Home > Regular Features > Sandpit 25/9

Sandpit 25/9

September 25th, 2010

A new sandpit, the place for off-topic rants and lengthy one-on-one debates no-one else can really follow, because they missed the crucial contradiction between comment #347 and comment #186. Seriously, that kind of extended comments-thread debate is part of blogging, and I wouldn’t like to lose it. But, so far, confining it to the sandpit seems to be working pretty well.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Rationalist
  2. Alice
    September 25th, 2010 at 14:12 | #2

    LOL Ratio – but where are our buckets and spades?

  3. Rationalist
    September 25th, 2010 at 14:42 | #3

    It seems that although Aldi do offer many products and/or services at affordable prices, buckets and spades are not one of them.

  4. el gordo
    September 25th, 2010 at 14:54 | #4

    The sandpit works well as a place where bloggers can discuss pet interests. It may evolve into JQ’s tip page (similar to Bolter’s blog at the Hun) where trolls still get bucketed with sand, but a broad range of ideas and links become available.

  5. el gordo
    September 25th, 2010 at 15:09 | #5

    I predict a back to back La Nina.

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

  6. Tony G
    September 25th, 2010 at 17:04 | #6

    Re 2,

    Nice pirate hat rationalist and Alice it is amazing how botox can take years off your appearance.

  7. Rationalist
    September 25th, 2010 at 17:31 | #7

    Yarrr.

  8. Alan
    September 25th, 2010 at 17:41 | #8

    Am I alone in thinking the Gillard government’s manoeuvres around the deputy speakership foolish in the extreme? ON Wednesday the government had clearly seized the high ground from Abbot over his broken word and then on Friday they announce with a sense of pride that they’ve suborned a Coalition member. Then on Friday we learn the whole grubby scheme won’t work any way. It’s the sort of tactical brilliance that only one of the vat creatures from Sussex Street could admire.

  9. Alice
    September 25th, 2010 at 19:44 | #9

    @Tony G
    Oh I wish Tony G….trouble with botox wearers is…..you just cant shock them. If I was that concerned about the opposite sex that I wanted to render myself expressionless…I might go there…. but my husband deserves every wrinkle he has ever given me…and if he doesnt like it, too bad. Im not in the market for any replacement. Men tend to generate work IMHO..way too much unpaid work and if its paid work…too much work for the pay!.

  10. el gordo
    September 25th, 2010 at 20:45 | #10

    Alan

    The machine men won Labor the election, but it would be foolish in the extreme to let them run the show. Gillard will need to take command and use her better judgement on every issue.

    The ‘vat creatures from Sussex Street’ need to understand the meaning of hiatus, or the msm will highlight their influence every time something goes awry.

  11. Alan
    September 25th, 2010 at 21:39 | #11

    Sadly, I think Gillard may prove to have a touch of the vat herself.

    Thus far she has been extraordinarily light on policy and extraordinarily heavy on matching Abbot bid for bid in chasing the support of low information voters. Oh, and protecting Australia’s Christian heritage from married perverts but not from prime ministers who prefer living in sin.

  12. Chris Warren
    September 25th, 2010 at 22:12 | #12
  13. Rationalist
    September 25th, 2010 at 23:07 | #13

    @Chris Warren
    He is the ball.

  14. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 06:06 | #14

    That’s very quick, who said the left don’t have a sense of humor?

  15. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 06:23 | #15

    A particular trace gas has been found innocent of global warming, but don’t let that concern any of you.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/24/der-spiegel-the-oceans-influence-greater-than-thought/

  16. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 06:50 | #16

    Here is another example of why CO2 is no longer a suspect in global warming hysteria. The Holocene interglacial began precisely 11,711 years ago, very abruptly and they don’t know the cause.

    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article611464.ece

  17. Alan
    September 26th, 2010 at 10:06 | #17

    Classic el gordo links.

    This goes to a blog which then links to a Der Speigel article in German and an extract in Nature, neither of which say conclusively what el gordo claims they do.

    This goes to a repeat of ealier el gordo claims about the Younger Dryas which also do not make the conclusions he claims they do.

