the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

A Comparison of Tier 2 Climate Weblogs

Posted by Jeff Id on April 18, 2010

A generously provided guest post by Tom Fuller of the examiner. Tom offered this to provide some rest for me to take care of the family. Tom’s writing style is quite a bit different than the usual fare around here, he’s a better writer -I think- and he compares this blog with Deltoid. The comparison is interesting because in my experience similar patterns of behavior and moderation are met across the whole climate blog community, not just a couple of blogs.  As a note, I would add that the links presented here are completely selfish in that they represent the sites I visit. Not many blogs spend time making links just for the proprietor, but so far that’s all they are – my bookmarks.

And finally, if you haven’t seen it, Tom Fuller and Steve Mosher have a book out which can be linked from the picture in the sidebar or at Tom’s site linked on the right. If you want to know for yourself what the climategate emails meant and you don’t have the background, this is the single best source.
————–

Guest post by Tom Fuller.

I thought it would be interesting to compare two weblogs dealing with global warming to see if either similarities or differences might shed light on how opinions (and audiences) are formed, and what might be discerned about their contribution to the debate on this subject. Rather than singling out the highest traffic blogs (such as Real Climate on the consensus side and Watt’s Up With That for the opposition), I thought it might be constructive to take two weblogs lower down on the food chain. This is primarily because the most popular weblogs have become to a certain extent victims of their own success, and have changed their editorial practices to reflect the needs of a major media venue. Lower level bloggers can still pick and choose topics, style and levels of response and thus may provide a more accurate view of the actual debate.

I chose The Air Vent as a ‘non-consensus’ weblog primarily because I’m familiar with the contents and the weblog’s principal contributor, Jeff Id, asked for guest contributions to fill editorial holes while he deals with the chaos that accompanies the birth of a new child.

I chose Deltoid as a ‘consensus’ weblog, again because I am familiar with the contents of the weblog, and because it seemed to roughly match The Air Vent in terms of frequency of posting, number of comments per post, and level of commitment to the political position espoused on the site.

I must confess to bias in my analysis. Both Tim Lambert, principal contributor at Deltoid, and Jeff Id disagree with me on serious matters of public policy. I am a liberal Democrat and big fan of Barack Obama, while Jeff Id is close to the opposite side of the political spectrum from me. As a ‘lukewarmer’ who believes global warming is real, but unlikely to be the catastrophe predicted with macabre glee by the alarmists, I am at the opposite end of the climate change spectrum from Tim Lambert.
– Hide quoted text -

But, while Jeff Id of The Air Vent has always been unfailingly courteous, responsive and cordial in our communications on both our websites, Tim Lambert has been confrontational, rude and deceptive in how he has handled our communications. So I confess to a strong personal prejudice in favor of Jeff Id and against Tim Lambert.

For those who logically ask why I then chose these two as subjects for my analysis, I can only reply that the ‘owners’ of consensus weblogs are more or less similar to Tim Lambert, and have provided me with many unpleasant moments of confrontational exchanges, while non-consensus blog owners have all pretty much been like Jeff–courteous to someone they disagree with and willing to talk through the differences between us while focusing on areas where we can find agreement. Readers may draw their own conclusions from this perception of mine. If accurate, it not only sets the stage, but is an important finding for those who think character has a bearing on climate science and its presentation. If not accurate, it spares the reader from having to go further.

Deltoid’s Tim Lambert is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. It is my understanding that Jeff Id (a pseudonym) is an engineer, although I’m not sure what flavor. Deltoid is one of the oldest weblogs around, having started in 1991, while The Air Vent has archives only as far back as August 2008.

Key points:

The Air Vent posts much more frequently than Deltoid. While The Air Vent seems to average about 10 posts per week, Deltoid varies dramatically–Lambert had 28 posts in March and 53 in February.

Both weblogs seem to have the same commenting pattern, although Deltoid seems to have more ‘regulars’ commenting on the site. This is probably no surprise, given the longer period of service of the weblog. But both weblogs seem to have a favorite on every ‘screen shot’ (the portion of the screen visible without scrolling) which gets more than 100 comments, while the other posts get between 20 and 50 comments.

Blogroll: Both sites link to other weblogs with similar orientations, although The Air Vent links to some sites that are not wholly about climate change.

Comments policy: Deltoid moderates comments, deletes at owner’s discretion and maintains a confrontational attitude towards those arriving with opposing views. The Air Vent does not moderate prior to posting, will engage with those with opposing views, but has a much more relaxed attitude towards ‘dissenting views.’

Editorial stance: Both Lambert and Id are very upfront about their opinions of climate change and the general political climate in Australia and the U.S. respectively. Lambert is much more personal in his criticism, while Id’s negative opinions are generally more about institutions than individuals–with some exceptions.

The latest post titles on Deltoid:

1. Climate Denial Crock on Monckton, Part 2 (Criticism of skeptic Viscount Monckton)
2. Phil Jones Vindicated Some More (Commentary on Oxburgh report)
3. Climate Denial Crock On Monckton (Criticim of skeptic Viscount Monckton)
4. Science Show on Climate Change Skepticism
5. McKitrick at it Again (Criticism of non-consensus economist Ross McKitrick)
6. John McLean Hides the Declines (Criticism of skeptic report)
7. Open Thread 46
8. Phil Jones Vindicated (Commentary on Parliamentary investigation report)
9. ABC on Cartergate: Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ (Criticism of Australian Broadcasting Corporation for allowing skeptics airtime)
10. Lambert Monckton Debate on YouTube (video of Lambert’s portion of debate between him and Monckton

The latest post titles on The Air Vent:
1. Kernel of Science (Explanation of personal views on climate change and public policy implications)
2. AR4–30% Non-Peer Reviewed Literature (republishing Donna Framboise’s report on grey literature in IPCC report AR4)
3. Too Tired to Blog (advisory of light posting due to child care issues)
4. New Jersey Cutting Back on Fake Global Warming Budget (NJ budget cuts in programs addressing climate change)
5. What Would You Do? (Personal commentary on workload)
6. Do it–Or Else (commentary on reports of pressure put on lesser developed countries to support climate initiatives)
7. To the Drawing Board (discussion of variance in paleoclimate reconstructions)
8. Conditions of the Slopes (discussion of anecdotal reports of snowfall at ski runs)
9. A Bad Idea That Won’t Die (discussion of climate change mini-meeting in Bonn)
10. Instrument Bias (Referral to discussion on instrument bias at The Blackboard)

Analysis

Deltoid is (or has become over time) a site more concerned with the opposition than the fast moving field of climate science. Commenters are mostly ‘true believers’ that reinforce the positions of the site owner and act as watchdogs to monitor compliance with stated attitudes and beliefs.

- Hide quoted text -
The Air Vent takes better advantage of current events and recently published papers and posts on other weblogs. It has a much more varied menu.

Deltoid appears to be a weblog that has run out of steam in many respects, trying to rally the troops with fairly old trumpet calls to the political standard. The Air Vent seems to be a lively forum for discussion of a large number of topics, sometimes only loosely related to climate change.

Both Tim Lambert and Jeff Id seem exhausted. But while Id is tired from having a new baby around the house, Lambert’s fatigue seems to be more rooted in the toll events of the past year have taken on him personally. It’s easy to predict that Id will recover more quickly than Lambert, and that the Air Vent will continue to be a good place to visit for quite a while to come, while Deltoid either needs a rejuvenated Lambert or perhaps some co-bloggers.

To the extent that the two reflect the state of play in the ongoing debate, it would seem that defending the consensus has taken its toll on Lambert, who has withdrawn into a predictable publishing schedule that offers little to those not part of his coterie of fans. As the past few months have been quite difficult for the consensus, this is understandable. However, recent results of investigations that were favorable to the climate science consensus have not reinvigorated Deltoid. On the other hand, The Air Vent seems to be enjoying life and blogging and what’s happening in the discussion. There seems to be a lot more energy on the site–and this may reflect the almost electric charge provided by the last quarter’s events. Climategate, Copenhagen and a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion.

Readers who want to see the ‘state of play’ in the struggle over climate change would not go too far astray by reading both weblogs together. However, those wishing to comment on this struggle would be better off at The Air Vent, especially if their opinions were not strictly consensus compliant.


214 Responses to “A Comparison of Tier 2 Climate Weblogs”

  1. James said

    The Air Vent posts much more frequently than Deltoid. While The Air Vent seems to average about 10 posts per week, Deltoid varies dramatically–Lambert had 28 posts in March and 53 in February.

    Eh?

  2. […] A Comparison of Tier 2 Climate Weblogs « the Air Vent […]

  3. It’s interesting to note that the “consensus” site’s owner attacks people with contrasting views, while tAV’s owner does not.

    This is consistent with CAGW proponents approach to those who do not agree with their point of view. Ad hominem attacks feature prominently when they respond to people who offer differing positions. This appears to point to weaknesses in the CAGW argument, which reinforces the skepticism toward the CAGW hypothesis.

  4. Josualdo said

    Very interesting. Thanks to both.

  5. “. . . the ‘owners’ of consensus weblogs are more or less similar to Tim Lambert, and have provided me with many unpleasant moments of confrontational exchanges, while non-consensus blog owners have all pretty much been like Jeff–courteous to someone they disagree with and willing to talk through the differences between us while focusing on areas where we can find agreement. Readers may draw their own conclusions from this perception of mine.”

    Tom, this isn’t just a “perception” of yours. Many, many people have experienced the same thing (yes, yes, with notable exceptions; but those exceptions prove the rule). One can argue that this these are just personal impressions or perceptions, but it is in fact an important current that permeates the whole debate. Without noticing or understanding this undercurrent of hostility and barrack-mentality, one simply cannot understand much of what goes on socially and politically in the debate.

    I appreciate that you wanted to focus on other things in this post, but we should not dismiss the striking difference in tone in the debate as simply a one-off perception.

  6. Pat Frank said

    I haven’t visited Deltoid, but I’d wager that Jeff is much more mathematically astute than Tim Lambert. So, another difference between the sites is that Jeff has made signal and original contributions at tAV to the climate science debate, especially in the earlier days when he developed his analysis of antarctic temperatures, and his very cogent and complete criticism of the Steig temperature analysis.

    Jeff also rigorously and very publicly verified Steve McIntyre’s analysis of Michael Mann’s hockey stick methodology. Jeff showed that Mann’s methodology is both falsely based and that it produced entirely spurious results. Jeff verified what Steve and Ross McKitrick originally showed in their E&E03 and GRL05 papers. Verification is, after all, the sine qua non of both science and engineering.

    I have never heard of Tim Lambert achieving anything like those sorts of analyses. So, each of those two contributions put Jeff and his blog head and shoulders above anything Tim Lambert has done, IMO.

  7. Chuckles said

    Tom,

    Always good to read your thoughts, good to have you guest blogging.

    Minor point, anyone who claims to have been blogging since 1991 is delusional. Posting stuff on the internet, possibly, but I suspect Blogger would contest any claim to prior art quite strongly.
    Pournelle might have a few words to say too.

  8. Dave L. said

    I once read a book named “Raving Fans” by Blanchard and Bowles. Since I operated my own commercial laboratory and relied upon a client-referral base, I instituted the general philosophy outlined in the book. I educated my employees and colleagues — I wanted my clients to become “raving fans” of my laboratory. It worked.

    Think about this for a moment: Would a blog site exist if there were no participants? The analogy is similar to a symphonic orchestra — if there wasn’t an audience, would their ever be a symphonic performance?

    Some of the pro-AGW sites I have visited engage in derogatory behavior toward opposing viewpoints (name calling, frank insults, demeaning comments); they also edit comments to distort the responders argument and sometimes delete an entire post. I learn quickly — I don’t return to such sites … ever! I refuse to add to their blog statistics. Who wants to deal with arrogance? I must add that because of these past experiences, I will not go to any pro-AGW site that is advertised as such. The lukewarm and skeptic sites don’t behave in this fashion; at least I haven’t had such encounters to date in those I have visited.

  9. Charlie said

    Another difference I’ve noted is that lukewarmer or sceptical blogs seem more committed to the science and less to a preconceived set of outcomes.

    For example, at Lucia’s Blackboard she recently posted an article about the possibility of a _cooling_ bias from the change to MMTS for measuring temperature: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-cooling-bias-due-to-mmts/

    The difference is whether the goal is to “win the debate” or to “find the truth”.

  10. Spen said

    I am concerned at the lack of discussion on the blogs regarding the latest satellite data showing continuing positive temperature anomalies and also the silence regarding increases in ocean temperatures. Are we not scientists with open minds?

  11. Tom,
    I agree that levels of courtesy and politeness in personal communication at non-consensus websites are often high, and this is much appreciated.

    But you’ve neglected the constant drumbeat of (sometimes polite) charges of fraud and malfeasance by scientists that you find there. If folks at RC etc are irritable, there may be some reason. Not to mention the enthusiasm for trawling through people’s private e-mails to find any careless expressions that can be beaten up into a -gate. That doesn’t really exist on the other side.

  12. Tom Fuller said

    Hi all,

    Thanks for the courteous reception to this short piece of media analysis (I have nefarious plans for bigger and better things like this).

    James, your ‘eh?’ is understandable due to my writing, but TAV does post much more frequently than Deltoid–my numbers were meant to demonstrate variability, not frequency.

    Chuckles, yes, it’s hard to imagine a fully featured blog from that time period, but Deltoid’s archive goes back that far and whatever the original source, the posts are now in the same format with those dates. Who knows? And how long has Chaos Manor been going?

    Spen, I don’t know your traveling route but I have seen a lot of discussion of those trends on non-consensus websites. WUWT, The Blackboard, and more.

    Nick, you have a point, but you help make mine. If folks at RC are irritable, maybe they should examine either their behaviour towards irritants or why they’re still blogging. As for trawling through the emails of others, I’ve seen enough comments on consensus weblogs demanding to see skeptic emails (including Gavin Schmidt) to think that there’s a bit of moral equivalency on this. I didn’t publish any of the Climategate emails until Real Climate did. I wanted to see if anybody was going to ask for them back. I still haven’t published any of the documents in the file–I think that’s somebody’s work product.

  13. gallopingcamel said

    As a newcomer to the AGW debate I have tried hanging out on various sites and I am still looking for new ones. Here are some observations from a physicist with experience in particle accelerators and electro-optics. From my perspective, climate science appears to be “squishy” but I am hoping to be shown that there is some hard science involved:

    First the consensus sites:
    “Open Parachute”, (New Zealand) was hopeless as the denizens are more interested in invective than debate.

    “Climate Progress”, (Joe Romm) was worse as even mildly dissenting posts are ruthlessly expunged. However, Richard Brenne impressed me although I seldom agreed with his views.

    “Desmogblog”, while this blog is tolerant of dissenting posts, not much has been going on there lately. The owner may be like Tim Lambert (stressed out by Climategate).

    “Deltoid” was pretty good, given that the denizens appeared to be well versed in the science. My idea was to see if there were any “Solutions” that both sides could agree on. I gave up after realising that the “War of Words” was more important to these folks than “Solutions”.

    “Skeptical Science”. An excellent blog, the best of its kind. There is a resident “AGW skeptic” who is always worth reading. He posts as “Berenyi Peter”. This blog is not into “Solutions”……yet.

    “Brave New Climate”, (Barry Brook). While I regard Brook as an AGW extremist, his views on energy policy are amongst the most persuasive I have seen anywhere. Definitely someone I could respect while disagreeing on many issues.

    Now the non-consensus sites:
    “Climate Depot”, (Mark Morano). Way too political for me.

    “Climate Audit”. An influential site but one with a narrow focus that appeals to people with a strong background in statistical analysis.

    “Digging in the Clay”. Similar to “Climate Audit” but a little easier for non-experts to understand.

    “SPPI”, (Monckton). An influential site covering every major topic in the IPCC’s AR4. This blog has a political aspect that could be described as “Conspiracy Theory”; something I could do without.

    “WUWT”. An excellent blog, probably the best of its kind.

    “The Reference Frame”, (Lubos Motl). Covers much more than climate science. Demolishes sloppy science from both sides but somewhat inclined to hyperbole and invective.

    Finally a site with no discernible bias:
    “Science of Doom”. This one is my current favorite but I only found it a few days ago (thank you Steve Mosher).

    I have carefully avoided mentioning the sites pushing the views of professional scientists such as Kieth Briffa, John Cristy, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, Kevin Trenberth and others.

  14. Tom Fuller said

    Galloping Camel, that is actually quite useful. I would be happy to see the views of you and people like you regarding other weblogs covering this issue.

  15. adriaan said

    Dear Tom,
    Thanks for your guest post. As you noted:
    For those who logically ask why I then chose these two as subjects for my analysis, I can only reply that the ‘owners’ of consensus weblogs are more or less similar to Tim Lambert, and have provided me with many unpleasant moments of confrontational exchanges, while non-consensus blog owners have all pretty much been like Jeff–courteous to someone they disagree with and willing to talk through the differences between us while focusing on areas where we can find agreement.

    I share this observation with you and want to add the always patronizing tone in the remarks to commenters. If you do not share the AGW belief, you have to be taugth to start believing.

  16. Tom Fuller said

    Hi Adriaan,

    If I get one more tip to read Spencer Weart I am going scream.

  17. T G Watkins said

    Thanks Tom Fuller.
    I agree with many of the above comments, including Jeff’s insightful analyses.
    Many pro AGW sites just repeat the old mantras with very limited science content.

  18. sod said

    nice, completely unbiased and fair comparison, by Tom Fuller.

    and i am glad that completely exhausted Tim Lambert was able to simply destroy Lord Monckton (the new flagship of the denialist circus) in a recent debate.

    Tom your analysis, as always, completely lacks any substance. and tries to compensate by making up stuff, like the “exhaustion”. and baseless predictions, as the recovery from it.

    James already pointed out that you can t do even the most basic math. (“more frequently” has a real meaning, you know?!?)

    you still try to portrait yourself as being close to the middle. that is a lie, as anyone who takes even a single look at your page will notice immediately.

    so let us assume for the moment, that the air vent does indeed post more scientific stuff than deltoid does, and that people with the other opinion are treated better here.

    couldn t the reason simply be, that sceptics are confronted with more science? (and fail miserably at producing any significant results of their own)

    while the other side is mostly confronted by serious misrepresentation of their positions in the media, and attacks with zero scientific basis. (someone wrote a book about the stealing of mail recently. investigations haven t been supporting the finding of that book at all.)

    and the majority of those of my side, who post on “sceptic” blogs enjoy more hospitality (even i do), because we all understand the basic facts on climate science?

    while an awful lot of the “sceptics” think that the world is cooling, global average temperature has no meaning, CRU and NASA are faking the climate record and, like you, can t count 2 and 2 together.

    shouldn t somebody who thinks of himself as “journalist” have wasted a thought or two on this?

    just a something to consider, while you take your next completely unbiased look at science.

