Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Conflicted climatologists | Main | Koutsoyiannis 2011 »
Monday
Jun062011

Not so Goot

Aynsley Kellow posted these remarks in the comments on the posting on Goot's paper on the climate consensus. I thought they were important enough to bring upstairs as a header post.

I found it difficult to read this piece, especially because the matter of how many climate scientists can dance in agreement on the head of a pin is irrelevant to any argument about climate science. Since Galileo, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum has been well established, and it is rather surprising that Murray would be engaged to explore whether the fallacy holds in this particular case.

What worried me more was that Murray both cites me and gets it horribly wrong. In the middle of a titanic sentence of 159 woards, Murray included the following parenthetical remark (on p6):

'(Bray and von Storch 2007, fig. 30; badly misrepresented by Kellow 2007, 73, a defender of Peiser)'

I found this a surprising remark, because Hans von Storch was kind enough to write to me to tell me that my book was accurate in the elements with which he was familiar. How then had I 'badly misrepresented' fig. 30 in Bray and von Storch, 2007?

The answer is that it would have been extremely difficult for me to have misrepresented anything in Bray and von Storch, 2007, because that manuscript was received for publication in May 2007, when my book was already in press.

In fact, I quoted Dennis Bray as he was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph, on 1 May 2005 — fully two years before the submisison by he and Hans von Storch of the paper to which Murray Goot refers. The Sunday Telegraph states:

'Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.'

My book on p73 states:

'Science published a correction by Oreskes (Oreskes,2005), but it refused to publish a letter from Dr Benny Peiser which showed that her numbers could not be replicated, and another from Dr Dennis Bray reporting a survey ofclimate scientists showing that fewer than one in ten considered that climate change was principally caused by human activity. Dr Bray told the UK paper the Sunday Telegraph that Science had informed him his paper ‘didn’t fit with what they were intending to publish.'

The issue was Oreskes mis-stating her methodology, stating in her paper that she searched for 'clmate change' rather than the search term she actually used: 'global climate change'. I stated in my book:

'But a search of the ISI database using ‘climate change’ produced 12000 papers, and Oreskes was forced to admit after science journalist David Appell (the owner of the blog where Mann had first mounted his defence) challenged her on his website (within 12 days of publication) that she had used the three keywords ‘global climate change’, which reduced the return by an order of magnitude.'

Note who nailed Oreskes on the deceit: David Appell was no friend of climate sceptics.

I have been seriously misrepresented by Murray Goot, and I think he owes me an apology.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (129)

I have the notion that Cedric Katesby is not a single person but is actually a committee financed by Big Oil and tasked with irritating and distracting the intelligent, reasonable and sensible people who are sceptical of the CAGW mythology who past on various blogs. 'Cedric's' frantic linguistic, logical and scientific gymnastics remind me of the old story that a camel was designed by a committee of angels tasked by the Creator with providing the specifications and blueprints from which He could build a horse. :-)

Jun 9, 2011 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Let's run lapogus' question past you again. Just in case your little brain didn't quite get a grip on it the first time

But I did get it the first time.
That's why I quoted it in full.

Here it is again:

.... since you are so familiar with NASA's "tonnes of information", please cite the empirical scientific evidence they have for CO2 induced CAGW. Btw, empirical means observational, i.e. not based on computer models...

He wants me to cite empirical scientific evidence they (meaning NASA's) for CO2 induced CAGW. He specifically defines empirical as "observational" and goes on to state that in this case "observational" means that it's not based on any computer models.

As I stated before, he's asking me to do this as a dodge.
He'd rather talk about this then defend his own claim that I called him on.

The sequence of events is as follows...

(Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 AM | lapogus)
...the CO2 CAGW hypothesis, for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence....

To which I immediately replied...

(Jun 8, 2011 at 10:08 AM)
Who says so? You?
And I should believe you because.....?
I go to NASA. On their website, they have tonnes of information about climate change.

Everything else came after.
I'm only interested in talking about methodology.
If you make a claim, then you should be able to back it up.

If you can't and you just want to dodge then well,...it won't work with me. I don't even respond to insults.

Mike Jackson said I thought you claimed that there was...

Nope. I claimed that NASA had tonnes of information about climate change.
That's an easy claim to support.
They have a website written in plain English.
I also made it very clear that if someone was going to make a claim then they had to back it up.

...for which despite $80bn and 20 years of research...

Where does this come from? Why do you want me to just take your word for this that it is so?
The labeling of "the CO2 CAGW hypothesis" just comes across as gobbledy-gook nonsense.

There are many differences between actual skeptics and deniers.
They have different methodologies.
Comparing one group of deniers to another group of deniers is fair.
So far, nobody here is behaving like a real skeptic. Everybody is shying away from talking about methodology. Real skeptics would not hesitate to put some distance between themselves and deniers.

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Kate beds Riccy: It's becoming increasingly clear you have no answer to the question I keep asking. You keep portraying yourself as in touch with all this 'true' knowledge ("I get my science from NASA") while all we crazy 'deniers' get out info from blogs.

So, again, what is the coefficient of climate sensitivity? If you believe in AGW, which is predicated on the climate's feedback reaction to CO2, what is it?

Don't go off on your "I can tell you're a denier by your methodology" riff, mate. It's just getting embarrassing.

Gimme a number and tell me which 'scientific community' stands behind it.

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

Cedric - it did not take me long to find some evidence to substantiate the $80bn claim:
http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/ccsp-8/ (not a blog - but a US government website) gives a annual breakdown of US Government climate change funding between 1989 and 2009 (total $34bn). Add on about the same or more for the EU, and then the totals spent by the Norwegian, Australian and New Zealand governments, and $80 billion will be about right.

Found any empirical evidence for CO2 induced CAGW yet?

Or will we have to wait another 20 years?

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

You keep portraying yourself as in touch with all this 'true' knowledge ("I get my science from NASA") while all we crazy 'deniers' get out info from blogs.

I do get my science from NASA (plus all other science communities on the planet).
You do get your science from blogs.
(If this is not true then say so.)

(try Watts Up With That for a blog featuring more 'hard' science - that's a 'community, and there are many others)
(...)
Stay reading, try a range of blogs (on both sides of the fence - though Mike J seems to know you as a regular patron of others) and I'll wager you'll be more sceptical next year than this.

All I am doing is pointing out that deniers on topics unrelated to climate change do what you do.
They rely on blogs too.
If you are a genuine skeptic (as opposed to being a denier) then you should be behaving differently.
I don't rely on blogs.
Any crank can create a blog. Relying on a blog is too risky.

If there is a complex scientific topic then I will go directly to the scientists.
They do the work. They publish the peer-reviewed research. They get my attention.
If you object, you need to give me a good reason not to do this.

NASA does the work.
You claim that NASA is bad or something yet you offer no proof.
None.
I am not prepared to just trust you.
For some reason, I should not trust NASA despite the fact that they are at the cutting edge of research on climate change and have been for decades.
That sounds indeed exactly like a moon-landing denier.

Asking me questions about something else does nothing to explain how your methodology is any different from any other denier out there.

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

cedric dude
Please use your considerable powers of mentation,...once in a while.

The question asked was: 'what is the connection between the propaganda about 'deniers', smokers, AIDS, and the other assorted paraphernalia you dragged onto here, and the topic of this thread?'

You have now been afforded a number of chances to answer this simple question, with no answer. Nor do you have one single intelligible word about evolution itself, for instance. Those who cannot utter two things about a topic, like you, are somehow just as likely as you to be running their mouths. I wonder why.

Yet you use the opportunity afforded by responses to your questions to post links to unconnected videos and to whatever you read and memorized last week. In other words, a propaganda troll.

j
You are right - I 'completely accept and believe the evolution theory'. But how absurd that statement is!! That is firstly the fallout of the Cedrics - they drag the level of the debate down. They turn every reasonable article of scientific thought - be it evolution, or the study of leptospirosis - into an article of allegiance and swearing of fealties.

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

To Cedric, the Deniersmeller Pursuivant

I have doubts, and fear that I may be a Denier, but I want to believe, really I do.

