Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A comment on "The crucifixion of Dr. Willie Soon" at Breitbart

There is an article by Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, and the lawyer and alleged pro-freedom of speech fighter Joseph A. Morris at Breitbart with the title "The Crucifixion of Dr. Willie Soon". I am banned from commenting at this outlet of the defenders of free speech. Thus, I am going to put my comment here.

Since Bast and Morris link in their article to one of my comments. The assertion by them that I hadn't read or understood the paper by Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs before I criticized it is false. The comment by me to which they link doesn't support their assertion. Although, there are some points in the paper that are difficult to understand on scientific grounds. For instance, how anything follows for the real climate system from the doing of process engineers who wanted to prevent oscillations in electronic circuits, i.e., positive feedbacks leading to instabilities (see also here). That such nonsense and other fatal flaws in the paper could pass the peer-review process is only explainable to me with a breakdown of the peer-review process at Science Bulletin, the Chinese journal where the paper was published.

Scientists have commented on the paper how scientists do. They have seen fatal flaws in it regarding the quality of the science and pointed it out (e.g., here, here, and here). They did not attack the authors, personally. Bast and Morris, in contrast, seem to think that a paper should be judged according to whether they like the economical, political, or ideological implications. This is not how science is supposed to work, though.

After linking to criticism by scientists on the Monckton et al.-paper, Bast and Morris write, "Having failed to refute the article, environmentalists turned to smearing the authors." By linking the criticism by the scientists with this alleged "smearing", they suggest that it was those scientists who turned to "smearing". Do Bast and Morris have any evidence for this? For my part, I reject any such suggestion by Bast and Morris and consider this as smearing coming from them. To make it clear, I do not support any petition for dismissal of Soon for what he has published in scientific journals, even if it is bad science. That would go against my understanding of freedom of science. Demands by the public for disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interests are legitimate, though. In the case that Soon has committed any ethics violations it is up to his employer to investigate this and deal with this according to the institution's policies, if there is any initial evidence for it. I do not take any word by Soon, Monckton, Briggs, Bast, or Morris regarding this issue at face value.

Also, it is hilarious that Bast and Morris, these two defenders of Soon's free speech, link to the article by Monckton at Climate Depot (which, BTW, is just filled with more misrepresentation, strawman arguments, non-sequitur, and failure to understand the physics of the climate system), where Monckton demands the dismissal from their employment and the criminal prosecution of those scientists who dared to criticize the flawed science in the Monckton et al. paper. And they don't say any word about Monckton's demands.

Scientifically, the Monckton et al.-paper is trash, as Gavin Schmidt has been quoted to have pointedly summarized it. Monckton et al. also have exposed about themselves that they don't have a clue about how complex climate models work. They loudly declare that the climate models shouldn't use the Bode-system gain equation to calculate the feedbacks. An equation that isn't used in the climate models in the first hand.

So far for my comment. And to reconfirm that the state at Breitbart is still the same:


  1. By an odd coincidence, I find myself blockballed by Breitbart as well !

  2. Indeed, that's very odd. I wonder how many more of these coincidences are out there. Perhaps, there is a cluster of highly correlated coincidences ;-)

  3. I have never been blocked there, but have been called lots of unsavory things.

  4. Effing cowared.
    answer the effing questions jan.

  5. answer the effing questions jan.

  6. jan: answer the questions.

  7. " “Please evaluate the GCM’s record for making accurate “projections” over the last three decades; do you think they exhibit any skill?

    Just what features of climatic variance do you think the current iteration of GCMs do a good job of capturing?
    Decadal variance?
    warming in the early 20th century?
    cooling in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s?
    the recent (to be kind to advocates of these models) diminution in the rate of warming we are experiencing?
    Do you not concede that the scale of the models is at least a few orders of magnitude to coarse to capture any of the emergent climate phenomena, like cloud formation, or rain?
    Do you, with your background in mathematics and physics, seriously maintain that we have the ability to solve the coupled nonlinear differential equations that grossly describe climatic variance?
    really? ”

    answer the questions please,Jan.

  8. perhaps youre an asshole...theres that possibility as well, jan.

  9. the questions Jan, answer the questions please?

  10. the world waits Jan.

