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 > Skeptical Groupthink about ATTP

Media Hoar: might I correct you on one point? Science is most definitely NOT one of the tools being used by the Believers, despite their insistence on labelling it so. Arguing with Barf is like trying to knit fog, with almost anything and everything you say being totally misinterpreted or misread, so is something I try to resist doing.

Jan 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, Fog Universal Crochet Knitting, must have been what ATTP was trying to recommend Richard Tol should disappear off and try, but some how it got lost in the abbreviation.

Jan 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Raff

By the way, I take your obvious approval of thread disruption as giving me a free hand for similar behaviour, should I feel inclined.

You write this because you are a troll. You have always attempted to disrupt threads because you are a troll. There's one accepted truth across the entire internet and it's that trolls are scum.

Jan 8, 2016 at 9:15 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/revisionist-history-at-attp/#comment-7226

An interesting exchange between Tom Fuller and Ken "who never bans people" Rice. Once again Raff fails.

Jan 13, 2016 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/and-then-theres-hypocrisy/#comment-1564

Another person to be banned by the great Ken. It's a shame raff cannot use Google

Jan 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Raff kicked of this thread with:

(...) In particular it seems that ATTP is a prime example. Martin A says that ATTP "regularly deletes comments that do not toe the line". (...) Rather, as with the "lies", this seems to be groupthink.
Jan 4, 2016 at 7:20 PM Raff
I think by "groupthink" raff means a widely believed myth which is untrue, rather than what is normally termed groupthink.

I was a bit surprised at Raff's comment, as Rice himself made no secret of what he does and in fact has been critical of the Bish for not deleting stuff that he (Rice) does not like.

I gave, off the cuff, a couple of examples of people banned by Rice. Diogenes has produced more. So no question that Raff was barking up the wrong tree.

Also, no question that Rice is, shall we say, given to rewriting the history of trivial matters.

Jan 13, 2016 at 7:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

aTTP might also wan't to take notice of this shot across the bows of those indulging in extracurricular activity during working hours:

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said a firm that read a worker's Yahoo Messenger chats sent while he was at work was within its rights.

Judges said he had breached the company's rules and that his employer had a right to check on his activities.
Such policies must also protect workers against unfettered snooping, they said.
The judges, sitting in the ECHR in Strasbourg, handed down their decision on Tuesday. It binds all countries that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes Britain.

The worker, an engineer in Romania, had hoped the court would rule that his employer had breached his right to confidential correspondence when it accessed his messages and subsequently sacked him in 2007. [..]

They dismissed the man's request, saying that it was not "unreasonable that an employer would want to verify that employees were completing their professional tasks during working hours".

Jan 13, 2016 at 8:56 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart, if 'outreach work' or similar forms part of his duties , he may be doing exactly what is expected of him.

Jan 13, 2016 at 11:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek, GC. In academia, accounting for ones time is usually fairly open ended. But when it comes to promotions, spending a lot of time blogging/trolling on wholly non work-related issues may not appear to embody serious dedication in the eyes of ones peers.

Jan 14, 2016 at 1:01 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

michael hart, aTTP is not employed by his peers, and as everyone should be aware, how could anyone hope to be his equal anyway? He is the master of his own computer modelled planetary systems.

Jan 14, 2016 at 3:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RAFF begins the thread

People who call themselves skeptics seem to believe as one that official organizations and climate scientists are pathological liars, yet they are unable to identify any lies.

That is a bit strong. I would claim that those who promote global warming certainly pervert the truth, make totally unsubstantiated claims and try to shut down those who disagree with them. Given that I have had a few heated exchanges with the Physics Troll, I can back up my claims with illustrations.
The last exchange was at cliscep, which culminated in Rice making some highly defamatory claims.
As an example of bending the truth consider this statement.

Where in the comments here have I said anything about your ability and bias. What you said in your first comment was utter nonsense. I’ve no idea if this is because you’re biased and somewhat lacking in ability, but that doesn’t change that it was dross.