I would be grateful you could briefly state what I must believe in order to escape Your Eminence's denunciation.

I understand that the Mark of the Denier can be present in one's methodology. I try to discern the best arguments on a topic, and formulate an understanding on that basis, but this led me to become a Hockey Stick Denier, a Windmill Subsidies Denier, and an Emissions Trading Scheme Denier (to name a few). In these cases (and others), I had strong doubts from the outset, and found the supporting arguments unsatisfactory. Where did I go wrong?

Jun 9, 2011 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJake Haye

Cerdic,

You keep on talking about science, science you claim to have gotten from NASA and other science communities. But when asked the most obvious and relevant question about such, you ....


Nothing. Absolutely nothing!

Jun 9, 2011 at 1:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

Cedric - as I said in my first comment, you are a gullible fool.

All you have done in your comments since is substantiate my assertion. Oh, by the way, this graph is sourced not from a blog but another US Government science website -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/alley2000/alley2000.gif

If you look you will see that the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan Periods, and the Holocene Optima 7000-8000 years ago were all warmer than today. The tiny little uptick at the right hand side is what you have seemingly lost your marbles over. The planet has very cold periods (ice ages, which tend to last 100,000 years), then it has warm periods, which usually last a few thousand years. Even within the warmer interglacials there are cool periods and warm periods. In the last 200 years atmospheric CO2 concentration by volume has increased from 0.025% to 0.039%. All that happened in the 20th century is a continuation of the warming we have seen since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. In the late 20th century we had a few mild winters in the northern hemisphere, which gave rise to opportunist greens who played the gullible media well. Sadly this slight warming also led to an irrational panic amongst scientists and meteorologists who frankly should have known much better. If you are a environmentalist, good for you, but campaign on real and important issues like habitat destruction, e.g. forests in Indonesia, and pollution of the sea and land by heavy metals. But please don't come here again citing your methodology bollocks. As others have said, you are dealing with intelligent people on this blog, not children.

Jun 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Shub - I in turn agree completely with you on the swearing of fealties being meaningless. Blog debate can be tricky as you don't get all the non-verbal cues and many of us type things a bit too quickly so it is easy to get misunderstandings. Not for the Great Cedric though - for him, everything is simple: whatever The Science Man says is true in all cases at all times (even when it contradicts previous pronouncements by The Man), and anything that Deniers say is the purest form of Evil and Stupidity.

Jun 9, 2011 at 2:11 PM | Unregistered Commenterj

I have a hypothesis (as yet half-baked) about Cedric and his fellows. I think they are recovering religious fundamentalists who, although they have abandoned their religious beliefs, have yet to drop their fundamentalist behaviours: the appeals to authority, the anathematising of those who disagree with them and the tub-thumping.

I would go over to Pharyngula and do some field work in order to develop my ideas, but I fear my stomach isn’t strong enough.

Jun 9, 2011 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Cedric's argument seems simple to me.

"The methodology is the same. The thinking is the same. That's the connection."

I guess it is the argumentum ad similar-methodium (okay, I made that up...)

But it is like all the other arguments that start 'you must be wrong because...' and then tack on "Because I am a proper scientist and you are not" or " The Royal Society says so".

Is that it?

Is the proof that CAGW is real and true because you don't argue properly? Gee.

Jun 9, 2011 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Josh, I think Cedric's argument is simple because he can't rise above that level. After he started posting here I googled his name and then hunted down a few of the links. The scatter-gun effect occurs everywhere.
Without being offensive (I hope) he's a bird-brain. He's full of feeling (good for him) and bursting for us to feel along with him. Unfortunately he appears to have the attention span of a fruit fly and the mental retention powers of a gnat. Which doesn't make him a bad person ... just a pain in the backside when it comes to blogging!

Jun 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ, maybe so. But interesting that the debate is at that low level. If it was higher someone would have mentioned it by now.

It is a tad frustrating for those of us actually looking for evidence and falsifiable science.

