Wednesday, November 2, 2016

How Is Peter Gleik a Genius?


I've been blocked on Twitter from viewing Peter Gleik's tweets. Here's the tweet I retweeted and commented on:

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Amazon Deletes my Comments to Shawn Otto

Checking out the new reviews to Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, I found a short review by a name I recognized. I vaguely remember listening to at least one interview of Shawn Otto by Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry. Checking around, I find that Otto has a has a new book out called The War on Science. The review, entitled A Must Read, reads like a short blurb:
An insightful account of a major global challenge from one of the leading scientists at the center of the storm. A must read.
I saw this as a chance to give one of Mann's enablers a piece of my mind, so I fired off this fire breathing comment in the form of a letter:

[Update: (7-21-16) A comment that I made with a link to this post has been deleted.]

[Update:(10-10-16) I wrote an Amazon review that panned Otto's latest book.]

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Mark Jacobson has Blocked Me on Twitter

Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor with all the 100% renewable energy studies and a reputation for blocking critics on Twitter, has finally blocked me. When I tried to follow Michael Mann, it took about a nanosecond for him to block me. But for a small fry like me to get blocked by Jacobson, I've had to work extra hard. In one tweet I called him "the ├╝ber crackpot". I think this is the tweet that finally did it:



Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Clean Techo Chamber

An outfit called Clean Technica, which claims it "is the #1 cleantech-focused website in the US and the world according to Compete.com and Quantcast.com" has rejected a comment by me to a post about Mark Jacobson, the Stanford professor with all the 100%  renewable energy studies. here's my comment:
Mark Jacobson is a crackpot! He's famous for larding the carbon footprint of nuclear power with soot from future nuclear wars. His original Scientific American study proposes hydrogen for transportation. He's now touting cryogenic airplanes. He's clueless about how impractical actually using hydrogen is. He also appears to be cherrypicking capacity numbers over generation ones. And Amory Lovins is being very disingenuous touting Germany's renewable generation. Bjorn Lomborg sucinctly [sic] demolishes their wind and solar claims:
 
Well, I called Jacobson a crackpot and accused Amory lovins of being disingenuous. Is this ample justification for canning my comment? I think I provided plenty of examples to back up my claims. There are seven comments that all pretty much fawn over Jacobson. Here's a ridiculous quote by commenter Freddy D:
Mark Jacobsen shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the worlds primary energy needs can be met with wind, water, and solar.

Links:

http://cleantechnica.com/

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/31/mark-jacobson-transitioning-100-renewable-economy/

http://cleantechnica.com/cleantechnica/

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_rkWUn9Hxhy/

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Anders Finally Cans One of My Comments


Well, I don't know if it was ANDthenthEReSphysics, but who ever the moderator was, he just wouldn't let this slip by:
I included Cwon14's quote because of how well it expresses the outrage a lot of people feel about the field. It is really unfortunate that this debate no longer appears to be available on the web. It exposes Trenberth as an example of science politization at its worst. I'm absolutely unsurprised that he signed the RICO letter. It looks like the chickens may be coming home to roost on that one.
BBD:
"The politics comes in when right wingers make politically-motivated attacks on the science because they don’t like the policy implications. "
There's some truth in that, but there is also some truth in a sort of correlary [sic]that left wingers defend "The Science" because they like the policy implications. In fact they might even make politically-motivated attacks on science that refutes some of "The Science", such as papers by "McIntyre and McKitrick" or "lewis and Curry" or blog posts that show how incompetent and ethically challenged Stefan Lewandowsky and John Cook are.
[Update:  8 hours later I see my previous 2 comments are canned. More in a later post


]

Saturday, May 7, 2016

I Miss Don Monfort

The climate blogosphere is full of  interesting and quirky characters and one boisterous, prolific example  has lately gone absent. Don Monfort is  a big (6' 4"), rich (apparently from investments) Vietnam Veteran. He's been very active on the presidential discussion threads at Judith Curry's Climate Etc. touting Donald Trump. In Presidential Discussion Part 4 he got in some very heated arguments with commenter Dump Trump Now. Things got very nasty with macho challenges to meet at a prescribed place and time and legal threats. A lot of comments have been deleted. As of this writing, the Presidential Discussion threads are up to part seven and Monfort hasn't been seen since.

Monday, February 22, 2016

My Shrill, Fire Breathing Rant to Andrew Revkin is in Moderation

From this post from the NCSE blog, I found a link to an article by Andrew Revkin. It's a long, rambling account of his personal journey through the climate issue. Now Revkin is more respected than most climate  writers by climate skeptics and lukewarmers and has even angered some people on the alarmist side such as Joe Romm. Still, I see him as part of the big government, academic and press climate establishment and I think he ignores a lot of legitimate concerns. So I wrote a rather long shrill comment in order to give him a  piece of my mind. It was immediately put into moderation.

(Update: I asked Revkin if he would allow or axe my comment in a tweet and he liked the tweet, but still left my comment in moderation. I just cleaned up the typos and resubmitted my comment. I also tweeted my question again.

https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike/status/703673534577565696
)

(Further Update: Made new hashtag. 
)

Here's my comment (as it appeared with all its typos):

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Part of Disappeared Parody Review Found

In this post some time ago I lamented the disappearance of a parody Amazon review of Michael Mann's book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

Why Is My Two Star Amazon Review Ranked Last?

When Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway's book, The Collapse of Western Civilizationcame out, I immediately purchased a Kindle copy of this short inexpensive book, because I wanted to write one of the first Amazon reviews of it. My review turned out to be the sixteenth one of the current total of 288. I gave it two stars, even though I really dislike their writing, because I felt it gave a concise look at their views. It has one comment by me where I included some non-Amazon links (Amazon does not allow them in a review). There are 31 two star reviews (11% of the total). The other day I thought I'd check how I was ranking and was surprised to find that my review was ranked dead last among two star reviews!

Now since I'm very critical of these two authors, I don't expect to get a very high ratio of helpful votes. But among the two star reviews, mine was clearly the longest. How did I end up dead last? So I made a table of the two star reviews that includes rank, helpful votes, total votes, the ratio of helpful to total votes and the number of lines of text that appear on my laptop screen, excluding blank lines between paragraphs.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Lysenkoism in Nature's Comments

Well maybe "Lysenkoism" is too strong a word, but it's really irritating when the winner of the Lukewarmers Way's coveted Climate Blogger of the Year Award, Brad Keyes, has his comments deleted -- and they were really good pithy comments! They were in this Nature post by,...  by transparent charlatan, Stefan Lewandosky and someone else. Well, anyway, I made copies of the comments for myself,  so here's a (sort of) cleaned up list of Brad's comments:

Update:  Cleaned up spacing to make it more readable.