  19. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Tom,

    Your analysis is spot-on WRT moderation, personal attacks, and poor treatment of people who disagree with the blog’s position. I wish to note that in addition to the blogs already mentioned by others, the Blackboard is also a good site to visit if you are looking for high quality technical content, tolerant moderation, and (mostly) civil exchanges.

    WRT the harsh treatment/moderation of dissenters at the more shrill AGW sites, I think this demonstrates two things: 1) These sites exist specifically to promote the implementation of “solutions” to global warming; thoughtful posts by people who disagree with the AGW consensus take away from the whole purpose of the blog, and so are not tolerated. These are propaganda outlets, pure and simple. 2) With few exceptions, sites with connections to practicing climate scientists have too much “skin in the game” to be balanced in moderation.

    That being said, I note that since the release of UEA email messages, there has been some easing of moderation policy at RealClimate. My posts have not been moderated out of existence, and Gavin actually responded civilly to several (although 100% rejecting the content of every one, of course). This is progress for RealClimate. Other commenters at RealClimate continue their over-the-top personal attacks, and sadly, Real climate does not appear willing to enforce its stated moderation policy about personal attacks.

  20. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    sod,
    As always, a thoughtful post… full of personal attacks, and difficult to read for lack of punctuation and CAPITALS. Most people who frequent climate blogs will not even respond you your vindictive comments any more. You might ask yourself why that is.

    May I respectfully suggest that you start your own climate blog? I am certain it would attract a huge following.

  21. rob r said

    Personally I only had to read the comments on articles at alarmist AGW blogs to know I would not be inclined to post at any of those sites.

    Sites like Climate Audit, TAV, WUWT, Musings from the Chiefio, and Climate Science (Pielke Snr before the comment section was suspended) are a pleasure to read and participate on.

  22. sod said

    Steve, i am really sorry, if you don t like what i say.

    but why not comment on this gem among the rubbish that Tom Fuller psoted above:

    a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion.

    Lucia has just posted a sum up of recent temperatures:

    she must have missed that “cold winter” thing, among all those record- and nearly record warm months that we have seen THIS WINTER.

  23. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    sod,

    What I do not like are your personal attacks on people (for example, read over your post and count how many personal attacks you made on Tom Fuller).

    The winter was exceptionally cold in the mid-latitude norther hemisphere, where many people live (and so comment about the cold). The southern hemisphere and tropics were quite warm (due no doubt in part to El Nino), and the high latitude northern regions were also warmer than usual… no doubt because they were gaining an unusual amount of heat from the northern mid-latitudes; hence, colder than normal northern mid-latitudes. Taken together, these result in record (or near record) global average temperatures in the last couple of months.

    Had you simply stated the above, nobody would object. It is the personal attacks and innuendo that need to change. Whatever you think of Tom Fuller, he is a sincere person who is doing his best. He deserves a measure of respect, which you are strangely unwilling to give…. to Tom or anybody else who disagrees with your political POV. Your comments are simply disrespectful and non-constructive.

    And that is my last comment to you.

  24. J Bowers said

    Tom Fuller said: “If I get one more tip to read Spencer Weart I am going scream.”

    Here’s the link. You can download it as well: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

  25. Bernard J. said

    [Pat Frank](http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/a-comparison-of-tier-2-climate-weblogs/#comment-25582):

    I haven’t visited Deltoid, but I’d wager that Jeff is much more mathematically astute than Tim Lambert.

    [snip]

    I have never heard of Tim Lambert achieving anything like those sorts of analyses. So, each of those two contributions put Jeff and his blog head and shoulders above anything Tim Lambert has done, IMO.

    The reason for your “never having heard of Tim Lambert acheiving anything” lies in your original admission of not haven’t visited Deltoid.

    A rather spectaclar non sequitur, I must say, and one that would be very rapidly exposed as a completely irrelevant point too, if you took the time to peruse some of the archives at Deltoid. Lambert has in fact pwned a number of prominent denialist commentators on the lack of rigour (read ‘major and irretrievable mathematical mistakes’) of anaylses that underpin some of the most cherished denialist memes.

    I can only reiterate – take the time to read what Lambert has produced, and you will find that he has wielded mathematical hammers that have well and truly nailed some of the favoured sons of denialism.

    In a more general vein, Lambert is generally remarkably tolerant of denialist visitors to his blog who repeat, for the umpteenth time, blather that has been refuted years earlier. Where he does exhibit irascibility it is typically in response to a particularly egregious example of either ignorance or of mendacity (or of both), and whilst we might all wish that everyone in this debate could maintain a stringent adherence to politeness, I think that Lambert’s chosen (and in reality, comparatively mild) style is hardly a reason with which to take a perceived moral superiority.

    And don’t forget, sometimes the nonsense paraded by certain denialists can hardly be addressed with anything other than a lack of total politeness, without decending into farce…

  26. Rick Bradford said

    I find the consensus blogs to be very dogmatic, veering on the cultish. They are in the business of defending a single, inflexible position — circling the wagons, as it were — and so there is no room for dissent.

    By contrast, non-consensus blogs are free to roam all over the science, politics and philosophy, adding to their store of knowledge by listening to contrary viewpoints, and keeping themselves fresh at the same time.

  27. cbp said

    (To the commenters)

    Firstly, trust me, it is not just pro-AGW sites that remove dissenting comments – it happens all the time on denialists blogs too.

    Furthermore, the times that I have waded into the rat pit of denialist blogs I have been called everything from stupid, to evil, to being on the payroll of ACORN (lol)… rarely are my arguments actually responded to.

    Secondly, cherry picking. Deltoid site is unapologetically a site devoted to holding the spurious arguments of right-wing journalists such as Watts, Delingpole, Monckton etc to account. Its readers are angry at the constant misrepresentation of science by these folk and they vent. Joe Romm’s blog has a similar purpose. I don’t think this is any big secret – this is what these sites are for. If you want science, there are already plenty of publications: Nature, Science, National Geography, Real Climate… whatever floats your boat. How about comparing apples for apples, say Andrew Bolt vs Deltoid.

  28. Gary P said

    My only experience with Deltoid was a year ago when I was trying to get a copy of Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth.” I kept getting links to that site where the owner was engaging in gotcha blogging, picking on obscure details in the book and references.

    I thought about taking the time to respond to some of this after I finally got a copy of the book but then I saw how comments were treated and decided it was a waste of time to track down the references from the book to refute some of the discussion on Deltoid. Why spend the time only to have the comment deleted?

  29. Jeff Id said

    #28 Why spend the time only to have the comment deleted?

    That’s exactly right. I’ve got no authority to delete anyone’s opinion. I do have the control but just who the hell am I to delete?

    At this point about 1 in 1000 comments have been snipped or deleted with less than that in recent time. Some of the snipped posters are still regulars here. The snips have all been due to language, coarseness or extreme sophistry,– not the typical blog fare, and are usually partial. One of the snips was for the suggestion that we all need to kill some group or other.

    I’m not perfect but you get the idea, no snip for real opinion b/c I’m not qualified to do it.

  30. Jeff Id said

    What an interesting group of non-regular commenters Tom has found. I see the stat meter showing 4000 or 7000 views/day, but how many people is that really??

    All are welcome but in blogland welcome means welcome to disagree, where else besides politics can a human be wrong 500 times in the same day!!

  31. Tom Fuller said

    Sod, so nice to hear from you again. Good to know that you haven’t changed since last we crossed paths. Be well.

  32. Ian Forrester said

    Tom Fuller, why not be honest about your definitions of types of blog?

    non consensus = dishonest
    consensus = honest

    I am speaking about the science not the colour of a poster’s tie or how they dress. I couldn’t care less if you lied about his tie but I do care when you lie about what is found in scientific papers.

    That is why scientists are so upset with you deniers, all you have is dishonest representation of the science.

    That is the antithesis of how science works and how real scientists behave.

  33. Jeff Id said

    Ian== bull

  34. AMac said

    Gallopingcamel,

    I second Steve Fitzpatrick’s recommendation of Lucia’s Blackboard (comment #19) (and Sod’s implied thumbs-up). Link in Jeff Id’s blogroll.

    Roger Pielke Jr. often has interesting posts on the intersection of climate science and public policy. He moderates comments, but appears to be quite tolerant–there’s a bevy of Pielke-loathers, Lambert among them, who appear in his threads from time to time.

    Many AGW Consensus blogs exert a powerful editorial push by culling some fraction of intelligent, civil skeptical comments from their threads. True Believers are encouraged (“aha, few strong arguments that contest my opinion”), while skeptics go elsewhere in preference to being cut (e.g. Gary P #28 supra). This seems more like a side benefit [sic] of close-mindedness than an explicitly designed policy.

    There are a couple of places, notably “An Inconvenient Comment,” that publish comments that fail moderation at climate-themed sites. I encourage non-adherents to the AGW Consensus to save local copies of comments and submit spurned remarks there — it’s helpful for sunlight to shine on the hidden moderation policies of some of the more polemical blogs.

  35. Tom Fuller said

    Ian, I made my biases clear at the beginning of the post. I have consistently been treated better on non-consensus blogs than on consensus blogs. To the extent that someone can like someone else when they’ve never met, I like Jeff Id more than I like Tim Lambert. By saying that up front I do try to alert readers to look for bias.

    You can say I’m wrong. I have been before and expect to be again. You can say my selection is unfair–I actually thought that Deltoid published about as often as TAV when I started, and it wasn’t until I saw Deltoid’s archives that I learned differently. You can say this is meaningless. But don’t say I’m dishonest when I talk about my personal bias and experience right up front. Leave that kind of stuff for Sod.

  36. AMac said

    Ian Forrester #32 —

    Since you’re stridently defending the Consensus in general terms, please offer a defense of them on a specific point.

    What do you think about the views on Consensus and Non-consensus blogs, concerning how Mann et al (PNAS, 2008) used the Lake Korttajarvi varve proxies first described by Tiljander in 2003?

    Non-consensus blogs, tAV among them, have demonstrated that Mann et al. inappropriately and erroneously used at least two of the Tiljander proxies in an upside-down orientation, likely rendering their hockey-stick paleotemperature reconstructions invalid. Since Mann et al. inappropriately refused to acknowledge their errors, the matter is unresolved.

    If you need more information, simply Google the obvious terms; the key links will be returned on the first two pages or so.

    … crickets? …

  37. Eli Rabett said

    Posting frequency mostly has to do with whether a blog is a day job or an avocation. For example, Romm, Littlemore, McIntyre, Fuller and Watts post frequently, Tamino and Real Climate not so often. Frequent posting is the simplest way to build eyeballs.

    Of course, there are also the spoil sports who wait until they have something to actually say before posting.

  38. Jeff Id said

    #37, ouch..

    May I humbly suggest to the carrot eater that posting frequently is also a sign of passion???

  39. Carrick said

    Ian:

    That is why scientists are so upset with you deniers, all you have is dishonest representation of the science.

    Are you a scientist, or just projecting? There are plenty of “warmingnists” who make dishonest representations of the science too, usually for political gain.

    Personally, I much more concerned about “defenders of science” who are dishonest than critics. Especially the ones who have an overt political agenda that isn’t so much about “saving the Earth” as it is furthering their own political ambitions.

    With friends like these….

  40. Mike J said

    This is a great topic, Tom, and I await a more in-depth study with interest.

    When Climategate first broke, I read the John Costella analysis (available ) and was absolutely gob-smacked at the level of unadulterated hatred, vitriol, venom and spite conveyed in those emails towards the likes of McIntyre, by professional scientists! This was the central message of Climategate, imo – attack and smear the man, bully the editors of journals, delay release of data, obfuscate, deny, fudge and bluster when confronted by honest enquiry. Since then, this perception I gained has been reinforced at AGW sites.

    Usually when I encounter an AGW site I quickly become sick of wading through ad hominem rubbish trying to find a kernel of substance in the comments. Then, if I do find something worthy of a retort, it is hardly worth the trouble due to the inevitable over-the-top reactions.

    So as a result I seldom now bother to visit the AGW sites, not because of a lack of curiosity, but due to an aversion to loudmouthed schoolyard bullies.

  41. willr said

    I have a definite preference for the “skeptical” sites if this is what they are. I think of them more as science sites where numbers are crunched and experiments designed — real or thought experiments.

    The “consensus” sites disturb me. I have been working in the scientific field too long (over 40 years) to decide that my viewpoint is always right — I have been wrong far too often — so a requirement to “marry a viewpoint” is no longer in the cards.

    I know that mathematics is considered a “pure science” and that there is always a “right or wrong” answer, but the reality is that at the NP problem level, for example, you can have some pretty interesting discussions on how to approach a problem and there is often disagreement over the right method — and hence the answer.

    The bottom line is that I am more comfortable reading and posting (rarely) on sites where people acknowledge that knowledge is not perfect, and that there are no “deniers” — just acceptance that it’s tough to get things right.

    And now that we have a camel I can welcome him/her and ask that “Burning Question”! Will that be One hump or Two? :-)

    Good discussion Tom et al!

  42. cbp said

    @Jeff Id (comment 37)

    >> Ian== bull

    Anything perhaps a little ironic about your comment?

  43. sod said

    Sod, so nice to hear from you again. Good to know that you haven’t changed since last we crossed paths. Be well.

    Tom, why don t you simply correct the errors in the post above?

    the winter was not cold. that many “sceptic” blogs were discussing a cold winter when there wasn t one, should tell you something about those blogs. if you were interested about analysis, that is.

    . I have consistently been treated better on non-consensus blogs than on consensus blogs.

    the reason for this is, that your position is infinitely closer to the “sceptic” blogs, that it is to Tim Lambert.
    Jeff is praising your book. Tim will basically disagree with every word in it.
    Jeff did invite you to write whatever you want on his blog. wouldn t happen on deltoid.

    Ian, I made my biases clear at the beginning of the post.

    But don’t say I’m dishonest when I talk about my personal bias and experience right up front. Leave that kind of stuff for Sod.

    you did NOT make your bias clear. you pretend to be close to the middle. while it is impossible to squeeze a piece of paper between your position and Jeff’s on climate change, while you are a mile away of the edge of reality (you know, that is climate stuff that really gets published in real papers). and Tim’s position is quite in the middle of that.

    You can say my selection is unfair–I actually thought that Deltoid published about as often as TAV when I started, and it wasn’t until I saw Deltoid’s archives that I learned differently.

    you still can t do the math, can you?

  44. Nathan said

    Tom

    You claim that Tim Lambert is “exhausted”.

    Why?

    BTW is this post little more than an attempt to draw attention to your book?

  45. Nathan said

    AMAC

    “Non-consensus blogs, tAV among them, have demonstrated that Mann et al. inappropriately and erroneously used at least two of the Tiljander proxies in an upside-down orientation, likely rendering their hockey-stick paleotemperature reconstructions invalid. Since Mann et al. inappropriately refused to acknowledge their errors, the matter is unresolved.”

    So why no publications? Why was this never written up and submitted as a response to the Journal?

    I know, because it was never ‘proven’. It was never more than a stupid game.

  46. Tom Fuller said

    Nathan, no, I didn’t mention my book and did not ask Jeff to. I say Lambert seems exhausted because he doesn’t do anything new or requiring much effort.

    One reason I prefer non-consensus sites is that I can be sure my comments go up. This comment, which probably few here will agree with, was not good enough for Real Climate–never showed up.

    “Judith Curry does understand something that posters and commenters here apparently do not.

    Many of the criticisms leveled against the IPCC, AR4, and CRU are valid and serious. Most of us who make these criticisms do not believe that, even if all of them are 100% true, they invalidate climate science. Most of us do not believe that the IPCC should be disbanded (although I have called repeatedly for the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri, which I will do again here–he should go. I also believe Phil Jones should not step back into post.) or CRU be closed.

    I would bet large sums of money that Steve Mosher, Steve McIntyre, ‘Bishop Hill’ and Anthony Watts would agree with me (maybe Watts would like the IPCC to go away).

    IPCC’s AR4 has serious flaws, although the flaws do not call into question climate science. One third of its references are not peer-reviewed, according to Donna Framboise. The Synthesis did not catch the error on Himalayan glaciers–why not?

    The IPCC has serious defects that do not call into question climate science. Its publishing schedule, review procedures and team make-up do not serve the needs of stakeholders. Lead authors should not review for inclusion their own work, nor negative comments on that work. They should enforce the rules on deadlines for IPCC reports.

    Rajendra Pachauri should resign, but not because climate science is wrong. He should resign because he vilified a climate scientist who told him the IPCC was wrong about Himalayan glaciers and worked mightily to suppress the error until the conclusion of COP15.

    Phil Jones should not step back into post, and not because climate science is wrong, and not because of his work as a scientist. He should step down because he did not inform the science community about siting issues that compromised his 1990 Nature article on UHI, and because he advised colleagues to break the law by deleting emails subject to FOIA requests. Those are not the acts of a leader of a premier unit of an academic institution.

    Like I said, Curry gets this. You all apparently do not.”

    It’s the second comment today from me that they didn’t post. Wish I’d saved the first one. It’s better.

  47. Nathan said

    Tom Fuller

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php

    Oh looky here. Tim Lambert being critical of you… And look, you both getting into an argument.

    You aren’t unbiased here. In fact when it comes to Tim Lambert you’re completely biased. This is why you compared his blog to this one.

  48. Tom Fuller said

    Umm, Nathan, what part of “I must confess to bias in my analysis” is beyond your understanding?

  49. gallopingcamel said

    AMac & Co. many thanks for suggestions on sites worth visiting.

    Even in the short time I have been surfing the AGW blogs the consensus sites have veered sharply towards civility; perhaps this is one of the benefits of Climategate that may have pricked some bubbles of hubris. Hopefully this trend will continue until there is not much difference between the “Pro” and “Anti” groups.

    While the debate is fun, my interest is in creating better public policies than we have today but it not likely that much can be achieved as long as the two sides are fighting in the trenches. Thus far I have not made much progress talking to either side but nobody said it would be easy.

    This may not be the right thread so I ask Jeff to consider starting a thread to discuss “Solutions” that might appeal to both sides. Even though most people would label me a “Denier” here are a couple of ideas from the “Alarmist” camp that I support:

    1. Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions
    As long as this is done via a rapid build up of innovative nuclear power plants (Generation IV) until the cost of electricity is low enough to convince “Joe Six-pack” to trade in his 4X4 for an electric vehicle. No government mandates; just let intelligent self interest persuade the masses. I love my electric car because it is fun to drive rather than its ability to reduce my “Carbon Footprint”!

