Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > What is the correct way to behave towards someone who has behaved as badly as Jones and whose wrongdoing has been condoned and covered up by those in authority?

To put the record straight; I have never and would never engage in writing hate mail, neither do I condone it or seek to justify it. However if the hate mail is the result of helpless rage over the ability of people like Phil Jones and the team to change our way of life and remove our freedoms then I believe I can understand it.
Many people have politely enquired after details of work done by Phil and the team and been turned down, sometimes not politely. In an attempt to get at truth Doug Keenan accused Phil of fraud and invited him to sue; no response.
I have accused Bob Watson of Lying about CO2 and its effects, I copied that accusation to his boss (Chris Huhne or Ed..cant remember) and invited him to sue; no response. These people do not wish to engage in reasoned argument, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the discussion table.
How should they be regarded?
Are they genuine scientists who have worked tirelessly for the public good, have got it wrong but do not realise it?
Are they genuine scientists who have worked tirelessly for the public good but have got it wrong and do realise their error but are too proud to admit it?
Is it we who are wrong?
Are they seeking to pursue an agenda and simply using science or pseudo science as an aid in pursuing that agenda?

Jun 15, 2012 at 1:33 PM | Registered CommenterDung

This question is well worth discussing at length. The discussion on the “death threat” thread is worth putting alongside the later one on Worstall’s toilet talk.
I’ve been banned from CiF from being rude, deliberately so, out of frustration at the Graun journalist’s stupidity, or his sheer power, the fact that he can talk nonsense and get away with it. Then I’ve been banned again for being mildly ironic. So you think “might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb” and go overboard into extreme threats or extreme vulgarity. It’s human, but not very effective.

There’s no point, I think, in thinking in terms of “what Phil deserves”.
I’ve been trying to drop the tough talk and face the fact that turning other the cheek, though it isn’t much fun, is the only way to avoid timewasting. Here’s part of a comment I left at
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/06/reinventing-precaution.html

Tony Newbery at Harmless Sky has long proposed a judicial review as the only way to get an honest assessment of the global warming saga, and at his instigation I read Judge Burton’s review of Dimmock v the Crown over the showing of the Gore film in schools. I was really impressed by the tenor of the thing, the whole judicial mindset which seemed to speak from centuries of listening to bickering plaintiffs. It’s probably just me, but behind the dry legal analysis there seemed to be a message: “Nobody’s at fault, nobody’s going to win or lose anything worth worrying about. We’re not put on earth for these brief years in order to waste our time squabbling. Let’s pick the truth out of this mess and forget the rest”.
it’s a very humanist message. (Unfortunately it’ll set you back £50,000 minimum to hear it)...
On the other hand, idiots need naming and blaming, and once you set out on that route, why stop short of the truth?
In other words, I don’t know the answer to your question.

Jun 15, 2012 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Thanks Geoff

Until recently I considered the most important issue on my political radar was the fact that here in the UK we no longer live in a democracy. The only people able to table new laws in most policy areas are the unelected EU Commissioners and we are not able to vote about whether they should be removed from office. We live in a dictatorship and it is not benign. With the three major parties all in favour of remaining in the EU then unless UKIP can make a breakthrough (I am a card carrying member) we are totally disenfranchised. People around the world have been in the past and are today still willing to put their lives on the line to protect or regain freedom and democracy.
However I believe that Sustainability of which CAGW is just a part, is now the greater threat.
The UN already talks internally about reducing population, taking emphasis away from GDP and placing it on an environmental audit of a country's activities, forcing us to change our lifestyles shrink our economies. These aims are not the result of demands from the population, they are the views of a small group of environmental activists who have seen the opportunity to impose their will on every one of us, particularly in Europe.
I place Phil and the team in the vanguard of this movement and they proved something very important.

Prior to the publication of the first MBH Hockey Stick, not a single nation had ratified the Kyoto Protocol (some had signed it but not ratified it). Within months of the Hockey Stick publication almost all nations had ratified it. Talk to politicians and mention Environment and Crisis, offer some bodged scientific proof and government policy could be changed and huge funding released.
Time now to exume Malthus and go the whole hog folks! Our politicians will take this NeoMalthusian claptrap hook line and sinker and then we really will be in the proverbial. They will be told that to continue as we are at the moment is to condemn our children and our children's children to starvation, poverty, resource and fuel scarcity, etc etc.
Phil and the team are responsible for this (almost alone and entirely IMHO), no Hockey Stick; no Kyoto Protocol and no problem.

