Comments on: Lost Cedars #2

By: More on Requests for Data « Climate Audit

More on Requests for Data « Climate Audit — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:03:26 +0000

[...] comments on my efforts with Jacoby not systematically, but in some anecdotes here , here , here and here . I will post up some details about Jacoby which are [...]

By: TCO

TCO — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:24:03 +0000

Maybe you could create some sort of a spreadsheet/chart for data requests and status. That would show the amount of stonewalling…

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Mon, 09 May 2005 20:54:42 +0000

But who turned it poisonous Mr Hearden ? Your unending series of nitpicks and steadfast refusal to deal with the substance of the data being discussed hardly lends to amicable discussion. I am happy, at any time, to attempt to discuss the significance or otherwise of the various issues with the underlying data and methodology used in paleoclimate reconstructions, but you won’t engage. If you simply want to cheer on what the “experts” want you to think, why don’t you stay at Realclimate where such attitudes are welcome ? I treat these comments as an opportunity to consider and post (with deep understanding or not) on the underlying data. You don’t have to accept Steve’s (or any else’s) interpretations as long as you engage with the data.

But, Peter (to revert to your first name), you haven’t once in numerous posts ever seriously disputed the data ! You have cast doubts upon the people, their motivations, their expertise or competence, and their identities, and that has been your sole contribution. Do you wonder why we (or me at least) get frustrated when we see yet another non relevant Peter Hearnden post. Even now, you think my posting “poisonous”, did you make such a comment on Mr Hunter’s little effort earlier ? No, but why not ? And in response to the question in #75 re indentities, defend all you like, I have no objection, but defend his post, his data, his conclusions, not his personality.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Mon, 09 May 2005 07:45:59 +0000

Re#77 Ed, this place really has got poisonous. But, I’ll leave it at that rather than deliver the kind of reply your post deserves.

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Sun, 08 May 2005 21:36:16 +0000

Mr Hearnden, what is your problem ? Where I am whining, I merely echo Mr Hunter’s little “bon mot” from earlier, and I note you didn’t leap up and object to that characterisation. Hypocrit.

I have given up challenging you to, just for once, actually discuss data instead of posting prissy little ad homs. Of late you have not upset my expectations.

By: Michael Ballantine

Michael Ballantine — Sun, 08 May 2005 13:45:14 +0000

Steve and John, Knowing that you do not want to waste time coming up with a posting policy allow me to make one small suggestion that may clean things up a bit. It may be a little after the fact but how about starting a separate thread to move all comments that "discuss" or "refer to" the anonymous nature of any of the commenters on this site. Simply move them over to the other thread. Nothing censored out, just certain some comments moved to a more appropriate category reflecting their contents. John replies: If anyone knows how to move comments from one thread to another in Wordpress, please let me know. Steve: I hope this can be figured out. It's a great idea.

By: Peter Hearnden

Peter Hearnden — Sun, 08 May 2005 12:36:41 +0000

Re #72, err, who was it who referred to me as ‘Hearnden’ then Snack? (clue – http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=176#comments ).

It seems you can sling it but when it’s returned you whine – for future reference how would you describe such behaviour? And, how would you react if I defended another poster here thus: ‘He does not have independent means and is worried about repercussions from people like you.’?

By: Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Sun, 08 May 2005 02:32:31 +0000

Re:#66

“I wonder why it has taken 8 days and many emails for you even start to address the issue I raised in posting 26.”

Really?! Eight days? I am shocked, totally shocked?

What is John Hunter’s opinion on Dr. Mann has responded or not responded to requests from his critics?

By: Michael Jankowski

Michael Jankowski — Fri, 06 May 2005 18:45:02 +0000

Re#71,

Posting 12′s “people like you” – I’m not sure exactly what Steve means by that, but I assume there are people like you?
Posting 65′s “people like Hunter” – Clearly refers to people who permit Mann to stonewall but expect others to do things on command. I can say that the latter certainly fits you. As to the former…care to comment? Steve seems to think it fits. Do you want Mann to release his source code? Does he receive the same “tedious prodding” that Steve got here?

I find both of those generalizations acceptable in the context of their posts. Regardless, they are completely irrelevant to why I raised the issue of the “you guys” reference you made.

What I didn’t find acceptable in #63 (that I referred to in #67) is that you specifically directed a post to myself and two other people saying that we should be correcting an error on the Pacific Research Institute’s website. I can’t speak for the other two people you were directing your post towards, but I have no control over the Pacific Research Institute or their website, no relation to M&M’s work, a different interpretation of the comment on the Pacific Research Institute’s website than you did, and had not been given any substantiation to show that the comment on the Pacific Research Institute’s website was in reference to M&M’s work in the first place as opposed to someone else’s!

Keeping all that in mind, can you explain why it is acceptable for you to question why someone like me hasn’t directed the Pacific Research Institute to change their website?

By: Ed Snack

Ed Snack — Fri, 06 May 2005 08:25:13 +0000

Re #71, Incorrect Mr Hunter, it is simply your rude and obnoxious, petty, childish ways getting the better of you again. Please post something of substance on the data, or post your nitpicking on websites on all sides of the debate.