Thursday
Aug042011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mashive attack
Aug 4, 2011 Climate: other John Mashey and friend have been given space in the Chronicle of Higher Education to respond to Peter Wood's articles about Mashey's antics.
Reader Comments (300)
Picasso would be a good head for the IPCC if he were alive
"I have never heard of any credible blogger/poster making the claim that "all climate science is wrong" - Mike.
Well you mustn't be paying much attention.
There was a post here just a few weeks ago featuring Monckton, with much fawning over his brilliance. And he says that AGW is a 'fraud' and a 'scam'. He claims that climate sensitivity is 1 deg and that everyone who says otherwise is wrong (which is just about everyone). He's an "expert in climate sensitivity", or so he says.
"Pompous liar" - there's no doubt he's a liar, so you just object to him being described as 'pompous'? Your perogative, but it's relevant from Emmanual's reminder;
"Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique."
Pompous windbag is also accurate.
David S,
You miss the point...deliberately?
There's no problem with anyone with no particular experience, summarising accurately the findings of the relevant experts.
Huge problems arise when the same non-expert starts pontificsting on how the experts are wrong. Sceptics at this point, hear alarm bells ringing, and check the cliamant and their cliams, very very carefully. The credulous believe it all in an instant because they wish it to be true.
You need to read Emmanual's piece in NAS. This is exactly what he is talking about.
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1444
Michael -
Do you really think that name calling is an argument? Or persuasive?
But AGW - whatever that is - is a fraud and a scam.
Monckton, your friendly neighbourhood non-scientist, pointed out that the fradulent IPCC graph, which purports to show an accelerating temperature rise in the 20th century - is a fraud.
A lie, a con, an outright fabrication.
Tell me, Michael, why would the IPCC have the need to present this lying graph, if its case was strong?
HaroldW,
Calling a spade a spade is useful.
Monckton is a charlatan.
People who call themselves sceptics should be highly embarrassed to have been taken in by his nonsense.
John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around chronically posting at various sites. I once had debate with him about the meaning of science because I believe there is a lot of science done in the private sphere and he argued it wasn't science at all. I later learned that his title at a software maker was Chief Scientist. Unsurprisingly the firm went cactus when he was there. I can't even bear to read his name.
Double, grovelling apologies to the Bishop, for I posted this slightly O/T comment on the wrong thread. Duh-oh.
Anyway, regarding Monckton, his appearance on TV3 this morning was measured, reasonable and honest. The only opponent they could get to appear after him was not only hopeless but lied. He was asked what would happen in 25 years if NZ hadn't adopted the ETS. He said temperatures would rise by 1ºC with all sorts of terrible impliatons. Yeah, right.
Here's the skinny:
Viscount Monckton has just appeared on TV here, on TV3's Saturday morning current affairs show, The Nation. I only heard he was here because of another news piece saying every scientist in NZ refused to debate with him, and that's how they started the piece with Monckton - Manning from Wellington had refused to debate him or even appear. So here's how it went.
Monckton was excellent - measured, informative, authoritative and articulate. Sean Plunket - NZ's Paxman - didn't land a blow. Monckton had a reasoned, factual answer for everything. Apart from calling Federated Farmers 'United Farmers' and mispronouncing Whangarei, he was magnificent. Plunket seemed quietly impressed.
Next up, Prof Glenn McGregor of Auckland University, interviewed separately. The chance to diss Monckton and demolish his (seemingly plausible) arguments. Oh no. It didn't go like that at all. McGregor's body language was defensive, he appeared shifty. He couldn't disagree with most of what Monckton said and was played back to him. Plunket looked like he'd got a good fish on the line. McGregor has hesitating, unconvincing and vague. The only factual argument he used was a whopping lie - that if we didnlt introduc ethe ETS, NZ would warm by over 1ºC in the next 25 years (if he's still around, it might be good to revist that with him). Plunket's questions over adaptation vs mitigation, a la Monckton, were met with evasion and bland appeals. The usua guff about 'we're not good enough at communicating...' Hopeless.
No wonder no-one on the warmist side want to debate him. They'd get shredded.
It's not up yet but you might be able to watch it on demand soon:
http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/?ref=un
Michael,
I'm afraid it is your aggressive rudeness, a feature common among so many warmists, and fortunately quite rare on this blog, that makes the uncommitted come down on the side of scepticism.
