Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Richard, it is a pity if it ends like this, no gain to all concerned.

If however "many of her facts are still accurate" why is it "Obviously no point in trying to engage on a rational, factual level!"?

Nov 6, 2011 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Shame Donna's upset. I didn't "accuse" her of anything, I just pointed it out (and the tweet she mentions was actually the second time I attempted to do this, because she ignored the first one.)

Also she has chosen to ignore my other tweets to her, including one about her claim in chapter 15 that a paper by myself missed the literature cutoff date - it didn't, and this is very clear by looking at both the paper and the Second Order Draft for WG1 Ch2 which clearly cites the paper as being "in press".

She's also chosen to ignore my tweet where I told her I thought all climate scientists should read the book!

I'm rather disappointed that Donna got's upset - at least I've actually read the book, and I was part-way through composing quite a balanced review (she does make some good points and many of her facts are still accurate, even though I don't agree with the spin she puts on the whole thing) - but I probably won't bother now. Obviously no point in trying to engage on a rational, factual level!

Nov 6, 2011 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

Philip, if this is the only error RB can come up with then that just confirms the rest of the book is on the nose.

Nov 6, 2011 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh

Peer review triumph.

30 years of peer-reviewed fraud.

Nov 6, 2011 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-record

I should have put in the source.

Nov 6, 2011 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

It would appear that Donna Laframboise is unhappy with long-time commenter here, Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre. He accuses her of not checking her sources correctly when in her book she cited the IPCC as a source. Her words are:

I have recently been advised by current IPCC insider Richard Betts that I need to “check more carefully.” My book claims that Lisa Alexander was a 2007 IPCC lead author. Betts says I’m wrong.

So let me get this straight. The IPCC makes an error and Betts says I’m the one who should check more carefully? If the IPCC’s own website can’t be trusted, where should I have looked for the correct list of Chapter 3 authors?

It would be interesting to get Richard's side of the story and for him to tell us from where Donna should have got the correct information and if he has asked the IPCC to correct their error.

Nov 6, 2011 at 7:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Dung: I can't think of any of your posts that the Bish would want to delete. It must have been by mistake - there has been a fair bit of spam here recently. Keep posting.

Nov 6, 2011 at 6:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

OK Bish

Apologies for getting upset.

Nov 5, 2011 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I have had more posts erased in the last 10 days than in the previous 2 years. I accept that some were OT (but no more than others that were not removed) In particular I had a post removed from the DECC's paper on climate statistics topic.
I stated that DECC do not have any statistics and quoted a Lord Monckton FOI request and one of my own. My post was not OT and was not abusive and therefore I object!

[BH adds: I don't remember removing anything like that. Apologies if I have done so. There has been quite a lot of spam again recently, so I've been deleting quite a lot.]

Nov 5, 2011 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

I agree in principle with not feeding trolls though I make an exception on the Unthreaded or Discussion pages because we're not interfering with the main business of the site. I agree that Zed is allowed to get away with quite a lot but I don't think Andrew is playing favourites; I reckon he's just being as tolerant as possible though he has recently done a bit of snipping as you've probably noticed.
My worry is that trolling can totally disrupt threads (which is usually a troll's purpose) and one or two regular posters have indicated that they're losing patience. If it gets to the point where knowledgeable contributors are frightened away then the troll thinks it's won. In reality of course we all lose but it hasn't the wit to understand why that is.
You could be right about it being a spotty adolescent. Certainly there is a lot of self-righteous anger in there and more than a little arrogance and an urge to be seen to know it all. Though it obviously doesn't, as witness its rapid disappearance when it either gets bored or realises it's lost the argument.

Nov 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>