Jun 9, 2011 at 5:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

I suspect there are a couple of reasons for the low level of debate, Josh.
In the first place there is the distinct possibility that there can be no falsifiable science because there is no single hypothesis to falsify. Added to which there is also the possibility that since the various strands may each be easily falsifiable if they were allowed to stand still long enough it is nobody's interests to allow them to do that.
Secondly, reading the RS Meeting thread it occurs to me that GW is the only subject on which one is not permitted to have an opinion. At least not one that disagrees with the received wisdom. I cannot think of any other scientific hypothesis or philosophical or moral principle on which debate has been so regorously and relentlessly closed down.
Even the "lukewarmers" are categorised as deniers. You must sign up to the total package. Even the Catholic Church isn't that dogmatic.

Jun 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

MJ - yes you are probably right that about the AGW brigade being the most dogmatic. But there are other scientific fields where careers and funding are at risk if you don't go with the flow. Everyone knows what happened to Dr Wakefield for beginning to ask some awkward questions about MMR, but very few know about how the GMC witch-hunters also attempted to end Dr Jayne Donegan's career for daring to give evidence at a trial which questioned the perceived wisdom of the government's vaccine schedule. I urge everyone to read her story - http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc - it is truly shocking.

Jun 9, 2011 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Yes. lapogus, I don't disagree. But there is a difference between professional peer pressure and the closing down of debate across the board.
My initial reaction to L'Affaire Wakefield was to think that he might have a point. I still think he might have a point but he left himself open to criticism and the Medical Establishment was always likely to go for the testicles in a case like that.
But nobody is calling me a denier or threatening to tattoo that word on my forehead because I take the view that if parents are concerned then they should be allowed to choose single inoculations for their offspring. The state has not yet (as far as I know) taken total control of people's lives. I am also still allowed to hold the view that the more drugs you pump into little babies (especially when you do it all at once) the greater the risk, whatever Big Pharma and Big Brother might say.
I am emphatically not permitted the same privilege where AGW is concerned, or at the very least there are those who seriously want to deny me that right on pain of various things up to and including death in a couple of extreme cases.

Jun 9, 2011 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

@ Iapogus Cedric - it did not take me long to find some evidence to substantiate the $80bn claim...

I checked the link.
There was no mention of $80bn dollars.

...but a US government website) gives a annual breakdown of US Government climate change funding between 1989 and 2009 (total $34bn).

Yes, the site talks about climate change funding. Yes, it goes back to 1989. Yes, the total of $34bn is about right.
None of that fits your claim.

Add on about the same or more for the EU, and then the totals spent by the Norwegian, Australian and New Zealand governments, and $80 billion will be about right.

Well, here's hoping you will find some more evidence as opposed to filling in the blanks with guesswork.

You made a claim. We could go into the details of that claim point-by-point but I'd rather focus on your methodology.

You made a claim. Call it "X". The way you tried to verify claim "X" was to go to a US government website.
So why did you do that?
(This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)

After all, if you are not prepared to accept information from say the NASA website (which is also a US government website) then why would you go to a different US government website.
Maybe the site you went to is cooking the books?
Perhaps they have really spent 180bn dollars but they are trying to fool you?

@ Shub 'what is the connection between the propaganda about 'deniers', smokers, AIDS, and the other assorted paraphernalia you dragged onto here, and the topic of this thread?'

The methodology is the same. You can take the same talking points and methods used by the tobacco lobby (for example) and they will work for the HIV deniers. The anti-vaxxers playbook reads just as well for creationists. The creationists shtick is the same as the moon-landing deniers etc.
There's no real difference in the way they go about things.
It's not the beliefs they hold that's important. It's how they obtain and reinforce those beliefs that identifies them as deniers.
That's why I have been giving real-life examples from a variety of denialist postions and comparing their methods.
They're in sync with each other.

I 'completely accept and believe the evolution theory'.

Glad to hear it. Creationists are complete nutjobs.
Beware the Green Dragon.

@ Jonas N You keep on talking about science, science you claim to have gotten from NASA and other science communities.

No I don't. I keep talking about the WAY I get my science. I keep talking about methodology.

@Josh Cedric's argument seems simple to me.
"The methodology is the same. The thinking is the same. That's the connection."

Yes. Thank you. That is indeed what I am saying.

But it is like all the other arguments that start 'you must be wrong because...' and then tack on "Because I am a proper scientist and you are not" or " The Royal Society says so".

No. Why are you creating a strawman? Focus on what I said, not what you think I said.
I did not say "You must be wrong because..." or anything even vaguely like that.

It is a tad frustrating for those of us actually looking for evidence and falsifiable science.

Anybody can say that. A denier can say that with ease and without a twinge of guilt. I'm talking about your methodology. The "how" part of looking for evidence and falisifiable science.

@J
...for him, everything is simple: whatever The Science Man says is true in all cases at all times...

Nope. I did not say this nor anything like this. Stop creating a strawman. Read what I am writing.

But there are other scientific fields where careers and funding are at risk if you don't go with the flow. Everyone knows what happened to Dr Wakefield for beginning to ask some awkward questions about MMR...

Bingo.

I am also still allowed to hold the view that the more drugs you pump into little babies (especially when you do it all at once) the greater the risk, whatever Big Pharma and Big Brother might say.

Yep. Conspiracies abound.

Jun 10, 2011 at 12:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric - I thought you got your science from scientists - not videos. Here's a link to a recent epidemiological paper, which clearly establishes that there is a link between autism and vaccines:

Theoretical aspects of autism: causes--a review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
J Immunotoxicol. 2011 Jan-Mar;8(1):68-79.
Ratajczak HV.
hratajcz@comcast.net
Abstract
Autism, a member of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), has been increasing dramatically since its description by Leo Kanner in 1943. First estimated to occur in 4 to 5 per 10,000 children, the incidence of autism is now 1 per 110 in the United States, and 1 per 64 in the United Kingdom, with similar incidences throughout the world. Searching information from 1943 to the present in PubMed and Ovid Medline databases, this review summarizes results that correlate the timing of changes in incidence with environmental changes. Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment.
PMID: 21299355 [PubMed - in process]

comment on CBS:
"The article in the Journal of Immunotoxicology is entitled "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes--A review." The author is Helen Ratajczak, surprisingly herself a former senior scientist at a pharmaceutical firm. Ratajczak did what nobody else apparently has bothered to do: she reviewed the body of published science since autism was first described in 1943. Not just one theory suggested by research such as the role of MMR shots, or the mercury preservative thimerosal; but all of them...
full text at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html

Just because there are intellectually challenged people who think that the Apollo missions were a hoax, does not mean that you have to believe everything ever written on paper with the NASA logo on it. Occasionally people in organisations and governments do conspire (sometimes with malice, sometimes unintentionally) and there are numerous examples political and/or corporate interests have influenced and corrupted science, such that myths, dishonesty and ignorance prevail, rather than truth. As I said, you a gullible fool.

Jun 10, 2011 at 8:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Cedric - I thought you got your science from scientists - not videos.

I do.
The video is an illustration only. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that.
All of the scientific studies mentioned the PBS film Vaccine War are real.
They are checkable.
All medical communities are in consensus about the safety of vaccines.
That didn't happen by magic.

Here's a link to a recent epidemiological paper, which clearly establishes that there is a link between autism and vaccines:...

It is not.
It does not.

Even if it was a paper, why would you focus on that particular one as opposed to all the others?

Selectivity (Cherry Picking)

For our next installment of the big five tactics in denialism we'll discuss the tactic of selectivity, or cherry-picking of data.
Denialists tend to cite single papers supporting their idea (often you have to squint to see how it supports their argument). Similarly they dig up discredited or flawed papers either to suggest they are supported by the scientific literature, or to disparage a field making it appear the science is based on weak research. Quote mining is also an example of "selective" argument, by using a statement out of context, just like using papers or data out of context, they are able to sow confusion.

A real skeptic would not do what you are doing now. Skepticism is a process; not a position.

Just because there are intellectually challenged people who think that the Apollo missions were a hoax, does not mean that you have to believe everything ever written on paper with the NASA logo on it.

