I have changed my mind

Clippo · 15-12-2007, 05:26 PM

Firstly,
I do not tell lies! – not here or anywhere else.

I had no prior knowledge, from John Cooper, or Besoeker or anyone who mpkdavies thinks is party to the absurd fictional plot to expose his data analysis shortcomings, about the spoof scientific paper.

I repeat what I said earlier – I was disappointed that John Cooper, by the title of this thread, seemed to sinking into the ‘sceptic’ tank. I actually spent approx .10 mins searching the internet for references to the Journal of Climatic (sic) Studies and the supposed authors and for ‘benthic eubacteria’. Having found no tie-ups, I then looked carefully at the paper and when I saw the perfect coincidence of the 2 variables on the graphs (I didn’t need to see what they were – in natural systems the fit is never perfect), I twigged that this was the same spoof paper that I had read about in one of the many pro-AGW blogs I visit regularly.
At that realisation, It did not occur to me to perpetuate the hoax because a) I had no reason to think John Cooper was doing it deliberately, b) I was genuinely concerned about his apparent change of heart and c) with Besoeker I had seen his pointed comments and suspected he was also beginning to suspect the scientific validity of the paper.Finally, d) I was conscious that I was alerting mpkdavies as well – he makes such a fool of himself anyway that I didn’t want to heap further humiliation up him.

Quite simply, mpkdavies, your shallow attention to detail has finally shown you up. Your paranoid conspiratoriosis, now extended to individual members of this forum really exposes what absurd notions you have about GW or AGW.

In my opinion, you have no credibility or even honesty by not admitting your mistake. Just trying to whine your way out of it reflects badly upon you even more.

As for the ‘morality’ of this spoof paper I don’t really agree with it. I feel the pro-AGW cause has complete and overwhelming scientific evidence to support its’ case – in contrast to the anti-AGW cause.

mkpdavies · 15-12-2007, 05:30 PM

What mistake? I made none. I didn't read it, end of story. I admit I should have realised John Cooper wasn't sincere, going on past posts, but I didn't read the link as I didn't have time to do it right then. I should thank you for saving me the bother, but it pains me to thank a fascist.

Besoeker · 15-12-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

The psychology behind all this is interesting though isn't it? Why would AGW proponents - if they were so sure of their data - deliberately release a scam paper to show up the sceptic camp?

A bit of fun perhaps?
Surely the data was so obviously fabricated that it couldn't have fooled anyone who took more than a cursory glance at it?

Roland · 15-12-2007, 06:27 PM

Cllipo

If a well respected scientist proved beyond all reasonable shadow of a doubt that global warming was not man made do you think they'd say 'sorry about all that tell you what we'll reduce taxes on petrol'. Do you think the IPCC would say 'sorry about that we'll close are self down right now and stop living our glamerous well paid lives where we get to 'jet' around the world and stay in 5 star hotels at the exspence of the tax payer and get jobs down tesco's'.

Or would they do every thing in their power possible to discredit the scientist.

I think this was meant for kids but but change the skid marks to co2 and the doctor to Algore.

YouTube - Skidmarks Disease in the Town of...

C_steam · 15-12-2007, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

A bit of fun perhaps?
Surely the data was so obviously fabricated that it couldn't have fooled anyone who took more than a cursory glance at it?

I thought that this AGW stuff was dreadfully important and that the fate of the known world rests upon it.

I'm glad to see that they have time to have a 'bit of fun'. Perhaps next we can have some spoof tax rises or a bit of humorous heretic burning. What a jolly jape.

Besoeker · 15-12-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

I thought that this AGW stuff was dreadfully important and that the fate of the known world rests upon it.

I'm glad to see that they have time to have a 'bit of fun'. Perhaps next we can have some spoof tax rises or a bit of humorous heretic burning. What a jolly jape.

I don't know who "they" are who produced the spoof article nor why they did. One suggestion I read was that it might have been George Monbiot - amusing perhaps.

My point was that it isn't credible enough to be taken seriously. I'd put it on a par with the caricatures in "Spitting Image". Everyone who watched it knew it was a send up.

Clippo · 15-12-2007, 08:18 PM

Besoeker wrote (in reply to C_Steam):-

Quote:

I don't know who "they" are who produced the spoof article nor why they did.

Well, I've tracked 'them' down and 'he' comes from Wales :-(don't you just hate those lusty gangs of sinewy young men roaming the valleys and singing in close harmony & who cover you with spittle when they speak - adapted from Blackadder):-

The Low Carbon Kid: That Geoclimatic Studies hoax - and what it was about

PS mpkdavies is Welsh isn't he?