    2. Major Carbon Sequestration Programs
    Carbon should be sequestered along the lines pioneered by Hammurabi (Babylonian empire). Farmers should be encouraged to overproduce non-perishable foods and timber. The EEC was on the right track with its “Butter Mountains” and “Wine Lakes” although these products were too perishable.

    Have you ever wondered what would happen to our wonderful high tech civilisation if the recent Icelandic volcano had been a Mount Tambora? How well would we handle another 1816, the “Year without a summer”?

  50. Nathan said

    Tom Fuller

    Again, you call for Phil Jones to be stood down. For what? Because you find him guilty in your book? Two investigations cleared him, and I think that sticks in your craw and yet again you attack bloggers that are critical of your work.

    This basically a political piece you have written. And far from being even-handed and balanced you are simply pushing your own ideological barrow.

    You and Steve Mosher are PR guys, and this is just a piece of public relations to keep your side feeling good.

    So let’s even the score shall we. Rather than simply listen to your moaning about how unfairly treated you are over at Deltoid, let’s see what Tim Lambert has to say about your methods.

    “Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 4, 2009 10:52 AM

    Just as I expected, Fuller quote-mined this thread:

    ‘Here are comments from Lambert and his crew. …

    Tom is a nasty little toerag

    Does Tom Fuller have some kind of communication disorder?

    Fuller’s name is hyphenated though…….Fuller – (expletive deleted by me)

    Frankly, I think you need to grow a pair.

    Civility is wasted on those who use it as a shield but not as their guide.’

    I did not write any of those comments. That’s misattribution, and as a professional journalist, Fuller knows it’s wrong.

    But the best bit is the way he closes his post:

    ‘So, my takeaway from all this is, we don’t have to throw away basic rules of courtesy. Doing so doesn’t seem to contribute to the discussion.’

    Compare with Fuller’s oh so courteous comment above (#118), where he writes:

    ‘ From the moment you initiated contact with me last week–posting on my column and emailing me out of the blue, asking ‘why I hate climate scientists,’ your behaviour has been just slimy. You whine like a baby in your emails and act like a bully here on your weblog, with your sycophantic buddies here to back you up.

    Pielke was not only right about you, he understated the case. You’re pathetic.’

    Thank goodness Fuller doesn’t believe in throwin away the basic rules of courtesy.”

    That was in realtion to this: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d3-More-global-warming-blog-wars

    It’s not one-way traffic Tom. Your game is to paint the ‘other side’ as being nasty and horrid… This is a game you have continued with this post.
    Now they way you have treated Phil Jones, THAT is nasty. You have attempted to ruin the man’s career, and have him sacked. That’s vindictive and ruthless, and even when he’s cleared by two investigations you still carry on.

  51. Nathan said

    Tom

    Would have been better to say

    “I am biased and my hatred of Tim Lambert is so extreme that I can’t be trusted to give a non-partisan opinion, and this piece I am writing today is part of an on-going blog war that I am having with Tim Lambert”

  52. cbp said

    >> One reason I prefer non-consensus sites is that I can be sure my comments go up

    Get over it Tom – every seasoned pro-science commenter has had their comments removed from denialist blogs. I can’t count the number of times I have spent a long time carefully composing comments complete with references and original research, only to have it never appear, or to be shot down with nothing but ad hominem attacks, a la comment #37 (yes, even though I post under a pseudonym).

    As to your arguments, Phil Jones should remain in his position as head of CRU because he is one of the world’s top climate researchers and the science he publishes is top notch. Your petty politics do nothing to change this. The University gets this. You all apparently do not.

    >> I say Lambert seems exhausted because he doesn’t do anything new or requiring much effort.

    Stop with the irony oh please!
    Lambert has been at the forefront of exposing some of the great scandals of the past 3 months, RoseGate, DailyMailGate, MoncktonGate, DelingpoleGate, and unlike you he is not a professional writer. Perhaps I detect some jealousy? Maybe these were your scoops?

  53. Nathan said

    Tom

    “I chose Deltoid as a ‘consensus’ weblog, again because I am familiar with the contents of the weblog, and because it seemed to roughly match The Air Vent in terms of frequency of posting, number of comments per post, and level of commitment to the political position espoused on the site.”

    And that is a lie. The reason you chose Tim’s site is because you are having a battle with him and felt compelled to use this site as an avenue for attack. It’s cheap and shallow.

  54. AMac said

    Nathan #44

    So why no publications [on upside-down Tiljander]? Why was this never written up and submitted as a response to the Journal?

    I know, because it was never ‘proven’. It was never more than a stupid game.

    “Proven” in this case is in the eye of the beholder. “Stupid game,” the editors of PNAS seemed to see it as more than that; the issue merited the Comment “Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions” in that journal.

    If you’re interested, Google “PNAS McIntyre McKitrick Comment Mann Reply Tiljander”; the relevant background information comes up on the first two results pages.

  55. my count…..
    16 pro Tav 7 anti
    16 for science 7 against

    The one thing that sticks out is the violence from these people and they don’t see it.
    I found this and I think it maybe close to the start of explaining there pore behavior

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

    Excerpts
    at least some of the human abilities to feel guilt or remorse, and to interpret reality, lie in the prefrontal cortex.
    differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities.
    planning complex cognitive behaviors, personality expression, decision making and moderating correct social behavior.

    The development of the front of the brain IS weak in the individuals that support cagw after clear cut information is shown contrary to what is/was known in some sort of belief system.
    1.interpret reality
    2.moderating correct social behavior
    3.future consequences of current activities

    I will continue working on what causes there violence against others.

    violence is used as a tool of manipulation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressiveness

    affective” aggression, defined in this study as being “impulsive, unplanned, overt, or uncontrolled” have lower IQs

    The social defeat model has been extended to include observations of human aggression, bullying, relational aggression, chronic subordination and humiliation

    Tim L

  56. timetochooseagain said

    I see that the usual suspects have lined up to throw conniption fits. Lighten up a bit, eh guys? We are getting way of track with nothing but rhetoric and vitriol now.

  57. papertiger said

    That’s strange Tom. Lambert has never deleted a comment of mine, and I’ve given as good as I got there so he’s had occasion.

    For instance;
    I left a couple posts over at Deltoid under 9. ABC on Cartergate: Opinions on Shape of Earth Differ.

    I pointed out that Foster et al isn’t really an “et al” yet, and due to the revelation of climategate, (how all of the first tier figures in consensus sci jumped in to attack McLean, Carter and Defrietas in record time – Foster being Tammy’s street name, how their slap dash paper flew through the “peer review” process, making it a textbook case of everything that is wrong with the consensus) it probably never would be.

    My initial comment was in the form of a question, “where has Foster been published?”
    This was met by a link to a third party site where the work was clearly labeled as “pending acceptance” or some such in red letter script. This along with the other links I’d seen at skepticalscience and in the body of Lambert’s post all featuring the same or simular “warning labels” led me to comment #2.
    “Foster hasn’t been published”,
    more or less.

    From that point on the natives took on the manner of zoo monkeys in a pooh flinging match.

    I was called a liar.
    I was called a POE which I might have taken exception to except I don’t know what that is.
    Then I was called a fool.
    Several took to explaining unrelated issues at me as if I were a fool.

    Just so happens at the time I was in the middle of a marathon viewing of the Deadwood series, so I let loose with some colorful vocabulary, a bit over the top, but Lambert left it go.

    Steve Mc is 100% more likely to delete a comment from me then Lambert or Rabett.

    What that says about me, I don’t dwell on.

  58. Nathan said

    AMAc

    You need to go back to the Delayed Oscillator blog. Re read what he (or she?) wrote.

    That rebuttal was published with a refutation by Mann et al.

    What has the outcome been? As usual M&M have no impact in the science community.

  59. Carrick said

    Nathan:

    As usual M&M have no impact in the science community

    You’re clueless as always Nathan.

    Look through the leaked emails—or better read Tom’s book :wink: —there is plenty of evidence that M&M have had a significant effect on the community.

  60. Cement a friend said

    An interesting piece. There is no doubt that non AGW sites are much more polite. That is because most understand some science and technology involved in climate assessment.
    I have indicated I am am engineer with some experience in heat transfer (including heat transfer by radiation). From my look at Deltoid (Tim Lambert) he has no understanding of the technology. Maybe that is why he wants to demolish every finding of others not in keeping with his biased opinion. His invective against Pilmer (who is a very capable geologist and has proved up notable mineral deposits such as the western Broken Hill lode extension)is pathetic.

    I disagree to an extent with Jeff Id’s thoughts about CO2 being a contributor to measurable temperature increase. I have suggested that there is plenty of evidence in many, many published and peered reviewed literature about CO2 in local areas double and even three times the back ground level ( one notable one is W Kreutz 1941- look at figure 1 where over 4 days the CO2 level various from around 400ppm to 700ppm). No one has shown that high CO2 levels leads to high local temperatures (in the Kreutz paper the high CO2 levels are associated with low temperatures)
    I have looked at Lucia’s Blackboard site. This is very polite but I find very narrow. The sites I like best are WUWT which has a great variety of topics, Warwick Hughes (Errors in IPCC Climate) which is long running, JoNova, Chiefo, Roger Pielke Snr & Jnr, Lubos Motl (interesting physics) and Niche Modeling (Dr Stockwell)
    I will just add one further point, heat transfer unless there is work input can only occur from a high energy source to a low energy receiver. All those physicists who only have half the story should read the book “Transport Phenomena” R.Byron Bird, Warren E Stewart and Edwin N Lightfoot. You may learn something about fluid dynamics and heat transfer and may even find out (shudder) what Prandtl and Reynolds numbers are.

  61. Actually Thoughtful said

    A few notes from someone who leans towards the AGW view, yet is still interested in/hopeful for a stay of that sentence (by which I mean it would suck for humanity if the AGW argument were correct, but at this point I find that more likely than the skeptic argument being correct).

    1) I have never heard of Deltoid before today. Could be my ignorance.

    2) I consider tAV a top tier site, from the point of view of a careful review of/contribution to the science, and certainly from the courtesy extended to me by Jeff (obviously we are polar opposites in political world view, and in opinions regarding AGW in particular).

    3) I think a better comparison/analysis of competing sites would be skepticalscience and tAV. I find these two sites provide the clearest view of the issues. I prefer skepticalscience only because that site focuses on the science, whereas tAV oftentimes is discussing he said/she said type debates (or the budget of NJ regarding climate change).

    (and let me just say that when I discovered that realclimate wasn’t just editing out the standard denier pablum, but actual, real, significant counter arguments to what they presented – they didn’t just lose my respect, but triggered my search for a site where the search for the truth was paramount – thus my following of tAV). I cannot stomach calling realclimate “first tier”

    4) While Jeff has been very courteous, despite my views in direct opposition of his, fellow commentators on this site run the gamut from courteous, fellow seekers of the truth, to rude. I enjoy it when my points are rebutted and refuted with facts and logic.

    I am amused/bemused/annoyed when the response is non-facts, bogus theories, twisting my screen name, outright insults, declaring I am a Marxist, telling the world I must be a 20 year old who hasn’t read a book, etc.

    The scuttlebutt (show me a 20 year old who knows that word ;-)) was that AGW sites were rude to skeptics, and skeptic sites were more courteous. In my observations human nature trumps ideological/scientific outlook and the odd man out gets picked on and derided in either case.

    The anonymity of the internet allows bullies to attempt run roughshod over the person expressing a minority view for that particular site. The good news is that, overall, the same anonymity allows the clear voices to heard and eventually respected over the louder, high strung protestations of the local know-it-alls.

  62. John said

    I think Nathan proves Mr Fuller’s points.

  63. Nathan said

    Carrick

    Their impact has been political. They’re very good at framing questions so it looks like what they are talking about is critical, when in the end it is actually trivial. Their impact on the science of proxy reconstructions is minimal to zero.

    This whole Tiljander thing is a good example. Mann et al., provided a reconstruction without Tiljander because they said it was a suspect proxy. So when McIntyre brought it up, it was already redundant.

    And Amac is being naughty as he had VERY long conversations about it with William Connelly and others and they all explained to him in simple terms what went on. It’s not particularly complicated nor is it in anyway controversial.

    And M&M have been banging on about proxy reconstructions for… 5 years? More? Have people stopped doing them? Have people come up with substantively different results?

    You finished your study of Southwest Western Australian rainfall yet?

  64. Nathan said

    John

    Tom Fuller’s ‘points’ were about the apparent ‘rudeness’ of the blogger Tim Lambert. Nothing to do with me.

    Tom and Tim are currently engaging in a lengthy argument, in which both claim the other is ‘rude’.

    Tom is simply using this venue as another way to attack Tim, by pretending to compare two bloggers styles.

  65. SamG said

    I just had a quick look at Deltoid and realized that Tim Lambert is the guy who debated with Monckton in Australia.

    Personally, I thought Monckton’s showmanship and oratory skills were tools of deception (regardless of his views). Lambert isn’t a savvy public speaker and his bashfulness made him look more honest.

    On his blog however, his derision and arrogance(a la RC-style)for skeptics is explicit.
    In fact, in the very first post, I spotted that magic word used so regularly and thoughtlessly by contemptuous, left wing idealogues: ‘Denialist’

    In one word. All credibility lost.

  66. John said

    Tim is rude.

    As are you, it’s a typical emotional response from people when their faith is questioned. This is very common in AGW proponents and those of a slightly emotional left wing bent. Please see RC and the like.

  67. HotRod said

    Very interesting.

    And #60 Actually Thoughtful, thank you for your comment. I’ve seen you taking abuse :).

    I am not a scientist, an interested layman with what I like to think is a reasonably developed bullsh*t detector, and hence an inclination to general scepticism. I’ve only been following these blogs for a year. I’ve been, bias admission here, a sceptic of most environmental/scientific alarmist claims made in my lifetime, from mad cow to foot and mouth to bird flu to the likely spread of HIV in the UK to GM crops, and feel vindicated that 90% of them turn out to be 90% nonsense. (As an aside, that position gives one a possibly unhealthy loathing of invocation of the precautionary principle).

    As a 50 year old fund manager I often have to read stuff where the underlying subject matter is beyond me, but I do find I can spot a likely non sequitur, a probable exaggeration, a deliberate or accidental error of omission, and am also reasonably skilled at calculating likely bias BEFORE reading, and so aiming off as I go. Also having been a trader/fund manager for nigh on 30 years I know that I am often wrong, often ignorant, often biased, often stupid. I have no need to be right – if I did I wouldn’t have lasted this long.

    1 I like this site, and others like it, mainly because of that last point – I am driven nuts by people who need to be right. I would say Jeff Id has the least ‘need’ of any of the sceptic bloggers to be right, along with Anthony. I genuinely think that if Watts comes up with a warmer record having twiddled every thermometer going, it won’t bother him one jot. (Monckton on the other hand seems to have a messianic need to be right.)

    2 Stating the bleedin’ obvious, that is likely to make these blog hosts more courteous than even the deity McIntyre, of whom if I had a criticism it is that it’s becoming a bit personal over there, as in ‘the hapless Muir Russell’.

    3 These sites positively welcome any comments or post from any heavyweight from anywhere – I am absolutely confident that Gavin could have all the space he wants.

    4 I find I can gloss over nonsense comments, as in ‘AGW is a scam’ without noticing them. They don’t annoy me therefore, but would annoy some.

    5 I find I cannot gloss over the equivalent (repetitious belief) on realclimate because the comments are almost always accompanied by ad hom abuse.

    6 Realclimate is the only ‘pro’ site I have spent a decent amount of time on, and they seem to fall into every trap of making themselves dislikeable.
    a) they need to be right
    b) the hosts are discourteous
    c) they are even more discourteous to heavyweights
    d) they rudely dissect any decently weighty comment with interspersed editing (eg Curry, Mosher, Sonja B-C)
    e) which has the unsurprising effect of driving people away.

    7 tAV and Watts and so on positively exult in a bare-knuckle fight between, say, Curry and Eschenbach, and that format is terrifically entertaining, useful, and instructive for the rest of us. So far as I can see that would never happen on a ‘pro’ site.

    I have some sympathy for the ‘pro’ blog hosts being exhausted, as Fuller describes Lambert. They have taken a lot of abuse since Climategate on their sites, a lot of which is of the ‘AGW is a scam’ type, which must drive them nuts, to be fair.

  68. Dave H said

    @Tom Fuller

    > I have consistently been treated better on non-consensus blogs than on consensus blogs.

    Let me take a wild stab in the dark as to why that is.

    Is it because:

    a) Those that take the consensus position are blinded by their adherence to a quasi-religious self-flaggelating cult of shoddy science, possess no manners, and spew hatred and vitriol towards any that dare question their pristine green agenda.

    or…

    b) Because on anti-AGW blogs your biases are in line with other commenters, and hence you are less likely to be the subject of controversy or a target for invective.

    Choose wisely. Occam is watching.

  69. cohenite said

    As a sceptic of AGW but not other demonstrated forms of real pollution I occasionally venture to Deltoid to have any ideas I may have put to the test through the Deltoid gauntlet; the ratio of constructive criticism [it’s all criticism] to spleen and vitriol is about 1:9. In that respect I see Deltoid regular BJ leading with his chin:

    “I can only reiterate – take the time to read what Lambert has produced, and you will find that he has wielded mathematical hammers that have well and truly nailed some of the favoured sons of denialism.”

    As an example of the lacuna between this expression of group solidarity and reality the recent threads on Monckton are instructive. Monckton of course debated Lambert in Sydney. As one of the tour organisers I was there; Monckton made 2 mistakes; he mistook Professor Pinker’s gender and the meaning of cloud forcing; ironically, however, the Pinker paper’s study of SW flux from 1983 revealed a gaping flaw in AGW and by default Monckton produced a point worthy of further discussion as enunciated by Steve Short who gave short shrift to the tribalism that congregated against Monckton;

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comments

    Comment 122 is where the fun begins. The point here is that when AGW shibboleths are deconstructed as Steve Short did here the AGW perspective reveals its true form; it is not unintelligent but neither is it open minded and it is that closed mindedness which has, over the last 2 years or so of my involvement in this debate, convinved me that AGW at its base is an emotionally driven concept. It is this emotion wrapped in ideology which explains the differences in response to contrary views between the AGW crowd and the sceptics: an emotional view will produce an emotional response when crossed. I know I have an open mind and will respond reasonably to opposing information; for example this day I spent considerable time exploring the GRACE data on reductions in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and was prepared to concede the point until I discovered a wealth of literature on GIA effects which confound the GRACE results.

