Comments on: Climate Scientists and Preaching to the Choir

By: Gene Callahan

Gene Callahan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:46:04 +0000

Anastasia, you’re “caste” comment just ignores reality — Internet discussions, *even among ideologically close cousins*, turn nasty and stupid in a way that academic discussions, *even among those ideologically quite distant*, rarely do.

By: Rob Bradley

Rob Bradley — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:43:47 +0000

Dr. Wigley tried to get me fired at Enron when he wrote a letter to Ken Lay complaining about my skepticism. Read about it here: http://masterresource.org/?p=735

I invited Tom to respond and he did not.

By: AGW Climate Scientists Refuse To Speak On Climategate « Fascist Soup

AGW Climate Scientists Refuse To Speak On Climategate « Fascist Soup — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:47:51 +0000

[...] Audit reports: Dear Dr [...]

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:24:44 +0000

NW when you say:

“My sense was that about half of the comments on Curry’s post crossed one or another line.”

I would have to add that Judith Curry has made no attempt to hide the fact that she has come here as an advocate and not a scientist. In her advocate it is not unexpected to see her doing damage control.

Judith Curry on the thread provided for her by Steve M accused me of bringing a young associate to tears in comments I made about a paper the associate did with Curry and Webster. I went back to that thread and linked it for her and asked her for a reply. She has answered other replies in the meantime and has not replied to my request for details.

High sounding pronouncements are just words (and could be confused with damage control) without some accompanying deeds, and deeds as simple as detailing an accusation or at least taking a second look at it.

Words are cheap.

By: willard

willard — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:28:28 +0000

From http://www3.telus.net/eddyelmer/Tools/litterms.htm : “Ridicule. Words intended to belittle a person or idea and arouse contemptuous laughter. The goal is to condemn or criticize by making the thing, idea, or person seem laughable and ridiculous. It is one of the most powerful methods of criticism, partly because it cannot be satisfactorily answered (“Who can refute a sneer?”) and partly because many people who fear nothing else–not the law, not society, not even God–fear being laughed at. (The fear of being laughed at is one of the most inhibiting forces in western civilization. It provides much of the power behind the adolescent flock urge and accounts for many of the barriers to change and adventure in the adult world.) Ridicule is, not surprisingly, a common weapon of the satirist.”

By: JasonR

JasonR — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:45:12 +0000

Tim, just to let you know that your rejigging of Coldplay’s Viva La Vida didn’t go unappreciated. All you need do now is produce your own karaoke version on YouTube and it could go viral via Mr. Morano.

By: RomanM

RomanM — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:59:07 +0000

MikeN, quit projecting your “injured” psyche as a proxy for all of the “abuse” suffered by the scientists “aggressed” by CA and its minions. At this point, it appears to be nothing more than continuing aimless and exagerated whining.

These are big people – they don’t need you to feel their pain. Besides, if Dr. Tingley’s mother is not upset, why should you be?

By: Mailman

Mailman — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:23:43 +0000

MikeN,

Sounds like you are merely stating that some scientists dont like their papers being criticised. If thats the case then some scientists need to grow up OR stop publishing papers if their ego’s are THAT fragile.

Regards

Mailman

By: fustian

fustian — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:14:13 +0000

There are many sensible reasons for Dr. Wigley to refuse comment at this time.

First and foremost, many of his colleagues may be looking at legal and ethical threats to their livelihood or even their freedom. If they have been accepting large amounts of public money and it can be shown that they have knowingly been cooking the data, there may be real trouble here.

Certainly Dr. Wigley does not want to even inadvertently add to these peoples troubles by a poorly worded defense.

In addition, one of the things I’ve been ruminating on is that the original hacker (whistleblower?) interestingly said that the emails were only a selection.

Is it possible that there is yet another shoe to drop?

By: MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:18:25 +0000

Good that the scientists are fine. I don’t remember the specifics for Huybers, just that someone else commented that you are being rude to a young scientist(I thought you had said you were unaware and it was a mistake).

Grinsted also someone else complained.

For Kaufman, it wasn’t much, and I said in the prior thread Kaufman backstory
saying ‘unresponsive’ when the guy gave you a zip file. Then saying I’m sure Yamal doesn’t matter. I suspect you jumped to the conclusion that Kaufman knew everything about Yamal, had cherry-picked the proxies, was a made member of the Team, and so forth. From the CRU archive, he wrote I think he wants annual data. No evidence that he was obstructing you at that point, though I’m sure if we had followon e-mails we would see that he was encouraged to do so.

Steve: Saying that Kaufman was “unresponsive” to my repeated requests for data is hardly holding him up to “ridicule” as you argued. The statement that he was being unresponsive to my requests for data was correct. I didn’t ask him for the pdfs and already had 95% of them. I didn’t say that “Yamal doesn’t matter”; it does. I said that upside down Tiljander wouldn’t matter in his method. You “suspect that [I] jumped” to the conclusion that he knew everything about Yamal. Why would you jump to that conclusion? My presumption would have been that he knew very little about it and took it on faith.