Michael has played the roll of "troll" effectively in that 17 out of 57 or about 30% of the comments that were made at the time of my count were either by him or in response to him which diverted too much of the discussion away from Mashey's intemperate response to Peter Wood. Michael's diversions are not worth the time it would take to do a word count but he was far wordier than the responders.
When in doubt, remember the first rule of dealing with a troll, "Don't Feed the Troll."
""I have never heard of any credible blogger/poster making the claim that "all climate science is wrong" - Mike.
Well you mustn't be paying much attention."
If you make assertions like this it is usual to point to your source. Monckton, "pompous liar" as he is, uses climate science to rebut the CAGW theory. We're a wide church us sceptics but the basic tenet of the church are:
1. CO2 is a GHG, but it's effect in a chaotic system is poorly understood. So, all things being equal, a rise in temperature should occur with a rise in CO2. Having spent nearly $100bn on climatic research we still don't understand the relationship and cannot predict temperature rises with CO2 rises.
2. As you're new I'll explain that all climate scientists (well probably all, there are always outriders) believe that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times will result in a harmless rise in temperature of 1C. The dispute betweenclimate sceptics(many of them working cimate scientists) and the IPCC supporting climate scientists is whether this will trigger positive feedback resulting in a further 2-3.5C rise in temperature. Again there is no scientific proof for these feedbacks, they are assumptions fed into the models.
3. Running scenarios in models isn't science. The models giving us the pictures of doom, can't model the past without including CO2 non-existent in the records. They cannot model the twentieth century without the inclusion of unrecorded aerosols to get the temperatures down. The models, every one, underestimate the outgoing longwave radiation, the observations are showing higher OLR than the models predict, the scientific papers for this claim are from climate scientists Lindzen and Spencer. Finally Trenberth himself on two occasions now, in June 2006 on his Nature blog and more recently, has described the devestating shortfalls in the model in excrutiating detail. He's a lead author for the IPCC and a leading modeller.
That's it, sceptics don't deny climate change, it's normal, they challenge the science and it's relatively easy to do if you keep away from the minutiae of all the other arguments about sea-ice extent, the MWP, glaciers melting etc.
Now if you wouldn't mind providing us with the evidence you have that there are sceptics who claim that "all climate science is wrong", we can settle the matter like scientists, with evidence.
Still waiting for the response to my question about Prof Emmanuel keeping silent about Trenberth mis-representing himself as a hurricane expert and then putting a forecast for more frequent and intense tropical storms as a result of AGW, when Emmanuel, and lots of others being fed at IPCC teat knew that the scientific literature didn't support that assertion. Given the immense cost we're already bearing "fighting" rises in CO2 don't you think it's morally reprehensible for climate scientists to stay quiet in the face of such mendacity?
@RayG Aug 6, 2011 at 8:04 AM wrote:
I quite agree; although, in fairness, it might be worth considering a "three strikes and you're out" principle: i.e. give the troll three chances to redeem her/himself, but after that ... no more "food":-)
But back to Mashup ... sorry ... Mashey ...
Peter J. wrote [re Mashey]:
Not to mention far from being a clear-thinker! I've tried wading through his Wegman opus - and his latest "analysis". The mind positively boggles. And not too long ago, I made the mistake of subjecting myself to watching a "presentation" Mashey had made (courtesy of the BC gov't funded "Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions").
Clearly Mashey's forté does not lie in accuracy, brevity or clarity.
@ Aug 5, 2011 at 9:26 PM | Dreadnought
Martin Brumby
Nobody is laughing, but I expect Horatio Chapple's family is weeping. You should be ashamed of yourself.
No, actually, the people who should be ashamed are the ones who send 17 year old Eton schoolboys (NOT "Young Explorers" as they try to spin it) into a place of great danger to 'study the effects of Climate Change'.
Despite the BBC & Grauniad claiming that lack of ice (=global warming) was to blame, Norwegian experts suggest that more ice than expected had allowed even more polar bears than usual into the area. It is also a matter of fact that at least one kid had had to be evacuated through frostbite and it is suggested that trip wires around the camp had frozen solid.