  11. so the entirety of the GCMs overestimate warming.... does Apell notice?
    No, of course not, because reality is so much more disappointing than his fantasies...
    The world prospers, Appell suffers.

  12. Why aren't you answering my questions, instead?
    (To the reader: See also here)

    1. What is the evidence for your assertion that the calculated temperature variability in the historical simulations with the CMIP5 models was obtained by fitting them to the observed temperature variability?

    2. What is the evidence for your assertion that the model from the Monckton et al. paper did a better job with emulating the observed temperature variability than the complex climate models?

  13. In case someone wants to know what the background is with this user who is acting like a stalker look at this tread at William Briggs' blog. He is doing the same over there.

    Also pay attention to the comment where he said following:

    "Im done with you. I rarely use this term with other posters, but youre nothing more than troll.

    You can respond to this, I won’t engage any further with you."


    It didn't last long. Then he totally lost control over himself.

  14. You ought to behave on my blog. This isn't wattsupwiththat, Breitbart, or Tisdale's blog where scientists or others who oppose to AGW-denial and junk science are fair game for verbal abuse and intimidation by the crowd of haters and by the blog hosts/moderators, which are common practice over there.

  15. answer the questions Jan.

  16. your behavior on Briggs blog was a perfect example of the cheesiest form of argue,tentative techniques, punctuated by an astounding level of arrogance and ignorance of both rhetoric and applied statistics, you should be ashamed of yourself.

  17. Hi Jan,
    You said, "It's a dependent variable, so it can be the first cause that explains global warming."
    Did you mean, "It's a dependent variable, so it cannot be the first cause that explains global warming."?

  18. Jan,

    Not only are Smokey and 'D Boehm' the same person (or persons) but if you click on the hyperlink Smokey occasionally uses it takes you to the avatar page of one dbstealy...

    So Smokey is Dave (dbs) Stealey. So what? well, dbStealey just happens also to be a moderator at WUWT, under the name 'dbs'. That's right, the most outspoken poster at WUWT is also secretly a moderator. Both Smokey and dbs went quiet when this came to light a few weeks ago, but the urge to post proved too much for 'smokey' and he re-emerged as D Boehm.

    Watts must be aware of this dishonesty and sock-puppetry, which makes him a huge hypocrite. Here's part of the blog policy

    "Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion. "

    I've concluded that engaging with anyone who shows that level of integrity is a waste of my time.

    nb Smokey/Boehm's are very fond of 'testable falsifiable empirical evidence'


    Phil Clarke.

  19. Jan - you asked, of Dick Courtney

    Why doesn’t Courtney use this opportunity to try to get a PhD after writing some thesis, in which he presents this new, revolutionary scientific method, called “eyeballing”, with which he is able to finally and ultimately refute global warming?

    Its a good question Jan. You may not be aware that Richard already holds a PhD. By which I mean he signs himself Dr Richard Courtney or Richard Courtney PhD in various petitions and open letters supporting 'the cause'.

    Nah - he has never actually earned a Doctorate, he just made it up, thus devaluing the efforts of those who got theirs the traditional way by, erm, study and research.

    These guys and their 'integrity'. Hilarious.

    [Reply: Thanks for the info, Phil!]

  20. - amazing source!

  21. What you failed to note, however, is that your second graph commits the same exact bias.

    You excluded the period from 1940-1980, during which no net warming occurred.

    A 40 year standstill, and you just left it out.

    You only proved that you can produce the same thing by ignoring the longer trend.

    Have a look at this....

    For 54 of the last 72 years, the trend is for temperature to NOT rise.

    ALL of the warming of the last 70 years happened between 1979 and 1997, meaning that suddenly warming is the exception to the rule.

    You are guilty of the same practice. Congratulations.

    [Reply: I didn't mentioned the period 1940-1970, because it is not relevant for my argument. The global atmospheric warming trend since the 1970ies is statistically significantly different, with more than 3-sigma confidence, from a Zero-trend, which indeed can be diagnosed for the period between 1940 and the 1970ies. This is statistical evidence that there was a true trend change starting in the 1970ies, compared to the preceding 30-year period. In contrast, there has not been any empirical, statistical evidence for a trend change starting in the late 1990ies, which is asserted by the "Skeptics". The temperature record of the last 16 years cannot be statistically distinguished from the multi-decadal, statistically significant warming trend.]

