Tom Fuller is so attached to the position he is carving out for himself and, apparently, so far beyond the realm of intellectual rigor, that the fact that I went to a significant amount of trouble to introduce him to the outlines of ice sheet science just a few days back, an article to which he issued multiple responses, that not a single word of what I said appears to have been grasped by him.
Instead he has come up with a thoroughly toxic article on the subject which he is spreading from the ecumenical platform of Watts Up, the site that will run anything about climate as long as it isn't true.
My sympathies for Fuller being in over his head have evaporated. If this isn't willful ignorance I don't know what is.
Things Break deconstructs Fuller here.
The point is not only that Fuller is wrong, which he is, and woefully so. The point is that I made an honest effort to communicate. Fuller demonstrably had enough information to write an article based on evidence, as he had read up on the actual evidence here.
It's well known that people will see what they want to see and disregard the rest. It's a shame when someone decides to make doing that their life's work, though. A real, crying shame.
"Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors."
-Jonas Salk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
"If this isn't willful ignorance I don't know what is."
Try something more malicious ...
He's been playing the same game since he first started his examiner.com gig and began showing up at places like deltoid. There's no doubt that he knows exactly what he's doing.
MT writes: I don't mind that Things doesn't refer back to here; we can't all be up on everything.
However, I did indeed link to that post: The “most or all” part is obviously where Fuller gets into trouble. This is a claim that he has made and failed to back up, because a comprehensive look at the primary literature refutes it.
The bold here is a hyperlink in my post.
Cheers!
Leif Svalgaard comments on WUWT
Fuller: It’s risen a couple of meters in the 6,000 years since then. It is now rising at somewhere between 2 and 3 millimeters a year.
Hmmm, lemme see: at a rate of 2.5 mm/year, it would rise 15 meters in 6000 years, so the current rate of rise is 15/2=7.5 times as high as during those 6000 years. This seems a pretty large increase, wouldn’t you say?
Bullseye.
Oh, but what an entertaining thread that is.
Well, if you weren't going to mind him not linking back here, I'm sure he won't mind your having linked to the wrong post. :)
BTW, dhog and I are now quite happy, although still mean.
Fuller: I do not seek to convince you here. What I am trying to do here at WUWT is to fight the same people you are fighting. Allies with different goals at the end of the day–that’s how I perceive you.
At least he is honest about his goal.
Not that this comes as any surprise.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/07/06/it-would-be-nice/#comment-10374
Just waiting for the errors in fact to be pointed out.
But silliness here will prevail, as always.
When you're wrong, you're wrong, Tobis. Even when you say it twice.
bluegrue, do the math for me. How many meters is that by 2100? 2200?
Steve Bloom:
"BTW, dhog and I are now quite happy, although still mean."
High five, dude.
The gracious and generous Michael Tobis tries to communicate with the surly and obstinate Tom Fuller:
"Fuller seems to believe in making up facts to tell a convenient story. I don't think this constitutes helping."
He himself may be irredeemable, but people who think the way he does are exactly the issue.
. Once you say something like "I can't believe Tom Fuller's latest, um, topsy-turvy piece. He really has hid head, um, in the sand, that guy.
Perhaps Fuller doesn't understand that there is no ceiling, no worst case. I would have thought people would not be as foolish as they have been of late.
Tom Fuller is among the people lacking much clue about science, but who is happy to write about it and to try to attract an audience.
Tom Fuller, who has gone about as bonkers as anyone on this innocous publication, shows us just how far around the bend the response to this has been.
Now where the heck does he get that from? OK, kids, be polite. He pulled it out of his, um, hat. Right. Hat.
Tom Fuller, over at Eli's, castigates me for speaking of "bad guys" in the climate change debate. Tom is right on the edge of the category himself...
I think Fuller really thinks he is competent to make judgments on climate science. It's quite absurd; all the other absurdities follow pretty much directly.
The other issues, which are harder, are the smokescreen Fuller puts up to distract from the part where his main point is wrong.
