Comments on: Pearced to the heart: Fred gets it wrong

By: Dogged Pearce still hounding Jones â€” Hot Topic

Dogged Pearce still hounding Jones â€” Hot Topic — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:44:59 +0000

[...] to speak of a rush to judgment. Many of his Guardian articles on the UEA emails did just that. (See Pearced to the Heart and Defending the Indefensible on Hot Topic) Yet that is the accusation he levels at yesterdayâ€™s [...]

By: Defending the indefensible: Guardian responds to RC critics â€” Hot Topic

Defending the indefensible: Guardian responds to RC critics â€” Hot Topic — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:37:37 +0000

[...] wrote about one of those â€œcarefully researchedâ€ articles here on Hot Topic. On the sketchiest of evidence, and a prejudiced reading at that, it managed to imply [...]

By: CRU’s Jones on the stand: Pearce offers opinion as news â€” Hot Topic

CRU’s Jones on the stand: Pearce offers opinion as news â€” Hot Topic — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:24:11 +0000

[...] to Phil Jones in his unfortunate series of artices on the UEA emails, one of which I commented on here.Â He has just produced an extraordinarily slanted account of Jonesâ€™ questioning from the [...]

By: Macro

Macro — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:09:21 +0000

Sadly that is about the level of “logical” understanding for a significant number.

The assumptions in the first and second premise are also:

1)I’m ok – therefore everything’s ok.

2) Some people want to change things – that is not ok

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:43:16 +0000

Here’s a post from Patrick Caldon on Deltoid that goes a long way to explaining the AGW hysteria re “Climategate”:

“The vast majority of skeptics really believe what they’re saying… They honestly believe that there’s some reasonably simple “gotcha” that will turn this whole AGW thing on its head.

By a “gotcha” I mean a straightforward argument which can be explained in about 5 minutes which will show pretty conclusively that AGW is bunkum – the chain of thought is:

1) AGW is thoroughly supported by the left and by the environment movement

2) Since these guys are not to be trusted, anything they come up with is probably rubbish

3) Since it’s rubbish it must have an obvious flaw – a gotcha

4) If someone claims “X is an obvious flaw in AGW” they’re probably right!

That’s also why things like “Climategate”, “how can the tiny fraction of CO2 have any effect”, “cooling for the last 10 years”, and “it snowed last Tuesday in Tallassee, Alabama” are so popular.

Easy, five minutes to understand, and looks like a gotcha.”

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:11:13 +0000

I have just come across a BBC interview with Phil Jones in which he answers a question directly on his reviewing practice. Q. The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that? A. I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor's award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.