Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Standards

Apr 6, 2017 at 7:10 AM | Supertroll

Rules for Honesty and Truth do not apply to Climate Scientists and their Collaborators. When Mann awarded himself a Nobel Prize, he also received a Lifetime Achievement Award, for work he hadn't done. This included a Special Distinction in Hypocrisy, which he accepted on behalf of 97% of Climate Scientists, and tasked them to criticise and ostracise the other 3% whenever they were honest.

Unfortunately, fabricating a Consensus, about fabricated evidence, in support of fabricated science, is not sustainable. The Green Party, Greenpeace etc are now realising how Unsustainable they are. The wider (and fatter) Green Blob, (as depicted by Josh) are now seeing their plans, and pants, go up in CO2 rich flames and smoke.

If only they had got honest about Mann and his Hockey Stick.

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:02 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Apr 6, 2017 at 9:28 AM | Mark Hodgson

But that is how Climate Science has always worked, with double standards, false accusations and attributions.

Mann could get so much resolved if he would demonstrate some enthusiasm for the Legal Actions he instigated. You would have thought that 97% of Climate Scientists were keen to support him, but they seem reluctant to defend him on this blog, let alone in Court.

Climate Science has very flexible standards around honesty.

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:15 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ah, William… as ad homs go, those a pretty lightweight, and are backed up by a lot of evidence.

There are good reasons why many “scientists” are ridiculed, such as Herr Schellnhuber, who cheerfully admits making up the “2°C” scare, and Mr Mann, who entertains us with his Jim Trott* moment: “No! No, no, no…nononono... Erm. Yes.”

*A character played by the inestimable Trevor Peacock in the Vicar of Dibley TV series

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:19 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I stand corrected, William was indeed put in moderation.

Personally, however irksome those sometimes identified as trolls may be, I also find them interesting. They often not only test one's patience but one's understanding of an issue. Over the past year I have found that I enjoy reading troll "wisdom" and the way they are rebutted and challenged by others. From those rebuttals I learn much. "Trolls" do add spice.

I greatly regret the near disappearance of Entropic Man who, other than a few episodes when he suffered from his "black dog", invariably engaged in a two-way discussion.

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:25 AM | Supertroll

EM confidently misdiagnosed my sex, based on evidence more scanty than my knickers, and incorrectly determined the nature of my leukaemia, based on no evidence at all.. Interestingly, I had not sought a second opinion on either matter, as I have known the former for 50+ years, and the latter for almost 8.

I had half a mind to query your statement above, but my identical twin brother said no.

Apr 6, 2017 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterGwendolyn Caroline

We all make mistakes, and the nature of your sexual orientation has been a matter of considerable controversy and speculation for some time now - begun I believe by the ravishing rodentess.

May I draw your attention to the fact that identical siblings cannot be of the same sex. Since you recently seemed to admit recently to male pattern baldness we are all somewhat confused, but perhaps you are as well!

I'm sure you don't pay much attention to your (apparently) domineering (or perhaps wiser) brother.

Who knew?

Apr 6, 2017 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Should have been. "May I draw your attention to the fact that identical siblings cannot be of DIFFERENT sex....

Apr 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Mark, no, no warning. Just put into 'moderation', thereafter two comments just disappeared. That is effectively a ban, though I haven't tried commenting since. The issue was Paul Matthews' thin skin I think. He's happy to read and comment on WUWT and will post links from it, but suggest he is influenced by it and... accusations of 'lying' by PM and 'moderation'.

As for you, I don't think I misrepresented you. We were talking about current bleaching etc on the Great Barrier Reef and you said something to the effect that we shouldn't be concerned because corals had existed through previous temperature changes, as if the two are connected. I connected the two as you seemed to imply and you trounced off. I still don't know the connection you were proposing.

Radical, see? I give you a few examples and they are not acceptable. However many more I give, they will be somehow not right. Like I said, attacks on scientists in person are the basis of sceptical sites. It is true that consensus commenters go in for ad-homs too, but it is not we who are complaining about that. I see nothing wrong with saying that GWPF or Ridley or WUWT or Rose or whoever have posted obvious crap before and been corrected and continue to post the same crap - therefore they are fair bait for being referred to just as tossers and ignored, no need to dispute what they write.

Apr 6, 2017 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

Supertroll, I just wish that Climate Scientists and their Collaborators would await evidence before making a diagnosis and writing a prescription.

We should all thank God, (or is it Trump?), that Climate Scientists are not going to dictate to the world for much longer.

I did do a bit of biology, and understand the difference between meiosis and mitosis. The evidence is in my jeans.

Perhaps if EM considered the possibility that incorrect conclusions were jumped to, over 20 years ago, by Green Environmentalists, and no one has managed to prove or justify them since, he might realise his bad black dog is actually a lucky white cat, as the dark clouds are lifted.

EM did feel competent to incorrectly diagnose me,

Apr 6, 2017 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. EM did earlier diagnose that you had leukaemia from scattered clues, and long before any of us had any inkling. It is also true that he, much later, misdiagnosed what specific type you had. Clues and evidence can be misinterpreted - even the best scientists do it. Even EM would not position himself in that company.

