Catch Steve Mosher’s interview on PJTV. I can’t seem to show it at the blog, so you need to click to visit PJTV.
67 thoughts on “Steve Mosher on PJTV!”
Comments are closed.
Catch Steve Mosher’s interview on PJTV. I can’t seem to show it at the blog, so you need to click to visit PJTV.
Comments are closed.
Good interview Steve.
The only thing that would have made it better is if you weren’t always trying to make eye contact with those dancing girls up on the stage in front of you. 😉
Bob–
Aren’t you going to compliment me on taking a flattering screenshot? 🙂
Good interview because he addressed the real problem – let the science come out.
Personally I wouldn’t consider the MSM as the media that really matter. The NYT and CBS are not all the media. The story is out there without them.
Thanks Bob,
It’s a little weird doing it on a web cam as opposed to in studio which I’ve done before. There it is really clear where the camera is. That little green dot on the Mac reminds me of a laser dot on a gun. As for the dancing girl, she was in the other room.
Some good comments about the role of the internet in all this. (Glenn Reynolds should be pleased with the Army of Davids reference.) Also very insightful comments about the media strategy being deployed. Nice job, Steven.
George, Glenn and I go way back to when he started instapundit and before in the fray at slate.
Superb interview. Calm , collected and factual. No hyperbole and generous to Jones to boot. Excellent!
Yeah, but you promised you would deliver in limerick form…
There once was a scientist Jones
Whose desk was a horrible mess.
When Mac begged for data
jones spit “see ya later”
and set about burying bones.
Then along came a cowboy named Willis
And later an engineer Holland
Those gravediggers two
went legal on CRU
And Jones wept “FOI will Kill us”
Those gravediggers two
went legal on CRU
awesomeness!!
Awesome. Good job Steve.
(Lucia I noticed the flattering screen shot! :))
windsea, thx. hehe. I should do a bunch. or do the whole damn thing in blank verse.
You will get a kick out of my next piece a hat tip to one of the best history professor at NU in the early 80’s
no more hints
Lucia, are you up with econometrics co-integration analysis? This seems an interesting paper and discussion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/new-paper-on/
Steve Mosher,
What, not CNN?
Just joking, very good interview.
I thought the scientsts were supposed to be the ones with the inflated egos.
Well done Steve. You are a gracious man. I however want my
pound of flesh. Have you wondered just what the Supreme
Court thinks, being lied to about the science as it relates to
their EPA ruling? OMG…they made them look stupid. I make
myself look stupid all the time, but this is the SCOTUS. Is this
just suppose to disappear, just spin away? I don’t think so.
Some how dummy Dave posted this on the
“Is this guy the CRU hacker?” thread…Sorry Lucia.
D. King,
I try awefully hard to stick to just what I thnk I have competence to speak to. I read all the mails and all of climateaudit. I try to stick to just that. And argue for the one thing that nobody has challenged: free the data; free the code; open the debate. If it doesnt relate to scientific ethics or practice I try ( but dont always succeed) to keep my mouth shut about it.
Free the code? The grand total of one person working on GISTEMP, who seems to be the reserve player.
There is just so much wrong with that interview it is impossible to know where to start.
I enjoyed your interview, Steven. I thought you did a fantastic job.
Lucia will think I’m just saying this because she mentioned it, but I did actually notice right away that rather endearing screen shot she captured.
sloppy scientist? wow, just wow!
.
Nixon? this is insanity!
.
Bernstein and Woodward? wow, just wow.
.
“rational reasonable people, like me“. wow, just wow.
.
please don t miss the Tea party TV banner at the top. Steven, there are future interview opportunities ahead!
steven mosher (Comment#33887)
Steve,
Thanks for your response. I have worked sensor
systems for 25 years on the U2. I started in R&D,
through integration and test and ended up in the
field. I know that sensors can be tweaked to change
the results (raw data). Add a little AGC, steer an
antenna off a bit, or manipulate any one of several
sensor specific set ups. So, when you get the raw
data, freed or not, it’s already been tainted. I am
very worried about the sea ice sensors. They had
a precipitous drop in signal level last year, which was
described as a sensor drift problem. Maybe, but if not,
and given all we know now, all freed data in the world,
run through all the open code, may still yield tainted
results. Results that are repeatable and verified by
all. See, everyone got the same answer. Where does
one go from here?
Best,
Dave
Good job Steven. I think you presented exactly what the problems are as well as the solutions we’d all like to see. Thanks for such great work!
D. King –
I understand your concern about sensor manipulation or failure, given NSIDC’s sensor failure discovered last year that was under-reporting sea ice for years.
However, NSDIC is one of the few groups that provide public access to all its data and all its source code. I have blog entries on how to get it here:
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/02/first-look-at-nsidc-source-code.html
and here:
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/01/dangit-more-climate-stuff-uah-and-rss.html
The next step beyond allowing this kind of public accessibility is taking feedback from the pubic regrading concerns. For example, perhaps antenna angle should be added to the data.
lucia –
I got word back from NOAA about the project to make UAH source code available. Basically, they are at the very beginning of the project with no ETA as of now.
NASA, on the other hand, is still giving me a run around on why their source code could never be released to the pubic.
Details are here:
http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/02/update-on-my-attempts-to-get-airs-and.html
magicjava (Comment#33953)
Thanks for the links. Of course there are two sets of
source code. One used to process the collected data
and the source code that is flying on the sensor. If
configuration management is properly maintained,
the current version of software flying is well known.
What is not well known sometimes is the inter-version
patch file version. As you know, patches are created
to fix small problems that don’t warrant a full new
version of software. Luckily, most software flying is
run through a validity check (checksum). Generally,
the results are down linked in the ancillary / auxiliary
data. It is easy to check that all matches up. Ancillary /
auxiliary data is important because it reveals the sensor
configuration at the time of the data collection.
Unless all is available, there is room for shenanigans.
Best,
Dave
steven mosher,
stop grinning so much!! People will start wondering if you are actually enjoying all this!! 8>)
D King.
ha good to see more aerospace guys. A while back here you may find a post where I essentially argued that sat. data is not raw data at all. working with CCDs and other such contraptions you get a healthy dose of scepticism about every piece of “data”. U2? Very cool bird. I suppose in this case code means firmware. free the firmware.
Bugs: people said Jones didnt share data because he was a fraud, he had something to hide, blah blah blah,
I came onto CA and said : he’s just messy maybe”
then comes the mails. Hmm maybe he’s just a bumbler and loser of things. then comes the interview. dang he says he is disorganized mess.
So, I’m actually giving Jones a break by attributing his bad behavior to less evil motives than others.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/comment-page-2/#comment-493814
Bugs, you should love me. why dont you love me bugs. I’m on your side. Look at all the skeptics who disagree with me. That makes me on your side doesnt it?
Now Bugs of course will say that I am arguing that it is not fraud so that people will say that its fraud and that this is my evil diabolical plot. to get the fraud word spread.
If Jones can liken himself to david kelly, I can liken him to Nixon.
You dont like it, go metaphor yourself.
steven mosher (Comment#34032) February 19th, 2010 at 12:02 am
It makes you one the side of the rabble, for whom attacking the individual counts as some sort of victory, if the crowd cheers. Scientists worked out long ago that was infantile behaviour, and no way to advance knowledge for the human race. If you had any balls, you’d be out there with McIntyre, doing some hard work and coming up with your own GISTEMP and temperature database. That’s what they did, the hard work.
Bugs–
If you think a new GISTemp would help, why don’t you come up with your onw GISTemp?
On 2/18/10, Pajamas Media published Steve Mosher’s essay Climategate: Not Fraud, But ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ (Steve offers a link to Bugs in Comment#34032; will Bugs click?).
It’s a great piece of journalism.
Generally, I’m no fan of analogies, but the 3-page PDF that discussed Noble Cause Corruption in its original law-enforcement is very instructive.
And after reading Steve’s piece, head to the comments. Breeze through the anger in #s 1 through 35 (skip #19 spam), then slow down for Mosher’s elaborations in #s 36, 37, 40, 55, 57, 62, 63, and 64. No word limits!
Seriously great commentary on the what — which the Denialists [sic] skip — followed by informed speculation on the Why.
Bugs,
You dont understand how the “army of davids” works. Your notion is one that is repeated over and over again. It’s this. If I have a criticism of GISSTEMP, it’s somehow my obligation to come up with my own. Jones repeats this lapse in logic in his recent science piece, others have as well.
Here is the problem. Jones is trying to sell me his science. he wants me to believe in his science and accept the results. he is trying to convince me. He is selling an argument, I am the buyer. Guess what? I’m not buying what he is selling. I’m open to buying his argument, but since I am the customer I get to state the terms under which a deal can be made. Now, could I do my own? Sure, give me Jones budget and the graduate students he intended to use on version 4. Give me his access to data and I could manage the project and write it up. Would I do the code? Not in a second, I look around and I’s probably ask JeffId or NicL to do it.
Each person does what they do best. Not like Jones who decides that he should keep track of documents. So, what can I do? I suppose try to do what I think I do best. Explain a situation. Argue for a solution, get the code free and the data free and see what happens. After all the information is freely available, then skeptics will be in a tough spot. They will have to put up or shut up WRT the accuracy of the figures. If Jones and Gavin were smart if FENTON had a brain cell, they would push their own communities to create open projects. They would agressively push the issue. They would try to OWN the open vocabulary and the open message.
aMac,
Thx. The analogy is interesting on several levels, most interesting to me were the suggestions for combating it. For example, building an organization driven by values rather than rules. Rules ( see the ipcc) are just a temptation for shenanigans. You can see this in Jones attitude toward the rules. You can also see it in the scientists attitude throughout the mails. It would be fun to see how many times they said “do this by the book”
Interesting crowd on that site.
Steve,
I really liked the article too, and the subsequent explanations. I particularly enjoyed your use of Ravetz; I always thought his article was a good, if over-theorised, description of the process. It certainly worked better as description than as call to arms, though most critiques seemed to focus on the latter.
Hey Magic J;
Your links provide a lovely example of how public servants should invite the public to access the tools and data the taxpayers have bought.
Handy example for me in the debate over the:
Private (scientific intellectual property) rights
vs.
Public rights of access
dialectic.
I’m OK for it to be private until they write the first paper, but then it should be open to we the sponsors.
Excellent! I couldn’t leave this comment over at magicjava.
RR
Thanks Mark.
I find the kneejerk reactions ( confirmation bias) on both sides rather laughable. Its a socialist plot; its a corporate plot. Ho hum.
what’s the point of reading anything. Its a corporate plot. close your mind. demonize the other side. circle the wagons. blah blah blah. Impervious religious thought. It’s a socialist plot. close your mind. demonize the other side. circle the wagons. blah blah blah. Impervious religious thought.
ha, I just called them both religious zealots.
Funny, skeptics are not monolithic. Maybe believers in AGW are also not monolithic. ya think?
Bugs,
“There is just so much wrong with that interview it is impossible to know where to start.”
Well Bugs there is so much unknowable about your comment that its impossible to know where to start also
Hi Sod,
“sloppy scientist? wow, just wow!”
people asked why Jones refused to share data. Initially in 2002 in an exchange with Mcintyre he agrees to send the data but says he first has to locate it cause its on a floppy somewhere. he also says that he doesnt want to get in trouble WRT confidentiality agreements. Jones sends a version.
After 2003 and into 2004 Jones attitude changes somewhat. He is basically slow rolling Warwick Hughes. “ill get back to you” ” This data should be releasable per WMO” stuff like that.
Late 2004 early 2005 MM05 hits the street.
Jones finds out about FOIAs
Jones gets worried.
On feb 21 2005, Briffa sends Jones a pile of clippings about michael mann. The articles are conservtaive journos blasting mann for having secret data.
Jones reads that and on the same day writes to Hughes: we have 25 years blah blah blah.
And the story goes on with jones fighting the release of the data.
Question?
Why?
1. he’s a socialist
2. Mcintyre was mean to mann
3. stop the corporate plot.
4. They dont need the data ( opps I sent it to webster and rutherford… they could have gone to GHCN)
5. He’s a sloppy record keeper.
I’m being nice in saying 5, even when 4 makes that suspect.
.
“Nixon? this is insanity!”
If jones wants to compare himself to Kelly, I get my metaphor.
.
“Bernstein and Woodward? wow, just wow.”
that’s a bit much.
.
“rational reasonable people, like me“. wow, just wow.
Well, go ahead. Say something factual and see if I disagree.
.
[quote: RuhRoh (Comment#34085) February 19th, 2010 at 12:09 pm]
Hey Magic J;
Your links provide a lovely example of how public servants should invite the public to access the tools and data the taxpayers have bought.
[/quote]
Thanks, and I couldn’t agree more.
Unfortunately, the problem isn’t limited to Phil Jones and company. It’s intrinsic to the way science is done these days and the result is there’s a large body of “science” that’s really nothing more than unverifiable claims.
I think a lot of folks don’t realize just how central computers have become to science. In many cases, its on the computer where the actual science gets done. The Aqua satellite I’m exploring now, for example, doesn’t detect _anything_ except light. It’s the software, and only the software, that actually detects snow, ice, water vapor, and so on.
So there’s lots of work to be done, throughout all of science, to get this computer data and code available to the public. Thanks to the work by Steven and others, people are beginning to see why we need access to data and code in climate science. I’ll only add that it’s not just climate science that has this problem.
chad does cool stuff.
http://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/another-brief-look-at-climate-model-solar-forcing/
lucia (Comment#34048) February 19th, 2010 at 6:59 am
The existing number of temperature sets seems adequate to me for getting the job done. They match up closely enough to indicate AGW is real. We need to pursue now what Trenberth was talking about, understanding better how the energy flows within the climate.
With all your minreading powers, you should take up another career.
bugs,
.
It really does not make a difference what the real temperatures are because the modellers will just twiddle whatever knobs they need to get the match and declare nothing changes.
.
That is one unique feature of climate science: the actual data is irrelevant since it can always be adjusted and/or declared consistent with the theory.
.
I will start believing climate scientists once I hear them admit the data does not match the theory as nicely as they pretend and admit that they might have got something wrong.
.
As long as they insist that they cannot possibly be wrong then they cannot be trusted because the data we have is not reliable enough to justify such certainty. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves.
Re: bugs (Feb 19 22:25),
No one needs to read minds to know that when Jones found out about FOI’s he worried. They only need to read the climategate emails!
Raven (Comment#34147) February 19th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Unsubstantiated fantasy.
lucia (Comment#34159) February 20th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Jones was concerned about something alright, and he demonstrated to the FOI officer what his concern was. Websites like CA that aren’t honesty about enquiring about their work, but are actively seeking to break the rules of science by direct, sustained and personalised attacks on individuals, for one thing. In other words, they break the accepted norms of scientific investigation.
No, Mcintyre uses personal attacks as one of his tools of trade. It doesn’t matter who it was directed at, it was the use of this as means of advancing his arguments. Not in accord with formal, established scientific practice. Scientists are people too, and **** about each other as people do, in private. The formal process that advances science, the conferences, etc, you don’t do what McIntyre does.
Re: bugs (Feb 19 18:11),
I can see where you get the idea that existing temperature sets indicate that GW is real, but the ‘A’? I’ve never seen thermometers that can tell you why it’s warming!
Bugs,
First was the teabagger sexual slander of the Tea Party now this:
“It makes you one the side of the rabble…”
You are rapidly convincing me that this IS a left Elitist conspiracy!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bugs,
The unfortunate facts are these.
In 2002 Jones knew about the confidential agreements and shared
data with mcintyre.
Then comes MM03
In 2004 Hughes continues to ask for the data. Jones says he will get around to it. he said he thought the data should be available per WMO guidelines.
in Jan 2005 MM05 is Published.
Then Jones and wigley discover FOIA and get scared, principly wigley is scared about people requesting code. This is BEFORE mcintyre has discovered FOIA. JONES reaction at this point BEFORE any request is that he will find a way to hide behind the law and will destroy data rather than share it. At the time only Hughes is requesting data.
On feb 21 2005 Jones denies Hughes request.
TWO YEARS pass before anyone else requests the data again.
Willis eschenbach requests the whole database.
McIntyre only requests that data used in Jones 1990, about 300 stations. Mc’s request is finally granted.
You don’t know all the facts.
bugs:
You don’t do what they do on realclimate either. It’s not just one side that needs an attitude adjustment.
Then Jones and wigley discover FOIA and get scared, principly wigley is scared about people requesting code. This is BEFORE mcintyre has discovered FOIA. JONES reaction at this point BEFORE any request is that he will find a way to hide behind the law and will destroy data rather than share it. At the time only Hughes is requesting data.
.
a pretty serious example of over-interpretation. what is this based on? 5 lines in the STOLEN mails?
.
what else do the stars tell you?
.
—————-
.
a much simplert explanation is, that Jones was angry with Steve. he didn t want to share data with a person, who is only interested in using it for attacks. pretty rational.
sod:
An even simpler explanation is he didn’t want to share his data or code, period, with people he wasn’t personally collaborating with.
That actually is my favored explanation (I’ve had experience with “old school” British science types who are very proprietary about their data and code, even when US science foundations paid for their research and required its release.)
What the hell is there to be scared about with code, it seems to have worked reasonably well to date, with a data set that has been hell to compile and maintain. If they were worried about anything, it would be the usual BS, find an insignificant error, then call it the ‘most quietly disturbing coding errors I have ever seen’. McIntyre’s usual MO. Just look at the garbage spewing out over the blogs about some lines of code that were never used.
Sod
“a much simplert explanation is, that Jones was angry with Steve. he didn t want to share data with a person, who is only interested in using it for attacks. pretty rational.”
Rewrite – “Jones was angry” too close to “rational.”
Re: bugs (Comment#34175, Feb 20 14:45)
Re: sod (Comment#34200, Feb 21 01:53) —
bugs wrote (Comment#34170),
And (Comment#34175),
sod wrote (Comment#34200),
bugs and sod, there are three claims here. They sound like the worst sort of ‘talking points’ — ones that the writers know to be false, but which are repeated over and over again in order to derail the discussion, and in order to confuse readers who are new to the controversy.
Maybe I’m wrong, at least on the first two (the third is a simple misinterpretation of UK and US FOI regulations).
So: Show Your Cards. Evidence, as Links accompanied by Direct Quotes. No paraphrasing or summarizing.
Your claims.
1. McIntyre engages in direct, sustained and personal attacks on climate scientists.
2. McIntyre doesn’t engage in scientifically valuable work, only in attacks.
3. The FOI bureaucracy (FOI officers at UEA and the COI) denied McIntyre’s FOI requests because Jones and other AGW Consensus climate scientists convinced them that McIntyre is anti-science (engages in personal attacks, etc.)
bugs and sod, I think you’re blowing smoke, and will score Zero For Three.
Surprise me.
I think #1 is your best bet. McIntyre has been at this for years, and has been subject to a lot of misstatements, mischaracterizations, false statements, and runarounds. Rightly or wrongly, let’s stipulate. Frustrated people tend to lash out. And I haven’t read most ClimateAudit posts and threads, so I’m willing to believe that there could be some golden quotes lurking there.
Time to put your cards on the table.
Bugs:
You’ve obviously never shared code before.
All the signs are this code was a hacked-up mess.
Bugs.
Do you read?
The HISTORY is clear. In January of 2005 NO ONE has written a single FOIA to Jones. NONE.
“What the hell is there to be scared about with code, it seems to have worked reasonably well to date, with a data set that has been hell to compile and maintain. If they were worried about anything, it would be the usual BS, find an insignificant error, then call it the ‘most quietly disturbing coding errors I have ever seen’. McIntyre’s usual MO. Just look at the garbage spewing out over the blogs about some lines of code that were never used”
What did jones have to fear? Read the mails you will see. He was sacred that people would see how sloppy it was. He ALSO KNEW why Mcintyre could not replicate the results on his own.
So, your assumption is this. Jones denied McIntyre because he feared Mc would find a error and blow it out of proportion.
What did Mc want. Code. Why? because he could not replicate the results from the description in the paper.
WHAT did Jones fear.
In his own words.
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: DEBUNKING THE “DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE” SCARE
Date: Wed Apr 27 09:06:53 2005
Mike,
Presumably you’ve seen all this – the forwarded email from Tim. I got this email from
McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data – sent ages ago. I’ll
tell him this, but that’s all – no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of
lines of
uncommented fortran ! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series.
I know why he can’t replicate the results early on – it is because there was a variance
correction for fewer series.
See you in Bern.
Cheers
Phil
Carrick (Comment#34215) February 21st, 2010 at 10:09 am
I’ve worked with plenty of code that is a hacked up mess that still works. It’s good to clean it up, but the record it produces appears to be ok. You can also give me any piece of code, and I can find you a programmer who will find something wrong with it. Coding is as much a craft as a work of engineering with the current state of technology.
Re: bugs (Feb 21 19:31),
Bugs:
Do you ever actually get the point of any thread? Does anything ever register? Would your world crumble if you ever silently admitted the possibility that Phil Jones might be wrong in all this?
If the code is an embarrassing mess then the product it generates has less authority that Jones et al. purport. The code will in fact not reproduce that which the world was told it produced. That reduces the professional standing and the credibility of scientists who oversold the quality of their work. it matters.
Even if Steve McIntyre were the great villain that you and your ridiculous counterpart ‘sod’ need to believe him to be, Jones’ stonewalling behavior was still never defensible, never lawful, never in the best interest of science. Get over it. Move on.
bugs,
I know I’m talking to an AGW Drone, but this sentence-
“but the record it produces appears to be ok”
is one of the most embarassing attempts at sounding scientifc I have ever read.
Appears OK? Well, that’s comforting. 😉
Andrew
Andrew_KY (Comment#34254) February 21st, 2010 at 8:55 pm
I thought I was writing a comment on a blog. If you want science, read a journal.
George Tobin (Comment#34253) February 21st, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The code has been developed over a period of thirty years, if I read the history right. I have seen plenty of commercial code from that time that was a mess as well, but still worked. The CRU at that time was not run by Jones, there is a history of several directors of the Unit. For some reason, the McIntyre personalisation of issues has people thinking, once again, it’s all about Jones.
BUGS,
“The code has been developed over a period of thirty years, if I read the history right. I have seen plenty of commercial code from that time that was a mess as well, but still worked. The CRU at that time was not run by Jones, there is a history of several directors of the Unit. For some reason, the McIntyre personalisation of issues has people thinking, once again, it’s all about Jones.”
1. THE CODE was not developed over a period of THIRTY YEARS.
the code referred to in the mail was code done for a 1998 paper. YOU CANT EVEN READ THE MAILS WHEN I POINT YOU TO THEM. here is the mail that Jones was refering to:
“Dear Phil,
In keeping with the spirit of your suggestions to look at some of the other multiproxy
publications, I’ve been looking at Jones et al [1998]. The methodology here is obviously
more straightforward than MBH98. However, while I have been able to substantially emulate
your calculations, I have been unable to do so exactly. The differences are larger in the
early periods.
Since I have been unable to replicate the results exactly based on available materials, I
would appreciate a copy of the actual data set used in Jones et al [1998] as well as the
code used in these calculations.
There is an interesting article on replication by Anderson et al., some distinguished
economists, here [1]http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-014.pdf discussing the
issue of replication in applied economics and referring favorably to our attempts in
respect to MBH98.
Regards, Steve McIntyre”
Now, there you have it. Jones suggests that mcintyre look at other papers. Do you know what they were talking about? Do you know why McIntyre was writing to Osborn and Jones and Briffa?
you dont. I’m gunna wait till you SAY MORE STUPID STUFF and spring that on you.
So Jones suggests that Mcintyre look at other papers. Mc looks at a Jones paper and tried to replicate the alogorithm FROM THE PAPER. But he cant, so he ASKS FOR THE CODE to that 1998 paper.
JONES, tells mann. I wont give him the code because even if I can find it, it will be piles of undocumented fortran. AND, jones says he KNOWS why McIntyre cannot replicate the work… Jones didnt describe all the steps in the paper.
With REGARD to CRU code for temperature. Do you think Mcintyre ever requested that? Do you think that code was around for thirty years?. be carefull bugs.
Now, I love telling the stories about all the stuff these guys did wrong. BUT YOU MAKE IT MUCH MORE ENTERTAINING.
How do you do that? Well first you speak authoritatively without knowing the facts. Then I get to correct you, Tell the story, AND make you look silly. What a bonus.
lets do this again. Bugs, say something authoritative about how other scientists viewed Mcintyre’s work.. pretty please.. come on.. please..
“I thought I was writing a comment on a blog. If you want science, read a journal.”
bugs,
So you admit your comments here are disconnected from any science.
Surprising.
Andrew
In the comments thread of last week’s Only In It For The Gold post “Open letter from a Glacier Scientist,” I brought up Mosher’s Pajamas Media article, saying “The same issue is approached very differently by Steven Mosher in his article Climategate: Not Fraud, But ‘Noble Cause Corruption’.”
Prolific AGW Consensus (‘Yaysayer’) commenter dhogaza riposted —
My response to dhogaza failed moderation.
Too many of the people who are passionate about their preferred policy actions (or inactions) license themselves to engage in Bad Behavior. Most of the Tea Partier responses to Mosher at Pajamas Media fall into this category, as does dhogaza, here.
Indeed, Climate Talk Gets Hot.
Thanks AMac,
Dhog and I go way back in the climate wars. Confirmation bias on his part. At one point RC and others mis identified me as Steven W mosher. You can imagine how funny it was to see them step on that rake. They blather on about how I’m a anti abortionist, keicked out of China.. wrong guy. hahahahahahahah
Anyways, I’m waiting for an AGW to say, Mosher makes specific charges, here is how we answer them.
Nick Stokes comes the closest to engaging in a factual discussion.
he may be tedious, but he is factual.