I broke the story two posts down. Complete with standard-issue MSM reaction. And with an AlGore cartoon. But of course, it all flew by Mr Rot. Ah well, that mythical schnitzel, with VCP on the side, is waiting for me. Yes?
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 21st, 2009
That's 6 days old? Man, that wienerpisswasser is addling your brain. I need to come by, and help you get those flasque neurons firing up again. How about Spring Break?
Still in Fullerland. Not far from those warmist putzes. Jeepers, do these guys ever prove something, or simply suck their thumbs, blow hot air, and wait for the moolah to fall in their laps?
Those guys don't. Their shit's too complicated and too politicized.
Bio is simpler, and though it's politicized as hell, they seem to do real science. Like they check each other's results and have fights about stuff for real.
This thing about being able to hide intermediate data is amazing! Imagine; it's public property!
How the game works: Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.
The Gray Old Lady throws a few bones to the knuckledragging wolves, while staunchly defending the Lysenko Party Line: The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.
The WaPo chick really is nice to there scum, isn't she? You really have to Pravda-like read between the lines to get the idea that there might be a teensy weensy bit of cause for concern that there could be some scientific fraudulets involved somewhere closeby.
You mean " 'skeptic' " (with quotes). You see, this has all been explained in the Alzheimer-Guardian post above--in the comments.
A skeptic looks at all the data, we're told, and doubts the conclusions. A denialist is one that denies the data, and those of us that are not convinced that Halliburton is frying all the polar bears are thus denialists, not skeptics.
You see? Pepethink is fun and you can get a $25 million grant!
I broke the story two posts down. Complete with standard-issue MSM reaction. And with an AlGore cartoon. But of course, it all flew by Mr Rot. Ah well, that mythical schnitzel, with VCP on the side, is waiting for me. Yes?
ReplyDeleteYour schmuck: UPDATE: I particularly recommend Bishop Hill’s superb summary of some of the key points of the CRU correspondence.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't have the goods in his article now and he didn't when you posted it.
You pay up, Dr Alz., while you try to get someone you don't like thrown off a journal's editorial board.
Powwww!
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
ReplyDeleteWhere do babies come from, Tecs?
How 'bout this?
ReplyDeleteMann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
Pretty good, eh?
Juicy:
ReplyDeleteSanter says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
It was all in the article I posted, or in the the ones it links to. VCP for me.
ReplyDeleteWigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
ReplyDeleteCheck the cartoon at the bottom of this!
Story is that Wang got some dodgy documents from China...
Pretty crooked:
ReplyDeleteMann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Check what happens after about 1950 here, top fig.
ReplyDeleteYour guy inked to Bishop Hill after I did!
ReplyDeletePay up!
This I did get from the article you posted.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bomb! $25M of grants to this fucking creep. He needs to go to gaol!
They've even got him trying to destroy evidence and conspiracy.
Stop diggin', Mr Rot. I'm the champ, you got in second place, while AA & MFT are sleeping at the wheel, and Pepe is skulking with a Red #5 Hurricane.
ReplyDeleteThe little fruit is a civil engineer by training!
ReplyDeleteWhaaaa?
Tecs, you linked to a Telegraph article that's like 6 days old, man!
ReplyDeleteGet the bucket, some ice, and the bottle. Then get your ass down here, man, because you're being about as honest on this one as your buddy Phil Jones!
Powww!
When do you get here, VCP-boy!? I'm thirsty!
ReplyDeleteClimategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 21st, 2009
ReplyDeleteThat's 6 days old? Man, that wienerpisswasser is addling your brain. I need to come by, and help you get those flasque neurons firing up again. How about Spring Break?
Where are you? Obamaland?
ReplyDeleteStill in Fullerland. Not far from those warmist putzes. Jeepers, do these guys ever prove something, or simply suck their thumbs, blow hot air, and wait for the moolah to fall in their laps?
ReplyDeleteThose guys don't. Their shit's too complicated and too politicized.
ReplyDeleteBio is simpler, and though it's politicized as hell, they seem to do real science. Like they check each other's results and have fights about stuff for real.
This thing about being able to hide intermediate data is amazing! Imagine; it's public property!
How the game works:
ReplyDeleteFellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.
Shocka!
C'mon, Tecs! You've called people utter buttockses before when they disagreed with you on whether math is \xypic or \lesssim!
ReplyDeleteThe Gray Old Lady throws a few bones to the knuckledragging wolves, while staunchly defending the Lysenko Party Line:
ReplyDeleteThe evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.
Fake but Accurate CCVIII.
ReplyDeletePaging Dan Rather. What's the frequency?
ReplyDeleteWaPo.
ReplyDeleteThe WaPo chick really is nice to there scum, isn't she? You really have to Pravda-like read between the lines to get the idea that there might be a teensy weensy bit of cause for concern that there could be some scientific fraudulets involved somewhere closeby.
ReplyDeleteYou're a darn skeptic, Mr Rot. Why can't you be a wide-eyed, panting sycophant like any self-respecting pinko chick (or Pepe)?
ReplyDeleteYou mean " 'skeptic' " (with quotes). You see, this has all been explained in the Alzheimer-Guardian post above--in the comments.
ReplyDeleteA skeptic looks at all the data, we're told, and doubts the conclusions. A denialist is one that denies the data, and those of us that are not convinced that Halliburton is frying all the polar bears are thus denialists, not skeptics.
You see? Pepethink is fun and you can get a $25 million grant!
Seethe, hühnerscheiße!
Thanks for nice information
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to visit our site :)