Tuesday
Jun282016
by 
Josh
Josh Playing the Lead - Josh 378
Please note, no actual Labour Leaders were harmed during the making of this cartoon.
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
Is Junk Science becoming endemic?
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (449)
I'll pass on molecular sports medicine. Please turn up your sense of irony before looking at the link, then check researchgate
AK
It is not the height of my horse, but the depth of the pit of unreason it is standing beside.
EM. Someone offers a bet (not to you) that you don't like, you decline (using the word sucker) and suggest an alternative bet which he declines (reusing the worder sucker to your disadvantage). You didn't have to accept his bet, nor does he have to accept yours. But when he did decline yours, you offered a string of insults. Why?
Your horse is standing in something far more smelly than unreason.
I don't agree with you on matters AGW, but I sort of admire you (sometimes). This was not one of those times.
Don. Like Russell, I looked at your published CV but found my irony never kicked in. You seem to have varied interests and be a team player. I presume both illustrate your expertize in certain techniques that can be employed with good effect in different disciplines. Ignore Russell he seems to be antagonistic to academics in general. He will now resort to his favourite habit of offering the most obscure posts, that resemble clues in cryptic crosswords. I sometimes solve them, but often don't. Who cares.
Did your interest in predicting ice cover come from your Antarctic experience, or because you both are in Cambridge, do you meet and it is personal?
AK
Don Keiller offers Professor Wadhams a deliberately unCceptable bet based on a distortion of the professor's position. The professor, not surprisingly, declines.
Don Keiller then touts the exchange around the climate sceptic sites trying to make propoganda capital.
I pointed out the absurdity of the original bet and offered a more reasonable pair of bets, which Dr Keiller declined.
Should I now follow Dr Keiller's example? Should I tout the exchange around the warmist sites to show that Dr Keiller does not have the courage of his convictions?
You show an alarming political naivity. The original bet was a propoganda move. It was designed to be unacceptable.
Actually EM, I offered Professor Wadhams a way out and note I do him the courtesy of addressing him with his correct title "Professor", unlike in his response to me; "Mr".
"Dear Professor Wadhams.
Many thanks for your prompt reply.
I assume that since you do not wish to take up my bet, you will be contacting “The Independent” who have “little interest in truth and much in sensation” to make the required correction to the statement on Arctic sea ice extent they attributed to you?
Regards and best,
Dr Don Keiller."
Needless to say I got no reply.
Do you not see the dishonesty and hypocrisy of your position?
On the one hand you say I "tout the exchange around the climate sceptic sites trying to make propoganda (sic) capital", yet on the other hand you are quite prepared to give Professor Wadhams a free pass to spread his propaganda.
Typical "Alarmist". All is fair if it advances "the cause".
Friends! In today's edition of my Blog, exclusively available to BH readers - who I know are all as dedicated to the Socialist cause as I am - I echo Friend McDonnell's plea on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday: "Let Me Just Say This, Friends: Please, Friends, We’ve Got To Stop This Now, Friends!"
https://supportourjeremy.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/let-me-just-say-this-friends-please-friends-weve-got-to-stop-this-now-friends/
So the good Professor was free to enable the climate Taliban to spread, in his name, alarmist claptrap, but it is unacceptable to ask him to take a position on what he chooses to allow to be said in his name. Sort of like the rationale of scientists refusing to be open with their data if the request is from someone who just wants to prove the inquiree wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
Don Keiller
There is a modern slang term "special snowflake syndrome" The proper response to one showing symptoms is to ignore them and turn away, as Professor Wadhams has done with you.
He is quite entitled to express a scientific opinion on a scientific question. He has done so and, as usual, the media have exaggerated and misinterpreted it.
You are quite entitled to express a counter - opinion. You might even write it up for publication; yet youu choose to attack the man rather than the science. This suggests that you have no counter-case and therefore a political attack is your only option.
EM. An earlier response from me to you seems to have gone AWOL.
You appear to be intervening in a dispute that never ever involved you, and in a needlessly objectionable manner. You are showing an alarming tendency to start a flame war and your horse is standing beside something much smellier than unreason. My naivete is not so great as to prevent me from discerning your intent. Your discussion of the merits of the bet was perfectly acceptable but not the attack on the man. I have defended you several times in BH, were they for nothing?
EM my understanding of "Special Snowflake Syndrome" is that it is "post-Viner" snow.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Another egregious example of a failed climate "psience" prediction.
AK- when I went to the Antarctic, I was a keen environmentalist.
My outlook changed when our entire team could find no evidence of increased UV having any effect on the plant life down there. This was in direct contradiction to the "received wisdom" of the time. Then there was the difficulty in getting our negative findings published (we did eventually), largely because they did not support the existing paradigm.
As a result I became much less accepting of "arguments from authority" and started to look at data and papers much more critically..
It was the "Climategate" scandal- which directly challenged the scientific method- that results should be able to be reproducible by peer-group scientists, that confirmed my misgivings about climate "science". As some on this blog are aware I, along with Professor Jonathan Jones (Oxford), was responsible for getting the data published- in the teeth of opposition from "the Establishment".
This is a good summary;
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/23/a-major-foi-victory.html
Don. Given what is in your last post, why do you think you were savaged by that dead sheep Russell? Even after months of participating here I find understanding some relationships rather difficult. You are now on my consider carefully list.
Question for Dork of Cork
So Dork when you walk around with your phone are there many Pokermons in Cork.
AK I take that as a compliment :-)
Don did you pick up any Pokermons whilst you were in the Antartic or was it too cold for them ?
Don's bibliography seems to be morphing into a bibliblography before our eyes.
Don. Have now read the 2012 piece about your legal.success. But it's like viewing a "what the butler saw" with the denouement missing. Did you get the e-mail?
Are people still in litigation with UEA, and if so, has the change of vice Chancellor made any difference? I believe Richardson was a scientist, whereas Acton was a Russian expert.
Jamspid, Ruszell. Why are you mocking Don Keiller, when he was lauded herein 2012? I'm after information only.
AK I did, eventually, get the email. However it was not easy. UEA used every possible legal obstruction they could to prevent release of said email. They must have spent £10s of thousands on their legal advice.
All the sordid details of UEA's subterfuge are reported in these posts:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/25/more-uea-footdragging-part-one.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/26/uea-footdragging-part-2.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/29/uea-footdragging-part-3.html
When I get the bit between my teeth, I am very persistent. Something another Government organisation and their lawyers have recently found to their cost;
A grovelling apology, a £100,673.00 redress, 2 forced resignations and two independent enquiries into their corporate governance and decision-making process.
This took almost 3 years to resolve used up most of my spare time. Now this is over I intend to focus more attention on climate fraudsters.
Don. I am appalled by the activities of my former university. I was not aware of any of this; by then I had retired and the only real.contact left was a contract to teach part of an undergraduate module. I must have been well out of the loop. What upsets me most is that a close friend and colleague, was in a position of authority at the time and must have been aware of the cover up machinations.
Given that the e-mail revealed that Jones and company lied to various committees and that those within the university tasked with obtaining the truth were also lied to, or participated in the coverup, I am very surprised that this did not precipitate a scandal both within the university and outside. Did McIntyre take this any further?
I must remember never to get the wrong side of you.
AK- funny you should say that.
It was the last thing my solicitor said to me after I explained how I was going to move forwards and had no longer any need for her services.
And in answer to your query- no scandal within or outside the University.
Had they had carried out a proper investigation then the good professor Phil Jones and much of climate "science" would be in the dock.
And that would never do. Too much money and reputations at stake.
You may also be interested in Professor Jones attempts to compromise me at my place of work.
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1812.txt
He really is a nasty piece of work- trait that appears to be not uncommon amongst climate "scientists".
Don. Another interesting read, but nothing new. Phil.Jones is indeed a nasty package of goods. After I had called his bluff about a ten year climate prediction- offering him a bet that he refused to take - I don't think we ever spoke again. When we passed in a corridor he would avert his eyes. He basically refused to acknowledge my existence. Very petty.