Strawman. Once again you choose to ignore my well-established point about methodology.
Their intelligence is neither here nor there. Smart people can believe dumb things.
Moon-landing deniers behave the same way as climate deniers.
(And, as you presumably well know from direct and personal experience, anti-vaxxers behave the same way as climate deniers.)
It's not the beliefs that deniers hold that's important. It's how they obtain and reinforce those beliefs that identifies them as deniers.
They are in sync with each other.

Occasionally people in organisations and governments do conspire...

Indeed they do.
People also just make stuff up and invent conspiracies to suit themselves. A real skeptic would have a system to fairly and clearly distinguish the two. Crackpots of all flavours just love conspiracies.
Conspiracies explain absolutely everything.

Tell me Iapogus. How did you discover that there is a link between autism and vaccines?

But there are other scientific fields where careers and funding are at risk if you don't go with the flow. Everyone knows what happened to Dr Wakefield for beginning to ask some awkward questions about MMR...

Oh yes indeed. Tell us about the doctor that got struck off. How did you discover that he was beginning to ask "awkward questions"?
Wouldn't it be appropriate to compare him to Galileo in his heroic struggle against the consensus?

Jun 10, 2011 at 8:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Yes Cedric ... you tell us about the way you get your 'science'. And that you do so!
And now that you have gotten it, you are asked the most obvious and relevant question wrt it. And your response is ....

Absolutely nothing! (Exept endless blathering about ... again lots of words, which amount to.. Yes! Just nothing)

But indeed, you are not really talking about any methodology. Neither about anybody elses (of which know very little) or about the methodology used by those whose side you champion (of which you probably know as little). At best you are describing you own 'methodology' to pick that side. But actually, you are mostly just stating that you have picked it, and calling that 'methodology'.

So, Cedric, do you have anything (of substance) to say with regard to the most obvious and relevant question here, asked and repeated many times?

I will not wait for your 'response', but already now state that however you phrase it, the correct interpretation most likely also is the most obvious one. I leave it to the readers (and you) to decide what is the most obvious conclusion is ...

Jun 10, 2011 at 10:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

Okay Cedric - I give up. You are a lost cause and I have better things to do. I leave you to your delusional ignorance and gullibility. Enjoy the Holocene while it lasts -

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

Jun 10, 2011 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Okay Cedric - I give up. You are a lost cause and I have better things to do.

Aw, come on.
Don't the people deserve to know the truth about how dangerous vaccines are for their children?
You clearly see through the lies of Big Pharma and the religious zelots of the medical community.
Tell all.
Doesn't Wakefield deserve some respect?
Don't let him down!
The least you could do is to give a link to the best blog that will clearly show the terrible link between autism and vaccines. Expose the conspiracy. I'm sure that whatever blog you use the most is just filled with arguments and data and resources that many people here will find strangely familiar.
:)

Jun 10, 2011 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

So Cedric, you seem to be the sort of person that will become frantic unless you get in the last word. Bad news. I live in another time zone and can get the last word in after you have fallen panting, wild eyed and dribbling into your snug little farter. So here's my last word(s) -

I have never had the misfortune to read such a range of incomprehensible, non-topical drivel in all my life. You are unhinged. Sod off.

Jun 10, 2011 at 1:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

Cedric - since you are evidently a complete imbecile, I'll post the link and abstract again -

Theoretical aspects of autism: causes--a review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299355
J Immunotoxicol. 2011 Jan-Mar;8(1):68-79.
Ratajczak HV.
hratajcz@comcast.net
Abstract
Autism, a member of the pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), has been increasing dramatically since its description by Leo Kanner in 1943. First estimated to occur in 4 to 5 per 10,000 children, the incidence of autism is now 1 per 110 in the United States, and 1 per 64 in the United Kingdom, with similar incidences throughout the world. Searching information from 1943 to the present in PubMed and Ovid Medline databases, this review summarizes results that correlate the timing of changes in incidence with environmental changes. Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, immature blood-brain barrier, the immune response of the mother to infection while pregnant, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment.
PMID: 21299355 [PubMed - in process]

(my emphasis).

