politics

Tough questions from Source Watch’s crack journalist.

95 Comments

I didn’t think climate could get sillier than “lunchgate”. I was wrong: Evidently, Judy Curry now has a “SourceWatch” page a revision history here. All entries appear to be authored by AHaynes, who may be a source of as much silliness as Monckton. (It’s a tough call though)

It appears someone from Sourcewatch emailed “Judy Curry”; that email was posted by Judy a her blog. This appears to be the text:

Hello again Dr. Curry –

Again? Is it a second or third email? I’d love to read the previous ones! The email becomes unnecessarily self-revelatory:

People who know climate science are having trouble making sense of your critiques, and I am having trouble making sense of your classifying my community’s most blatant global warming denier as “not an identified “skeptic” (as far as i can tell)”.

So I have additional Qs to you – and yes, I realize they’re obnoxious and I apologize for that, but IMO we need to get at the truth.

Has your handwriting been getting shaky lately, or your balance worsening, or your (verbal, etc) self-restraint just vaporizing? (I ask since these did noticeably happen to me, & not all at the same time; fortunately they didn’t persist.)

Wow! This really is obnoxious.

Are people in climate science really wondering about this? Does it really need to be answered?

For the record, if Sourcewatch asked me about my balance, I would admit that I have noticed my balance has worsened gradually over time.

I discussed balance with my personal trainer just two weeks ago. I mentioned that it seemed to me that when I used to walk home from 8th grade and my feet slid on ice, I was nearly always able to shift my weight around and avoid falling. In contrast, these days, I sometimes fall on my butt. Of course, I also could do handsprings and balk walkovers when I was in 8th grade– something I cannot do today.

We then discussed the importance performing exercises that involved the small helper muscles often involved in balance. If Judy or AHaynes are having trouble with balance, I would suggest discussing an appropriate exercise plan with their trainers.

Are you being threatened or blackmailed; either on behalf of you, or on behalf of others (e.g. family members) close to you, including the younger generation(s)?

Novel question. I have to admit it’s never occurred to me that those who disagree with me do so because they are being blackmailed. Maybe I should consider this in future.

Boris, Neven, Robert, bug and others who sometimes disagree with me, are you being blackmailed? How about your kids?

Would you take the enhanced [Jeffrey] Dubner oath? (“I swear that I have never taken money or received services – whether directly or indirectly — from any political campaign or political group or government agency or think tank — whether federal, state, or local — or from anyone else — in exchange for any service performed in my climate communication endeavors.”) (“directly or indirectly” would include carrots/sticks for friends and family members)

Weird question. I assume Judy couldn’t take this oath. Judy Curry has communicated results of hurricane research. I’m pretty sure her hurricane research has been funded by government agencies which might include NSF, DOE, etc. So, at least some of her “climate communication endeavors” have been either directly or indirectly funded by government agencies.

Similarly, I think it would be a lie for Gavin, or Jim Hansen. Their work on climate has been communicated in journal articles has been funded by NASA, a government agency.

I’m sorry to ask you so directly, and you’re certainly free not to answer any of these Qs; but they are the questions I have.

I have to admit I wouldn’t mind reading Judy’s answers. I’m guessing the answers are:

  • Like me, her balance was better at 14 years old than today.
  • She is not being blackmailed.
  • She can’t take the oath– or at least if she took it, people would remind her that at least some of her climate research is funded, and that journal articles are “communication”. So, some of her climate communication has been funded both directly (by covering page charges) and indirectly (by funding the investigations themselves) by a government agency.

Or course, I may be guessing incorrectly. 🙂

Hat tip: Collide-a-scape.

95 thoughts on “Tough questions from Source Watch’s crack journalist.”

  3. It strikes me as a bit like Halloween… fun all around.
    .
    But Judith is as serious and honest a scientist as I have encountered. The hysteria about her ‘conversion to the dark side’ by the climate extremists strikes me a symptomatic of all that is wrong with climate science. Please Take a deep breath, calm down and listen to what people actually say.

  5. Knowing what sourcewatch is, I’d have invited the questioner to take a long walk on a short pier, as the expression used to be. But Dr. Curry is welcome to answer if she wishes.

    More interesting would be speculation about what’s behind the bizarre question about balance, handwriting, and self-control. Are these the side-effects of some insidious mind-control drug? Or perhaps weaknesses of pod people? Inquiring minds want to know. [Not really, but it might be fun.]

  6. The blackmail question was some A+ paranoia.

    Perhaps Curry was sprayed by a chemtrail or has recently eaten some GM food, or, maybe, the HAARP project has malignantly misaligned her shakra.

  7. These are such fun questions I think we should all have a go.

    1. Balance: completely unhinged at times so yes my balance is definitely on the wane.

    2. Blackmailed: no but it sounds fun, in a kind of kooky way.

    3. Oath: I would if I could remember that far back.

    Seriously this is much easier than trying to understand climate science.

  9. What kind of questions are these? It seriously sounds like whomever wrote the email was on some kind of mind-altering substance. Should it be “Stonerwatch”? (dude, where’s my skeptic)

  10. Sounds like more nuttiness from Anna Haynes. But is there any justification for describing her as “Source Watch’s crack journalist.”? She’s someone writing on a Wiki page. Anyone can do that. Whether it is wise for Sourcewatch to allow that is a question. But it works for wiki, mostly.

  12. > Has your handwriting been getting shaky lately

    My penmanship has never been that great, in fact I print in preference to cursive.

    > or your balance worsening

    It hasn’t been very good since I can remember. Which is funny, concerning the late-night deposits from the fossil fuel conspiracy. I overdrew last week… again.

    > or your (verbal, etc) self-restraint just vaporizing?

    Why, yes! The funniest part is that it condenses again, once it has risen a few thousand meters and undergone adiabatic expansion. I’m not certain how important this is–perhaps you can figure it out?

    > Are you being threatened or blackmailed; either on behalf of you, or on behalf of others (e.g. family members) close to you?

    Being blackmailed on my own behalf would mean that I’m the shadowy force behind my extortion. Again, yes, this is happening. I force myself to transfer large sums from my left pocket to my right. Always in old bills of small denominations. I’m thinking of using a dye pack, so the police could swoop in and catch me in the act. It’s the only thing I can think of to protect me from me.

    > Would you take the enhanced [Jeffrey] Dahlmer oath?

    No, never!

  17. Do we really need to reply to every a– hole who makes a–hole statements? That a–holes appear on all sides of the AGW issue should not come as surprise – so why do they need to be “exposed”.

  18. So she claims that this is attributable to someone at sourcewatch, but either doesn’t know who or is choosing not to tell her readers (why?)

    It’s evidently part of a longer correspondence, but the part that preceded (and perhaps provoked?) these silly questions is omitted. Basically Judith has given us nothing except an unattributed fragment which is supposed to demonstrate, I take it, how much a victim of her unreasonable critics she is.

    The overall effect is of a person deep in self-pity, hiding the stuff that might reflect unflatteringly on her. I think I begin to see the source of the mutual sympathy and understanding between Curry and Watts et al.

  19. Read the comments, and some ways down Curry attributes the email to Anna Haynes. I wonder why she didn’t just say that up front.

    Read in isolation, the e-mail is obviously obnoxious, but like lucia, I would really like to know what other words were exchanged.

  21. Robert,

    I believe Anna is getting excited by a statement Judith made about “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Judith stated that:
    “Re the “Hockey Stick Illusion,” here are some blogospheric reviews, not from identified “skeptics” (as far as i can tell):
    Seth’s Blog
    Klimazweibel
    NC Media Watch
    Facts Plus Logic
    Discovery News”
    http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2010/10/judith-curry-on-our-own-russ-steele-not.html

    Well, NC Media Watch is not exactly “lefty friendly”, so I believe Anna in an AH-HA! moment is starting her holy inquisition of Judith trying to get her admitting to being a skeptic (The silly oath thing). It is extremely stupid, but I guess it is a slow blogging day 😉

  22. Anna may have written months ago on a different subject. We don’t know.

    Exactly.