    I put this to BJ: has he ever had any doubts about the science of AGW; if he hasn’t he has admitted to religious fervour not scientific endeavour.

  70. HotRod said

    Dave H #68 – Tom Fuller’s post read to me as a judgement and comment on his treatment by blog hosts, not other posters.

    Your point would be well made otherwise, but I think he is really speaking about the hosts, as in ‘… while Jeff Id of The Air Vent has always been unfailingly courteous, responsive and cordial in our communications on both our websites, Tim Lambert has been confrontational, rude and deceptive in how he has handled our communications’.

    Clearly Fuller and Lambert do disagree in plenty of AGW areas, but the point of the post is why the discourtesy? Surely, if you engage, as a blog host, engage with some politeness?

  71. SamG said

    Upon further reading, R.C. is far worse than Deltoid. There are in fact skeptical views on the latter. but still too much bipartisanship floating around.

  72. mrpkw said

    Mr. Fuller, while I disagree you completely about President Obama………………..

    Excellent post !!

    I have tried very hard in the past to visit many of the pro AGW sites, but they seem to be buried so deep in the dogma that it’s impossible for me to continue visiting.

    It of course may be my own bias, but I certainly think that the “non consensus” sites are far more open to opposing ideas and are more focused on the science.

  73. mrpkw said

    # 61
    #1 I also had never heard of “Deltoid” (would have suspected it was a weightlifting site!!)

    # 2 With the amount of work (and the quality of the same) that Jeff puts in, this is a top tier site. ( I started my daily reading here when Climate Audit crashed due to “The Emails”

    Glad to see someone on “your side” as disappointed with realclimate as I am

    #4 Having a six year old, I know they use “Scuttlebutt” on Sponge Bob

  74. Layman Lurker said

    #61 Actually Thoughtful

    (and let me just say that when I discovered that realclimate wasn’t just editing out the standard denier pablum, but actual, real, significant counter arguments to what they presented – they didn’t just lose my respect, but triggered my search for a site where the search for the truth was paramount – thus my following of tAV). I cannot stomach calling realclimate “first tier”

    My opinion of you just went up a couple of notches. :)

  75. gallopingcamel said

    Tom Fuller (#14),
    My earlier post (#13) covers most of the sites I have spent any time on so there is not much I can add except that “tAV” is (IMHO) one of the best sites.

    My post (#49) went down like a lead balloon which is pretty much what happened on the pro-AGW sites I listed.

    Like Diogenes I will keep looking…………..

    One final comment; the rhetoric used by many of the consensus folks on this thread has been really irritating. They give me the impression of louts who don’t bother to use the door mat before tracking mud into your house. Thank you for not stooping to their level.

  76. Layman Lurker said

    #68 Dave H

    You forgot: c) all of the above :)

  77. mrpkw said

    # 67
    “I am not a scientist, an interested layman with what I like to think is a reasonably developed bullsh*t detector, and hence an inclination to general scepticism. I’ve only been following these blogs for a year. I’ve been, bias admission here, a sceptic of most environmental/scientific alarmist claims made in my lifetime, from mad cow to foot and mouth to bird flu to the likely spread of HIV in the UK to GM crops, and feel vindicated that 90% of them turn out to be 90% nonsense. (As an aside, that position gives one a possibly unhealthy loathing of invocation of the precautionary principle).”
    ==================================================
    That describes myself and the majority of skeptics that I know

  78. Bernard J. said

    Gary P. at #28.

    You provide not one whit of evidence to support your insinuation that you were in any way at risk of deletion by Tim Lambert.

    However, no matter the reality or otherwise of your apparent fear, JeffID assured you immediately after your posting that he is not inclined to delete postings. So then, you have no reason not to address your issues about Plimer’s novel here, where your posts will remain for permanent viewing by the travelers on the Interweb.

    Of course, you then risk saying something scientifically indefencible, and in that case you may be held to account, either here (where posts are so rarely deleted), or elsewhere.

    Could it be that this is closer to the reason that you did not pursue a discussion of your reading of H&E?

  79. AMac said

    Nathan responded to my #54 comment with his #58, and then further in his #68. In #58, Nathan advises me,

    You need to go back to the Delayed Oscillator blog. Re read what he (or she?) wrote.

    To my knowledge, Mr (Ms?) Oscillator’s sole post on Tiljander is this one. When too many of my civil and on-topic comments failed his/her moderation, I abandoned that discussion and blog: what other dissenting views are being edited out? A familiar theme for this thread, perhaps.

    In #68, Nathan writes,

    This whole Tiljander thing is a good example. Mann et al., provided a reconstruction without Tiljander because they said it was a suspect proxy. So when McIntyre brought it up, it was already redundant.

    And Amac is being naughty as he had VERY long conversations about it with William Connelly and others and they all explained to him in simple terms what went on. It’s not particularly complicated nor is it in anyway controversial.

    “Naughty” as a synonym for “insufficiently self-promotional.” Very well, I can mend my ways by linking this annotated version of my first exchange at Stoat with William Connolley on Tiljander (he cares about the spelling of his name, BTW). Links to other commentary on Tiljander, pro and con, here. I address why the issue is important to paleoclimate reconstructions and the Hockey Stick in the post The Null Hypothesis.

    Regarding Mann et al’s use of the Tiljander proxies, we agree that “It’s not particularly complicated”, though not on the meaning of that phrase (it’s so much the worse for Prof. Mann’s stance, in my opinion). The clause “nor is it in anyway controversial” requires the qualifier “as seen by Nathan, Prof. Mann, Stoat‘s regulars, Gavin Schmidt, et alia.” For better or worse, Nathan’s “not controversial” writ doesn’t run beyond the AGW Consensus (and may not even include Prof. Darrell Kaufman).

  80. AMac said

    In responding to Nathan’s quip “And Amac is being naughty…” in his #68, I managed to trigger tAV’s spam filter, and enter the moderation queue. Very meta!

  81. Carrick said

    Nathan:

    Their impact has been political

    Again, simply not true.

    If you don’t know or understand the facts or the backstory, you can choose the option of staying quiet.

  82. AMac said

    Supra, I referred to Nathan’s comment #68. My bad, it is Nathan #63 (Apr 19 04:15). From now on, proofread then submit.

  83. sod said

    > I have consistently been treated better on non-consensus blogs than on consensus blogs.

    Let me take a wild stab in the dark as to why that is.

    Is it because:

    a) Those that take the consensus position are blinded by their adherence to a quasi-religious self-flaggelating cult of shoddy science, possess no manners, and spew hatred and vitriol towards any that dare question their pristine green agenda.

    or…

    b) Because on anti-AGW blogs your biases are in line with other commenters, and hence you are less likely to be the subject of controversy or a target for invective.

    Choose wisely. Occam is watching.

    it will be really funny, to see Tom Fuller answer this….

    ————–

    An interesting piece. There is no doubt that non AGW sites are much more polite. That is because most understand some science and technology involved in climate assessment.
    I have indicated I am am engineer with some experience in heat transfer (including heat transfer by radiation). From my look at Deltoid (Tim Lambert) he has no understanding of the technology. Maybe that is why he wants to demolish every finding of others not in keeping with his biased opinion. His invective against Pilmer (who is a very capable geologist and has proved up notable mineral deposits such as the western Broken Hill lode extension)is pathetic.

    so “sceptic” blogs are more polite to you? while you are in denial of basic physics? (CO2 warming effect)

    i am not surprised.

  84. Bernard J. said

    Cohenite.

    I put this to BJ: has he ever had any doubts about the science of AGW; if he hasn’t he has admitted to religious fervour not scientific endeavour.

    You’ve had the answer to such questioning previously, but as your memory seems to be failing you I will reiterate.

    I continually question the science underpinning climate change; just as I continually question the science of the disciplines in which I work or in which I have previously worked. As an ecologist with much else to concern me about the subjects of my study, I would be very much relieved to find that there was a big ballsing-up of the climae change physics somewhere along the way.

    The thing is, every time the denialists (few amongst them are true sceptics) propose some idea that apparently relieves humans of their contribution to climate change, or that ‘removes’ the very existence of climate change itself, their material fails the simple test of close scientific scrutiny. Conversely, over time the mainstream continues to pile up ever more material that denialists might claim has been refuted, but which in truth has not been scientifically rebuffed at all.

    William of Ockham would have something very definite to say about this.

    McKitrick, McLean, G&T, Plimer, Watts, Monckton and all the et als have made howlers that would send any self-respecting professional scientist on a months-long retreat in order to contemplate the manner in which they made such glaring errors. The fact that folk such as those named in the previous sentence continue on, regardless of their mistakes, also says something of their modus operandi, irrespective of the glaring fact of the significance of the lack of substance to their arguments.

    On the other hand, the best that the anti-AGW side comes up with to discredit the mainstream science is the frustration of the CRU team at being harrassed on matters that are ever-increasingly being demonstrated to be spurious to refuting the case for AGW; and the incorrect date attributed to the melting of Himalayan glaciers. (And on that last, it was always so trivially apparent to anyone with a high-school understanding of the physics underpinning heats of fusion that there was a mistake involved in the date that most probably assumed that it had already been corrected – I know that I had so assumed for years.)

    As much as I wish that the mainstream science could be shown to be in error, you’ll pardon me if I wait for far better evidence to come along than has been presented to date. I can’t help it: it’s simply a parsimonious habit of mine…

    Of course, you’ll probably be bubbling inside about now at the thought that I might actually be afflicted by your idea of a “religious fervour”. Fine – if you think so, challenge me with your best and most irrefutable piece of ‘sceptical’ evidence. I am keen to see your strongest argument for your case.

    And by the way, your false dichotomy of “ha[ving] any doubts” versus admission of “religious fervour” is illogical, and a strawman. It is entirely possible to be extremely sceptical, and to continuously test the science without ever actually doubting its veracity, and this does not necessitate any involvement of a “religious fervour”.

    Scepticism – true scepticism – and doubt of the type that you impute are two different beasts.

  85. sod said

    One reason I prefer non-consensus sites is that I can be sure my comments go up. This comment, which probably few here will agree with, was not good enough for Real Climate–never showed up.

    your comment has been posted on real climate, even though it makes wild accusations and calls for resignation of scientists who have been recently cleared by investigations. (i personally wouldn t allow you to spread such rubbish)

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3846#comment-171346

  86. Tom Fuller said

    Sod, thanks for the update. It was indeed posted, six hours after submission, during which time 30 other comments were put up. My post was then put up in chronological order of submission, which meant that those going immediately to the end of the thread would not see it. Nice tactic. Nonetheless, it received its usual attack from people like your soulmate Secular Animist, et al. None of whom addressed the substance of my comment.

    Would you care to try?

  87. Ever since I posted a critical comment on his blog, Tom Fuller has been conducting a campaign of abuse and denigration against me, via posts and comments on his blog, emails to me, and comments elsewhere. It is disappointing that Jeff Id has allowed his blog to be used as a platform for Fuller to continue his campaign.

    There is much that is wrong in Fuller’s post (including ridiculous stuff like claiming that I have been blogging since 1991) but I’m going to focus on Fuller’s claims about moderation on my blog since he must know that what he wrote above is false. I have allowed Fuller to post comments freely on my blog. None of his comments have been moderated, deleted or edited, even when they wildly off-topic. Instead I created a thread for him to post on (linked at the top of this comment). Fuller has not returned the favour, deleting comments I’ve made at his blog.

    In that thread, Fuller was rude and other commenters were rude back. For example in comment 30, “Mark” wrote “Tom is a nasty little toerag”. In comment 31 I replied: “Dear commenters, please be polite.”. (Later I told “Mark” that he had to be polite or leave and he left.) Fuller wrote a post where attributed “Mark”‘s comment to me. As a journalist, he knows that’s wrong but he did it anyway.

  88. Tom Fuller said

    Hi all,

    I have never deleted a comment of Tim Lambert. Tim has never deleted (to my knowledge) one of mine. I wrote what I wrote based on his post here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/climate-audiot2.php

    where he says, “In the discussion on this post, per posted an abusive comment, violating my comment policy. I’ve had to ban him twice before (see here and here), so I simply banned him again, deleting the offending comment and the few that he posted after that.”

    As for our mutual history, you emailed me asking me why I hate climate scientists and then asked the same question in comments. This was my response:

    “Thank you for writing, if only to express your displeasure with my column. While I tend to agree with Roger Pielke Jr.’s policy positions, and have said so repeatedly at Examiner.com, I don’t believe I have endorsed any attacks on you. Perhaps you can point me to the column where you find the language I used that you consider objectionable.
    I’m not trying to put you off–because I regularly criticize Joe Romm’s Climate Progress and Real Climate, I try to pay attention to what I write about other sites. I suspect–and certainly hope–that you are conflating my ‘endorsement’ of his policy positions with some comments he made about your site–was this in regard to his recent posts about SuperFreakonomics?
    However, if your objection is to my agreeing with Pielke’s policy positions over yours, I most probably do–although I’m not quite as familiar with your writings as I am with CP and RC.
    I am happy to continue this discussion with you, and if I have in any way endorsed personal attacks on you, I will apologise in the same forum where they appeared, as well as personally in an email.”

    When I went to your weblog, toerag was one of the kinder descriptions of me. You still have some of the profanity there, right above your ‘there, there, kids–must play nice’ admonition.

    I have no real need to engage with you, either here, your weblog or mine. But I’m glad to see you’re awake.

    Nobody was blogging in 1991. I know that quite well, having followed mediated access to databases for quite some time. However, your archives go back that far, which is a bit curious.

  89. intrepid_wanders said

    There is much that is wrong in Fuller’s post (including ridiculous stuff like claiming that I have been blogging since 1991)

    Wow Tim… “sci.math” in 1988? Was this FidoNet?

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1988/02/catalan.php#more

  90. JAE said

    55: “The one thing that sticks out is the violence from these people and they don’t see it.
    I found this and I think it maybe close to the start of explaining there pore behavior”

    LOL. Yes, the anger just seeths in the writings of these people and their spokesmen (on MSNBC, e.g.). Rather than say, “I disagree with you because…” they are much more likely to say something like: “You are spreading disinformation, you denialist, anti-science moron.”

    And there appears to be a very high correlation between belief in calamitous AGW and far-leftism.

  91. Tom Fuller said

    Hi JAE,

    While I do agree with you about the level of vitriol warmists express, I gotta remind you that I am pretty far left myself–I consider Obama to be a pragmatic centrist, for example, which may help you to categorize me…

  92. JAE said

    Tom: You are not normal!

  93. Chuckles said

    JAE,

    Not that sure about far leftism being diagnostic.
    I’d say large helpings of Malthusianism and what Keith Kloor calls doctrinaire environmentalism’, Gaia worship and the like?

    There seems to be a huge emphasis on mankind as a plague on the planet rather than a part of it, everything running out in the next 10 minutes, no understanding of the aspirations and intentions of developing countries, and the destruction of western civilisation especially the USA as the solution to all the worlds ills. (No matter what the problem)

  94. Tom Fuller said

    JAE, you’re um, not the first to say that about me… I think I was ‘saved’ by a healthy dose of science fiction in my misspent youth. Heinlein, Pournelle, etc., and then later Brin, Card, etc., kept me from the doom, defeat and despair drumbeat so many on my side of the political aisle have bought into–as Chuckles points out.

  95. JAE said

    Tom, if you classify BHO as a “pragmatic centrist,” then I would be interested to know your definition of far-left! And how is bankrupting the country pragmatic?

    I know this is OT, and I’ll stop now.

  96. sod said

    Sod, thanks for the update. It was indeed posted, six hours after submission, during which time 30 other comments were put up. My post was then put up in chronological order of submission, which meant that those going immediately to the end of the thread would not see it. Nice tactic. Nonetheless, it received its usual attack from people like your soulmate Secular Animist, et al. None of whom addressed the substance of my comment.

    inconsistency at its best.

    after having made the false claim, that his post was censored, Tom makes up the excuse that it was posted under the real time stamp. (at what place would he post it?)

    Tom Fuller of course assumes that this is a conspiracy “nice tactic” was his comment above.

    the he continues to complain, that many people obviously READ his comment anyway, and actually did reply to it.

    false claim, followed by made up excuse, conspiracy theory and a complain about getting replies. nice.

    ——————–

    anyone interesting in the way that Tom Fuller behaves, should read the full deltoid topic devoted to him. constant misrepresentation of facts, and the same false claims and excuses that he makes here.

    start reading with this post, and then scan the site for either Fuller or Lambert:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2050211

  97. sod said

    Tom has also forgotten to explain, how “a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion., when the real winter was actually HOT.

    he has failed to explain, how he got information about the exhaustion of Tim (remember, he did debate Monckton lately) and about his chances of recovery. and of what use such uninformed guesses could be.

    a simple question was asked above: could Tom Fuller’s obvious bias have some relevancy for the warm welcome he gets on denialist and “sceptic” blogs? and not the evilness of the other side?

  98. Tom Fuller said

    Sod, let’s start at the end and work up. I am treated quite cordially by people like Bart Verheggen, Judith Curry and Stephen Schneider. So I am not overly bothered that people like Tim Lambert, you and Secular Animist foam at the mouth about and to me.

    Had you picked up a newspaper during the winter you would have read that there was so much cold weather in most parts of the northern hemisphere that people like you were claiming that people like me were using it as a refutation of global warming. I’m well aware that the southern hemisphere was warm during this period, and that as a result, the overall world temperature was high. But then, Sod, it wasn’t winter there, was it?

    Moving on, I wrote that Real Climate had not posted my comment, because after four hours they had not. As they posted other comments in the interim, I assumed that once again they had chosen not to post my comment. Two hours after I wrote that, they did post it, but their use of the time stamp did put it far away from the most current comments. And yes, some people did find it and comment on it.

    I do hope people have the time to go read the Deltoid post. It makes most of my points for me.

  99. j ferguson said

    Sod, are you host of Science of Doom?

  100. dougie said

    Hi gallopingcamel

    you need to have a better read of past posts at CA (not easy I know, ps. bender wasn’t joking, re – read the blogs).
    it lays out the groundwork for just about everything that’s happened/is happening now.

    it may seem to have a “narrow focus” on statistical analysis but make the effort to read deeper & you’ll be surprised.

    ps. S.M may be a bit distracted & personnally involved with the present debacle, but who can blame him, so don’t expect science audits from him at the moment.

  101. SamG said

    Where is Bender?

