Thai Translation – The Skeptics Handbook
The volunteers keep coming. Please take a moment to appreciate how much work it takes to do a proper translation, to check it, to edit it, and to edit and arrange the artwork. Then take another moment to think of old friends and contacts who might find it interesting, and e-mail it on. Thanks.
The reach of our global human network is changing polls.
Thanks to Weeraboon Wisartsakul for his expertise and patience.
See www.wwisartsakul.wordpress.com for his Thai blog.
Thanks to Jimmy Haigh for the double-checking and help.
Click on the image to download the pdf.
Volunteers have translated the first Skeptics Handbook into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese, Danish, Japanese, Balkan, Spanish, Thai, Czech and Lao. The second Skeptics Handbook is available in French and Turkish. See all posts tagged Translations.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Posted on
March 12th, 2010 under
AGW socio-political, The Skeptics Handbook • Tags: Thai Translation, The Skeptics Handbook, Translations.
• 
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• RSS 2.0 feed
• Leave a response, or trackback
March 12th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Is this Thai version just in pdf form? Or is it possible to buy a couple of copies?
Valid?
0 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 9:44 am
congrats jo. u get a big mention in toronto sun:
11 March: Toronto Sun: Climate science: Let’s follow the money
By LORRIE GOL(D)STEIN, QMI Agency
Take Greenpeace’s widely quoted 2007 report that ExxonMobil spent almost $23 million between 1998 and 2006 funding skeptics who questioned man-made global warming, part of, they say, the oil giant’s campaign to sow confusion with the public.
So, Greenpeace’s argument goes, these skeptics’ views were influenced by money.
Okay. Let’s say that’s true. And, since ExxonMobil is only one company, albeit the biggest and baddest on this issue according to the warmists, let’s say Greenpeace’s research into ExxonMobil uncovered only 1/100th of the total funding the fossil fuel industry and others paid to skeptics. Let’s say it was $2.3 billion. That would certainly be a lot of money.
But as Joanne Nova, an Australian climate blogger (www.joannenova.com.au) and author of The Skeptics Handbook recently noted, it pales beside the $79 billion the U.S. government alone has spent on climate research and technology since 1989. (Nova rejects the science of anthropogenic global warming, which doesn’t change her point.)
Given that kind of public mega-money invested in climate science and technology in just one country, it makes you wonder about some things.
For example, about why the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) still apparently doesn’t have the resources to double-check facts, so that it doesn’t end up doing stupid stuff such as predicting Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035, or getting the amount of land below sea level in the Netherlands wrong by a factor of over 100%. (The list of IPCC errors grows almost daily.)
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist magazine, explained the heady effect all this public cash, starting decades ago, had on scientists in the U.K., a hot-bed of climate hysteria, in the British documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.
“If I wanted to do research on, shall we say, the squirrels of Sussex … I would write my grant application saying ‘I want to investigate the nut-gathering behaviour of squirrels, with special reference to the effects of global warming,’ and that way, I get my money,” Calder noted. “If I forgot to mention global warming, I might not get the money.”
Exactly. No hoax, just a telling observation of the human tendency of climate scientists, like everyone else, to follow the money. Perhaps to the conclusion that when the political flavour of the month (or decade) is to find evidence of imminent, catastrophic, man-made, global warming, scientific studies over time may tend to overstate conclusions, understate uncertainties and focus excessively on worst-case scenarios.
Which, as we’re now learning, appears, in many cases, to have happened.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/03/10/13184851.html
the Maurice Newman/ABC story has followup, so i hope the thread continues to attract comments. am about to post some links there.
Valid?
4 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Link to the PDF posted on ThaiVisa, the biggest English-language forum in Thailand (75,000 members), so I hope the word spreads from there.
Valid?
1 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Hi Jo,
sorry OT so delete if you wish. just thought i’d leave this hear as you have reported on this story
Valid?
3 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Is it just me and FireFox or is there something rotten with the link to the Turkish article?
I think it should be:
http://wwisartsakul.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/
Turkey is Hot, Hot, Hot according to an article I just saw on ICECAP.
Valid?
1 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Thanks Rick for posting it on, and thanks Karl for noticing the extra slash in the link. Fixed.
And thanks for the link to the Turkey Temperatures Post.
I’d like to know if there is any way of rigging data that they haven’t tried…
Valid?
2 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I have a question,
I can see how messed up the surface temperatures are, but what about the satellite observations? Is anything of interest showing up there?
Valid?
2 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
This is especially good quote from the ICECAP article:
When you take that approach, you find all kinds of interesting things.
Valid?
2 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Jo @ 6: I’d like to know if there is any way of rigging data that they haven’t tried…
How about making an honest presentation and interpretation of the data? I suspect they are too attached to cooking the data so it gives the answers they want to get to try it.
Valid?
4 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Jo, The Rural press have articles saying that February was the hottest February on record in WA. Is there any truth in it? I know Marble Bar’s record was in 1924 -25.
Valid?
0 
0
March 12th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Go the Jo!
Great to see it getting translated into more languages. We all need to be mindful of your hard work and buy you some more chocolate!
Valid?
3 
0
March 13th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Joanne Nova:
March 12th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“I’d like to know if there is any way of rigging data that they haven’t tried…”
Let’s have a think:
1- You can just make them up
2- You can get real data and keep applying factors (or algorithms) ’til you get the result you desire
3- You can use obscure proxies that give you the results you want (albeit with a bit of massaging and ‘hiding’)
4- You can work backwards from the desired result and look around data that fit
5- You can ignore data that doesn’t match your expectations
6- You can delete measurements from places likely to provide undesirable results
7- You can cherry-pick
Nope. Don’t think there are any that haven’t been used already!
Valid?
3 
0
March 13th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“We all need to be mindful of your hard work and buy you some more chocolate!”
You going to spoil her good looks. Send her gold and silver coins from the Perth mint instead. When the dark ages hordes arrive, hard on the heels of the collapse of the paper currencies, we need at least one enlightenment person, with some purchasing power. Its a bad place these anti-science leftists are taking us too.
Valid?
1 
0
June 4th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
http://www.duttonsbrentwood.com/la-lakers/why-kobe-is-chasing-the-ghosts-of-the-1990s/
Valid?
0 
0
June 23rd, 2010 at 12:43 am
As a matter of fact I’m drawing up a manuscript similar to your post this week. Consequently, I have to say “thanks” for kindly allowing this thought provoking write-up to be freely accessible to websurfers. I can notify you when it’s done, if I remember!
Valid?
0 
0