  18. Alice
    September 26th, 2010 at 10:44 | #18

    @Alan
    Alan gordie is climate science denalist that is here to post two bit links supporting denialism. A propagandist by any other name but at least he is only leaving his droppings in the sandpit (eww).

  19. Alan
    September 26th, 2010 at 11:05 | #19

    @Alice
    Then he should post links that actually support his claims rather than links that he alleges support his claims. I look forward to el gordo’s demonstration of his mastery of German, which would at least demonstrate that he has read the Der Speigel article he claims to be linking.

  20. Tony G
    September 26th, 2010 at 12:42 | #20

    Alice, I am sorry to say that I have given my wife more than her fair share of wrinkles as well…

    Anyway back to business, this article should given environmentalists a few wrinkles;

    Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

  21. jakerman
    September 26th, 2010 at 13:23 | #21

    Tony G :
    Anyway back to business, this article should given environmentalists a few wrinkles;
    Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.

    Not sure why you think thing this story is convincing Tony G. I’m trying to find the sound arguments in the article to support any of the 4 claims you promote. Can you direct me to any sound support in the article for the four claims?

  22. Tony G
    September 26th, 2010 at 14:32 | #22

    If it isn’t a hoax prove to me scientifically it is actually warming.

    Point me to some evidence that shows the range of observed global warming is outside the range of typical instrumentation error. If you can not, then the warming can only be labelled an educated guess, validating my hoax theory by falsification.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Pawley.pdf

  23. jakerman
    September 26th, 2010 at 14:41 | #23

    So you are not able to point to anything Tony. I found the article quite unconvincing and promotion of show lack of true skepticism.

    Re warming evidence there is loads of evidence. I offer this as a taste;
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:240/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:240/trend

  24. jakerman
  25. Tony G
    September 26th, 2010 at 15:03 | #25

    Mann and Jones’ temperature reconstructions by their own admission can not be verified or replicated independently and are not peer reviewed, therefore representing the temperature reconstructions as ‘scientific’ is a hoax . There is no verifiable Global Warming so lets agree to call it climate change (something that always changes).

    Anyway read this paper (200 pages) by Dr Aleo

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

    And please do not repeat your flawed debating tactic of attacking the person, stick to the issues in the paper.

  26. jakerman
    September 26th, 2010 at 15:10 | #26

    More unconvincing guff. Try and present some evidence that has past the basic hurdle of peer review.

    BTW Tony if you follow unskeptical and poor process I’ll call you on it. It’ called holding you to account for your record.

  27. Tony G
    September 26th, 2010 at 15:46 | #27

    “Try and present some evidence that has past the basic hurdle of peer review.”

    Get Mann and Jones to have their temperature manipulations peered reviewed as a starting point- they admit themselves on oath they won’t. They admit themselves on oath that it is common practice in climate science to withhold data and not have it peer reviewed.

    Once you come up with some ‘peer review’ evidence for the warming then maybe we can then scientifically refute it, but until then, Jackerman please stop perpetuating the myth of warming; we can all agree the climate changes so lets leave it at that.

  28. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 15:53 | #28

    Alan

    CO2 was not the culprit because ‘the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.’

    So what was the cause?

  29. Alan
    September 26th, 2010 at 16:03 | #29

    el gordo

    What is your evidence for the proposition that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt?

  30. Alice
    September 26th, 2010 at 16:37 | #30

    @Tony G
    Tony G – you have added a few wrinkles to me as well. One eyebrow is permanently tilted up and I have three deep mid brow frown lines. I went to the Docs for some Botox to fix it but he told me I was deluding myself.

  31. jakerman
    September 26th, 2010 at 17:58 | #31

    Once you come up with some ‘peer review’ evidence for the warming then maybe we can then scientifically refute it

    Done, see the evidence I presented at @23 and @24.

    You can add this:

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    As an side, I consider your claims re Mann to be more guff until you can cite the quotes you claim exist.

  32. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 18:53 | #32

    Alan

    Did a search but couldn’t find any previous example of CO2 causing abrupt climate change and you obviously already know about the methane burp a long time ago.

