tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post3377031535339774101..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: Banned againNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-90123567821840432062016-03-30T22:50:25.083+11:002016-03-30T22:50:25.083+11:00Jim - Yes, he posts plenty of nonsense on every su...Jim - Yes, he posts plenty of nonsense on every subject under the sun. Put this in Google:<br />site:fabiusmaximus.com arctic sea iceKevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-83798612631463174542016-03-30T20:38:15.576+11:002016-03-30T20:38:15.576+11:00Thanks for your good wishes John, which do seem to...Thanks for your good wishes John, which do seem to have helped! One of my comments on a recent WUWT article about my specialist subject has made it past Smokey's eagle eyes, so that Anthony himself can berate me for my stupidity:<br /><br /><a href="http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/03/nsidc-announce-the-2016-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-extent/#comment-214029" rel="nofollow">http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/03/nsidc-announce-the-2016-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-extent/#comment-214029</a><br /><br />It seems that the perfect way to "threadbomb" a WUWT discussion concerning a NASA scientist's views on Arctic sea ice is to mention said NASA scientist's views on Arctic sea ice.<br /><br />Kevin - Does Larry Kummer ever mention sea ice? If so I may have to pop in there with a "bomb" or two under my petticoat.Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-91074768661415757852016-03-28T11:41:10.360+11:002016-03-28T11:41:10.360+11:00Kummer has banned me from his site as well. Appar...Kummer has banned me from his site as well. Apparently anyone that disagrees with him is a troll.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-86058522435537224372016-03-28T10:25:50.699+11:002016-03-28T10:25:50.699+11:00I'm virtually certain my commentary at WUWT wo...I'm virtually certain my commentary at WUWT would be of no help to you. I think it's likely that my sarcastic comment about Stokes, and other usual suspects, being caged (accidently, once again) got some attention because of Larry Kummer's interest. Who knows ... Did you see the [mod]'s late puzzling comment to my post about Stokes being disappeared? ... Very Smokey-like. Good luck.John@EFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-60810183335567722462016-03-28T06:34:39.929+11:002016-03-28T06:34:39.929+11:00ATTP said:
"Anyway, I suspect Nick would rath...ATTP said:<br /><i>"Anyway, I suspect Nick would rather we didn't engage in this discussion here."</i><br /><br />Ever the control freak ...<br /><br />Here is another comment that ATTP "disappeared". <br /><br /><a href="http://imageshack.com/a/img923/4262/SVkEOm.gif" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.com/a/img923/4262/SVkEOm.gif</a><br /><br />When you get mentioned in a comment and don't get a chance to respond by citing your credentials, you realize that this is not a two-sided discussion. That's why these guys call it ClimateBall ... much like Calvin in the famous American comic strip, ATTP loves making up his own rules as he goes along.<br /><br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-1307159078071723592016-03-28T05:49:51.416+11:002016-03-28T05:49:51.416+11:00whut,
LOL, I use twitter to whine about why you d...whut,<br /><i><br />LOL, I use twitter to whine about why you delete my comments!<br /></i><br />Ummm, yes, I know. <br /><br /><i><br />We all know what the real problem is, right ATTP?<br /></i><br />I'm pretty sure I know what you think it is. Anyway, I suspect Nick would rather we didn't engage in this discussion here....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-45417595288962176812016-03-28T02:47:40.438+11:002016-03-28T02:47:40.438+11:00ATTP said:
"whut,
Technically, you haven'...ATTP said:<br /><i>"whut,<br />Technically, you haven't been banned, but I find my desire to post your comments reduces significantly after you've decided to insult me on Twitter. Call it a weakness."</i><br /><br />LOL, I use twitter to whine about why you delete my comments! You must really have a thin skin.<br /><br />Here is a comment of mine that you, ATTP, decided to capriciously delete<br /><br /><a href="http://imageshack.com/a/img922/2002/L4me74.png" rel="nofollow">http://imageshack.com/a/img922/2002/L4me74.png</a><br /><br />Fascinating that my innocuous comment has a lot in common with the next Moyhu post, i.e. letting economists play games with climate science time-series data. Nothing really wrong with the comment except in the mind of ATTP.<br /><br />We all know what the real problem is, right ATTP?@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-24167859701585986532016-03-28T00:32:58.258+11:002016-03-28T00:32:58.258+11:00whut,
Technically, you haven't been banned, bu...whut,<br />Technically, you haven't been banned, but I find my desire to post your comments reduces significantly after you've decided to insult me on Twitter. Call it a weakness....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-84726641971456808142016-03-28T00:21:59.419+11:002016-03-28T00:21:59.419+11:00ATTP said:
"whut,