What would be said about someone putting a tent full of schoolkids in an area frquented by tigers? I regret any loss of life, especially a kid. But I hope the organisers of this "adventure" find themselves in court.
And if the thermageddonists hadn't started all this cAGW nonsense then we'd have one more young Etonian. And another polar bear.
That's it, is it? I'm only allowed to grovel at the feet of your "experts" and tell them how clever they are unless I have some qualification of which you (presumably) approve. In your dreams, son.
Did none of your teachers explain that science is not done by kow-towing to "experts"? That is called religion. "Summarising accurately the findings of the relevant experts" is a meaningless concept in science. For a start the chances are the "experts" don't agree and it's when they claim that they do and try to force a consensus that intelligent people hear alarm bells ringing. To be going on with there are numerous examples throughout history of those outside the "relevant experts" union making important discoveries — relativity and tectonic plates are just two of the more important examples.
And you only make yourself look silly when you try to pick examples of people you disapprove of making statements you happen to disagree with.
Monckton is quite correct, as geronimo has explained for you above, that the forcing effect for a doubling of CO2 is 1C. Nobody disagrees with that; insofar as there is such a thing as settled science in this field that is it. The dispute — and there is a dispute so which "experts" am I supposed to listen to, please? — is whether the feedback is positive or negative or neutral. 3.5C is a worst case scenario. 0.5C is equally possible.
It would be rude of me to suggest you grow up and come back when you know what you're talking about but from the way you behave it really is very tempting.
Mike Jackson, mon brave, don't hold your breath. There's a good chance that 'Michael' turns out to be a toe-dipping troll in Bishop Hill waters. A while ago we had Ricky Beds Kate or whatever his name was, who turned out to be a serial fruit loop on climate blogs.
Michael doesn't seem to have progressed much from a few credulous visits to 'skepticalscience'.
Martin Brumby
It was the tone of your comment that I objected to.
I expect we do not have any serious disagreements on the issues. As for the facts, I prefer to wait until the Norwegian authorities have completed their investigations.
You closed your original comment with a quotation. Allow me to do the same.
“Any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” (John Donne)
Mike,
It's pretty simple stuff.
I need zero expertise myself to accurately repeat the overall findings of any group of scientists.
To claim they are all wrong, when I lack any obvious expertise or competence in the feild - well that's whole different kettle of fish. And let's be clear here, I don't mean saying - 'I'm not convinced yet'. That's an appropriately sceptical response. It's when they claim the scientists have it all wrong. That's an extraordinary claims and needs some pretty good evidence to back it, not just hot air and a rhetorical florish, ala Monckton.
No one has said it better than Kerry Emanual, so I'll just refresh your memory,
"But it turns out that there are not enough mavericks in climate science to meet the media’s and blogosphere’s insatiable appetite for conflict. Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists. These are a toxic brew of retired physicists, TV weather forecasters, political junkies, media hacks, and anyone else willing to tell an interviewer that he/she is a climate scientist. Typically, they have examined some of the more easily digestible evidence and, like good trial lawyers, cherry-pick that which suits their agendas while attacking or ignoring the rest. Often, they are a good deal more articulate than actual scientists, who usually prefer doing research to honing rhetorical technique. Intelligent readers/viewers should demand to know the actual scientific backgrounds of these posers and recognize that someone with a background in particle physics or botany may in fact know very little about climate science. Does he/she have a background in atmospheric physics? Can they answer elementary questions about radiative and convective heat transfer, or about the circulation of the ocean and atmosphere? More precisely, does their expertise actually bear on the particular points they are making? It may sound elitist these days, but there is a point to credentials."
OK, Michael, but why not go and read this piece:
Well, I mean, like .... That's Nurse and Jones put in their place for a start! Or is that different because they agree with him?http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/kerry-emanuel-and-richard-lindzen-the-climatic-odd-couple/
Emanuel and Lindzen both used to be sceptical on the global warming dangers then they parted company. This posting is a worthwhile read for that.
So why should I believe either one of these rather than the other? I do not need a PhD in atmospheric physics or meteorology to look at the science and ask questions. It's what sceptics do.
I reckon that your quote from Emanuel is from a guy who is a bit confused. He used to be a sceptic; now he has "seen the light", rather like a born-again Christian, and proceeds to vilify those who don't agree with his new belief. (Bit like you've been doing ;-))
I'm not saying he's wrong but the similarity between that conversion and that of the born-again Christian and the subsequent attitude to those with whom he might previously have agreed is quite remarkable.