    Enlighten me, show me the paleo evidence of CO2 causing abrupt global warming?

  33. Alan
    September 26th, 2010 at 19:27 | #33

    el gordo

    Not the way the game is played. You claim that:

    CO2 was not the culprit because ‘the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.’

    It is for you to prove your claim, not to try desperately to change the subject. incidentally, if you must use German, or for that matter Calathumpian evidence as proof, we would all like to see your translation.

  34. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 20:40 | #34

    Don’t be a goose, I rely on Gosselin to organize the translation. CO2 is not part of the equation.

    http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/image004.jpg

  35. Alan
    September 26th, 2010 at 21:06 | #35

    el gordo

    In future when you are relying on secondary sources, specially those of your own political persuasion, you should admit that. Nice attempt to change the subject, but what is your evidence for the proposition that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt?

  36. el gordo
    September 26th, 2010 at 21:47 | #36

    Is there any evidence for the proposition that abrupt climate change has come about because of CO2?

  37. Tony G
    September 27th, 2010 at 02:02 | #37

    Re 31

    paragraph 52 & 54 Here Jackerman;

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm

    “Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Professor Jones: That is not the case.

    Graham Stringer: Why is it not?

    Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.

    Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?

    Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject”

    Jones hides the decline (para 66) and hides his data, you can ‘believe’ its warming Jackerman but the fact is Jones and Mann are fraudsters.

  38. Alan
    September 27th, 2010 at 02:59 | #38

    It is always good to look at the conclusions when you quote from a report:

    5 Conclusions

    135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.

    136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

    137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.[184] It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

    138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

  39. el gordo
    September 27th, 2010 at 07:22 | #39

    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Ha, Ha, Ha, what a joke.

    Is that the consensus view that CO2 will bring about disaster because of abrupt CC?

    CO2 measurements show the climate has changed, but this harmless trace gas is not a catalyst for global warming.

    Alan, I showed you my abrupt global warming without CO2 and now it is your chance to prove from the paleo record that an increase in CO2 will cause warming. There is no point in using the past 30 years as your only example, the precautionary principle is fiction and CAGW is a con.

  40. jakerman
    September 27th, 2010 at 08:36 | #40

    Tony G :
    Re 31
    paragraph 52 & 54 Here Jackerman;
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm
    “Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Anyone can test the validity of CRU temp by getting the raw data [1] and processing it, then compare with the results of the range of others who have done this. [2]

    [1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

    [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_processed

    BTW Tony, the extract you provide do not support your claims0 re Mann. Mann’s work is on reconstructions.

  41. jakerman
    September 27th, 2010 at 08:57 | #41

    Alan @39 is typical El gordo, he argues by assertion and runs away to another assertion once you use evidence or logic to show him up. Its a never ending cycle. But EG is so unconvincing that any reasonable reader will see through him.

  42. el gordo
    September 27th, 2010 at 10:03 | #42

    Evidence or logic? Warmists are in a malaise, mass propaganda has succeeded and you are in a fog. Or is it just me?

    ‘The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.’

  43. Alice
    September 27th, 2010 at 10:34 | #43

    @el gordo
    ” Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer.”
    Do you read el Gordo and Tony G?
    Over?

  44. Alan
    September 27th, 2010 at 11:38 | #44

    el gordo

    What is your evidence for the proposition that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt. You have asserted that but not proved it.

  45. Chris Warren
    September 27th, 2010 at 14:34 | #45

    Assertion should be the middle name of all internet nutters – as a warning to others.

  46. Nick R
    September 27th, 2010 at 14:53 | #46

    I think the best approach is to ask El Gordo, Tony G etc to submit their amazing insights to Nature or Science and explain that we will listen to them when they are accepted by the scientific community. Until then we can put them down as unscientific partisans.

  47. el gordo
    September 27th, 2010 at 19:15 | #47

    I see what you are getting at, there is nothing in the paleo record to indicate that CO2 was ever responsible for abrupt climate change, but I cannot prove that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt.