Most of the regulars on BH have read the brilliant book he wrote and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Hockey Stick is bogus science. That means that in your heart of hearts you also believe that these people are dishonest, manipulative frauds yet there they sit in their ivory towers, untouchable, well paid, famous and powerful. While we discuss whether or not we should be polite to our Phil, some people even in the UK are thrown into fuel poverty and elsewhere people are thrown off their land so that biofuels can be produced.
Should we really be polite to these people?

Jun 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I suggest you address them with the same respect with which you would expect them to address you. If your arguments have weight, they will speak louder than any insults you might throw.

Jun 16, 2012 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

With each IPCC 'assessment', there was a step wise increase in confidence of attribution.

The first one was circumspect and offered no attribution.

The second one upped the ante. But this clearly was done in an underhanded backdoor fashion - the Santer fiasco - that it became clear the attribution was not the opinion of the scientists who wrote the report. Santer, to date, doesn't have a clear answer.

The third one made a clear attribution. It was based on the hockey stick. Enough said.

The fourth one stuck to the same line. It was again, based on the circular reasoning using computer models present in the third report.

*No* scientific breakthrough in understaning, technique, measurement, experimentation or theoretical prediction occurred during the entire period. The advances during the entire period were those that can simply be chalked down to increase in data collection and scholarly activity that naturally accompanies any (vast) increase in funding.

Yet, the confidence in attribution just keep increasing. What is more, it was precisely those bits of evidence the confidence in attribution was based on, turned out the dodgiest of the whole lot.

Jun 16, 2012 at 2:10 PM | Registered Commentershub

BitBucket

As far as I know I have not insulted them. However I think that Steve McIntyre would tell you that reasoned argument does not speak loudly to them. I simply ask how we should regard them.

Jun 16, 2012 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

BitBucket

I want to add that for me they are people whose respect I neither need nor desire.

Jun 16, 2012 at 2:20 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Hi Dung, your question was on the correct way to behave towards people, not how to regard them. The two are not necessarily connected. You might regard climate scientists as liars and cheats, but if I want their attention you would be best advised to behave towards them with respect.

Jun 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

On the other hand, Dung, who has not done a thing to Phil Jones has gotten a series of misbegotten lies from a man of position such as Phil Jones.

It seems your advice applies only to Dung and not to Jones?

Thanks for the stupid moral science class.

Jun 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM | Registered Commentershub

sorry posted to wrong thread, then removed it

Jun 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Did I say it went just one way? If prof Jones wants to be well regarded by sceptics he would be best advised to treat them with respect. But possibly he doesn't want such regard. Now why might that be? Perhaps because he is constantly depicted as dishonest or worse; that would engender contempt for adversaries in most of us.

Jun 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Perhaps because he is constantly depicted as dishonest or worse; that would engender contempt for adversaries in most of us.
Jun 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM BitBucket

Jones's contempt for sceptics goes back years.

Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news !
(...)
Cheers
Phil

Steve McIntyre is scrupulously correct and courteous. "The Team" invariably referred to his website as "Climate Fraudit".

Jun 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Dear Mr Bucket

As far as I know there no "deniers" who are being paid out of public taxation either for their opinions or because of their opinions, this puts Prof Jones in a different category. Prof Jones should realise that he has an obligation to explain and justify his opinions but sadly he does not.

Jun 16, 2012 at 6:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

To get back to my point:

Most long term posters on this blog are in the mould of Steve McIntyre and The Bish; polite, honourable and honest (sadly I have tantrums and can not include myself in that hehe). Steve McIntyre has torn apart the statistical analysis done in the Hockey Stick and demolished tree rings as an acceptable temperature proxy. However papers are still published using tree ring proxies and "the establishment" still believes the Hockey Stick is a true paleo-climate record.
What is more important, remaining honourable or reversing this crazy CAGW and SUSTAINABILITY hogwash? Within that question I include being polite to people that are responsible for foisting this upon us.

Jun 16, 2012 at 8:25 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Hey Martin: "The Team" invariably referred to his website as "Climate Fraudit"

Do you mean between themselves or to him? Makes a difference...

Jun 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Jun 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM | Dung

The UN already talks internally about reducing population, taking emphasis away from GDP and placing it on an environmental audit of a country's activities, forcing us to change our lifestyles shrink our economies. These aims are not the result of demands from the population, they are the views of a small group of environmental activists who have seen the opportunity to impose their will on every one of us.

