julesandjames@mmmmail.com

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:14:20 +0000

From: Brian 
Reply-to: Brian

Brian has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
D. Robinson: I'll take on that challenge over equivalency on the right and left. My previous work was with an environmental education/advocacy organization. We didn't list a person as chairman of the board who had been dead for two years. We didn't have massively unbalanced accounts nor engage in penny stock speculation with assets. We didn't lie about whether lobbied and carefully enumerated how much we did. We stuck closely to the truth in education, as could be seen by the fact that we often took on a powerful private university over land use issues, one that would've been eager to scream at us for anything that was inaccurate.
That was a relatively small, regional organization, and we far outperformed the ethical standards that John Mashey identified as failing at groups like SEPP and Heartland.
Posted by Brian to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 2:12 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:20:16 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
Alex, even ignoring the well-known, what do you think I am an advocate of?
I chose my words and examples carefully. I agree that some bad papers are merely misguided.
If you knew anything about the peer-review process you will know that it only takes one dozy or overly-trusting editor, together with sharp practice from the authors, to sneak nonsense into even a "good" journal. Carter's response was not published because it was unpublishable - and they put it on the web, so you can check that for yourself.
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 1:18 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:55:15 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Hank, I think it's a risk to double down on the provenance of the "fake" being as Gleick describes. It could be true - it would have been breathtakingly stupid of him to forge it - but if he actually did forge it, then any attempts to excuse the impersonation are moot. Which, incidentally, one may reasonably consider it already to be, in the context of the AGU statement (irrespective of them having actually defined their ethics policy yet).
My take on Gleick's interest in ethics is not so much that there was a woolly area that needed serious thought, as that he views himself as participating in a battle for Good against Evil, and had hoped to be able to use it as a weapon to beat down his enemies with.
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 12:55 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:47:21 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
I think the top goal has to simply be open access, doesn't it? Then Elsevier can charge authors (or get sponsorship or whatever othger options they can dream up) what they want, how they want - but the knowledge will be freely available. As I said, the EGU manages it on

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:25:34 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Carl: "I think my point is quite illustrative -- for all the screechings that the corporate mainstream media is "liberal" -- why do I never see Noam Chomsky on a typical show? It's rare enough that I see liberal economists such as Paul Krugman or Robert Reich."
This is argument by anecdote, so it's not proof of anything, being only our personal and limited observations ---and your conclusions by the way are strongly in conflict with more objective bases for measuring media bias.
The question you raise in any case is unrelated to the question of the treatment of AGW by the media. If you want to start yourself on a road to discovery of ideas you hadn't thought of before, who has a larger viewership, CBS evening news, or Fox News?
The question of how the media covers AGW is a meta-analysis in its own right, and trying to reduce it to what the Wall Street Journal or Fox News covers really doesn't do this question justice.
Whether I agree or disagree with you on any given issues, I encourage you to expand more effort learning to think critically and to use evidence based analysis in preference to anecdote and story telling.
....and that's about all I have energy for tonight.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 12:24 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:18:33 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
I think my point is quite illustrative -- for all the screechings that the corporate mainstream media is "liberal" -- why do I never see Noam Chomsky on a typical show? It's rare enough that I see liberal economists such as Paul Krugman or Robert Reich. Yet one can always find HI & AEI jerkoffs on the so-called "liberal" media (and of course they are household names on Faux News). So look into this reality rather than post up more opinion papers from AEI.
What is actually conflated is that climate science skepticism is lumped together with other right-wing cause celebres from anti-abortion to pro-war to pro-death-penalty to pro-Christian-indoctrination in US schools etc etc ad nauseum.
Look at how (from my Oxford experience with British & European Christian climate scientists) they take "stewardship of the earth" to mean (in the US peculiar version of Christianity) "domination of man over the earth" as one simple example.
Frankly your pseudo-intellectual posturing & flipping the tables so that stagnant corporate apologists are the "activists" against some huge evil conglomeration of scientists is just laughable.
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 9:10 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:50:02 +0000

