10,000 Euro’s was the reward for exposing the hockey stick as “crap”. Marcel deserves every centime of that reward.

I wish that looking for diamond mines in the West Australian Yilgarn were that remunerative!

You certainly have the right to “put forward a dissenting voice about the clearly awful Jaworoski paper.” I have criticisms of the paper. I believe that it contains a lot of data, and I would prefer to see more graphics. Well crafted graphics make an author’s points better than presenting the same information in words. A prime example of this is the primary reason for this blog: MBH98′s “Hockey Stick” graph.

The negative comments which I have read on ZJ’s papers do not address his main points, but rather they nitpick at side issues. In their criticisms, the self named “debunkers” use far too many logical fallacies in their arguments. When someone resorts to a logical fallacy to make their point, I agree with Jeremy Bentham.

Where are the arguments from the “debunkers” describing how the ice cores have been protected from contamination?

Where are the “debunkers” descriptions of the analytical techniques used in quantifying ice core CO2 levels? Which instruments were used? How were they calibrated?

Maybe “Hearnden” isn’t fancy enough for you and you should be referred to as “Herr Doctor Professor Peter von der Hearnden auf die Mann” or “Pete” for short, but an actual CONTRIBUTION to the discussion would be appreciated instead of the superficiality and “Authoritarianism” you have shown up to now.

…Dave, you’re right. If I complain (once) that the likes of TCO (9 times in one thread), Lambert,Hearnden (is he still around?), etc, continually hijack threads with their predictable, repetitive ad homs and other pathetic smears then I’m as bad as they are.

Name’s Peter, and it’s a bit pathetic using surnames so pejorativley…Crikey even John ‘A’ sometimes uses my first name

I am around, and atm I’m daring to put forward a dissenting voice about the clearly awful Jaworoski paper. I didn’t mention it first but I responded to a post about it. Is that not OK? I think light is being shed on it. Is that not OK?

Oh, and where have I, or indeed anyone, accused Steve of being ‘corrupt’? How can he be ‘sick’ of something that I can’t remember happening – at least in comments here? I see NO evidence of corruption, I do see the work of a very fine mathematician clearly (if only based on sheer output) on somewhat of a mission. Fair enough, we all think we’re right, you certainly do.

Enjoy the festivities; you have more than earned it!

Doug Z, thanks for the support and please post up anytime,

We wrote about Lambert and thus can hardly get too self-righteous about him posting back. I don’t think that he’s done himself any favours by the nature of his feedback. I think that that particular hand has mostly played itself out.

This is thanksgiving weekend in Canada so I’m probably going to be offline for a couple of days.

TCO isn’t a warmer. Nor was I picking on you. I just couldn’t figure out what group you belonged to exactly, since you were unhappy with TCO, so I was trying to be ironic about the fact that logically you own attempt to ‘clear up’ the board instead clutters it up. You don’t, of course, even have to look at the responses to get the vast majority of the material of direct scientific interest on the site. Occasionally some material of interest also occurs in the discussion, but it’s pretty rare. So if you don’t like chit-chat and attempts to understand the posts in more detail, just keep to looking at Steve’s main posts and ignore the rest. BTW, I regard my main, self-imposed “duty” here is to be sure that the warmer critics who snipe without any attempt to discuss the actual material which has been posted, have a price to pay, so to speak. I don’t actually think Steve much likes it, but I, like you, think he spends too much answering questions just designed to make him waste time.

As for TCO, I agree that the “effect” of his (or her; someone did remind me off-line that the response to my post accusing him of being a warmer in drag could be interpreted as meaning he is a she), posts is to waste some of Steve’s time, but he either likes TCOs posts or bears the response duty manfully and with a happy face.

Doug,

Are you purposely trying to be ironic, or does it just come out that way?..snip..As such it fits perfectly under your rubric of “usual gibberish” except that you’re not a “usual suspect”. So welcome to the USA (Usual Suspects Association).

Yes, of course Dave, you’re right. If I complain (once) that the likes of TCO (9 times in one thread), Lambert, Hearnden (is he still around?), etc, continually hijack threads with their predictable, repetitive ad homs and other pathetic smears then I’m as bad as they are. A bit like if someone gives an award to a skeptic then he must be a skeptic and thus the award is meaningless.
Actually, if someone dares to put forward a disenting view about global warming, then he is a skeptic and thus his comments should be disregarded.

I wonder if people like Steve M get sick of being accused of being corrupt?

Anyway, you’re wrong about something – I won’t become a member of your Usual Suspects Association. This is the last you’ll hear from me. I don’t have anything relevant to say so I won’t say it. I just wish that TCO would do the same.