And in the many pronouncements from the UN - and its circus of myriad committees, "High Level" panels, Working Groups and Gaia knows what else - in the run-up to Rio+20 the UN has finally come out of the "scaremongers 'r us" closet to reveal the true meaning of Agenda 21 ... not to mention the true purpose of the IPCC and its highly over-rated (and over relied upon) assessment reports.

<shameless plug alert>

I touch on these issues in my recent post - and subsequent comments - in: Report from Reason at Rio

Jun 17, 2012 at 7:11 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Perhaps because he is constantly depicted as dishonest or worse; that would engender contempt for adversaries in most of us.
Jun 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM BitBucket
Do you mean between themselves or to him? Makes a difference...
Jun 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM BitBucket
.


Where does this new "Makes a difference" come from?

You had said "Perhaps because he is constantly depicted as dishonest or worse;that would engender contempt for adversaries in most of us", without qualification.

I produced evidence that Jones was contemptuous of McIntyre and Daly despite neither of them having accused Jones of being "dishonest or worse", refuting your excuse for Jones's despicable behaviour.

Their contempt for people they saw as "adversaries" (I would deny that the term was applicable) remains contempt, irrespective of to whom their contempt was expressed.

[ McIntyre immediately deletes any comments on CA that suggest dishonesty or indeed that suggest any motive. I have never noticed any suggestion of dishonesty or worse by the late John Daly http://www.john-daly.com/ ]

Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin, you are using private emails to condemn. Are you telling me that given access to McIntyre's private emails we would find no exchanges that questioned the honesty, motives etc of Prof. Jones et al?

Regarding this 'bad behaviour', what is Prof. Jones accused of doing that was evident before the theft of his emails? (I ask because I don't know, not as wind-up).

Regards, BB

Jun 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Mr Bucket

You can read about the accusation of fraud here:

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/climate-change-scandal-prof-phil-jones-accused-fraud

Jun 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Oh I love this!

Quoting Rajendra Pachauri from Hilary's blog:

I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it. [bold added]

So Catastrophic Global Warming is actually less important than restructuring our economies? Now I am really worried.

Jun 17, 2012 at 3:55 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Mr Bucket this is a more detailed account of the fraud:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Jun 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Thanks Dung. I hadn't come across that. Are there more or is that it (not implying any judgement on the case provided, I just want to know the extent of accusations)?

Regards, BB

Jun 17, 2012 at 4:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

BB - If you have evidence that CRU emails were stolen, you should pass it to the Norfolk Police.

However, if the emails were released by someone who had a legitimate logon giving them access to the emails then no law would have been broken. That seems an immensely more likely explanation for how the emails were released, for a number of reasons that anyone with even slight familiarity with IT administration and security could spell out, especially in view of the chaos of the CRU's IT practices.

In any case, Jones's bad behavior is bad behaviour whatever source of data is used to confirm it.

"Are you telling me that given access to McIntyre's private emails we would find no exchanges that questioned the honesty, motives etc of Prof. Jones et al?"

I am obviously not telling you anything about what McIntyre's private emails contain as I have no way of knowing for certain what his emails might contain. However, I have observed in life that people generally behave consistently, especiqlly principled people such as McIntyre, and I would therefore be astonished if McIntyre's emails contained such speculations - it would simply be out of character.

In any case, this seems to have no relevance to your excuse for Jones's contempt for people who had asked him for data. Any more than what your or my private emails might contain would be relevant.

There is no shortage of evidence for Jones's and the rest of the Team's contempt for people who asked for access to the data. Sorry, I am not going to look it up for you but it's there.

You could start by searching on "“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Jun 17, 2012 at 4:50 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Hi Martin, did I say they were stolen? ("If you have evidence that CRU emails were stolen, you should pass it to the Norfolk Police") I know I thought of saying that, but I don't recall actually posting it (maybe in another thread?). Perhaps you are a mind reader :-)

I agree with you that the data should be openly available, but opinions on that have changed over the last decade or so. Back in the 90s I expect not so many people thought that way. And as someone said on another thread, when you have spent a lot of time and effort compiling a dataset, giving it away might not be the first thing on your mind (look at Watts' tantrum over Muller and his data) especially when you consider those who want it to have 'bad' intentions (from your perspective).

Regards, BB

Jun 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Jun 17, 2012 at 5:32 PM BitBucket

Hi Martin, did I say they were stolen?
I think so.

.
Jun 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM BitBucket

.... what is Prof. Jones accused of doing that was evident before the theft of his emails?

Jun 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A