From: n-g 
Reply-to: n-g

n-g has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
Holding a boycott without actually specifying a list of demands sounds like just the sort of thing a bunch of college professors would do. I sent a letter to the costofknowledge webmaster suggesting that the boycott needs to tell Elsevier what we want them to do. No response yet...
Tyler-
I just became aware of your excellent site facilitating the boycotting of Elsevier journals.
It seems silly to have a boycott without specifying a set of demands; otherwise the target of the boycott has no clear guidance on what it would take to end the boycott and the boycott is thus ineffective or at minimum inefficient.
On the other hand, getting a group of academics to agree on a set of concrete demands may be even more challenging than organizing a successful boycott.
I suggest including on your boycott registration list a set of demands that boycotters may choose from, just as they choose what they will refrain from doing. This set must be brief and must be entirely quantifiable. Something like:
* Pricing for Elsevier journals should be lowered to reflect a long-term goal of a profit margin of (choose up to one):
- 20%
- 10%
- 5%
* All Elsevier journals must be available for subscription individually by libraries
* Elsevier must cease all forms of support for laws that would (choose none, any, or all):
- inhibit the ability of scientists to choose to make their data and results freely available to the scientific community
- inhibit government mandates for open access to scientific data and results
- inhibit the use of the Internet for the free exchange of data and results
- John
end-of-letter
Myself, I would choose 10% for the first demand, agree with the second demand, and skip the third demand.
Posted by n-g to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 7:49 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:47:50 +0000

From: Hank Roberts 
Reply-to: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
I asked earlier:
> Is it ethical?
> Look up your organization's rules.
Note the AGU hasn't had any rules so far; their task force was charged with considering them.
Ironically, Glieck was on that group -- and may have had more personal concern about ethics than others. I mean, what ethics does a geophysicist need? Rocks are rocks.
Someone tell me, why was this being considered by the AGU?
What if they do come up with ethical rules for geophysicists -- would employees of the fuels industries be expected to weigh ethics in how they do their jobs?
This could have become a problem for the industry.
This could have become a problem for, oh, Patrick Michaels, to pick a name out of a hat.
No?
Posted by Hank Roberts to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 5:47 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:01:33 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
So Carl is bent out of shape over $400k coming into a conservative think tank (which arguably deals with other issues, the Koch money for example was targeted at world hunger).
How about for comparison Pacifica Institute.
They list a cool $2.3 million.
Using Carl's logic, this is OK why?
Who gives the blessing on it being OK for Pacifica to be funded at 6 times the level of one of the few conservative think tanks that even address global warming.
What controlling body would give the blessing for which organization received funding? Would they require parity on issues like this (in which case, cash-strapped organizations like HI would benefit)?
And other what plausible definition of "democracy" does this sort of control of freedom of speech fit into?
I'm still waiting for something that is remotely logical in terms of an explanation for this one.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 1:14 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:54:01 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Carl, you've sure managed to conflate enough different things in three short paragraphs. That's quite an accomplishment!
Equating the number of annual Noam Chomsky interviews with the press with the view of the press on AGW has to take the prize though. That's literally a LOL moment for me, thanks! I mean this is just complete lunacy.
In terms of the question of liberal/conservative media bias... wouldn't you want to actually look at studies for that, or is that just not touchy-feely enough to "pass muster" in the climate activism crowd?
You've also conflated liberal/conservative bias (a subject which you'd carefully avoided any scholarship on) with the treatment of the media with AGW issues and science in general. I'm just going to that out, it's not worth carrying the thought any further, if you can't see that's a problem or walk through from there to the implications of that on your own. [There are some interesting issues here, it's not black and white, but too bad you've smeared these issues out by resorting to sentimentalism.]
Critical thinking, evidence based reasoning, connecting logical premises to conclusions, these really are alien things to you, aren't they?
Anyway, thanks for your comments. Really serious there.
Together with Bloom, you have very clearly illustrated the giant chasm that does separate us scientists from you activists.
The biggest tool that the scientist has in convincing the public or the politicians, is in clearly stating what he knows to be true and what he doesn't know with equal lucidity, and to not paper over the uncertainties just because it makes things a little less convenient. When he ceases to to that, he also cedes his moral authority.
For myself, I really don't want you around. If I'm going to cede my moral authority, I'd rather do it by a conscious act, and not become some (perhaps well-meaning) fool does some ape-shit stupid act and the public ends up conflating his unethical behavior with my own personal standards for responsible conduct of research.
I don't want you saying you represent me in anyway or my interests. I don't mind you speaking your mind, unlike you I don't favor censorship of any person's language, but please, please make it very clear I and probably most other scientists who are behaving as scientists and not activists don't approve of what you say, how you say it, or what you are willing to do, or even the behaviors that you endorse in other activists.
I also hold no hope that you or the crowd that is running the AGW activist movement at this point in time has any chance whatsoever in persuading the public to change their views on climate change. You make me cringe with your borderline sociopathic views, I can only imagine the response that a layperson would have to this sort of over-the-top rhetoric.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 4:53 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:33:41 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Steven Bloom: "Maybe that stuff passes muster elsewhere, Carrick, but around here I think you need arguments without obvious gaping holes. Just sayin'"
Obvious gaping holes? If they were that obvious, I suspect you would be able to point them out, and no doubt would have taken some pleasure in doing so.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 4:25 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:15:03 +0000

