Comments on: Rudd brooks no denial

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:39:11 +0000

Roger, do you suffer from dementia?
Or do you, instead, enjoy it?

By: samv

samv — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:20:25 +0000

Also, back in your Den!

By: samv

samv — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:06:58 +0000

Nothing can be explained away to you Roger, because you refuse to listen or even engage in argument rationally. Even now you’re resorting to ad homineum attack – saying that whatever appears on the RC site does not cut it because of who said it.

By: Roger Dewhurst

Roger Dewhurst — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:19:44 +0000

Real Climate is of course Piltdown Mann’s blog! Denialosphere, it is indeed. You cannot explain it away. Note the words of the AGW shroudwaver quoted above.

By: samv

samv — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:13:45 +0000

This unethical contribution to the deniolosphere’s braying is well answered on RealClimate, and while some commentators may call it “the death of Peer Review”, the “Biggest Scandal in the History of Science” etc … there’s not much to see there really. Just a bunch of comments taken out of the context they were written in. Wishart thinks he has found more eg evidence of corruption, but if it’s based on as shaky misinterpretations as most of his writings I wouldn’t believe it.

By: Roger Dewhurst

Roger Dewhurst — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:50:17 +0000

So Piltdown Mann and some others did not like the Soons and Baliunas paper? No surprise there. But Piltdown Mann, Briffa, Jones and a few others now have less credibility than a woodlouse!

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:39:46 +0000

Good to see Roger relying on... what? Ah yes, Google shows that these exact words have been posted as comments on three web sites, once by "John S" at The Telegraph (6:19am), and by "Ron" here and here. So who do we believe, Roger? Someone's obviously guilty of plagiarism, or perhaps more obviously, trolling...

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:31:30 +0000

Re De Freitas and fiddling with peer review: there might be something in the hacked mails (and I don't feel inclined to check), but here's an article by one of the editors at Climate Research who resigned over de Freitas' approach to getting articles into journals. A sample:

The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published. These flaws are described in an extended rebuttal to both Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2003) published by Mike Mann and 11 other eminent climate scientists in July (Mann et al., 2003). Hans von Storch and I were also aware of three earlier Climate Research papers about which people had raised concerns over the review process. In all these cases, de Freitas had had editorial responsibility.

By: Roger Dewhurst

Roger Dewhurst — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:00:42 +0000

The words of an AGW shroud waver:

“As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing.

I spent hours reading them myself. I don’t know if they qualify as “smoking
gun” that the AGW science is bust, but I just cannot ignore it.

I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists. Even more than
feeling ashamed – I feel betrayed.

For years I trusted that science will prevail over the unsubstantiated
skeptic view. These emails reveal a very disturbing picture of ideology
overriding science. Science being bent out of shape to support a hypothesis.

They reveal unbelievable arrogance. These people whom I trusted so much
think they are
- above the law (destroying email, refusing FOIA, tax evasion)
- above the data (“hide the decline”, remove the cooling blimp)
- above their peers (get uncomforting journal editors fired, block skeptic
publications)
- above the rest of us (manipulate the message, presentation and media)

I am sick to my stomach. I know there are so many other hard working
scientists that have not tainted themselves. But this group – Phil Jones,
Ken Briffa, Mike Man, Gavin Schmidt have cast a huge shadow of doubt over
the entire field and caused a huge damage to the green movement.

I talked with many of my friends who, like most of us, continue to believe
in AGW, and we think that as long as these guys continue to lead the science
and the IPCC assessments they will continue to taint all of the good work
done by thousands of other scientists.

We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted
leadership and continue the research without the air of doubt.”

Seconded!

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:54:34 +0000

It's Amberley Pale Ale round here. As for your "thoughts", express them without the potty mouth and they'll survive intact (as long as they're not defamatory).