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 > A Friendly General Discussion with ATTP

I created this thread as a place where people can have a free and fair discussion with ATTP (Ken Rice the Edinburgh U astronomer) about General issues.
- I think it's convenient for debate if stay ON TOPIC on the Bish's main posts instead of going off down rabbit holes. It's not that I want to make Ken feel uncomfortable, I am against censoring anyone, and it's so easy to create a new discussion thread like this one for a side issue if people want to give more than one or 2 comments.
- This has the second advantage of avoiding rehashing the same arguments again and again, cos people have been getting into a discussion on one thread, thus taking it over, only for the same same discussion points to come up again next time on a main thread.

Mar 30, 2015 at 4:59 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Stew aTTP is a Troll, the oxygen of rapid replies is missing here so I doubt he will appear, he will continue his drive by posts during his working time on the Blog.

Mar 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

I reckon that we should post a link to this discussion anytime aTTP trolls on the main blog and ignore anything he posts. That should prove how much of troll he actually is, as someone said Entropic Man used to actually argue his point and created several discussions when things got a bit out of hand on Unthreaded.

Time will tell

Mar 30, 2015 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

I get the feeling that some people's definition of friendly and mine are slightly different. Not a complaint, mind you. Look, if someone wants to have a genuine, honest discussion, fine, I'm happy to try. If someone wants to ask as sensible and relevant question, I'm happy to do my best to answer. Sensible, however, does not include "why are you advocating for the death of millions", "why do you supporrt a one-world government", "why haven't you reduced your own emissions to zero and are now living in a cave"?

I'm not particularly hopeful, mind you, but you're free to surprise me (well, I suspect you will surprise me, but I was meaning in a positive, rather than a negative, way).

Mar 30, 2015 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

"I get the feeling that some people's definition of friendly and mine are slightly different." Says the man with a website as equally censored as real climate.com.

"If someone wants to ask as sensible and relevant question, I'm happy to do my best to answer." I'll be blunt, but I hope not offensive, in my own case I had some contact with you on twitter before you blocked me, having insulted me up hill and down dale, for being offensive to you! And I've seen some of your offerings here and I'm not sure you have any expertise in climate science that you can bring to the table. You have to understand that to be a sceptic you have to read loads of stuff and then search the internet (helped by sceptic blogs) to see if there is any scientific refutation of what you've read. A lot of the warmist stuff we're fed is just made up and has no support in the scientific literature, but as they come out of the mouths of activists, scientists or the IPCC SPMs much research is required to see if they're true. And we do that research and find counter views suppressed in the MSM and, indeed, in the scientific literature - but not all the time I might add.

The other side of the made up information comes from the forecasts for climate change from models. Invariably they're scary and offer no hope for the future unless we accept the dismantling of the current energy infrastructure to bring CO2 emissions down to levels that would avoid a laughably, and clearly arbitrary, 2C rise in temperature. (1.9C good - 2.1C bad? give us a break). Meanwhile right in front of our eyes the models and their predictions are failing at every level and instead of scuttling away to reset their hypothesis to something observable in the real world the climate science community continue with the same models and the same hypothesis and pretend the models are doing well.

What on earth could we ask you that we can't read for ourselves and make our own judgements?

By all means keep coming on here and challenging our conclusions about the science, indeed correct it if we're wrong, but I don't believe there's anything we need to ask you about here that you have more insight into than the denizens of this blog.

On the other hand if you have any questions please raise them here and I'm sure the people on this blog will do their best to provide you with easily understandable answers. Then we can have a discussion.

Mar 31, 2015 at 8:38 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

I think the idea that ATTP sets himself up as an oracle to be "asked sensible questions" by the great unwashed says a lot about his mind set. Authoritarian, deluded, elitist, and destined to be trampled underfoot by history.

Just like the alarmist movement in general.

DNFTT

Mar 31, 2015 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

I came late to the "unbalanced panel" thread, having been away all weekend and had decided not to post a comment that related to a comment by ATTP two days ago.
Having now discovered this thread this morning I've changed my mind.
It occurred to me (semi-seriously) that ATTP has programmed one of his keys (ALT+F12 perhaps) to produce

What makes you think this is what I'm doing? I haven't said any such thing. Try reading my comments again.
(This is a direct quote from a post on Mar 29 on that thread).
I then checked to see how often over the last few weeks he had posted that same concept, with some variations in the wording, and found it to be a common theme in his responses.
From which I deduce that either we are all so thick that we cannot understand plain English OR that his command of plain English is deficient (a failing not unknown among those who consider themselves intellectually superior) OR that he is a supercilious prat who sees other people as playthings to be toyed with at his pleasure.
Whichever of these is actually the case we are wasting our time by attempting to engage and the only useful purpose he serves is to provide evidence that people with all sorts of views (and none) are allowed to post, more or less freely, on this blog.
Which is more than can be said for his.