From: "D. Robinson" 
Reply-to: "D. Robinson"

D. Robinson has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Re Carl:
"The idea that the oil company & Koch bros & Richard Mellon Scaife funded think tanks & magazines are evened out by PETA or whatever is just laughable."
There has got to be exponentially more money on the believer side of the debate than on the skeptical. In addition to the US Government's investment in climate change research & communications, the UN's, Germany's, Spain's, France's etc, Moveon.org's, Center for American Progress's, Brookings etc etc, UEA, MIT, NOAA, NASA, etc they also have Soros, Buffet, Gates etc, etc.
AGW scientists / activist groups aren't being outspent, they're not the little guys. Yet climate change science and activist communities can't stand up to the (pittance of a) negative response from all powerful far reaching sinister terrorist organizations like HI and AEI?
Good grief.
Posted by D. Robinson to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 4:13 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:08:57 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
so as usual, Carrick is cherry-picking donors to show some ersatz "equivalence" between think-tank funding. And to say that con/neocon think-tanks are "marginalized" in the US is laughable. At the very least they have 24/7 access on Faux News, the Wall Street journal etc etc.
When is the last time (if ever) you saw, say, Noam Chomsky on prime time? But you see the likes of Myron Ebell & clowns from AEI & HI all the time as a "rebuttal" to any climate story (as well as other stories).
Carrick probably believes the myth that the corporate media is a "liberal" one too. If that were true, well, as I said, where are all the Noam Chomsky interviews?
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 3:07 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:01:21 +0000

From: Steve Bloom 
Reply-to: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Maybe that stuff passes muster elsewhere, Carrick, but around here I think you need arguments without obvious gaping holes. Just sayin'.
Posted by Steve Bloom to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 2:52 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:32:30 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
The real problem here is Carl is just shooting himself in the foot by advancing this argument (in other words following in the lead of Peter Gleick).
If you want to defeat nonsense, the way you do is, is let the people who are spewing nonsense, spew it, then trust on the public to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
This has been known to be effective since the days of Socrates.
I think Carl and many others blame the conservative groups (who are very marginalized within US society in general) for something that is their own fault: You guys have the money, the "brains" (Gleick was a MacArthur fellowship recipient, nobody on Heartland probably knows how to work a pencil), the media sympathy, the innate "appeal to authority" of claiming to represent scientists...
..and you're still blowing it.
Introspection can be a useful tool at time, I'd suggest it's time that the advocates who are giving the thumbs up on Peter Gleick's nauseatingly poor behavior make use of it.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 1:23 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:15:42 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
sorry but I don't buy that "the left & right-wing think-tanks balance each other out." That's the same "fair & balanced" BS that you have an actual climate scientist presented and then an idiot lobbyist like Myron Ebell, as if he can provide cogent scientific rebuttal. The idea that the oil company & Koch bros & Richard Mellon Scaife funded think tanks & magazines are evened out by PETA or whatever is just laughable. It's like saying Small Country A is in the UN; and the USA is in the UN, so it's all even. Hence, these HI jerkoffs should be exposed by any means necessary.
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 23/2/12 1:08 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:48:18 +0000

From: crandles 
Reply-to: crandles

crandles has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Journalists often have a public defense and I would have thought it possible that this might also apply to Gleick.
If he has forged or changed anything then I see no defense to liable laws for harm to HI reputation.
If as he says he received these documents through anonomous smail mail, what was he ethically supposed to do? Just return them to HI or is there a public interest in disclosing them?
If they are fake, disclosing them could be liable harm to HI reputation. But not disclosing could be a failure of the public interest requirement if they are genuine. Therefore it seems reasonable to try to establish if documents are genuine. He has obviously gone too far in this step.
What should he have done to try to ascertain genuineness? My reaction is have a chat to a journalist who would protect their source and see what they will do if the documents are passed on to them. They would probably contact HI saying they are intending to run a story but want to establish whether certain phases do occur in the original documents.
Suppose this happened, HI denied the phrases, and the media involved didn't run the story but you still suspect the documents are genuine. Where then does the public interest argument take you?
Posted by crandles to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 11:22 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:45:19 +0000