Although that doesn't h...ATTP said:<br /><i>"whut,<br />Although that doesn't help, it's not the reason."</i><br /><br />Oh, how nice of you to avoid explaining why I have been banned from commenting on your blog.<br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-13661348209244544322016-03-27T20:31:03.548+11:002016-03-27T20:31:03.548+11:00whut,
Although that doesn't help, it's not...whut,<br />Although that doesn't help, it's not the reason....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-62230894327525863492016-03-27T02:39:35.733+11:002016-03-27T02:39:35.733+11:00Perhaps you might now ask instead why that comment...Perhaps you might now ask instead why that comment has been [Snip]ped in its entirety by a [mod]?<br /><br /><a href="https://archive.is/Yv1Kb#selection-2801.0-2815.27" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/Yv1Kb#selection-2801.0-2815.27</a>Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-18569056782769527932016-03-27T01:44:11.044+11:002016-03-27T01:44:11.044+11:00Engaging with the bouncer dbstealey, uggh unpleasa...Engaging with the bouncer dbstealey, uggh unpleasant. <br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/why-skeptics-could-lose-the-us-climate-policy-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-2175118<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-84379270777463684822016-03-27T01:21:59.593+11:002016-03-27T01:21:59.593+11:00Bill H,
You are right about all the alternate theo...Bill H,<br />You are right about all the alternate theories that essentially cancel each other out due to contradictory claims. Evidence has to build in a substantiating fashion to be viable. <br /><br />A rhetorical debate style does not have to consider that, as it is Gish Gallop all the way. <br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-9686401851290900772016-03-26T20:52:46.781+11:002016-03-26T20:52:46.781+11:00John@EF - Perhaps you can persuade Anthony to rele...John@EF - Perhaps you can persuade Anthony to release this recent Arctic themed comment of mine from purgatory over at WUWT too?<br /><br /><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/24/why-does-the-antarctic-sea-ice-trend-resist-decline/comment-page-1/#comment-2175052" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/24/why-does-the-antarctic-sea-ice-trend-resist-decline/comment-page-1/#comment-2175052</a>Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-24578290587039976002016-03-26T12:08:22.570+11:002016-03-26T12:08:22.570+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-63180544129956005222016-03-26T11:54:39.205+11:002016-03-26T11:54:39.205+11:00Tony/whut,
Actually, the various examples that I&...Tony/whut,<br /><br />Actually, the various examples that I've cited of debates over competing theories aren't relevant to the climate science "controversy", since there isn't actually a serious challenger to the standard model whereby the forces of solar variation (Incl Milankovitch cycles), CO2 plus other GHGs (not H2O) and aerosols are then further amplified by predominantly positive feedbacks, including the one that whut has found an elegant way to calculate, namely H2O (See relevant comment further back in this post).<br /><br />There are of course a great many "alternative theories", or "nails in the coffin of AGW" as they're sometimes known, but these are all mutually contradictory. Only if "skeptics" could settle on a few such theories and develop them to effectively challenge the standard model would it then make sense to debate the merits of each.<br /><br />So, in conclusion, I think you're right, Tony, about debate having no place at present in climate science, but not for the reasons you suppose.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-1233571504418061652016-03-26T01:34:25.884+11:002016-03-26T01:34:25.884+11:00TonyB asked:
"When are you going to publish y...TonyB asked:<br /><i>"When are you going to publish your own work"</i><br /><br />Out of professional courtesy, I will let you link to your Google Scholar page first.<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-23475034894068197612016-03-25T22:55:37.168+11:002016-03-25T22:55:37.168+11:00Oops - i spoke too soon.Comment went to moderation...Oops - i spoke too soon.Comment went to moderation and disappeared over.<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/22/why-skeptics-could-lose-the-us-climate-policy-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-2173614<br /><br />What were the forbidden words? Or another inadvertent spam list? Who knows? Who cares?<br /><br />"oneillsinwisconsin your comment is awaiting moderation<br />March 24, 2016 4:31 AM<br /><br />James Hansen is this generation's leading climate scientist. From his early work on planetary atmospheres, his work with early computer models and volcanoes, his systematic compilation of the GISS surface temperature dataset, and the hundreds of papers on which he was lead or co-author make him the truly a figure that will go down in history.<br /><br />Yet, on 'skeptic' sites his name is nearly a curse word. Why? Because they don't like the results.<br /><br />Frankly, most here and on similar sites are anything *but* skeptics. Instead you're willing to cheerlead any cockamamie nonsense if it supports your view. Scientists are the true skeptics. Despite Hansen's record and reputation do scientists accept his work uncritcally? Of course not, that's not the way science works. His work is examined just as critically as any other scientific paper. One need only look at the scientific criticisms that can be found of his latest paper, <a href="http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.html" rel="nofollow">"Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations Implies that 2°C Global Warming Above the Preindustrial Level Could Be Dangerous"</a><br /><br />In the comments above, responding to Steve Mosher, AW writes that he is not a subscriber to "anything but CO2"- yet how many guest posters that have written here are of that belief? AW also does not want to be considered a conspiracist, yet how many guest posters have expressed those views? When one enables these people one should not be surprised to be lumped in or associated with them. The association is of your own creation.<br /><br />I don't typically visit here often because there's too much nonsense. Egregious errors are rarely pointed out by the skeptical regulars - no, that job falls to the Moshers and Stokes and Gates and Engelbeens. Dr Tim Ball's recent claims that the SPMs do not include uncertainties is just the most recent example. 200 comments into the thread not one commenter made the point that he was flat out wrong. And when it *was* pointed out, not one commenter was willing to admit it. No, instead it was challenge and attack the person who did attempt to add some reality to the discussion by pointing out the error.<br /><br />So be it."Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-5459770815425383582016-03-25T09:26:15.995+11:002016-03-25T09:26:15.995+11:00bill H, that's essentially what I am referring...bill H, that's essentially what I am referring to. Monckton and everyone like him are behaving like they are captains of their high school debate team. Its the distinction in meaning between rhetoric and dialectic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/language/the-difference-between-rhetoric-and-dialectic/" rel="nofollow">http://www.differencebetween.net/language/the-difference-between-rhetoric-and-dialectic/</a><br /><br />I think the distinction becomes even greater when you start using the formal elements of logic and math. You then aren't debating each other but the nature of the model under investigation.<br /><br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-41425103858526022492016-03-25T09:02:54.058+11:002016-03-25T09:02:54.058+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-46175344361764520602016-03-25T08:30:08.048+11:002016-03-25T08:30:08.048+11:00Tony, "Debate has no part in science". D...Tony, "Debate has no part in science". Discuss...<br /><br />Well, for a great many climate "skeptics" it's held in high esteem. My Lord Monckton has regularly challenged climate scientists to "debate" with him.<br /><br />As for science in general I would suggest that when there are competing theories then this leads to very lively debate. Examples: the various interpretations of quantum theory; big bang vs steady state; the debate over the reality of atoms, which lasted for much of the 19th century.bill hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10849188148172259760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-61958754597968096362016-03-25T03:38:06.342+11:002016-03-25T03:38:06.342+11:00Perfectly understandable. Too bad the "real&...Perfectly understandable. Too bad the "real" R Gates is not active so far as I know, I always enjoyed reading him.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-37367325364390181432016-03-25T02:40:58.699+11:002016-03-25T02:40:58.699+11:00whut
no, you won't get me upset at all.
Whe...whut<br /><br />no, you won't get me upset at all. <br /><br />When are you going to publish your own work which seems to have drawn some favourable comments in various forums?<br /><br />tonybtonybhttp://climatereason.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-56844627289582502532016-03-25T01:34:49.848+11:002016-03-25T01:34:49.848+11:00Yes, Brandon, a confusion on my part alone, I'...Yes, Brandon, a confusion on my part alone, I'm sure - the middle initial and last name coincidence led me to assume you were likely him. Thanks for correcting that misunderstanding. John@EFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-68093067903174620132016-03-25T00:41:03.205+11:002016-03-25T00:41:03.205+11:00Nick, It's arguable that if you want to engage...Nick, It's arguable that if you want to engage in a collaborative science discussion, you would want to consider participating in a forum that is conducive to it, not this half-baked BlogSpot. <br /><br />A collaborative two-way discussion is best achieved when all sides have equal footing. That's why I spend most of my time at <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussions" rel="nofollow">http://forum.azimuthProject.org/discussions</a>.<br /><br />Anyone registered can generate equation markup and post visuals.<br /><br />It would be amusing to watch TonyB try to "debate" his historical revisionism of climate science by posting paintings by Renaissance artists on such a forum. And I know my stating this will get TonyB upset, but, hey, that's the nature of rhetorical debate, LOL. Blogs such as WUWT are very high school debate quality -- they're all about making the other side lose their cool.<br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.com