If you are studying ancient proxies and trying to draw conclusions the one discipline that is vital is statistics. Yet climate scientists have proved time and again that by and large they know ****-all about statistics. But when somebody like McKittrick points out where they have gone wrong ...
And Emanuel doesn't mention statisticians in his little diatribe, does he? Nor, apparently, does he include physicists, geologists, biologists, palaeontologists, dendrochronologists (if Briffa had he might not have made the mistakes he did about bristlecone pines — especially the difference between whole-bark and strip-bark) and other disciplines which also have a highly relevant input into climate research. No, as far as Emanuel is concerned if you don't have a PhD in atmospheric physics or meteorology then you have nothing to contribute to the debate!
What was it I said earlier about tightly closed minds?
geronimo,
You might be barking up the wrong tree.
Trenberth has around half dozen articles in the peer reviewed literature on hurricanes. Others certainly have more, but he's hardly venturing into territory outside his expertise.
Most of the rest of your post is similiarly mistaken.
Mike,
I think you're misunderstanding what Emanuel is saying.
He's demanding scepticism. But some people are apparently having a great deal of trouble with the idea that we should be sceptical of the so-called 'climate skeptics'.
Why shouldn't we be very sceptical when an ex-journalist and politcal advisor proclaims himself an "expert in climate sensitivty" and says that all the actual experts in the feild are wrong??
Again, it's pretty simple. If someone makes claims about topic X, it's pretty reasonable to ask what their background is. If they have a PhD in the feild, have authored books on the topic and are heavily cited in the literature, we might give much more weight to their view, than if they were a retired lawyer who had been reading some blogs on the topic.
Michael,
your statement about whose views ought to be given, more weight, is wrong.
Do you have anything to say about John Mashey?
I understand your argument and I have little time for some of the "sceptics" who see anything that casts even the slightest doubt on the global warming "faith" as a cause for rejoicing and a sign that the end is nigh.
Though you might like to ask yourself why they have got to that stage and ask whether the refusal of the hardline warmists in refusing to engage, explain or make their work replicable might have something to do with it. "Why should I give you the data when you only want to find something wrong with it?" is not an acceptable approach to science of any sort but especially in a field where the taxpayer is the paymaster and where we are being asked to make some very big sacrifices as individuals on the say-so of the likes of Jones and Mann!
And to say that Monckton (or you or me) is incapable of studying the subject and reaching the conclusion that enough of the research is flawed is to place a considerable amount of faith in a very small coterie of individuals who (as I have just pointed out) do not have all the answers about climate.
I don't think Emanuel has the right to limit who is allowed to be a sceptic to those he approves of. And this is what it comes back to — climate scientists only prepared to listen to those who agree with them.
Not good enough!
Michael: "Calling a spade a spade is useful."
I agree that, having arrived logically at a conclusion, one should not shy away from it. But in this case, you've pronounced Wood to be a "charlatan". (To return to the topic of this post.)
Apparently the evidence for this is Dr Kerry Emanuel's article, specifically this line: "Thus into the arena steps a whole host of charlatans posing as climate scientists." Here is Dr Wood:
I don't think you have made your point. To interject gratuitous insults in another direction merely reduces your credibility, at least in my opinion, but let's try to stay on topic, which is Drs Wood and Mashey.
Thanks Shrub.
John Mashey - nice work. You know who his co-author is don't you?
For those of a fundamentally independent (a.k.a. skeptical) intellectual orientation, the climate science events leading up to climategate and since, there are no cathartic events. We expect new info to occur in science and culture. We are open to it and are very pleased by it. We can be relatively serene.
For the so-called IPCC consensus, over the same time period, there has been a series of cathartic events. They have not sustained intellectual balance. They appear to have increasing intellectual aggression from a defensive position. I envision a person pressed intellectually back against a wall who is escalating her/his aggression when receiving more intellectually criticism.
Thus, we can understand the extreme, unbalanced and postulating behavior on the open blogs by certain acolytes of the so-called IPCC consensus. I think in the near and long term they will experience increasingly frequent and more severe cathartic events. So, I conclude we can expect even more extreme and intellectually violent behavior from the acolytes of the so-called IPCC consensus.