I still maintain that EM was an asset on this blog.

Apr 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

I still maintain that EM was an asset on this blog.

Apr 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM | Supertroll

I never disputed that.

Climate Scientists have a technique of Denial, based on accusing others, incorrectly, of having a speck of dust in the eye, whilst omitting to notice the thick short planks that support their illogical arguments.

Lewandowsky has made Climate Science thicker and plankier, than Mann could ever have achieved alone, and Cook has largely replaced Mann. The comparitively lightweight Gergis has forced things beyond a Tipping Point, to a Breaking Point, and Trump is about to stamp his foot down, hard.

Climate Science has profited out of phoney forecasts of faked gloom and doom, but really ought to switch to damage limitation. Remember that Climate Science rejected "mitigation" as an approach to coping with variable climate, insisting that Unprecedented Global Warming was happening.

If EM wants to contribute constructively to the maintenance of Climate Science, he needs to deal with his Denial.

FWIW, "mild" chemo is not exactly a mood and mind enhancing drug, less so at higher doses, over extended periods!

Apr 6, 2017 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Whoa, William! You complain about Paul Matthews having a thin skin, yet yours is like rice paper! Those two you offered were rather lame – I have seen more and considerably worse on this site, alone, usually from supporters of your argument; go to the more alarmist sites, where, for merely questioning what is going on, I have had advice for self-harm and suicide. The default position for many alarmists seems to be to attack the person, not the argument – in one case, even attacking a coal miner because… well, what does he know? – he’s just a hick miner. For one good example of what I write, have a look at the first comment, here – not one jot of scientific argument; solid ad hominems, all the way through.

As you have not given any references about the spats you have had with Paul Matthews and Mark (Hodgson?), no-one else can see your side of that particular argument, which kind of deflates your indignation, I would have thought. Surely, you would be better giving evidence to support your points than merely pouting in a corner, whining petulantly.

Finally, you give the strong impression that you are in agreement with “the consensus;” could you tell us when science has ever depended on a consensus? Or are you of the opinion that science should now be democratic, and a fact is only a fact as determined by a referendum?

Apr 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, the "Consensus" represented 9 out of 7 cats saying that their owners (who expressed a preference) believed their earnings were better by nodding their heads, not shaking them, and better cat food would be more affordable.

The rest of Cook's Consensus fabrication was less scientific. Questions were raised, but Cook's University refused access to the cats' personal data, under Feline Rights Legislation and confidentiality issues about whether their miaows were muted or just neutered.

Apr 6, 2017 at 6:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

William, possibly you don't think that you misrepresented me, but you did, and more than once. If you can't see how you did that, I regard that as your problem.

On the same thread, you also implicitly questioned my motivation and bona fides (you had done so too on an earlier thread, I called you out for it, and on that occasion you had the decency to apologise). On the thread in question, where I had been talking about it having been warmer in the past, you said "On lukewarmers, it always seems strange that apparently intelligent people can say things like “it’s been warmer in the past” as if they think that other conditions today match those in the past, or giving a precise value to sensitivity with a partial justification that a line drawn from the top of the ’98 El Niño gives a flatter slope to 2011 than one drawn from a year earlier. Such positions make people like me think the other person is either stupid or disingenuous. That is reinforced when no further justification is forthcoming. When stupidity can be ruled out, what is left as a conclusion?"

That sounds to me like a calculated insult from the man who apparently deprecates ad homs.

BY the way, if you bother to re-read the thread,I didn't "trounce off" either. That is another misrepresentation from you. I did say that I had better things to do than to continue trying to debate with you, but before discontinuing, I answered all of the rather weak points you had just made. Mine was the last word on that thread as between you and me at least, so it's difficult to see how that counts as "trouncing off". Admittedly that might be because you were then put into moderation, and found yourself effectively unable to reply. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

The benefit of the doubt is a little harder to give to a statement you made on this thread at 4.34 pm today regarding what happened to you at cliscep: " Just put into 'moderation', thereafter two comments just disappeared. That is effectively a ban, though I haven't tried commenting since." Strange, then, that I see you commented successfully at cliscep precisely 30 minutes earlier...

Talking of coral and the Great Barrier Reef by the way, you might read this at WUWT:

But then again, given your small-minded and intolerant mind-set (" I see nothing wrong with saying that GWPF or Ridley or WUWT or Rose or whoever have posted obvious crap before and been corrected and continue to post the same crap - therefore they are fair bait for being referred to just as tossers and ignored, no need to dispute what they write.") you probably won't, or if you do, you'll dismiss it. Now, maybe it is worthy of being dismissed (or maybe not) but it should be considered on its merits, not because it appears on a website you can't stand.

Apr 6, 2017 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Timestamp test...

Apr 6, 2017 at 8:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

Mark, Cliscep comments are time-stamped with GMT, here they use BST. Mystery solved.