Apart from the last part of the statement contradicting the first, it seems to go against his comments. For instance here, and later comments. Or here and later comments. Or here and later comments.

Earlier it alleges I say things that are patently untrue. Maybe Raff you can get him to substantiate these claims. Anything that is patently untrue is easy to show why it is untrue. My opinion is that he is an extreme example of a peer reviewed scientific study of internet trolls. See the whole of the cliscep comments to verify my hypothesis.

Mar 2, 2016 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)

And Then There’s Phys.Org

The title of this post comes as a sly reference to a climate weblog known as ‘And Then There’s Physics.’ I’m quite sure the proprietor would approve of the Phys.Org article and struggle to understand this response.

My bolding.

Mar 3, 2016 at 1:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Kevin,
Maybe I'll make a comment, although I doubt it will help. Let's get something clear. I don't discuss you on my blog. I don't mention you on other sites, unless you happen to mention me first. I do respond in a manner similar to the tone you choose to use (although better than you deserve, IMO). Do you expect me to use a different tone to the tone you choose to use (just read your above comment, for example - it's highly insulting)? Also, you accused my comment of being defamatory. Did you reread the one to which I was responding. It was, pure and simple, a character attack. Why do you think it's okay for you to behave in such a way and then complain about my responses. One option is for you to stop writing insulting comments about me in public. I have no problem with you critiquing what I say, but attacking my character is not the same. I don't mind if you choose to do the latter, but if you do then you must understand that I reserve the right to respond. This is not a complicated concept. You could respond in a manner that might lead me to conclude that I've misjudged you. I seriously doubt that you will.


Maybe Raff you can get him to substantiate these claims. Anything that is patently untrue is easy to show why it is untrue.

You make it sound easy. It very obviously is not. The person making the untrue claims has to have the decency and honesty to admit their error. I don't think you do.

Mar 3, 2016 at 7:56 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

The person making the untrue claims has to have the decency and honesty to admit their error
Ken, there are those on here who would argue that that statement simply demonstrates your own lack of self-awareness. I couldn't possible comment!
Your default position is to assume that you are superior to the rest of us, that we are all ignorant (or why would we have the unmitigated brass neck to disagree with you?), that it is your destiny in life to correct our failings (else why would you bother to contribute to a blog that you obviously despise?), and that we are so much your inferior that the normal niceties like good manners don't apply to you.
Your refusal to answer questions, change the subject and generally move the goal posts makes you a frustrating wee bugger!
THAT SAID, I find the idea of dedicating an entire discussion thread to an analysis of your on-line failings and foibles a little uncomfortable, demeaning to us and insulting to you. I had thought our standards were higher and I am disappointed to see this thread still running.
(Truce over!)

Mar 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


I had thought our standards were higher

I've no idea why you think this. I've seen nothing to suggest that it is true. This site appears to specialise at ad homs and insults.

Mar 3, 2016 at 9:51 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Rooooon................................................................................................................................................................................
Yes Eth..........

Mar 3, 2016 at 10:46 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Pot. Kettle.
And I withdraw any attempt at civility that I may inadvertently have allowed to creep into my "normal" behaviour.

Mar 3, 2016 at 11:13 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike,
Do you object to what I said because it's bad manners to have said it, or because you think it isn't true?

Mar 3, 2016 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Ken
In the first place, I don't think it's true. My experience on here is that apart from the occasional rant (to which we are all prone on both sides of the argument) the debate here is conducted in pretty civil tones.
Yes there is abrasion when posters get frustrated that otherwise-minded people refuse — not necessarily to agree — but to accept that neither side has a monopoly on wisdom and (just as a for example) your physics degree does not entitle you or anyone to denigrate our host's chemistry degree.
In the second place there are posters on here whose qualifications are probably every bit as good as yours and every bit as relevant. They also are scientists and human beings and deserve to be treated with the same courtesy that I assume you would wish to be treated with. The fact that the disagree with you about climate does not make them cretins.
Finally, my attempt to restore a bit of civility was quite brusquely thrown back at me. You can call it what you like but it looked to me to be needlessly churlish and ill-mannered. If that's what I get for being polite why should I bother?