It seems Fuller has quickly moved from being inadvertently wrong to being defensively wrong and willfully ignorant, a choice which I would call unethical.
It's been great sport"
Tom, he's no longer trying to communicate with you.
He's admitting that those who've told him that you're dishonest, rather than an honest dude seeking knowledge, were right.
You really do have a comprehension problem. If you can't understand when someone's saying "f*** you" to your face, it's no surprise you don't understand the literature you so blithely quote, or that sea and land ice are two different critters.
Tom says: Just waiting for the errors in fact to be pointed out.
Which ones? That you got the AR4 SLR wrong? That your initial talk of "level" paleo-SLR has literally no bearing on and is therefore incredibly mendacious to compare to present and future SLR? That non-linear ice sheet decay is not an "alarmist" claim but rather an undeniable potentiality? Your implication that somehow because population peaks and emissions peak, SLR peaks?
Or would you maybe like to go back to the polar bears?
Like I said--Fuller is totally wrong! What facts are wrong? It's his interpretations! And we don't like him!
Byeeee.
Tom: Just waiting for the errors in fact to be pointed out.
Why? What will you do with about those errors once they are pointed out. Will you ignore them - just like you ignore the conclusion of the papers you cite?
Tom: You could balance a glass of water on the last 6,000 years of that graph
The slope of the sea level rise over the last 6000 years in the graph you posted at WUWT is very roughly:
3m/6000 years -> 0.5 mm/yr
What is the current rate of SLR?
What will the rate be over the next 100 years? Are there scientific opinions on this which you could reference?
Could you balance a glass of water on the slope of the SLR as it currently exists or is likely to exist over the next century? Or is that image a figment of rhetorical excess unsupported by scientific evidence?
You keep pointing out that you are not a scientist. That is no excuse for ignoring or misrepresenting the science.
Tom squids: What facts are wrong? It's his interpretations! And we don't like him!
Byeeee.
Is this the "journalist" cop out of "I'm not touching you"? That if you mendaciously mislead your readers, it's not in any way a "lie" or "wrong" because it's really "disagreement about interpretation"?
Seriously?
If it weren't for the John Flecks and Seth Borensteins of the world, I'd swear that the entire profession was insane.
And can I say, for the record, that I truly admire the "informative and accurate be damned, *prove* that I explicitly lied/erred" approach that you're retreating to.
Once upon a time, I thought that was the domain of op-ed "thinkers" who had truly established themselves in the punditocracy, like George Will or Eugene Robinson. It's nice to see that even normal journalists such as yourself can only be shamed by explicit falsehoods rather than a failure to inform.
The "you can't prove I lied about it, so you have no complaint" school of journalism must be terribly proud of you, Tom.
I'm not sure how much of a journalism background Fuller really has. What he's doing now doesn't really qualify, and IIRC he said he previously had some sort of long-term research position with the Guardian while living in Yurp, but that didn't sound precisely like journalism either.
bluegrue, do the math for me.
No Tom, don't weasle out of this one.
If linear extrapolation were all there is to sea level rise 2.5mm/yr are 0.25m (10 inches) by 2100. The briefest of looks at the projections presented by the IPCC for different scenarios tells you, that linear is not what we expect.
Now back to your weasling: you stress how constant the rate of sea level rise has been over the 6000 years, one "could balance a glass of water" on it - but you ignore that the rate of change we already see today is larger than that rate of change.
I've added lines with slopes of 1mm/yr, 2mm/yr and 3mm/yr to the graph. We're starting to rock your glas.
http://i51.tinypic.com/1441b0h.png
Maybe the visual is something you are able to grasp.
No, this is not the 7.5 times Svalgaard came up with, who relied on your guestimate. Shows what nonsense one gets, when one bases any calculation on the smallest shred of evidence Tom supplies.
But nevermind, that's different timescales for the average rate anyway, and you can still claim that the current rate is simply noise. There, Tom, you've got your next denier argument for free and I'm sure you'll hug it and squeeze it and run with it. I'll be interested to see how that meme spreads.
