Priceless Entertainment from SKS
Posted by Jeff Id on March 22, 2013
John Cook continued his path of self destruction at “Skeptical Science”. I’ve often wondered if the blog title was meant as a sarcasm. Today, we know neither word can apply accurately to their work in any other sense. When others noticed that Richard Betts of the met office Climate Impacts was accidentally included in their recent paper’s SI, John tried to play it off as just raw data on that list in a tweet on Dr. Betts twitter account. Interesting considering the title of the comment section in the SI was “Excerpt Espousing Conspiracy Theory”, and the fact that Richard Betts, wasn’t identified as Dr. Betts in the SI or by any other means that would associate him with the met office. Is it possible that they didn’t know the famous scientist?
In reply, Dr. Betts noted to Cook that the column title to his comment was pretty clear. Cook didn’t back off, instead he doubled down in full Real Climate fashion today at “Skeptical Science” blog. (H/T Barry Woods)
The Supplementary Material is “raw data”
As well as the Recursive Fury paper, we also published Supplementary Material containing excerpts from blog posts and some comments relevant to the various observed recursive theories. In the paper, we characterise this as “raw data” – all the comments that we encountered that are relevant to the different theories. In contrast, the “processed data” are the excerpted quotes featured in the final paper, where we match the various recursive theories to the conspiracist criteria outlined above.
One misrepresentation of Recursive Fury is that we accuse Professor Richard Betts of the Met Office of being a conspiracy theorist because one of his quotes appears in our raw data. This inclusion of a relevant comment in the raw data of a Supplementary Material document was reported in hyperventilating fashion by one blogger as a spectacular carcrash. However, there is no mention of Professor Betts in our final paper and we are certainly not claiming that he is a conspiracy theorist. To claim otherwise is to ignore what we say about the online supplement in the paper itself. The presence of the comment in the supplementary material just attests to the thoroughness of our daily Google search.
Nevertheless, I can see how this misunderstanding arose. The Supplementary Material features the heading “Excerpt Espousing Conspiracy Theory” referring to the excerpted quotes that we pasted into the spreadsheet. In hindsight, the heading should have been “Excerpt relevant to a recursive theory”, because the criterion for inclusion was simply whether or not they referred to one of the hypotheses. The analysis of conspiracist ideation occurred after that, and involved the criteria mentioned at the outset.
In this context, it is important to point out that one reason we made the raw data available is for other scholars to be able to cast an alternative interpretative light on the public discourse relating to LOG12. As we note explicitly in the abstract, it is possible that alternative scholarly interpretations can be put forward, and the peer-reviewed literature is the appropriate forum for such analysis.
If that explanation holds water, one has to wonder, whom else from mainstream climate science was included in the SI?
It is obvious to any non-plant life that Dr. Betts was clearly picked up with the rest of us by accident, and the authors including Cook look like the complete incompetent idiots they are. Their unscientific advocacy is plain as day. As with all AGW advocates, logic does not override emotion and Skeptical Science type Skeptics simply cannot make mistakes. It hurts their self-image.
A friendly note to Cook, The boat is sinking!!! Stop drilling holes. Nope, Nope, strike that. KEEP GOING!! The entertainment is priceless.