    It has never happened, but that’s not to say it won’t. That’s why I advocate politicians listen to Bob Carter and take onboard his Plan B.

  48. CJ Morgan
    September 27th, 2010 at 20:36 | #48

    By George, he’s got it!

  49. el gordo
    September 27th, 2010 at 22:17 | #49

    NOAA can’t find any previous ACC caused by CO2.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data.html

    NOAA also thinks CO2 levels increase first, then temperatures follow, but in reality it is the other way round. Cretins!

  50. el gordo
    September 27th, 2010 at 22:46 | #50

    “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

    Nicholas Caillon et al

    I’m prepared to concede that CO2 ‘outgassing’ from the warming southern oceans may have amplified deglaciation in the NH.

  51. Alan
    September 27th, 2010 at 23:24 | #51

    el gordo

    ‘cretins’ is not an argument. It is also not an admirable way to speak of disability.

  52. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 06:57 | #52

    Alan

    It’s not a ‘disability’, just plain stupidity. Global cooling appears more likely than global warming and it may be best if you recant now.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/

  53. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 07:25 | #53

    Over the next 20 years global cooling will reveal itself in many different ways, but mostly you will see rising food prices as a direct result of cool wet summers in the NH. We can also expect longer freezing winters.

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/201928/Weather-Snowy-night-is-the-coldest-in-30-years

  54. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 07:52 | #54

    Tune in from 4:00 minutes to see Monbiot show up Denlingpole for no nothing that he is.

  55. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 08:11 | #55

    Isn’t that spelt Monidiot?

  56. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 08:14 | #56

    Tony G :
    Isn’t that spelt Monidiot?

    Perhaps by those who lack argument and need abuse to cover the hole.

  57. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 08:26 | #57

    Actually, in your link Monidiot states that Jones is a shyster who has corrupted the science and should be sacked.

    Confirmation the temperature reconstructions are not peer reviewed science.

    Where is the evidence it is getting warmer?

  58. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 09:56 | #58

    Tony G, You misrepreent what Monbiot says (another sign of the weakness of your claims), Monbiot found that nothing contracted the science. After numerous inquires finding nothing wrong with the science (that is double and triple peer review), and relevent to Monbiot’s critique, put the Jones response to FOI into perspective (of a harrasment with 50+ FOI in a month) Monbiot has since admitted his judgments were hasty [1]

    [1] http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/report_from_the_guardian_debat.php

    Tony you also seem to be in denial of the evidence I have presented of warming. I’ve directed you to it several times [2]. Your hands over your eyes approach is revealing to your readers, if not to yourself

    [2] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-1/#comment-268185

    Tony, read figure 6.1 [3] in the Muir Russel report, then go back through that chapter to find what that chart mean. He is a clue, it confirms what told you.

    [3] http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf#page=47

  59. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 10:13 | #59
  60. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 10:26 | #60

    Climate wars: Euro Climatariat acts in good faith and creates a trigger for economic disaster.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/1589-climate-wars-eu-threatens-rest-of-the-world-with-flight-ban.html

  61. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 11:00 | #61

    el gordo :Climate wars: Euro Climatariat acts in good faith and creates a trigger for economic disaster.

    Economic disaster = 9 Euros per flight? Or 40 Euros for long haul?

    Alarmist, in constrast to the evidence presented. The so called skeptics need to join the real skeptics whom align alarm with the proponderence of evidence.

  62. el gordo
  63. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 11:15 | #63

    el gordo :It’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    The tip of rightwing policial alarmisims not aligned with the proponderence evidence?

  64. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 11:21 | #64

    Jackerman, please do not post links to Tim Lambert as he is a computer geek who’s mind is lost in the illusion that cyberspace produces (temperature fraud).

    Your other links are works that leverage off Mann & Jones’ temeperture reconstruction fraud that has been verified by Monidiot,

  65. Chris Warren
    September 28th, 2010 at 11:28 | #65

    el gordo :
    Climate wars: Euro Climatariat acts in good faith and creates a trigger for economic disaster.
    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/1589-climate-wars-eu-threatens-rest-of-the-world-with-flight-ban.html

    More stupidity – this article does not mention any trigger for economic disaster. The article actually says:

    “…a ticket for a return flight within the EU could become more expensive by up to nine Euros because of emissions trading.”