P.S.: I don't fight you, Thomas Fuller. I fight the lies you are spreading.
"the site that will run anything about climate as long as it isn't true" - close, but they did run WE on Curry, and I-forget-who patiently explaing that the CO2 rise was anthro. Maybe those were considered non-threatening.
Well, substituting Fuller for Goddard is actually a step up.
What a relief T.Fuller informs us that the GIS is not going anywhere. I guess we do not need to spend all this time working on the GIS, I could have put some of those summers to better use. I do not need to worry about the acceleration of Rinks, Jakobshavn, Leidy, Helheim, Kangerlussuaq, Tracy, Academy, Alison, Steenstrup, Nansen, Upernavik, Umiamako, Store, Narssap, Kong Christian IV, Zacharaie etc. All that have accelerated. This is not the mechanical change in one glacier. Or the changes due to melt induced thinning on Petermann Glacier. The volume loss on Humboldt Glacier.We can also ignore that we understood this acceleration would come and why in the 1980's, just did not know when RC-Jakobshavn . And volume losses from GIS glaciers And that does not even get to Pine Island Glacier where again the mechanics were understood some thirty years ago and now what was predicted is occurring due to warming at the grounding line. Wait all that evidence says I do need to worry. And that the scientists were correct.
I wrote just a few days ago about an earlier rant in which Tom Fuller claims the existence of a 'global warmist PR machine' based on zero concrete evidence.
What's more, he wants people to concentrate on the so-called 'warmist PR machine' as evidenced from his vague claim that unspecified PR professionals are working on unspecified images to portray unspecified scientific findings for unspecified media outlets, and to ignore the real anti-science PR talking heads out there: Monckton, Watts, the Pielkes, etc.
-- frank
Okay, MT. Do you really want to discuss this?
Your previous post, Fullerminations, as usual started off with insults and ad hominem abou my ignorance of science. Give me one good reason why I should use this forum to discuss what I write elsewhere.
As the discussion developed in your comments, in addition to the 4th grade insults from the idiots that you're so happy to encourage, you twisted what I said, ignored some of the literature I cited, twisted yet other evidence and used that to support your initial conclusions and insults about me.
All to what end? It obviously pleases you greatly to write once or twice a week that you think I am ignorant of the science.
And that really seems to be the only reason these posts exist, apart from giving your acolytes another opportunity to, well, fulminate.
I think you're somewhat of a fraud and a cowardly old crone, at this point. So if you want to discuss, it'll have to be elsewhere. It's bad enough dealing with your b.s. without having to wade through Bloom, dhogaza and the like.
You're sort of dining out on your attacks on me, Tobis. And in the last thread you and your buds acted like jerks.
I've put up with it so far in the hope that I would improve my understanding of both the science and your weird mental attitude.
But you twisted the posts I cited on sea ice. I cited them because of the comments about temperature. And a great howling begins--but I posted on sheet ice right after.
You think I should back up my claim that it is accepted climate theory that snow would accumulate in the interiors of the ice caps. But a quote from one of your own scare sites should have been adequate. Skeptical Science is where you send people, right?
You say the established literature doesn't support my claim about Antarctic ice--but when I cite the IPCC that explicitly states it, you ignore it.
When I cite two reports, Curtis and Wingham, you dismiss Curtis because it doesn't meet your personal definition of coverage and Wingham because you say it's dated. It's from 2003, you jerk.
Cont.
Cont.
I summarize my reservations about the GRACE data you worship. You attempt and fail to address them in anything other than hand-waving mode.
And then you say 'strike three.'
You act like you're running this blog for an audience of dhogaza. You try and act all civilized and stuff when you venture out elsewhere.
And you may convince others that you are a reasonable interlocutor. But I see you in action, and I know you don't.
You can score phony points, Tobis. But you lost me by your treatment of me in this forum.
You earned the black hat you tried to award me some months back, back in the days when you had to remove an entire post because the debate was clearly moving in my direction.
I haven't read the Honest Broker stuff by Pielke yet, so I don't know about his analogies. But if he has a section about intellectually dishonest jerks, I assume you're in it.