  22. Global warming the main cause of the carbon pollution and hotter earth.

  23. Actually, you can go back to 1930...

    And produce a view that the modern temperature record suggests that warming has only during an 18-20 year window since 1930.

    ...or that only 18 of the last 82 years show material warming.

    By ignoring the 1930-1979 period you commit exactly the same sin.

    For some reason, people think this game is one-sided. It is not.

    The lack of warming in the last ten years has turned the tables on the data, and you simply don't like that reality.

    So you try to cleverly explain it away.

  24. Well said, Jan! Your comments on WUWT.con were illuminating and your persistence in the face of cognitive dissonance and chicanery was laudable. As you state the claim of "no temperature rise for 17 years" is factually inaccurate; it fails the 95% probability of significance test,

  25. I've been banned at Tisdale's blog too, for nothing but asking some pointed questions and linking to some real data. It's how they protect the alternative reality they're building.

  26. Hello Jan. Since you're commenting on WUWT again, why don't you update this post of yours with that info - since you started with "Today, I got (temporarily, I was told. I will see)". Well, now you've seen it...

    [Reply: It would have been a fair request. However, since none of my comments I submitted at have appeared since last night, I can't confirm that the ban has really been lifted. I take from this that the status quo is that I am still banned by default. Even if Anthony Watts let through some of my comments yesterday.]

  27. What ocean only gets 4 raindrops a year?

    You are just making up specious nonsense.

  28. It is not for me to complain. The American Physical Society, if it recovers some regard for the truth, will in time be shamed into doing the right thing.

  29. "...he is a paid climate-Communist troll.."

  30. Technically what Christopher Monckton claimed which was wrong was that he was a member of the House of Lords. He has beenrebuked by the Clerk of the Parliaments for this claim multiple times He is a Viscount by inheritance and thus, Eli guesses, technically a Lord,

  31. [Abusive - mod]

  32. projection, jan. projection.

  33. dude you get an email you dont agree with and your threaten to report it to the police. [abusive - mod.] deal with it.

  34. No. I asked first, give them your best shot Jan.

  35. Your behavior would make stalin proud Jan. And to think that you, a jew, would engage in this type of revisionism. Your actions sicken me.
    Erase my posts, its okay, the world knows what youre all about.

  36. dude, you're creepy.

  37. Kudos to you, Jan, for having the stamina to even read these convoluted obfuscations.

  38. Who gives an eff what you write or say or think. anonymous troll.

  39. Ditto, ditto & ditto

    They aren't called dittoheads for nothing

  40. Just so you know, this same commenter (or, at least, someone using the same name) lasted (IIRC) two comments on my blog before I deleted the comment with essentially the same tactic ("answer the question!"). You have more patience than I have - although, maybe this is why I'm regarded as censorious :-)

  41. go eff yourself.

  42. ATTP:
    You are the perfect example of a preening self righteous ass.
    Deal with it.
    Why dont you try to answer the effing questions.
    As if conservation of energy has ANYTHING to do with running a regression scheme that regresses a variable on itself.
    Youre too arrogant to even be aware of what an ass you are.

  43. Hello Jan, I just found your site after reading your great comments over at Judith Curry's blog (Lessons from the ‘Irreducibly Simple’ kerfuffle). I then saw your familiar looking "banned" screenshots and thought I would post mine--a bit lower level of sophistication, but unable to post my arguments nonetheless. It was only my second post on James Delingpole's deck-of-victim-cards rant on Breitbart about the NYT's treatment of Willie Soon's shillery (and I think my first post was pulled as well). It was the first time I've ever been to Breitbart and my posts were tame by my standards. I've been banned from City Data (accused of spamming--really?) and PJ Media (for "third rate trolling") but only after at least a--well those happened after only one or two posts also--never mind. These people have a low tolerance for refutation. Thanks for fighting the good fight.

  44. Thanks. Unfortunately, this always takes so much time.

  45. I just started reading more about AGW and...

    I just started reading more about psychology so now I know I'm qualified to fix people better than those shady professional shrinks with their advanced degrees and stuff.

    The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.