Lewandowsky and Cook's papers on Skeptics

[jc456]

Chuck Norris still refuses to answer my challenges to come and get an asskicking from me. Hence, it's clear Chuck Norris is afraid of me.

In the same way, the CultOfMcIntyre has concluded that all their opponents are afraid of them, the proof being that everyone is ignoring them.

your what hurts?

 

[flacaltenn]

Chuck Norris still refuses to answer my challenges to come and get an asskicking from me. Hence, it's clear Chuck Norris is afraid of me.

In the same way, the CultOfMcIntyre has concluded that all their opponents are afraid of them, the proof being that everyone is ignoring them.

I tweeted Chuck for you.. We spent a day Tuna fishing together.. Newsflash -----

 

[mamooth]

Meanwhile, the University of Virginia and Dr. Mann score a major court victory.

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1130934.pdf

Basically, the Virginia Supreme Court said "no, you can't FOIA-demand every single thing a professor does simply because he's at a public university. That would be an colossal violation of privacy and acadamic freedom." While the ruling only affects Virginia as binding precedent, other states will also consider it, so it's a body blow to all McIntyre-style harassment tactics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Asking a "scientist" to provide his data is "harassment"

Lol

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[mamooth]

Of course it is, when you ask for every email and phone conversation. If you disagree, please make public all of your emails, recordings of all phone calls, and every bit of personal correspondence you have. After all, you've taken government money somewhere, hence the taxpayers have a right to know.

 

[westwall]

Of course it is, when you ask for every email and phone conversation. If you disagree, please make public all of your emails, recordings of all phone calls, and every bit of personal correspondence you have. After all, you've taken government money somewhere, hence the taxpayers have a right to know.

Funny how climate scientists are the only ones out there who feel compelled to hide their data. Wonder what they are hiding?

 

[IanC]

Of course it is, when you ask for every email and phone conversation. If you disagree, please make public all of your emails, recordings of all phone calls, and every bit of personal correspondence you have. After all, you've taken government money somewhere, hence the taxpayers have a right to know.

context is the key issue here. the run-up to AR4 had a lot of controversy over MBH98,99 and how to deal with McIntyre's criticisms. the behind-the-door subterfuge with accepting post dated and unpublished papers, etc. Holland made an FOI request for AR4 related emails. Jones warned everyone and asked them to delete their correspondence, which at least one person has admitted to doing. other put them on other media and took them home for 'safekeeping'. these are the specific emails in question, the ones that have been sequestered away from the public at great expense. there has already been an admission of breaking the law. this should have already been dealt with years ago.

 

[IanC]

Chuck Norris still refuses to answer my challenges to come and get an asskicking from me. Hence, it's clear Chuck Norris is afraid of me.

In the same way, the CultOfMcIntyre has concluded that all their opponents are afraid of them, the proof being that everyone is ignoring them.

SkS's secret forum did a lot of talking about McIntyre, considering they are ignoring him.

Cook’s Call to Action
As a last thread in today’s review, on March 3, 2011 (Climate Misinformers/2011-03-08-Call to action – help collect quotes on skeptics), Cook called on the SKS team to collect adverse quotes from targeted skeptics, including me in a list of five targets. (This enterprise appears to have led to their Skeptics page here):

So skeptics that I suggest we focus on, assuming we launch with 12 skeptics (welcome changes):

Pat Michaels
Fred Singer
Steve McIntyre
Roger Pielke Sr
Freeman Dyson
Chris de Freitas
Unless you think others are more deserving of being on the list.
Way replied that it would not be easy to locate embarrassing quotes from me, observing that others had already tried without success, again with the usual sideswipe:

McIntyre will be hard to pin down. Many before us have tried and not proven to be terribly successful. He is of the weasely type.
A week later, Dana Nuccitelli observed that Michaels, Pielke Sr, de Freitas and I were still outstanding targets, adding that I was the “tough one”:

I bet Gareth could get us some good de Freitas quotes. Michaels should be easy. The tough one is McIntyre.

Behind the SKS Curtain « Climate Audit

 

[Abraham3]

And you don't think this man suffers from ego problems? Good fucking grief.

 

[IanC]

And you don't think this man suffers from ego problems? Good fucking grief.

again....be specific. what ego problems? what statement? if you read the article you would see that he quite likes Way overall even though Way has some pretty shitty things to say about him.

if Mann is an 8/10 on the egomaniac scale (eg. fake Nobel Prize Certificate and frivolous law suits), then what is McIntrye? and for what reasons?