Tom:
Just waiting for the errors in fact to be pointed out.
We've been through this road before. And when people have pointed out your numerous errors and specious logic, you've always shifted the goalposts, made stuff up, done the Gish Gallop, played the victim bully and claim ad homs whilst ironically dishing them out yourself.
In particular, I find your previous attempts to say "bye/adios/seeya" on every internet thread in which you've been busted -- and YET return for more trolling -- very tiresome. For a grown man who claims to have served in the Navy, why do you behave like a 2 year old?
The internet is forever, Tom. People can easily catch - and have caught on to - your crap to suss you out.
Dirk, everyone of the links in your comment in fact goes to tired fools spouting the same party line as Tobis. They don't refute anything I say, they just oppose it on philosophical grounds. Lambert compares me to Inhofe. Okay. What in any way shape or form does that refute in anything I have ever written? It's just his opinion of me. It's wrong, but that's apparently irrelevant, as long as you can resurrect it and present it as 'evidence' of my wickedness.
Real Climate doesn't like my publishing of Alan Carlin? What a surprise--can't have people actually practicing journalism. But what does that refute of what I think or believe? They are just expressing an opinion, much the way Tobis does.
Rabett doesn't like what I write? Wotta surprise. But what does he refute? He doesn't even try.
And neither do you.
And I can't even really say byee permanently--I keep getting slimed because my opinions don't rate on the purity meter as defined by Eli Rabett, Tim Lambert and Michael Tobis. So you all just get to lie about me. 'Fuller's been exhaustively refuted!' 'Fuller is anti-science denialist.' 'Fuller is a lying scumbag pimp!' 'Fuller is ignorant of the science.'
Old women gossip.
And I see once again that another comment disappears.
Typical.
bluegrue: If linear extrapolation were all there is to sea level rise 2.5mm/yr are 0.25m (10 inches) by 2100.
If SLR is even 10 inches by 2100, my brother's house will have to be abandoned long before that, due to the risk from even modest storm surges. I'm trying to persuade him to sell out and move inland now, before the public starts taking AGW seriously. The value of my niece's inheritance is at stake. Maybe this will make it real for him.
We must give credit to Tom for not giving up his kerfuffle disinformation campaign. He
obviously does not realize he self-incinerated any credibility he might have once had. As for:
"I haven't read the Honest Broker stuff by Pielke yet, so I don't know about his analogies. But if he has a section about intellectually dishonest jerks, I assume you're in it."
By invoking the J-word you assign that appellation to yourself. Nice going. This type of behavior was predicted earlier by dhogaza, who said...
"Try something more malicious ..."
Which you then did. And other malicious contributions by you include:
"Old women gossip."
"Dirk, everyone of the links in your comment in fact goes to tired fools spouting the same party line as Tobis. They don't refute anything I say, they just oppose it on philosophical grounds."
Actually, you've been refuted (based on science and logic) on every claim you've made on this blog. You just refuse to acknowledge it & continue to tantrum away. When called on such behavior, your excuse:
"...can't have people actually practicing journalism."
By continuing down this path of perdition you prove to lack journalistic integrity.
You have reduced yourself to mudslinging Zombie-troll status. The self-immolation continues.
Sad.
The Yooper
Tom Fuller:
Again, again, and again, you make all sorts of accusations of wrongdoing by climate scientists and climate bloggers, you keep insinuating that there's some super-powerful PR machine hidden in the depths of goodness-knows-where that's turning scientific data into 'warmist PR propaganda', yet each and every time you substantiate your accusations with zero concrete, verifiable facts.
This can't be overemphasized, so I'll emphasize it again: Tom Fuller repeatedly makes broad, sweeping accusations against climate scientists and climate bloggers of wrongdoing without referring to a single concrete, verifiable fact.
Heck, I'll emphasize it with even more emphasis:
Tom Fuller repeatedly makes broad, sweeping accusations against climate scientists and climate bloggers of wrongdoing...
...without referring to a single concrete, verifiable fact.
