Bishop Hill Comedy of errors
Dec 28, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Climate: Russell The New American has been taken to task by Simon Dunford, the press officer of UEA. New American had been discussing the relationship between CRU and the Met Office
The Met Office works closely with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which made headlines last year at the center of "Climategate." That scandal involved a number of forecasters in Britain involved in fraudulent reporting of data to forward their own climate-change agenda.
I think it may be reasonable of UEA to take issue with the word "fraudulent", which is not really a particularly accurate summary of the allegations. However, Dunford chose to respond as follows:
We are extremely surprised at the inaccurate and defamatory claim in the final paragrah [sic].... Our scientists were exonerated of any dishonesty or malpractice by a series of independent reviews.... Readers of your article would not know that they had been cleared of any such accusations.
Dunford's response seems a mistake to me, opening up the question of the credibiliity of the inquiries, when concentrating on the question of "fraudulent reporting of data" would have done the job just as well. New American has now been able to responsd in turn with a further article looking at the work of Russell and Oxburgh. Your truly is cited in the process.
Reader Comments (109)
... my previous comments about your critical reasoning.
More ludicrous self-aggrandisement.....
If you can give credible reasons ...
You appear to be the last person on the planet not aware of the blatantly obvious ancient news that governments have a huge vested interest in pushing CAGW dogma - it gives them an excuse to expand themselves by increasing taxes, bureaucracies and controls over our life.
And that since it is in each state's own self-interest, no coordination or conspiracy between them is needed to achieve this. In fact you would need multiple conspiracies in each country to STOP this happening.
Punksta,
Just let me get the conclusions of your own immense powers of critical reasoning straight in my head,
You think it is perfectly reasonable that governments of the world should spend billions over generations and pay scientists to get biased fraudulent results with the intention that some time in the future whatever political power was in charge could use that as an excuse to tax its citizens. You believe that such a plan does not fit the definition of a conspiracy.
You think it just happenstance that all these governments decided to do this at roughly the same point in their countries histories, and it is all just a coincidence that they all choose the same topic to fake. You believe that such an obvious twist of fate means this can’t be an international conspiracy.
You think it is sensible to come on the internet and be so abusive to others that your posts get snipped because yours is such a rational and obvious idea that people, who might be just a tad critical and think that your version of the way the world works isn’t the most likely scenario given the evidence, should know better.
Is that about it?
Punksta, Just let me get the conclusions of your own immense powers of critical reasoning straight in my head. You think it is perfectly reasonable ...
As you keep ignoring, states have a huge vested interest in favouring CAGW 'science', since it allows them to expand. Also fits with the general totalitarian mood of our times, common to virtually all mainstream politicians.
And the sooner they can convince us, the sooner thay can just get on with it. Clearly though the plan has hit delays, with some uppity subjects impudently declining to not just take their word for it. Some even writing bestseller books, godammit.
You think it just happenstance ...
As soon as the first CAGW 'science' went public (Hansen?), they all noticed it, and recognised a winner worthy of enhanced funding. No more a coincidence than all the people who listen to the news, finding something out the same thing at the same time.
You think it is sensible to come on the internet and be so abusive to others that your posts get snipped because yours is such a rational and obvious idea that people, who might be just a tad critical and think that your version of the way the world works isn’t the most likely scenario given the evidence, should
know better.
Is that about it?
1. Don't impute your own motives to me
2. I was snipped for responding in kind to your endless vain attempts at superciliosness and self-aggrandizement, such as at the head of your last message. So just be thankful for the favouritism our host shows you.
Punksta
I'm still not certain of your position. Amongst all your rhetoric you still seem to be saying that you believe it is perfectly reasonable that governments of the world should spend billions over generations and pay scientists to get biased fraudulent results with the intention that some time in the future whatever political power was in charge could use that as an excuse to tax its citizens. You also believe that such a plan does not fit the definition of a conspiracy.
Is that true?
I doubt you were responding in kind, your post was snipped, not mine.
BTW the concept of global warming went public in 1896 (Svante Arrhenius based on previous work of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s and John Tyndall in 1861). It was popular science by 1958;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY
I'm still not certain of your position....
I doubt it; none so blind as those who doggedly will not see, and loudly overvalue their own supposed powers critical analysis. Which of the following do you not understand ?
* Governments stand to gain by CAGW being believed, by justifiying their own expansion
* Governments are the ones funding CAGW dogma
* Those in the state sector, plus those citizens generally enthusiastic about a coercive society (state controls ) - ie anyone towards the totalitarian end of the political spectrum - stand to gain by CAGW being believed, since it justifies more government. Now and in the future, when future governments will inherit whatever policies are now put in place.
I doubt you were responding in kind, your post was snipped, not mine.
Of course I was. You again pompously stroked your ego in public, I again asked you not to. The Bishop bends over backwards to accomodate dissenters here, gives them extra leeway. Which is fair enough.
BTW the concept of global warming went public in 1896 (Svante Arrhenius based on previous work of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s and John Tyndall in 1861). It was popular science by 1958
But only caught on in a big way more recently, as totalitarian thinking made big strides in popularity.
Still not denying my assessment of your nut job conspiracy thinking I see. Just trying to justify it as some sort of political agenda.
"* Governments stand to gain by CAGW being believed, by justifiying their own expansion"
They gain more from a solid understanding of science.
"* Governments are the ones funding CAGW dogma"
You have given no rational explanation - again - why any and all governments should pick on AGW. Is stem cell / AIDS / cancer / (insert any science funding here) research dogma?
"* Those in the state sector, plus those citizens generally enthusiastic about a coercive society (state controls ) - ie anyone towards the totalitarian end of the political spectrum - stand to gain by CAGW being believed, since it justifies more government. Now and in the future, when future governments will inherit whatever policies are now put in place."
What a scary conspiracy theory - take your tin foil hat off and look at the real world.
"The Bishop bends over backwards to accomodate dissenters here"
Careful, that sound dangerously close to what you had your post snipped for!
True, I haven't bothered deying deny your nutjob conspiracy strawman for a while. Once again then, you don't need to conspire to get an organisation to pursue its clear self-interest.
And you I see are still pushing your real nutjob conspiracy theory of government employees putting integrity above government interest. Just like the Climategate Crooks and the UEA's stooge 'investigators' did.
" Governments stand to gain by CAGW being believed, by justifiying their own expansion"
They gain more from a solid understanding of science.
Only when science gives them an excuse to expand.
* Governments are the ones funding CAGW dogma"
You have given no rational explanation - again - why any and all governments should pick on AGW. Is stem cell / AIDS / cancer / (insert any science funding here) research dogma?
What do you hope to achieve by repeatedly ignoring the explanation ? - CAGW gives them an appanently iron-clad reason to expand themselves. Better than most others, including those you mention. Your political naivety is truly astonishing.
...What a scary conspiracy theory - take your tin foil hat off and look at the real world.
How exactly do you smuggle your strawman conspiracy theory into that one?
And yes, at the end, a serviceable joke :-)
"How exactly do you smuggle your strawman conspiracy theory into that one?"
'coercive society', 'state controls', 'totalitarian'.
Yes, how do you smuggle conspiracy into those ?