Apr 29, 2013
Grinding Axe
seen from Austria
seen from Algeria
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Switzerland
seen from China
seen from Poland
seen from Singapore
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
Grinding Axe
Collegiality and Negative Publicity
Here’s a synopsis of the 10 comments Fan made so far:
A comment about collegiality and the relevance of posting what Nic Lewis seems to consider being negative publicity:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-310975
A comment in response to Sunshine’s irrelevant tu quoque:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-310979
A comment amounting to an admonition of negative publicity, a practice Fan deplores:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-310994
A comment reminding of Willard Tony’s mishap when he hurried to create negative publicity:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311006
A comment reminding of James Hansen’s collegiality:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311031
A comment distinguishing between being right and being collegial in the practice of creating negative publicity:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311036
A comment arguing that negative publicity can be a waste time:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311039
A comment hinting at the fact that there exists public venues to settle scientific issues outside the usual negative publicity circus:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311059
A comment arguing for the relevance of mentioning these public venues regarding the topic of collegiality and negative publicity:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311107
A comment linking to a previous comment:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study-and-misprocessing-of-data-an-update/#comment-311108
It might be a bit premature to invoke a cousin of Pareto’s law in Fan’s case.
Nic Lewis will have a tough time reconciling the practice of negative publicity and collegiality. He could claim politeness, but even then this could deserve due diligence. This is basically a PR venture.
INTEGRITY ™ — Appearance is Everything.
Mind Breadcrumbs
David Rose is on the Mat
What About Willard Tony?
Bishop Epiphany
Words fail me. I believe I am having an epiphany. Here’s what our neutral Bishop says of Deming: > Deming had recently created a temperature reconstruction for the last 150 years, based on boreholes in North America. In his study, he concluded that North America had warmed somewhat in the period since 1850, but had little to say bebond that. This was good, solid science but not the stuff of newspaper headlines. Contrast this with thy Wiki’s page on Deming: > In a 1995 paper published in the academic journal Science, Deming reviewed published analyses of borehole temperature data in North America and concluded “the magnitude of the observed warning…is still within the range of estimated natural variability…a cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activities and climatic warming cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.” Contrasting these two quotes leads to these questions: Q1. Is D95 a review or a reconstruction? Q2. What is D95′s exact conclusion? The second question is interesting, because of what our neutral Bishop’s transition: > [W]ith a storyline of rising temperatures published is such a prestigious publication, he also attracted the notice of some of the most influential people in the global warming industry, who thought who saw in Deming a valuable new recruit to the cause. This is what Deming basically says in his Chrichton essay, not for from when he says being interested in the truth, only but the truth. Or something like that. But look at this other anecdote: > The week the article appeared, I came into my office one morning to find a voicemail message from a reporter for National Public Radio. [Then Deming fantasizes.] But all of my fantasies were immediately dispelled. The reporter focused in on the last sentence in the Science paper. He asked me, did I really mean to say that? Did I really intend to imply that the warming in North America may have been due to natural variability? Without hesitation, I said “yes”. He replied, “Well then, I guess we have no story. That’s not what people are interested in. People are only interested if the warming is due to human activities. Goodbye.” And he hung up on me. It was my first realization that the media intentionally filter the information the public receives. I believe there is a tension in that storyline. The climate industry approaches Deming because of his study. A journalist approaches Deming to confirm that he does not believe in AGW. It seems that the climate industry is being schooled where a journalist is not, don’t you think? *** So here comes the story of my conversion, to echo Keith’s new theme. Until this last week, I thought Deming was exactly the guy portrayed by our good Bishop. But now, reading that tension in the storyline, I was not so sure. That’s why this morning I took a look at thy Wiki’s page for Deming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming Here is a quote from an op-ed he wrote in 1994, a year before the climate industry tried to subdue him: > [T]he Second Amendment safeguards an individual right; the militia consists of people who have a right to keep and bear arms. So Deming seems to have other scientific interests than Galileo and Paracelsus. In any case, his pursuit of the truth seems to lead him in a debate over gun control in The Oklahoma Daily, where he says: > I just want to point out that Kletter’s ‘easy access’ to a vagina enables her to ‘quickly and easily’ have sex with ‘as many random people’ as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let’s hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs. This sounds like an anatomically correct claim. The correctness of that claim in other fields is left as an exercise to the reader. There are many scientific contributions from Deming in his Wiki entry. So here comes my epiphany. I really thought we had finally found a noble scientist solely interested in the truth. Our good Bishop’s storyline made me conclude that. But now, considering some missing evidence, I am not sure anymore. The correctness of our neutral Bishop storyline cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.
Two Political Hit Jobs
By January, with the papers accepted for publication and nearing print, McIntyre was ready to tell the world that he and McKitrick were about to start their fightback [sic]. He hosted up an article on his Climate2003 website announcing the publication of no less than three papers about the Hockey Stick – in GRL, in Energy and Environment and a third article in a Dutch popular science magazine.
They do not say why they published something in NWT. Let’s return to our question. What’s the rationale for the 2 different publications? First, the big Nature blow could not be dealt. Second, by publishing two papers, karaokeed here and there, M&M could amplify the “area of effect” (h/t Marlowe) by using more space and different channels. Third, they could payback a debt they owed. These tactical moves form what I would call a rationale for the publication of these articles. The overall strategy was to **fight back**. This points to a political hit job with some karaoke more than favoritism, favoritism which also points to a political hit job anyway. This interpretation follows from the very material that Nullius cited. I believe that it renders more justice to TCO’s question than Nullius’ minimal reading. I believe it follows quite directly from reading the Bishop’s book. A book which is more obviously an hit job, but for another political sphere. M&M were in a scientific warfare, our good Bishop is into an economic warfare. How our good Bishop hyped his economic warfare deserves due diligence. The Fullerene Law of Climate Blogland requires some pushback.
Times and Lines
August 2011, Judith Curry:
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
In that same thread, Latimer Adler:
Could you explain to an interested layman why this isn’t interesting to you? Seems to be extremely interesting to me.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
June 2012, Latimer Adler:
WTF is Murry Salby?
Ut supra.
Source: http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/15/analyzing-agw-skepticism-missing-the-point/#comment-209794