Lurkers: Don't take my word for it. Look through Fuller's comments yourself. How many times did Fuller make broad, sweeping accusations and insinuations against climate scientists and climate bloggers? How many times did Fuller even try to substantiate these insinuations with concrete verifiable facts?
Tom Fuller: Yes, this is the real problem we have with your writings. We don't like you, because you don't like concrete facts. You like baseless insinuations, you like sweeping accusations, but you don't like concrete facts. And that's your problem, not ours.
You very conveniently ignore the subsequent discussion at Deltoid and at RC that refute your replies there (and here). Try again.
I notice you also did not point out how you were repeatedly busted in S&R, at Arthur's, as well as in the other Fullergate threads here. Whoopdedoo.
Thank you for proving me right on every count, Tom.
Lastly, let it be explicitly known (again) that Tom Fuller -- the author of the shoddy CRUhack book that financially exploited a criminal act -- said this before the book was published:
"I actually don't believe men of honour publish correspondence without permission. Nor do I believe men of honour would select portions of the email that don't correspond to the entire message."
This is, and forever will be, your internet epitaph.
Adios Tom. And unlike you, I mean it.
Dirk, you can add me debunking false claims by Tom Fuller over at Bart Verheggen's blog, e.g. here:
Note Tom's "defense" following right after that...
here's the link
(sorry Michael, I suck at these things...)
Tom Fuller - congratulations; you've found a home, a place where you have a ready set of defenders.
Sorry, I've been preoccupied this morning. Tom always seems to blame me if he falls into my spam filter or such.
I really don't want this site to be about Fuller. So he has a point, I probably shouldn't mention him at all.
But he is part of the problem. And it's a big problem. I'll check the spam box now.
Alright, I approved everything that wasn't obviously spam. I don't see anything from Tom but he seems to think I spend my time deciding which of his articles to leave out to make him look bad, as if he needed my help.
I never removed an entire post. I moved it off the front page, though. Not because Fuller was "winning" but because I wanted to rething how harsh I was being toward him.
Tom, I already know that you can't distinguish between science and noise, so that makes your "middle-of-the-road" position pretty damned noisy.
If you want to get a person strung up for murder, you accuse him of two murders and let the middle of the roaders split the difference. The trouble is, the innocent fellow still gets hung.
The requirement for someone writing responsibly about science in the presence of politics to not be irresponsible is to understand who the actual scientists are and who the bullshit artists are. That isn't easy, because the bullshit artists are talented, and these days some of them are well-paid for their services.
Tom fails this, and I've already written him off as part of the problem, and a not very important part.
I'm just a bit peeved that after having spent three hours trying to explain what the science actually says just a few days ago, in an article which he obviously read, he can turn around and issue a summary that is so obviously screwed up and misleading, without showing any signs of having put any effort into reading what I took some pains to write ON HIS PERSONAL BEHALF.
So it becomes believe to suggest that he is even trying to understand what is actually going on. He has become so enamored of his theories as to shut out contrary evidence. This, of course, is exactly and precisely crackpottery.
So I still suspect Tom is sincere, but that he's become a crackpot. It's beyond his abilities to even entertain the hypothesis that we might be trying to explain the actual state of play in the field. So now he has come up with a world in which I am obsessed with him and using his fame to increment mine.
If that were true I wouldn't be so eager to put an end to Fuller threads, would I?
Fine Tobis. You've written me off. If you quit sliming me, you won't see me here any more.
Because I've written you off, too. I had hoped I could learn from what you have to contribute. I was mistaken. You have drunken the Koolaid, as I should have realized from your pathetic defence of Schneider's last pathetic paper on PNAS.
So you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. That's fine with me.
You don't want your post to be about Fuller? Quit writing about Fuller. Seems simple enough.
Tom, that is exactly the point, you made no effort to listen to me at all.
I tried very hard to write an article that explained a particular piece of the situation on which you seemed confused. You nitpicked at it a bot over here, and then went over to Watts and wrote an article as if you hadn't even heard a word I said.
