|
|
Bloggers' Hall of Amnesia
The publication of my paper
on conspiracist ideation was met with several nearly-instant
accusations. First out of the gate was the claim that I did not contact 5
“skeptic” or “skeptic-leaning” blogs to link to the survey.
I initially did not release those names because I was concerned about the privacy issues involved, as I explained here.
Because a release of names cannot be undone—whereas a delayed release
harms no one—I decided to seek guidance from various institutions,
foremost among them my own university, before deciding whether or not to
release those names.
Shortly thereafter, the first of the 5 bloggers, Mr McIntyre, found his misplaced email.
This leaves us with 4 bloggers whose identity had to remain confidential until now.
I am pleased to report that I received advice from executives of the
University of Western Australia earlier today, that no legal or privacy
issues or matters of research ethics prevent publication of the names of
those bloggers.
So here they are:
- Dr Roger Pielke Jr (he replied to the initial contact)
- Mr Marc Morano (of Climatedepot; he replied to the initial contact)
- Dr Roy Spencer (no reply)
- Mr Robert Ferguson (of the Science and Public Policy Institute, no reply)
It will be noted that all 4 have publically stated during the last few days/weeks that they were not contacted.
At this juncture one might consider a few intriguing questions:
1. When will an apology be forthcoming for the accusations
launched against me? And how many individuals should now be issuing a
public apology?
To explore the magnitude of this question we must take stock of
public statements that have been made about my research. For example, one blogger considered it “highly suspect” whether I had contacted any "skeptic" sites.
Mr McIntyre expended time to locate and then publicize the name of the person within my university
to whom complaints about my research should be addressed; time that we
now know would have been better spent searching his inbox.
Another individual surmised that "the allegations will be widened to include a clear and deliberate intention to commit academic fraud."
Finally, another individual opined that "the lack of evidence that he tried to contact skeptic blogs" warranted the inference that none had been contacted—we now know that the presumed lack of evidence was actually evidence for a measure of carelessness or shoddy record keeping among the individuals contacted.
In light of such massive, and massively false, allegations numerous apologies ought to be forthcoming.
However, the fact-free echo machines of the internet sit awkwardly
with the notion of civility and conversation of which apologies are an
integral part. I therefore doubt that any such apologies will be
forthcoming.
Instead, I predict that attention will now focus on some of the other accusations and theories.
After all, what better way to avoid learning from one’s errors than by chasing down another rabbit hole.
2. Why would the people who were contacted publically fail to acknowledge this fact?
Several hypotheses could be entertained but I prefer to settle for the simplest explanation.
It's called “human error.” It simply means the 4 bloggers couldn’t
find the email, didn’t know what to search for, or their inboxes were
corrupted by a move into another building, to name but a few
possibilities.
The only fly in the ointment in that hypothesis is that I provided search keys and exact dates and times of some correspondence.
3. Where do we go from here?
That’s easy. On to the next theory, of course.
129 Comments
Prev 1 2 3 Next
Comments 51 to 100 out of 130:
-
Doug at #45,
"In some ways this is -more- complicated than rocket science. The
behavior of rockets is governed by physical principles we understand
better in many ways than we do the impulses and actions of people,
whether as individuals or as populations. "
I agree Doug, human psychology is very complex, and we are still
learning a lot. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is something that
is simple and that anyone can speak to with authority.
It is becoming more clear by the day that the reason that some people
remain unconvinced or indifferent about the reality and risks associated
with human-caused global warming is that their "skepticism" or denial
has more to do with psychological barriers than it does about science
and facts.
-
How about a friendly wager about the subject (the paper standing up for 2 months, if that long) Tyger?
-
Thomas,
How about you ask Steve McInytre (he knows better than everyone else does he not/sarc).
Seriously though instead of playing games, why don't you elucidate your
position on a hand-wavy concept that seems to have be manufactured out
of convenience more than anything else (but that is a debate for another
place and time).
