Thursday
Feb182010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Use the unthreaded link
Feb 18, 2010 Blogs Please could readers who want to make general and off topic comments use the unthreaded posting. I've added a link at the top of the navigation bar so you can always find it.
I'd also appreciate it if commenters would maintain a calm tone and refrain from making rash remarks.
Update on Feb 18, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
I've also added a recent comments section in the nav bar so that unthreaded comments get noticed.
Comments off Share Article
Share Article
Reader Comments (16)
Wow, his Lordship gets up their in the big league with CA in needing an unthreaded slot!!
Rash Remark! - sorry, couldn't resist. Thanks for the heads up on where to place leads and links. - AJStrata
in unthreaded, the most recent posts i saw were dated december, so not sure if that is the place u suggest we post O/T.
meanwhile, WWF supports (surprise?) Boulton...
18 Feb: Scotsman: Suitable choice
With regard to your report and editorial on Professor Geoffrey Boulton's place on the inquiry into the stolen University of East Anglia e-mails (13 February), you imply that the inquiry is into whether climate change is real or not: this is not at all in dispute, since there is a huge volume of overwhelming evidence from all over the globe.
The inquiry being run by Sir Muir Russell is about whether climate researchers at the University of East Anglia followed the correct scientific protocols in their work. Prof Boulton, therefore, seems an excellent choice to be part of this inquiry, since he knows about both climate science and how university departments run.
Your report originates from calls by a member of the climate-denying Global Warming Policy Foundation for Prof Boulton to step down because he is a climate scientist who is convinced that climate change is very real. Sadly for the deniers, there are no credible climate scientists who do not believe that climate change is real.
(DR) RICHARD DIXON
Director, WWF Scotland
Dunkeld, Perthshire
Pat, Well done, a comment of reason and good sense at last
Yes unthreaded comments should be on unthreaded. The reason the comments there are old is that everyone has been using other threads!
If you go onto the University of Glasgow alumni website, you will find that Dr Dixon and Sir Muir sit on the committee together. Interesting to see whether the Scottish mafia can do for the UEA what they did for the British banking system.....
Jonathan (hack not a) Leake is really going down in flames. It's looking more and more like it would be quicker to name a scientist that he hasn't misrepresented.
So now we have Leakegate (multiple), Rosegate (multiple), Petregate, Peisergate (multiple), Moncktongate (multiple), and of course Bishopsgate (multiple), and WattsUpWithThatGate (multiple).
If there is a 'sceptic' out there with surname 'Cowan' can they please post something. We haven't had Cow&Gate yet.
So, Frank, you're likening a claimed mistake over whether someone has approved his copy in one tiny newspaper article with the statement that the Himalayan glaciers are going to disappear by 2035, when that is totally without foundation, in what is meant to be the most peer reviewed and trustworthy scientific document in history? Jonathan Leake has done a fantastic job with Glaciergate and what has followed. But surprise, surprise, you don't mention the great service he's rendered to science and the truth. Because by caring for truth he's become your enemy. We know where you come from.
Richard,
"you're likening a claimed mistake over whether someone has approved his copy in one tiny newspaper article "
More like six - not just climate either. Among other things, this twit has claimed that Richard Dawkins endorsed astrology!
"the statement that the Himalayan glaciers are going to disappear by 2035, when that is totally without foundation"
It's totally without foundation if you accept the consensus science on the matter, yes - that would be the same science that says we are warming the planet by emitting CO2 and that the Himalayas are in deep shit. Leake didn't find out anything about this, the scientists working on it did. These are the scientists that are defamed so how dare you or he claim credit for that. None of you had a damn thing to do with it.
According to your mob, science isn't by consensus and nobody can predict the climate in the Himalayas or anywhere else, so that must mean they could be gone tomorrow. That is the service you render to 'science and truth' - you set it back.
As for errors, one major error in the output of one working group, within a massive report (and which did not even make the summary), does not justify out and out lying and making up more mistakes than really exist. This is a serious business.
It's not like the Himalayan glaciers are OK, is it? It's not like that isn't important. Why aren't people discussing that? Because somebody wants to make sure they aren't. And you think you are doing the world a favour by helping them! There's a sucker born every minute.
UEA also has the infamous Tyndall Centre for Climate Change.
More like the Centre for complete and utter content-free twaddle.
Check this one out-
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/tyndall-tv/irene-lorenzoni-individual-responses-heat-waves-and-climate-change-adaptation
This is the true crime, that government money gets fed into this claptrap. I think this is Richard North's baby though, so completely off-topic . Feel free to delete, m'Lord
Richard Drake,
I am starting to get the vague impression that Frank is a tad upset about something or other.
Oh good, now I have a place to ask again. I'm in Switzerland so can't get English books easily from a library. I'm trying to find out about a David Archer who wrote The Long Thaw (yes, I could order through Amazon but is about $30 - and I preferred getting Hockey Stick Illusion and CRUTape lettersI).
Can anyone point me to a site that analyzes his point of view (critically, not fawningly)? Or, if anyone has the book, what does he base his arguments on?
I have found a summary that is quite general and does not incentivize me to buy the book and also there are some audio bits I have found (not yet listened to).
The reason I keep asking, is that my own critical abilities re climate science are not yet as developed as I'd like them to be, so I still rely on others' analyses to a large extent.
Thanks for any help.
It has to do with a debate with someone, where I'm supposed to find her arguments in his book!!! I know it's a bit ridiculous, but since that proposal I've gotten a bit obsessed with trying to find out about him and the more I can't find out (seemingly, he's not very important?), the more I want to.
In case any of you missed it, a rather good talk Richard Lindzen gave to a Fermilab audience of physicists on Feb 10th, entitled The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming, in which he touches on the practice of post-normal science, and why despite mounting empirical, theoretical and logical evidence refuting the AGW hypothesis, none of this is likely to influence mainstream views and policy direction. Its about an hour long. If the first link below doesn't work, try the second. real player required.
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/
100210Lindzen/index.htm#
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/
100210Lindzen/f.htm
There is an interview with Michael E. Mann at
http://thebenshi.com/2010/02/18/14-mike-mann-part-ii-interview-who-will-provide-communication-expertise-and-leadership-for-the-science-community/ .
BH - there appears to be a problem with unthreaded, or rather there appears to be 2 separate and unrelated unthreaded threads! If you click on the unthreaded heading top right of the page, it links to different comments than we see here. Or it could be that I am just incredibly thick.
Drew. This is not the unthreaded page. This is the page telling you to use the unthreaded page. I'll close this page to comments...!