So you've become one of the people who doesn't care about what serious professionals actually actually think. Hence you have become part of exactly the problem you decry.
Your theory that "the middle" is always right is no more justified than others' that "the right" is always right.
Nobody is infallible, but the people who think about an issue all the time for decades are the ones to put your money on. At the very least, ignoring them makes what you are doing harmful. As it happens, potentially extremely harmful.
I still can't find it in me to believe that is your intent. So I implore you to reconsider your ways.
In the present case, I tried to help. I actually expended some effort trying to *help* *you* *understand* something you expressed an interest in. You might want to consider how your response appears to me given that.
Yeah, well I already showed above how you 'attempt to communicate' to 'help me understand.' By insulting me, sliming me and calling me an idiot.
You hand wave pathetically when I summarize reasonable and intelligent questions regarding GRACE. And you fanatically defend Schneider's PNAS travesty, despite the fact that I am a subject matter expert in the research methodology they abused.
But you want me to take you seriously about ice dynamics?
Life just doesn't work that way. You burned yourself as a credible source by your treatment of me and your failure to take on board real comments.
Tom, I still have yet to purge a comment from you or delay it for reasons other than being away from the network while moderation is on.
As for your expertise on opinion elicitation, I suppose most readers won't remember your push poll, but I sure do.
I didn't fanatically defend the PNAS piece, I said it was a dataset of opportunity. The important information is that the credentials of the most credentialed naysayers were not as good as the credentials of the most credentialed supporters of the consensus.
The main objection raised to that was that the most credentialed of the naysayers wanted to be removed from the naysayers list.
Plus there was some nonsense about it being some sort of a thinkly veiled threat to collate publicly declared positions, a particularly pernicious and absurd complaint for which Fuller was among the most vehement advocates.
Tom, you have one demonstrated skill; you can pull together a convicing, readable column. I think you and I are comparable on that score, though perhaps you are more consistent. I, however, am operating under the constraint that I refuse to jump to convenient conclusions to tell a neat story.
I haven't seen any sphere of expertise on your part that I need to defer to. The place you chose in particular to stake your claim doesn't impress me.
Well, MT, the difference between us is that I admit that I am not a scientist. You refuse to admit that you are not a social research expert. I do not claim to be able to contradict studies of ice dynamics. You claim to be able to contradict informed criticism of a flawed study.
When I criticize the use of science for pr or propaganda purposes, especially when it's 'young' and needs more work (Hockey Stick, GRACE, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,) you think I am criticizing science. In fact I am hoping for a return to normal scientific practice--as far as I understand it, admittedly not being a scientist.
When you defend malarkey such as Schneider et al, you think you are defending science.
I know without a doubt that the study is junk. When you defend junk, what do you think it does to your credibility on other subjects?
Your garbled recapitulation of it in your previous comment is obviously meant for the home crowd, not for me.
Because I know it's junk. I know you didn't respond substantively to my questions about GRACE. I know you slime me, insult me and bait me, both here and at other websites.
So please don't be offended if I don't take you seriously. And I don't.
Caught you this time, MT. The comment went up and then disappeared. 'I have never...' Yeah. Right.
MT:
You say you "suspect Tom is sincere". But so what? In exactly what way does that impact on how you engage him, and why?
To belabour the point for the umpteenth time: Tom Fuller repeatedly makes broad, sweeping accusations against climate scientists and climate bloggers of wrongdoing without referring to a single concrete, verifiable fact.
All we need to do is point this out, again and again, and again, and again, and again. Drive this point home.
Responding to his baseless 'points' as if they're worth responding to individually only serves to strengthen the false impression that there's a legitimate debate, and it takes time and energy away from the real task at hand: finding ways to improve the current communication infrastructure to better communicate climate science to those who can be reached by facts and logic.
-- frank
Tom Fuller:
"Caught you this time, MT."
What exactly do you mean by "caught"? Where's your evidence? Put up or shut up.
Or is this just another of your usual unsubstantiated insinuations?