The reason I am so cynical of the "lukewarmer" concept is that it is,
for starters, subjective. For example, the range for equilibrium climate
sensitivity is widely accepted to be between 2 and 4.5 degrees for a
doubling of CO2. Now, the best estimate is near +3 C. That is a value
that I agree with based on the preponderance of research and evidence.
So I could theoretically refer to myself as a "lukewarmer" ;)
-
Doug:
That statement in itself suggests that you're insufficiently versed in Lewandowsky's field to help him improve his work.
I think you're balancing needles with that argument. You specifically
mentioned "cognitive psychology". I don't doubt having a cognitive psych
background helps with some respects of the process, but it's
essentially a sociological study, and the fact that you know allow a
"non-expert at the task" participate, you've in large measure
contradicted your own thesis and agreed with mine---which is it is not
necessary to be a specialist in a given field to participate in research
in that field.
So in essence your original argument is wrong and you've now as much as admitted it by trying to quite verbosely substitute in another argument in place of it.
What is more, independent reconstructions that do not even
use Yamal series show a Hockey stick. Heck, there are multiple
temperature hockey sticks derived using data and methods independent of
those used by Mann et al. But don't let inconvenient facts trouble
you...
I've studied it, probably a lot more than you have. You are making a
lot of assumptions here, first that you can read my mind about what I
think secondly that because Mann in MBH 98/9 did things wrong and his
results bear no resemblance to the real historical record doesn't mean
it can't be done right, third modern studies don't replicate MBH, they flat out are inconsistent with it. Take this figure for example
MBH98 is in green. Once you are outside of the "training period" it's
correlation with modern reconstructions drops to zero. Here is an ensemble average, MBH is now the red line. Again no resemblance.
Mann's original hockey stick is part of the history of paleoclimatology,
it contained some important new ideas that drove research forward, but
it's wrong to cling to erroneous papers as if they are substantively
correct when they are not.
I'll leave the other, non-substantive, portion of your comment alone. I prefer arguing on facts no on supposition of motives.
-
Sou, you can and do have an obligation to investigate the data and
remove responses where appropriate. This is standard research hygiene.
It is even normal to set traps to identify respondents who should be
removed. One is the rare items test, where respondents are asked if they
purchase an unusual product or service in one part of the survey, and
another one later. Those who answer yes to both are either
insufficiently engaged or are providing false responses, and all their
data should be removed.
Similarly, inconsistency checks are used to identify the same issue by
asking the same question in different ways. Careless respondents are
captured quickly.
Other hygiene checks include straightlining (where respondents check the
first or last box for any question), speeding (which should be checked
against means at the beginning and end of the survey, amount of text
entered into open end questions, checked against a mean, etc. There are
more. Usage of such hygiene checks is normal and usually discussed in
the methodology section.
However, I must say that in my experience, 90% of problems with
quantitative surveys originates with sample. Not knowing who you need to
talk to, not knowing where to find them, not knowing how to elicit
their participation, not knowing their incidence in a given population,
let alone the real population.
Professor Lewandowsky may be expert in many fields. If he does not have
real world experience in fielding online surveys, he is likely to have
run into trouble.
The proliferation of Do It Yourself survey tools such as Survey Monkey,
KwikSurvey, etc., has led to an explosion of truly shoddy research. I've
had to clean up enough of it to know.
Online surveys are pretty new. A lot of mistakes have been made--and
I've made my share. But if you do enough, and I've done far more than a
thousand, you learn from your mistakes and can get good results.
We really don't know enough to say whether this paper is based on a good
survey or a bad one. I must say I'm pessimistic at this point.
-
Sou:
@Carrick - I note you left out reference to A
Scott, who says he is not expert in doing surveys (as is apparent from
his posts here and elsewhere).
Why are you arguing that with me? He's using a survey based on
Lewandowsky's original design. If you have problems with that, you need
to take it up with him.
Again, I don't see a problem with Tom asking questions. I also don't see any problem with the questions.