    Is this him?

    http://www.princeton.edu/geosciences/people/display_person.xml?netid=bender&display=All

  102. cohenite said

    Well BJ, you say:

    “Fine – if you think so, challenge me with your best and most irrefutable piece of ’sceptical’ evidence. I am keen to see your strongest argument for your case.”

    I have already referred to one, not the best and irrefutable, which seems to have to slipped under the radar; read Steve Short’s posts from comment 122 onwards, especially his last and so far unanswered one:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comments

    In fact the view that clouds are a positive feedback is essential for AGW; the contrary, that they are a negative feedback, seems to be the case.

  103. Nathan said

    Tom if you’re not bothered by Tim Lambert why did you write this post? This is simply an attempt by you to ‘get back’ at Tim.

    It’s cowardly.

    “Sod, let’s start at the end and work up. I am treated quite cordially by people like Bart Verheggen, Judith Curry and Stephen Schneider. So I am not overly bothered that people like Tim Lambert, you and Secular Animist foam at the mouth about and to me. ”

    And truly, who cares who treats you well? It’s irrelevant.

  104. Nathan said

    Amac

    Your problem with Tiljander is just silly.

    Let’s say I have a function, f(a)=a^2.
    Doesn’t matter what sign a is, f(a) is always positive. So when Mann says the sign is irrelevant, it actually is irrelevant. It’s just stupid to say that it’s upside down, because it doesn’t matter.

    The whole thing is irrelevant because they did reconstructions without it, and when you turn it ‘the right way up’ nothing changes. It makes no difference to the claim.

  105. Nathan said

    Cohenite

    Give it up buddy, go back to being a lawyer.

  106. RomanM said

    Re: Nathan (Apr 19 21:21),

    Let’s say I have a function, f(a)=a^2.
    Doesn’t matter what sign a is, f(a) is always positive. So when Mann says the sign is irrelevant, it actually is irrelevant. It’s just stupid to say that it’s upside down, because it doesn’t matter.

    What exactly does this have to do with reality? Your grasp of science is absolutely incredible. Stick to sliming people. At least you seem to know how to do that.

  107. Tom Fuller said

    Hi Nathan,

    I wrote the post to compare two weblogs. I have nothing to get back at Lambert for. He has done me no harm–just written bad things about me. As I know they are not true, I am not harmed. I think most who read it will come to the same conclusion as I did.

  108. Nathan said

    Tom

    That’s very dishonest of you. You cannot say that your choice of Lambert’s site as a comparison was innocent. You targeted his site specifically.

  109. Nathan said

    RomanM

    “Stick to sliming people. At least you seem to know how to do that.”

    ? Who have I slimed?

    You are confusing me with Tom Fuller – he’s been sliming Phil Jones.

    RomanM, you are a quality statistician, yes? So why can’t you publish a solid, cogent rebuttle of Mann et al 2008?

    I know why, becuase the method is insensitive to the sign. It doesn’t matter if it’s upside down or not…

  110. tyter said

    Nathan,

    You are just being silly. If your statistical analysis produces a correlation with the reverse sign from the physical meaning, then you have a spurious correlation. This is really basic stuff. Kaufman realized this – when it was pointed out (by Steve M) that he had also inverted the Tijlander series, he issued a correction. It speaks volumes about Mann and his defenders that they will not do the same for a basic error.

  111. Nathan said

    Tyter

    “If your statistical analysis produces a correlation with the reverse sign from the physical meaning, then you have a spurious correlation.”

    The sign is irrelevant in his method.
    They did the reconstruction without it.
    If you use the correct sign it doesn’t change the reconstruction.

    ” It speaks volumes about Mann and his defenders that they will not do the same for a basic error.”

    This is what the whole Tiljander thing is about – attempting to discredit scientists. There’s no issue here. They noted in their supplementary material that they didn’t think Tiljander was particularly good, so they ran the reconstruction without it.

  112. Jeff Id said

    #111, The sign is ignored in his EIV method, it was not ignored in the CPS method. That’s just one more reason some peoples argument that flipping temperature upside down is ok—–makes on sense.

    The fact that some temperatures are inverted is a sign that the method is improper. Ya can’t read thermometers upside down — ever. Warmer is warmer and even in an antimatter universe warmer is never colder.

    Mann screwed up, this screw up makes little difference in the output. There are much larger errors in Mann08, this one get’s the attention because it’s so hit you in the face obvious.

  113. tyter said

    Nathan,

    You miss the point. Yes, changing the sign does not change their reconstruction. But the reconstruction uses a proxy with the inverse correlation to the physical meaning. So according to any basic standards of data analysis, it should be rejected a a valid proxy. And they should have accepted this in their PNAS response.

    When they finally (months later) presented the reconstruction without Tijlander and BCP, there was a distinct difference with an elevated MWP approaching modern temperatures.

    You say this is an attempt to discredit the scientists. On the contrary, they discredit themselves with the refusal to acknowledge obvious errors. They don’t need anyone’s help.

  114. Nathan said

    They’re not thermometers.

    Tyter, well at least you acknowledge that it made no difference.

    “When they finally (months later) presented the reconstruction without Tijlander and BCP, there was a distinct difference with an elevated MWP approaching modern temperatures.”

    so why are you still banging on about this? They did the work without the suspect proxies, so what’s the big deal?

  115. cohenite said

    Nathan;

    “Give it up buddy, go back to being a lawyer”

    Sure, I’ll represent you; someone must be suing you.

  116. sod said

    Had you picked up a newspaper during the winter you would have read that there was so much cold weather in most parts of the northern hemisphere that people like you were claiming that people like me were using it as a refutation of global warming. I’m well aware that the southern hemisphere was warm during this period, and that as a result, the overall world temperature was high. But then, Sod, it wasn’t winter there, was it?

    Tom, basically everything you write is wrong.and not just a little wrong, but flat out wrong. and as you have serious problems admitting your obvious errors, you make up excuses which also are wrong.

    here is what Roy Spencer had to say about it:

    The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/

    and indeed, a look at the full UAH data shows dez jan and feb has been very WARM in the northern hemisphere.

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    Fuller made this claim:

    a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion.

    it was false. and his excuses (the northern hemisphere was cold) is also false. fact.

  117. Tom Fuller said

    Nathan, I am not being dishonest. The choice of Lambert’s site was not innocent, not intentional. It was inevitable. I will be critiquing all of them, so you can yell and scream some more about bias.

    Sod, read carefully. I know what world temperatures were reported. I also know that concerns about a cold winter in many parts of the developed world were a major media story and affected the debate on climate issues. Which was my point. If you bother to read for comprehension.

  118. cohenite said

    sod; you seek out the worst, don’t you? I’m beginning to worry about your serotonin levels. At least the ice is growing;

    And look, the noughties had a much slower rate of increase than the nineties:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

    Which really makes a mockery of base period comparisons since the the base period anomalies for the noughties are greater than for the nineties.

  119. sod said

    Sod, read carefully. I know what world temperatures were reported. I also know that concerns about a cold winter in many parts of the developed world were a major media story and affected the debate on climate issues. Which was my point. If you bother to read for comprehension.

    still unable to admit the obvious errors? third false explanation attempt?

    so when you said “a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion.”, you didn t actually mean that the winter was cold?

    and when you wrote “I’m well aware that the southern hemisphere was warm during this period”, you didn t make the false assumption, that the north was cold? (why then write such nonsense?)

    ——-

    but let us accept your third explanation for a second:

    I also know that concerns about a cold winter in many parts of the developed world were a major media story and affected the debate on climate issues.

    the idea that the Air Vent was profiting from FALSE stories about this winter being cold, is actually damaging the credibility of this blog. while it being more “scientific” than deltoid was a mjor conclusion of the post you wrote above.

    on a denialists and “sceptic” blog, newspaper based (false) claims about a “cold” winter would be welcome. on a blog dealing with the real science, such false claims might get you into trouble. and endless repetition of the obviously false claim might get you banned.

    so the real explanation for your not so warm welcome on certain blogs, is your inability to understand basic facts. and your constant repetition of false claims. (“cold winter “) not their increased tendency to “ban” and “censor” people.

  120. Nathan said

    Tom Fuller

    Yes, you like to paint people with different views to you as ‘yelling and screaming’. It’s all part of you PR effort…

    You will be comparing all the blogs? Good for you. You just decided to do this now? Or was it your secret plan all along?

    Tell me, what is the point of this? What is your ‘critique’ going to show? Is it a tool for deciding which weblogs to visit? Is it an effort to analyse the quality of the material?

    Let’s look at what you said above:

    “To the extent that the two reflect the state of play in the ongoing debate, it would seem that defending the consensus has taken its toll on Lambert, who has withdrawn into a predictable publishing schedule that offers little to those not part of his coterie of fans. As the past few months have been quite difficult for the consensus, this is understandable. However, recent results of investigations that were favorable to the climate science consensus have not reinvigorated Deltoid. On the other hand, The Air Vent seems to be enjoying life and blogging and what’s happening in the discussion. There seems to be a lot more energy on the site–and this may reflect the almost electric charge provided by the last quarter’s events. Climategate, Copenhagen and a cold winter provided a lot of material for discussion.”

    When you actually look at the posts they have recently done it reflects very differently on your little analysis.

    For example Deltoid has been rather up-beat about Phil Jones being exonerated. He has been showing claims presented by well-known skeptics as being quite false. His focus has always been on attempting to show skeptic claims as being false. His lower post rate may also have to do with increasing clarity in science. The skeptic claims are less and less ‘sensible’ and require less and less debunking.

    The Air Vent recently went through some big shifts, culminating in Jeff’s global temp anomalies and an admission that CRU didn’t do anything to the data that would artificially increase the recent global warming. His own analysis actually showed more warming than that of Phil Jones (oh the irony). He laso has been patiently explaining how the Greenhouse Effect works and that there is some expected warming. The reason the Air Vent may have been looking more deeply at the science is that Jeff ID now understands he needs to move his audience forward somewhat, they can’t keep bleating out the same nonsense about CO2 not affecting global temps.

    Now you may see the recent flurry of more sciency posts on the Air Vent as evidence that Jeff ID takes it more seriously. But what I see is someone trying to educate an audience that refuses to accept simple concepts. Tim doesn’t need to do that, his audience already understands that the Greenhouse Effect is real, we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will result in warmer temperatures. We also see tha Jeff ID arrived at the same conclusions as CRU in terms of their temp anomalies. Tim Lambert didn’t need to do that because he (and most of his audience) didn’t have a problem with it.

  121. sod said

    sod; you seek out the worst, don’t you? I’m beginning to worry about your serotonin levels. At least the ice is growing;

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    Tom Fuller didn t make a claim about sea ice. he made the claim that the winter was warm.

    the sea ice in your gaph is NOT growing. the arctic ice is shrinking, as it always does at this time of the year. and it is still below the long term average.

    i hope you were not trying to imply “growth” based on the 2007 cherry pick. such a tactic would, again, show how unscientific arguments get a pass on “sceptic” blogs, while they might bring trouble to you on a scientific blog.

  122. Bruce of Newcastle said

    @Sod #119

    Hey mate, give us all a break. Be a bit more humble on the science because a lot of us ARE scientists yet do not hold to the same interpretation of the data that you apparently do. This is what always happens when the data is sketchy and not all in yet.

    (I like the Wegener controversy for an example – even as late as the 70’s when I was at school I was seriously taught the Pacific Ocean was the hole left after the Moon came out of it – controversies die hard even when the data is ‘in’)

    At the same time I appreciate Tom’s piece because I know there are a lot of people who look at these blogs while trying to understand the climate issue. That is how I started just after Climategate. All I can say is I’m repelled by RC and like blogs because of the almost religious line they take, and quite strong censorship of opposing views.

    I appreciate Jeff’s blog for his openness, misquoting Hall-Talentye-Voltaire-Whoever: Sod I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. /cliche off

  123. cohenite said

    Bruce, I thought the Pacific crater was a goer;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

  124. Nathan said

    Cohenite

    The Pacific is only about Jurassic in age (or rather the oldest parts of the Pacific crust we can observe are Jurassic in age).

    The Moon is over 4 billion years old.

    There is no visible evidence of how the Moon formed, only chemical evidence.

  125. Bruce of Newcastle said

    @Cohenite #123

    Ha ha, like it. We weren’t taught continental drift at school though, and the details weren’t quite right even if prophetic. The planetsimal theory has the post-collision Earth with a fully molten surface to a fair depth, hundreds of k as I remember, so the Pacific ‘hole’ couldn’t really be a direct relic of the collision even if the general thrust is right, sort of.

  126. cohenite said

    Bruce, I guess my point is that some perspective about the dire consequences predicted from 2xCO2 is necessary; this planet has suffered natural cataclysms in the past; even if AGW is correct, will the heating be ‘bad'; in respect of past apocalypse this is useful;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torino_scale

    The dinosaur extinction asteroid 65mya, for example, either had an equivalent energy to the combined nuclear stockpile x 100 million or a billion; whichever, the nuclear winter it produced lasted about 10-12 years; by comparison the burb of Krakatoa, only 13 times larger than the Bikini hydrogen explosion, caused winter conditions for about 1-2 years; what that tells us is that the climate sensitivity of this great old planet is SMALL.

  127. GregO said

    Tom,

    Thanks for your Post – informative and the comments are revealing.

    #13 Thanks for the info on the other sites. I’m new to this topic (only got interested after Climategate…) and new to climate blogs. Scienceofdoom is a good read and the tone is objective – if any of you haven’t checked it out it’s worth it in my opinion.

    I read this post before a lot of the comments and had been made and intended to write something up from what I consider to be my perspective: newbie to the arguments, here to learn, open minded, and politically moderate. But after reading the comments; most of the points I would have made, have been made.

  128. tyter said

    Nathan @114,

    Actually, they are thermometers (which are just another proxy). You seem to be struggling with basic concepts. Why won’t you accept that a using a proxy upside down to the physical meaning is invalid?

    You ask why people keep “banging on about this”. In my view, because it is a nice and fairly simple (maybe not to Nathan) object lesson in how certain climate scientists will not acknowledge even basic errors. Mann’s published response was to call the criticism “bizarre”! Again, his response speaks volumes about his credibility (and his defenders).

    And Jeff is correct that in the CPS method changing the sign does change the reconstruction. CPS is not regression.

  129. RomanM said

    Neven, you don’t do your credibility any favours by defending obvious errors committed by the Team. Mann ignored the authors of the “upside down” data both with regard to correct useage and the fact that the modern portion (on which the correlation was based) was seriously affected by non-climate-related human activity. Applying an automatic selection procedure based on eaxctly that portion was highly inappropriate.

    Arguing that there is “no (large?) difference” in the results is also not a justification nor does it deal with issues regarding other proxies used in the reconstruction.

  130. sod said

    Sod I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. /cliche off

    that is nice, but i don t think i need your support. Tom is making false claims like “cold winter”.
    i am pointing those out.

    making false claims is not covered by the freedom of speech principle.

    allowing somebody to point out those errors also is not “giving him the right to say something”. it is a necessity.

    ————————-

    apart from the many errors, Tom Fuller did miss a lot in his “analysis” of the two blog “spheres”. and you don t need to look further than the very next blog post written by Jeff. here is what is going on in the comments:

    Robert E. Phelan said
    April 20, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Nathan:

    You really need to learn English. Tamino can defend himself. You called me a liar. You can apologize or meet me in today’s equivalent of Weehauken Heights. Laugh if you like, but Jeff will not ignore a subpoena. You can meet me for a beer or meet in court. You have 24 hours to respond.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/8863/#comment-25808

    i have seen multiple people bringing “the court” into blog discussions. there has not been a single instance, in which this not was initiated by “sceptic”.

  131. cohenite said

    sod, I have said before, but it is worth repeating, you are devoid of a sense of humour or irony; and you misrepresent outrageously; you say:

    “there has not been a single instance, in which this not was initiated by “sceptic”.” Here is one; In newcastle a rag-tag group of green legal aid recipients are suing MacGen, represented by the taxpayer funded Office of the Environmental Defender; Hansen and Gore have both called for sceptics to imprisoned and for democracy to be suspended, as has Clive Hamilton; there are multifarious examples of AGW based litigation; here is one from Britain

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/22/litigious-lunacy/#more-4257

    And here is an overview of litigation by and on behalf of AGW in Australia;

    http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lec/ll_lec.nsf/vwFiles/Paper_20Aug09_PrestonCJ_NZ.pdf/$file/Paper_20Aug09_PrestonCJ_NZ.pdf

    Sod, you are incorrigible.

  132. AMac said

    I originally brought up Tiljander in comment #36, in response to Ian Forrester’s #32 strident attack of all critiques of Consensus science: “That is why scientists are so upset with you deniers, all you have is dishonest representation of the science.”

    Tiljander’s a useful case study because, as Jeff ID notes (#112), “There are much larger errors in Mann08, [their use of the Tiljander proxies] gets the attention because it’s so hit you in the face obvious.”

    If it is beyond the pale to utter criticism of an article with such glaring problems–this isn’t the practice of science any more. It’s a matter of religious beliefs, or, as Richard Feynman put it, of Cargo Cult Science.

    Ian Forrester has yet to return, but Nathan stepped in to enliven the thread. Among his contributions has been to repeat the Consensus defenses of Mann08’s use of Tiljander (#45, followed by #63, #104, #111, and #114).

    A public-relations-agency will explain the unethical acts of their client… any way they can. A defense lawyer will go on TV to excuse the conduct of her client… with whatever explanations sound plausible.

    High-profile Consensus bloggers have taken similar approaches to the Mann/Tiljander case, most notably William Connolley (Stoat) and Gavin Schmidt (RealClimate). So Nathan’s in good company.

    I assume Connolley and Schmidt present their apologias for Mann08 in good faith. Nathan, too–even though he peppers his comments with ad hominems that distract from his arguments.

    Perhaps Prof. Mann could benefit from gazing into the mirror and contemplating his “good faith.” The rest of us are being asked to divert trillions of dollars of economic activity toward combating Global Warming, on the strength of Consensus Science. So it’s fair for us to focus on a different set of questions:

    * Does this Consensus Science use correct methods?
    * Are the uncertainty intervals of its quantitative conclusions properly calculated?
    * Are its conclusions robust?
    * Are Consensus Scientists and Institutions able to correct errors, if they’re made?

    Tiljander teaches us quite a lot about these issues. That Mann’s group made the glaring mistakes in the first place. That they weren’t picked up by peer-reviewers or editors. That Mann attacked the messenger as “bizarre” rather than correcting the problem, in his formal Reply. And that Consensus scientists, bloggers, and commenters follow along with Mann’s sophistry.