PolishUser · 15-12-2007, 08:27 PM

Proof that Harvard is not the best but the worst university in the world: Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com . . .
The KP wasn't 'a limited success'. It was a failure. Whether one agrees or not that AGW is happening right now (I don't), the KP was a failure. By 2012, when the KP expires, the yearly global CO2 emission will be bigger than the yearly global CO2 emission 17 years ago. The reasons:
1) Socialist Soviet-style emission reduction objectives
2) The KP relies on only a few rich countries
Today, the Bali conference ended. What lessons have the conferees learned? None.

Besoeker · 15-12-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Besoeker wrote (in reply to C_Steam):-

Well, I've tracked 'them' down and 'he' comes from Wales :-(don't you just hate those lusty gangs of sinewy young men roaming the valleys and singing in close harmony & who cover you with spittle when they speak - adapted from Blackadder):-

The Low Carbon Kid: That Geoclimatic Studies hoax - and what it was about

PS mpkdavies is Welsh isn't he?

Sounds like a Welsh name but I seem to recall that he lives somewhere in the home counties. Possibly Woking.

Now George Monbiot moved to Wales this year. He could be the "Moonbat" behind this.

Speculation, I know.

mkpdavies · 15-12-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

PS mpkdavies is Welsh isn't he?

British 1st. Then English, then Welsh, then Canadian.

BTW XFactor is a laugh tonight. They are playing the England vs Scotland Vs Wales card.

Personally I think the Welsh bloke is best, but I like Same difference (English). I won't be voting for any of them, but I suspect England will win, seein as that is how Cowell is manipulating it to happen.

15-12-2007, 05:30 PM	#42 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,053 Party: Libertarian Party	What mistake? I made none. I didn't read it, end of story. I admit I should have realised John Cooper wasn't sincere, going on past posts, but I didn't read the link as I didn't have time to do it right then. I should thank you for saving me the bother, but it pains me to thank a fascist. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

15-12-2007, 08:27 PM	#48 (permalink)
PolishUser Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 334	Proof that Harvard is not the best but the worst university in the world: Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... \| Newsweek.com . . . The KP wasn't 'a limited success'. It was a failure. Whether one agrees or not that AGW is happening right now (I don't), the KP was a failure. By 2012, when the KP expires, the yearly global CO2 emission will be bigger than the yearly global CO2 emission 17 years ago. The reasons: 1) Socialist Soviet-style emission reduction objectives 2) The KP relies on only a few rich countries Today, the Bali conference ended. What lessons have the conferees learned? None. __________________ A vote for the Labour Party or the SNP is a vote for the Argentine police state.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-12-2007, 05:26 PM	#41 (permalink)
Clippo Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 2,264	Firstly, I do not tell lies! – not here or anywhere else. I had no prior knowledge, from John Cooper, or Besoeker or anyone who mpkdavies thinks is party to the absurd fictional plot to expose his data analysis shortcomings, about the spoof scientific paper. I repeat what I said earlier – I was disappointed that John Cooper, by the title of this thread, seemed to sinking into the ‘sceptic’ tank. I actually spent approx .10 mins searching the internet for references to the Journal of Climatic (sic) Studies and the supposed authors and for ‘benthic eubacteria’. Having found no tie-ups, I then looked carefully at the paper and when I saw the perfect coincidence of the 2 variables on the graphs (I didn’t need to see what they were – in natural systems the fit is never perfect), I twigged that this was the same spoof paper that I had read about in one of the many pro-AGW blogs I visit regularly. At that realisation, It did not occur to me to perpetuate the hoax because a) I had no reason to think John Cooper was doing it deliberately, b) I was genuinely concerned about his apparent change of heart and c) with Besoeker I had seen his pointed comments and suspected he was also beginning to suspect the scientific validity of the paper.Finally, d) I was conscious that I was alerting mpkdavies as well – he makes such a fool of himself anyway that I didn’t want to heap further humiliation up him. Quite simply, mpkdavies, your shallow attention to detail has finally shown you up. Your paranoid conspiratoriosis, now extended to individual members of this forum really exposes what absurd notions you have about GW or AGW. In my opinion, you have no credibility or even honesty by not admitting your mistake. Just trying to whine your way out of it reflects badly upon you even more. As for the ‘morality’ of this spoof paper I don’t really agree with it. I feel the pro-AGW cause has complete and overwhelming scientific evidence to support its’ case – in contrast to the anti-AGW cause.