 

[westwall]

And you don't think this man suffers from ego problems? Good fucking grief.

again....be specific. what ego problems? what statement? if you read the article you would see that he quite likes Way overall even though Way has some pretty shitty things to say about him.

if Mann is an 8/10 on the egomaniac scale (eg. fake Nobel Prize Certificate and frivolous law suits), then what is McIntrye? and for what reasons?

I rate Mann a 9/10 on the egomaniac scale. McIntyre is probably a 6. He has never beat his chest that I have seen, but he KNOWS he's good.

 

[Abraham3]

McIntyre has an ego big enough for the entire movement - which is how he imagines it. But while we're talking - a query from the past that actually has some bearing on whether or not a consensus regarding AGW exists among climate scientists:

Any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results*?

* - that more than 90% of climate scientists accept AGW.

 

[mamooth]

Funny how climate scientists are the only ones out there who feel compelled to hide their data. Wonder what they are hiding?

Very Big Brother of Westwall there. "If you're not hiding anything, you shouldn't object to the snooping." Also interesting, how he tries to pretend personal emails are the same as data. I guess privacy and liberty go out the window, if your political cult has enemies to hunt.

Deniers usually stink at the science, so just being handed the data doesn't do them any good. After all, the data disagrees with them and makes them look dumb. Deniers need to sift through garbage cans of email, to find quote snippets to rip out of context and proudly lie about. That's why Westwall is upset, because his heroes are getting barred from dumpster-diving. Now they'll be forced to do science instead, which leaves them helpless.

Westwall, you also need to post all of your personal emails here, now, going back 15 years. You know, the same thing that was demanded of Mann. If you won't, we'll understand. By your own standards, refusing to show all your emails would be your admission of hiding your fraudulent and criminal behavior.

 

[westwall]

Funny how climate scientists are the only ones out there who feel compelled to hide their data. Wonder what they are hiding?

Very Big Brother of Westwall there. "If you're not hiding anything, you shouldn't object to the snooping." Also interesting, how he tries to pretend personal emails are the same as data. I guess privacy and liberty go out the window, if your political cult has enemies to hunt.

Deniers usually stink at the science, so just being handed the data doesn't do them any good. After all, the data disagrees with them and makes them look dumb. Deniers need to sift through garbage cans of email, to find quote snippets to rip out of context and proudly lie about. That's why Westwall is upset, because his heroes are getting barred from dumpster-diving. Now they'll be forced to do science instead, which leaves them helpless.

Westwall, you also need to post all of your personal emails here, now, going back 15 years. You know, the same thing that was demanded of Mann. If you won't, we'll understand. By your own standards, refusing to show all your emails would be your admission of hiding your fraudulent and criminal behavior.

No, it's called the scientific method. Climatologists are the only ones who don't follow it. What a silly, silly person. You don't even understand the basic underpinnings of science and you expect us to take you seriously....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IanC]

McIntyre has an ego big enough for the entire movement - which is how he imagines it. But while we're talking - a query from the past that actually has some bearing on whether or not a consensus regarding AGW exists among climate scientists:

Any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results*?

* - that more than 90% of climate scientists accept AGW.

you keep putting up that list but then ignore me when I comment on it.

if you define consensus as those who believe; that there has been warming, humans have increased the CO2 levels, and CO2 has contributed in some fashion to the warming; then the consensus is overwhelming and includes all the major skeptics such as McIntyre, Watts, Montford, Spencer, Christie, Monckton, etc, etc.

if you define consensus as those who believe that; it is not only possible but probable that AGW will cause massive warming (>2C), massive SLR (>0.5m), species extinctions, crop failures, millions of human deaths, and other predictions of doom too numerous to mention here; then your consensus falls apart.

Von Storch and Bray (the first two names on your list) conducted a poll at the height of 'consensus' just after AR4 and their results show wide variation and a lot of skepticism towards extreme predictions.

 

[Abraham3]

McIntyre, Watts, Montford, Spencer, Christie, Monckton are NOT included among those who believe human activity is the primary cause of global warming. That is the core of AGW. And a large number of the folks on your side of the argument, including a majority here, reject warming itself as well as the greenhouse effect. Overall, you do NOT have a reasonable scientific view of the situation on your side of spectrum. There might be some tie-in with your rejection of a significant chunk of mainstream science... I'm not sure. ;-)

The consensus DO believe human activity is the primary cause of our warming. You may note that neither I nor the IPCC ever included catastrophic results as a necessary part of the definition.