    Since we’re talking about Curry, maybe she could serve as a natural experiment vis-a-vi our earlier discussion of “skewing” the science to avoid being “out on the street.” Since her coming out party on WUWT, has the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology lost her job, her tenure or anything at all other than the respect of more responsible scientists?

  23. Reading Judy Curry’s first statement on this, it looked like it was more along the lines of the familiar “old boys club” persecuting her by pressuring the media, while it looks like indeed it was just one outlier who is not part of the establishment in science or journalism and who also has a prior history.

  24. Robert–
    There’s no evidence she’s lost respect of “more responsible scientists.” There’s evidence she may have lost the respect of Michael Tobis….

  25. Lucia,

    Would you consider banishing to moderation anyone who is considered an absolute a*shole by 90% who comment here? This would I think improve the quality of discourse.

  26. Josh (Comment#57994) November 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    These are such fun questions I think we should all have a go.

    1. Balance: completely unhinged at times so yes my balance is definitely on the wane.

    2. Blackmailed: no but it sounds fun, in a kind of kooky way.

    3. Oath: I would if I could remember that far back.

    Seriously this is much easier than trying to understand climate scienc

    Anna has nothing to do with climate science.

  27. If you have a look at her blog she has, at a quick count, an average of 2 comments per article – many with 0 comments. Nobody is listening – apart from maybe some candle-burning ex-boyfriend from college. She’s probably trying to scuffle up a little attention for herself.

    I agree with Kenneth though, there are crazy people on all sides. I can see why Judith might have become a bit paranoid in the current…er…climate, but Anna seems to be just another lonely bedroom blogger with a head full of strange ideas. Btw she has confirmed her email on Curry’s blog.

  28. …I just read the Watts door-stepping thread. Make that “another lonely bedroom blogger with a head full of strange ideas…and money for air-fare.

  29. “Robert (Comment#58029) November 1st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
    So she claims that this is attributable to someone at sourcewatch, but either doesn’t know who or is choosing not to tell her readers (why?)”

    kinda like jones and the death threat mails

    “The overall effect is of a person deep in self-pity, hiding the stuff that might reflect unflatteringly on her. I think I begin to see the source of the mutual sympathy and understanding between Curry and Watts et al.”

    Huh. you have no idea what you are talking about

  30. S Basinger (Comment#58001) says

    What kind of questions are these? It seriously sounds like whomever wrote the email was on some kind of mind-altering substance.

    Well, what do you expect from a crack journalist?

  31. Are people in climate science really wondering about this? Does it really need to be answered?

    Why would you assume that sourcewatch is anything to do with climate science?

  34. My Fellow Scientific-Minded Americans,

    Please remember that science is about the freedom of an individual to make a discovery that advances knowledge to the benefit of everyone.

    It’s not about drawing government-sponsored squiggly lines and following a herd like a mindless lemming, and another pair of plus+-sized silk underwear for Big Al.

    Vote accordingly.

    Andrew

  35. Thanks, Andrew. I forgot Al Gore was fat. This is great News.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    For John McCain.

  37. “but it does call into question the mental state of some of the players involved in the pro-global warming side.”

    I think the nuts on either side pretty much cancel out. Climate sensitivity estimates remain unchanged.

  38. Boris,

    Complain all you like. The mass, density, and extent estimates of Big Al’s Posterior remain unchanged. 😉

    Andrew

  39. kinda like jones and the death threat mails

    No, steven, that’s a different case; those people hid their identity. Curry does not tell us the note was anonymous; she simply doesn’t tell us up front who the note is from. In one case the writer is concealing their identity, in the other case, recipient is.

    But I’m glad you brought up the comparison between this and “skeptic” hate mail:

    Critic of Judith Curry: I think you’re nuts.

    Critic of Jones, Mann, Hansen et al: “Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?”

    As nice and fair-minded as it sounds to say “the nuts cancel each other out,” the reality of that equation is that a large remainder of hate and irrationality is left over on the “skeptic” side.

  40. I have typing dylsexia and frequently type ‘climate’ as ‘cliamte’ among other typos, and have to proof read carefully to catch it.
    My balance is not what it used to be, sadly.
    Are these traits unique to skeptics?
    The neurotic attempt to align skeptics with either corruption or a blackmail conspiracy speaks for itself.

  42. Curry does not tell us the note was anonymous; she simply doesn’t tell us up front who the note is from.

    When posting a comment, Judy didn’t mention Anna. Keith asked her directly, and in comment 52 at Keith’s, she answered:

    Keith, Anna Haynes identified herself as a blogger and contributor to sourcewatch in the first email that she sent. I didn’t recognize her name.

  43. Robert,

    If the Jones Emailers hid their identities, how do you verify what group they identified with?

    Andrew

  44. Re: AnyColourYouLike (Comment#58061)
    “..but Anna seems to be just another lonely bedroom blogger with a head full of strange ideas.”

    That’s fine, people are entitled to their ideas and opinions, and others are entitled to ignore them if they so wish. Problem seems to be when she’s ignored, she can move from online to offline pursuit which can be a lot more intimidating and disruptive.

    Regarding Robert’s rather one-sided comparison, I’m sure sceptics also get their share of hatemail, and people that send it should realise there’s no such thing as anonymity on the web, and there are consequences. In the UK, we’ve just jailed a Facebook troll for 18 weeks-

    http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1353148_facebook_troll_jailed_after_targeting_jade_goody_tribute_page?rss=yes

    Not sure if they’re the first, and sadly doubt they’ll be the last.

  46. Carrick (Comment#58122) November 2nd, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Bugs, I have idea why SourceWatch would have any association with climate change.

    Last I checked there were policy questions as well as pure science involved, and that this is the area where the main real disagreement lies. It may not call into question the underlying physics, but it does call into question the mental state of some of the players involved in the pro-global warming side. (*coughs* polar cities *cough*)

    It not only may not have anything to do with the underlying physics, it in fact has nothing to do with the underlying physics.

  47. Bugs that was the smartest comment you’ve ever made. Sourcewatch is a heavily left leaning organization of morons. Lucia, I know we disagree on a lot but I think you have to admit I was at least partially right about this whole thing becoming a circus.

  48. Now now, lets all resist the temptation to conflate the crazies on both sides with the issues themselves. Polar cities and prison planets notwithstanding 😛

  49. When posting a comment, Judy didn’t mention Anna. Keith asked her directly, and in comment 52 at Keith’s, she answered

    As I pointed out in Comment#58033.

  50. bugs:

    It not only may not have anything to do with the underlying physics, it in fact has nothing to do with the underlying physics.

    Like it or not, the politics and the physics are interlinked here.

    Hence the liberal theme of Judith the Judas aka Judith the Heretic.

    I know it’s more convenient when you can selectively ignore the linkage, as in embarrassing moments like this (or when Annan and Tobis made complete asses of themselves, one of their skills, in their comments on one of Judith’s posts), but the linkage is plain for all to see.

    Your weak protestations notwithstanding.

  51. RE Peter D. Tillman (Comment#58193)

    Perhaps Ms. Anna might be better described as a “Dope Journalist” ?

    Whatever lights your pipe!

  52. Robert.

    1. you dont know if they hid their identity.
    2. some hatemailers have not (apparently)
    3. Judy has no way to ascertain if Anna hayes actually wrote the mails, so “outting her” could be a potential problem especially if it wasnt anna.

    If you want to attack Dr. Curry step up your game.

  53. As nice and fair-minded as it sounds to say “the nuts cancel each other out,” the reality of that equation is that a large remainder of hate and irrationality is left over on the “skeptic” side

    $$$

    true lets not forget the irrationaility of the skeptics hate video.
    “no pressure”. opps.

    nuts cancel, unless they have power.

  55. @Stevie

    1. You think despite media reports of anonymous death threat which have also been shared with the police that we don’t “know” the threats were anonymous? Jones is perhaps hiding their identities and lying to the media and the police? That’s moronic, even for you.

    2. So?

    3. Judith could easily state the name the author gave. The fact she didn’t do that up front is strange. (The fact that she evidently doesn’t understand what a wiki is is humorous.)

    You fail by the numbers. If you want to attack me, little Stevie, you’re going to have to raise your game.

  56. true lets not forget the irrationaility of the skeptics hate video.

    Troll lacks a sense of humor, what a surprise. Sorry, arguably tasteless surrealist humor /= explicit threats of rape and murder by Stevie’s good friends in the “skeptic” camp.

  57. Hence the liberal theme of Judith the Judas aka Judith the Heretic.

    Evidence? Link?

    >99% of liberals have no idea who Judith Curry is. The other 1% know that she’s said a bunch of moronic garbage, not based on any science, but I don’t know of anyone who sees her as a “Judas.” She was never an “apostle” in the first place, just one of thousands of working climate scientists.

  58. Robbie,
    It would be nice for you to post your credentials before claiming Judith Curry is saying a bunch of moronic garbage. You seem to be shy about your brilliance over at your blog. Don’t hide that light under a bushel basket!

  60. bugs

    JC wants to talk about the uncertainty to the extent that we know nothing.

    This claim is ridiculously inaccurate.

  61. Regarding Dr. Curry’s “conversion,” it was inevitable that SourceWatch would notice sooner than later; after all, this is the group that outed Pielke Jr. by reporting that he was seen talking to a – are you ready? – Conservative. You just can’t anything past these guys.

    Slightly more seriously, is Stalker really the word? I don’t know the legal def., but it seems that calling people at home, or showing up at their place of work and demanding an interview is more nuttily obnoxious than actual stalking.
    ……………………………………………
    steven mosher (Comment#58015): Astral?

  62. Perhaps the new craze is eco-stalking?

    Robert: I’m guessing that Watts and McIntyre get their share of death threats from eco-wingnuts like these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIYdmM6eBQY

    If you’re crazy enough to ram a ship at sea over ‘harming mother earth and her creatures’, you’re probably nuts enough to write some death threats.

    “There’s no monopoly in common sense on either side of the political fence.” – Sting

  64. Anna–
    The email appearing here was posted by Dr. Curry at her blog and that’s how we all learned about your decision to intrude into her private life by asking such personal questions. I’m glad to read you are apologizing to Dr. Curry for your lapse in sending that odd email. I hope she will accept your apology, but I don’t understand why you are posting it here. It would be wiser to post your apology at her blog.
     
    I read your SourceWatch page. It reads like an editorial and I laughed at quite a bit of it. I’m aware anyone can contribute to those things, but I have no intention of volunteering my time to fact check or critique such a silly pointless project. If you need help writing something that sounds more factual, you’ll have to work with people who want to spend time building Sourcewatch.

  67. Anna–
    My substantive criticism *about* your page on Curry is this:

    It reads like an editorial, and a hilariously unhinged one at that. If you want someone to help you write something that sounds more like news reporting and less unhinged, that’s not going to be me. There are lots of web pages out there, many sound like unhinged editorials.

    I’m perfectly willing to be helpful by sharing my opinion of how amateurish that page is, but I don’t have any interest in spending time on wikis, particularly not wikis set up by well heeled political groups funded by millionaires trying to advance their agendas.

  70. Pingback: Hump day humor | Watts Up With That?

  71. Sorry for the lateness of this comment.

    I actually found the most revealing part of her questions (revealing about Haynes, not the subject I might add), to be the ones that haven’t been widely publicized yet.

    Go over to the Discussion page on Judith Curry at Source Watch, and you’ll find some of Haynes’ other questions:

    e.g.

    Subj: Q re disclosure, was Relation to Ravenel Curry? (Eagle, Manhattan Institute)

    Q: If someone was, by their writings and actions, playing down the urgency of climate action, and they had a relative affiliated with a libertarian organization, would there be an obligation to disclose the connection?

    There seems to be an obsession with finding an ulterior motive, especially one through a possible family connection. I’m guessing her research method routinely includes looking for a skeptic with the same surname as the subject of investigation, and try and draw a connection.

    Further indications of this can be found in one of the stories about Anthony Watts and her, and at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User:Ahaynes#People_who_aren.27t_related_to_each_other

    Who the hell creates lists of people who are NOT related?

    If Haynes is reading my post, I really suggest she starting looking at skeptics called Smith. and see if any are related to each other.

  72. Copner–

    Who the hell creates lists of people who are NOT related?

    I am not related to the former (current?) ambassador of Sweden, somebody or other Liljegren. The other funny thing is that, of course, my maiden name is not Liljegren, so most of my relatives aren’t named Liljegren anyway. My mother’s family are also not named Liljegren. 🙂

    Also… I wonder how close the relationship has to be for Anna to think there might be a bias. My husband’s cousin is married to the brother (who I met once) of the recent president of University of Virginia (who I never met). Maybe this “relation” explains I don’t think much of Cuccinelli’s fishing expeditions!

    Hmmm… If I’d gone to Jim’s cousin’s son’s wedding in October, I might have met John Casteen and we could have jawboned over Cucci!

  73. Yes, it seems bizarre

    But now I’ve been reading her blog, and frankly the research by surname thing, seems one of the more rational things she’s done.

    How about calling somebody’s spouse, and asking them how they feel about their husband/wife killing (??? or otherwise doing something comparable to Germany 1939) to their grandchildren. And then being surprised/offended/??? when the spouses tells them to never call again.

    http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2010/03/russell-steeles-wife-ellen-steele.html

  74. Anna

    You are doing a fine job. Keep up doing exactly what you are doing. Don’t listen to the people who are criticizing your approach. It’s working. You should try to interview Curry at her University. I would expand your page and do more in depth coverage. I am sure Tobias will add things. Also ask Deep climate and Joe Romm to add things.

  75. One thing that’s really cool about Anna, she always comes forward and admits “Yes. It really was me that did that obnoxious stupid thing.”

  76. Pingback: My Hero | Skeptical Swedish Scientists

  77. Copner–
    I see she is “apologizing” as a mechanism to insinuate that someone’s grandma didn’t love them:

    So, Nolan and Annika, I can’t tell you if, as of 2010, your grandmother supported your grandfather in his efforts – but she had an opportunity to separate herself from his actions, and she didn’t want to take it. I hope she does care about you & is just ignorant of the real risk spectrum – but she made it clear she had zero interest in dialogue.

    Classy!

  78. Anna serves as a warning to us all who are caught up in the climate blog wars to remember that the real life is outside the blogosphere and that no ideology is worth losing one’s humanity, civility, and in Anna’s case, sanity over.

  79. Yes climate skepticism, or refusing to meet with her, is indistinguishable from not caring about your children or grandchildren.

    I actually spent quite a long time reading her blog. it’s bizarrely fascinating. Compelling even.

    Apart from the surnames thing, another of her investigative techniques appears to be:

    1. Hear of some obscure or not so obscure climate skeptic or right wing group.
    2. Hear of some financial interest related to them, often tangentally.
    3. Look at the subject of her latest investigation’s business interest and ask them if they’re business is funded by this group or financial interest.
    4. When the subject says no (I mean even if all climate skeptics were funded in this way, what are the odds she’ll strike gold and pick the right source of funds in her question) – then start asking about whether their family members, family member’s businesses, distant relations, etc. are funded by this group.

    This seems to be the modus operandi of her questioning of Anthony Watts, and some of the other investigations on her site.

    There is probably a psychological term to describe this, but from my point of view it looks like she thinks the world is very small place, ran by a few groups that she happens to have heard about, using a web of financial conspiracy. Moreover I believe that she believes anybody who disagrees with her is financially motivated by this web of finanical conspiracy. and probably fiddling their taxes to boot (another theme on her blog).

    P.S.
    Ms Haynes, if you really care about the particular Hospice charity that you claim you do, why don’t you just give them money ($300 was it?) rather than demanding a particular skeptic meet you for coffee before you contribute – and blaming the lack of contribution on the skeptic? Why should the charity’s funding be a hostage to whether or not you can arrange a meeting. If the charity’s worth a donation, it’s worth a donation regardless of who meets whom in which coffee shop.

  80. Copner

    There is probably a psychological term to describe this

    There is an element to conspiracy theory to it.

    In what blog post does she offer to give money to a charity of her own choosing if a skeptic meets her for coffee. (And then doesn’t give to the charity and blames it on the skeptic for not meeting her for coffee.)

    If that’s what she does, it’s an amazing thought process. Clearly, it needs to be applied more widely. I could demand Pres. Obama meet me for coffee while he’s in Chicago. He can’t have anything better to do, right?

  81. Lucia,

    It’s in the classily titled article: “Why does Russ Steele hate Hospice?” – http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-does-russ-steele-hate-hospice.html – and probably elsewhere as well, since the article refers to earlier communications with Steele on this topic. (Incidentally this article also illustrates her conspiracist thinking – she hears of the Western Fuels Association in a totally unrelated and unconnected context – and then immediately starts asking Steele about whether he has any links to them).

    On the original topic – there’s also Anna’s comments, including where she raises her offer to $300, on Steele’s response at http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2008/08/emotional-black.html

    And yes, if Obama didn’t turn up to your meeting, it would clearly prove that he hates sick-children/puppies/America/whatever you choose.

  82. And please remember Lucia, we shouldn’t be too harsh on Ms Haynes, because as she says in her post, the only reason that’s after Steele: “I wouldn’t get on your case about this if it weren’t for the stakes involved – I’m doing this for your grandchildren, and for their children.”

  83. Anna

    You do appear in public sometimes; will you really run screaming if I run into you at Flower Garden and strike up a conversation?
     
    I’m actually quite a pleasant, benevolent, level-headed person, as you know, you’ve met me; I don’t bite. Something doesn’t make sense here, Russ.

    Not-biting is a pretty low standard for conversational partners.

    I doubt he’d scream or run. He might excuse himself from the conversation to reserve time for an activity her prefers.

    I’m trying to figure out what gives with Anna. I’ve seem her photo. She appears to be a normally attractive woman age adjusted. Not that much different from me, maybe a bit less attractive than Judy Curry (who has those gorgeous eyes!) Didn’t she experience guys who just kept asking for lunch dates, study dates etc.? The ones who kept explaining why you didn’t have a right to not while your time doing something other than being in their presence? (As opposed to doing things you’d rather do, like laundry, washing your hair, dancing with a guy you preferred, studying, watching tv with your girlfriends, cutting your toe nails. . .)

    Anyway, she already did meet with the guy for coffee:

    I’ve met Russ and his wife Ellen for coffee once before; at the time, I would not have pegged him as a shrinking violet, or as a Hospice-hater. But I don’t see many other explanations.

    http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/2008/08/why-does-russ-steele-hate-hospice.html

    So, he indulged her once. Now is he supposed to meet her for coffee after coffee after coffee? Because she didn’t bite? This is nuts.

  84. (seems my other post didn’t go through)

    Have a look at Anna’s blog, and the hockeystick in the top right hand corner…

    http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GCx40UYyzAg/TEdNr3m1BfI/AAAAAAAAAQg/vjHRdmqiXGQ/s1600/worldbankgraph.png

    Original Micheal Mann HS? Check out the flatness. Anyway, what’s with those thick green lines? Are they error bars? Wow! Accuracy to around .3 of a degree or so…

    she might want to update that graph. No wonder she’s flipping out.

  85. My surname is Curry, and I’m definitely a climate skeptic. Perhaps someone can find a link between me and the good Dr. Curry…? (Good luck with that.)

  87. I’m guessing that Watts and McIntyre get their share of death threats from eco-wingnuts

    With their victim complex? We’d know. Supposedly somebody came to Watts’ office once to talk about climate, and stayed longer than Watts felt was polite. He blogged about it nonstop for days, with industrial-strength self-pity for himself as a victim of “stalking.” You think he’d keep a death threat to himself? Right.

  88. It would be nice for you to post your credentials before claiming Judith Curry is saying a bunch of moronic garbage.

    I love the hypocrisy. Any “citizen-scientist” is entitled to their opinion on the work of the leading climate scientists . . . as long as the former are psuedoskeptics attacking AGW. But give you just a little taste of what it is like to have somebody with actual expertise in the field whose point of view you like . . . suddenly, you discover the idea that we ought to respect the views of scientists who have spent decades in the study of their fields.

    So which is it? Do you intend to defer to Mann, Hansen, Schmidt et al, provided they have more illustrious credentials than you?

    Much of Curry’s recent editorializing outside her expertise is moronic, and it requires only common sense, not advanced degrees (which I may or may not have 😉 ) in order to say so.

  89. There’s a huge difference between being physically confronted by a hostile individual and recieving an email. If I showed up at your workplace and got in your face, you’d probably be a lot more afraid of your person than if I sent you an email.

    As for your conjectures, from your industrial-strength antipathy towards these gentlemen, I’ll take it with a massive grain of salt. I’ll leave the self-pity train to Mann and Jones.

  90. “So which is it? Do you intend to defer to Mann, Hansen, Schmidt et al, provided they have more illustrious credentials than you?”

    I’ll stick without the appeal to authority logical fallacy and go with results repeatable in nature, thanks!

  91. I’ll stick without the appeal to authority logical fallacy and go with results repeatable in nature, thanks!

    Several things wrong with this, besides the fact the one doesn’t “stick without” things:

    *It helps to read the exchange before you comment. Thinking you are presenting a counterpoint, you are actually, unwittingly, endorsing it. While I appreciate your support, you look foolish when you triumphantly sneer your agreement with me.

    *Respect for scientific expertise may or may not be justified in a specific instance, but it is not in any case an example of an appeal to authority or any other sort of logical fallacy. Like many people who have grabbed hold of that talking point, you’ve failed to understand what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually is.

    *The physics of AGW can be demonstrated in repeatable experiments, and AGW can be demonstrated using observations from the natural world, but these are two separate things. “Results repeatable in nature” is an oxymoron, as you would know if you understood either type of scientific evidence-gathering.

  92. If I showed up at your workplace and got in your face, you’d probably be a lot more afraid of your person than if I sent you an email.

    Something tells me your physical presence would not be any more imposing than your virtual one. 😉

  93. Robert

    Something tells me your physical presence would not be any more imposing than your virtual one. 😉

    But I bet you quake in fear at 5’4″ me!!!! GRRRRR!!!! (Pretends to flex like a body builder…)

  95. Robert (Comment#58680) November 4th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    I’m guessing that Watts and McIntyre get their share of death threats from eco-wingnuts
    With their victim complex? We’d know. Supposedly somebody came to Watts’ office once to talk about climate, and stayed longer than Watts felt was polite. He blogged about it nonstop for days, with industrial-strength self-pity for himself as a victim of “stalking.”

    #################

    you might do well to acquaint yourself with the facts.

    1.Supposedly somebody came to Watts’ office once to talk about climate, and stayed longer than Watts felt was polite.

    Anna did in fact come to his office after she was asked not to.
    So, “supposed” is the wrong word.
    She did not come to talk about the climate.
    There are other legal facts you are not aware of regarding her that
    would give any reasonable person acquainted with those facts some cause for concern.

    2. he did not blog about it non stop for days. Actually, His first inclination was not to say anything about it whatsoever.

    3. Victim mentality. The correspondence surrounding this incident does not support that conjecture.

Comments are closed.