No doubt about that Judith…no doubt at all. My interests are just places other than with personalities. I have to note, however, that in the past I have referred to you as ‘Ma Curry’ in the contexts of food fights at CE, and have yet to find a male blogger counterpart even close to worthy of ‘Pa’. That has to do with adult supervision and not misogyny. :O)
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by mwgrant
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D
physicistdave, it would have been as hard to predict the early 21st century pause in 1981 as the large 1998 El Nino on which it relies, as you should be fully aware. What Hansen could predict in 1981 is a general trend from the forcing change. Remember 1981 was at the end of a long pause, so it was bold to say that 30 years later in 2010 the temperature would rise 0.5 C (pause and all), which is much more than it had risen so far to that point and greater than any natural variability in the temperature record, but it did. In that paper, he said that in the 90’s the warming would rise above the background variability in the global temperature, and it did.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
May I interrupt with some facts?
I know this may be unwelcome and the ‘skeptics’ all are a-buzz and falling over themselves to be the most enthusiastic Steyn-arse-kisser / Mann-hater they can possibly be, but……
Steyn is just hopeless. ‘Porno’ aunt???? Your collective credulity is wonderous to behold (Judith, you do yourself no favours here….as usual)
I believe (with moderate confidence) that the first use of the term was in 2010, thus, and I quote (you there cap’n?);
“Judy Curry continues her crazy aunt act….”
Thankyou Eli (though perhaps the rabbit may drop in and clarify if he can claim credit…).
And it was in response to Judith’s supremely incoherent Italian flag ‘analysis’.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by harkin1
Steyn makes a very valid point when he says:
“It’s not just that Mann’s friend “Tamino” does not refer to Mann as “Uncle Mike”, or Schmidt as “Uncle Gavin” or Trenberth as “Uncle Kevin”, but they don’t even dismiss the guys on the other side in that way: Fred Singer is not “Uncle Freddie” and Richard Lindzen is not “Uncle Dickie”. Shollenberger defends Tamino because he believes that, in looking for a condescending sexist sneer, he just stumbled entirely innocently on a porno term.”
It would have been better to have stayed out of it. Steyn hit the nail on the head.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Ron Graf
Don, I search your quote and came back to a 2009 CA post that lays it all out. There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider, among other things, what do about Briffa’s decline problem. They actually had a copy of the complete untruncated Briffa reconstruction and decided by committee it was better to bury it for the report and the greater cause. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
VTG, Just because Mann (and IPCC) have gotten away with this does not vindicate anyone. On the contrary, it shows something more alarming. it’s much worse than you thought.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Mark Silbert
Crawl back in your hole Michael.
You would do well to take harkin1’s advice to Brandon (above) on this.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
harkin1:
It would have been better to have stayed out of it. Steyn hit the nail on the head.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest Tamino’s use of the phrase “Aunt Judy” had anything to do with how that phrase might be used in the p0rn industry. There’s no indication Tamino, his readers, or Mark Steyn himself was even aware of that usage at the time Tamino called her that. In his book, Steyn makes it sound like he only just discovered that the phrase could be used that way.
So why shouldn’t I have pointed that out? Am I not allowed to say Mark Steyn said something wrong? Does me saying Steyn said something wrong automatically translate into, “Everybody Steyn criticized is right”? Of course not. Tamino’s insults were still insults whether or not Steyn described them accurately.
This sort of reaction is the same tribalistic nonsense this site has criticized time and time again from the “consensus” crowd.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Steven Mosher
Steyn was correct.
Brandon. Read harder. Parse harder.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Michael
Sorry Mark, facts be-gone…and now normal service can resume……rant on!
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Steven Mosher
Brandon
The only thing I did is point out Mark Steyn is completely wrong to suggest Tamino called you “Aunt Judy” as a reference to some term used in the p0rn industry, because he was
###$$
No read harder.
Steyn is noting that tamino uses a term which appears to have a porno meaning. That is true.
He makes no claim about tamino intention but rather notes that tamino readers take the discussion that way.
It’s a very sly piece of writing. Very sharp.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Steven Mosher:
No read harder.
Steyn is noting that tamino uses a term which appears to have a porno meaning. That is true.
He makes no claim about tamino intention but rather notes that tamino readers take the discussion that way.
It’s a very sly piece of writing. Very sharp.
If you had bothered to take your own advice and parsed what I said, you would have noticed I said it was wrong for Steyn to “suggest Tamino called” our hostess “Aunt Judy” as a p0rno reference. That’s because, as I said an hour ago in response to you saying much teh same at my site, I initially didn’t read Steyn’s book thinking I might have to parse it for subtle nuances allowing him to imply things then say, “But I didn’t really say that.” As I indicated there, the reason I didn’t immediately go back and fix my mistake is Steyn wrote an article responding to what I said without taking issue with my depiction, so it appeared he wasn’t bothered by it.
But as my comment here clearly shows, I’ve become well aware of the subtle distinction one could draw, hence why I used the word “suggest” instead of “said.” Had you bothered to read harder and parse harder as you tell me to do, you’d have noted that and saved us all the trouble of a stupid semantic discussion.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by physicistdave
Jim D wrote to me:
>physicistdave, it would have been as hard to predict the early 21st century pause in 1981 as the large 1998 El Nino on which it relies, as you should be fully aware.
Yes, Jim, I am of course fully aware of that: that is my central point: neither our coy friend Sidles nor Hansen nor you nor I can definitively predict the future of climate (yet): the problem is too hard (so far).
But that means that people who claim they can are being dishonest.
Jim D also wrote:
>What Hansen could predict in 1981 is a general trend from the forcing change.
Indeed. But the problem is, that prediction is just not specific enough to let anyone know if Hansen just guessed well or actually understands future climate.
The way science works is that you have to really, really stick your neck out with predictions that will almost certainly fail — that is, unless your theory is on the mark, in which case your stunning success will rightly impress all of your fellow scientists.
What our coy friend Sidles (do you know if he has a Ph.D.? her seems to claim one in places on the Web, so why won’t he answer my question?) has quoted from Hansen is just not good enough by the standards of real science to show Hansen’s theory is solid.
I know that it is hard to make this point to non-scientists, but the scientific method consists of assuming any theory is guilty until (provisionally) proven innocent.
A couple qualitative predictions just does not cut it.
Dave
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by JCH
I’m just a cowboy, and I found his dissertation.
I didn’t predict the pause, but I did let everybody know it was going paws up.
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Jim D
physicistdave, you don’t give any credit at all for a theory’s explanatory power of the temperature rise so far. If someone 60 or 100 years ago had used the CO2 value of that day and stuck their neck out to predict what the temperature would be at 400 ppm, using 2 C per doubling as a transient rate, they would have been right. These would have seemed rather extreme predictions at those times. People will say, oh, that’s just lucky that this theory works out so well with the temperature record. No, it is just physics, and a lot of scientists understand that. What would have been remarkable would have been if it had not been near 2 C per doubling.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Don Monfort
Little publicity hound brandoon has me persuaded on this one. There is absolutely no reason, other than tamandingo being a complete misogynist alarmist a$$hole, that the runt would slur Judith like that. He probably thinks that Judith is actually his Aunt. Why else would it be capitalized?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Punksta
Tallguy –
Hardly. So whereiin lines the imagined change of context and meaning?
Wiki. Again, their bias on climate is legendary. Perhaps you also imagine the BBC is open and objective ?
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by Punksta
What’s wrong with simply: Believers or Deniers?
It misses out the +almost all= non-believers in CAGW – the Skeptics (who are far more numerous than Deniers).
Both Believers and Deniers believe the science is settled – just in opposite ways. Skeptics think it isn’t settled; could go either way.
Deliberately miscategorising Skeptics as Deniers is a propaganda tactic favoured by the most extremely dishonest believers.
↧
↧
Comment on Industry funding and bias by Punksta
Joseph –
I don’t even know what funding CAGW means
It means you bias your funding to select people and projects predisposed to ‘conclude’ CAGW, rather than those after the truth.
This is done in pursuit of vested interest, since it justifies government giving itself more taxes and powers. Similar to say a drug company biasing its research into its own drugs, so as to enhance its prospects. Only order of magnitude bigger.
He who pays the piper.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Punksta
Jim D –
Not it is not “just physics”, but rather an as yet uncorroborated speculation that there will be any given rise in temperatures per a doubling of CO2.
When we finally have the ability to directly and reliably measure the radiation budget, and the ocean heat content, and perhaps some other things besides, and the models stop getting caught out, then we’ll be able to call it physics. And then be in a position to decide what if anything needs to be done.
↧
Comment on Industry funding: witch hunts by climatereason
Mosh
Listen, there’s Test Match Cricket on and I’ve just had a very interesting offer from a senior Syrian Defector to transfer large sums of money into my account in a legal fashion, so you will realise I have better things to do today.
As far as I am aware I have never read anything of Steyn’s nor followed the Steyn/Mann case.
I was originally interested as I found myself siding with Michael over the correct use of quotations.
It is all very well to say read harder or parse more but surely that misses the point. Steyn is a polemicist and a communicator. As such he will be read superficially by many people and should be expected to get over his meaning clearly. If you need to parse everything surely he has failed, especially when we are dealing with a book, rather than a short article.
I’ve lost track, is this out in e-book form yet, as reluctantly it seems I must read it for myself. For balance is there anything that summarises Mann’s position?
tonyb
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
