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 (60)
Just when I thought it couldn't get any funnier.
Just when I thought your 'humour' would rise above the merely insulting. Pathetic
Frank
You're not even a troll; just a gadfly.
When did you last make anything resembling a positive contribution to this blog?
Calling out BS is a positive contribution. But if you prefer to have your epistemic bubble un-punctured by reality, just ignore it.
"Calling out BS is a positive contribution"
Which is what Josh just did.
Lol
Nicely played jamesp :)
I don't often laugh out loud at toons but this one did it for me. Keep it up Josh.
Just when I thought it might be safe to enjoy Josh's elegant satire. Frank, would you really prefer to discuss the validity of JH's claims here?
Spitting Image was satire. Not the Nine o'clock news was satire. If you think it is just accusing people of 'cooking the books', you have a lot of archival television and history to wade through.
But sure, let's discuss the validity of JH's claims versus Josh's. JH uses an open source product for which all the code and data are downloadable and which has been independently replicated by the clearclimatecode.org and in which no 'cooking of the books' has ever been found. Josh just uses defamatory insinuations of fraud to get the greek chorus all riled up without ever presenting any evidence for his fictions. If you think that JH's calculations of the temperature distributions with respect to the climatology are fraudulent, you should pick a better vehicle than a cartoon caption to show it - and if you don't, then score one for the elevation of the public discourse so often lamented on this very blog.
oh yes, NASA, looking for climate change on mars
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HINcC_hEetg/UB_wh9vGyLI/AAAAAAAADKs/AiKeMommmsY/s1600/NASA%2BJames%2BHansen.bmp
Frank, Hansen uses GHCN v3 adjusted data, which is known to be full of errors which seem to result from a homogeneity adjustment code written by a student, that is not downloadable. He then, bizarrely, applies his own homogeneity adjustments to the already adjusted data.
Frank: You're right if you think I think this particular argument is a waste of time and ripe for poking fun at - much the same as the argument about trends over the last 15 years (or 15,000 years for that matter!). The problem for such arguments is that at best they are inconclusive, and only talk to those who are already convinced one way or the other. I would like to see an argument that starts with a plausible physical explanation for natural variability and then demonstrates that this explanation is incompatible with late 20th C warming. Can you point me at such a thing?
Pielke Sr. posts Mike Smith's critique of Jim Hansen's Science By Press Release.
"Since Jim does not need a climate model to reach his conclusion, and since the climate models have shown no skill in predicting the changes in the regional climate statistics that he discusses in his post, he is actually telling us we do not need to spend the millions of dollars in making climate predictions for the impacts communities for the coming decades."
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/mike-smiths-post-science-by-press-release-the-story-about-washington-dcs-heat/
Josh's gold - Frank's incense...
Pharos
neat
Paul Matthews, to be clear, are you equating the use of GHCNv3 with deliberate fraud? Good to know.
Though as you are no doubt aware the difference between the GHCNv3 and BEST for instance is trivial, and so the same result will be seen using BEST temperatures as well. Are they cooking the books too?? How far does this conspiracy go??? They are everywhere... Arghh....
I recall that the original advert [on UK TV] that Josh has used, also claimed that "Questions were asked in The House [of an Australian Parliament].".
Pity the poor Australians. This time round, the source of their incredulity IS the Australian Parliament.
Josh's gold - Frank's incense...
Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM | Registered CommenterPharos
:0) - almost as funny as Josh's cartoon
But not as funny and Franks point that a cartoon is not a good "vehicle" to emphasise a point. I think Josh is in the same vein as the UK's Mac or Giles - and the cartoon above is a classic.
Far better than the Alarmist cartoon of a train on a track with the train representing the now discredited "evidence" bearing down on a "denialist" the same so called evidence the likes of Hansen and other alarmists seek to ram down our throats as "truth".
When the truth is very different indeed - as the world is now waking up to.
I thought Mullers interview (coverage over on WUWT) re his statement on the debacle at the U of EA and his statement that Mann should not have made the conclusions he did very illuminating - and demonstrate Frank - that climate"science" is coming under ever closer scrutiny and those that confuse science and advocasy will not come out of this increased scrutiny well.
You can bluff and bluster all you wish Frank - but your genie is out of the bottle and heading for the reality horizon at an ever increasing rate.
Frank
Though as you are no doubt aware the difference between the GHCNv3 and BEST for instance is trivial, and so the same result will be seen using BEST temperatures as well.
Well it seems we have a few problems with Muller's temperatures as well.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/mullers-alabama-temperatures-hopelessly-inaccurate/
Excellent Josh and as we say over here on John Bull's other island...feck the begrudgers!