As BigYin says, Do No Feed The Troll.

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:36 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

I have to admit that you don't disappoint. Well done. Kudos.

Mar 31, 2015 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Can I ask a question? ATTP, Judith Curry thinks you have the magic touch in your blog. Do you think she came to this conclusion because you managed to attract and hold a host of commenters who would have a hard time if challenged by climate sceptics?

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:28 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shub,
I have no idea.

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

ATTP, would you be interested in conducting/leading a sceptic-warmie collaborative blog experiment?

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:51 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shub,
No, not really. Why would I? That's a serious question.

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Why? Off the top of my head, I cant think of a actively blogging scientist (not necessarily climate scientist) on the consensus side that could potentially draw a broad spectrum of participation.

Mar 31, 2015 at 10:59 PM | Registered Commentershub

Okay, I wrote a response and it disappeared. That's not a hugely convincing argument. Care to try again?

Mar 31, 2015 at 11:12 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Well, that's about all I've got for the 'why would you' part. Are you interested in the 'why' part or the 'what is this idea' part?

Apr 1, 2015 at 12:21 AM | Registered Commentershub

Shub,
Both, probably. I don't really care anymore, and I've got better things to do than get involved in something that I would regard as likely to be a dismal failure. If you could actually convince me that it is worth considering, then what is it?

Apr 1, 2015 at 12:26 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Your answers are quite confusing. No matter, the 'why' part is easy: bringing together different/opposing parts of the climate blogs would be a good idea - it'll be like one of those big fights in Asterix, in slow motion. On a more serious note, the 'objective' would be to seriously stress-test claims and counter-claims.

The 'what is the idea' part is not concrete. Climate blogs are polarized, discussion is hostile and frustrating for all. I have some ideas on why this is, and how it can be countered.

Apr 1, 2015 at 12:56 AM | Registered Commentershub

Shub,


No matter, the 'why' part is easy: bringing together different/opposing parts of the climate blogs would be a good idea

Okay, I'll try now more time. Why would it be a good idea? From what I've seen it would be a disaster and a complete and utter waste of time.


On a more serious note, the 'objective' would be to seriously stress-test claims and counter-claims.

How? A bunch of people who disagree, and will always disagree, is no way to stress-test claims.


Climate blogs are polarized, discussion is hostile and frustrating for all. I have some ideas on why this is, and how it can be countered.

Yes, I can tell that you don't. I imagine you do have ideas. Having read your most recent blog post, I seriously doubt that they're ideas that make any sense.

Apr 1, 2015 at 7:50 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Troll.

Apr 1, 2015 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Troll.
Apr 1, 2015 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames
And deliberately offensive with it.

Apr 1, 2015 at 9:46 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

"No matter, the 'why' part is easy: bringing together different/opposing parts of the climate blogs would be a good idea"
Why on Earth would Ken want to go along with this, Shub; he's more of a "War, war" kinda guy rather than a "Jaw, jaw" addict?
The 'Why' bit can be of no interest for a man who found stardom through his 'Wotts'

Apr 1, 2015 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

All it takes is for one or two regulars to bite each time, and he's won.

Apr 1, 2015 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Roy, Ken (ATTP) is the only person in the climate debate that I know of who's been called a troll and also is a professor. Clearly he likes the flow of internet traffic and comments. Now this is just one guess, but I'm thinking he must have fended off questions from his peers after revealing his identity, about why he provided 'a platform for sceptics', with a heroic 'oh, I just swat them down like flies', and subsequently felt forced to follow through with his words. I think he should just own up to his inner 'internet troll' that likes the jaw, jaw and actively facilitate it.

Apr 1, 2015 at 1:03 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shub,
I'm not a Professor and if you can't think of an actual Professor who is regularly called a Troll, you haven't been concentrating.

Very few of my peers - as far as I can tell - have even noticed. Only one has mentioned it, and only in passing.

Apr 1, 2015 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

The MO is always predictable.

1. They come 'in peace'
2. They try to explain why we're wrong ('stupid' of the 'they must be mad, bad or stupid' thought process)
3. They get angry when we don't accept their vacuous shite (the 'mad')
4. They get flippant, angry and obnoxious (the 'bad')
5. The feel compelled to "do the good work" by simply being disruptive
6. They get rumbled
7. They leave

No more oxygen for the troll, please.

Apr 1, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames