Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 Next
Comments 61301 to 61350:
-
Same Ordinary Fool at 11:06 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Why didn't I think of that?..........Caerbannog's #10 and #18 accounts of Monckton's chosen venue of an unpublicized appearance to an underworld-from-reason of the right wing could have been predicted. When the debunkers are always there after every public appearance, correcting his errors, for all interested people to see - it was always inevitable that he would some day have to retreat. And leave the lecture circuit of simulated scientific discussions for something else. Here, to that of rabble rousing applause lines. Even so, it is depressing and scary now that it has happened. These are people who don't believe in evolution. Despite the obvious proof that every single fossil has been found positioned in evolutionary order. And none in creationsist order - no giraffes amidst the dinosaurs. Think about how much harder it will be for creationists to learn from experiencing global warming's consequences - which will always be interspersed with the occasional old fashioned cold spell (resulting from weather variability). However, though we decry what comes next, this is progress, and a success for the debunking community. The more he's quoted from such appearances, the less welcome he will be at semi-serious-science occasions, to spread his climate science errors. After watching all of Potholer54's Youtube videos..........I'm inclined to give Peter Hadfield (and Peter Sinclair) much of the credit. Video, Marshall McLuhan's "hot" medium, is best for exposing the errors of a denier like Monckton. Typeface on paper or screen is better for presenting ideas or science. A reader can proceed at his own speed, go back, repeat, scan forward, and generally jump around. It is also simpler, less labor intensive, and cheaper: since all one needs is a keyboard. However, it cannot convery as much as quickly [that picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words thing]. Show, don't tell..........Peter Hadfield, in his 5 part Youtube series, amply demonstrates that video is the best medium for Monckton. And that it can be effective without resorting to the boring scientific details that might be misinterpreted by a general audience. .....Him misstating a research paper, followed by a visual of the paper and the contradicting statements in it. .....Him misstating a quote, followed by a visual of the original source of the quote. .....Him misusing graphs, as by cherry picking. Which is quickly demonstrated, by showing the correct graphs. .....Him being contradicted by himself - via videos from his other presentations. .....Him denying in emails that he'd made the mistakes pointed out by Peter Hadfield, followed by examples of same. Monckton's non response..........could also have been predicted by anyone who had just viewed those 5 videos. It's obvious that it has always been a mistake for Monckton to engage with Peter Hadfield. Because Monckton would always be expected to lose the least gullible among his potential believers - if they actually watched the videos. -
bill4344 at 10:22 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Good point, Dana @#32! And, similarly, they just can't get The Word out properly because of the suppressive impact of all the co-conspirators and their masses of dupes. I've been surprised by Monckton's leaping right in on this, because he's been relatively cagey on the Birther thing previously. Sure, he said this to a Tea Party Rally in 2010:“America!Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!”
But then upbraided upstart journalists who dared credit the English meaning of these words; this was, after all -what we on the Right call “A Joke”
- and it's also what the crowd wants to hear. If he's really decided to nail the Nutters' colours squarely to his mast on the basis of Arpaio's 'research' I'd suggest he's made a significant tactical error in what 'I on the Left' might call "the Real World". ;-) Because it's such a clear indicator of the quality of 'evidence' on which he is prepared to make the most outlandish of claims, and his capacity to critically examine that evidence. And the parallels to other aspects of his position on climate are also clear, as pointed out by Dana. Now, holding this example in mind, anyone with their critical facilities somewhat intact is bound in turn to be somewhat leery or similar Lordly pronouncements... The base won't care, of course. -
Alexandre at 10:12 AM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
I like the amount of SkS articles per week. I don't read most of them anymore, as now I feel I have covered the basics of the issue. But I like to see what kind of news are coming up, so every now and then an article gets my attention and I read it through. My comments have also become more sparse and shallower in content, as my patience with 'skeptics' diminished. I like the cartoon. Maybe a big victory of the manufactured controversy is making global warming a touchy subject on the media. Maybe this was the whole point of the manoeuvre. I was listening to an interview with David Attenborough at BBC these days and he mentioned global warming as a serious danger. The interviewer, Mike Williams from One Planet (an otherwise great reporter, IMO) was quick to point out that "many people don't agree with that". I wonder what kind public service they would offer if BBC said, similarly, that abestos causes a number or diseases and quickly added "but it's controversial, since this and this doctor claim otherwise".Moderator Response: [JH] Thank you for the feedback. It is indeed difficult to deal with the deniers on a continuing basis without losing one's temper now and then. -
caerbannog at 10:02 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Reposted with editing corrections: The claims that I saw Monckton present could all be easily shredded by students at UCSD/SIO. The professors wouldn't even need to bother. Franky, I didn't see Monckton present anything that would be worth even a minute of a busy professor's time (unless it was to use as an exam question intended to start the grading-curve somewhere above "0"). The scientific community is not kept on the "up and up" by asking scientists to waste their time correcting freshman blunders. -
Albatross at 09:51 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Now that I think about it some more, Hudson's claim is extremely egregious, it is sickening to see people in the media continuing to misrepresent the science. Someone ought to insist that Hudson correct the blog post or a complaint will be filed against him and/or the BBC with the ombusdman. -
dana1981 at 09:43 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Here's what I don't understand about Monckton's birtherism. He says he's not a birther because he doesn't know where President Obama was born, but he's certain the birth certificate is a forgery. Well, why would Obama create a fake birth certificate unless he wasn't born in the USA? Monckton's position is akin to saying "I'm not a climate denier, I just think climate scientists are falsifying data." Oh wait, that's his position on global warming too. Well, at least he's consistent. -
Sarah at 09:39 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
SKS donation link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/donate.php -
bill4344 at 09:33 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Muoncounter @29. Yep, Monckton's not a 'Birther'; he just knows the birth certificate 'has been fabricated'. You know, like the, um, Birthers... He knows this because the egregious Sheriff Arpaio and his truth posse have devoted themselves to researching this 'for 6 months', and have discovered... a scanning artifact! (See my comment @9) Some of the more lunar theories (and, because of the starting base, we're talking lunar² here!) hold Obama to be a Kenyan foreign student taken in by his kindly 'grandparents' and passed-off as one of their own. The Mailman proved it, it seems. But nobody can handle The Truth, because, as Monckton says -nobody is saying anything because the entire electorate has been fooled.
(Sound familiar?) This is the kind of crowd Monckton is working. Evidence don't really enter into it; their 'truths' arrive more by way of revelation. So counter-evidence is probably equally unlikely to be effectual... -
Bert from Eltham at 09:31 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
The main logical reason for the hacking would be to uncover any conspiracy that only really exists in the fevered minds of deniers. Having found nothing the only thing they then can do is make the information public in the hope that extremists can use it to harass or worse. You only have to look at recent history to see the same M.O. used against other law abiding organisations or individuals. They are simply projecting their own standards onto others. Reason facts and logic are irrelevant to them. This is my only real fear. Bert -
Sarah at 09:27 AM on 26 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #12
The hacking attack has undoubtably cost sks money as well as time. Here's the donation link, which John hides pretty well: Skeptical Science donations: http://www.skepticalscience.com/donate.phpModerator Response: [JH] Thanks for providng the link. I've been wanting to make a contribution. -
GillianB at 09:20 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Thanks DB, all good now. -
muoncounter at 09:10 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
But whatever will Steve Gddrd do with his triumphant proclamation of recovery? -
Chris G at 09:04 AM on 26 March 2012Catching up with the Younger Dryas: do mass-extinctions always need impacts?
I don't think that an impact event is a requirement for a mass extinction, but I do think one is unlikely without some rapid change in climate. Impact events are not the only cause for such changes, but others, like massive volcanism, leave different signatures. I'm not sure how you would produce a black mat over a wide area, coincident in time, outside of an impact event. (OK, a widespread nuclear war might produce a char layer, but that hasn't happened yet, and I suspect the isotope irregularities would have a different signature.) If you hit an ecosystem already under stress, because one or more critical species in the food web are under stress, with an impact event, I could see that causing an ecosystem crash, or at least some sort of reset. If you put a lot of aerosols into the stratosphere when the atmosphere has about 250 ppm CO2, the effect might be larger, and last longer through inhibiting warming feedback mechanisms, than if you did the same with an atmosphere at 300 ppm, and above. I suspect that if there was an impact event, it came at a time when the earth was just to one side of a tipping point. -
Albatross at 08:51 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Muoncounter @17, Hudson claims that: "In fact The Met Office issued a press release to that end, saying the loss of sea ice that year had been wrongly attributed to global warming." But Paul Husdon has misprepresented the Met office press release. He seems to have a habit of not getting his facts straight and providing fodder for those in denial-- I expect better from the BBC and likewise they should expect better of their staff. This is what the Met Office press release said [my bolding]: "Analysis of the 2007 summer sea-ice minimum has subsequently shown that this was due, in part, to unusual weather patterns. Arctic weather systems are highly variable year-on-year and the prevailing winds can enhance, or oppose, the southward flow of ice into the Atlantic. Consequently, the sea ice has not declined every year, but has shown considerable variability - both in extent and thickness. The high variability has made it difficult to attribute the observed trend to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, although there is now enough data to detect a human signal in the 30-year trend. The trend and observed variability, including the minimum extent observed in 2007, is consistent with climate modelling from the Met Office." Hudson should issue a correction and apologise. I'm not holding my breath, because he has been propataing this meme since 2009, see here. -
snapple at 08:47 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Sorry you were hacked. Hope you can catch them. -
GillianB at 08:37 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Hi guys... can you please reset my account too? see my comments at #59 and #66.
Moderator Response: [DB] I have reset your account & sent an email with the details to the email account on file. -
Daniel Bailey at 08:35 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Paul should learn the meaning of both nilas ice and First-year-ice. Essentially, the entirety of the non-red/brown areas will be gone by the end of the melt season in September. And much of the red/brown will be: - dashed on the shores of Greenland/the Canadian Archipelago - piled in windrows before them both - advected out the Fram Strait The Death Spiral...Lives... -
muoncounter at 08:17 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
But the BBC's weather blog has assured us of a strong recovery ... who you gonna believe? -
muoncounter at 08:12 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
As if his Lor'ship's nonsense didn't go deep enough, he's publicly thrown his hat in with the birthers: I’m no birther [sic], don’t get me wrong… I haven’t a clue where Obama was born ... on the White House website is he has put up a document which he is plainly a forgery and I would regard that as a very serious matter. A 'birther' is someone who believes that President Obama was not born in the US and that his Hawaii certificate of birth is a forgery. This group is the lowest form of right-wing nutters. But it is even a step lower on the evolutionary ladder to admit being one and simultaneously deny being one. -
Daniel Bailey at 07:51 AM on 26 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Speaking of Arctic sea ice, the multi-year ice has almost completely receded back to the North Pole from 2011:
To 2012:
[Source]
-
scaddenp at 07:25 AM on 26 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Dunc461 - coal does not cost the same everywhere. Labour, technical extraction and transport costs vary enormously. Renewables cost is also very location dependent. Where I live, we have no subsidies on any form of generation. Wind is competitive with coal because of high availability. Ditto for Concentrated Solar Power in other locations. (You can expect reduction in PV, but SCP is technology of choice for large scale solar). Can I strongly recommend you look at Sustainable Energy without the hot air I also wouldnt rush to blame economists for perceived ills. Plenty of cassandra's out there because it is hard to convince politicians to hear unwelcome news (just like AGW "skeptics"). I also have considerable faith in markets to deliver. Kill the subsidies (all of them), ban new coal-fired generation, then leave it to the market to sort out best replacement generation. -
garethman at 07:07 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Caerbannog, your name is highly appropriate for the flack you could have taken, Raising your head above the parapet (or Bannog) is a brave thing to do when in the middle of such a hostile and illogical crowd. Hwyl Fawr ! -
scaddenp at 07:01 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Oh dear, we must have upset someone. Churchill's quote comes to mind. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." The regrettable thing is that we have been exposed as agents for the New World Order, part of a socialist conspiracy, with massive funding from the shadowy Illuminati. Do you think that might affect our reputation? -
Bob Lacatena at 06:39 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I read on a denial site that if you put the hacked files onto an old phonograph and play it backwards you can hear John (Cook, not Lenin) saying "Paul flies black helicopters." -
jatufin at 06:35 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Oh dear. If this was indeed a sophisticated attack to unearth evidence about some vile conspiracy, the doers must feel rather disappointed now. But do not fall to desperation, my friends, maybe the secret orders for black helicopters are to be found from some other place. After all, internet is vast :) -
TOP at 06:12 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Mod test??????Moderator Response: [Sph] Yes, sorry. We have to test a lot of things. I just randomly picked your comment to do so. -
TOP at 06:07 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Are you going to send an email to those whose information was stolen alerting them of this? In the profile change I noticed that: a) There is no captcha (easy to implement) b) The password is not confirmed (leading to involuntary user self invalidation)Moderator Response: [Sph] We are working on a number of things, but there is a lot to do and only so much manpower. This is a 100% volunteer run site, one that generates a lot of posts, works on other efforts, and so on. The programming needed to fix this is not trivial, especially while simultaneously trying to track down the hacker, secure the site and evaluate the dangers of all of the data that was stolen (and please do not for one minute doubt this, we have substantial, irrefutable proof that the entire site was hacked in a way that was not trivial, Any claims that somehow we just left a door open, and someone happened to find stuff, are utterly and completely ludicrous.) -
dana1981 at 06:01 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
caerbannog - my experience at Monckton's talk in Sacramento was similar, though probably not as extreme. Lots of Tea Party folks, conspiracy theorists, the same "Agenda 21" nonsense, applause when Monckton accused climate scientists of fraud, etc. I'll have a post on the event next week. -
chris at 05:54 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
thanks DB, that seems OK. The Update Profile still won't let me change my password but I'll worry about that later when the fuss has died down... -
r.pauli at 05:46 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Just posted interview of Peter Hadfield by Peter Sinclair - Potholer54 and Greenman3610 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZKzJwMOWAI -
logicman at 05:44 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
I am continually amazed that some US politicians look to Monckton for advice on anything at all. He self-evidently does not believe in democracy. Here is the proof. In 1999 the British government passed a law taking away the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. The 1999 Act is quite short and is very clear in its meaning. The House of Lords Act 1999, section 1, provides firstly that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage". Section 2 provides for exceptions. The only exception rule which might apply to Monckton is 2,(6):"Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive." The Clerk of the Parliaments has publicly certified that Monckton is not entitled to sit in the House of Lords - Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments. According to the constitution and common law of our British democracy, the highest law in the land is an Act of Parliament enacted by both houses and signed by the sovereign. Accordingly, the 1999 Act is a manifestation of democratic and sovereign power. Monckton's continual assertion or implication that he is a member of the House of Lords is contrary to fact, contrary to law and contrary to the democratic and constitutional principles and practices of the United Kingdom. In effect, he is trying to apply his own diktat as a trump card over and above democracy. Given what Americans have been through in the past to protect their democratic freedoms I am surprised that they even let Monckton into their country, much less listen to his tosh and piffle. The public also deserves to know that what Monckton doesn't know about science would probably fill the world's science libraries. -
r.pauli at 05:42 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Monckton is the dominate climate demagogue. And his name should be added to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy "20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." But unlike other demagogues - the stakes here are are total. On the spaceship Earth - we are hosting a climate demagogue spouting dangerous hallucinations of how to manage our atmosphere. Disturbing, like seeing a navigator in a jet fighter, playing with the ejection lever. Until now, our imperfect species has always managed to survive by tolerating a 15% lunatic fringe... but now that it applies to technical life-support systems, we are stymied by our inability to shut them down or re-educate them. What a pity. -
chris at 05:33 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
DB, perhaps you could do the same for me. As someone who signed up quite a long time ago, I suspect that the email address I signed up with might also not be valid any longer....even 'though SkepticalScience returns my password to my current email address when I "pretend" I've forgotton my password. So I am signed up under the user "chris", and I would like a new password to be sent to the email address associated with that username. ...hope that makes sense...
Response:[DB] I have reset your account & sent an email with the details to the email account on file.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:00 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
What's really fascinating is to think back to 1972 when John Lennon was deported for FAR milder rhetoric. -
Martin at 04:54 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
@ John Cook Hi John, I hope I'm not sounding to impatient as this is my third comment. I still have not been able to change my password. Perhaps I'm not doing everything correctly. Could you either give me precise instructions or delete my user? Cheers, Martin
Response:[DB] I have changed your password, but the email you signed up under for this user ID does not appear to be valid. Are you also signed up under the user "martin"? If so, I will send the new password to that email address.
-
jatufin at 04:43 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
I myself sent email to Watts thanking his actions relating this stupid little episode. If we can stick to the old proverb "things fight, not people", there's still hope. -
Bob Loblaw at 03:58 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Yes, it is kind of scary, Rob. I'm having a flashback to a M*A*S*H* episode where the 4077th is caring for a bunch of Korean orphans. Col. Potter is reading an army jeep maintenance manual to several kids (probably 1-3 years old), as if it were a kids' bedtime story. The kids don't speak a word of english, but they are loving every minute of it. The moral of the story: it doesn't matter what you say, but how you say it. The speaker is the coach - there to pump everyone up for The Big Game - and the audience only hears the Rah-Rah-Rah boosterism and couldn't care less that the content is jibberish. To paraphrase Elmer Fudd: be vewy, vewy afwaid. They're *not* just hunting wabbits. -
Rob Honeycutt at 03:33 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
caerbannog @ 18... That is a truly frightening accounting of the event. -
Lou Grinzo at 03:28 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Oh, great. Now the whole world will know that my PW here was "JohnCookIsACyborg". How embarrassing. But on a slightly more sane note, I think this incident is a classic revelatory action. It shows [1] how effective SkS has been in the eyes of the deniers. That doesn't really tell us much about the deniers; you'd have to be too dumb to use a browser not to see the SkS influence online. And they're certainly at least that competent. And [2] it shows just how utterly desperate deniers are to throw sand in the gears of science and efforts to communicate science's findings to a wider audience. Given the nature of this site and the lack of anything "interesting" they could have acquired by their nefarious means, it's one of the last ones I would have expected them to attack. So I have to admit to being slightly surprised. Ever onwards. -
snapple at 02:59 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Lord Monckton has appeared more than once on Russia Today. This government-owned TV channel belongs to the Russian government's press agency RIA Novosti and used to feature Western denialists, but on March 17, the famous climate scientists Michael Mann was interviewed. RT was very gracious to Dr. Mann, but they seem to have amnesia, because they blamed denialism on the American politicians and the Heartland and did not take responsibility for also spreading the Climategate lies. RT criticized the Heartland, but the Heartland has cited RIA Novosti's attacks on the climate scientists. Heartland and other denialists deserve our contempt, but the Russian government's press agencies were also spreading the same lies. Now the line has changed: The Heartland, Monckton, and others are tossed under the bus. Still, RT and its parent RIA Novosti were spreading the same propaganda as the Western denialists. Shouldn't the leaders of Russia also be held to account? I think if the Russians are having Dr. Mann on TV, they should also apologize for the lies they told about the climate scientists. I don't know if the Russian leaders will do this or not, but I think they are the leaders of a superpower and will do this before Inhofe or Cuccinelli apologize. Here are the details. http://www.legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2012/03/climate-change-scientist-michael-mann.html -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:31 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Is access to the database " restricted only to myself" (i.e. John Cook) or restricted to John Cook plus the forum software which must access the database to do its job. If the latter (which makes the most sense to me) then the forum software contains both a username and password in its configuration files either in clear text or in a form that can be automatically decrypted by the SW which might as well be clear text. Regardless of that, the only plausible explanation for the leak is external hacking, most likely by exploiting vulnerabilities that Andylee has talked about. My own instance of PHPBB was hacked, it is unfortunately all too common. -
funglestrumpet at 02:18 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Perhaps we as a species really do not deserve to survive. Just look at the facts: The powers that be observe that the climate is changing and are sufficiently alarmed to set up the IPCC. This enables the world's leading climate scientists and other leading scientists in related fields to pool their expertise and analyse the state of the science in the relevant papers on the subject. From this analysis they then advise those in the legislature regarding policy on the issue. By way of 'thanks', they get a whole army of people: Delingpole, Philips, Hitchens, The Tea Party, The Republican Party, etc. etc. ridiculing them for all their hard work on all our behalves, while speaking from positions of breathtaking scientific ignorance and even invoking Genesis on occasion. They, like sks, get their private details hacked, and in some instances they get court proceedings taken against them. In fact, the list of 'retaliatory' acts seems endless. Perhaps the denialati don't realise that Mother Nature has declared war on us and she has some heavy armaments her arsenal. In a war situation, the last thing anyone should do is try to disrupt the work of the intelligences agency (IPCC) in formulating a 'state of play' regarding what the enemy is doing (Mother Nature) and offering advice on what our strategy should be in response. Yet that is exactly what Monckton and a whole army of like minded individuals are doing. Perhaps, difficult as it is to believe, the likes of Monckton actually want Mother Nature to have her wicked way with us. Perhaps they think that they and their progeny will be able to survive the troubles that lie ahead and come out on top, so to speak, in much the same way the collaborators in WW2 believed they were in for a good life at the end of hostilities. Perhaps those who are fans of Monckton have not spotted that His Lordship has a much more interesting life than they almost certainly do, flitting around the world as he does giving the same old same old (complete with known misleading statements) to audiences of adoring fans. Keith Barry and Derren Brown deceive their audiences, but only for the purposes of entertainment. It is difficult to work out the motives behind Monckton's audience deception. I for one would love to see who pays for all this globe-trotting and associated expenses. Perhaps his need to be in the limelight is so desperate, he pays for it all himself. Perhaps Peter Hadfield is right in allowing for the possibility that Monckton's misleading statements are genuinely unintentional. I would do the same if they did not include so many misrepresentations of hardworking scientists who are engaged on our side of the fight; misrepresentations that appear very deliberate to me. Perhaps we should not view Monckton as a collaborator, but it is hard not to. Perhaps he is not receiving any benefit from his actions on climate change other than a fun life being the centre of attention, something that he appears to crave. But there again, perhaps we really should view him thus. What really saddens me is that so many young people support his efforts to blight their future; like the cannon fodder of WW1 admiring the generals who were sending them 'over the top' to their almost certain deaths in a war they had been told was the war to end wars. ("Well, young Willy McBride, it's all happened again and again and again and again.") Perhaps Mother Nature is not really at war with us. Perhaps all she is doing is reacting as Gaia to a virus infection called humankind that has reached a tipping point in terms of its population and needs culling. When a person gets sick with a virus infection, the usual response is a rise in temperature. It would seem that the earth is only doing likewise. Perhaps Monckton is only acting as an anti-body, or somehow sees himself as such. Perhaps I should admit defeat, but I cannot. I regard Monckton and all those like him, together with their supporters that give them the oxygen of publicity, as my enemy, my children's enemy and the enemy of their children, unborn and unnamed. With that in mind I will fight them with all my might. Perhaps in Monckton's case Mother Nature will do the job for me. When a soldier runs away, as Monckton has so clearly done on this occasion, instead of standing their ground, the usual response is a court marshal for cowardice, followed by a blindfold and a target marker over the heart. I wonder how Mother Nature will deal with his cowardice. If he were genuinely worth his peerage, he would have the courage to either offer a defence of his seemingly misleading statements, or admit his error and amend his presentations accordingly. Perhaps he will, but I doubt that he has the courage. -
caerbannog at 02:08 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
#11: At the beginning of the event, the audience was told about opponents who were trying to get the event cancelled, to suppress their freedom to "hear the other side", yadda, yadda, yadda. It was made clear that anyone disrupting the proceedings in any way would be tossed out immediately. When Monckton asked people in the audience to raise their hands if they thought that global-warming could really be a potential problem, I raised my hand, and was almost the only one in the audience to do so (in fact, I may *have* been the only one). Questions to Monckton were to be submitted on 3x5 cards, and he did trouble himself to answer several "backside-kissing" questions. No need for question-screening with this audience! The event was structured in a way as to prevent any direct challenges to Monckton. Monckton just *loves* adoring fans, and events like this are specifically taylored to serve those fans up to him. BTW, Monckton got *three* standing-ovations during his show. At any rate, trying to engage Monckton in any sort of "reality based" debate would have been about as productive as taking on Duane Gish in a megachurch. One of Monckton's talking-points was the old "hockey-sticks from random noise" claim. To rebut that, you would basically have to explain stuff like autocorrelation lengths, eigenvalues, etc. to "Bubba". #15 AFAICT, the event was publicized only in the right-wing "orthogonal universe", i.e. via "tea party" web-sites, etc. I found out about it when I saw a climateprogress.org piece about the California GOP inviting Monckton to speak in Sacramento. Did a bit of Googling to see where else Monckton might be going; got a hit on a tea-party web-site and followed a couple of links from there. In retrospect, I feel a bit silly and naive about my on-line attempts to get some UCSD/SIO folks to attend the event -- I mean, just what *was* I thinking??? -
Philippe Chantreau at 01:18 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Off course, Monckton can't answer. Hadfield's video is full of footage of Monckton himself putting his foot in his mouth and ramming it down as far as it will reach. It is so plain and obvious that it takes Watts all his denial power to wiggle away from it. -
thanes at 01:08 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
Caerbannog, I've spent many good hours also, wasted, debating things with the intellectually derailed or dishonest, and I have to say the efforts have helped me fill in holes in my understanding of the science. By now (and in fact, probably for the last year), the diminishing returns have gotten infinitesimal. There seem to be now three kinds of postings- those by conservative ideologues with no intellectual integrity, hired shills, and the truly paranoid. The first are, unfortunately, people I think still must be engaged. The second should be identified and exposed ( I have NO idea how to do that, but it's got to be possible) and as to the third, as soon as you realize it, I think the response should be the same as during an in-person exchange, when you suddenly realize that you are speaking with someone delusional or psychotic, you back away slowly, showing your hands, making calming sounds. -
skywatcher at 01:00 AM on 26 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Password successfully changed, no problem for me there. No sign of unusual spam etc as yet either. It seems to be becoming some kind of a (rather twisted) badge of honour to be targeted by illegal hackers - a nod to the high quality of work done by SkS. It seems to be all the hackers can resort to as they are totally lacking in evidence for their point of view. paulchevin #75, for a while on one of the SkS articles there was an image that was linked (IIRC) to a NOAA page, which triggered a random login popup window for NOAA, not sure if that would be related? -
muoncounter at 00:58 AM on 26 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
caerbannog: Do you know how this event was publicized beforehand? It would be interesting to see how 'they' were able to attract such a distinguished audience and get some of those folks out of their bunkers. This could be an early warning of another active summer for the teabag crowd - like the summer of the health care debate. -
Doc Snow at 22:47 PM on 25 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
"From what I saw tonight, I would have to say that most of the people who attended the Monckton show are very unlikely to be moved by appeals to evidence and logic." Well, I spent more time than I would have liked yesterday--on a beautiful Saturday, no less--"debating" with just such idiots (Canadian ones, FWIW.) Second Law, yadda yadda, Faith-based AGW, yadda yadda, lying scientists, yadda yadda. I (and a few othermasochistsdedicated posters) keep giving 'em facts, which invariably sink without a trace in what passes for consciousness with such denialists. I just have to keep reminding myself that it's the reader passing by, not the ostensible opponent, for whom the truth may be important. (The worst of that is, there have got to be very few lurkers as such threads spin out--sensible, normal folk must flee them in droves. It does raise questions about the efficient use of time.) All of which is to say that my appreciation for Peter Hadfield's efforts runs deep. It takes a lot of work and patience, and he's done a magnificent job. There can be no question as to whether Monckton is a serial fabulator--you can, IMO, write QED on the file. -
Riccardo at 22:08 PM on 25 March 2012Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton
caerbannog thank you for sharing your experience with the Monckton-Tea Party crowd. Although in any country we have skeptics and deniers there are traits characteristic of the anglo-saxon world that aren't easy to decipher for us "barbarians" (as strangers, the original meaning of the greek word). -
Bern at 22:06 PM on 25 March 2012Skeptical Science hacked, private user details publicly posted online
Well, I had no difficulty changing my password. It was unique to this site, anyway. Like others here, I'm not in the least bit surprised that SkS has been targeted for an unethical & illegal attack by the 'other side'. Sorry to see they've been somewhat successful, though. And I'm happy to admit that my opinion of Anthony Watts just went up a few notches after reading this thread.
Prev 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 Next