I understand the math behind Lewandowsky's approach, I've used it
myself. I also understand the problems with outliers in data and how
they can distort findings. I think the title of the paper based on the
data presented (and this is my opinion) is itself not valid, but I think
the main finding of the paper is. Parse that, assuming you've actually
read the paper.
-
(Snip)
For the record, I don't have a problem with replicating a survey, even
an amended version, depending on how it's done. I would object if
someone used my intellectual property without permission. Maybe A Scott
obtained permission. If so, it's normal practice to say so (and he
didn't).
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
-
(Snip)
I would object if someone used my intellectual property without permission
Once it's part of the public record it's no longer "my" intellectual
property. You appear not to understand the peer review publication
process. This is a baseless argument on your part.
Moderator Response: Off-topic snipped.
-
In fact, if anybody "owned" it, it would be the journal, and I
suspect reuse of the survey would fall under "fair use" rights. Do you
see Lewandowsky objecting to it? I would take a clue from that if you
don't.
-
Tyger,
(Snip) you say
"Now, the best estimate is near +3 C. That is a value that I agree with based on the preponderance of research and evidence."
The data is available to you. Just find the rate of co2 50 years ago,
what the increase is, what the temperate was in 50 years ago and what
co2 and the temperature is now and you will see that it's less than 3 C.
Try another year 30 years ago or whatever you want. Nothing long term
gives as high as 3 C. Do the math yourself.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped.
-
Pielke Jr blogs on his interaction with Lewandowsky's assistant. This is his version of events:
Hi all-
Perhaps this will help clarify. A few weeks ago I was emailed by Joanne
Nova who asked if I had been contacted by a Stephen Lewandowsky about a
climate survey.
Here is my response to her:
“Hi Joanne-
Never heard of the guy, and a search of my email finds no contact from him.
Hope this helps,
Roger”
When Steve McIntyre returned from a long time away I read his post
(hoping it would be about his London talk). It was a post about this
topic, with Nova’s email relatively fresh I put 2 + 2 together and
searched my email for Hanich and found the exchange that Steve has now
posted. I sent it to Joanne and Steve upon finding it.
I am not following this issue (sorry) and have never heard of
Lewandowsky. What I know does not whet my appetite for learning more.
All best ….
-
Tyger @51
You start by quoting Doug @ 45. You then say this:
“I agree Doug, human psychology is very complex, and we are still
learning a lot. It is ridiculous to suggest that this is something that
is simple and that anyone can speak to with authority.”
Having established that no-one (I’m assuming you mean laypersons) can
speak with authority on the subject, you then go on to say this:
“It is becoming more clear by the day that the reason that some people
remain unconvinced or indifferent about the reality and risks associated
with human-caused global warming is that their "skepticism" or denial
has more to do with psychological barriers than it does about science
and facts.”
See what you did there?
-
Why not publish the questions that were asked? Let people decide
for themselves if it was a fair survey. They are already on other blogs.
-
Carrick @ 61
Lol :)
-
Carrick at #54,
"I've studied it, probably a lot more than you have."
(Snip) You are also continuing to ignore important realities, the big picture, and the fact that it is now 2012. Not to mention posting links to unreferenced images; those images by themselves mean nothing.
Could have MBH98 done some things better? Yes, of course, it was a
seminal work, it would have been a miracle had they gotten it right.
But that does not translate into a conspiracy by certain paleo climate
scientists to "hide" the MCA or whatever as suggested by 'skeptics', nor
does it warrant a vendetta that has been going on against them (led by
McIntyre) for the last 7 years. MBH addressed the concerns raised in the
NRC report, subsequent papers have improved on their seminal work.
But we have McIntyre, cherry-picking reconstructions that somehow managed to fit his narrative, and we have this and this and this
It is unbelievable that you and other fans of McIntyre appear to be stuck in 1998...
I am not getting into a (Snip) match with you. We could
do this all night. You can show a graph, I can show a graph. You can
show a graph, I can show a paper questioning that or suggesting
something else.
The fact remains that thanks to the vendetta McIntyre has against Mann
et al., there are a myriad of canards and myths circulating to this day
about climate scientists. Mission accomplished? I hope not.
The fact also remains that it is this:
From here.
Moderator Response: Ad-hominem and inflammatory snipped.
-
ManBearPig, regarding the 3°C doubling, it is a result of a series
of feedbacks in the system: First RH which increases the intrinsic
warming effects of CO2 from 1.2°C/ doubling of CO2 to 2.5°C and second
cloud albedo feedback, which is thought to add a further 0.5°C.
It is the cloud albedo feedback that is one of the larger uncertainties
within the model dynamics. (There are also large uncertainties in
anthropogenic aerosol emission forcings.)
What is important to understand is these feedbacks don't act
instantaneously, partly due to the thermal mass of the oceans. As an
aside, the larger the environmental climate sensitivity (ECS) the
longer it takes to reach a new "stationary point" for climate.
But it is clearly a mistake to try and compute ECS just by comparing
temperature to CO2. This makes the assumption that the relationship is
instantaneous, and further neglects other important climate forcings,
such as the aerosols I've mentioned above
To give you a flavor of what you've left out of radiative forcings Here are GISS Model E's assumed forcings Note that net anthropogenic forcings were nearly flat until around 1970.
These comments are reflected in the AR4 summary,
which in essence says it is not necessary to invoke anthropogenic
forcings to explain the observed change in global mean temperature until
post 1970. (That's why 1970-now is sometimes referred to as the period
of AGW).
-
Laurie, would you be happier if I prefaced that by stating it is my
unqualified opinion? Or you could just read the literature on the
subject. This is a good start, as is this.
Both these sources (and the references therein) speak to the text written by that you quoted :)
-
Doug @ 45
“The individual behaviors of members of a collection of rockets (those
on a production basis, anyway) are more faithful to their aggregate
statistical behavior than are the characteristics of any individual
person as a sample against the statistics describing a population.”
Bingo!
Isn’t that exactly what papers such as this are doing? Trying to tie
sceptics as a group to aggregate statistical behaviour that doesn‘t
actually exist? Rather than a collection of unique individuals with
their own unique behavioural responses to their own unique triggers?
-
Carrick,
Differences aside. I for one appreciate your post at #67. FWIW, thank you.
If you don't mind, I need to spend some time with my family and work on a paper. So good night.
-
At this point, Nigel Steve and Willard Tony should be asking
themselves how many moves in advance Prof. L. has gamed this out.
-
Tyger @ 68
But you've been saying we can't give our unqualified opinions, exactly because they are unqualified opinions.
Umm... if you're going to give me references, please give me something more reliable than SkS ones.
-
Tyger, you guys ar the are the onse who brought up MBH 1998 by
erroneously claiming that McIntyre made no important contributions to
the field. And to be truthful, I think you are being unnecessarily
incendiary in your response to my comments by saying things I never said
and misrepresenting others.
I have a version of your figure too:
Proxy Ensemble Including Mann 2008 EIV + MBH 98:
 .
If you want to drop the argument that MBH 98 was replicated by later series, we can leave it off future figures.
I don't have any large problems with Mann 2008 EIV, I notice you left
off Mann 2008 CPS (the closest to his original methodology, which he
also says in his paper doesn't perform well). And of course there's the
double counted Tiljander series and the Yamal series (which he uses one
or the other but not both in his reconstructions)..
I think the newer studies largely agree with each other, though there
are arguments over how independent they are in terms of key series.
You should take home with this, that I can agree that McIntyre did
something right that I'm suddenly his "fan". I've made it clear that I
think he often impedes progress, usually with the unnecessarily
inflammatory nature of his comments (red meat for his followers I know),
and for that reason I rarely read his blog.
-
ugh.. misspoke. "You should take home this: simply I can agree that McIntyre did something right doens't mean that I'm suddenly his "fan".
Credit where credit is due is my philosophy.
-
For a good discussion about what lukewarmers are and why the position is intellectually bankrupt, see the Idiot Tracker
-----------------------------
There is a half-full glass here, which is that a number of people who
clearly identify emotionally and politically with the denialist movement
have taken major steps towards the scientific consensus in order to
maintain their credibility. While sharing the denialosphere's loathing
of "activists" and its demonization of scientists like Hansen and Mann
(whose unforgivable sin was to establish beyond a reasoned doubt that
humans are causing a rapid and substantially unprecedented warming of
the earth's climate) the lukewarmers avoid three major pitfalls of
denialism:
1. They do not have to deny the basic physical laws which dictate that greenhouse gases cause warming.
2. They do not have to refute the massive physical evidence that the climate is warming.
3. They do not have to pretend that the vast majority of scientists who
accept the theory of AGW are participating in a vast conspiracy to hide
the truth about (1) and (2).
The lukewarmist position also allows one to position oneself as a moderate threading the needle between two extremes. . . . .
The real contrast here is not between "activists" and "skeptics" but
between deniers and everybody else – between the science and the
right-wing lunacy. But lukewarmers are exploiting the shift in the
Overton window brought about by voluble climate deniers to position
their radical views as a sane middle ground.
Here's the problem. Lukewarmism doesn't get its adherents where they
want to go – because even if we accept at face value their claims, the
world would still require intense efforts to reduce the emissions of
greenhouse gases in order to stave off disaster.
--------------------------------
Eli also took a crack at this
-
Eli @71
Well, for his sake I certainly hope he has, cos at the moment he's about 10 moves behind ;)
-
Thomas, it's quite clear that Carrick is amply intelligent but
otherwise it's impossible to for me to know what he is, certainly not
from anything on offer here. I'll offer that unless Carrick is a very
remarkable person, if he's a scientist himself his domain-specific
knowledge will resemble a bell curve of sorts, centered on his area of
specialty and diminishing with distance from his center of interest.
Naturally, with peaks and dips here and there.
Unfortunately very few if any of us can lay claim to omniscience of a
level that can position us equal to experts across the entire spectrum
of human knowledge. Einstein's opinions on the Piltdown Man affair were
likely no more useful than that of an organic chemist of average
ability.
Carrick, unless I'm mistaken your 12:30 PM on 11 September, 2012 comment is not quoting me, if that was your intention:
"What is more, independent reconstructions that do not even use Yamal
series show a Hockey stick. Heck, there are multiple temperature hockey
sticks derived using data and methods independent of those used by Mann
et al. But don't let inconvenient facts trouble you..."
Perhaps you can point me to where I might have said that?
Not sure what your point is in any case. How do hockey sticks figure in this? Some of don't see them everywhere. :-)
-
Tyger:
Differences aside. I for one appreciate your post at #67. FWIW, thank you.
You're welcome. For what it's worth, I prefer talking about the "state
of the art" over who did what wrong. I didn't realize we could do
inline comments until you did yours (most blogs ban them). (-snip-)
And FWIW, I do appreciate your comments, even if we see at loggerheads
at times. I don't fit in any category. I like to call myself AR4
believer, which means I start with the AR4, and usually argue with
people if I think they are misstating the findings. "Start" doesn't
mean I agree with everything, the process is highly politicized, to the
detriment of all, and you have to I think sift the wheat from the chaffe
with this document as with any other.
Have a good evening.
Moderator Response: Moderation complaints snipped.
-
Doug, I think I misquoted you. Apologies.
I don't claim omniscience by any means, but I am more "well rounded"
than most researchers you will have encountered. My research path has
been rich and diverse, sometimes in the sense of the Chinese curse "may
you lead an interesting life". It is perhaps the case I am a remarkable
person, I'd like to think we all are in our own way.
That's the optimist in me speaking.
-
Eli, isn't a shorter version "if you aren't for us, you're against
us"? That seems like a very polarizing view (and I think it is meant to
be).
-
Laurie,
I dare you to read the journal papers in "The debunking handbook"--
those ought to keep you busy for a while. The canard that
SkepticalScience is unreliable is just too funny.
What you do not seem to understand is that, unlike the "skeptics" here
and elsewhere, I am not trying to tell Dr. Lewandowsky how to do his
job.
Carrick,
McIntyre did not contribute anything of note concerning MBH98,
ultimately what he did manage to do was keep a feeding frenzy going with
the "skeptics" and those who deny the reality of human-caused AGW.
Some of the myths that resulted are with us to this day.
If you are not a "fan" of McIntyre are you perhaps a sympathizer? If
you like giving credit where credit is due, are you also going to credit
McIntyre with his ongoing witch hunt and personal vendetta against
certain scientists?
-
Carrick we cross-posted, I think we just have to agree to disagree
on McIntyre. That might sound lame, but I really don't think going down
that road is conducive to constructive dialogue. Apologies for my
sometimes intemperate and sometimes snarky remarks-- I get worked up
about this stuff and with the web it is hard to remember sometimes that
you are addressing a person.
Got to go, my wife is getting impatient! Good night.
-
Carrick, I'm a mile wide and an inch deep, with extensive dry bars and the occasional scour.
That is, hopefully I'm a mile wide. From a position this low to the surface it's sort of hard to tell.
-
Tyger, I know exactly where you're coming from.
Doug I won't make any comments about how "wide" you appear to me. There's noway that could come out sounding right. ;-)
-
.
Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped
-
Carrick in #67, so doubling co2 for +3 degrees is not really Tyger
meant? That's okay I forgive mistakes. I am sort of worried you did go
ahead with the math though.
And so you are saying we can use 1970 as start point? And Tyger agrees? Cool! I agree too.
Okay then tell me what was CO2 in 1970? and right now 2012? How about temp?
You can get the data here for co2
http://co2now.org
And here for temp
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Do the math. It's easy, and the result no where near +3 C. If you can't
figure out the formula then I can give it to you. Hint: delta t over t
gives you the percent increase in co2. Multiply that by 3 deg C that
gives you the expected increase since 1970 until today.
-
Hint: Equilibrium temperature. Hint: Somebody's ignorance is
showing. No worries, ignorance isn't a crime (although it's embarrassing
for everybody if it's a posture) and it's so easy to fix:
"The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium
change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result
from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide
concentration (delta Tx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a
best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5
°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but
agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."
-
Oops, sorry, truncated an important bit:
"A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate
response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over
a twenty year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation
with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.[5] The transient response is lower
than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the "inertia" of ocean heat
uptake.
Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is
likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabalisation,
the ECS is more useful."
-
#46 thomaswfuller
Here's a conspiracy theory
for you: This is the subject of the study, not the survey. The reactions
of the skeptic community to a controlled publication with obvious
flaws, presented as caustically as possible and with red herrings
presented for them to grasp at.. (-Snip-)
Moderator Response: Copies of stolen intellectual property snipped.
-
Blog science=dumpster diving, squirming through compost in search
of tasty bits? I don't thing that's -quite- the idea, surely?
The notion of "humility" appeared earlier on this thread but I don't
recall anybody suggesting that humiliating one's self was a requirement.
-
Geoff, the danger of digging through illegally stolen private correspondence (besides the ethical issues) is not getting the full context. In this case, I was discussing an experiment that was publicly run on Skeptical Science that tested the impact of comment threads on retention and comprehension.
-
Stripping away context and then getting caught seems a standard
element of what's evolved to become a sort of climate meta-science
bunraku, a ritual performance with certain elements required for a
presentation to be considered complete.
I wonder if this general situation has ever arisen in the past? What
about the struggle over tetraethyl lead? Did volunteers come forward to
perform for the public, demonstrating their passionate attachment to
octane boosters?
-
Prof Lewandowsky showed prescience. I guess it wasn't so hard.
3. Where do we go from here?
That’s easy. On to the next theory, of course.
-
Would it help the discussion along a bit if everyone understood
that John Cook who comments above is actually the Registrar Nominee,
Administrator and Tech contact for this site - as well as his better
known climate activist site - Skeptical Science.
Whois
Brings a whole new dimension to the concept of sock-puppetry.
Does this count as a conspiracy theory?
-
Foxgoose, possibly yes. Read Geoffchambers' comment #89 and feel
free to explain how John Cook could possibly be sockpuppeting.
-
J Bowers at 21:57 PM on 11 September, 2012
By popping up as a commenter at a site he is actually operating and moderating without revealing the fact maybe?
I did say "new dimension to the concept".
Just imagine the furore if Climate Audit, WUWT and Bishop Hill all turned out to be registered to the same guy.
Prof Lew & Gleick would have to be given intravenous sedation.
Moderator Response: John Cook does not moderate at this site. Cease with that particular conspiracy theory; it is now OT.
-
Foxgoose, instead of semi-sleuthing on WhoIs (note the 100% transparency there anyway), why not just poke around this very blog a bit more? Still think there's any new dimension to be added?
-
@-Doug Bostrom at 18:01 PM on 11 September, 2012
"I wonder if this general situation has ever arisen in the past? What
about the struggle over tetraethyl lead? Did volunteers come forward to
perform for the public, demonstrating their passionate attachment to
octane boosters?"
Midgley who developed TEL certainly demonstrated his passionate
attachment to his octane booster by being less than careful in its
manufacture and use in the 1920s. He spent much time recuperating from
lead poisoning as a result. When TEL went into production at various
refineries there were many deaths among the workers from lead poisoning.
Despite this and repeated warnings from the health sciences and
biochemical field, lead was added to petrol for the next sixty years
because of industry pressure and a concerted campaign to discredit or
cast doubt on the health concerns.
When the health damages got to big to ignore, and Dr Patterson had shown
that natural environmental lead levels were now swamped by human
produced lead from petrol in the mid-late 70s the attempt to reduce and
eliminate lead from petrol was vigorously opposed in many of the same
ways that are seen now on the issue of CO2.
http://whatisaids.com/lead/leadout2.html
"When the EPA launched the first of several halfhearted attempts to
begin removing lead from gasoline, lead's corporate affinity group
fought back with a ferocity that bespoke major arrogance and even
greater desperation. No sooner had the EPA announced a scheduled
phaseout, setting a reduced lead content standard for gasoline in 1974,
than it was sued by Ethyl and Du Pont, who claimed they had been
deprived of property rights. In that same year, a panel of the US Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the EPA's lead
regulations as "arbitrary and capricious."
-
J Bowers at 22:39 PM on 11 September, 2012
Don't be silly - we all know he's an author here.
Being the blog proprietor and administrator is something else entirely.
We all know Monckton has authored articles in WUWT - but you'd be frothing at the mouth if he turned out to own it.
-
So your answer is: "It's not me, it's you." If everyone had just
recognized what a glowing opportunity was in their inboxes (under
whatever name used to send it), this problem would never have existed.
Maybe try the mass-marketing technique next time:
(snip) After all, the survey looks like what one designs in consumer
psychology classes to learn more about one's target market. Of course,
you really won't get any blogger interested in data and science to
answer, but it will be a clean miss and all the bloggers will remember
receiving the email. Or-gasp!-you could do some (snip)research and maybe get science bloggers to participate.
Moderator Response: Capitals removed.
-
@Foxgoose - Another red herring.
This site is clearly states where its funding comes from and who are the
principals and editorial board. John Cook is not listed as the
'proprietor' (ie registrant). Registrant, admin and tech support of
domain names are different functions.
Surely you can come up with a better conspiracy theory than that one.
The bottom of the barrel is wearing thin from all the scratching and
scraping.
(BTW I doubt too many people care who owns or funds WUWT, much less
'froth at the mouth'. If it 'turned out to be' Monckton - would it make
much difference to the blog content?)
Prev 1 2 3 Next
Post a CommentYou need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or register a new account. |
|
Relevant events (mainly in Australia) will be announced here as they become available.
|
|
About Us 