For the sake of humanity, I hope your children are not as thick as you are.

Jun 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

...there is a link between autism and vaccines.

Well, perhaps I was too dismissive when you said this before.

Autism could result from more than one cause, with different manifestations in different individuals that share common symptoms. Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination. Therefore, autism is the result of genetic defects and/or inflammation of the brain.

This is terrible. I have to admit I can see why someone would be convinced.
You do say that it clearly establishes that there is a link between autism and vaccines.

Is there an online community where this is being seriously discussed?
Perhaps you can recommend the one you like the best?

Jun 11, 2011 at 12:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric,

did you realized that you are here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/
and NOT here: http://www.bishophill.com/ ?

Well here at this BLOG, almost all of the regulars are deniers although almost non of us
are denying GW as a counterpart of GC, considering it as “natural variability in climate”.
Speaking for almost all of us, we are denying AGW and more specific CAGW.

We know that we are deniers and have in general no problem with being labeled as so.
However we feel abused about putting us in the same context with “Holocaust denials”.
As far as I could see, you left that one carefully out in your summaries of different types
of deniers. Now that is a good thing so far.

Most of us are worried about the misapplication of science for political reasons.
We are meeting here at this BLOG to exchange thoughts and are very happy with it.
We are also happy to see people stumbling in and confess that they were once misled.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/8/confirmation-bias.html
And many of us have read the book “the hockey stick illusion”, (Did you?)
And most of us are also regulars on http://climateaudit.org/ and a good part of us go also here:
http://judithcurry.com/ (really about science)

Speaking for myself: I am a hardcore denier. I am not only denying the existence of AGW
or even CAGW, I am also denying the existence of the so called “Greenhouse Effect”.
Furthermore I am denying the existence of “GOD”

Were would you go to, to get an answer about the question: “the existence of GOD” ?
To the website of the Vatican? They are the experts and they have a “convincing majority.
(i.e. there is a CONSENCE!)”.
You should! Only because! They are the ultimate experts about GOD.

Still wondering about you, also counts your web link in the user profile on this website:
http://www.randi.org/site/
Did you ever consider the possibility, that CAGW is a new form of superstitiousness?
No difference: It is a good site and I can only say: “Keep up the good work”

Please refrain from commenting here as long as you are only trying to educate us about
being denialists. We are happy with it! Perhaps you will be someday as well.

Try an exercise on http://realclimate.com/ . They have lots of superstitiousness! You'll find
the “Big Oil” there as well. Ceveat::: …. the censoring over there.
However: there is a wide field over there .......

(BTW, it will help to stay ON topic which you failed here)

Jun 11, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commenteropastun

Well here at this BLOG, almost all of the regulars are deniers...

But are you?
If someone thinks that you are a denier, is that fair?
Is it fair to label Iapogus a denier because she is convinced that ...there is a link between autism and vaccines.?
Maybe she's absolutely right. Maybe she's simply worried about the misapplication of science for political reasons?
Or what about the HIV Deniers? Maybe they are also simply worried about the misapplication of science for political reasons?

However we feel abused about putting us in the same context with “Holocaust denials”.

Yes. I understand this. This is the point that Gixxerboy made before.
I think it's very important. It bears repeating:

Those of us who have grown to be sceptical of the claims put forward by believers in AGW have had to put up with 'denier' insults and comparisons with many 'doubters': about moon landings, evolution, HIV etc.

So what's the difference between a genuine skeptic and a denier?
Deniers do exist.
They behave in a certain way. This is something that has been documented and analysed time and again. It's not something that I just made up on the spur of the moment. I'm not asking you to take my word on this.

I'm not interested in labeling someone a denier as an insult.
I'm interested in identifying actual deniers.

It's not the conclusions they hold that tell you if someone is a denier or not.
You don't get to write someone off as a kook just because they hold a different position from you.
The only fair way is to look at their methodology.
Nobody here seems comfortable talking about that at all.
People here are talking more about how they feel and their convictions rather than their methodology.

As Gixxerboy said, he's......disappointed at how debased the modern practice of science has become - by money, ideology, politics, groupthink and fear.