    I likely won’t comment further on this issue on this thread: it’s not the place for a rehash of Mann08’s shortcomings, or an exploration of the weak-tea defenses of that paper.

    Readers who are new to this controversy could review Nathan’s defenses of Mann08 (#45, #63, #104, #111, and #114), then contrast those arguments with my summary Another Scientist Commends Mann et al. ’08 — Tiljander Notwithstanding. A non-statistical walk-through of how Prof. Mann mistakenly used Tiljander’s X-Ray-Density proxy in an upside-down orientation is at The Newly-Discovered Jarvykortta Proxy-II.

  133. sod said

    “there has not been a single instance, in which this not was initiated by “sceptic”.” Here is one; In newcastle a rag-tag group of green legal aid recipients are suing MacGen, represented by the taxpayer funded Office of the Environmental Defender; Hansen and Gore have both called for sceptics to imprisoned and for democracy to be suspended, as has Clive Hamilton; there are multifarious examples of AGW based litigation; here is one from Britain

    ouch, pretty bad attempt to misquote me.

    i said:

    i have seen multiple people bringing “the court” into blog discussions. there has not been a single instance, in which this not was initiated by “sceptic”.

    none of your replies does mention blogs at all.

    and this topic is about Tom Fuller comparing blogs. he finds “sceptic” blogs to be a refugee of the freedom of speech, where every poster is getting a warm welcome.

    while consensus blogs are the home of those who censor nearly every post. (or at least delay it, so that only those who write nasty replies will see it appear later). and host and poster a free to make every nasty attack on those poor “middle ground” people showing up, trying to advance science. (with Lambert, Tom pretended in his blog that attacks made by other posters were made by Tim. when Tim Lamber actually was calling people to stop the attacks)

    now what is happening on the “?” post, which Jeff made directly after this, is closer to reality. Phelan made a false claim and now is threatening to sue Nathan.
    attacks don t get more nasty than that. but somehow Fuller missed this reality of “sceptic” posts and blogs.

  134. I note that Tom Fuller has once again evaded discussion of the fact that he deliberately misattributed comments made by others to me. He knows this is wrong which is why he jeeps dodging and weaving on the issue. I’m not the only person to be target of his abuse. Here’s what he wrote about Michael Tobis in just one thread: “you flat out lie … You’re a liar and a hypocrite. … you just quit thinking. … slimeball … scum … you attack me with a bald-faced lie … your pinheaded commenters … Brown Shirt … your repeated lies …” Fuller was banned from commenting at Crooked Timber for abuse.

    Fuller tries to justify his claim in his post that I delete “at owner’s discretion” by pointing to an example (from 2005!) where I banned a commenter for repeated abuse of other commenters. This is another deliberate misrepresentation on his part, pretending that I delete comments for arbitrary reasons (like Fuller does) rather than honestly reporting the reasons why I do delete comments.

  135. Intrepid Wanders: sci.math is Usenet. In the 90s I maintained an archive of my Usenet postings so I could refer back to them. For convenience I merged this archive with my blog archive a while ago. Fuller does not seem to be very familiar with my blog.

  136. AMac said

    Tim Lambert (#134) quotes from Tom Fuller’s contributions to “just one thread”. That thread is More Fullerenes from Michael Tobis’ Only In It For the Gold, posted March (?) 29, 2010.

    Speaking of Tiljander: to my surprise, those proxies, and I, have cameo roles in Tobis’s post.

    One AMac is obsessed with getting people to admit that Michael Mann is in a league with Bernie Madoff as a con artist. He bases this on some technical disagreement about a particular tree ring record that seems highly unlikely to shake the foundations of science. And he comes by, feigning interest… Interestingly, not another peep from AMac has appeared here…

    “Not another peep” from me is correct. On a prior OIIFTG entry, a response I submitted to this comment by dhogaza failed to appear, as noted at the tail of that thread. Experiencing Tobis’ double standard on comment moderation caused me to lose interest in his blog.

  137. Layman Lurker said

    while consensus blogs are the home of those who censor nearly every post. (or at least delay it, so that only those who write nasty replies will see it appear later).

    Sod, could you clarify your meaning of your claim here? Are you saying that Tom “finds” that nearly every post that is censored or delayed comes from consensus blogs and that skeptical blogs are characterized by free speech, or, that he “finds” that consensus blogs (in general) censor or delay nearly every post while skeptical blogs do not?

    Tom is not presenting any such idea as a finding or a claim, but as an opinion. He offers the opinion as an explanation for choosing the topic of his post – not as a “finding”. He concedes that this is his “perception” and that it may or may not be accurate.

    I think it would be useful if everyone cut people a little more slack here. It is a blog and comments are sometimes poorly thought out, made in haste, or are unclear and poorly worded.

  138. Actually Thoughtful #61

    Layman Lurker said
    April 19, 2010 at 10:04 am

    #61 Actually Thoughtful
    My opinion of you just went up a couple of notches. :)

    I agree with this( most usually do with Layman)

    Tim

  139. diogenes said

    Dear all,

    The reactions to the blog posting of Tom cannot make his point more clear: as can be read here, AGW supporters are fanatical, and would do an excellent job in the teams that once formed the Holy Inquisition. They seem to be attracted to “denialist” opinions like locusts after a field of fresh salad plants. Nothing can deter them, nothing can deviate them from their holy mission: proclaim the cause of “Physics” until death.

    Well, life will continue on this planet, with CO2 at 2000 ppm or at 200ppm.

    Accept that you AGW supporters are not the “Keepers of the Universe”.

    So be gentle and nice to your fellow humans as long as they last. Get a life, enjoy!
    Cheers!

  140. Nathan said

    Amac

    Still waiting for your publication of your refutation of Mann 2008…
    Been a couple of years. Surely yyou could have cobbled something together…

  141. cohenite said

    Well sod all this court business came from your reference to this comment by Robert Phelan:

    “You really need to learn English. Tamino can defend himself. You called me a liar. You can apologize or meet me in today’s equivalent of Weehauken Heights. Laugh if you like, but Jeff will not ignore a subpoena. You can meet me for a beer or meet in court. You have 24 hours to respond.”

    It reads as though Robert is taking the piss; get a sense of hmour or irony sod. I never take any notice of lay-people ‘threatening’ court action [I presume Robert is not a lawyer] and even less notice of lawyers threatening court action because they know better; generally speaking my attitude to blogging is what happens on the field stays on the field; if the moderator lets it pass than take it on the chin or come back harder.If you are concerned about censorship at a blog do duplicate posts at a ‘friendly’ site and see what happens; this is what Jolliffe did with Tamino over Tamino’s praise of Mann’s eccentric use of PCA and the welcome mat was quickly put out; although Jolliffe’s stature no doubt helped.

  142. Jeff Id said

    #141, Another witness to the Jolliffe incident.

    I don’t moderate until things get really stupid. Nobody here isn’t an adult and I don’t have one bit of fear of anyone’s opinion. I took the comment as a test but the lawyer nuke isn’t really worthwhile in my opinion.

    One time a guy told us that he was going to sue and his lawyer was $300/hr, we replied ok but ours is on staff and free — bring it. The next day the dispute vanished, we were in the right anyway.

  143. Tom,
    I looked up the post Amac linked on Fullerenes, and it does undermine your generalisation about courteous sceptics vs authoritarian intolerant AGW supporters. I do see you responding to a reasonably worded critical post by Michael Tobis with an immediate accusation of “flatout lies”, “intellectual dishonesty” and “trash talk”, and it does go downhill from there with references to scum and Brownshirts.

    As far as I could see, Michael did not respond in kind, nor did was there any reference to his trying to suppress your flow of speech.

  144. AMac said

    Nathan#140

    > Still waiting for your publication of your refutation of Mann 2008…

    See the links in comment #132. Or do you mean “publish a critique in the peer-reviewed literature”? Alas, I have a day job, but I can do arithmetic and simple logic in my spare time.

    Concerning the use of the Tiljander proxies, the claims of Mann08 are accessible to anyone with appropriate background knowledge who is willing to put a little time and effort into studying them. Leave a comment at one of the linked posts if you want to pursue the matter.

  145. tyter said

    Nick Stokes,

    Are you insane? Among other comments, MT says with respect to Tom:

    “the class of error that did not indicate a reporter who takes his responsibilities seriously”

    “It’s only interesting as a particularly extreme and relatively obvious example of the hubris of the critics of our field”

    “In short, he is a fine example of Dunning-Kruger”

    In what world are those courteous comments? MT began by attacking Tom’s journalistic integrity. For a professional journalist, that is a incredibly serious and personal charge. And you blame Tom for getting upset??

  146. AMac said

    Apparently Nathan does challenge me to publish a rebuttal of Mann08 in the climatology literature in #140. As Lucia notes, he is being silly.

  147. cohenite said

    Nathan’s objection/complaint/suggestion/silliness has been dealt with here;

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/23/cant-see-the-signal-for-the-trees/

    And here;

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/simple-statistical-evidence-why-hockey-stick-temp-graphs-are-bent/

  148. Re: tyter (Apr 20 22:33),
    No, Tobis is certainly critical, but stated within normal bounds. What he said on responsibility was
    “he woefully confused carbon concentration and carbon emissions. I called him on it, stating that this was the class of error that did not indicate a reporter who takes his responsibilities seriously. That is, I claim that while most non-specialists do make this mistake, a specialist should know better. Indeed correcting this common confusion should be a very important part of journalistic work in this area.”
    Tobis may be wrong, but the tone does not merit the response.

  149. tyter said

    Nick,

    I really don’t think you understand how serious that charge is to a working journalist. And do you really think the “Dunning-Kruger” remark is within normal bounds? That is no more than a dressed-up playground insult.

  150. cohenite said

    Nick; that criticism by Tobis is a bit harsh; since the Beenstock paper and the VS brouhaha everyone has been confusing CO2 levels and increases.

  151. Re: cohenite (Apr 20 23:12),
    Coho, As I said, MT may have been wrong. And I don’t think any of that incident was any big deal. It just doesn’t fit with Tom’s generalisation:
    “I can only reply that the ‘owners’ of consensus weblogs are more or less similar to Tim Lambert, and have provided me with many unpleasant moments of confrontational exchanges”

    And if MT’s criticism is supposed to be beyond the pale, what do we make, on this polite blog, of:
    “Tim Lambert has been confrontational, rude and deceptive in how he has handled our communications. “

    It’s the smug back-patting that grates.

  152. Tom Fuller said

    I confess I don’t get Tobis. I wrote an article about emissions, because the metrics only fit if I used emissions–it was about population estimates and how fewer people were bound to put out fewer emissions.

    Tobis used that as a signal to attack because I didn’t talk about concentrations, claiming I didn’t understand the science! That concentrations were all!

    Well, I know concentrations are what drives anthropogenic warming. I’ve written that about a thousand times over the past year. But it didn’t fit in the article. So it got ugly pretty quickly.

  153. cohenite said

    Tom; the Beenstock paper concludes that concentrations of CO2 are irrelevant but that increases in CO2 have a slight warming effect, constrained as they are by Beer-Lambert:

    http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    A good explanation of this is here;

    http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-primer/

  154. Bernard J. said

    Cohenite says:

    In fact the view that clouds are a positive feedback is essential for AGW; the contrary, that they are a negative feedback, seems to be the case.

    Right, if that’s your first response to my question at #83 requesting your strongest argument for your case, then let’s run with it back on the Deltoid thread to which you have linked: this thread is hardly the place for such a discussion.

    Of course, the fact that you said “I have already referred to one, not the best and irrefutable…” makes me wonder why you chose this one if it is not the “best and irrefutable”. The answer, of course, would seem to lie in the next part of your sentence – “…which seems to have to slipped under the radar…”. Does this mean that you are only going to propose arguments that have not thus far been addressed?

    Whatever the reason, I will look out for you on that thread. It will be interesting to tease out the science that you believe supports your case. Bring along your deconstructions of Dessler, Soden, Knutti & Hegerl, Santer, Held, and any others whom you believe have muffed the science underpinning water feedings-back to warming.

  155. cohenite said

    “Of course, the fact that you said “I have already referred to one, not the best and irrefutable…” makes me wonder why you chose this one if it is not the “best and irrefutable”.

    BJ, I was just being gentle with you.

    “this thread is hardly the place for such a discussion”

    Yuk, yuk, yuk, said the spider to the fly. I like this thread fine; now answer the question BJ; and for the edification of the other readers I’ll repeat Steve Short’s question:

    “(1) What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean Bond albedo from (say) 0.298 to (say) 0.302?

    (2)What would be the predicted mean global surface temperature change (+ or -, take your pick) for an upwards shift in global mean total cloud cover from (say) 66.38% to (say) 67.38?”

  156. Raven said

    I dont know where get the idea that climatedepot is the most popular sceptic site:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climatedepot.com+wattsupwiththat.com+climateprogress.com+climateaudit.org#

    Both CA and WUWT have higher traffic rankings.

  157. Bernard J. said

    Cohenite at #155.

    You seem to be a bit slow off the mark.

    I responded months ago to Steve Short’s question on the very thread to which you linked.

    However, your repetition of the questions is irrelevant, without a full accounting of all of the forcings and feedings-back that affect the radiative balance of the atmosphere. You might be enamoured of cloud albedo as your prime refutation of AGW, but there is much more to the physics of the heating of the atmosphere than this one parameter.

    I will repeat my challenge: bring along your deconstructions of Dessler, Soden, Knutti & Hegerl, Santer, Held, and any others whom you believe have muffed the science underpinning water feedings-back to warming. Invite Steve Short to bring his along too, and stop being an arachnophobic sissy and go back to the thread where this stuff was first raised. You may have your moral support here, but your discussion started on deltoid’s Open Thread 43, so go back with your science, such as you may have, and finish it there.

    (Oh dear, did I say “arachnophobic sissy”? Some here will not be impressed by my evil, angry words. It’s fortunate then that I did not use on this thread words such as “slimeball”, or “scum”, or “pinheaded commenters”, or “Brown Shirt”, or…)

  158. Kendra said

    Tim,

    I forgot to mention your site on my comment on Tom Fuller’s second post. I was reading you about a year ago from time to time.

    I wonder if you and other consensus sites are aware, or find it inconsequential, of your impact on those who have decided to look into just what the debate is? Or is it simply preaching to the choir and scoring points off others?

    I came into all of this truly open-minded – although naturally suspicious of the idea of consensus – I do not have a hard science degree but I did get a good grounding in what science is (supposed to be).

    At this point, I am absolutely the only one I know who researches AGW, although they see mainstream media articles. I do list all the sites, including yours, for those who might want to look into things for themselves – however, they don’t. Because I have demonstrated a far deeper knowledge of the subject than they ever dreamed it entailed, I have influenced every single one* of them towards the skeptical camp – I do update with news on both sides -what is clear to them, however, is that the science is FAR from settled.

    *I make an exception of 3 academics I know – who identify with authority/elitism even if they have not managed to attain its highest echelons. Sorry, Tom, but the only close-minded people I know are academic leftists – the “grew up in a liberal Democratic” family but not academically oriented are much more open-minded, if amazed at first that someone “like me” who has lived an unconventional life, might not be a fan of big government / elitist oligarchical systems.

    I venture to suggest that just about any open-minded person deciding to investigate this issue will quickly find themselves far more attracted to so-called skeptical sites where inquiry and debate does take place than sites that are cliquish, arrogant and condescending – especially when we find out comments are not only deleted, but far worse, edited.

    I recently saw the term “circle-jerking” on a “consensus” site and I find that very apropos. As long as you have the MSM in the tank for you, fine, but you will always lose those who genuinely seek knowledge and go to the trouble, as I have, to find it wherever it may be.

    As I said in the second post, I still visit RC, etc., to see what you’re saying – I’d forgotten about you so guess I’ll have to see for myself what you’re up to these days.

  159. Kendra, I see no evidence that you are open minded or think for yourself at all. In the post above Tom Fuller claimed that I delete “at owner’s discretion”, even though I have never deleted any of his posts (while he deletes mine on his blog). He then tried to justify his claim by pointing to an example (from 2005!) where I banned a commenter for repeated abuse of other commenters. This is another deliberate misrepresentation on his part, pretending that I delete comments for arbitrary reasons (like Fuller does) rather than honestly reporting the reasons why I do delete comments.

    And yet you seem to prefer to believe Fuller’s lies to checking things out for yourself.

  160. Tyter argues that Tom fuller is justified in writing all this abuse because he is a professional journalist: “you flat out lie … You’re a liar and a hypocrite. … you just quit thinking. … slimeball … scum … you attack me with a bald-faced lie … your pinheaded commenters … Brown Shirt … your repeated lies …”

    Tyter is a parody, right?

    Meanwhile Fuller’s justification for all of abuse is that Tobis suggested that Fuller’s post where he used emissions when he should have used concentrations was an honest mistake. Fuller claims that he does understand the difference, which means that his post was deliberately wrong, that is, a lie, rather than an honest mistake.

  161. Tom Fuller said

    Lambert, I’ll be perfectly satisfied if readers of your selective quotes go to the threads and see the entire discussion. I think most readers here already understand your opinion and probably your character.

    Nice job on Monckton, by the way. Sitting duck, of course, which is why you have to work so hard to avoid meaningful conversations with people like Pielke or Liljegren, or Mosher, or McIntyre. Hmm. You like picking on journalists, don’t you?

  162. Kendra said

    Good heavens, Tim, such a thin skin.

    I knew nothing of your contretemps with Tom when I was visiting your site. It didn’t occur to me that you were going to associate my comment with your squabble with him – when was that? I missed it.

    No, this was an addendum to what I’ve been writing, in both Tom’s posts, about my experiences in the various blogs and had nothing to do whatever with any particular interchange, whether with Tom or anyone else specifically.

    I made it clear it’s been at least a year and I will check for myself what your site is like now. I did not have a good impression one year ago.

    Now, the problem is that you seem to be missing the point I was making. I will excuse this one time your misinterpretation that I was only coming to Tom’s defense.

    Please reread my comment without reference to Tom and deal with the issue I brought up – it is very clear and you should be ashamed of hiding behind Tom in order to duck it.

  163. Kendra said

    P.S. I only have know Tom Fuller for about 6 months and in that time have only known that there was, but not its substance, something going on with Tobis. And that I only found out at Lucia’s – and also ended up on his site as well. Interesting, but yet another unpleasant person (I think there was something about women with too many children being debated).

    Just curious – do you happen to know what’s this with the “in it for the gold” business – since all you insiders know all the ins and outs. And I’d love to know the secret meaning of “deltoid” as well.