Frank, are you actually defending James Hansen? This is a guy who while exploiting his job as a public servant to perform activism, also exploited his position as a NASA scientist to influence policy in a very public manner. He's been tip-toe-ing around an investigation of his activist finances for years. He submits a paper that gets the minimal pal review, turns out to be completely contrary to the IPCC's own claims, and you think Josh's cartoon is a base insult rather than appropriate satire?
Your perspective would be hilarious to visit if it weren't so sad.
Hehehe...that is quite clever :)
Btw, stop feeding the troll!
Mailman
I'm sure that signal has emerged from all the noise.
This is a repost of a response that I put on the Josh Cartoon thread at WUWT (small typos corrected)
I wrote it somewhat tongue-in-cheek but, on reflection, I think I may have stumbled upon a serious point.
"Give Hansen some credit. If July 2012 was indeed 0.2 F warmer than July 1936 then this means that the anomaly( TM Nick Stokes) from 1850 (approximate end of the LIA) to 2012 is only 0.2 F higher in the 76 years since 1936!
Assuming that the anomaly up to 1936 was all ‘natural’ and the 0.2 F since was all through anthropogenic greenhouse effects we can calculate that we’re causing a maximum decadal rise of 0.11C over 7.6 decades as 0.11/7.6=0.015 C/decade!
Thank you Mr Hansen for proving that Man-made global warming is not a problem!"
I may have cherry-picked the 1850 but not the 1936 and 2012 dates, made a sweeping assumption or two flavoured with pinches of snark but are my calculations 'robust'?
Anyone?
Jeremy, most civil servants don't give up their free speech rights just because of their job - and you'd be the first to complain if they were prevented from saying something more palatable to you. Everyone has the right to try and influence policy - again, you'd be up in arms if restrictions were imposed on who could write op-eds, or could be interviewed.
You have no idea whatsoever what reviews the PNAS paper got - your insinuation is just an excuse for you to not read it. And your second point is completely contradictory - I thought the conspiracy of the 'pal reviewers' was to get any old piece running that supported some mythical 'team'. But you are claiming that it was contradictory to IPCC but apparently still supported by the 'team' - surely something wrong there?
Frank says:
Actually, they do. You are quite incorrect here. It is an acknowledged conflict of interest to utilize your position as a civil servant to advance a political agenda. It's so acknowledged that even beltway bandits have explicit policies to avoid this appearance, and they enforce them just so their breast-feeding-of-public-money doesn't get cut off.
No. You do not have a right to influence public policy when you are an unelected government worker being paid by the public who pays your salaries. That is a clear conflict of interest. You, Frank, do not know what you are talking about.
Has the IPCC ever said that the current droughts are clearly man made? Can you point to this paragraph or paper where they said this? Can you stop drawing lines that I did not draw by implying that I said the "Team" reviewed his paper instead of any old pal he could find at PNAS? Maybe reading comprehension is still lacking in your country, so I'll lay off the actual acid tongue for now.
Jeremy,
I think you (and others here) are going down a dismal path in saying that anyone paid a government salary should shut up. Does this apply to Gordon Hughes (for that matter most of the GWPF academic advisory board would have to resign)? Richard Muller, Roger Pielke and Richard Tol, also currently featured on the Bishop Hill front page in not too negative light, should all just shut up?
It's fair enough to say that universities should be funded independent of the state, and I think there's a good debate to be had there. But I just don't think it's sensible to say that academics should not influence policy. And would you really be any happier if all Hansen's funding came from Greenpeace instead?
You are conflating activism with published results. If the results from publicly funded research conducted by academics influence policy, that's one thing. If you have someone like Hansen who simply goes off the rails with speeches full of alarmism that are not even consistent with his own published research, and he's filling out a time-card for that time, that's something else entirely.
This is not, in any way shape or form some new idea. This is a well-trodden, well-documented standard policy and practice within NASA itself and most other government agencies and non-profits that are funded by the government.
I can't believe this is surprising to anyone.
Consider the situation if those gloves were removed. Consider the absurd incest of a system of public agencies and industry that rely on government funding were they entirely allowed to lobby for their own funding with no restrictions? Do you really think America wouldn't have a military-industrial complex that wasn't 20 times the size it is now? There are valid reasons for these rules. Hansen violates them at will. He should be fired.
Guys I posted this link about our friend Zed, Frank seems to be in the same boat so to stop his trolling try :-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/disinformation-how-it-works
Stop feeding the trolls. You guys know it's pointless trying to reason with the unreasonable!
Mailman
In 1988 Hansen, acting for carbon traders Gore and Lay [Enron], claimed to Congress that by now Manhattan would be regularly flooded by storm surges and we would have much more extreme weather. He has publicly declared his wish for the US to have a Chinese Communist style government
At about that time, ex-CRU alumnus Salinger was altering NZ's temperature records. The technique, subtly lowering past temperatures to give the impression of more recent warming, has been used around the World. Salinger was sacked in 2009 but is now employed by the openly Marxist WMO.