From: "D. Robinson" 
Reply-to: "D. Robinson"

D. Robinson has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Hi Carl,
You have to realize that for every conservative think tank like HI, there's a liberal think tank with the same murky 'non-profit' status and agenda based actions. CAP, CBPP whomever.
The ties to the Koch brothers are window dressing. Once you start giving xxx millions to different foundations the money goes all over the place. No doubt Bill gates money ends up in some pretty crappy places to.
Think tanks are going to support causes, studies and scientists who's work backs up their agenda.
James nailed it, we already knew about HI, and Gleick is a complete ass.
Posted by D. Robinson to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 11:44 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:42:09 +0000

From: Alex Harvey 
Reply-to: Alex Harvey

Alex Harvey has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
James, we posted simultaneously. I also have read your response to Chylek a few months ago and found it fairly persuasive. Chylek, though, doesn't completely agree. Anyhow, what needs to be proved is that even one of these scientists is "dishonest" without a silent appeal to gut feeling (or your expert judgement which is also your expert gut feeling).
You don't seem to recognise - I suspect you are desensitised to it in fact - that accusing colleagues of "dishonesty" is a big deal. It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. And yet your only evidence is a demonstration of their bad arguments - bad arguments that were published in peer reviewed journals.
Posted by Alex Harvey to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:41 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:31:29 +0000

From: Alex Harvey 
Reply-to: Alex Harvey

Alex Harvey has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
James, I didn't see the link to your earlier post before. I followed it and even downloaded and read your paper.
Foster, G., J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth (2010), Comment on "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D09110, doi:10.1029/2009JD012960.
I do note that nearly every one of these authors is a well known advocate-scientist (with the possible exceptions of Renwick and Mullan whom I have not heard of).
In reading the paper I note the following citations (in order), Trenberth et al. 2002; Jones 1989; Wigley 2000; Santer et al. 2001; Thompson et al. 2008; IPCC 2007. Ferraz-Mello 1981 is the only author cited without a dog in the global warming fight.
You make no mention of the fact that McLean et al. 2009 was published in a well regarded peer reviewed journal. There is no suggestion I am aware of that anything unorthodox occurred in publication of their paper. Thus, any suggestion that their paper was overtly "dishonest" means three reviewers somehow missed this - which would be strange.
You also haven't mentioned that McLean et al. were subsequently denied their right of reply by a replacement editor at JGR.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf
So the claim that McLean et al. acted "dishonestly" is not supported. It is quite possible and by Occam's Razor much more likely that they were simply mistaken (assuming your paper is correct).
This is certainly not evidence of dishonesty. Why would you make out that this is evidence of "dishonesty"? And the press release simply shows that McLean et al. too are advocate-scientists - recall the overhyping of Mann et al. 1998 that didn't help anyone.
In summary, two groups of advocate-scientists appear to bitterly disagree. It may well be that one group also did some bad science.
This is not support in any way for your sweeping claim about ethics - well that I can see.
Posted by Alex Harvey to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:30 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:50:09 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
"rumour and gut feeling"? No, you are quite wrong here - I've looked into a number of the "sceptic" papers and found them shabby in the extreme. Chylek (here) played a ridiculous trick of cherry-picking single data points from an obviously noisy time series, contrary to all established norms in the field. Needless to say, his results fell apart as soon as any other data points were used.
I would certainly not claim that all of the desperately poor papers that the sceptics produce are dishonest, some are likely merely misguided.
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 9:49 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:07:56 +0000

From: Alex Harvey 
Reply-to: Alex Harvey

Alex Harvey has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
James, how do you know that in the case of "many of the skeptics" that the science is not "honest"? I am not going to defend Bob Carter because I don't consider him to be an original or influential thinker. But it makes no difference because you say "many of the skeptics". I challenge you to admit that this sweeping assertion is based on nothing other rumour and gut feeling.
Posted by Alex Harvey to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:06 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Newbies.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:57:17 +0000

From: SteveF 
Reply-to: SteveF

SteveF has left a new comment on your post "Newbies":
"To be honest, I have my doubts whether Tamsin's apparent effort to engage with skeptics is likely to be productive"
Likewise, though I wish her the best. Must admit that I'm rather skeptical about this:
"About to meet Andrew Montford of The Hockey Stick Illusion, host of Bishop Hill - he's come to the Met Office for discussions."
https://twitter.com/#!/flimsin/status/172267663232483328
Posted by SteveF to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 7:56 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:25:21 +0000

From: Martin Vermeer 
Reply-to: Martin Vermeer

Martin Vermeer has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
> who ever wrote it had access to the
> other documents.
Yep, very true. But steven, if Gleick had, contrary to what he claims, received the whole package in the mail, then he wouldn't have needed to pull his trick to get electronic versions... he could have just forwarded the package to deSmogBlog who would have known what to do with it.
I do think Gleick is telling the truth now. He has a lawyer and a PR professional who both would make sure to inform him on the unwisdom of being less than truthful at this point.
Posted by Martin Vermeer to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 6:24 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:24:55 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
steven well put ... and the memo doesn't look anything like what it purports to be: No letterhead, no identification of the origin of the document, etc etc etc.
It takes an amazing suspension of disbelief to this document is not a fake or that Gleick if he really received it anonymously wouldn't have immediately recognized it as a fake.
Either suspension of disbelief or plain old wishful thinking. One of those two.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 2:24 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:21:49 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Carl C, that is a load of bull-crap and you know it.
Advocacy groups are as much a part of the democratic movement as any other element. Heartland gets $400k, the IPCC gets $6 million, US climate science over $2 billion. And you complain they get so much? Sounds more like you complain they get a word in at all.
Then there's this:
"Gleick has done enormous damage to his cause and his own reputation, and it's no good to say that people shouldn't be focusing on it. If his judgement is this bad, how is his judgement on matters of science? For that matter, what about the judgement of all the others in the movement who apparently see nothing worth dwelling on in his actions?"
Are "climate advocate" and "creepy sociopath" synonyms now? Steven Bloom is correct there is a gap between the advocates and the scientists. The scientists are ... sane.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 2:20 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:52:14 +0000

From: steven 
Reply-to: steven

steven has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
He wrote it or somebody very familar with his style and zipfs law.
who ever wrote it had access to the other documents. Comes the question: why only send Gleick the worst piece of evidence. unsigned and undated. In fact, taken at face value the memo was more secret than the board papers. So, why if you have access to all those papers, do you only send the worst.
Posted by steven to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 1:50 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:10:25 +0000

From: "David B. Benson" 
Reply-to: "David B. Benson"

David B. Benson has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
http://nghoussoub.com/2012/02/09/reed-elsevier-stock-price-is-dropping-but/
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/SPRGn.DE/key-developments
Alex Springer originally stated the company named after him in order to assist mathematicians in disseminating their work. The prices for books and journals used to be quite reasonable.
Posted by David B. Benson to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 1:09 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:54:43 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
but Carrick, groups like Heartland et al aren't democracy, well only in the spurious US version of "democracy" i.e. the Citizens United ruling whereby groups like Heartland et al can buy candidates as "freedom of speech." So yes, in the face of Daddy Warbucks (Koch bros et al), it is justifiable for the "little guy" to expose these frauds by any means necessary. After all, we don't have the wads of cash to buy elections which is now "legit" thanks to the absurd Citizen's United ruling. I can see how Gleick, as a scientist, overstepped the lines, but I wouldn't mind a Wikileaks et al exposing these scumbags. It's not freedom of speech when the other guys can just pay for silence or information, and the rest of us can't.
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 12:53 PM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 03:03:28 +0000

From: jules 
Reply-to: jules

jules has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
>Jules - what the heck is a free-range corn kernel? Did the corn stalk get off the farm and range in the wild?
Judging from the way they jump happily around in the pan I think that is virtually certain.
birdbrainscan: yes maple syrup (genuine) is available in Kamakura. I don't understand why Americans like to wreck nice food (like apples and coffee and french toast) with cinammon, but Nigella's orange french toast is my favourite.
After James got subjected to holidays in the US over the last few years, he wanted a waffle maker. Having tried the Japanese ones and found they were not hot enough we floundered for a while, even considering buying one on the US base in Yokosuka. We eventually happened upon an import in one of the posh department stores in Yokohama. So we have great waffles too!
Posted by jules to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:04 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:40:05 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
The AGU weighs in:

