Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (60)
Jeremy, thank you for drawing attention to my obvious naivete when it comes to imaginary rules you just made up. I can't think what came over me when I decided to challenge your evidence-less assertions. Because of course you were using the argument ad jermanian - which though a fallacy, can't be argued against by mere commenters. Do accept my heartfelt apologies.
However, if you could in fact point out where US citizens lose first amendment protections by virtue of their employment, I would be very interested - and quite surprised.
To help you out, a summary of the Hatch Act is available here:
http://www.archives.gov/legal/ethics/hatch-act.html
Hi Frank!
Cartoon based on the kind of articles that seemed to follow Hansen's paper, here , here , and here .
Just because you are a cartoonist, I don't see why that gives you leave to suspend critical judgement. Claims that Hansen 'cooked the books' or made up artificial observations are accusations of serious scientific misconduct that are in no way justified by the irrelevant blathering at WUWT (Michaels disputes a claim about drought that Hansen didn't make? A claim of cherry-picking that doesn't stand up to a moments scrutiny?). Outsourcing fact-checking to Anthony is a rather perilous endeavour!
My Dear Frank: in 1981, Hansen and co-workers claimed present GHG warming is 33 K, the Fourier idea. Fourier did not know about lapse rate warming. As a physics' professional. Hansen should have. Because this exaggerates warming in the IPCC models by a factor of 3.7, it's unprofessional behaviour, classic cooking the books.
If you can't see this fact, you are in my view insufficiently educated to make statements about this subject.
Just because you are a cartoonist, I don't see why that gives you leave to suspend critical judgement.
Just because you are a warmie, I don't see why that gives you leave to suspend your sense of humour.
Frank, or you can read Roy Spencer here and here. Or Curry here and here.
Frank, or Andy Revkin here quoting and agreeing with Kerry Emmanuel.
"Just because you are a warmie, I don't see why that gives you leave to suspend your sense of humour."
You can't suspend what you haven't got... :-)
Josh, perhaps you'd like to point out where disagreeing with someone's conclusions automatically implies that the other person is guilty of fraud? Do you really think that Emanuel thinks that Hansen has 'cooked the books'? And neither of the Spencer posts have anything to do with the Hansen paper.
A big part of this whole problem is that people like you jump to wild conclusions about fraud whenever anyone honestly differs with someone else. That isn't satire, it's a pathology.
Frank, from Wikionary
"Cook the books:Etymology
From the mid-17th century. A metaphor for cooking, whereby ingredients are changed, altered and improved by the process. Thus financial statements can also be so modified to the benefit of the "cook"."
Sounds just like what people think about the whole mangling of climate data to me.