    An extra 9 euros is NOT a trigger for economic disaster.

    IN any case the scientific community is increasing its estimates of sea level rise from the IPCC estimates.

    The IPCC originally said up to 59 centimetres (ie up to your knees)

    New research estimates – up to 1.6 metres (up to your eyeballs).

    See: http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1005/full/climate.2010.35.html

  66. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 12:19 | #66

    As I said Tony, your hands over your eyes approach is very revealing to us, if not to you.

  67. Nick R
    September 28th, 2010 at 14:17 | #67

    Why do you suppose that Mann and Jones were involved in fraud? By my count the scientists have been cleared by three independent inquiries. If you have strong evidence that the findings of these inquiries is somehow wrong (and no, saying ‘I disagree’ is not evidence) you should either produce it or withdraw these claims. Your integrity will suffer if you do not.

  68. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 14:19 | #68

    No matter what we do, or not do, it won’t make any difference.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824092408.htm

  69. Nick R
    September 28th, 2010 at 14:28 | #69

    Gee el gordo you give the impression that everything you read on the internet is to be taken at face value and everything published in Nature is highly suspect. For your own sake I hope this is not the case.

    Incidentally the article you cite supports the AGW hypothesis. Why do you presume that the findings of the research that you agree with are correct and the findings you disagree with are incorrect?

  70. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 14:30 | #70

    el gordo :No matter what we do, or not do, it won’t make any difference.

    Typical misinformation from el gordo. Surely there should be a job in News Corp for EG’s talents writting such misleading headlines.

    I can’t understand why EG’s remains unemployed.

  71. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:04 | #71

    ‘Incidentally the article you cite supports the AGW hypothesis.’ That’s correct, the publication is very biased.
    Nevertheless, the article did mention plan B and straight away I thought of Bob Carter.

    I’m employed, thanks for the kind thoughts.

  72. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:08 | #72

    Nick @ 16

    As per Jackermans link @3 the AGW messiah Monidiot wants Jones sacked, why is that Nick? It wouldn’t be because he is a fraudster who ‘hid the decline’ and hid data from peer review would it?

    And stop lying, you know perfectly well they haven’t finsihed with Jones’ fraud yet as per Alans link @ 38

    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Jones is a fraudster and such AGW is founded on fraudulent figures.
    There is no evidence of unnatural temperature change.

  73. Nick R
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:11 | #73

    That is not the point. What makes you think that you can draw some conclusions from a scientific study but ignore others that you don’t like?

  74. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:12 | #74

    Why do you presume that the findings of the research that you agree with are correct and the findings you disagree with are incorrect?

    Nick that is the cherry pickers MO. True skeptics collect the evidence and assess the whole to determine the message. “So called skeptics” select the bits that they like, but close their eyes to proponderence of evidence.

  75. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:21 | #75

    No Nick

    The whole ‘consensus fraud’ is built on the temperature reconstructions from only 3 sources and 2 of them Jones and Mann are in disrepute.

    Any nexus from Jones’ fraud is also in disrepute, not that any causation has been demonstrated anyway.

  76. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:26 | #76

    And stop lying, you know perfectly well they haven’t finsihed with Jones’ fraud yet as per Alans link @ 38
    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Tony, the scientific panel as brought down its findings. I linked you to it.

    AGW messiah Monidiot wants Jones sacked

    Did you have your eyes closed when I provided evidence that Monbiot has recanted his hasty claims?

    Did you have your eyes closed when I linked you to its report?

    There is no evidence of unnatural temperature change.

    So Tony says with tears forming from squinting his eyes so tightly shut. http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268254

    Jones is a fraudster and such AGW is founded on fraudulent figures.

    So says Tony who produces no evidence and closes his eyes to all that contradicts his prejudcie.