We must be patient in our response to the acolytes of the so-called IPCC consensus.
John
Mike,
I don't think Emanuel is doing that at all, his list was just an example. He's simply saying that if you to know about plant distributions, you're more likely to get good information from an ecologist than a physicist, and if you want to know about GCMs, a climate modeller/physicist is a better bet than a paleontologist or a biologist.
And if you've got someone with no formal science training or experience telling you they know more about 'X' than all the scientists in that feild - beware! Be sceptical.
Martin
> I hope the organisers of this "adventure" find themselves in court.
Indeed. I wonder if the consent form included the clause 'polar bears can be dangerous'? If it didn't, there may be some explaining to do. (It might usefully have added that their numbers are not dwindling and they're not at all cuddly, but that might have put people off.)
Like you, I can separate the personal tragedy from the irony of the situation. The Darwin Awards can be amusing, too.
And going as per Kerry Emmanuel's own standards, when Trenberth misrepresented himself as a hurricane expert, he gave a false statement, I did not see Emmanuel correcting him or stating that Trenberth as a non-expert had no business to make that statement. Instead he gave that statement a sneaky pass. So Kerry Emmanuel has proven to be unreliable in his proclamations as he practices double standards in his judgements based upon whether as person is for or against AGW.. Should he be called as a Charlatan? And by Michael's own logic since he is heartily endorsing Kerry Emmanuel, should be also be included in that description?
Michael: "John Mashey - nice work. You know who his co-author is don't you?"
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Let's check out Mashey's co-author Dr Coleman. Anyone who attempts to perfect margaritas earns a warm spot in my heart. And according to his CV, he has a ton of biochemistry papers to his credit. All in all, impressive scientific credentials. But I don't see any publishing history in climate science. You aren't trying to paint him with Emanuel's brush, are you?
Perhaps you could be less elliptical. Although it's better than being hyperbolic.
Venter,
Appreciate your views.
I suggest there are alternate words, other than charlatan, to apply to the type of people you discussed. The alternate words exist in the philosophical realm. The type of people of being those who exempt their own behavior from the standards of integrity that they apply to others,
Here are some candidate philosophical words or expressions for those kind of people:
NOTE: #5 is my favorite words to apply to those type of people.
1) They are Philosopher King Elitists (a la Plato) to whom rules they apply to society do not apply to themselves.
2) They are Pragmatic Social Engineers (a la William James), in this case advocating experimentation with integrity as justified if it is for the common good of saving the world from skeptics.
3) They are useful Subjective Scientific Opportunists for managing wickedly risky reality (a la Ravetz of PNS fame).
4) They are the post-modern ‘Rational Man ( a la Kant ) who will do anything out of mere Duty (to save the world) as the criteria for doing right . . . with Hegel being Kant’s heir and Hegel being beloved by German leadership in the first 45 years of the 20th century.
5) They are the Nihilists of Science' (a la Friedrich Nietzsche) who think that since they are nothing and there is nothing . . . this aCO2 climate science is all like an internal virtual game where there are no limits on having integrity.
Anyone have any other philosophical examples of these types of people?
John
Michael
could just, just possibly apply in other places than where he is aiming it!Oh, I am sceptical, believe me. What I am most sceptical of is people who believe they have a monopoly on truth (science isn't about truth) and feel that they can put their fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la when somebody else comes along with a different version of their "truth".
You're almost right in what you say but if I want to know about GCMs I'll ask a climatologist and a computer modeller, and if UEA had done a bit more of that then poor old Harry might not have had the problems he did trying to sort out their crap code. If I want to know about tree rings I will ask the advice of a dendrochronologist who will tell me that bristlecone pines are not reliable temperature proxies and if I want to draw conclusions from a range of data I will enlist the aid of a statistician and it's a pity they didn't do more of that.
And as a wet-behind-the-ears scientist with his PhD still shiny bright I would not produce a paper that tells everyone the MWP didn't exist without being very, very sure that my data were 110% bomb-proof.
I hope you see where I'm coming from ... and also where I'm going, because Emanuel's
'Nice work'? 'Mashey's co-author'?
What are you talking about Michael? Maybe that is difficult to decipher, because you are not saying anything much.