-- frank
At least now will you admit that you disappeared my comment? It went up. I saw it. It disappeared. What'd you do with it, Tobis?
Tom: Caught you this time, MT. The comment went up and then disappeared.
Tom, take a deep breath. Hold it ... 1 ... 2 ... 3. Now let it out.
When you first post a comment, it will always show up in the list of comments ... for *you* ... even if it is sitting in the spam queue waiting for approval.
This happened to me last night with the post at September 10, 2010 9:55 PM. The same basic thing happens at WUWT, except that you post is sitting in the moderation queue instead of a spam queue.
Why was my post tagged as spam? I have no idea. But I doubt that it is some nefarious plot by mt to suppress my comments. Why are some of yours? AGW-nwo-oneworldgovt-ipcc-propagandist plots I assume.
And yeah, it sucks when comments get hung up and sometimes never see the light of day. Happens to me on stoat now and then as well. But I doubt that its a plot to personally suppress your comments.
Now, would you care to comment on your misrepresentation of climate science, the scientist who work in that field, or the institutions which support them?
Or is the only thing you are willing to say for certain is that the climate changes and anyone else who believes that more could be said, that more is known, is part of an agenda-driven propaganda machine whose ultimate goal is to control the world economy?
Look Tom, my previous post, made but 3-5 minutes ago was there and has vanished! I described this phenomena in that post. Let's see if it shows up.
Blogger seems totally hosed again today. I am sick of it and will be self-hosting on wordpress soon.
Tom's idea that I am doing something specifically to him remains just another of his ideas that are wrong.
Ron, your missing post shows up for me as "removed by the author". Did you want it posted?
mt - I did not deliberately hit any delete option. So something wonky is going on. I do use to refresh pages on occasion. I can't believe that would cause a delete request.
So short answer is show them all, I don't think and certainly didn't intend to delete any.
Re: Ron Broberg
"mt - I did not deliberately hit any delete option. So something wonky is going on. I do use to refresh pages on occasion. I can't believe that would cause a delete request."
I preview my comments on Skeptical Science first, as formatting errors are quickly self-evident.
As Michael says, Blogger gets wonky sometimes. I also have had comments disappear into the ether. Since I have the comment previewed in the other application it then becomes an exercise in repeating the comment here.
Sucks, yes. Repetitive, yes. But I don't ascribe to malevolence what is better blamed on wonky code. But that's just me. No agenda, no conspiracies.
Except that Blogger won't accept the 'blockquote' tag. That's obviously a right-wingnut, conservative-Christian based, Big-Oil-funded, world-domination-bent, cabal-oriented conspiracy. ;)
The Yooper
Ron's wrongfully deleted item:
===
Tom: Caught you this time, MT. The comment went up and then disappeared.
Tom, take a deep breath. Hold it ... 1 ... 2 ... 3. Now let it out.
When you first post a comment, it will always show up in the list of comments ... for *you* ... even if it is sitting in the spam queue waiting for approval.
This happened to me last night with the post at September 10, 2010 9:55 PM. The same basic thing happens at WUWT, except that you post is sitting in the moderation queue instead of a spam queue.
Why was my post tagged as spam? I have no idea. But I doubt that it is some nefarious plot by mt to suppress my comments. Why are some of yours? AGW-nwo-oneworldgovt-ipcc-propagandist plots I assume.
And yeah, it sucks when comments get hung up and sometimes never see the light of day. Happens to me on stoat now and then as well. But I doubt that its a plot to personally suppress your comments.
Now, would you care to comment on your misrepresentation of climate science, the scientist who work in that field, or the institutions which support them?
Or is the only thing you are willing to say for certain is that the climate changes and anyone else who believes that more could be said, that more is known, is part of an agenda-driven propaganda machine whose ultimate goal is to control the world economy?
My comment was eaten today.
Not that Tom Fuller would have heeded the advice anyway.
I don't think Fuller is malicious; I think he believes he's both brilliant and persecuted. The fact that he's neither simply increases the suspicion.
I have to say the last 10 years reading about evolution and climate science denial has been an incredible lesson in psychology.