  77. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:34 | #77

    Although Tony G has produced no evidence, just assertion to support his overturned claims of fruad against Jones, there is ample evidence of warming such as the shrinking of glaceiers, sealevel rise, biological indicators,

    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-1/#comment-268174

    Oh and there is this;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend

  78. Nick R
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:34 | #78

    Tony G – Perhaps I missed something, but I was under the impression that Alan’s post showed that Jones had no case to answer and is reputation remains intact. Where is the justification for your often repeated claims that Jones engaged in scientific fraud? Please point it out to me as I would (genuinely) like to read it.

  79. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:37 | #79

    Tony do you think you are making a strong case here? Or are you aware of how your tactic of blind assertion in the face of contrary evidence leaves you looking?

  80. Nick R
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:43 | #80

    Jakerman – I can’t help but suspect that, ex-post, Tony G doesn’t trust the scientific panel very much. Thus any conclusions they come to that are not critical of Jones are tainted. Perhaps he believes he is saving the world from a massive evil conspiracy or something.

  81. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:49 | #81

    Nick R :Jakerman – I can’t help but suspect that, ex-post, Tony G doesn’t trust the scientific panel very much. Thus any conclusions they come to that are not critical of Jones are tainted.

    Tony G was all for the scientific pannel when he was under the misunderstanding that it had not yet clear Jones of fraud. In keeping with my model [1], Tony will now adopt the stance you describe towards the Scientific pannel’s findings.

    [1] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268276

  82. Alan
    September 28th, 2010 at 15:54 | #82

    As I think I may have posted before, Tony G and el gordo are not talking to us, they are trying to convince themselves. The best explanation for their presence here is to read The paranoid style in American politics.

  83. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 17:00 | #83

    ‘The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms—he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization. He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millenialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse.’

    Hmmm… like the CAGW zealots.

  84. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 17:21 | #84

    El gordo, your claims are the ones that require a paranoid conspiracy. AGW is based on the proponderence of evidence.

  85. Tony G
    September 28th, 2010 at 17:26 | #85

    Jackerman, your Monidiot link is dated 2/8/2010 he wanted Jones sacked on that date, point me to where he refutes wanting Jones sacked after that date.

    “Tony, the scientific panel as brought down its findings. I linked you to it”
    Is that the ‘Scientific Appraisal Panel ‘ mentioned in Alans link? because I can not find the link to that, that you describe.

  86. Alan
    September 28th, 2010 at 17:52 | #86

    I am happy to provide the link. The parliamentary committee, as we know, found that Jones had no case to answer on the charge of dishonesty. The Scientific Appraisal Panel found:

    Conclusions
    1. We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

    2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

    3. It was not the immediate concern of the Panel, but we observed that there were important and unresolved questions that related to the availability of environmental data sets. It was pointed out that since UK government adopted a policy that resulted in charging for access to data sets collected by government agencies, other countries have followed suit impeding the flow of processed and raw data to and between researchers. This is unfortunate and seems inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere in government.

    4. A host of important unresolved questions also arises from the application of Freedom of Information legislation in an academic context. We agree with the CRU view that the authority for releasing unpublished raw data to third parties should stay with those who collected it.

  87. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 17:52 | #87

    Tony G, read my post for the link to the Scientific Appraisal Pannel (Muir Russel Report)
    http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268254

    Tony G writes:

    Jackerman, your Monidiot link is dated 2/8/2010 he wanted Jones sacked on that date, point me to where he refutes wanting Jones sacked after that date.

    You are confused Tony, go back and check the date the broad cast not the date of a much later youtube upload. Then compare with the the date of Monbiot’s recant. (Clue; March for former, July for latter).

  88. el gordo
  89. Alice
    September 28th, 2010 at 18:49 | #89

    @Alan
    Alan – the thing I have noticed before with Tony G and now with el gordo… The real science doesnt matter to them. Clutching at straws and arguing against in any way they can is more important and yes they are talking to themselves. In any sense this is what you would call extreme bias.

  90. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 19:39 | #90

    Extreme bias! All of us here are suffering from the same malady.

  91. Alice
    September 28th, 2010 at 19:44 | #91

    @el gordo
    Its time to whack you with my plastic spade el gordo..