It is always, a predictable feature, that even on the occasion of the worst behaviour of the consensus, there will be someone to defend it.
Let us recall, Michael's troll tactics: calling Monckton names in a post about Mashey
How did Monckton enter the equation?
Because Mashey resorted to attacking Wood's praise for Monckton, by publishing a picture of the Nazi allusion.
If Monckton had more to say, or had given thought to the effectiveness of his points against Stern - as opposed to merely drawing parallels that are only too evident - he wouldn't have used the Nazi allusion.
What Mashey's doing here is different. He is saying: "hey look. Monckton is the guy who talks about Nazis. And Wood's praising him". Both - Michael and Mashey - therefore, have nothing of substance to bring forward against Peter Wood's main argument put forth in his 'Climate Thuggery' article. If they had that, we would hearing about them, wouldn't we?
It is a tragedy that we have to waste time arguing against the non-sequiturs brought forward by individuals of limited imagination.
I suppose Michael, whole heartedly endorses such tactics - from individuals with similar restraints on their imagination.
Wood had several penetrating observations in Thuggery article. These are aspects those of us who are part of the online climate debate are familiar with:
On ceding all, to the experts:
On specialization in science:
On dissent and discourse, in the climate debate:
On the propensities of the consensus:
On the advice that has been given freely, to the consensus, for years now:
New Troll (or old one with new handle) said:
I don't know. How do you need 'zero expertise' to know they are right, but tons of it to know they are wrong? Definitely a know-nothing guy/gal. I bet decision-making in your house is a gas!
Which appears to be Michael's position also, He is quite happy that the great unwashed should sit at the feet of the gods and learn from them. No thought as to what we all do if the gods turn out to be wrong. And how do we deal with those, like Lindzen and Spencer, and the Pielkes, who are just as well qualified as the gods but possess a little more humility and a different point of view?
Where do they fit into this scenario?
Michael,
1. The experts usually get it wrong. Especially about predicting the future. See Philip Tetlock's research or Dan Gardner's book, "Future Babble". Or read Wisdom of Crowds or Army of Davids.
2. "Experts' predictions are no better than a chimp throwing darts." Tetlock
3. Yogi Berra -- "Predictions are hard, especially of the future." History tells us that even the smartest, most careful, most scientific experts are usually wrong when they try to predict the future. Any person with any sense at all and a small understanding of history should be extremely skeptical of anyone who is so arrogant as to claim to know the future.
4. If the predictions of even the best, brightest, and most careful 'experts' almost always prove to be wrong, what should we make of the predictions made by the Keystone Kops who currently make such a mess of climate science? Given what we know of history and what we know of the gross incompetence infecting alarmist climate science today, one would have to be a religious fanatic of extraordinary zeal to convince himself that these bozos have a special understanding of the future of climate 100 years from now.
Michael:
I reject the idea that science is some gnostic religion where knowledge is in the hands of a coterie of adepts, AKA "experts"
Science is an open book wherein anyone may read and discover the current state of the body of evidence.
It is evident that the Alarmist claim that the ability to calculate that the earths temerature will rise by 4 to 8 degrees, over the next 100 years or so is unproven since no such claim has been made in the past and subsequently verified.
This is contrast with solar system mechanics where predictions have been verified for hundreds of years now. Even the Mayans had a limited success in this field. I don't think as far as 2012 is concerned though!
I f an expert in superconductivity were asked "Will we find a room temperature superconductor?", I think that he would say "We don't know"
There is no general ability in science to make predictions about some future state of knowledge.
What we see in climate science is similar to Ancient Rome where anyone could disembowel a chicken but only the High Priestess was authorised to make prophesies thereupon.
Sorry: temperature, earth's
HaroldW,
Coleman is the chair of the Academic Misconduct Committee at Ohio State.
He knows BS and unethical academic behaviour when he sees it.
Talking of massive attacks:
Here's commenter 'frank-decoding swifthack' 's interpretation of what sceptics do, in his offering at the blog Deltoid:
Mike,
That's very post-modern of you, but being an old fuddy duddy, I'll stick to science as the pursuit of the understanding of physical reality, the truth, if you will.
Venter,
Trenberth has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on hurricanes
Shrub,
I agree with this 100%;
"Mashey's arguments, stand or fall, on their own merit..."