I don't dislike ad-homs at all. I think they are fine and appropriate. I just find it hypocritical that any sceptic should piously propose that we (warmists) should attack the argument not the man; ad-homs are a central part of sceptic operating procedure, maybe not you personally, but in general. RR confirms this above and anyone can see that (put yourself in Nick Stokes' shoes at WUWT) at sceptic blogs. As for your WUWT link, you know where that belongs...

Radical, the comment by Phil at the link you give is great. Complete bunch of tossers.

The discussion was at though I don't recommend wasting your time reading it. As for consensus, science indeed isn't done by consensus, climate science included. The latter has much better - a consilience of evidence.

Apr 6, 2017 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

William – I endeavour to maintain my comments to the subject of the debate, not to denigration of the debater. I acknowledge that sometimes I fail; after all, I am only… mammalian. However, while my retorts might be considered rather sharp, I fail to see where I have resorted to ad hominems in my discussion with you. You, though, manage to let yourself down, with your wholehearted support for the commenter I referred you to, and consequent ad homs of some once greatly-respected scientists, many of whose failings seem to be just not agreeing with the consensus you cleave to (and providing scientific evidence to counter it).

Now, about this evidence that you imply climate science has plenty of… perhaps you could help your side of the argument by providing it for us to view, so that we may feel contrite in our stance. I have no fear of being wrong, and will willingly admit any mistakes – I have had plenty of practice at it – but I do like proper evidence to show where I am wrong, rather than the word of one who has not been particularly impressive in the comments of his that I have seen, so far.

Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical, when I said, "RR confirms this above ..." I didn't mean you were a purveyor of ad-homs, though you might be for all I know. I was referring to earlier when you said, "I have seen more and considerably worse on this site, alone, ", though I admit overlooked the "usually from supporters of your argument;". As for evidence, look in AR5, there's plenty there.

Apr 6, 2017 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterWilliam

As for evidence, look in AR5, there's plenty there.
Erm… no, there is not; most of it is just policy statements. There is also the usual adherence to the models, and models could not really be called evidence, especially with the AR5 assertion that: “Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth’s temperature increase since 1951.

Perhaps you might prefer the views of one of the true greats of our time; though, as they will be contrary to yours, and most certainly contradict AR5, perhaps you won’t.

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:15 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

William, are you happy with Mann's Hockey Stick, Cook's Consensus, and Gergis 2016? Real Climate, Skeptical Science et al never found any problems with them, nor did the top quality Peer Review experts.

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

William: another point of interest which is not generating a feeling of goodwill for you from me is the rather snidey comment: “I didn't mean you were a purveyor of ad-homs, though you might be for all I know." [My bolding.] Such petty needling is not going to get people taking you seriously, as your altercations on the other blog that you led to do indicate. Yes, against your august advice, I have perused it; Messrs K&H assure the public that your performance is decidedly second-best, and I can conclude that Catweazle has you bang to rights. Continued intercourse with you is unlikely to offer me any satisfaction, so (to raise Minty’s surprise at the biological implications), I shall withdraw.

Apr 6, 2017 at 11:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Apr 6, 2017 at 10:15 PM | Radical Rodent & William

As a mere country bumpkin, I have noticed that Planet Earth has declined to respect Climate Science's dire warnings, no matter how much time and money they waste on computer modelling, in vain attempts to preserve their salaries and vanity.

James Lovelock who proposed and promoted Gaia Theory has now rejected Climate Science, but Climate Science is not accusing him or Mother Earth of sticking 2 fingers up.

We are assured by experts that the Physics is correct. I am not a physicist, but I trust Earth's opinion, more than Climate Science experts, no matter how many times they repeat the same failed Physics. Surely Climate Scientists, including their Physics experts can work out their own mistakes? If not, why should Taxpayers have to pay them, for failing to comply with, or understand their personally designed job description?

I think Trump has reached the same conclusion.

Mann, who lies on TV about his own Testimony has previously taken offence at criticism, and instigated legal proceedings that he seems reluctant to end up in Court. He stills considers it to be acceptable to launch "ad-hom" attacks. Perhaps Climate Scientist Super Sensitivity needs to be reviewed, along with their Consensus on hypocrisy.

Apr 7, 2017 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

William, when it comes to the deeply offensive, William M Connolley is a world leader. He helped the original Hockey Teamsters (including Michae Mann) form Real Climate, and then started rewriting Wikipedia for personal gain, censoring and deleting those views he disagreed with.

Having demonstrated zero respect for the principles of Science, he then proved he had no personal moral fibre or conscience either.

As a Green Party candidate in local elections, the Green Party must consider him a great asset, in demonstrating what they stand for.

Who are your heroes of Climate Science that have NOT been rude and offensive?

Apr 7, 2017 at 1:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Gosh RR your standards are slipping if you can implicate me, almost at a whim, in your innuendo while dressing down William. I deserved it not.
Was pleasing to see you over at cliscep. There, my other cheek has been proffered.

Apr 7, 2017 at 6:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

William - timing explanation accepted: my apologies.

As for the rest of it -over and out for now, I think.

Apr 7, 2017 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson