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?
NOBODY?!!
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.
the Air Vent 
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Just priceless, as you say.
“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.”
Only if the alternative interpretative light finds that they are still correct. If the alternative finds their paper is incorrect, that just proves the writer is a cospiracy theorist and is therefore wrong automatically.
He is just practicing modern journalism – accuse on Page one, retract on page A-29.
That’s two posts in a row where Oliver didn’t get the top comment. Is he unwell?
Sorry to disappoint you. I am getting old.
My research mentor and I watched and documented the corruption of government science and the enslavement of citizens of the formerly democratic Allied Nations after the Second World War ended and the United Nations was formed on 24 Oct 1945:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/nellie-the-neutron-and-neutron-repulsion/#comment-2905
My research mentor died in 2001. I survived long enough to write his obituary [1] and to witness Climategate confirmation of government deception in Nov 2009 – despite all our efforts [2,3], earlier warnings from George Orwell and Sir Fred Hoyle, and the reminder from President Eisenhower on 17 Jan 1961:
It’s your turn, Stevka_uk, to carry the message.
References:
1. “Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda: 1917-2001″ Geochemical Journal 35, 211-212 (2001): http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/KurodasWriteupGeochem.pdf
2. P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo Phenomenon (Springer Publishing, 165 pages, 1982) : http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Chemical-Elements-Oklo-Phenomenon/dp/3540116796
3. O. Manuel, Origin of Elements in the Solar System:: Implications of Post-1957 Observations (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 653 pages, 2000): http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Elements-Solar-System-Implications/dp/0306465620
Thanks for showing up. I was thinking you were sick!
Thanks for your concern.
Before checking in, I hope to write a paper on solar energy (neutron repulsion) – the same energy source that vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945, respectively, and frightened world leaders into forming the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945.
Climategate surfaced sixty-four years (2009 – 1945 = 64 yrs) after that decision to subjugate humans and deny them knowledge of the energy that creates, destroys and sustains all atoms, lives and worlds in the solar system.
We need to bring cheap electricity to every dusty hamlet in Africa but with the crackpot Holdren with his hands on the levers of power that ain’t gonna happen.
You are right, Gallopingcamel, after 1945 the Henry Kissinger’s of the world directed world leaders toward one goal – their own survival:
Establish a New World Order by subjugating humans to prevent them from destroying earth by using forbidden knowledge of the source of energy that powers the cosmos, galaxies, stars (the Sun), some planets, atomic bombs and nuclear reactors: (E = hv) and (E = mc^2), and neutron repulsion [1-4].
Education was sacrificed, especially knowledge of astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space physics.
Two US Presidents (Eisenhower and Kennedy) temporarily blocked progress in 1952-1963. One astronomer (Peter Toth) later vanished [4].
1. Max Planck, “Ueber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum,” Annalen der Physik 309, issue 3, 553-563 (1901): http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf
2. Albert Einstein, “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?”, Annalen der Physik 323, issue 13, 639-641 (1905): http://tinyurl.com/bh9sfpu
3. P. K. Kuroda, “On the nuclear physical stability of the uranium minerals,” J. Chem. Physics 25, 781 (1956); “On the infinite multiplication constant and the age of the uranium minerals,” J. Chem. Physics 25, 1256 (1956).
4. Peter Toth, “Is the Sun a pulsar?” Nature 270, 159-160 (1977) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html
I should have included geology (planetology) in the long list of physical sciences that were seriously compromised after 1945 to hide the source of energy that made our elements and birthed the solar system.
The Yale geochemist, Dr. Karl K. Turekian, and his student, S. P. Clark, Jr., “let the cat out of the bag” [1] by acknowledging in 1969 that Earth’s iron core probably formed first, and then acted as the accretion site for stone meteorites that crossed the orbit of Earth’s iron core in their plunge toward the gravitational center of the solar system – near the core of the Sun.
Abundances of primordial and radiogenic noble gases in the atmospheres of terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) confirmed heterogeneous accretion by this mechanism in 1981 [2].
“The primitive solar nebula” – heterogeneous SN debris orbiting a pulsar – as later observed to be commonplace in the cosmos:
http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/alex/pulsar_planets.htm
1. K. K> Turekian and S. P. Clark, Jr, “Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth from the primitive solar nebula,” Earth Planetary Sci. Letters 6, 346-348 (1969).
2. D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, “The noble gas record of the terrestrial planets,” Geochemical Journal 15, 247-267 (1981).
Click to access NobleGas.pdf
It’s got to be an alarming realization to scientists to realize that they now live in a world where the people they [mis]quote and take out of context in their papers in scholarly journals can now be depended upon to read the article, find where they have been misquoted or taken out of context, and demand redress of the situation. The ivory tower may be lofty, but the internet now provides the ‘research subject’ with gun stones.
Alarmist climate scientists now seem to find themselves as the Caliph of Baghdad did in 1258 – unprepared. The last [make note, last] Abbasid Caliph al-Musta’sim Billah chose to make no special preparations against the invading Mongols, what could Mongol ponies and arrows do to the walls of Baghdad? Unfortunately for him, Mongol commander Hulagu Khan arrived with 1,000 Chinese bombardiers, as well as Persian, Turkish and Georgian auxiliaries. [US foreign policy makers take note!]
[Accademic] historians are still arguing about whether the Mongols used cannon or catapults, but which ever the case they were inside the city’s walls within three weeks, and they then proceeded to slaughter between 200,000 and a million of its inhabitants. The accounts of how al-Musta’sim died are varied and colorful.
We should be so lucky to witness anything so colorful as SKS.
W^3
Talk about “Useful Idiots”.
SKS is the gang that can’t shoot straight, thanks to folks like Dana Nuke a Telly.
Useful?
As future ditch-diggers.
Supernumeraries. Machines dig ditches.
“The presence of the comment in the supplementary material just attests to the thoroughness of our daily Google search.”
Ace researchers on top of their game.
Besides that, the claim that Bett’s comment ‘referred to one of the hypotheses’ is ridiculous. It doesn’t. In fact, most the comments under “didn’t email deniers” do not refer to that hypothesis. I wrote it up here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/richard-comment-doesnt-claim-didnt-email-deniers/
Behond that, the hypothesis Bett’s did advance was “didn’t try very hard”. That’s precisely the hypothesis I advanced, and I discussed how Lew’s claims of what one must think to suggest they “didn’t try very hard” is just wrong. See
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/lews-furious-recursion/
The whole thing doesn’t make any sense. But who knows? Maybe thinking “Lew and Cook misdiagnose things” will be found to be evidence that I am suffering from conspiracy ideation “MbW” . (How this “feature” ought to be diagnosed irrespective whether the thing diagnosed as wrong is wrong is rather mystifying. But it it seems to be some sort of “rule” that has been laid down in the “peer reviewed litrachur”.
While you are 100% right you may be giving Lewandowski and John Cook more credit than they deserve simply by taking them seriously.
These folks are not worthy of your attention.
“Other” scholars?! OTHER!?!
Next, Dennis Rodman will be saying that he vistited N. Korea so that “other diplomats” can build on his work.
😀
SkS, Truly the gang that CAN shoot straight.
They have unerringly shot themselves in the foot each time.
Jeff
Which other academic mainstream climate scientist was included in the SI?
Judith Curry. Curry’s comments qualify under “warmists faked data” and ‘sks conspiracies”.
But you are right. Cook’s faithful cataloging resulting in trapping of every comment, be it from seasoned academics or lowly blog gnats, that satisfied their ‘criteria’. When alerted they’d snagged Betts, Cook and Lew appear to have panicked and offered this stupid explanation. To be accurate, they’d have say the threads which contained discussion of Lew’s paper were the raw data, and the excerpted text were the qualifying comments that were included – which is exactly what they said in their paper, to begin with.
data:
Click to access DownloadFile.ashx
Prof Judith Curry appears here…
Under Heading: Warmists faked data
“Lewandowsky’s ‘evidence’ was a scammed internet survey. Bloggers such as Steve
McIntyre, Anthony Watts, BishopHill, Lucia, JoNova are all over this, and have exposed
the scam (note: there are multiple posts on each of these blogs).” – Judith Curry – Climate etc
Under Heading: SkS conspiracies
“The ‘conspiracy’ among green climate bloggers has been further revealed by the leak of John Cook’s secret forum
(link). SkepticalScience seems to becoming the ringleader for conspiratorial activities by the green climate bloggers. All
this is high entertainment for those of us who follow the climate blog wars. But take a step back, and consider how
bad this makes you look, and how poorly it reflects on the science and ’cause’ that you are trying to defend.” – Judith Curry
Lewandowsky’s and Cook’s and MArriots data here:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/DownloadFile.ashx?sup=1&articleId=40138&FileId=2676&FileName=Data Sheet 1.PDF&contentType=Data Sheet&contentTypeId=6&version=1
both extracted from Judith Curry – Climate Etc article:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/15/bs-detectors/
———
Who will psychoanalyse activists psychologists?
especialy as Marriot (what qualifications) is the blogger – Watching the Deniers!!!
The sad thing is that Australian tax payers are footing the bill for the BS.
Perhaps Lewandowsky and Cook should have looke closer to home for conspiracies of nefarious intent….
As I point out Tom Curtis’s comment made at SkS in the timeframe, extract below…
Tom, put most of this in BOLD…
“Given the low number of “skeptical” respondents overall; these two scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses (see previous post), this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation.
It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite. The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.” – Tom Curtis
I have pointed this out..
link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/AGU-Fall-Meeting-sessions-social-media-misinformation-uncertainty.html#84398
There were long discussiosn about LOG12 at SKS and Shaping Tomorrows World in August and Septemeber, but no ‘evidence’ sort at either of these 2 blogs…
Latest comments from Richard Betts.
He stands by his comments made at Oxford. (http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/people/richard-betts)
So now we know. Reasonable Richard is just another Alarmist Modeller.
Don Keiller asked
“Do you stand by your comments of 4C-15C temperature increases by 2090?”
Richard Betts replied
“Anyway – yes, I stand by my comments of 4C or more global warming being possible by the end of this century, with local warming higher in some places, up to 15C in the Arctic an extreme but plausible case.”
I find people who say arctic warming of 15 C by the end of the century as out of touch with reality as Lewandowsky. It has no attachment to observation whatsoever. Frankly, it is nothing but pure activism.
Disturbingly Dr Richard Betts is Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area, which includes climate impacts research and also the climate change consultancy unit.
The Met Office’s climate change consultancy area works directly with end-users in a wide range of sectors, to ensure climate change information is used effectively for decision-making.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/richard-betts
The Met Office advises the UK Government- The lunatics have really taken over the asylum!
Betts posts regularly over at Bishop Hill. While I find him much more reasonable than kooks like Lew, Cook, Mann, or Gleick, he is most certainly a “warmist.”
Mark
“Anyway – yes, I stand by my comments of 4C or more global warming being possible by the end of this century, with local warming higher in some places, up to 15C in the Arctic an extreme but plausible case.”
That is in no way “reasonable”
I didn’t say he was reasonable, I said he was much more reasonable than Lew, Cook, Mann, or Gleick, and then noted that he is a warmist – which is fully in line with his ridiculous statement.
Mark
Betts’ living relies on the models being ‘shown’ to be ‘plausibly correct’. If they aren’t he is out of employment.
Dr. Betts disagrees. He writes, “Contrary to what some people seem to think, my career does not depend on “CAGW” or even AGW. My job is to assess the impacts of anthropogenic climate change and natural climate variability. When we are working for, say, a major oil company planning new offshore drilling, they are interested in the range of climatic conditions they may expect their rigs to have to cope with over the lifetime of the operation (several decades). They don’t particularly care how this range of conditions comes about, they just want to know what they might be, so they can maintain resilience of their operations.”
Reply to Harold W’s comments about the Met Office report to an oil company re: the expected range of climatic conditions their rigs will encounter over a period of decades – That is a report I’d love to read!
Curious –
It is a little strange to me. Leaving aside the accuracy of forecasting over such a period, I’m wondering why it would matter to a company about the relatively small changes to be expected. I looked at the HadSST1 temps for a grid cell in the North Sea off Scotland, 56-57N, 0-1E: the sea temperature varies annually from about 6 °C to 15 °C, with a 95% range of about +/-1 °C. Given that environment, is it significant (as far the oil rig is concerned) if temps rise by 0.5 °C over some decades? Or if (to make up numbers here) a rig would be subject to >100 mph winds once per 9 years by the end of its lifetime, rather than once per 10 years?
So I’m guessing that what the company is really asking for, is the Met Office’s view of the distribution of weather conditions, especially extreme ones which must be factored into design decisions (e.g. max wind speeds), to be encountered in a region. A reasonable thing to ask, but not necessarily connected to climate prediction; natural variability will swamp anthropogenic change over reasonable planning intervals.
Harold – my hazy recollection is of “return time” for different categories of events (wind speed thresholds etc). I also recollect that engineers are conservative in their treatment of factors of safety etc.
I’d love to know what numbers the Met Office quote for “this range of conditions” and how it differs due to the impacts of “climate change”. I’d also love to see the terms of the contract – perhaps unfairly I imagine it will be caveated to the point of saying “set no store on this whatsoever”. If not, then I imagine whatever the project is, they will have to write a report that says things can only become worse than the current norm – otherwise if somebody reduced a spec. based on a report that said things would be better than the current norm and a loss ensued, they’d be liable.
I might be way off here but I think it would give a good indication of if the Met Office are prepared to put their money where there mouth is. Well, UK taxpayer money where their mouth is…
And yet more UK Met Office Lunacy
Click to access UK.Met.quick_guide.pdf
1. The PROBLEM: A 1945 decision to deceive left us vulnerable today
_ a.) Big oil honestly promotes the idea we are running out of hydrocarbons for fuel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BPplc?v=PN6Nq_hpUck
_ b.) AGW and CAGW are skill-limited, blindly believing CO2 causes global warming.
_ c.) World leaders are unaware of reality: Global cooling more likely than warming:
http://tinyurl.com/d88f524
2. The SOLUTION: Reconnect with the reality purposefully abandoned in 1945.
In a nutshell, the core ethos of the Climate Change Movement is the fear and loathing of humankind. Fear and loathing of the destructive nature of human’s who must be subjugated to prevent them from destroying the earth using the forbidden knowledge of the Sun’s source of power . . . neutron repulsion [1]: http://orach24463.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/fear-and-loathing-of-humans-the-pathology-behind-the-climate-change-movement/
1. “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012)
Click to access V19N2MAN.pdf
Cook and Lewandowsky are stuck together in their sinking rowboat:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/
Do you have the paywalled moon landing paper? I need to see if it was corrected.
don’t yet, I will search for it and let you know if I find it….
a note on Lewandowsky and Cook mired in incoherence and double-standards (cross posted with CA):
Since Lewandowsky is already on record (last Sept.) insisting that various bloggers should have perfect email records and recall for any unsolicited two-year old request(s) from his assistant Hanich, Lew has unwittingly set the bar very high for himself.
While the skeptic bloggers had no reason in 2010 to know the name Hanich (or even Lewandowsky), or to care about a spammy request from the equally obscure Univ. of Western Australia, Lewandowsky reviles and ridicules them for not instantly sorting out the long lost details two years later.
Yet, Lewandowsky and Cook, still cannot now after many more months, provide a precise, accurate accounting of the details of their own studies and email correspondence pertaining to such work. Their research, their work.
So in Lew-world, bloggers can be chastised, maligned, and mis-represented for not displaying instant recall for spammy emails from years past, but “scientific” (sic) researchers are not expected to keep their own records of scientific data and correspondence in any state of order at all.
This is incompetence of a peculiar kind, drowning in hypocrisy and ignorance. The Cook-Lewandowsky team can be proud!
All you truly need to have started can be
a web hosting plan along with a website. If you adhere to this, you
must reward yourself and provides yourself that positive
reinforcement. By taking into consideration each of such steps, the business enterprise
will have a higher possibility of success.
It’s actually a great and helpful piece of information. I’m happy that you simply shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
0 and a Skype Vol – P client in less than six seconds, courtesy of a compact Linux distribution.
There are also common file formats that may be shared by large main-frame and desktop personal computers that allow online and real-time inputs
and validations. This increased use of electronic health records means that the health information technology job market is promising.