 

[Abraham3]

is your trust and esteem for Cook and his blog SkepticalScience damaged or not?

No, it is not.

Forgive me if I have failed to note responses of yours. Comes from trying to participate from too many threads in a limited amount of time. All I ever saw as a response was THIS hatchet job on Lewandowsky and Cook, neither of whom appear in my list. From my point of view, it was you who was attempting to deflect the discussion. You have devoted a great deal more time to the two of them than you have to the lengthy list of survey, polls and studies that ALL find widespread support for AGW among active climate scientists.

I dont actually care but I know that personally I think less of a person when they lie to me to save face.

As to respect, I have little for people who spend their time nitpicking, making ad hominem attacks and addressing irrelevant points because objectively addressing the actual point under discussion would require an admission of error. Or when they call me - or anyone else - a liar, without justification.

 

[IanC]

OK

from the first name on your list, using data from the second-

For the following analysis, I use the results of the survey of climate scientists conducted by Bray and von Storch, noted on this blog and in the comments to Rob Maris’ posting.

The causes of climate change.

Here I only make 2 distinctions; anthropogenic or natural, and make the assumption that those who attribute climate change to natural causes, I label skeptics, not skeptical of he manifestation of climate change, but skeptical of the popular form of attribution. (I have not asked about the manifestation of climate change as not one respondent reported being fully convinced that climate change, whatever the cause, is NOT occurring. and only approximately 2% of respondents expressed significant doubt, whereas 67% expressed the maximum expression of certainty available on the questionnaire. Minimal doubt was expressed by another 27% (perhaps healthy scientific skepticism but definitely not an indication of disbelief in climate change). Back to attribution: About 85% of the respondents tend to think to some degree (more yes than no) that climate change could be attributed to anthropogenic causes. However, only about 35% expressed the maximum possible level of certainty. Does this mean that 65% should be labeled skeptics? Or should the 11% that tended towards favouring doubt be the ones to be labeled skeptics? Or should we have 11% skeptics, 55% healthy science skeptics and 35% non-skeptics? Which brings us back to definition and measurement.

The projections of climate models (limited to temperature only).

Scientists were asked ‘How well do global climate models model temperature values for the next 50 years? 6.54% said very poor and 2.45% said very good. On the healthy skepticism side then it could be claimed there are 91%, at the full skeptic level only 6.54%.

I asked you before what your definition of 'denier' was, but you never answered. do you consider me and my views as denial?

I'll add another piece of Bray's comments on the Van Storch poll that you seem to have on your list but obviously have never read.

The IPCC conclusions.

While there are a number of applicable variables, I have chosen the responses to the statement ‘The IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of scientific thought pertaining to temperature. Here, only 17% strongly agreed (the non-skeptic) and only about 2% strongly disagreed, with about 80% expressing some doubt.

Now, if one is a true skeptic in the fullest senses, for each of the above questions he or she should have responded with a value of 1, expressing the maximal level of doubt about the dimensions of climate change in the questions. If we produce a count of persons answering 1 to the above (only 4) questions, the total count is 1 suggesting that of the 373 respondents to the survey, only 1 could be considered a total skeptic. On the other hand, if we limit the value to 7 – the total non-skeptic – the number of respondents is 0. Is there 1 or 373 skeptics?

 

[IanC]

McIntyre, Watts, Montford, Spencer, Christie, Monckton are NOT included among those who believe human activity is the primary cause of global warming. That is the core of AGW. And a large number of the folks on your side of the argument, including a majority here, reject warming itself as well as the greenhouse effect. Overall, you do NOT have a reasonable scientific view of the situation on your side of spectrum. There might be some tie-in with your rejection of a significant chunk of mainstream science... I'm not sure. ;-)

The consensus DO believe human activity is the primary cause of our warming. You may note that neither I nor the IPCC ever included catastrophic results as a necessary part of the definition.

Okay. show me the survey questions that ask that at least 51% of the warming is caused by human influences. with a 97% yes vote. a few years ago I tracked down quite a few of those 97% surveys and they didnt ask specific questions, only general ones.

 

[Abraham3]

You know where they may be found.