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:36:58 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
For Alex - but "Heartland Institute" (and "American Enterprise Institute" et al ad nauseum) pose themselves as Pielke-ish "honest brokers" even though we all know that's bullshit. Hence when something like this is so glaringly exposed - it's a hell of a lot worse than "climategate" where all that came out of it is some climate scientists can be dicks in emails (rather than just on blogs ;-). Damn now even using their word "climategate" shows how these jerks skew everything to the right, like when they call things "pro-life" (which means "praise the lord & pass the ammunition") etc....
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:40 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:27:26 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Carl C: "I consider right-wing think tanks to be terrorist groups working to bring down freedom & democracy. Hence any dirt that can be gained on them whether via Wikileaks or other means, is justifiable."
Carl seems to have a very different notion that I do of what a democracy is.
His version for example does not allow for dissenting viewpoints from his own, however well founded or otherwise (and in his non-democratic democracy who decides when a criticism is well-founded?).
Also note the nice "the ends justifies the means" philosophy strewn in there too.
Classic.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 11:25 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:16:00 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
Carl, I think Elsevier just makes a fat profit for its owners.
I see that one of my colleagues here has signed up to the boycott. I do, however, have a soft spot for Ocean Modelling where my most cited paper was published, also it was started by Peter Killworth who seemed to be a great guy (not that I knew him well).
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 11:14 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 02:14:17 +0000

From: Alex Harvey 
Reply-to: Alex Harvey

Alex Harvey has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
Hank Roberts - you tell me. No one can say that Kevin Trenberth, for instance, is not simultaneously an advocate-scientist. Or perhaps more relevant is the late Stephen H. Schneider who lamented the "double ethical bind" of the advocate-scientist. It appears to me that you wouldn't therefore want to assert that advocacy in general when mixed with science is unethical (and I tend to agree; it's not unethical, it's just problematic if you want your research to be taken seriously).
On the other hand, I suspect what you really want to say is that advocacy mixed with science is fine so long as it is advocacy for action on climate change. If you disagree, then you want to say it is unethical.
Obviously, this appears to be hypocritical.
Posted by Alex Harvey to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:19 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:58:28 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Carl (and others), sure, if it was a journalist, I would probably be enjoying it more. But Gleick is supposed to be a scientist (with a particular bee in his bonnet about ethics!) and above such things. It seems that Gavin has much the same opinion here. Consider what the response would be if Scientist A were to to obtain (and publish) private documents from a rival Scientist B obtained in a similar manner.
I'd also be more inclined to fogive him if there really was a compelling public interest. But all the docs really do is confirm that HI is as sleazy as we all knew it was already.
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:49 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:55:07 +0000

From: James Annan 
Reply-to: James Annan

James Annan has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
Alex, I'd say it is ok so long as the science is honest. Which in the case of many of the sceptics, simply is not the case. Talking of HI fundees, Bob Carter was a co-author on the nonsense (which, bad as it was, was then crassly misrepresented to the press) that we ripped apart not so long ago.
Posted by James Annan to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 10:54 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:54:06 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
I consider right-wing think tanks to be terrorist groups working to bring down freedom & democracy. Hence any dirt that can be gained on them whether via Wikileaks or other means, is justifiable. To see the crocodile-tears over this versus the gloating & apologism for stealing UEA emails is just extra icing on the czke (or gourmet caramel popcorn). I mean, would you similarly cry about the Pentagon papers and call Daniel Ellsberg a twat? I mean one act of truth & defiance in the face of thousands of acts of corruption, murder, etc?
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:53 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:46:28 +0000

From: Carl C 
Reply-to: Carl C

Carl C has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
Is there a breakdown where all the cash goes in academic publishing, or is that the big secret? I mean does it provide jobs for the publishing staff, or is some Rupert Murdoch raking in all the profits, and a few executives going on junkets etc?
The situation reminds me of another life when I was going to be a professional musician back in the 80's -- in Los Angeles all the bands would actually pay to play in a bunch of clubs where record company agents were known to frequent and sign up the next "Motley Crue" or "Poison" or "Night Ranger" etc. But that was an odd "market" that only lasted a few years -- academic publishing has been doing this scam for decades (I guess due to it's monopolistic...errr...nature)....
Posted by Carl C to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:45 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:37:20 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
I think the only thing they were threatening to sue over was to represent the (to me anyway) obviously fake memo as a legitimate document from their organization. Better get it straight or there will be lawsuits afoot, or maybe just ninjas since it's Japan.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:30 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:17:13 +0000

From: manuel moe g 
Reply-to: manuel moe g

manuel moe g has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
I hope Heartland donations rise too. I think they are doing a rip-roaring job, especially of late, I am giddy about their recent "public relation" efforts in getting so much free coverage, and I want them to be a sponge soaking up Koch Bros cash. And I want them to relax with a Cool Menthol.
Posted by manuel moe g to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 8:17 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:54:04 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
I think this was the citation Belette was trying for
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 7:53 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:51:00 +0000

From: Carrick 
Reply-to: Carrick

Carrick has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
James Annan: "On reflection, it does seem a bit ridiculous to think he would have forged it. "
That seem to me to be a bit like wishful thinking . I find this to be a rather sad and simultaneously pathetic happening, of the "psychological meltdown" variety. Nothing pretty about it, nothing to laugh about, and certainly nothing heroic to cheer for, IMO.
As for the people claiming this kerfuffle hurt HI...you guys really are fooling yourself there. I'd bet if anything, it's been a major fund raising boon, it plays into the persecution complex of that crowd, and especially so after Gleick came out.
Posted by Carrick to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 7:50 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:44:19 +0000

From: ICE 
Reply-to: ICE

ICE has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
Not that Elsevier is necessarily the worst, but there has been a number of issues with them...
- arms trade:
http://www.idiolect.org.uk/elsevier/
- fake journals:
http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/
- and of course lately, the Research Works Act thing...e.g.:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=807
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=846
Apparently Springer and Wiley are distancing themselves from the RWA.
I recently published and reviewed for Agriculture & Forest Meterorology, but will refrain from doing so from now on.
I guess its easier for us in the climate science community given the stronger weight of AGU, AMS, EGU etc journals.
Posted by ICE to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 6:43 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:28:58 +0000

From: birdbrainscan 
Reply-to: birdbrainscan

birdbrainscan has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
Seeing as you can get butter, sugar, milk, eggs, and I'll assume probably cinnamon as well, I'm wondering if anyone in Japan ever makes french toast? Would you have to top it with jam/fresh fruit, or is there any way to get maple syrup there? Inquiring minds and all that...
Posted by birdbrainscan to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 6:27 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:46:14 +0000

From: Robert 
Reply-to: Robert

Robert has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
James - I think that you and Gavin have had, what in my opinion, is the correct response. Regardless of what one may think of the Heartland Institute, there is no rationalization of Gleick's actions and he has done a disservice to the climate science community.
Jules - what the heck is a free-range corn kernel? Did the corn stalk get off the farm and range in the wild?
Posted by Robert to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 5:39 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Yawn.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:52:43 +0000

From: Hank Roberts 
Reply-to: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts has left a new comment on your post "Yawn":
> is advocacy in and of itself immoral?
Is "advocacy science" immoral?
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html
Posted by Hank Roberts to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 12:58 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Is for-profit publishing dead?.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:35:47 +0000

From: Paul S 
Reply-to: Paul S

Paul S has left a new comment on your post "Is for-profit publishing dead?":
I let my Nature subscription expire in early December last year. I've received every copy since then.
Fight the power!
Posted by Paul S to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 2:10 AM

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:30:06 +0000

From: Hank Roberts 
Reply-to: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
The pretext worked and Glieck fooled someone there -- twice -- into sending out their documents.
How common is this?
Quite.
Is it legal?
Mostly.
Is it ethical?
Look up your organization's rules.
http://ebyline.biz/2011/12/what-a-private-investigator-can-teach-you-about-interviewing/
"... Here are a few of the tools and techniques I learned on the job (and which might be helpful to journalists interviewing subjects):
PRETEXT
This is the word PIs use to pretend to be someone else in order to gather information ....
The keys to a successful pretext .... Typically, there are alternative pretexts that will elicit the required information.
While researching a news story, you may or may not be permitted to use pretext to gather information. Straight up, it

[James' Empty Blog] New comment on Well this is fun.

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:46:24 +0000

From: bigcitylib 
Reply-to: bigcitylib

bigcitylib has left a new comment on your post "Well this is fun":
And yet the HI may have been damaged financially and in the eyes of the public. Maybe worse if someone starts looking into their taxes.
Posted by bigcitylib to James' Empty Blog at 22/2/12 12:20 AM