Me at Nuclear Street

A brief interview with me is up at the Nuclear Street website. "Raw, uncut and uncensored" it says.

Comments

[Alexander K]

I now understand her garbled thought processes and writing style; they are mirrored by her garbled speech, which is interspersed with 'kinda', 'sorta', etc, the very opposite indicator of a clear and incisive mind. How on earth do such incohate babblers become journalsts?
Compare Kate Shepherd with the French physicist whose name escapes at this moment, whose video appeared here courtesy of the Bish a short while ago; the comparison leaves one wondering which of them has English as their second language!

[stephen richards]

Courtillot. Pronounced courtiyo

[BBD]

Nice, crisp interview. No blather.

[Phillip Bratby]

Good interview. I agree with BBD. If only all interviewees would answer the questions in a straightforward and honest way.

You'll never make a politician, but that's no loss to you.

[Pharos]

I sense that the Bishop still does not realise quite how good he is, or how much respect he has gained, but, like the musician's musician, lets keep it that way and not tell him.

[Hengist McStone]

Well, Mr Montford is superb as an advocate but let's not pretend his work is a dispassionate search for truth, it isn't. Take the answer to the motivation question for instance. Reference to pressure to produce "a nice tidy story" does indeed appear in one of the emails, but the writer goes on to say that " the reality is somewhat different". Its in an email from Dr Keith Briffa beginning with the line "Let me say that I don't mind what you put in the policy makers summary if there is a general concensus." But Montford leaves that out. It's 848 words long but Montford focuses on four of them because those four words conjure up the impression that suits his purposes. Montford is cherry picking his quotes to create a narrative that suits him.

[stephen richards]

Hengist McStone whatever you might call your cowardly self, unless of course you have been inflicted with such an awful name. You too are cherry picking, but you know that. You should know that interviews are not a forum which allow for 848 word responses or perhaps you do lack such knowledge.

[Hengist McStone]

@stephen richards
I'm just doing my best to understand the skeptic's case. It seems long on presentation and short on hard facts

[Bishop Hill]

Hengist

I was asked what made them do the things they did. I said they were under pressure to do so and quoted the words that showed this to be the case.

[Hengist McStone]

@Bishop Hill
No the words you quoted in response to the motivation question do not show the Hockey Team misused data or used unconventional statistical methods. The words you quoted were suggestive but prove nothing . In the original email there was the caveat "but in reality the situation is not quite so simple". An even handed analysis would acknoledge that. It's very good advocacy on your part but I figure if we are going to eavesdrop for unethical behaviour then it has to be done in an even handed manner.

[Bishop Hill]

Huh? That they had misused data was a premise of the question, not the question itself.

[BBD]

Hengist

You are up to your usual tricks again - mangling what everyone has said and attempting to create controversy.

When Briffa said 'in reality, the situation is not quite so simple' he was referring to the MWP, amongst other things. He was, essentially, criticising Mann's Hockey Stick.

See here, in context:

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) [sic] that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt

It is YOU, not BH, who is cherry-picking quotes to suit your narrative.

Me, I'd call that dishonest.

[BBD]

Hengist

In the light of your distortions on this thread, it is nothing short of astonishing that you have the chutzpah to come out with this:

I'm just doing my best to understand the skeptic's case. It seems long on presentation and short on hard facts

This, from the man who said:

In the original email there was the caveat "but in reality the situation is not quite so simple". An even handed analysis would acknoledge that. It's very good advocacy on your part but I figure if we are going to eavesdrop for unethical behaviour then it has to be done in an even handed manner.

It's mind-boggling. See above for context. Do you think no-one here has read the leaked CRU emails? Did you actually think you could get away with this nonsense?

Just to be absolutely clear, the 'situation' that Briffa found 'not quite so simple' was the Mannean suppression of the MWP. That's what he was under pressure to overlook in order to present 'a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data'.

Briffa didn't believe this to be the case (see below) and that's why he starts off the email by saying that he doesn't care what goes in the SPM 'if there is a general concensus [sic]'. His point is that there wasn't one. There was dissent (his own and others'). And pressure was being applied to fall in line with a 'consensus' that was not consensual.

This is what Briffa believes and it directly contradicts the Mannean Hockey Stick:

I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) [sic] that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.

[All excerpts from here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=136&filename=938018124.txt]

For the record, misrepresentation as blatant as yours above can only occur if you either:

- have no idea what you are talking about

- are being systematically dishonest

You choose.

[Hengist McStone]

You mention noble cause corruption and put those words in inverted commas implying that the phrase has been lifted from one of the CRU emails. But which one? I can't find any email using that phrase, has the phrase been lifted from the CRU emails or has it been added as commentary?

[ray]

The dissimulation and even mendacity of some politicians and scientists in these areas will inevitably enter public consciousness and the sales job of those who are concerned about global warming is therefore going to become much harder.
Buy Viagra