Mar 3, 2016 at 3:09 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


Finally, my attempt to restore a bit of civility was quite brusquely thrown back at me.

Well, yes, but I think I've never labelled you in some insulting way (as I'm pretty sure you have me) and you did say "truce over". If you'd rather remain civil and polite, I'm all for it.


If that's what I get for being polite why should I bother?

Maybe you should read your whole comment. If that's what you call polite, we have very different views of polite.

Mar 3, 2016 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

I find the idea of dedicating an entire discussion thread to an analysis of your on-line failings and foibles a little uncomfortable, demeaning to us and insulting to you.

You misunderstand. The thread is titled "Skeptical Groupthink about ATTP" and hence is about the "failings and foibles" of you and your "skeptical" friends. Here's the intro, to save you looking:

People who call themselves skeptics seem to believe as one that official organizations and climate scientists are pathological liars, yet they are unable to identify any lies. Another common thread seems to be that blogs run by people who call those other people "skeptics" don't allow said "skeptics" to comment.

In particular it seems that ATTP is a prime example. Martin A says that ATTP "regularly deletes comments that do not toe the line". Now Martin has commented only once at ATTP and he received a perfectly polite reply, so I don't believe he is talking from personal experience. Rather, as with the "lies", this seems to be groupthink. But here's a chance for others to substantiate this accusation against ATTP.

My working hypothesis is that "skeptics", having no answer when ATTP points out their errors here and elsewhere, see no other option than attacking him personally in order to prevent waverers or visitors from being influenced or from visiting his site.

Mar 3, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

It was blunt and it was honest but if it hadn't been it would have been pointless. I'll leave others to decide whether my interpretation or yours is the correct one.
There is no point in being mealy-mouthed. I have been critical of you in the past and doubtless will be in the future for the reasons I gave in that post. That does not mean that I am in favour of a witch-hunt if for no other reason than it simply serves to confirm the (in my view unjustifiably) low opinion you have of us.

Mar 3, 2016 at 4:08 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Mike,


It was blunt and it was honest but if it hadn't been it would have been pointless.

As is what I said. I will note that I was commenting on the site, not you personally. As with Manic, you seem perfectly comfortable attacking me and my character, but suddenly get all defensive if I respond in a robust fashion, even if my response says nothing about you or your character.


I'll leave others to decide whether my interpretation or yours is the correct one.

Indeed, but you're the one suggesting that I should somehow be less ill-mannered, not me. It seems that you want others to be well-mannered, but you can't be bothered yourself. If you think people should be allowed to be blunt and honest, you should be able to take it as well as dish it out. As far as I can see, you can't. You seem to think that your bluntness is okay because you've defined it as honest, but somehow think someone's else's bluntness is ill-mannered. I will not wait with bated breath for you to ponder this and respond in some thoughtful and reasoned fashion.

Mar 3, 2016 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered Commenter...and Then There's Physics

Another example of Raff's specialist subjects - rejection of evidence he does not like and selective reading.

Mar 3, 2016 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Ken,
You can wait till hell freezes for all I care.
I have already explained in some detail how you are perceived by me and others on this site. I have made it clear in reasonably civil terms that we are unlikely to agree on anything very much and that where I feel the need or the urge to do so I will comment on what you say in terms as robust as I think they deserve.
I don't expect anything different from you. My only intervention in this, apart from an early comment directed at the instigator of this (in my view unnecessarily) personal thread was to point out that whatever my disagreements with you I believed that dedicating an entire thread to the subject of ATTP was impolite and not in keeping with the general standards that, I believe, we normally try to maintain.
It didn't even need a reply from you at all but you chose to make one. And in line with your normal practice you chose to make it less than polite. I am truly sorry if my saying that offends you but it happens to be the truth.
I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree about where bluntness ends and offensiveness begins. You are obviously more of a shrinking violet than I thought since you are the one taking umbrage.
It's water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned.

Mar 3, 2016 at 8:08 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson