JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Skeptics iPhone App Endorsed de facto by Critic

Endorsed? Even the supposed blog experts on Climate Change can’t find an error.

The Guardian Blog has posted John Cook’s thoughts on the new skeptical iPhone App – Our Climate.

Has he found errors, lies, or critical omissions? Read it yourself. No, hardly, and “as if”. Instead he’s found “cherry-picking”,  confusion (his), and strawmen.

Really, this is a great endorsement — after all, Cook runs the ambush site SkepticalScience.com. If Cook can’t find an error, or name the peer reviewed paper with evidence for catastrophic positive feedback, who can?

SkepticalScience.com is a parody of skepticism. It is “skeptical of the skeptics”, which is all very well, but it accepts everything offered up by Authorities as if it is the Word of God.  “NOAA can do no wrong” (and was that NOAA or Noah?)

All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw. He’s noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy. John Cook — who so wants to be seen as skeptical –  instead is anything but, and conforms strictly to the text-book litany as written by the IPCC.

The best that he can come up with that if he misinterprets the first point of the skeptics, it conflicts with his misinterpretation of the second. Shucks.

The number 1 tip on the Our Climate app are graphs of wild swings in temperature, showing how often the climate changes. Skeptics don’t suggest that climate scientist aren’t aware of this (as Cook claims). We know they are, and we also know they know they can’t model any of it. This is the killer point. Somehow we are supposed to believe the climate models have it all figured out, but they can’t hindcast model the last 1,000 years or the last 10,000? To resolve this awkward failure, those who believe in the Big Scare didn’t revamp the models, instead they revamped the data. They went to great lengths to nullify the medieval warm period. CO2 was low back in those days, but the world was warmer and no one really knows why. Hence we also don’t know if that same factor is making us warm now.

Cook of course, doesn’t quote directly. This is a classic modus operandi for unskeptical scientist. If they quote directly, they can’t impute things, like “sceptics citing this fact as if it’s never occurred to climate scientists”, which we don’t say, but Cook says, thus creating a strawman. Why would he bother stringing out this kind of weak speculative stuff if he actually had something real to attack?

He makes preposterous claims that skeptics cherry-pick, focus on small picture, never on the big picture; except the graphs the skeptics use cover the last 30 years, the last 1,000 years, the last 10,000 years, the last 500 million years. There’s no period we won’t talk about — unlike the AGW crowd, for whom a trend is between 10 and 50 years (to get the last warming period 1975 – 2001 in) and who don’t want to talk about the little ice age or medieval warm period.  Unskeptical scientists think “long term” means 100 years and repeat graphs from 1880 -2010 ad nauseum. They weren’t exactly producing billboards with graphs of the last 500 million years.

The bottom line

So this is all that’s left of the alarming case? The medieval warm period did exist, the hockey stick graph was busted, the Vostok Ice cores turned out to be back to front with carbon following temperatures up and down, and all that’s left in the Big Scare’s wishing well, are events millions of years ago which don’t have the resolution to see what came first and don’t correlate well in any case. After all these studies of proxy after proxy we’re supposed to believe that there’s no definitive evidence that carbon drives temperatures strongly on any time period, but it’s all OK really, because the sun was weaker back then, and coincidentally it’s been getting stronger at just the right rate to compensate for the fall in carbon from 5000 ppm down to under 500ppm now. Just so convenient eh?

The number 2 point is that study after study shows the feedbacks are negative. That means carbon warms the world, but clouds and humidity and other stuff change to let out more heat and reduce the effect. Cook rules this out… wait for it, not with peer reviewed references, but because it disagrees with his interpretation of skeptic point one.

Is that there positive feedback in the graph, or negative?

The wild variations in temperature in the ice cores show that our climate is at the beck and call of enormous forces, orbital changes, ocean currents, volcanoes, and solar activity (of many varieties, not just total solar irradiance). When continental plates shift, the world’s climate can swing into a different pattern altogether. Despite these massive forces at work, the Earth’s climate has varied a mere 10 degrees or so in a half billion years (as best as we can tell). What is that stabilizing force? The feedbacks. If they were strongly positive, as the IPCC has staked its existence on, the Earth’s climate could never have been that stable.

If you think 10 degree swings are not that “stable”, think of Venus at 450 odd degrees, and Mars at -60. Earth averages 10 to 22 or so. Nice.

What’s the big difference with our neighbours? For one, we have oceans, and thus evaporative coolers that run all day, every day over the tropics.

Too Sweet

Paul Ostergaard the creator of the App writes yesterday:

Apple have now put the Our Climate App on the Front Page of the US iTunes App Store, featuring Our Climate amongst the 40 “New and Noteworthy” Apps across ALL App categories (i.e. not just the weather category as they did last week). There are more than 230,000 Apps in the App store – Only 40 Apps are featured in this front page category at any time, so this is a singular achievement and opportunity for our story to be heard.

Our Climate is now the Number 1 Weather App in Four Five iTunes App Stores:

1. India
1. Hong Kong
1. Brazil
1. Malaysia
1. Uruguay

Also number 2 in:

2. Canada
2. Turkey
2. Singapore

Number 3 in:

3. UK
3. Panama

3. Pakistan

And fourth in:

4. USA

PS: Just in case anyone is wondering, yes there is an App already for the Unskeptical Scientists, and it has been converted to the other competing smart phone providers. Paul says thanks to popular demand, he’s now working on ways to spread Our Climate to Android, and Blackberry.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.3/10 (3 votes cast)
Skeptics iPhone App Endorsed de facto by Critic, 6.3 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2dgfre3

58 comments to Skeptics iPhone App Endorsed de facto by Critic

  • #

    Just a thought: would it be possible and make sense to port the application to PC, Mac and Linux? Okay, it might have a greater tendency to drown in the tons of web sites browsed from these platforms. Nevertheless, the idea of having such an application for people like me, who does not own such a fine phone or super-nano-computer.

    00

  • #

    So let me get this straight. John Cook’s article is an endorsement because he doesn’t find anything worse than strawman arguments and cherry picking. That sounds to me like you’re cherry picking to make that particular strawman argument.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chemicallygreen, chemicallygreen. chemicallygreen said: http://bit.ly/bWm4WW Skeptics iPhone App Endorsed de facto by Critic , “cherry-picking”, confusion (his), and strawmen. #globalwaring [...]

    00

  • #
    Michael Searcy

    John Cook’s findings of cherry-picking and strawmen in a skeptical mobile phone app is somehow a ringing endorsement, but skeptical findings of supposed half-truths (read cherry-picking) and strawmen in the NOAA report is a complete dismantling.

    00

  • #
    Frank Brown

    I am really happy that you are one stuborn person JN (and stay that way). The AGW crowd never want to discuss the basis for their claims like the corupt or missing temperature records. They rely on the IPCC reports but take no notice of the fact that the UK MET wants three years to “rebuild” the raw data. NOAH vociferously defends their surface station network but wants 100 million US to improve them, agian ignored by the AGW team. No hot spot…no problem, it’s just hiding. No ocean heat, Trenbeth says it’s hiding too so no problem he is on a search. They shrill about the heat arround Moscow but never a word about the deadly cold in South America. They take no notice of the effort to wipe out the MWP and the LIA. They won’t discuss that either, must have been big tobacco that wrote the over 800 papers that found evidence of that. I’ve been looking for the documentaries on under sea exploration of the Maldives but again their current status (growing)is ignored. I guess all I can hope for is that the general public will (and they are) catch on to the efforts of Blogs like this one and will call a halt to it all at the polls. We little people aren’t as dumb as the AGW crowd thinks. Thanks for being stuborn.

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    John Cook got on my nerves
    He was running me amok
    He ridiculed me calling me a bum

    I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped …. Batman’s azz.

    John Cook thought he was bad
    He was a f’ing a’hole in the first place
    He got knocked to the floor

    I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped Batman’s azz. I whupped …. Batman’s azz.

    There is video!

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The fact is the world population is ravenous for a ‘real debate’ on the subject.
    The CAGW crowd knew how weak the argument was and have done everything in their power to avoid a debate. The general population is waking up to this and their suspicions have been aroused.

    I have noticed a shift in attitudes. If you acknowledge to people that a small degree of AGW is scientifically plausible. They are often happy to agree that CAGW is looking increasingly unlikely.
    By allowing them to save face with the scientific plausibility of a small degree of AGW they can avoid having to admit that they are being completely conned.
    No one likes to admit to being conned, and often people who have been conned go to great lengths to defend the con artist.
    Bernie Maoff is a good example of this, right up until the last his victims were often his staunchest defenders.

    I also think a lot of the so-called consensus is just simply instinctive tribalism.
    Scientists and academics automatically leaping to the defence of other scientists and academics, against criticism by outsiders.

    I know I do exactly the same thing. I’ve often found myself automatically defending a fellow farmer against criticism from environmentalists.
    Even though I often don’t agree with that farmer’s methods, and would myself criticise them to other farmers.

    00

  • #
    Ed Moran

    Michael Searcy and Hengist McStone (a great handle!) both choose to incorrectly interpret a statement. The inverted commas around “cherry-picking” should have been a clue. I hope this is an error and not a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.Yes, it is possible to make a case but the context and Ms Nova’s well-known stance on these matters leaves me feeling that 99% of readers will reject Searcy and McStone’s point.
    Gentlemen! Please stick to Real Climate and similar sites. They are used to twisting things.(Oh! That was bitchy! I’m ashamed of myself.)

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Ed @ 8

    I think the point that Jo was making (and our 2 friends chose not to pick up on) is that if the original iPhone App (critical of AGW) had been wrong, the warming advocates would have gone to town on it. As it was, they could only make superficial slights on it.

    If people say there is nothing as damning as faint praise, then there is nothing so supportive as feeble criticism from one’s enemies.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Macha

    I could not agree more with JN’s comments about John Cooks’ blog/web site. I have posted comments there about a dozen times over the last 2 years only to have them deleted overnight. As recently as last week, he continued to ‘adjust’ the comments (my blog was deleted overnight).

    Oddly enough when I asked for proof and/or the specific word or line of text that failed his criteria eg what parts he did not consider appropriate, he asked ME for the blog that I has sent HIM.! I mean, it his rules, so just like the CRU emails he seems to be unable to keep track of the original data to substantiate his claims.

    Bye bye JC from me.
    NB There’s no need for anyone to go to his site if they want to get or contribute a balanced debate. Its soooo sanitised nothing would grow there. Not a seed of a thought could possibly germinate in my view.

    00

  • #

    Just got it off the iPhone App store.

    Thanks Jo!
    Keep up the great work!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    With just 11 posts so far they’re here already. Jo you have some kind of jinx following you around.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I like it.

    Not joking: I think to get young people engaged with this it needs some music and pictures of pretty girls that would appeal to young males

    There’s certain “chic” associated with green goo – such as stars and starlets who brag about their solar panels and hybrids

    (who don’t believe in AGW anyway and probably snicker about it when not in front of a camera)

    00

  • #

    I have not only purchased the App but I have upgraded from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4. I love the phone and the app looks even better on the new version of the iPhone. I noticed when I went to the Itunes store to purchase a GPS App they had 12 Apps listed under “New and Noteworthy.” Amongst them was “Our Climate.” I wonder how many greens purchased the App without realizing what it was all about? Then again, they buy “green” regardless of the merits of the product. I can just see a member of the green herd breaking out the App to confront a skeptic only to find the App was not an AGW propaganda tool after all! Hopefully, if it did happen it was at a large gathering. ;)

    00

  • #

    @ Trolls posting at #2 and # 4

    Boo hooo hoo, waa waa waa!

    Now let me get this straight, the App demonstrates, using empirical evidence, that the AGW hypothesis is falsified and the pro AGW apologist can find no untruth to whine about?

    Wow! I guess if I my career was predicated upon promoting a falsehood my ass would be puckering, too!

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Trolls are just dead-enders, mindless conformists, and gullible patsies.

    Their life’s ambition is to make people feel bad for not being a gullible patsy.

    Well now, that’s something to feel ashamed about, isn’t it

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brian @ 13

    Disagree – I reckon Leonardo Di Caprio is probably as dumb as a bag of spanners. I remember (just after the Titanic movie) he suddenly became a big shot and employed someone just to carry his money around for him!

    And look at good old Arnie S. of California. He’s certainly bought into the green economy. What a dud…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    MT Judd

    I don’t have an iPhone and wonder if the app content is available via the web.

    Hat tip to Paul Ostergaard.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Eddy #14

    Any goods or services provider advertising their product as “green” gets crossed off my list immediately.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Papertiger @ 6

    I love your persistence, keep at it.

    00

  • #

    John Cook’s findings of cherry-picking and strawmen in a skeptical mobile phone app is somehow a ringing endorsement, but skeptical findings of supposed half-truths (read cherry-picking) and strawmen in the NOAA report is a complete dismantling.

    A ringing endorsement? Not quite. I said: endorsed “de facto” – the headline right?

    And as for your claim that we think our findings of “cherry picking” count but theirs don’t, you missed the point, they didn’t actually catch us cherry picking, they just claim to. Skeptics talk about all the time-periods, all the theories of climate forcings, all the graphs, and on top of that, we’re the unpaid volunteers with no charter or obligation to discuss it all. But NOAA et al do have that charter.… yet they don’t talk about the growing sea ice in the antarctic, they don’t mention the longer time frame where glaciers and sea level are just doing exactly what they were doing before we pumped out mass-CO2. They don’t mention that evidence of global warming isn’t necessarily evidence that CO2 was the cause.

    The iPhone App is tiny and brief, so a dedicated person can always find something unmentioned. The IPCC and NOAA have thousands of pages of info and billions of dollars to spend. Their omissions are grave and misleading.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    I see from his response to the iPhone sceptic’s app that John Cook is still peddling that one about solar dimming being responsible for the earth not going to a runaway greenhouse when the CO2 levels were 5000 + ppm (about 450 million years ago). The Stephan-Boltzman equation relates radiative heat transfer to the fourth power of temperature – as a result a sun that was 95% as bright would cool the earth by less than 4 degrees celcius compared to today. And the CO2 was 15 times was it is today – yet we had an ice age! It speaks volumes for the influence of CO2 on the climate. (Or at least at high levels. At low levels <20 ppm there's still some of the target infra red radiation that can escape.)

    Pull the other one John!

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Well done, Jo, for remaining civil and devastating at the same time.

    I suspect John Cook may well be amongst that set of well-intentioned people who actually want there to be a real AGW crisis. Attacking AGW-alarmism is to them like attacking all that they hold dear – which can span a wide range of green.

    The deep greens would dearly love to see humanity largely or completely disappear. The light greens would love to see us all growing our own food, spinning our clothes, and generally walking about the place being nice to one another in low energy ways. I guess the plotters and manipulators behind and within the IPCC are in the middle somewhere, with their hearts set on some kind of global governance for which Lenin would have also eaten his heart out. We all can see what his ‘good intentions’ help bring about in the USSR. But that of course was different – that was more like a kind of geo-political ‘weather’, whereas the IPCC crew are looking at ‘climate’.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Speedy #22.

    Not to mention how they might explain wild temperature fluctuations of as much as 10 deg. per century when the earth descended into and climbed out of the last ice age.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Frank Brown: @ 5

    “…I guess all I can hope for is that the general public will (and they are) catch on to the efforts of Blogs like this one and will call a halt to it all at the polls.”

    I don’t know about OZ but here in the UK it doesn’t matter which party you vote for, (apart from UKIP), they’re all paid-up believers in AGW. It’s what makes it so annoying to sceptics.

    00

  • #
  • #
    macha

    With so much debate and desire for science to be communicated in plain speaking terms, you know… I just could not go past this one.
    You should watch it for the 7mins or so…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

    It puts its all into perspective.
    Bravo.

    00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    Does anyone believe anything written on an iPhone? Are people really that susceptible ?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Mark@26

    The cold July in Peru. Have you ever noticed how cold weather is almost always “the second coldest”, or (as in Peru) “the coldest since 1908″, but with hot weather, its “the hottest January ever“?

    BTW it has been wonderfully cold in Perth this winter, thanks to lovely high pressure systems and windless nights. Going cycling when its 3 degrees (Celsius) is bracing. Perhaps the cold in Peru is also just due to a particular weather pattern?

    Meanwhile, floods in China, Pakistan, Poland and Germany. Too much water in a more energetic atmosphere?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Chile! I meant Chile, not Peru – please don’t crucify me! I mean, they are both South American, but it should have been obvious to me that Chile would be the cold one…..

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I know this is somewhat off-topic but I thought it would amuse. I am currently staying in Andorra for the holidays and picked up the missus’ kids at Barcelona this morning. I am now back in Andorra.

    Why is this relevant? Well in the last week I have driven the route from Andorra to Barcelona three times (I know, I know… wicked carbon footprint), but along the way I have been witness to the glory that is the Spanish renewable energy program dollars hard at work. Although I didn’t count them, there must be at least 50 generator windmills along the route I travelled.

    Not a single one was moving on any of the trips… somewhere a coal-fired generator is happy LOL.

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Ah Bulldust, you poor unindoctrinated denialist, fool, big oil pawn, fellow (10 Aug 2010). Spanish windmills don’t have to MOVE to generate electricity, they generate electricity via teleconnection.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Looks like Cook did not achieve what he set out to do.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    00

  • #
    Otter

    the hottest January ever ~ j brooks

    ‘Ever’ being exactly how long, jb?

    00

  • #
    Rod Smith

    Ferdinand # 28:

    The app was not “written” on an iPhone, rather written “for” an iPhone, an iPod Touch, and an iPad. All three versions are freely available from Apple on the Ap Store.

    Furthermore, I used to “write” things on my hand for quick reference while building software versions for testing. Assigning accuracy to something based on where it is written is a bit far out, don’t you think? I suggest you base that judgement on content.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    This off topic but this shows where the “thinking” of the bureaucrats is at the moment in the EU. This from a UK Telegraph article on proposals for direct taxes by the EU on the UK and other states.

    Janusz Lewandowski, the EU budget commissioner, said: “If the EU had more of its own revenues, then transfers from national budgets could be reduced. I hear from several capitals, including important ones like Berlin, that they would like to reduce their contribution.” He indicated that possible tax sources for Brussels could include an aviation tax and a financial transaction tax. Mr Lewandowski is also thought to wish to raise EU taxes from the sale of carbon dioxide emissions rights – which could lead to higher utility bills and petrol prices.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Ross @ 36

    Regards the EU taxing the UK.

    Perhaps the British can take a leaf out of the American’s book? I seem to recall a Tea Party that they ran in Boston – the nub of the argument being “no taxation without representation.”

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    I just read the article and I noticed that a lot of posters comments were removed by the moderator (e.g. LubosMotl). They blatantly stack the deck in favor of the proponents of AGW. What an unimpressive site.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Off topic:

    I read an article (Scientific American)about “windmills in the stratosphere” – it was serious

    These windmills were supposed to be launched into the stratosphere and tethered by power cables to the ground!!!

    Now that’s the ultimate in green goo, to me. That surpasses the solar panels in outer space and beam the electric power to the Earth with microwaves idea.

    Scientific American went into competition with New Scientist for “how wacky can you get over AGW” some while ago.

    The jury’s out, but I think Scientific American has pulled ahead recently

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Eddy Aruda: #38
    August 10th, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    OT but I thought you’d like to know J L Krueger is well. He’s back home for a few months, possibly going back to Iraq or Afganistan by the end of the year.
    He’s having a sabbatical from blogging whilst recuperating from the knee operation and catching up on work around the house.

    I sent him regards on all our behalf.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brian @ 39

    I’ve heard of “castles in the air” but this is plain ridiculous! And they wonder why any sane individual won’t take their word as Gospel?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    papertiger

    Bob Malloy @ 20

    Thanks Bob. I guess it’s all in the presentation.

    Wesley Willis was an unappreciated musical genius.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Cohenite

    Like the advert.

    It is strange that nowhere in the public campaigning that nobody is joining the dots between promoting & submitting to a global cap & trade system & ultimately the ceding of economic sovereignty to an un-elected entity.

    On another tack does anybody out there have any comments on the Nasif Nahle paper?:-

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=171

    00

  • #
    Warren

    What article are you reading,Jo? The one you link to describes your app as “comprehensively misleading”. And full of “cherrypicking”,which really suggests ‘critical omissions’ don’t ya think? Spin on merrily…

    00

  • #

    I got this app a few days ago.

    What was interesting was that the first item in the news feed was from the Guardian

    Climate Change Denial? There’s an App for that

    So, whilst I have my views on the matter, I liked the fact that this app is not filtering articles that favour either side of the debate. Kudos for that.

    But what a “typical” title in that article! I don’t think any intelligent layman or scientist will deny that the climate is changing. Duh! It’s been changing ever since the Earth was a molten chunk of rock with no atmosphere, and will carry on changing long after we are gone. I believe that the climate is changing; I don’t believe that there is hard and robust evidence that anthropogenic causes are a significant factor on a chaotic system that we cannot accurately model (as the UK Met. Office has discovered to its cost), and I certainly don’t believe in a runaway hockey stick effect.

    The same article then goes on to say

    This year I launched the skeptical science app…

    and he goes on to claim that that his app identifies a common pattern

    That sceptics focus on small pieces of the puzzle whilst neglecting the full body of evidence

    I find this an insult to my intelligence. I’m currently reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, which shows a hell bent narrow minded focus by Mann and his cronies to eliminate the medieval warm period (a small part of the puzzle?) so that they could show that late 20th century rises were unprecedented, and in effect they were suppressing inconvenient evidence that the climate was warmer in the past.

    Until I am presented with compelling evidence that Climate Change is primarily man made and that evidence stands up to scrutiny then I remain an independently thinking sceptic, who is prepared to say “I’m wrong” if the evidence for AGW becomes compelling.

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Brian G Valentine@39

    WTG’s in the Stratosphere

    “…Scientific American went into competition with New Scientist for “how wacky can you get over AGW” some while ago….”

    Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch about guys trying to outdo each other on how tough their childhood was – ‘…Aye lad, 12 of us lived int’ septic tank (or maybe a ‘skeptic’ tank) ont’ edge of motorway, our dad used to lash us to sleep with razor blades and we got up 3 hours before we went to bed…’ etc. etc.

    Can’t wait for the next installment from ‘New Scientist’!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    papertiger @ 42.

    I’m shocked you got so many thumbs down, some people just have no sense oh humor.

    00

  • #
    Len

    Doug S @ 46. I understand that the Monty Python sketch was called “The Four Yorkshiremen”. The keyword is “Luxury” followed by an even worse scenario. Like AGW, even worse than we thought. :-) .

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Four Yorkshiremen can be found here, but there were several renditions involving different cast members:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eDaSvRO9xA&feature=related

    00

  • #

    Warren post #44,

    What article are you reading,Jo? The one you link to describes your app as “comprehensively misleading”. And full of “cherrypicking”,which really suggests ‘critical omissions’ don’t ya think? Spin on merrily…

    I notice that you made no attempt to provide a real counterpoint against what she wrote.Just a feeble drive by comment is all you can muster.

    LOL.

    00

  • #

    @ Baa Humgug

    Thanks for the great news regarding J. L. Krueger. I am glad to learn that he is alive and kicking!

    00

  • #
    Ross

    John Cook seems to be able to fudge figures and presentation with the best of his mates — Mann and co.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

    00

  • #

    …unlike the AGW crowd, for whom a trend is between 10 and 50 years…

    How else could they keep their rep for being *trendy*?

    00

  • #
    Oh dear me

    Jo Nova says:

    “All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw. He’s noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy.”

    demonstrating a clear lack of intellectual standards. How is a key contradiction a “whatever” issue? Why is it a “whatever” issue? Why is that contradiction so unimportant? Why does she sweep the claim away instead of addressing it properly? What does “hardly a flaw” mean? Are all the readers of this site who commented too feeble-minded to recognise the absurdity of such a statement?

    Jo Nova: As for the second sentence, why don’t you clarify which statement is true and which isn’t? Or are both true and is everything that climate “sceptics” say true? It’s a bit like saying that truth is relative, which would imply for example that the value of pi is relative, perhaps based on historical or social considerations rather than being an absolute value.

    Which sceptics are wrong and which are right? Which sceptical viewpoints, in your opinion, have merit, Jo Nova?

    One day the poor lady will realise that she has lost years of her life fighting hard against the truth, a fight that she can never win: just cause Jo Nova says it’s so, doesn’t mean the laws of physics change.

    00

  • #
    Gail C.

    Oh dear me:
    August 14th, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Jo Nova says:
    Cook… noticed that the disorganized mass of real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other, golly gee, which proves we think for ourselves and don’t answer to a higher bureaucracy.”

    demonstrating a clear lack of intellectual standards. How is a key contradiction a “whatever” issue? Why is it a “whatever” issue? Why is that contradiction so unimportant? Why does she sweep the claim away instead of addressing it properly? What does “hardly a flaw” mean? Are all the readers of this site who commented too feeble-minded to recognise the absurdity of such a statement? ….
    ________________________________________________________________

    You just proved how blind the CAGW believers are.

    So what could the statement “…real skeptics sometimes disagree with each other…” possibly mean?? I will spell it out for you since you do not seem to understand.

    That statement means “the SCIENCE is NOT settled” It means REAL scientists are NOT all knowing GODS. It means climate science is in its infancy and we do not even know what factors we do not know. Climate is a very complicated system with lots of first second, third,… order confounding of unknown factors. So why the heck are you surprised that real scientists haven’t got it all figured out yet and there are still competing theories???

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Stephan Lewandowsky has that usual concerned bearded look AGWs seem to foster. But all we read from him is a subjective, opinionated stack of sentences that one could expect from some teenage undergraduate; long on rhetoric, short of facts. The twins analogy is at least a new one but fails to impress. He says,

    “Just analyze and weigh the risks that are associated with business-as-usual…”

    A sort of blackmail approach. He deserves credit by admitting he owns a 4WD, but then later tries to wriggle out by claiming it is more ‘virtuous’ than we who drive clunkers on lower incomes. Bless his little heart. The usual scare about Arctic ice is raised. Has he not seen that the Arctic ice pack for 2010 was at normal historical extent? I guess he never read that in the MSM because it was not reported there as well. Not scary enough for the journos.

    A recent peer-reviewed study showed that every extra degree temperature in a given year increases the likelihood of civil conflict in Africa by 50%. Scientists predict an additional human toll of 390,000 battle fatalities in Africa by 2030 because of climate change.

    Wow! I suppose the eternal conflicts from the 1960s when self governance began were not due to corruption, the Cold War rivalries, arms smuggling, old tribal scores to settle, etc. Now we know peace can be restored by stabilising the temperature. (Where did he study history if at all?)
    He also says,

    no one will bemoan the departure of noisy, dirty, and dangerous jobs in the coal industry once the transition to other, cleaner sources of energy has been completed.

    Oh? But nuclear is clean and thousands do not die mining uranium or using it every year yet Australia is opposed to any nuclear station. He proclaims as others do about how

    Denmark cut carbon emissions by 21% between 1990 and 2006 while at the same time increasing its GDP by a whopping 44%, and that Germany reduced carbon emissions by 28% whilst increasing GDP by 32%

    But he conveniently omits the fact that Denmark obtains a lot of power from Germany’s grid which has 17 nuclear power stations. No wonder their per capita emissions are lower. Canada has 18 stations while little Slovakia has 4 and soon 6. We are too precious, it seems.
    Again, I would like to emphasise a point that he and others such as Garrett, Penny Wong, et al, forget. That is, deep thermal energy, wave power, tidal power are not even off the drawing board stage yet or, at best, are only being trialed at a few place. So far without success or any likelihood of success for years. Even fusion power could possibly beat them to it.
    I have not been very ‘scientific’ but nor has Stephan Lewandowsky.

    00

  • #
    oh dear

    Gail C.:
    August 15th, 2010 at 9:45 am

    I notice that when you quoted my quote of Joanne Nova, you redacted the major offending sentence of Joanne’s:

    “All of the points held up by Cook are weak “whatever” issues: things that are hardly a flaw.”

    which means that, de-facto, you endorse my comment that Joanne Nova lacks intellectual standards.

    Thankyou!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    oh dear,

    Methinks thou doest lack intellectual standards to the point where thy eyes can’t even recognize intellectual standards. The patient is dying of cancer while complaining about a hangnail. Please!

    00