Reply to: Jolly Hockey Sticks

[BlasterBates]

On peer review:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/11/overpecks-hammer/

Sounds like they did redefine very successfully what peer review is all about.

Just ignore what the reviewer said.

And while we're at it, lets reexamine that "harmless" hide the decline and the parliamentary enquiry.

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-...the-trick.html

Mcintyre has interesting take on it, that sounds like a white wash to me.

What did Prof Hand say about McKintyre?

Hand said he was “impressed” by McIntyre’s statistical work.

So perhaps we shouldn't dismiss McKintyre.

[shaunbhoy]

An 'independent' review that was commissioned BY the University of East Anglia and headed by Lord Oxburgh who is the chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables.

It totals a measly 5 pages, and no skeptic was ever spoken to (Steve McIntyre for instance). Is it really a wonder they found no wrongdoing? Or was it because they truly weren't searching.

Utter whitewash!!

And it seems they have been using inferior statisticians to collate results. Hey sasguru, looks like the game might be up for you with that juicy IPCC contract. Back to the Northern Rock Profit forecasting quango methinks!

[pjclarke]

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Hyperbole in a private mail is all that is - if he had said 'over my dead body' would you have taken that as a serious suicide threat?

Nobody gets to redefine peer-review - and for the record, both the papers being referred to were not actually kept out - they were cited and discussed in next IPCC report.

Also for the record, neither has stood the test of time (which is the second part of peer-review, expert scrutiny after publication).

[shaunbhoy]

What happens if you kick the box away?

The air in his head affords him a gentle fall back to reality.

HTH

[Churchill]

What happens if you kick the box away?

With or without the rope around his scrawny little neck?

[Clippy]

What happens if you kick the box away?

Depends if it is an eco friendly box.

[DodgyAgent]

Shut it Dodgy, you're not bright enough.

PS I'm 5'11'' which is not terribly tall I grant you, but hardly small

What happens if you kick the box away?

[sasguru]

I am crap at pimping but good at science. I have concluded :

1. there are several conflicting views about the causes of climate change,
2. that the climate is always changing and has always done so,
3. that climate change may or may not be desirable
4. that man may or may not be the cause of climate change.
5. That man can do anything about climate change even if he wants to.

I am afraid to me there is no clear scientific evidence to support anything.

So I make my conclusions based upon the people behind the various arguments.

The fact that you are a nasty "small man syndrome" loser leads me to believe that there is no problem whatsoever with burning anything, particularly prats like you.

Shut it Dodgy, you're not bright enough.

PS I'm 5'11'' which is not terribly tall I grant you, but hardly small

[DodgyAgent]

Every man and his dog has an opinion.
And the reason why people use the scientific method is precisely to separate valid opinions from crap ones like yours.
Why do you think the West became rich in the first place?
Because it replaced superstitions and opinions with empiricism and science.
And now we're going backwards again.

Stick to pimping, you may be Ok at that.

I am crap at pimping but good at science. I have concluded :

1. there are several conflicting views about the causes of climate change,
2. that the climate is always changing and has always done so,
3. that climate change may or may not be desirable
4. that man may or may not be the cause of climate change.
5. That man can do anything about climate change even if he wants to.

I am afraid to me there is no clear scientific evidence to support anything.

So I make my conclusions based upon the people behind the various arguments.

The fact that you are a nasty "small man syndrome" loser leads me to believe that there is no problem whatsoever with burning anything, particularly prats like you.

[BlasterBates]

Of course there is peer reviewed research and err

a redefinition of it:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil

[sasguru]

Whether climate change is or isnt caused by man is a side issue. All I have to go on is to look at the people on either side of the argument and then look at the income and power trail behind these people.

Some are rabid capitalists who would burn the entire planet if there was a buck in it, some are spoilt middle class brats suffering from attention deficit syndrome , some are talentless socialists with a chip on their shoulder who want to redistribute wealth (in their own direction), and others are state funded boffins with nothing much for their bunsen burners to do.

So my conclusion is that climate change is simply nothing more than one section of society trying to screw money and power out of another section of society.

Every man and his dog has an opinion.
And the reason why people use the scientific method is precisely to separate valid opinions from crap ones like yours.
Why do you think the West became rich in the first place?
Because it replaced superstitions and opinions with empiricism and science.
And now we're going backwards again.

Stick to pimping, you may be Ok at that.

[DodgyAgent]

It seems PJ is backing up his arguments with links to real science whereas you just argue with a collection of prejudices you've acquired from the Telegraph.

HTH.

Whether climate change is or isnt caused by man is a side issue. All I have to go on is to look at the people on either side of the argument and then look at the income and power trail behind these people.

Some are rabid capitalists who would burn the entire planet if there was a buck in it, some are spoilt middle class brats suffering from attention deficit syndrome , some are talentless socialists with a chip on their shoulder who want to redistribute wealth (in their own direction), and others are state funded boffins with nothing much for their bunsen burners to do.

So my conclusion is that climate change is simply nothing more than one section of society trying to screw money and power out of another section of society.

[sasguru]

Mr Pjclarke

You can argue the toss as much as you like but the real issue here is about power and money. I suspect that you have your own agenda and that your job is to work on behalf of people with vested interests in spreading fear about climate change

It seems PJ is backing up his arguments with links to real science whereas you just argue with a collection of prejudices you've acquired from the Telegraph.

HTH.

[pjclarke]

Well, I like that particular Beck the Biologist takedown for it's links to real science, but if you prefer there is also this by Dr Georg Hoffmann, a real atmospheric physicist who has published over 30 real papers on atmospheric gases in real academic journals.

[BlasterBates]

Ernst Beck has only ever been published by Energy and Environment, which will reprint any old rubbish, his work has been thoroughly discredited.

...in a climate warmist blog.....where else

Now what's the title of this blog?

Rabett Run
Droppings along the bunny trail

ah yes very apt name I thought.