: If you find my literary fecundity upsetting – or otherwise – the intertubes are still a realm of freedom so feel free to f off.