I am surptised you didn't get more from Keith Briffa, an altogether diderent kind of person. He and I had some long talks and he was severely depressed immediately after Climategate. I suspect this may have impacted very negatively on his illness.
It's a small world. Annie Ogden, who you corresponded with, was a former advisee of mine when she was a mature undergraduate within ENV. A very level headed person and I would say a fair one.
Am
I'm regarded as a troll here. I have to live down to your expectations. Besides, BH has to be kept alive until it's principals come back from their holiday.
Did you hear the story of the butcher who shut up shop and went on holiday for three weeks. By the time he got back hi customers had got used to going elsewhere. His business never recovered.
Am
I'm regarded as a troll here. I have to live down to your expectations. Besides, BH has to be kept alive until it's principals come back from their holiday.
Did you hear the story of the butcher who shut up shop and went on holiday for three weeks. By the time he got back hi customers had got used to going elsewhere. His business never recovered.
EM I presume Am is me.
Have you heard the story of a butcher who went away for weeks and upon his return found his customers queuing at his shop front because his were the best pies in town?
You can be stimulating without being objectionable. You have been doing this for the past few weeks. But perhaps you have a psychological problem where you seek out abuse and are suffering a relapse.
Our Don has actually been to Antartica and he can tell you no matter how much CO2 it's still bloody cold
Despite what his Holiness Pope Francis might say that Climate Change is the biggest threat to Humanity perhaps after the events of today he may wish to install some CCCTV . Panic Alarms , and Security Guards in all his Churches.
I don't think Pope Francis hosting Al Gore will be taking down his wall around the Vatican any time soon.
"Have you heard the story of a butcher who went away for weeks and upon his return found his customers queuing at his shop front because his were the best pies in town?"
Operating a Fleet Street barber shop as a second business is one thing, being a bishop quite another.
Russell. Such a cutting comment Mrs Lovatt, but ecclesiastically I see you can cope.
EM,
You are too civilized to ever make true troll.
But your efforts at achieving that status are fun to follow.
Keeping the good Bishop going with some extra traffic is a worthy goal.
And yes I agree with the dangers of you describe in your meat shop parable. I am even now discussing the implications of that story regarding a small family business I am part of.
"Despite what his Holiness Pope Francis might say that Climate Change is the biggest threat to Humanity perhaps after the events of today he may wish to install some CCCTV . Panic Alarms , and Security Guards in all his Churches."
All that, as the Democrats say, "to prevent workplace violence."
Interesting that in this essentially unmoderated BH some make highly questionable comments about what is essentially the martyrdom of a 82 year old priest.
AK,
With all due respect, please explain what is questionable in any of the posts that refer to the brutal slaying/ martyrdom of Fr. Hamel?
I am Catholic and see no disrespect or wildly out of line opinions in the posts that mention this so far.
But I am more than willing to be enlightened.
By the way, I find your posts about the level of openly questionable behavior in the UEA regarding climate to be insightful on multiple levels.
Thanks
Don Keiller,
Keep up the good fight.
Don if you believe the ritualized slaying of an elderly priest can be dismissed as "workplace violence" or that a comment suggesting the Pope should now countenance armed guards for places of worship and sanctuary is not in bad taste, then you and I have nothing in common in this matter.
Don, Hunter. In my dotage I get confused. My last post should have been directed at hunter and not Don.
I am willing to elaborate about UEA , Climategate and my minuscule role in it. Just ask.
AK. I am very keen to for you to elaborate from the perspective of an "insider" at UEA.
Thanks,
Don
Don I think you will be disappointed, I was only the most minor of players, considered more of an irritant to be kept in check. The problem I face, to employ an Rumpsfeldism, is that I don't know what I know. If you ask something specific I'll try to answer as best I can.
AK, thanks. My take on the post regarding "workplace" violence was that the term was used ironically. Here in the USA we have a small group who seem unable to reconsider how to characterize this phase of the Islamic war on the West.
hunter. I was expressing my own personal.view. I see no need to use a figure of speech like irony for an act that is what it is - a vile attack with no redeeming features, no way it could be condoned or even understood.
AK- you say you were thought of as "an irritant, to be kept in check"?
What for and who by?
What use an absent bishop if you can't tell Murder In The Cathedral jokes?
The episcopal almoner should send hunter a subscription to Charlie Hebdo
Russell it is my personal opinion that Charlie Hebdo included material of the worst possible taste. To mock the spiritual leader of people who form a significant minority in your community, knowing that this would cause hurt to all and rage in some, was insensitive in the extreme, crass and deliberately provocative.
Charlie Hebdo had every right, in French law, to publish what they did, and there is no possible excuse for those who attacked and killed. This does not excuse Charlie Hebdo's poor taste. I personally would never have worn a "je suis..." t-shirt.
Don I was an irritant, and perhaps a person of concern, because of my disbelief in cAGW. This did not fit with the overwelming opinion within the School, and caused problems in the teaching of some of my colleagues when they were confronted by students who, under my tutelage, expressed independent opinions. I was also publishing in the media (including the Guardian) using my university affiliation, which both CRU and one of the university's pro-vice Chancellors (ex CRU) objected to. My views were well known within and outside the university, and I began to be treated with kid gloves. I suspect my continued presence within the School caused some embarrassment for some. My "outing" by JoNova, WUWT and here at BH gave me my "15 minutes of fame", international recognition, and a definite change in the way I was treated by the university.
The cynic in me now wonders if my friendship with Keith Briffa was exploited, and our long discussions were attempts to discover what my intentions were and just how much climate science I knew and understood - so as to establish just how dangerous I could become.
I find the Climategate disclosures interesting because it seems to me CRU and the university decided not to attack me directly, but wait for me to retire. Unfortunately for them I stayed an additional two years and after retirement continued to teach on contract. I had my support base within the School and the university administration This is why I have always opposed those who criticize the whole university or the School of Environmental Science. These were not monolithic bodies and contained individuals caught up in the disaster that was Climategate, some who behaved with the highest level of probity.
In case anyone finds AK's remarks a bit cryptic, see this BH post from 5 years ago.
I wasn't trying to be cryptic
AK, Thank you for clarifying your point on the attack. And please know how much respect I and many others have for your integrity.
Just spent the last hour reliving my past, by reading all the comments made on the thread identified by Paul Matthews above. All that sound and fury, and also the love and appreciation offered to me. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that CRU had much less importance than was attributed to it. Climategate was important because it blew open the doors to reveal real malfeasance at the heart of climate science. However, CRU's product was not, in the long run, that important. Its global temperatures were duplicated by two other US groups, and its tree-ring chronologies were well on the way to being exposed as a sham. Yes CRU personnel engaged in very dubious practices, but unlike the discussions back in 2009 they were not the people who took their conclusions, failed to listen to critical voices, and applied this defective product to economic and political action. They were not directly responsible for people suffering energy shortages. Their product was welcomed and defended by the entire scientific establishment (Russell Group Universities, the Royal Society and the Met Office). BH's scorn and opprobrium would then, as now, have been better focussed on those operators, rather than the small beer that was CRU and UEA's management.
This should not be read as in any way condoning what happened at UEA. Im just trying to view it after the passage of time and to put it into perspective.
Thanks Alan. I suppose people like to have a clear focal point for their anger. Looking at it the other way, it's like the over-emphasis on the GWPF, often incorrectly described as highly influential, or the idea that climate sceptics are directed and funded by the Koch brothers!
Alan, I appreciate your honesty and integrity. I know that it can be difficult working in an environment where one's views on a subject, that should be considered within the context of "academic freedom" or, indeed, simply the expression of independent opinions, can be viewed with suspicion and often, hostility.
Regrettably the "Establishment" view is that such independence of thought is dangerous and must be crushed by withholding of grants, tenure, public ridicule, termination of employment and lately the threat of imprisonment. All of which convinces me that I and other "deniers" are probably correct in questioning the basis of climate change.
Heh, where is Lucy and what is the answer to her question? No, nevermind, better you don't answer, but I have had similar suspicions.
=========