  92. el gordo
    September 28th, 2010 at 22:15 | #92

    This thread is dead, might jump to message board.

  93. Alan
    September 28th, 2010 at 23:54 | #93

    Poor old el gordo, he imagines he can run off to another thread and post his stuff there and if he closes his eyes really, really hard no-one will question what he posts. And here I was hoping he and Tony G were going to admit that Jones has no case to answer and try attacking Mann.

  94. el gordo
    September 29th, 2010 at 09:09 | #94

    What’s with the old?

  95. Tony G
    September 29th, 2010 at 09:46 | #95

    Jones the fraudster has been discredited and the Oxburgh report does nothing to vindicate his work; (Intro 2)

    “The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
    the published research were correct.”

    don’t get me started on that other fraudster Mann;

    “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimatic community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicised that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall our committee believes that Dr Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium, cannot be supported by his analysis.” The body of the report refers to basic errors in the use of statistical methods and highlights subversion of the peer review process: “at least 43 authors have direct connections to Dr Mann by virtue of coauthoring papers with him”

    http://www.outersite.org/?p=351

    Just admit AGW is a fraud and that all you blokes are interested in is redistibuting wealth.

  96. frankis
    September 29th, 2010 at 12:04 | #96

    If you’d ever had a good reputation Tony G your propensity for churlish comments would long ago have ruined it. As it is …..

    Do you believe that holy books contain some wisdom?

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
    http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/7.html

    Proverbs 19:1
    Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a fool whose lips are perverse.

    1 Peter 3:16
    Keep a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

    Exodus. 20:16
    You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

    Exodus 23:1
    Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.
    Exodus 23:7
    Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.

    Proverbs 6:12-15
    A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth,who winks with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,who plots evil with deceit in his heart— he always stirs up dissension. Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

    Proverbs 6:16-20
    There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes,a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
    http://encouragingbiblequotes.com/verseshonestya.html

    Those who unrepentantly hurl charges of “fraud” and “lies” at people who’ve been found innocent invite only the harshest judgments of their own character.

  97. jakerman
    September 29th, 2010 at 16:24 | #97

    Jones the fraudster has been discredited and the Oxburgh report does nothing to vindicate his work

    Except that Tony G has presened no evidence to substantiate his claims and further more is ignoring the findings from the 3 reports which found exactly the opposite.

    Confirmation of my hypothesis [1]

    [1] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/#comment-268283

    And Tony G goes on to confirme Alan’s hypothesis [2]

    [2] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/#comment-268303

    In attacking Mann, here is the quality of the report Alan relies on [3], I’ll stick with serious scientific review [4], which I linked to earlier.

    [3] http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

    [4] http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

  98. jakerman
    September 29th, 2010 at 16:38 | #98

    The Wegman Report claimed two missions: #1 evaluate statistical issues of the “hockey stick” temperature graph, and #2 assess potential peer review issues in climate science. For #1, the team might have been able to do a peer-reviewgrade
    statistical analysis, but in 91 pages managed not to do so. For #2, a credible assessment needed a senior, multidisciplinary panel, not a statistics professor and his students, demonstrably unfamiliar with the science and as a team, unqualified for that task.

    Instead, they made an odd excursion into “social network analysis,” a discipline in which they lacked experience, but used poorly to make baseless claims of potential wrongdoing.

    In retrospect, the real missions were: #1 claim the “hockey stick” broken and #2 discredit climate science as a whole.

    All this was a façade for a PR campaign well-honed by Washington, DC “thinktanks” and allies, under way for years.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/

  99. Alice
    September 29th, 2010 at 16:43 | #99

    @Tony G
    says ” Just admit AGW is a fraud and that all you blokes are interested in is redistibuting wealth.”

    In this day and age Tony G – redistribution of wealth is needed as well decent proactive policies on AGW.
    I dont know which is the greater evil – doing absolutely nothing about AGW or doing absolutely nothing about rising inequality.

  100. el gordo
    September 30th, 2010 at 06:07 | #100
Comment pages
1 2 8859
Comments are closed.