Etiquette for the office global warming denier

Posted on February 19, 2010 | 10 Comments

One has to laugh.

There have been some rather nasty “humour” on climate change denier blogs attacking scientists lately. So I rather enjoyed. this. It’s much gentler and not personal.

YouTube – SNOWMAGEDDON ETIQUETTE – at work.

Thanks to ecopolitiology and  Kate Sheppard

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
This entry was posted in Environment and Ecology, politics, Science and Society and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 responses to “Etiquette for the office global warming denier”

  1. Dianne | March 6, 2010 at 3:46 pm |

    Ken, I have read this blog and others of yours. You have to be one of the most deluded liars I have ever seen.
    Your lack of intelligence is shocking. On another blog I saw a comment you made about Vincent Gray.
    How dare you infer such a man is senile. Your language is that of an immature child.
    Very shameful behaviour. I see also that some are asking you to release information you say you have on NIWA.
    Will you be doing that? You seem to demand the same standard from others you hypocrite.

    Like

  2. Ken | March 6, 2010 at 3:57 pm |

    Hmm – wonder how your comments relate to this post, Dianne?

    You are confused about my request for information., I have accessed data from the NIWA database – just as others have. It’s public.

    However, I have been demanding of Richard Treadgold that he provide me with information on the methodology used in his “paper” “Are we warmer yet?”

    This ” paper” has been discredited, but even so there seems to be problems either with their data or the methods used. I believe that anyone using public data is ethically obliged to be transparent with its use. Particularly if they use it to make serious charges against our institutions and scientists (as Richard has done).

    Richard has refused to provide me with the information, or the spreadsheet used. That is hypocritical of him as he is demanding that NIWA release ol;d worksheet, backs of envelopes and scraps of filter paper. (Practically evertything else is in the public domain).

    So Dianne – I suggest you redirect your anger to Richard Treadgold. He is the dishonest one.

    Re my comment on Vincent. I think I was responding to someone else in a discussion – but you provide me with the link and we can then discuss it.

    My only personal comment made to Vincent was that he was ethically obliged to publicly admit to being mistaken in allowing the Treadgold paper to be approved. He admitted by email to me that he made the mistake. But meanwhile his organisation still keeps promoting the lies.

    Ethically, a scientist should not stand by allow that to happen.

    Like

  3. Dianne | March 7, 2010 at 8:07 am |

    Treadgold didnt call Gray senile. You did.
    You made a post on Feb 4 insinuating that Vincent Gray was senile. I am not going re post your own words. Look it up your self.
    You are an incredibly rude, ignorant and despicable man making fun of an older person.
    Shameful behaviour and we do not see one word of regret or apology.
    I can see that others are successfully discrediting you and good on them. You deserve it for such an abusive manner with your agism.

    Like

  4. Ken | March 7, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    Dianne – calm down. it’s not respectful to be abusive like this.

    You are confused:

    1: Treadgold didn’t even mention Gray. He refused to tell me what scientists were involved in or checked his discredited “paper.”

    2: I contacted Vincent Gray and Doug Edmeades independently to ask them if they had been involved. My email exchange with Gray can be seen in the publicly available documents (download emails).

    3: My February 4 post is Get in line – who is the odd one out? It doesn’t mention Gray at all. Provide a link if you wish to discuss this – or move on.

    4: You assume I am younger then Gray – do you know? Well, I think I am – but not by much. I usually suffer from the ageism of other – not the way you suggest.

    5: I have written on the problem of retired scientists amongst climate deniers and contrarians. Have a look at Beware the retired scientist?. As a retired scientist myself I am aware of the problems, being out of touch, etc., and being used by commercial and political interests. (And yes the ego problems).

    6: I can understand how Gray made the mistake he did. He is obviously approaching this as a hobby. He is out of touch. And he probably didn’t pay the attention it required.

    7: Gray acknowledged his mistake to me. It is no longer a question of mistakes, age or senility. It is one of ethics.

    8: Despite admitting the mistake Gray has continued to promote the discredited “paper” (for example in The Centre for Political Research discussion forum. Amongst all the conspiracy theory discussion on 9/11 an so on.

    9: So I accuse Gray of lack of integrity. For a scientist this is a more serious charge than senility.

    Now, Dianne, I realise you are probably really speaking for Ian Wishart and think he is discrediting me. But the fact is he is the one who is lying and I have been consistently exposing those lies. Much to his childish anger. It’s even distracting him from his regular lies about climate science.

    What about you discussing the real issues instead of ranting and acting as a cat’s paw for others?

    Like

  5. Dianne | March 7, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/new-zealands-denier-gate/#comment-14650

    February 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    No problem. I am flattered that I may have helped with the link.

    I was aware that Vincent Gray had retired but didn’t realise his age. The local deniers promote him as their expert which shows some poverty of imagination.

    He appeared to forget that he had acknowledged to me that they made a mistake on claiming no site effects. He had also forgotten that NIWA had sent him information on this several years ago while his organizations were accusing NIWA of lying.

    Perhaps it’s just senility.

    Sent from my iPod

    Ken
    Dont confuse the issue. You clearly infer Gray is senile in the above post. Now you say he has no integrity and constantly lies. Who are you to make these defamatory statements?
    Are you going to withdraw and apologise?

    Like

  6. Ken | March 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm |

    Ah – so it was a comment made on February 4 – not a post. No wonder it wasn’t accessible.

    You guys have obviously been trawling through my web site, haven’t you!

    Of course that comment was a response to Cedric’s information on Gray (I was aware he was retired like me, but did not know he was 88 years old) and the fact that so many climate deniers and contrarians are elderly and/or retired. It’s obviously a “throw away” comment (I am not suggesting any clinical diagnosis) – but realistic. Gray certainly did not do a good job of vetting the “paper” did he?

    Dianne, I certainly withdraw and apologise here to Gray for using the word “senile”. (Mind you, I don;t think he was aware of it, was he?)

    However, the facts remain. He did not pick up a glaringly obvious flaw in Treadgold’s paper. He acknowledges that but I think it indicates shoddy work on his part, as well as Treadgold’s

    And he has not publicly acknowledged the mistake. He has in fact promoted the “paper” with its lies.

    His ethical position is shameful.

    Who am I to make these statements?

    Someone who has read the paper, corresponded with Gay and Treadgold, been refused information by Treadgold – and misrepresented by him.
    I have a scientific research background and am well aware of scientific protocol and ethics.

    In my last communication with Gray I pointed out the ethical position he was in, that he should withdraw his support for the discredited “paper” and ask for its withdrawal.

    He ignored me.

    Now that “paper” has been used to slander and defame out scientists. Why don’t you ask Treadgold to withdraw and apologise? That is what a number of people have been doing for months now.

    And, please. No need to operate in stereo. more than one copy of a comment is superfluous – a waste of electrons.

    Like

  7. Cedric Katesby | March 7, 2010 at 2:52 pm |

    You clearly infer Gray is senile in the above post.

    The man is eighty-eight years old.
    It’s a real possibility that he’s senile.
    Plenty of octogenerians are.
    Quite common really.

    …you say he has no integrity and constantly lies…

    Well, either Ken is just being a big-ol’-meany or…he’s factually correct about his assessment of Gray.
    Perhaps you missed this part?

    Gray acknowledged his mistake to me. It is no longer a question of mistakes, age or senility. It is one of ethics.

    8: Despite admitting the mistake Gray has continued to promote the discredited “paper”…

    Sounds bad for Gray. If it’s all true then Ken has nothing to apologise for.
    Calling a spade a spade is not being defamatory.

    Like

  8. Ken | March 7, 2010 at 3:01 pm |

    Yes Cedric. But have a look at Ian Wishart. He says some obviously silly things. Things that are completely wrong – and he knows it. We aren’t accusing him of being senile – just a liar.

    I have no more reason to think Gray is senile than Wishart is. He actually was more honest with me than Wishart ever is (he never acknowledges his mistakes).

    So I am happy to withdraw and apologise for the word “senility.”

    But really that is a minor issue compared with Gray’s ethical position. Perhaps “senility” would be kinder, if less accurate.

    Mind you, Treadgold has no defense. he should withdraw his “paper” and apologise for the way he has used it to slander our honest scientists.

    Like

  9. Andy | March 9, 2010 at 12:50 pm |

    I’d really like it if people stopped using terms like “denier” and “warmist”

    It has been apparent to many intelligent people that climate science is not quite as “settled” and “robust” as the IPCC would like us to believe.

    Intelligent people are starting to ask questions, and pushing them into corners does not improve discussions.

    The concept that only “peer-reviewed” science is valid is arrogant and will ultimately undermine science.

    Everyone is entitled to an opinion; this is democracy at work. Let’s just make sure it’s all transparent and open.

    This applies to all positions, of course.

    Like

  10. Ken | March 9, 2010 at 1:41 pm |

    Andy – I have made my attitude clear on this. I don’t like the word sceptic as used on climate change issues. All scientists are sceptics. Climate scientists and the IPCC have come to the current understanding by being sceptics.

    Perhaps in some cases we could call those who generally oppose the IPCC contrarians.

    But in many cases they are outright deniers. They are in denial. They deny and distort evidence. It’s currently rife on the “climategate” issue.

    I guess it’s just a matter of appropriate use. I have respect for any sceptic who is scientific in their deliberations, whatever their conclusions. At least discussion is possible and the final arbiter is reality.

    Andy – science is not about opinions – that’s politics. Science about understanding reality and we don’t do that by consulting our prejudices.

    The argument that opinions are just as valid as facts and/or scientific knowledge is scurrilous. Commonly used by creationists and other anti–science politicos.

    Science is surely the best way humanity has of understanding and describing reality. It helps to overcome the prejudices of opinion.

    Finally, Andy, this talk of settled and robust science are really denier mantra. The IPCC does not claim things are settled. Far from it. Just read their reports and see how objective and tentative they are. Have a look at my review Climate science for you and me where I make this point.

    The strongest conclusions of the IPCC from reviewinfg the literature is that the global temperature has increased over recent years. they conclude that it “unequivocal.” And secondly this is most likely (90%) due, in part, to human inputs like greenhouse gas emissions. All else is well discussed and tentative, awaiting further information, etc.

    This is why the IPCC conclusions are basically conservative.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s