  164. cohenite said

    Well, BJ, I’m shattered,”arachnophobic sissy”; you cyber bully! But I’ll struggle on, for the cause. Now Mr Meanie, you say you answered Steve; I have already suggested the advantage of double posting at 2 sites so why don’t you post your answer to Steve here?

    As for “deconstructions of Dessler, Soden, Knutti & Hegerl, Santer, Held, and any others whom you believe have muffed the science underpinning water feedings-back to warming.” Here is my first reply;

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

    And here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf

  165. Kendra said

    Tim,

    In case you’re not seeing the relevance of what I’m saying, recently there’s been a couple of big deals brought up by other warmists – the PR types, two among many:

    1. That warmists haven’t been very good communicators and should heed the tips of the PR experts.

    2. That psychological interventions need to be initiated on those who for various neurotic/pathological reasons can’t get with the program.

    Just to bring you up to date with the latest – I don’t know why you didn’t get the memo. Are you being marginalized – have you become redundant since your mega-fail with Monckton, despite your cute trap?

  166. tyter said

    Tim,

    A few words of advice: in a thread where you are defending your reputation, don’t blatantly misrepresent what others say. Not clever. But I admire your mastery of chutzpah in then accusing me of being a parody.

  167. The thread where Fuller abused is here:

    “you flat out lie … You’re a liar and a hypocrite. … you just quit thinking. … slimeball … scum … you attack me with a bald-faced lie … your pinheaded commenters … Brown Shirt … your repeated lies …”

    Michael Tobis showed saint-like patience in remaining calm in the face of Fuller’s repeated abuse. All the quotes above come from Fuller. On the other hand Fuller has dishonestly attributed to me quotes made by others. Watch him evade this point again.

    I’m not the only one to have had comments deleted by Fuller. Here’s what another commenter wrote:

    Funny, Tom Fuller went so far as to kick me off and erase all my comments on his site. My efforts there were to point out his weak reasoning, blatantly and easily provable false assertions, and to point out stories he should be covering but weren’t.

  168. Sorry, Kendra. Still not seeing any evidence that you are open minded as you claimed.

  169. Kendra said

    Hey, Tim, this thread isn’t about me – it’s a comparison of 2 sites – and my claim to be open-minded was simply related to the fact that I look for the evidence on all kinds of sites. I’m also open-minded about your dust-up with Tom. I have no clue who’s right or wrong, who I’d agree with, who started it. I would have to go back and read the whole thing in context. I may or may not do that.

    One more thing, if I wasn’t open-minded I wouldn’t be reading Tom Fuller’s column in the first place. So there, sheesh.

    Again, this thread compares two sites. I decided to put my 2 cents in because I was once in the position of being a member of the relatively uninformed hoi polloi who decided to find out what all the fuss was about. I am still learning and still open to new information. I’m ready to change my stance as new facts come to light. Now, that’s neither here nor there, simply background to my point.

    I know the purpose of Real Climate was to inform the uninformed – they say so. I assumed you also wanted to play a role in persuading the general public. However, I have no direct knowledge of this. Therefore, I asked you above if you are only interested in “preaching to the choir,” meaning only those who already agree with you, or not.

    If it’s the latter, then my opinion of how you’re doing that, as a representative of amateurs ready to learn, should at least be of some interest to you. My negative impression of your site was over a year ago and had nothing to do with Tom. A response from you to this could have been to ask me to provide evidence of why I had that impression; instead, you chose to question whether or not I’m open-minded – which is totally irrelevant to the point of this thread.

    Arguing ad numerum, haha, it seems a number of others new to the issue have had the same experience. You are the one with the blog, you are the one with a product to sell (or not – it’s still unanswered whether you’re running a private club for insiders only).

    I also would be interested in your response to my pointing out that recently there has been a move by the climate science establishment toward improving communication and PR skills. Sorry I don’t have the link but it’s hard to believe you’re not aware of it.

    I would really appreciate a clarification of your position and your perceived role.

  170. tyter said

    Tim,

    Only in your fantasy world does saint-like patience include accusing someone of being “a fine example of Dunning-Kruger”. Only in your fantasy world are the charges of not being a “reporter who takes his responsibilities seriously” and of lacking “journalistic responsibility” the same as “suggesting” (suggesting!) someone made an “honest mistake”. And only in your fantasy world did I say: “Tom fuller is justified in writing all this abuse because he is a professional journalist”

    Or maybe you just made some honest mistakes.

  171. Bernard J. said

    Cohenite.

    Your links are a hodge-podge of disparate and distorted ramblings based on the theft of emails and data from UEA. They do not present a cogent argument about how water and clouds constitute a negative forcing as a consequence warming due to anthropogenically-emmitted carbon dioxide, which was your assertion at #102.

    Changing the subject completely, and as an interesting aside, one of your friends… actually, scap that interesting aside. I’ve decided to chase something up. Stay tuned! ;-)

  172. cohenite said

    I stay tuned with bated breath! Actually I remembered a took a shot at Dessler et al here;

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/

    And that was before the Soloman, paltridge Douglas, and Knox papers etc; and these little heroes:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027060.shtml

  173. sod said

    One more thing, if I wasn’t open-minded I wouldn’t be reading Tom Fuller’s column in the first place. So there, sheesh.

    this is nonsense.

    in contrast to what he is telling you, Fuller is no where near the middle of this debate. the IPCC is close to the middle!

    Fuller wrote the “climategate” book. you don t get much further from the middle on this subject, as recent investigations have shown.

    here is a nice picture that illustrates positions:

  174. Tom Fuller said

    Lambert, as I mentioned earlier in the thread and at the time that comment appeared, I have never deleted one comment from you. The commenter you mentioned, Dano, was warned repeatedly after posting essentially the same comment 400 times on various posts. When I finally banned him, I wished him well, explained why I did what I did and suggested he open his own weblog. He is one of three people I have banned from the site. Funnily enough, they all post regularly on your site.

  175. Tom Fuller said

    Lambert, remember up above where you posted a comment using quotes from my conversation with Tobis? Remember how one of them was “you flat out lie”? Well now you can use this one. You flat out lie–I have never deleted one of your comments. This is the second forum where you have posted this. The first time, I just posted the statement that I hadn’t deleted one of your comments. Now, I’ll be blunter. You flat out lie. You can save that for further use when describing my character.

    Apologies to all for this.

  176. Oh look, Fuller has once again evaded the fact that he deliberately attributed to me quotes made by others. Given his documented dishonesty on this and in other cases, I do not believe his denial on the matter of his deletion of comments I made at his blog. I also don’t believe his claim that Dano posted the same comment 400 times. Given Fuller’s evasiveness, I can imagine Dano reposting a question several times that Fuller kept ducking, but not 400 times. I’ll bet Fuller wishes he could delete this comment, too.

  177. Kendra, I am interested in what comments open-minded people might make about my blog, which is why the question of whether you are open-minded as you claim is relevant. Reading Tom Fuller’s blog is not evidence that you are open-minded, but rather you like to have your prejudices confirmed.

  178. Tom Fuller said

    Readers used to the civil discussion normally present on this and other civilized weblogs may be a bit surprised at the back and forth between Lambert and myself. My apologies for involving you all in this.

    This is actually par for the course for Lambert and his tribe. It would be nice to be able to just ignore him. However, as readers can see above, this just allows him to increase the volume of his accusations–in this case ‘misattribution,’ where he (way up there) says I wrote a post attributing the insults provided by one of his commenters to Lambert himself. (I did not do that, but it doesn’t really matter.)

    Lambert and his faithful commenters do this as a hobby, perhaps one reason why Lambert’s own blog has become so sterile. They then select quotes from their own and each other’s comments and paste them on other weblogs, a vicious little family circle that allows them to slime those who disagree with them. The only defense comes down to this:

    1. Respond in the same forum where the criticism appears
    2. Respond as quickly as possible so that your defense is near the accusation
    3. Be forceful and specific in telling the truth

    This allows you to refer people to the thread in question and show a chain of ‘evidence’ that makes clear what actually happened.

    So, you want to be a climate blogger? Today marks my 1 year anniversary of writing commentary on global warming at Examiner.com. I have written 438 articles that I think are consistent and clear about what I think on the issue. I have made mistakes–quite a few of them–and apologised for those mistakes, but I’m proud of what I’ve written. And I’m not going to let a handful of thugs who have banded together to form a slime patrol stop me.

    Later in this series I will explore the topic in greater depth–given that the Slime Patrol has descended upon us, Jeff may ask me to take this back to Examiner.com–otherwise, stay tuned. It will sadly get worse as it goes on.

  179. sod said

    sigh.

    You flat out lie–I have never deleted one of your comments.

    and you did lie, when you made the “cold winter” claim? (the winter was NOT cold.)

    or when you said:

    This comment, which probably few here will agree with, was not good enough for Real Climate–never showed up.
    (the comment was posted.)

    and i am looking forward to you telling us, which of those insults was posted by Tim:

    Here are comments from Lambert and his crew. They conclude with something that I find a bit repellent–Lambert published an email I sent him in the comments without asking my permission.

    * Tom is a nasty little toerag

    Does Tom Fuller have some kind of communication disorder?

    Fuller’s name is hyphenated though…….Fuller – (expletive deleted by me)

    Frankly, I think you need to grow a pair.

    Civility is wasted on those who use it as a shield but not as their guide.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d3-More-global-warming-blog-wars

    ———————-

    this is getting quite stupid. you can see the bias that Fuller has against Lambert. would any journalist with serious intentions choose a blog he hates so much, for a comparison?

    i was around when Tom banned Dano. i have seen Tim disemvowel posts or restricting people to a single topic. in stark contrast to what Fuller claims, there is very little difference between the way the two of them use the method. (also remember that Tim is blogging since 1991….)

    the Tom Fuller blog had older comments disappear over at least several weeks. (the “next button” didn t change the post being displayed) this could be an explanation for disappearing posts. “Lambert lied” is no such explanation.

    sum up: anyone doing a real analysis, will find that consensus blogs (for example Deltoid) do not really differ in the way they handle abusive comments from “sceptic” blogs.
    both blog types will have a tendency to ban people from the other side more often. (any serious analysis will show, that “sceptic” blogs might ban people who make pretty reasonable comments, while consensus blogs have to deal with pretty bizarre stuff)

    Fuller has come to his conclusions, because he is completely biased. and Tom Fuller has a lot of things to explain, before he should start to call other people liars.

  180. Wow! It only took five goes to get Fuller to address that fact that he misattributed comments to me. Too bad that his reponse is straight up lie. Now I can’t prove that he is lying about deleting my comments (though he is), but I can prove that he misattributed the comments. Here’s what he wrote

    Here are comments from Lambert and his crew. …

    Tom is a nasty little toerag

    Does Tom Fuller have some kind of communication disorder?

    Fuller’s name is hyphenated though…….Fuller – (expletive deleted by me)

    Frankly, I think you need to grow a pair.

    Civility is wasted on those who use it as a shield but not as their guide.

    I did not write any of those comments. That’s misattribution, and as a professional journalist, Fuller knows it’s wrong. And lying about doing it also wrong.

    I do have to give Fuller credit for his chutzpah. After writing the post above for the specific purpose of sliming me and filling it with misrepresentations of me and my blog, he turns around and calls the good folks correcting his falsehoods a “Slime Patrol”. It’s like he has some compulsive need to abuse people.

    “Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l’attaque il se défend.”

  181. Tom Fuller said

    As readers can see, the slime patrol has landed. Sod, once again (and we’ll try and use very plain English here):

    My original point was not about the temperature of the winter recently passed. It was about the discussion of the cold weather and the effect it had on discussions of climate. I know this happened in the UK where you live. Here, it took the form of commentary about ‘Snowmageddon’ and ‘Snowpocalypse.’ We had a US Senator build an igloo on the steps of a public building to make fun of Al Gore. The discussion of a cold winter had an effect on discussions of climate change.

    Do you honestly believe I am unaware of the overall temperature reports for the winter? Even if I read nothing but skeptic sites the overall warmth of the winter was extensively reported.

    As for the Real Climate comment, as I wrote above, when I wrote the comment you refer to the comment had not been posted, four hours after submission. They posted it two hours after I commented here. When notified, I acknowledge that in this space and promptly.

    As for the comments from Lambert’s website, why did you leave out the profane and vulgar comments? And why did you leave out Lambert’s comments? Because you just pasted in the comments I featured on my website, obviously. I had previously referred to Lambert’s comments and our publishing guidelines prohibit profanity.

    As for this getting quite stupid, hey, at last we agree on something, Sod. As for bias against Lambert, I proclaimed it at the very beginning of this post. Fortunately, I was writing about Deltoid, not Lambert.

    As many who visit Examiner.com have noticed, our database did not survive the latest site reconstruction intact and comments do disappear en masse. However, the only posts I have ever deleted were for profanity, with the exception of three of your mates who I banned from the site after explicit descriptions of what I objected to in their comments and repeated warnings.

    To sum up, you know all of the above. You do this to turn off other readers and to bog me–and other bloggers you do this to–down in the dreary trivia of responding to your abusive absurdities.

  182. Tom Fuller said

    Lambert, I guess Sod called for help.

    “If Fuller is in the middle ground, then so is Inhofe — they both think that climate scientists are a bunch of frauds.” Tim Lambert

    “I just came across your endorsement of Roger Pielke Jr’s viscous and dishonest personal attack on me. Everything he wrote about me was false but you endorsed it because he’s on your side. I think that climate science can help us learn the consequences of our current actions and your campaign against climate science and scientists is harmful. But I guess you don’t care as long as you get hits on your blog.” Tim Lambert

    “Responding to trolls just encourages them. He went out of his way to pick a fight with you and it suits his purposes to continue it as long as possible.” Tim Lambert

  183. sod said

    As for the comments from Lambert’s website, why did you leave out the profane and vulgar comments? And why did you leave out Lambert’s comments? Because you just pasted in the comments I featured on my website, obviously. I had previously referred to Lambert’s comments and our publishing guidelines prohibit profanity.

    so when you wrote:

    Here are comments from Lambert and his crew.

    you actually were not writing about comments from Lambert here? what else could those words mean?

    and your profanity filter prevented your quote of this post from Lambert:

    31

    Dear commenters, please be polite.

    Posted by: Tim Lambert | November 2, 2009 10:29 AM

    i see.

  184. Tom Fuller said

    And notice how quickly we abandon discussion of cold weather and comments on Real Climate?

  185. Kendra said

    Without reading the rest, jumping straight from

    173. Sod

    It might have occurred to someone with critical faculties that there could be other meanings to why I’m open-minded because I read Tom Fuller.

    Here is the right one:

    He is an Obama liberal Democrat. I am a libertarian. I won’t go into detail into which flavor.

  186. Kendra said

    ..as to which…

  187. Kendra said

    Jumping straight from

    177. Lambert

    See 187.

    In addition, I do now have a partial answer. One should demonstrate and provide valid evidence of open-mindedness. Thus a semi-private club. What you fail to address is that if someone simply reads and makes no comments you have no way to know that. Therefore, your behavior is to alienate those who might be open-minded but have not yet passed the test (or maybe not realized there was one),

    Kinda reminds me of the godsquaders who harangue all the passers-by, with the presumption that they haven’t been saved and they better do it forthwith. So they alienate the ones who aren’t interested and insult the ones who actually might already be saved.

    You still don’t get it – YOU have to prove yourself to US – how many have visited your site wanting to be convinced and even many of them you chase away. You’re the one that wants us to believe and accept your solutions that involve a significant loss of liberty as well as huge financial cost. I don’t ask a damn thing of you. I went to see your site, didn’t like what I saw so I left. Fine. You lost a sale. If you’re on a mission, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

    Now will you please finally go read the memo from your own clique that says you guys are gonna lose your war big time if you don’t shape up and knock off the friggin hostility to win a few pathetic battles. Or you really will end up just circle jerking.

  188. Kendra said

    Lambert,

    I meant see 185

    It’s late and while this discussion is absolutely unbelievable I have to get up in a few hours.

    It reminds of of verbatim conversations I read once in a text book to illustrate how people can become schizophrenic if they are raised in an atmosphere of irrational non sequitors.

  189. vjones said

    #187 Kendra well said. Last time I visited Deltoid it was so awful I couldn’t drag myself away. I had trouble believing I was reading such vitriol – so I kept reading – with my jaw on the floor.

  190. vjones said

    #13 GallopingCamel – WOW thanks (people will think I paid you to say that) – way more than our aspirations. BTW Science of Doom gets my vote too, and for the same reasons, although I see Anthony has it labeled as a Pro-AGW site on his blogroll.

  191. tyter said

    Sod,

    Please stop accusing Tom of lying in his comment about a recent cold winter. Guess who else said the same thing? No less than the President of the Royal Society and the President of the US National Academy of Sciences in essentially the same context as Tom (though obviously in defense of AGW) – see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72e349c8-436e-11df-833f-00144feab49a.html. Are they lying too?

    By making reckless accusations, you only impact your own credibility.

  192. Bernard J. said

    Tom Fuller:

    And notice how quickly we abandon discussion of cold weather and comments on Real Climate?

    Indeed, the discussion has moved away from cold weather and comments on RealClimate, but given that this thread is about a comparison – your comparison – of Deltoid with other blogs, I’d say that the discussion is right on theme.

    However, if you wish to redirect the discussion to other issues that have been raised here, perhaps you will offer an opinion on the ethics of publishing the stolen UEA emails. As sod points out above , you were quite shrill about your own privacy:

    They conclude with something that I find a bit repellent–Lambert published an email I sent him in the comments without asking my permission [grammar reproduced verbatim].

    I’m curious to reconcile an apparent contradiction of standards.

  193. Tom Fuller said

    I still find it repellent.

    And I didn’t publish the Climategate emails until Real Climate did. Since many of their contributors were either senders or recipients of the leaked emails, I considered that tacit permission to proceed. I could have had a scoop–I basically had them first, as far as the media was concerned. I posted that I had them to see if anybody would ask for them back, or to be destroyed. While waiting, I verified their provenance and legitimacy through third party sources. But I still didn’t publish until Real Climate did.

  194. KevinUK said

    #187

    “You still don’t get it – YOU have to prove yourself to US – how many have visited your site wanting to be convinced and even many of them you chase away. You’re the one that wants us to believe and accept your solutions that involve a significant loss of liberty as well as huge financial cost. I don’t ask a damn thing of you. I went to see your site, didn’t like what I saw so I left. Fine. You lost a sale. If you’re on a mission, you’re shooting yourself in the foot.”