Assuming that Gixxerboy is really and truly not a denier, what stops an actual denier from saying exactly the same thing?

Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent. For example, they dismiss studies that support the HIV hypothesis as being biased by “drug money,” while they accept uncritically the testimony of HIV deniers who have a heavy financial stake in their alternative treatment modalities.
HIV Denial in the Internet Era-Tara C. Smith

This is what Iapogus said...

...it is critical thinking and the scientific method which is important - whether good science is published on a blog or in a paper is irrelevant. Peer/pal-review pal-review is far from perfect, likewise how science is funded. And that goes for medical science also.

That thinking leads you to the camp of the anti-vaxxers. Don't take my word for it.
Ask Iapogus. It's what she said. Not me.

...people in organisations and governments do conspire (sometimes with malice, sometimes unintentionally) and there are numerous examples political and/or corporate interests have influenced and corrupted science, such that myths, dishonesty and ignorance prevail, rather than truth.

Exactly. Which is the reason why you shouldn't vaccinate children against measles, pertussis or polio.

To the website of the Vatican? They are the experts and they have a “convincing majority.
(i.e. there is a CONSENCE!)”.
(...)
Did you ever consider the possibility, that CAGW is a new form of superstitiousness?

Two points here:
Firstly, going against the consensus is no guarantee that you are correct.
People do go against the scientific consensus on a range of issues and yet be horribly wrong.

That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. In her book, Christine Maggiore thanks her father Robert, “who taught me to question authority and stand up for what's right”. Similarly, mathematical modeler Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, another HIV denier, states: “As someone who has been raised by parents who taught me from a young age never to believe anything just because ‘everyone else accepts it to be true,’ I can no longer just sit by and do nothing, thereby contributing to this craziness”
HIV Denial in the Internet Era-Tara C. Smith

Secondly, is going to the Vatican website just the same as going to the NASA website or the CDC website or the AAAS website?
Science is not a belief system. Science and religion work differently.

Since the ideas proposed by deniers do not meet rigorous scientific standards, they cannot hope to compete against the mainstream theories. They cannot raise the level of their beliefs up to the standards of mainstream science; therefore they attempt to lower the status of the denied science down to the level of religious faith, characterizing scientific consensus as scientific dogma. As one HIV denier quoted in Maggiore's book remarked,

“There is classical science, the way it's supposed to work, and then there's religion. I regained my sanity when I realized that AIDS science was a religious discourse. The one thing I will go to my grave not understanding is why everyone was so quick to accept everything the government said as truth. Especially the central myth: the cause of AIDS is known.”

Others suggest that the entire spectrum of modern medicine is a religion
HIV Denial in the Internet Era-Tara C. Smith

Jun 12, 2011 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterCedric Katesby

Cedric,

NO, you are staying off topic. It's about Aynsley Kellow being misquoted by
Murray Goot.
Anyway,

But are you?
If someone thinks that you are a denier, is that fair?

No problem with that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=player_embedded#at=11

So what's the difference between a genuine skeptic and a denier?
Deniers do exist.
They behave in a certain way.

Yes they do exist and have to behave in this certain way.
I know the difference between being a skeptic and a denier.
So I am not just skeptic about a hockey stick shaped temperature curve in history but explicitly denying this.

Two points here:
Firstly, going against the consensus....
Secondly, is going to the Vatican website....
Science is not a belief system. Science and religion work differently.

Two Strowmen here:
GW, AGW and CAGW are definitely “a belief system” and not “Science”,
also having some beautiful sprouts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og&feature=player_embedded
You know that a video can do much more then 1000 words, don't you?
And it is just because of “Science” that I am denying the existence of
“a greenhouse effect” to explain climate on earth.

So now go back to your favorite website: http://www.randi.org/site/
and introduce the idea of CAGW being eventually, perhaps, maybe..or... , a new kind of superstitiousness. (i.e. One that you did not discovered till now)

The topic here is: Aynsley Kellow being misquoted by Murray Goot.

Jun 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered Commenteropastun

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>