"...I am a subject matter expert in the research methodology they abused. " - Tom F
Hmmmm.
I'm pretty sure it was Fuller making this same claim over at RC a few weeks ago......at the same time as he was making a clown out of himself by misunderstanding what a research subject is.
I call BS on Tom.
"It's bad enough dealing with your b.s. without having to wade through Bloom, dhogaza and the like"
That's short for "now that MT has lost his patience with me I can focus on his ad hominems and ignore the facts that others are still throwing at me, the fools."
In a way I admire TF. He manages to keep sounding eminently reasonable (except when he is complaining about moderation), so to the first order of approximation he wins the debate. Of course if you actually check his statements for content.....
V.
Once the book with Mosher came out, that should have ended his "fair and balanced" cover. Mosher studied literature and works in product development and marketing (both as opposed to science)- what did he even need a co-conspirator for?
Marion, a good question. My guess is that Mosher came up with the spin in conversation and Fuller credulously ground out the text.
Of course, I have to admit that I have no interest in reading the book unless someone gives me a copy. There are books I will not reward with a buck in royalties, and any book which uses the viciously prejudgmental and propagandistic word "climategate" without expressing the appropriate distaste for it is unambiguously in that category.
So I am just guessing until someone provides a copy as a gift. (This would be the same sort of gift my cat leaves me, but never mind that.
Medical doctors: We are very concerned that your poor diet and lack of exercise, along with smoking is very likely going to result in long-term adverse health effects and perhaps even premature death.
Patient: What am I to do?
Doctors: Change the way you live. Eat better, exercise more, and stop smoking. Some damage has already been done but if you start changing your lifestyle now, you will likely live much longer than you would have otherwise.
Patient: How sure are you of this?
Doctors: Of course, no professional can be 100% certain of anything, and there are a few examples of people like you who have lived to 100, but history shows us that the vast majority of people in your category die young and pay a lot of medical expenses along the way. The overwhelming body of research also convinces us that you are slowly killing yourself and a change in lifestyle is your only practical solution if you wish to live longer.
Patient: I trust you because you are the experts.
Fuller: Don’t be so sure. I am tired of these alarming diagnoses time after time. Why don’t these doctors just stick to the research and stop telling these poor people that they are all going to die. Although I am no medical expert and have no training in the field, I have read hundreds of medical papers and I think you are doing better than you think and there is no way you will die early. I suggest just easing up a bit but not stopping cold turkey. I believe that the health food, exercise equipment, and chewing gum lobbies are putting pressure on these doctors to get you to start eating your veggies, buy expensive equipment, and packs of gum. Do not be tricked by these wolf criers.
Patient: Now I am confused. On the one hand, all of these experts are telling me one thing while this prolific blogger who writes well is telling me another story. I guess I should wait a little longer before I make my decision.
"ell, MT, the difference between us is that I admit that I am not a scientist."
Yeah, we get that, Tom. Clearly anyone who says that accepting science amounts to "drinking the kool-aid" clearly is not a scientists, is clueless about science, and has absolutely no intention of learning from science.
Now, ordinary people would conclude that you'd therefore shut up about science, rather than run around showing your ignorance by claiming that the science which you don't understand must be wrong because you don't care for the conclusions.
You don't argue from personal incredulity, you argue from personal narcissism, preening in front of the mirror, "i've proven them there scientists wrong again!".
Your the closest thing to a perpeutal disinformation machine allowable under the 2nd law ...
"Caught you this time, MT. The comment went up and then disappeared. 'I have never...' Yeah. Right."
How old are you again TF? You are being kinda pathetic in your rants here, you know.
pough: "I don't think Fuller is malicious; I think he believes he's both brilliant and persecuted. The fact that he's neither simply increases the suspicion."
What pough said. I hope Tom Fuller is (finally) gone from this blog, at least. Sorry, Mr. Fuller, but I think your stuff is a waste of time. Please, Michael, no more about Mr. Fuller.
Enough people. This isn't helping either.
Post a Comment