And you might have noticed that not a single post in 90+ here has done the work to demonstrate that they have no merit. What we get is this
"Mashey and Coleman denigrate Wood"
"good old attack piece complete with healthy mixture of smears on Wood"
"merely a hit job"
"hyperbole hissy fits"
"the rantings of Mashey"
etc etc etc
Michael
You say that you stick to the science, but in fact all that you do, and claim to do is relay what you believe is said by some people you believe are experts with a scientific knowledge you believe to be relevant. And you gave some of it away, when you claimed that you'd 'investigate the claimant very very carefully' which is of course what it's all about. You chose to believe some 'experts' on the basis that they claim to be te experts, and are very very sceptical of those you want to mistrust. Whereafter you look for reasons ('rationals') to mistrust and discard them and what they say.
It is all very typical, it is the old appeal to authority, when one self lacks both that and the knowledge to argue the case. To place the authority outside the reach of the discussion, accompanied by a 'take it up with them instead, and on their turf'
Not very original, not convincing at all, but all too familiar ... and quite tiresome
Michael,
I don't usually bother engaging with those who are not prepared to put their name to their comments. Anonymity encourages the kind of trolling bait-and-switch you have demonstrated here. That puts the responsibility on those who use pseudonyms to be polite and adress the point. Most here do. You have not.
You have diverted discussion (as was probably your intention) away from Mashey with an argument that essentially runs: we should only listen to 'climate scientists' because Mashey (a computer scientist) and Coleman (a chemist) tell us so. 'Scuse us if we remain unconvinced.
Incidentally, discussions about the place of climate science in society and whether it meets the requisites to be a 'science' are the preserve of those with expertise in the social studies of science and th history and philosophy of science. These are established academic fields, to which Woods would appear to belong. Mashey, Coleman and Emmanuel are not. One does not need to be an atmospheric physicist to assess whether a climate science commits various fallacies (argument from popularity, bringing evidence to the theory, circularity, argument from authority, ad hominem, genetic fallacy). Indeed, all are to be found in climate science and its key predictions (model predictions, missing hot spot, etc) call its standing into question.
Michael, have you even read Mashey's post or his 250p attempt to miscredit Wegman? It is about the wording of a report. Some lesser supporters believe there is something incriminating in there, somehow diminishing the contents. Which he doesn't adress at all.
As someone noted above. He wouldn't even answer what his 3 most 'incriminating' findings were. I think that was smart of him ...
But you, could you please summarize the results of the Mashey-expert, as you claimed you could do almost blindly? (And how exactly did you establish that he indeed is an expert, rather than identifying him as a "pompous windbag" which you also claim as an abiltiy of yours? All with zero expertise of you own)
Michael,
Please inform yourself of some Lovecraft first. :)
Secondly, it is Mashey and his friend who offer nothing of substance in the first place. Mashey's just pissed off that, someone, stood up and called him for he is. From his terrible reaction, it is evident that he has no practice of academic argument either.
Mashey's style betrays this as well. If someone as much as sneezed in his direction, Mashey's likely to write 200 pages about their fossil-fuel funding and about how their neighbours three houses down the street are voodoo Nazi demon worshippers.
Aug 7, 2011 at 2:24 AM | Aynsley Kellow
"""""Michael, I don't usually bother engaging with those who are not prepared to put their name to their comments. Anonymity encourages the kind of trolling bait-and-switch you have demonstrated here. That puts the responsibility on those who use pseudonyms to be polite and adress the point. Most here do. You have not.''''''''''
------------------------
Aynsley Kellow,
I somewhat share your issues with engaging some anonymous commenters.
I often have reservations engaging some of the anonymous commenters who have a long history of, what shall I call it, ahhhhh . . . intellectual violence.
John
Aynsley,
Did you read my post just above yours?
That's another 200 words not able to say what errors Mashey has made, apparently (details remain absent), in his critique.
Michael,
See my comments excerpted by John Whitman. Give your name and I might engage. If you are not prepared to put your name to your comments, I'm not prepared to read them. Life is too short - as it is to read Mashey's scribblings. I did once, and regret the time wasted.
Given the complete absence of factual rebuttals of Mashey and Coleman, one might be lead to think that their critique is spot on.