You are using co-conspirator Chrisopher Monckton cited on a major climate science denialist site to make a claim about Willie Soon’s “innocence”? Very funny.Now Greg Laden is a rather bellicose CAGW proponent, who most climate skeptics and lukewarmers would consider big game. So I had a great time and even posted a comment at WUWT Tips & Notes. Prominent commenters, Tom Fuller, Smokey and Brad Keyes jumped in. Lots of fun! I suspect Fuller found this thread, because I linked to one of his posts. It's happened before.
Now on to the subject of snark.
I got into a long exchange with a commenter named JW. JW mentioned having comments put in moderation and I also had some put in moderation, but they eventually got posted. I think this was perfectly understandable since we were drifting a bit off the main topic. JW made a long comment with a lot of links that included a nice list of my previous web writings on Michael Mann. After I responded to some of these links and everything had died down, I thought I,d go over three links at the beginning of JW's (I'm trying not to use a gender specific pronoun) comment, and I decided that they needed a response. Here's my first (snark dyed) attempt:
JW. These three links need a response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#McIntyre_and_McKitrick_2003
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The first one is a long wikipedia entry that contains a stunning amount of spin. For an entry that spends a considerable amount of verbiage on PCA, one name is conspicuously absent. Ian Jolliffe is an expert and was a peer reviewer on at least one of the papers involved. This is what he said about Mann's "modern" centered PCA (This Wiki entry actually even uses the term!):
"I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally."
The whole thing is at this post:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/
Sometimes zelious activists get a hold of Wiki entries. One person who became well known for this is William Connolly who has a blog called Stoat (named after a type of weisel). He edited thousands of climate entries before having his editing status downgraded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/wiki-wars/
One thing that caught my eye, is that it says Mann's assistant sent McIntyre data as a "text file" which is true. What this entry on the "hockey stick controversy" did not seem to think was "contoversial" enough, was that David Appell's article falsely claimed McIntyre had requested the data as a spreadsheet and that it had been mistakenly copied. Mann leaked this to Appell about a nanosecond after McIntyre and McKitrick's paper came out.
JW, about your second link. Jesus Christ! It's the Jesus paper. You can read an excellent account here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
The third link is to Skeptical Science, which has a reputation for being run by biased activists. Something that is not widely known outside climate circles is that someone who follows the climate blogs went through the sites pages that were open to the public and found some of its editors (including founder John Cook) admitting how bad the hockey stick was:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/It did not make it out of moderation. So I toned it down and tried again:
I would really like to respond to JW's three links. I have removed the snark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#McIntyre_and_McKitrick_2003
http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The first one is a long wikipedia entry that contains a stunning amount of spin. For an entry that spends a considerable amount of verbiage on PCA, one name is conspicuously absent. Ian Jolliffe is an expert and was a peer reviewer on at least one of the papers involved. This is what he said about Mann's "modern" centered PCA (This Wiki entry actually even uses the term!):
"I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally."
The whole thing is at this post:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/
Sometimes zelious activists get a hold of Wiki entries. One person who became well known for this is William Connolly who has a blog called Stoat. He edited thousands of climate entries before having his editing status downgraded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/wiki-wars/
One thing that caught my eye, is that it says Mann's assistant sent McIntyre data as a "text file" which is true. What this entrie on the "hockey stick controversy" did not deem "contoversial" enough, was that David Appell's article falsly claimed McIntyre had requested the data as a spreadsheet and that it had been mistakenly copied. Mann leaked this to Appell right after McIntyre and McKitrick's first paper came out.
JW, about your second link. This is sometimes referred to as the "Jesus paper". You can read an excellent account here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
The third link is to Skeptical Science, which is thought by many to be run by biased activists. I tend to find their summaries on subjects I'm familiar with to be rather short. Something that is not widely known outside climate circles is that someone who follows the climate blogs went through the sites pages that were open to the public and found some of its editors (including founder John Cook) admitting how bad the hockey stick was:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/Still no luck. After things died down, I finally went over the remaining snark with a fine toothed comb and got it posted.
In response to these three links posted by JW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#McIntyre_and_McKitrick_2003http://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdfhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The first one is a long Wikipedia entry that contains a large amount of spin. For an entry that spends a considerable amount of verbiage on PCA, one name is conspicuously absent. Ian Jolliffe is an expert and was a peer reviewer on at least one of the papers involved. This is what he said about Mann’s method of PCA:
“I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally.”
The whole thing is at this post:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/
Sometimes zealous activists get a hold of Wiki entries. One person who became well known for this is William Connolly who has a blog called Stoat. He edited thousands of climate entries before having his editing status downgraded.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/wiki-wars/
One thing that caught my eye, is that it says Mann’s assistant sent McIntyre data as a “text file” which is true. What this entry on the “hockey stick controversy” did not deem worthy to include was that David Appell’s article falsely claimed McIntyre had requested the data as a spreadsheet and that it had been mistakenly copied. Mann leaked this to Appell right after McIntyre and McKitrick’s first paper came out.
JW, about your second link. This is sometimes referred to as the “Jesus paper”. You can read an excellent account here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
The third link is to Skeptical Science, which is thought by many to be run by biased activists. I tend to find their summaries on subjects I’m familiar with to be rather short. Something that is not widely known outside climate circles is that someone who follows the climate blogs went through the sites pages that were open to the public and found some of its editors (including founder John Cook) admitting they thought the ’98 hockey stick paper was invalid:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/
About Snark
Now by snark, I mean clever, witty put downs and not nasty, ad hominem insults and name calling. I've heard people say that they don't appreciate snark, but I think deep down they love it. Look at the popularity of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I've noticed that the warmists do not appear to be very good at it. Here's the only memorable snark I can think of directed at me:
Poor Mann. Made a Fellow of Ametsoc and the AGU. Made a Distinguished Professor. All those awards.
It would seem Canman can't, man.That even stings a little. In my family, I'm the crazy uncle who likes to collect cans. That came from a post as DeSmogBlog. I had to find it in my DISQUS comments (link). The post appears to have been deleted. Hmmm, could this be a topic for another post?
At Climate Etc, a regular called Pokerguy, often makes remarks about how all the cool guys, the good writers, are all on the skeptic side, while the warmists remind him of Captain Queeg from the The Caine Mutiny. I've also heard a saying that conservatives think liberals are stupid, while liberals think conservatives are evil. Could this translate into climate skeptics, who tend to be more conservative using clever snark and warmists, who are clearly overwhelmingly liberal, using ad hominem attacks? I suspect that in many cases, it's easier to think of clever snark when the truth is on your side.
List of Links
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/willie-soon-be-gone/
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/willie-soon-be-gone/#comments
http://www.skeptic.com/insight/willie-soon-be-gone/#comment-38158
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-3/#comment-1880951
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/
http://climatenuremberg.com/
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/desmogblog/mcintyre_profile/#comment-1719962246
http://judithcurry.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment