Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Josh
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (18)
You're simply the BEST - cobbled from all the rest
Better than GISS – or even the British Met
I'm stuck on your heat, I hang on every word you say
Urban heat island, no baby, no f**kin way!
(With apologies to Tina Turner)
Do these sour grapes have a best-used by date?
"Get 'em 'ere! Sixty years worth of produce from all sorts of places.
What's that, luv? All the same quality?... well, of course. Why wouldn't they be?
And anyway, don't bother your pretty little head with details, it wouldn't make hardly any difference to you Ms M."
No sprays! All pure as the proverbial Tellulah Bankshead's snow-job!! Product of Duchy certified non anthropogenic carbon dioxode and Bill Hickok's wild frontier bull. Dont take my word for it- trust my funders! I'm no ordinary snake oil peddler. I've got Anthony and Judy. I'm smart!
Watt's your best price for all the watermelons and have you any rice Mr Muller ?
"Look lady,
you know the temperatures are different,
I know the temperatures are different,
everyone knows the temperatures are different,
but believe me when I say our Rural produce is almost exactly the same as the stuff from the Urban Heat Islands."
Have a look to the right, there is Mann's hockeystick on the cover of the book.
Then reflect upon the 1800-1900 data in the BEST global temperature estimate.
Either BEST is correct, and therefore Manns hockey-stick needs to be rotated 30 degrees, giving the middle ages a Siberian climate. Or Mann is correct, and the BEST analysis is wrong.
Or both are completely wrong. Given the error bars in both plots, at least one of them disproves the other.
I liked this comment on WUWT (by JohnWho)
If Willis’ suppositions hold up,
has BEST gone BUST?
What! No Berkeley Nuts?
Fruits, flakes and nuts...
Clearly BEST done did their best, which is of very little good to anyone ... meanwhile Donna delivered dynamite ;-)
P.S. Brilliantly captured (and captioned!) as usual, Josh!
P.P.S. Thanks, Bish, for the two honourable mentions :-)
Hilary [who is going to lose a lot of sleep tonight, because her main PC has just been diagnosed with "rupturing capacitors" - and won't know until tomorrow whether or not the only remedy, a compatible motherboard transplant, is available]
I think Watts' taken this real bad - the media jamboree snookered him when they played their 'Muller proves global warming and disproves sceptics' trick.
Muller's distrust of CRU was not even shared widely by the skeptics. CRU, if anything, was pressed for open data access. Muller didn't like what they did with the WMO graph - he calculated the global grid once again - it was he who distrusted them as a result of the 'hide the decline'.
Can anyone remember a post at WUWT, CA, BH etc which specifically doubted CRU's *honesty* or *trustworthiness* (as opposed to thinking they were sloppy, possessive, close-minded, hostile to sceptics etc).
Muller used sceptics' talking points as a swinging pole to catapult himself into the 'climate high league', so to speak. His project takes a knock at the CRU's record, establishes the 'superiority' of his techniques, and will be 'featured in the next IPCC report' (how does he know that?). It is a brilliant climate-science geopolitical move. The CRU-PIK gang must be rubbing their eyes, blinking.
The lukewarmers are the most dangerous in this. Can you imagine: 'Hey, I am ready to rearrange the world's economies, 'tax' carbon, support Obama. But I just need access to the raw data of the temperature set of Kathmandu airport'. Of course, the next newspaper headline is going to be: Kathmandu airport data completely released. Sceptics agree to rearrange world economies'. These are people who don't know what climate scepticism is. All the temperature stuff is just a hobby for them, that is all.
"A cheeky fun physicist wouldn't lie to you, would he Luv?"
"Consider the spherical vegetable...
...and by extrapolation, interpolation, obfuscation, and transmutation we clearly see that all skeptics are wrong."
"Is that my grant money, Luv, or are am I just pleased to see you?"
"Legal disclaimer: Muller and Associates LLC own all rights to GreenGov (TM) as registered by the US Trademark commission and are the recipients of numerous grants in connection with their championing of climate related governmental change management, PR positioning work, and remedial middle school statistics homework assistance (results not guaranteed). Any resemblance between the cartoon character depicted above and Richard Muller, who is not a cheeky fun physics green grocer, and never will be, is entirely coincidental."
"Of course you can trust me, Luv. Peter Gleick reviewed me tomatoes before they wuz planted."
Cheeky Grocer: "Listen everyone - sceptics finally concede this is an apple."
Mr Steadfast: "No - hold it right there! You don't get away with that PR strawman trick again - I'm not the bloody BBC. Sceptics consistently stated climate change was natural and evident, while ideologues squirmed and shifted from 'Man-Made Global Warming' to 'Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming' to 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change', changing names but not policies as the evidence and science caught them.
Now keep your finger off the scales and your hand out of my wallet."
He can't be a real grocer - no misplaced apostrophes!
I like the 'told-you-so tomatoes' though. :-)
Ross has posted a brief comment at CA -
"Ross McKitrick
Posted Oct 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM | Permalink | Reply
Yes, I expect some observers will find my analysis of BEST to be of interest, when I am in a position to release it. I agreed to serve as a referee back at the beginning of September and submitted my report almost a month ago. In so doing I accepted the journal’s request not to discuss the matter publicly while the paper is under review, and I intend to respect that commitment. It did not occur to me at the time that the BEST authors would fail so spectacularly to respect their corresponding obligations, or that the media, having shown zero interest in the many peer-reviewed and published papers on the topic, would so willingly join the tub-thumping on behalf of an unpublished, unreviewed PDF on someone’s website. I suppose all this should have occurred to me at the time, you’d think I’d have learned by now."
ps - maybe he (if he agrees) can be added to your cartoon JOSH (probably peed off) :-)
Peed off...I like it.