Hansen's predictions have not been proved. For the past 14 years, global air temperature has fallen slightly, Ocean Heat Content has plateaued, but is falling in the N. Atlantic as the Arctic prepares to freeze in its 50-70 year cycle. Global Total Precipitable Water has also fallen slightly.
The World is cooling, jet streams shifting nearer the equator meaning more extreme weather. Marxists are claiming this is proof of AGW when there is no such connection. The key question is did Hansen and Salinger, plus others, conspire to deceive, the former by using false physics in the models to create artificial 'positive feedback', the latter by altering data apparently to 'prove' the case.
Our transatlantic cousins may also be unaware of the product 'I can't believe it's not butter', although it's such an awful name, it sounds like American marketing...
LOL. perhaps your best yet josh. one day the originals will surely be framed and auctioned and/or hung in The Tate!!! thanx for the usual belly laugh.
Excellent posts Jeremy
You are correct on all points.
Frank. Get help. It's a cartoon, dude.
Nice one, Josh, well done.
Loved the 'completely artificial ingredients'!! Spot on.
Perhaps we could get Big Oil (our funders, don't you know) to sponsor an art exhibition of as many sceptic cartoons as can be assembled. Opened by Steve McIntyre and pride of place preserved for Josh. It might be appreciated by the time it's ready....
Gixxerboy
I don't think help is possible or available.
Signing up as an AGW enthusiast involves an operation similar to a lobotomy — it cuts off the sense of humour and the sense of proportion. If you are very fortunate eventually both grow back but there is no known cure as such.
Re Jamesp
But it's versatile. "I can't believe it's not data" or "I can't believe it's not science". But on a cooking theme, I think I've found a way to reduce the cost of climate modelling here:
http://memerial.net/386_binary_spaghetti
Give Hansen a big bowl of that, a blindfold, a toothpick and he can happily produce climate data at a reduced cost to the taxpayer.
"I can't believe it's not butter" was indeed an advertising slogan for an American margarine. I thought the peak of this campaign was reached in a television commercial showing a Wagnerian (large) woman dressed in robes and seen from a supplicant position who is sampling the product. She says something like "Mmmm, my butter" and smiles broadly.
Voice off camera says "No, it's ******."
She thunders "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature" and hurls a few lightning bolts.
At our shop, this became the comment for structural or mechanical calculations that attempted to invoke repeal of some known law of physics. It might also be applicable in the Climatology dodge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MsbvGmLaU4
"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"
I doubt Mother Nature was fooled for a second. I have yet to sample any margarine that tastes remotely like butter, and does anyone really think that 'Nutrasweet' bears any resemblance to sugar? And yet, these ersatz comestibles are sold by the container-load thanks to slick marketing and concealment.
Just like climatology, as Josh has clearly spotted...
Jeremy, you are quite wrong. US civil servants' political activity is governed by the Hatch act which restricts partisan political activity while on duty (no campaigning in the work place, no attending rallies in official vehicles or while wearing a uniform etc.), but nowhere does it prevent most civil servants from expressing opinions, campaigning while not on duty, supporting candidates they want, advocating for political action etc. This is very different from the conflict of interest rules which govern private dealings with government agencies which you seem to think are relevant, but which have nothing to do with the situation here.
This statement "You do not have a right to influence public policy when you are an unelected government worker being paid by the public who pays your salaries." is just silly. If actually followed it would imply that civil servants should be deprived of the vote (since elections clearly influence public policy), or be banned from writing letters to the editor on their own time, or freely associating with like-minded people at a rally at the weekend. This would be a gross violation of their basic rights. Their rules of employment rightly prevent use of their position to improperly imply agency support or endorsement or doing any of this when they should be working, but that is a far cry from cutting anyone who receives govt. money out from all public discourse.
Oh Frank.
You make it so easy!
Frank,
Your portrayal of the strictures of the Hatch Act seems accurate, but Jeremy's objection was that these guys were doing what could be described as political activities on company time using company facilities.
The Hatch Act does indeed prohibit such actions.
You could argue that you don't think Hansen's advocacies are political. But that's different.
It's interesting to note how these trolls all share exactly the same behaviour patterns.
The adolescent [minded] 'angry young man'
Why do experienced adults waste so much time trying to reason with such emotionally immature types.
"political activities on company time using company facilities"
While being paid for something else!
Frank actually said:
Actually, no, Frank, it's accurate. You clearly need to learn a few things about how the world works.
Where is there any evidence that Hansen has been politically active while on official duty? And what does that have to do with the original allegation that he was cooking the books?
Should we assume that it's fine to accuse people of misconduct as long as they have can be accused of doing something else? Perhaps Hansen has an unpaid parking ticket? That must mean the globe is cooling, right?
As I said at the beginning, pathetic.
Trolling 101... When faced with a losing argument, don't admit error, change the subject.