    Tim (Deltoid) Lambert,

    I fully endorse what Kendra has written above. In case you don’t remember me, I am someone who you single handed managed to convert to AGW scepticism by calling John Brignell (of Numberwatch) a ‘crank’. If you hadn’t have done that I would most likely never have visited Deltoid, saw what you have written and realised what a nasty piece of work you (and many other catastrophic AGW propaganda pushers like yourself) are.

    Up until that point I was pretty none-plussed about the whole AGW issue. After your insulting of a man who I greatly respect and admire, I had to go and look at the facts for myself. That lead me to many AGW consensus and non-consensus sites (I regular visit both) and to investing many many hours of my rare spare time in researching the whole AGW issue – even to performing my own analysis of the raw and adjusted GISS and GCHN historical temperature.

    For that my I am sincerely (once again) thankful to you Tim! May I request that you continue as you have always done. Please don’t change a thing as I know there are many (as I was before you insulted of John Brignell) other AGW agnostic people out there who are bound at some point to vist your web site and hopefully like myself will then be inspired to go and look at the evidence, weigh it all up and judge for themselves.

    KevinUK

  195. KevinUK said

    Back to the topic of this thread

    I have done and continue to visit many consensus and non-consensus blos/web sites.

    IMO tAV is most definitely a top-tier non-consensus web site.

    I personally find the comments I read on the non-consensus AGW blogs/forums I visit significantly more civil than the corresponding comments on their consensus equivalents. I personally consider it a ‘badge of honor’ to have had some of my comments on ClimateAudit blocked/censored. On each occasion I was breaking the blog rules and Steve M was well within his rights to block my comments. In contrast I’ve had many comments on consensus AGW blogs/forums blocked/not accepted that clear conformed to the blog/forum’s rules.

  196. Bernard J. said

    I considered that tacit permission to proceed.

    When did an individual’s interpretation of what constitutes “tacit permission” serve as a defensible excuse? Should not you have had explicit permission if you were going to publish such material in a book, especially when you are making a profit from it?

    And on the matter of your beef with Tim Lambert and his apparent revelation of your “private” email, you seem to have forgotten that it was in fact you who first publicised the personal exchange between Lambert and yourself.

    As Tim said, there’s a word for that.

  197. Carrick said

    KevinUK:

    I fully endorse what Kendra has written above. In case you don’t remember me, I am someone who you single handed managed to convert to AGW scepticism by calling John Brignell (of Numberwatch) a ‘crank’. If you hadn’t have done that I would most likely never have visited Deltoid, saw what you have written and realised what a nasty piece of work you (and many other catastrophic AGW propaganda pushers like yourself) are.

    I’d place Bernard in that list too. Concern troll much, Bernard?

    In any case, we should thank Bernard J for that most recent link to deltoid. Follow it and you’ll get a nice sample of the mean spirited rhetoric typical of AGW blogs aimed at anybody who doesn’t follow the party line.

  198. Bernard J. said

    Oh Carrick, you flatterer, you!

    Tom Fuller fully knows of my opinions, as we have locked horns before.

    There’s no concern trolling about it – I asked a straight-forward question at #192, using language that would alert any half-thinking person to where I was coming from, and I asked several more at #196 that are even more explicit.

    If you (or Fuller) have issue with the substance of what I say, then address that. Labelling me a ‘concern troll’ for my transparent questioning is wide-of-the-mark, and is sinking to the level of ad hominem that is supposedly beneath the good posters of this type of blog.

    So let’s stick with the substance, and sort out who’s really standing on the moral high ground.

  199. sod said

    And I didn’t publish the Climategate emails until Real Climate did. Since many of their contributors were either senders or recipients of the leaked emails, I considered that tacit permission to proceed. I could have had a scoop–I basically had them first, as far as the media was concerned. I posted that I had them to see if anybody would ask for them back, or to be destroyed. While waiting, I verified their provenance and legitimacy through third party sources. But I still didn’t publish until Real Climate did.

    ouch. if ever there was evidence of a mean-spirited person, then this one is.

    so when real climate did publish excerpts, to defend against false claims, you saw it as enough reason to post what ever you want of it?

    i might have never seen a more horrible excuse for an evil act.

  200. Tyter said

    Bernard J,

    So I actually followed the link you provided with respect to the correspondence between Tom and Tim. Turns out you weren’t telling the whole story (color me shocked). The thread shows that Tom only disclosed his own writings while carefully avoiding any disclosure of Tim’s responses. Tim felt free to share both sides – specifically cherry picking certain of Tom’s comments. Hopefully you understand the difference but based on your other comments here, I don’t hold out much hope.

  201. Carrick said

    OK, Bernard, let’s talk about substance then.

    Start with how you “know” that the emails were “stolen”. The fact you started with a lie (when you asserted they are “stolen”, stating something as true don’t actually know to be true is a form of a lie) establishes you as a dishonest troll to begin with.

    Secondly do you know what a “false equivalence” is? Tom reposting material that has already appeared on other blogs is not somehow a revelation of private communication of the form you intimate he was complaining about.

    Third, I do know there’s a history between you and Tom. You and he can duke it out. This is way to juvenile and banal for me.

    Sod:

    i might have never seen a more horrible excuse for an evil act.

    Oh!!! Please don’t get to overwrought. Grab a handkerchief and get yourself under control before you I hate seeing adults so distressed! LOL you guys are such a trip.

    And you don’t think you’re trolls?

  202. sod said

    The thread shows that Tom only disclosed his own writings while carefully avoiding any disclosure of Tim’s responses. Tim felt free to share both sides – specifically cherry picking certain of Tom’s comments.

    you are lacking basic reading skills.

    33

    Let’s review the bidding here: Tim Lambert posts a comment on my website asking why I hate climate scientists.He emails me asking me why I hate climate scientists and lambasting him for defending Roger Pielke Sr.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.php#comment-2040770

    so that is carefully avoiding a any disclosure? and certainly no cherry picking of the e-mail content that he was telling us about?

  203. Bernard J. said

    Ah, Tyter, but now it is you who is not telling the whole story.

    Tim Lambert also disclosed two of his own emails by way of reply to Fuller. Up to this point Lambert did not, as far as I can discern, reveal any of Fuller’s personal correspondence with him.

    It was after these several exchanges, made public after the instigation of Fuller himself, that Lambert responded by revealing the invective from Fuller, that Fuller had (wisely) seen fit not to post on the thread.

    I’m sorry, but after (unwisely) starting the public revelation of personal emails, and after engaging in a long-winded diatribe with Lambert on the thread, Fuller is being a bit precious if he expects his bad behaviour to have been kept secret so that his admirers could bask in his moral superiority.

    As far as I can determine, in this matter Lambert sought to correct misapprehensions propagated by Fuller. If Fuller had been frank in his dealings, there would probably have never been any necessity for Lambert to show what Fuller was saying behind his followers’ backs.

    Oh, and as an aside, did you notice Lambert’s repeated admonitions to keep things polite?

  204. Tom Fuller said

    Sod, Tim Lambert and now Bernard J. have achieved their objective, which is interrupting any real conversation about the subject at hand. Much like children whining, eventually they get their way and must be addressed.

    1. Lambert emailed me asking why I hate climate scientists. (As he published later, I feel it’s okay to publish now):

    > I just came across your endorsement of Roger Pielke Jr’s viscous and
    > dishonest personal attack on me.
    >
    > Everything he wrote about me was false but you endorsed it because
    > he’s on your side. I think that climate science can help us learn the
    > consequences of our current actions and your campaign against climate
    > science and scientists is harmful. But I guess you don’t care as long
    > as you get hits on your blog.

    Here is my ‘invective-laden’ reply:

    Dear Mr. Lambert,

    Thank you for writing, if only to express your displeasure with my
    column. While I tend to agree with Roger Pielke Jr.’s policy
    positions, and have said so repeatedly at Examiner.com, I don’t
    believe I have endorsed any attacks on you. Perhaps you can point me
    to the column where you find the language I used that you consider
    objectionable.

    I’m not trying to put you off–because I regularly criticize Joe
    Romm’s Climate Progress and Real Climate, I try to pay attention to
    what I write about other sites. I suspect–and certainly hope–that
    you are conflating my ‘endorsement’ of his policy positions with some
    comments he made about your site–was this in regard to his recent
    posts about SuperFreakonomics?

    However, if your objection is to my agreeing with Pielke’s policy
    positions over yours, I most probably do–although I’m not quite as
    familiar with your writings as I am with CP and RC.

    I am happy to continue this discussion with you, and if I have in any
    way endorsed personal attacks on you, I will apologise in the same
    forum where they appeared, as well as personally in an email.

    Sincerely,

    Tom Fuller

    2. Lambert’s reply:

    Pielke Jr wrote a viscous and dishonest attack on me. I wasn’t even
    going to bother responding but he was getting links from a a bunch of
    right wing blogs. So I wrote this post:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/pielke_pity_party.php

    Basically everything he wrote about me was false, for example:

    1) After complaining that DeLong and Romm don’t link to his words when
    criticising him, he doesn’t link to my words. Probably because he
    can’t on account of his charges against me being fabrications.

    3a) Far from “carpet-bombing” the internet with references to my post
    about Pielke’s botched Google search, I have never once referred to
    it.

    Then we come to your cherry-picking post

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d24-The-way-the-wind-is-blowing-for-global-warming

    You pick posts from one side that are about the science and from the
    other side that aren’t in order to make it look like the denialists
    are the only ones discussing the science. Of course, you could just
    as easily have made the comparison come out the other way with a
    different selection of posts. It’s particularly egregious in the case
    of the reference to me, since I am responding to Pielke’s nasty
    personal attack on me, which somehow doesn’t appear on the other side
    of your list. And like Pielke, you don’t like to my post so readers
    can see that you misrepresented it. (In what way is it an echo of
    Romm when I wrote mine first?)

    And then you endorse Pielke’s dishonest attack on me: “Pielke
    accurately described the food chain that climate and political
    bloggers work in”

    And follow by parroting Pielke’s line: “Tim Lambert’s efforts on
    Deltoid, is a clear admission that Romm cannot address Pielke’s
    scientific stance “.

    That’s a severe logic fail. I didn’t write anything about Pielke’s
    published work in that post because
    I responding to his personal attack on me which had nothing to do with
    his published work or mine. By the same logic Pielke’s attack on me
    is a clear admission he cannot address my criticism of
    Superfreakonomics.

    And my response:

    Dear Mr. Lambert,

    Thanks for continuing this discussion. I’ll try to address your points
    here, but let me preface this by saying I apologise if I caused you
    offence. My comment in the article you linked to was addressing Romm’s
    behaviour in using your words to attack Pielke rather than his own,
    not to the substance or style of what you wrote. Obviously, we have
    differences in opinion on some aspects of climate change as an issue,
    but I meant no personal criticism of you in what I wrote.

    I agree with Pielke’s description of the blogging food chain, and said
    so. I would say it again. I’ve been blogging since 1999, and involved
    in media since 1975, and Pielke’s description seems extremely accurate
    to me. What he didn’t note is that this food chain effect, where
    larger media players can influence smaller media players, is true
    irrespective of ideology.

    I knew when I wrote the last article you reference that it would look
    like cherry picking, and you’re absolutely right that with a little
    digging I could have painted a reverse picture. But honestly, those
    posts were at the top of the blogs when I looked at them. My overall
    point, that I think the media covering climate change has undergone a
    sea-change, where the skeptics are producing work challenging the
    consensus view and those supporting the consensus are struggling a bit
    on how to reply, is one that again I honestly believe. I have written
    in other articles that this is predictable and the way both science
    and science coverage tend to work, warning skeptics that they will
    have bad weeks in both science and media coverage. Again, we seem
    fated to disagree on this as well.

    I’ve actually met Pielke once, and would not say I came away with an
    impression of him as vicious or dishonest. I think he’s an ambitious
    academic who has staked his career on taking a semi-contrarian view of
    a hot public issue, and I think his blogging (but not his academic
    work) can sometimes reflect that. But as I am not a paragon of
    level-headedness at all times (and even less after one of Joe Romm’s
    attacks on me), I may be more forgiving of him than you–and you might
    be right to call him on it.

    I would be pleased to continue this discussion as long as necessary
    for both of us to be clear on what has happened.

    All the best

    Tom Fuller

    And Lambert’s response:

    Here is what Pielke wrote about the “blogging food chain” and what you
    have endorsed as accurate and said you agree with:

    “But even the big fish apparently see some gutter behavior as not
    really becoming of professionals (though Romm doesn’t seem to care),
    as to more effectively attack someone’s reputation they also rely on
    the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to
    “trash” someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright
    misrepresentation. Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers
    like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the
    substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own
    work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of
    molehills (e.g., Lambert carpet bombs the internet with references to
    his post on the fact that I once botched a Google search, making
    insinuations of associated evilness in my soul) and ad hominem attacks
    (Pielke viciously attacked Al Gore!! Pielke is the Devil!!), without
    out once engaging the substance of my work (e.g., Al Gore agreed with
    my critique of his slide show and subsequently removed a slide from
    his show, I complemented [sic] Gore for his commitment to accuracy).”

    This is a vicious and dishonest personal attack on me. Just so we can
    be clear on this, tell me:

    1 vicious: agree/disagree?
    2 dishonest: agree/disagree?
    3 personal attack: agree/disagree?

    At which point I ventured to his weblog and the rest is in the comments there.

  205. Funny, Fuller forgot to post the next email in the sequence:

    Tim, after my experience at your blog yesterday, do you honestly think I’m going to take it seriously when you think someone else is not playing fair?

    If anything, my opinion today is that Pielke may have been unnecessarily gentle with you. Pielke wrote about minnows who see it as their sole job to trash someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. Seeing as that’s what you and your fan club did to me yesterday, don’t expect me to get angry at him–smells like truth to me.

    Goodbye

    Perhaps this was because he was trying to pretend that he didn’t send me an invective-laden email.

  206. Here’s where Fuller misattributed comments — I did not write any of the comments he quoted:

    Here are comments from Lambert and his crew. …

    Tom is a nasty little toerag

    Does Tom Fuller have some kind of communication disorder?

    Fuller’s name is hyphenated though…….Fuller – (expletive deleted by me)

    Frankly, I think you need to grow a pair.

    Civility is wasted on those who use it as a shield but not as their guide.

    After earlier denying that he misattributed the comments, his latest response is

    As for the comments from Lambert’s website, why did you leave out the profane and vulgar comments? And why did you leave out Lambert’s comments? Because you just pasted in the comments I featured on my website, obviously. I had previously referred to Lambert’s comments and our publishing guidelines prohibit profanity.

    So now he says that the comments that he featured on his website, which he claimed came from “Lambert and his crew” did not include any comments from me. At this point someone with a bit of integrity would correct his post and apologise, but instead Fuller insinuates that I wrote some “profane and vulgar” comments which he couldn’t include because of his publishing guidelines. But Fuller is being deceitful yet again. I didn’t write any profane or vulgar comments and he knows it. And one of the comments he quoted did include profanity — all he had to do to satisfy the publishing guidelines was delete the offensive word. And in any case, none of it justifies him claiming I wrote something that I didn’t.

    Mr Fuller, do you think you could point to these Examiner publishing guidelines? Is there anything in there about misattribution?

  207. Tyter said

    Sod,

    You raise a fair point (unlike Bernard J’s response which seems to missing any semblance of an argument). While Tom did not quote directly from Tim’s email, he did comment generally on the content. That could open the door for Tim’s behavior and full disclosure, though it it is still rather distasteful.

    Now, what about you apologizing for your reckless charges of Tom lying about the cold winter? Or are you just a knee jerk troll?

  208. Kendra said

    Ok, after a night’s sleep, I come back to the fray and it is, of course, highly entertaining when one’s strength is again built up.

    And indelibly impressed in my brain is the epithet “nasty little toerag” – whatever that actually is – does it polish your toenails so that don’t make runs in your stockings?

    I note that MY question to Tim is being ignored in favor of this soap opera – I’m totally convinced that Tom as a “member of the innocent bystander public” has become a special case, so let’s have an answer for the regular folks.

    Please address the concerns of the great unwashed, Tim Lambert, in terms of the role of your website, how you perceive the role of your colleagues on the consensus side and, last but not least,

    WTF are you going to do about it or at least say about it???

    Especially in terms of the new climate science establishment outreach program?

  209. Bernard J. said

    One more point Tom Fuller.

    How is it that you perceive “tacit permission” granted to yourself when senders or recipients of the leaked emails published background clarification on RealClimate, but you seem unable to see similar such “tacit permission” granted to Lambert when you commenced the publication of previously personal emails on Deltoid?

    I say again – I’m curious to reconcile an apparent contradiction of standards.

  210. cohenite said

    BJ, the Wookie man; BJ, you and your fellow infants at Tim’s rest-home for the irrelevant demonstrate unfailingly and continually the old adage that the combined IQ of a crowd is always less than the lowest IQ of its dumbest member. PhD my backside. Now, where is your revelation promised at 171?

  211. Bernard J. said

    Cohenite.

    Shall we ignore your decent into juvenile ad hominem and your PhD envy? I think so…

    All that remains is your anticipated “revelation”, and for that you will have to wait, because I am corresponding with several significant bodies about (gasp!) matters legal.

    As a former divorce lawyer you should understand that these things can take some time…

  212. cohenite said

    My descent into juvenile ad hominem! Whatever.

  213. gallopingcamel said

    I have posted on Deltoid many times and it did not take long for the “regulars” to shower me with abuse and derision. Nevertheless, my objective was to seek common ground, so I persisted and found that many of their comments were well informed.

    It struck me as strange that so many people with a good appreciation of science were so incapable of defending their position without insulting anyone who asked questions. If the science was solid it would be easy to sell without insults, so the more invective that was heaped on me the more skeptical I became.

    Now we have “consensus” folks including Tim Lambert of Deltoid fame reducing this normally sane blog to a “he said, she said” site.

    My advice is to stop the nonsense and get back to discussing things like grown ups.

  214. PhilJourdan said

    Well, late to the party again! But it was fun reading the comments. But not being a part of them, I do have to ask – Tom Fuller, did you put Lambert and the others up to this to prove your point? Because they sure exhibited every trait you described, while making Jeff look like Mother Theresa (except for the habit).

    Since Tim does have a link back to his site, I can only assume he either played along with Tom, or someone impersonated him to bolster Tom’s point. No rational person would do what he did to make himself look so bad.

    And Tim, I am going to have to check out your blog. YOu made me believe in one thing. I can actually agree (lukewarmer) with an avid Obama fan on one thing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: