Despite claims to the contrary from the faithful like our own resident “climate change” zealot “JM” the Climategate email scandal has profoundly changed the whole debate about the responsibility of humanity for any perceived changes in the climate and no longer can the zealots get away with the same sort of crap they were prone to before November 17 last year. This piece from the Guardian (a hotbed of warminism if ever there was one) is at last being honest to the faithful.
So, 12 months later, I suggest three things of particular significance have altered.
First, there has been a discernible change in some of the practices of climate science. Most obvious has been an opening up and re-analysis of some of the core observational datasets which underpin the detection of climate change trends. The Met Office is leading a thorough international re-analysis of 150 years of land and marine temperature data. Calls for greater transparency around scientific analysis have boosted the embryonic project of the Climate Code Foundation and its efforts to make all climate computer code open-source.
The Inter-Academy Council review has recommended some significance changes in the way the IPCC assesses knowledge, in particular how it documents areas of both agreement and disagreement in the underlying science. And the Royal Society, reflecting this new mood, has issued a new guide to climate change science which separates “aspects of wide agreement”, “aspects of continuing debate” and “aspects not well understood”. The objective of these reflexive responses in science has been to demonstrate transparency and rebuild trust.
Second, there has been a re-framing of climate change. The simple linear frame of “here’s the consensus science, now let’s make climate policy” has lost out to the more ambiguous frame: “What combination of contested political values, diverse human ideals and emergent scientific evidence can drive climate policy?” The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.
The meta-framing of climate change has therefore moved from being bi-polar – that either the scientific evidence is strong enough for action or else it is too weak for action – to being multi-polar – that narratives of climate change mobilise widely differing values which can’t be homogenised through appeals to science. Those actors who have long favoured a linear connection between climate science and climate policy – spanning environmentalists, contrarians and some scientists and politicians – have been forced to rethink. It is clearer today that the battle lines around climate change have to be drawn using the language of politics, values and ethics rather than the one-dimensional language of scientific consensus or lack thereof.
Third, and perhaps most dramatically, has been the fragmentation of climate policy-making. It has been remarkable how quickly faith has evaporated in the multilateral process of the UNFCCC. Its new head, Christiana Figueres, concedes that “there won’t be a final agreement on climate change in my lifetime”. The post-mortem of COP15 showed how implausible the FAB deal wanted by NGOs – Fair, Ambitious and Binding – really was. The US Senate screwed Obama’s cap-and-trade bill. And no one believes that COP16 in Cancun later this month will be any different.
Even though the Warministas could ultimately be right there is no doubt that they are now on the back foot and having to work oh so much harder to convince a more sceptical and cynical public, which is a good thing, because when you want to change the world the onus is yours to prove that the things you want to change will be effective, efficacious and that they will not have unforeseen negative consequences. So tomorrow is a day to celebrate, it is the first anniversary of the world dodging a very big bullet because leaking those emails showed us all the folly of placing so much trust in a small clique of “experts ” with a religious agenda cloaked in the vestments of science.
Cheers Comrades



My eyes!
Well that picture is to remind everyone that the Warministas want to drag us all into the vortex of despair Ray! ;)
Geez Iain, calling The Guardian names is a bit over the top! I’ve been reading the online issue of that newspaper since the late 1980s and I can tell you that it seems to me to be a middle-of-the-road rag compared to the range of Rupert Murdock stuff and to the real left-wing Johnnies. The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust and you can see their principles at that link. The Formation and Purpose page might help you to understand something about ethics and the meaning of the word liberal.
Try to be a little more liberal yourself, please.
Lin
I quite like the Guardian even though I disagree with much its content ;)
Iain: Even though the Warministas could ultimately be right ….
In the long run then?
Hmmm. I’m reminded of Keynes: In the long run we’re all dead.
Why don’t we get a bit smarter and be right in the short run?
So JM, you’re saying that just in case AGW is real, we should act?
JM
Because there is not enough evidence that the theory of AGW is either correct or that the the prescription suggested by zealots like yourself will be achievable or that they would work if the political obstacles to their enactment were not there.
So JM, you’re saying that just in case AGW is real, we should act?
Well, considering by the time we wait for *everyone* to be convinced AGW is real, it’ll likely be far too late in terms of the extra damage done and the chances of sorting it out.
Given on the weight of scientific evidence the liklihood of it being real is currently far better than not (unless you don’t believe basic greenhouse gas theory and still believe everything observed in the last 50 years + is explained away by the sun) then I’d say its fairly prudent to act now…
Iain: not enough evidence that the theory of AGW is either correct
Let’s take this in two halves, because we need to break things down into simple, readily digestible chunks.
1. The theory is fine. The theory is fundamental physics and the same phenomenon that causes CO2 to absorb infra-red was exploited to create just about every element of modern life – from flourescent lighting to computers and the atom bomb.
If you don’t agree with the above statement you either don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘theory’ or you lack sufficient education to comprehend the common-place nature of it. Both of those problems are remedied by a little study and effort*
2. The evidence that the earth has warmed over the last 100-150 years in line with increased CO2 concentration (and oil/coal consumption) is irrefutable.
Game, set, match.
Get over it Iain. You’re wrong.
* There is of course a third possibility, but I’m not going there.
There is of course a third possibility, but I’m not going there.
If it involves a left-wing conspiracy theory, Iain is already all over it…
No, it involves the following somewhat gruesome story which I heard from a WWII veteran and is about bullish refusal to believe obvious facts.
A group of Australian soldiers in the African desert came across an anti-tank mine and were discussing what to do about it – move it, wait for the sappers, etc. During this discussion one decided it would be ok to just dig up and move since it was aimed at tanks and – he opined – would require a huge amount of weight or disturbance to set off. He was strongly of the opinion that all would be ok.
The others disagreed and an argument developed, the result of which was that the first soldier offered to stand on the thing to prove it wouldn’t go off. The others pulled back 50 yards or so.
The first stood on the mine which exploded. When the others ran up they found it had cut him in two and he had no legs (or even waist) left, but he was still semi-conscious, although delirious.
He said: “See, I told you it wouldn’t go off”. Then he died.
The obvious fact? Mines are dangerous and need to be treated with care at all times, no matter how much you think “She’ll be right, Jack”.
I’m sure if Iain thinks about it enough he’ll see the parallel.
JM
You are a true zealot JM :roll:
Hmm the theory may well be fine But without a clear and definitive value for “climate sensitivity” its not worth much in the real world now is it? Its rather like saying that you have the blue prints for a machine but none of the drawing has a scale or any dimensions Its just white lines on blue paper and useless for building anything.
Your proof of the causal relationship is what precisely? Hmm that right you just think the increase in Co2 is the cause of the warming there is no definitive proof now is there?
Yawn….
BTW
JM do you remember the other day when you reacted with incredulity that I might be able to work out a bit about what sort of person you are form your comments?
You had the audacity to accuse me of ‘cyber stalking” well just to prove a point I went through all of your comments here (very easy as site-owner) and cut and pasted every comment within which you talk about yourself or events in your life go here (where you will find all of the revelations that you have made in red). Now I found it rather amusing that early in your comemnts that you were more than happy to identify as male, even claiming to have a wife but when I recently asked you to nominate a gender you obviously forgot just what you have said earlier and you got all huffy and indigent. You seem to be claiming an awful lot of expertise (without nominating any of it with any great precision) which suggests to me that a good deal of your claims about yourself including your qualifications in the “hard sciences” are in fact untrue.
Yes, thats a pretty good analogy for the ‘sceptic’ crowd to consider – and then deny of course!
Iain: Hmm the theory may well be fine But without a clear and definitive value for “climate sensitivity” its not worth much in the real world now is it?
Next you’ll be telling me that the theory of gravity is useless “in the real world” because the graviational constant is not known “clearly and definitively” – it’s not, it’s only known to a given accuracy. Clearly and definitely? No. So I guess by your lights that gravity is something that we shouldn’t take account of.
Perhaps those of us who believe in gravity are “fallinistas” who hold to a foolish and bigoted religious faith?
And I think your irony meter is broken. Iain Hall reacts to an accusation of cyber-stalking, by …. cyber-stalking.
I’d prefer if you took that page down Iain.
JM
Why should I take that page down JM?
It contains nothing that you have not offered unprompted so how pray tell is it in any sense wrong to point out the things that you have said about yourself here at the Sandpit?
JM & PKD You might just be interested in the Scientific American readers poll on climate
It seems that your faith is already in decline….
Well I could point to breach of copyright*. Quoting me and commenting or retorting is one thing – wholesale reproduction is another.
But that would be petty.
No, I’ll just focus on the ironic side, and also that you’re using intimidation because you’re losing the argument.
* Despite your novel interpretation where you claim copyright for everything here – and ignoring the implications and possible liabilities for yourself should a commenter here say something that becomes subject of a libel suit. We’ll put that issue to one side.
You mean this poll? You know where you can see the entire article, including the sub-head at the end reading “Climate Denial on the Decline”
Me: And I think your irony meter is broken. Iain Hall reacts to an accusation of cyber-stalking, by …. cyber-stalking.
And to pile on the irony, Iain Hall posts his “righteous” attempt to out a pseudonymous commenter …. by posting on one of his own pseudonymous blogs.
You know Iain, if you weren’t real I don’t think we could make you up.
JM
Actually as I have made all of the instances of your personal revelations a distinctive colour that constitutes commentary in its own right so that page is not in fact “wholesale reproduction” at all and that is before we get to the fact that I have selected those comments out of the 1600 that you have posted here.
How can it be intimidation to quote back to you precisely what you have freely said here at my blog? Further I think that it is you who is losing the argument
You want to claim Copyright JM?
As you point out I am legally responsible for the content that I assert copyright over here at my blog and I suppose that includes the comemnts from anonymous commentators like you (that I allow at my discretion) so send me such a claim in the from of an affidavit in your own name citing your address and contact details and we’ll take it from there ;) email me for my postal address if you want to do this.
Cheers
Iain, you obviously don’t understand copyright law. I have copyright the instant I put pen to paper (or type words on a blog). I do not have to assert copyright, you have to ask permission.
Now you implicitly get permission when I comment here. But you do not get blanket permission in perpetuity. You only get limited rights and for a limited period. Nor do you get permission to publish in other places.
And you certainly don’t get permission to publish for clearly intimidatory purposes.
Intimidation == stalking.
Your behaviour, you own it. Take the page down Iain.
JM
Just look at the By line of the post, its right at the top of the page and see just who is cited as the author, Yep that’s right I put my name to that post just as I do to every other post on that blog
Big instance of you self Pwning I think JM
JM
Now you are making me laugh!
I have heard this all before from a “Learned friend” and he was wrong then just as you are wrong now. To dispute my right to reproduce that text you will have to identify yourself at the very least in correspondence ( you can find my email via the link on the front page of this blog) and prove that you are in fact the author of those comments. How can I even be sure of that? You have used about four different (fake) email addresses and a proxy server.
Bollocks!
:lol:
JM are you nuts? You mightn’t like Iain reproducing your ANONYMOUS quotes on his other CLEARLY IDENTIFIED blog but … so what? As if you, an ANONYMOUS & UNIDENTIIFIED person, can claim copyright over what you say here!! And as if it is st*lking for Iain to to focus online attention on “JM” … an unidentified person. It may not be *nice* but it’s perfectly legal. And ethical. Quite frankly, JM, you seem like a total wanker. You claim expertise in so many fields that it’s just un-freakin’-believable. Just ignore him or speak under your own name. While you’re an alias, just what the hell is wrong with Iain saying and doing anything he likes in connection to your fictitious persona? You’re a bloody sook.
Iain: To dispute my right to reproduce that text you will have to identify yourself at the very least in correspondence ( you can find my email via the link on the front page of this blog) and prove that you are in fact the author of those comments.
Well unless you’re saying that I’m not the author I reckon your case would be sunk before you started. I think we both agree who is the author, so that issue wouldn’t come up for dispute.
In any case, the bookshops are stacked to the ceiling with pseudonymous authors and they don’t have any trouble asserting copyright (ask Mark Twain).
How can I even be sure [that you’re the author]? Well you seem pretty sure, I don’t know why you’d be doing this otherwise.
You have used about four different (fake) email addresses and a proxy server.
No and no.
Look Iain, this getting boring.
1. Take the page down (I think you’re developing rather an unhealthy obsession with me actually – that must have taken a lot of work)
2. Acknowledge or dispute my point about climate sensitivity (which is far more relevant to the current post)
Ray: You claim expertise in so many fields
No Ray, I claim expertise in a couple of fields that I’ve worked in, some expertise in areas like music where I’ve had a lifelong engagement (and some paying work when I was younger) and in all other areas I only claim knowledge – which I usually back up with references.
Other than that, all other things I quote are anecdotes – you know? Work and life experiences. Some funny, some not. That sort of stuff. We’ve all got ‘em.
I can’t help it if Iain has led a sheltered existence and lived in a small and closed circle. IMHO he needs to get out more.
JM, you have been a constant , carping & anonymous critic of Iain for years. When he questions you about information you have revealed related to your real life (which is probably not true anyway) you scream “stop st*lking me”. You then claim you have copyright over what you say here anonymously and you cite Mark Twain as proof – even though Mark Twain’s real name was known to the publisher so of course he had copyright over those published words. You don’t.
Give. Me. A. Break. If you want be anonymous that’s fine. But if you lay shit on the blog owner under his real name expect him to give you some back under your not-real name. It won’t hurt you – you’re anonymous and thereby protected.
JM
Can you prove that you are the author of every one of those comments? As I said “JM” has posted citing four different email address and I remember correctly more than one Proxy server. How do I know that are all are the work of the one person?
You can assert away but if you want to dispute my right to reproduce those comments then you will have to de-cloak to do it.
Do I need to publish the different email addresses you have cited to comment here?
No not at all all I had to do was to a search of the comemnts at this blog made in the name of “JM” I am a very fast reader so it took little more than an hour to cut and past the relevant text.
But as Ray points out you are just being an awful Sook because I have made no attempt to identify you at all, you remain entirely anonymous, all I have done is prove a point about just what you have been telling me and the world about yourself here
I’ll see if I can find it now ;)
Updated
Just what was your point about climate sensitivity? Because I can’t find it!
Iain: I have made no attempt to identify you at all
You’re priceless. Let’s see.
You’ve accused me of using proxy servers (I don’t), you’ve speculated on my gender (even in this thread), you’ve accused me of using fake email addresses (I don’t), you’ve recently accused me of being other people (“BG, ML and AJ” I think were the latest accusations)
And your repeated claim re. proxy servers indicates that you’ve made attempts to track me via the internet. People don’t ordinarily do that unless they have malicious intent.
Now you put up a page highlighting – not my opinions – but personal information. You then comment on it for no other than intimidatory purposes.
I think that all qualifies as s**lk**g.
Sorry Iain. I can’t take this “butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth” defense of yours seriously.
Take down the page.
And re. climate sensitivity: I’ll see if I can find it now
I’ll wait. But I’m not holding my breath for anything credible.
It does not qualify as sta*lking, JM. Online st*lking involves the use of a person’s real name. Even if Iain is trying to find out your real name (and there’s no evidence he is) that is still not sta*lking – unless he then sets about st*lking you under that name. You need to get a grip here.
To give you an example, JM, if you went to another blog or set up an anonymous blog (like SW) and posted crap about Iain or me, that IS st*lking. But if Iain goes to another blog or even sets up an anonymous blog and posts shit about “JM” (who is not known) that is NOT st*lking. It’s just silly blog wars.
JM
An IP search shows a proxy server, You have cited addresses for hotmail, Live mail, and Gmail (two similar variants) I speculated on your gender because it is a very strange thing indeed to be so coy about it especially as in the earlier “JM” comments the author clearly identifies as male.
Oh spare me that sort of bollocks You can’t be unaware that I have been subject to unrelenting trolling from a certain clique of lefties so of course I check out everyone who turns up here to comment, its not malice its self-defence. As Ray says you have been unrelentingly critical of me since your very first comment.
Its information that I have not sought, posted entirely freely by someone calling them selves “JM” all that I have done is filter it from the 1600 mostly aggressively critical comments that you have posted here at the Sandpit
You have no right to make such demands
well I can’t find it so repost please
JM, I hope your legal and copyright knowledge is better than your music ‘expertise’.
‘I claim expertise in a couple of fields that I’ve worked in, some expertise in areas like music where I’ve had a lifelong engagement (and some paying work when I was younger)’
Expertise? from ‘some paying work when I was younger’?
JM I wouldn’t show that statement, coupled with the music related comments you’ve made here to anyone in the music industry. What little remains of your credibility will be shredded.
Good evening GD just in case you have missed the page that JM is whining about its HERE
Even I had a good laugh when JM was dissing you about “sight reading” personally I can’t play a note (starting the CD player does not count) but I do know a few musos very well indeed some certainly can’t read but play very well by ear but most who have been classically trained can sight read very well (my wife can do this) JM is a musical dilettante with an ego far in excess of his/her ability.
Thanks, Iain. It’s not only the classically trained musos who can read. But perhaps we’ll consider that horse well and truly flogged. Having gone thru’ JM’s diatribe on music, I’d be hesitant in believing him on any other subject he reckons he’s an expert on. Including copyright and climate change.
GD – you’re missing the word engagement. I haven’t accepted payment for stage work (which is infrequent anyway) for years now because I earn far more in my day job, and I split the fee with the guys for whom it is a profession. I don’t need the money, they do.
And anybody who claims that Strats “were unpopular for a few months” and only cost $60 in 1970 is standing on some pretty thin ice.
As for this sight reading thing you and Iain have going … what are you smoking? Does Jimmy Page sight read? Did Hendrix?
Ok, let’s go to that bastion of professional guitar players – Nashville – and see what they use. Ever seen a Nashville chart?
It’s not notation, it’s numbers like this: I ii IV V etc
You’re not going to tell me that Nashville session musicians are uneducated, unskilled slouches are you?
You have no right to make such demands
I have every right to ask that you treat me with the same respect you ask of me (or accord to people such as ‘gigdiary’ or ‘SockPuppet’)
well I can’t find it so repost please
Repost what? I thought you were off looking for your own source.
Guys, let’s try an experiment. We’ll use copyright. Now I’m not a lawyer and neither are you two.
But rather than just disparage my opinion on the topic, perhaps you could refute my statements – in detail.
Can’t? Didn’t think so. Disparagement (ie. abuse) is all you’ve got.
True enough GD I appreciate that reading music is not just for the “classically trained ” My wife teaches music and I see how hard it is to for some of her students to get it but once they do it opens up a whole lot of possibilities and one that any serious Musician will appreciate for their entire career.
JM
That sounds like you are a dilettante to me.
Are you thick JM? GD clearly said that he bought it privately from an other Musso and I think he even decribed its “like winning a lottery” (or words to that effect) have you never got a bargain like that? :roll:
Don’t know nor do I care. but I know that many Mussos who have had any real training learn to read music because it is a very useful skill to have and likewise if they have any decent training they will learn a good amount of theory as well.
Which proves nothing,
So what?
Of course not as I have said I know both instinctive musicians who can’t read at all but they can play anything by ear and I know some equally good musicians who can sight read anything just because one branch of the musical family uses a differnt language does not make your argument at all.
You are asking me to treat you with “respect” when you have nothing but disdain for me? from where I stand respect is a mutual thing and in any case I know who both GD and Socky are in “real” life You are just a pseudonymous commentator who who runs a constant litany of disparagement that I have put up with for 1600 comments .
You said that I had not responded to your “point about climate sensitivity” I could find no such point in this thread.
Hang on, JM! I’m just here to refute your music arguments. Let the others deal with the legals.
Nashville charts, now you’re talking! They are chord charts, not dots, not music notation. The chords are numbered according to their position in the key. This gives the player ultimate flexibility when playing country sessions in Nashville. The players can change key at the whim of the producer or singer etc. However, notes aren’t written down. It’s a simple and flexible format for bass players and guitarists and anyone else who needs a roadmap of the song.
However, how do musicians in Australian and overseas broadway musicals play the music, if they can’t sight-read? How do the musos on TV shows like OZ and American Idol play the songs? Nashville charts are useless in these situations. That’s when classical music notation comes to the fore, and not only classical players but players of every instrument under the sun can learn to read this notation, if they need to.
Of course the rock guys didn’t need to. Jimmy and Jimi and Eric and Mark and Jeff didn’t need to do that work. Horses for courses. And you are on the wrong track.
Actually, just to put this whole sight reading horse pucky to bed, let me quote Steve Vai one of the top 3 guitarists in the world right now:
Guitar.com: Do you still sight read a lot?
Vai: No. Sight-reading is a whole other world. When I was in college I declared that I was going to be one of the world’s best sight-readers. I spent an entire summer, nine-hour days, sight-reading clarinet, saxphone, violin every kind of book you could imagine. And then I realized at the end of it all, a) how am I going to apply this and why, and b) I’m not even close to being the best, and c) it’s a life-long achievement because the guitar is such a pickled instrument to sight-read on. If you give me a piece of music I can get through it. But the last time I read music on the guitar was when I did Joe Jacksons record with him, Symphony No. 1. [1999] But it was all charted out. It’s not like I’m going and try to sight-read. I would never go into a situation and try to sight-read. It’s unfair to the composer.
In other words:-
a.) sight reading is raw amongst guitarists (if you can do it GD, more power to you)
b.) a man who is indisputably one of the best in the world doesn’t do it any more and regards it as very difficult on guitar
Both of these are my points.
Note also the instruments he’s happy to sight read on:- clarinet, saxphone, violin. All monophonic instruments (ie. one note at a time).
BTW GD I can sight read, sort of. On sax and in the past trumpet which I used to play. Monophonic instruments. The guitar is polyphonic and you also need a lot of extra notation to get the articulation.
JM Re Copyright
I have had enough arguments with a certain barrister about copyright to have learn a little about the subject I cite the relevant law in my copyright disclaimer Now as I have said earlier if you want to dispute my use of words that you claim as your own then do so via email citing just who you are (which I won”t disclose or publish) but as long as you remain entirely pseudonymous then you can not insist upon anything or assert any “rights” about anything that I copy or reproduce. In any case as I said earlier my highlighting of particular words in the quotes is more than adequate to constitute “fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review”.
Iain: [defending disparaging remarks] “fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review”.
Are you saying that criticism or review of my private life is fair dealing?
GD: Horses for courses.
Alright, then I don’t think we’ve got anything to argue about. And I accept your point about stage shows.
I might quibble about what “sight reading” means. If it means “sight unseen” then I think very, very few people can do that. If it means “being able to read, study, try out, mark up and learn; then use the sheet as a cue”, then I’m with you as well.
Iain, it’s my comment at 2:49pm, particularly the second paragraph about the gravitational constant.
Gotcha going now, sight-reading denier. It exists. The great Steve Vai said it does, he said he studied it. Will you answer my question about Broadway musicals? These guitarists aren’t Jeff Beck or Steve Vai, but they make a grand living. Do you accept that they can read fly-shit?
Guitarists can work out where to play any note in relation to others, on the guitar neck. It’s called training. Doesn’t matter that that note is playable in three different places. All instruments have limitations and hurdles to overcome. That is the guitar player’s hurdle.
JM
Sorry but you display a profound ignorance of the precise legal meaning of “fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review” read my disclaimer again.
I make no comment about your “private life” but it is entirely legitimate for me to take note of exactly what you have publicly said/strong> about who you are and what life experiences that claim.
OK, JM, finally we come to some sort of agreement. ‘Sight-unseen’ is difficult. It is a specialised skill. I belong to the lower echelon of those professionals. Whatever else we play, whatever style, we have put the hard yards in to be able to do this. I am ordinary at it, but am still employed to do it.
Reading at sight is much easier if learnt as a child.
JM
You say this in response to my coment about “climate sensitivity”
But climate sensitivity is not gravity now is it? and the claims for its value seems to be far more disputed than the any “Gravitational constant” (whatever that is )
Iain: I make no comment about your “private life” but it is entirely legitimate for me to take note of exactly what you have publicly said/strong> about who you are and what life experiences that claim.
So you’re saying that it is fair dealing to comment on and criticize my private life. Not what I have said regarding the topics under discussion (which are generally a matter of public interest), but the specifics of my private life? As a means of disparaging rather than engaging with the specifics of my opinions on public issues?
Ok. Got it. That’s a license for ad-hominem attacks.
You need an ethics transplant.
Iain: “Gravitational constant” (whatever that is )
[after picking self up off floor and resuming seat] – It’s this
It is the fundamental constant in Newton’s Law of Gravity and determines how strong gravity is. It’s value is only known from experiment and observation (ie. empirically) and cannot be determined from first principles.
It plays a very similar role to Climate Sensitivity in our understanding of the earth’s climate and its response to change. We only know the value of G (the gravitation constant) within a range – ie. we don’t know it “clearly and definitively”.
Just like CS actually. We can only determine that from experiment and observation, and we only know its value within a range – we don’t know it “clearly and definitively”.
But the theory of gravitation is not useless “in the real world”, and neither is the theory of climate science.
Fair enough GD.
I tips me lid to yer, JM, and leave you to the mercy of the tough guys, good luck! Best have your wits about you.
JM, just to explain the basic fundamental of copyright (something you admit you don’t understand) it is only an infringement of copyright when someone takes your work/words and republishes it without permission for commercial gain. Your redress – if you as an anonymous person have one – is to sue Iain and prove he made a buck out of your work/words. And you’d have to sue him under your real name. As far as I can see Iain does not make money from this or any other blog he operates. Good luck with your claim. Maybe next time you quote Iain, me or anyone else here, we’ll also accuse you of breach of copyright. Just for fun.
As for Iain mentioning your “private life”, it appears he has only mentioned those parts you have disclosed. Here. On Iain’s blog. What is your problem with people telling other people something you have said in a public forum? He could hardly mention anything that is truly “private” about you unless he made it up – but then, as you’re anonymous, how would that matter?
Ray, copyright exists without commercial gain. That’s just a common let-out that’s due to the nature of UK based law (which Australia follows in this respect). It’s defacto in nature not de-jure (and that’s without getting into defamation like issues).
Copyright is the right to copy, or reproduce. Period.
Further, that right exists without it needing to be asserted in court.
There are only three ways Iain can assert a right to reproduce my words:-
1. That I didn’t write them in the first place and they are works of fiction produced by his own hand. This is pretty clearly nonsensical in the current circumstances. I don’t think he’s posting this and claiming that he wrote it himself.
2. That he has my permission. He doesn’t.
3. That his reproduction was for legitimate purposes of review or criticism.
He seems to be claiming #3. In which case he’s claiming a right to criticize my private life. ie. not my opinions which was what this stuff was posted for in the first place. I don’t think that anyone would say that personal criticisms are legitimate in a forum of this kind.
Now since Iain is conceding #1 – that I am the author, then he has to also concede a public request from me to take it down. I don’t have to go to court. And I don’t have to identify myself.
(And as I have often explained, I have reasons for not identifying myself.)
Take it down Iain.
It’s “fair use” to copy your comments – you made them on his blog and he’s using them to make a point .. whatever that is. Get over it. And no one has to concede anything to an anonymous blog commenter.
JM
You are right that I am claiming that I have a right to reproduce your comments (with proper citation to their original location here at my blog btw) because I wanted to make a simple point in response to your accusations about me. Namely that I do not need to have done anything other than take a mental note of the things that you have freely said here to know something about you. Now apart from some incredulity at some of the things that you claim about yourself I have not been “criticising” your “Private” life at all and the comments posted at Still being nice, even to the undeserving just show that you have spoken extensively about your own life here. I have been saying essentially the same thing about all commentary (by everyone) on the web for years.
I concede nothing, using the pseudonym JM and several different identifiers (IP address and Email) comments have been made at my blog they could have been all made by you but then maybe they haven’t all been made by the same person, I have no way of knowing for sure. There is simply no basis in law for you to sustain your demand.Given your endless personal antagonism to me there is no reason at all for me to generous to you in return and make no mistake for me to do as you demand requires my generosity.
JM
Yes I thought it was something like that( but I have a life so I did not have the time to check it out sooner) but what you are doing in citing it is trying to attribute its empirical nature which clearly works (I can’t imagine space travel with out a clear understanding of how gravity works) to Climate sensitivity which has not been defined to anywhere near the same level of certainty now has it?
If this were actually the case then climate sensitivity would not be so hotly disputed* now would it? My point being that when the range of values is as large as it is for climate sensitivity there is far too much variability for it to be at all empirical.
Surely any theory is only as useful as it is accurate, while the theory of gravity works well enough to send men to the moon the theory of climate sensitivity is less sure by many orders of magnitude which destroys the validity of your comparison.
*pun intended ;)
> There is simply no basis in law for you to sustain your demand
BS Iain.
1. There is no dispute about authorship, you can’t claim one thing in the real world and then go into a court and claim the opposite
2. You copy very substantial portions – well beyond what is allowed and without permission.
3. You make no substantive review or criticism other than things related to my private life – you can’t get the “fair use” exemption in other words.
Take it down.
(Oh BTW – can I remind you of your undertaking not to reveal email addresses? Why are you doing so now?)
Iain I’m not responding to your gibberish about climate sensitivity. You’re clearly trying to manipulate concepts you don’t understand and the words just aren’t working for you.
It’s like Andrew Jackson said – you can’t have a reasoned argument with gibberish, the stupidity has to become half-way sensible first.
JM
Well I’ve been looking again and thus far I have 7 different IP addresses and two different email address on just the first of 16 pages of a comment search for “JM” keeping in mind that there are fifteen more pages of 100 comments each it does not look good for a consistent source for all of the comemnts now does it?
Well That very much depends on what you consider the “whole ” to be I would argue that the whole is the entire body of comments attributed to “JM” here at the Sandpit in which case they are a very small part of a rather large whole.
You just got through telling me that you are not a lawyer well versed in copyright law so how would you know what constitutes “fair use” ? The point of the exercise was to show what you had freely said about yourself this I did by making the relevant lines into red text. That is in itself commentary and enough justification under the act.
You can repeat this till the cows come home but I don’t respond to demands from anonymous commentators
I have not revealed anyone’s email address and I certainly have not revealed yours, Oh hang on are you getting narky because I have said I have comemnts from “JM” citing different email addresses?
That is not revealing anything.
JM
That is a cop out most likely because you realise that even this humble Arts graduate has a point that you can’t refute, simply that your analogy does not fit, work or make your case.
Is it any wonder that I have no generosity towards you? Look I argue climate change with PKD Craigy or just about anyone else and they keep it civil and enjoy the game. Why is that so hard for you?
Iain – to follow your logic, if you have 7 IP addresses and 2 email addresses then you must be attributing things to me that other people have said. That’s a form of slander.
So which is it to be, slander or copyright violation?
You’re tying yourself in knots.
To make it plain to you:-
1. I never granted you permission to republish
2. If you’ve mistakenly thought you had permission, then I’ve withdrawn it.
3. “Fair use” means for the purpose of “legitimate review or criticism”.
You are saying that it is legitimate to criticize my private life. Lot’s of luck with that one.
You’re also in violation of your WordPress Terms Of Service agreement which requires you to respond to requests such as this by removing the offending content.
Take it down.
Iain even this humble Arts graduate has a point that you can’t refute
Well not really, there’s a smidgen of a point there. Maybe.
But the real problem is that you throw around words like “empirical” without understanding what they mean viz this nonsense:-
what you are doing in citing [gravity] is trying to attribute its empirical nature which clearly works
As to what I think your point is re. levels of accuracy:
Do you know how accurately Newton knew the value of G (the gravitational constant) when he “extended the calculation to the orbit of the moon and found the correct result pretty nearly”?
He didn’t know it at all. He had to use other approximation techniques, but he got pretty close. (The value of G wasn’t known until around 100 years later).
Actually he got close enough that he could probably have crashed a rocket into the moon (had he had a rocket big enough) and with a few course corrections on the way. Orbital insertion would have been a bit more difficult.*
And his theory was good enough for calculation of planetary orbits, and many, many calculations here on earth without an accurate value for G.
A theory’s “goodness” doesn’t just depend on the accuracy of its proportionality constants. It depends on the understanding it gives us.
And the AGW calculation – along with the rest of climate science – gives us a very good understanding regardless of uncertainty
* I’m sure you’ve seen the Apollo 13 movie where they get back into earth orbit via the seat of their pants. Not easy, but not impossible either.
Iain: I have not revealed anyone’s email address and I certainly have not revealed yours
Go back and have a look at that page – you have, right there.
No you are wrong about that just like you were wrong about the by line of that post JM
Then I will quote, in order to convince you:
JM’s personal revelations (highlighted in Red)
Posted on November 19, 2010 by Iain Hall
JM first fake email: [redacted]
Happy now?
Take it down.
Wrong!
JM would you mind finding some legal basis to support these ludicrous claims that you, an unidentified person, is making here? Re:
a) Your claim to copyright over what are essentially unauthored comments.
b) Your claim to have been slandered in your anonymous name.
c) Your claim that Iain is st*lking you.
While your at it, could you please find & quote the speccific WordPress term of service that says blog owners must meet demands from unidentified people claiming ownership of essentially unauthored words?
This is crazy stuff and I have to think you’re just having a lend and trying to wind Iain up. I’m not sure why he has put those unauthored comments on a blog and attributed them to the unidentified “JM” but people do strange things. But you have no case and, furthermore, no reason to complain. You have not been damaged in any way. Maybe consult a lawyer. LMAO.
JM
Just to respond in detail to your comment of 5.09
what bizarre logic you use :roll: I am stating a fact that from all of the comments made here under the name of JM there are a number of quite different email address (5 by my count) and one of the many(about 10 in total ) IP addresses associated with “JM” also has a comments made in a different pseudonym. So just how can I be certain that they were all made by the same person?
That is not the question, the question is can you prove that you are in fact the author of all of those comments, as an anonymous poster why should I take your word for it? Heck you even insist on doing this in public rather than in private by email that in itself is sus and undermines your argument.
No I’m not :lol: (pun intended) you are the one having coniptions here not I
I don’t need it in this circumstance
Irrelevent
Yes and me making a point about what has been freely said under the name of “JM” is entirely legitimate
“JM” wrote the information in discussion threads at my blog and that makes the entire content of those legitimate for discussion and comemnt,
Yawn. I told you that when you contact me in your own name and prove that you are author of all of the text in question then we will be at a starting point for discussion. I am sure that the WP terms of service do not require me to accept at face value any claims of authorship of any text that I cite (correctly annotated) in any of my blogs from nameless individuals who won’t identify themselves or prove that they wrote any of the text in question.
I don’t hear the cows yet
‘Maybe consult a lawyer. LMAO’
maybe consult a shrink….
> Wrong!
Not wrong, Iain. It’s right there.
Take it down
And yes you do need permission, that is unless you consider my private life a legitimate subject for review and criticism.
Do you?
JM
Even if there was an email address posted at the head of that post (there isn’t) I suspect that it is, like all the others that you have cited here, not actually even a real address that you even own or operate because any time I have tried to contact you by email I have received no response.
If all of the things that you freely posted were “private” then why did you make them public? I don’t know who you actually are so how on earth do you think that my compiling a serries of comemnts made by “JM” can have any effect on any “real” person?
Oh any just to help your legal education along it is impossible in law to slander someone who is anonymous as you are.
Now I’ll check my email to see if you want to do this in private like a grown up ;)
> Even if there was an email address posted at the head of that post (there isn’t)
Then you’ve edited it (I’ve got a copy of the original Iain, so let’s not argue about it)
It’s the fact that you’re collating them and presenting them with the clear purpose of intimidating me (which yes Ray, when combined with Iain’s other activities such as trying to track down my ISP, tracing my IP addresses, asking impertinent personal questions etc, etc, etc – all constitute st**lk**g.)
(And Ray, just on your other points – there is no such thing as an “unauthored” comment, all comments are authored. And the comment about slander was an attempt to point out the illogic of his position to Iain, not to actually claim it.)
Iain is implicitly refusing to take this down until he finds out who I am. He’s using it as an intimidation tactic to extract private information from me that he has no right to.
(On other things, Section 7 of WordPress’s Terms of Service deal with copyright, while the privacy policy is linked to from there)
And Iain, I will not hold discussions with you about my private life – even via private email. You don’t have a pristine reputation on this sort of thing. Nor do you have much of a reputation for respecting peoples privacy – large parts of this thread have established you have no respect for mine.
Just take the page down and stop being stupid.
No Steve you don’t
Read the post linked too up thread but also the copyright disclaimer at the foot of my front page it contains a link to the appropriate regulations that cover copyright in this country.
Cheers
Iain
I can’t see an email address at the head of that post either, Iain. Is “JM” on drugs as well as crazy?
Btw, what “private life”? There is nothing about the private life of any identified person on that blog post. “JM” needs to get over it … or get help.
JM
why would you take a copy of anything at any of my blogs?
The IP address needs no “tracking down every comment posted comes with its IP address clearly identified on a WP blog.
That is a semantic point at best
If an anonymous someone is making a demand of action from me I am entitled to know who they are.
If someone wants to assert copyright then it is entirely reasonable that I as site-owner know who is making such a claim.
I don’t give a toss about your private life and I don’t want to discuss it with you at all I just don’t care a single jot about you.
The person looking stupid here is you.
Um, JM, you are anonymous and Iain does not know your name, nor has he sought it from what I can see. But if you are worried that he is “st*lking” you (which is impossible – read the Act, the victim has to be identified) then there is a rather simple solution.
It’s called … piss off and stay away. Otherwise, grin & bear it. And if you lay anonymous crap on someone, expect them to have a go back. Simple really. Now put the dummy back in your mouth.
Iain: The IP address needs no “tracking down every comment posted comes with its IP address clearly identified on a WP blog.
I know that. But that’s not my point. How were you led to accuse me of using a proxy server if you didn’t go further and attempt to trace it?
Why did you ask me who my ISP was/is?
If an anonymous someone is making a demand of action from me I am entitled to know who they are.
Not if I’m simply asking you to obey the law.
I don’t give a toss about your private life
You seem to have developed rather an unhealthy interest in it. After all, you’re maintaining a blog page containing everything you know about it.
BTW Iain, you did once know my name. You just seem to have forgotten it.
Can’t help bad luck can we?
JM
You got no special treatment I check the IP address of everyone, given the number of belligerent trolls that I get here its just simple good sense to do so.
Did I ask you that ? frankly I don’t remember
:roll:
You don’t even know the details of the law and you are in error anyway. To claim a copyright violation you have to prove two things , firstly that you, the real person, is the author and then secondly you have to prove that I have not net the terms of the “fair use provisions”. You fail on both counts. If you refuse to make the claim in your own name (especially as I can demonstrate that comments made by “JM” have been made using 5 different emails and ten different IP addresses) then how can I be sure that the person making the claim is in fact the author of all of the quoted comemnts? Secondly as I have said several times because I posted the quoted comments to prove a point that you had freely and without prompting on my part, revealed a great deal about your self in your many comments here the entirety of each those comemnts is necessary to make the point and the highlighting of the text is in itself commentary. You are on a hiding to nothing in a legal sense.
Not in the slightest I read through the comments and highlighted anything that looked even vaguely like a personal revelation and then promptly forgot exactly what they are. I just do not give a toss about you personally I just wanted to make a point to you.
Well I’m not bothering to try to remember it (if that is true) I have better things to do than that.
Iain, it seems to me that “JM” is trying to set you up for some kind of gotcha here. Putting his/her comments on your other blog and highlighting the parts where “JM” makes personal references to him/herself might just be making a commentary and proving a point but can easily be construed by the obsessive & anonymous cretins out there as st*lking.
It’s not st*lking of course, because The Act states there also has to be an intent to do harm or cause fear to the ‘victim’ and I don’t see how “JM” has anything to fear over this.
But why give “JM” (and others) an opportunity to point the finger by making obsessive & pedantic (and twisted) accusations about you, here & elsewhere?
I know you don’t want to back down and meet JM’s ridiculous & anonymous demands but have you considered just rising above all this shit and deleting that other blog in its entirety?
It would leave your attackers nowhere to go.
Maybe it’s time to take the (even) higher moral ground against the cowardly individual or group that has been st*lking you (and me) via such vehicles as SW and just tell them to go f*ck themselves?
Ray
The obsessives will just see my taking up your suggestions as some sort of vindication of their attempt to bully me so I just won’t give them the satisfaction. As you point out, JM’s demands are absolutely ridiculous and to be honest “raising above the shit” makes no real difference if the faecal matter remains to assail one’s nostrils in an eternally foul stench.
They certainly can go and practice self-fornication Ray but I won’t give them the satisfaction a backing down by even the smallest fraction of a millimetre because I’m tired of nameless scum-bags shouting the odds when I have done nothing to warrant any approbation at all.
They would most certainly see it that way, Iain, but so what? They will always twist events and put wrong interpretations on things you do. Let them have a little group-wank – – which will last all of 5 minutes – – and then where do they go? If they don’t take their stuff down they just prove themselves to be the screaming, scumbag hypocrites that we know they are. Your choice though.
When have they ever taken any of their crap down Ray???
Iain: firstly that you, the real person, is the author and then secondly you have to prove that I have not net the terms of the “fair use provisions
I don’t have to prove the first – you’re actually claiming I’m the author so that is not in dispute. No court will hear argument on a point not in dispute.
As for the second:-
(i) you quote in totality. 100% quotation has never been allowed as “fair use”. If you disagree, a citation please.
(ii) you need to quote for the purpose of “legitimate review or criticism”. I ask you again. Is a review or criticism of my private life legitimate?
Iain: 5 different emails and ten different IP addresses
Or is it 7 emails and 2 IP addresses?
Can’t quite make up your mind can you?
And Iain. Just some advice. If you cause damage by this little adventure of yours into stalking, it won’t be just you that suffers. I think you might consider consulting the bread winner in your home at this point.
In any case, you might also care to take a closer look at your Terms of Service regarding respect for privacy.
Scott ditched that Iain stuff from the Grods archive didn’t he? And Random Brainwave has disappeared. Mind you, I think we’re dealing with someone a lot less ethical & honest than Scott here. Someone who has NEVER allowed their real identity to appear on the Internet. Someone who uses multiple aliases to slander & st*lk others under their real names. You can’t do much about pricks like that but leaving your stuff up is not going to make him bring his down anyway. Even if you named him or her. I mean, we both know who he/she is.
Oh the anonymous obsessive is back. You taking Iain to court JM? LOL.
JM
No (if you want to insist on pedantry) I’m saying that all of those comemnts were made in the name of “JM” but checking my records shows that a number of different identifiers have been used to make those comments so you would have to prove that all are made by the same person and that you are that person. Do you have a some sort of proof to that effect? I don’t expect that you do so any complaint would fail at that very simple hurdle.
No as I explained to you earlier each individual comment is part of a greater whole ( either the whole of the comemnts posted in the name of “JM” or the whole of each of the comment threads that I quote from. and that is before we come to my point about the highlighted text.
The legitimate point is that you have made so many revelations and each of the quotes go to prove that point.
:roll:
You are quibbling now
How can you possible say this? You are anonymous and even if I were to discover who you are I have no desire or intention to name you. Further I don’t see how anything that has been said in the name of “JM” is even faintly harmful.
Care to cite the part that You think I am violating?
Iain: each individual comment is part of a greater whole
You really are ignorant aren’t you? Just to get technical, I can only claim copyright over what I write – ie. each individual comment – not the whole bloody thread, including what other people write. And each individual comment on its own. Not when combined with later thoughts.
So if you quote a comment in its entirety, you’re quoting 100%.
In any case you’re clearly st**lk**g, you’re clearly trying to intimidate me.
You should stop.
#
And so should you. Look JM, I reckon all the stuff you say about your “personal life” is bullshit anyway. And bringing Iain’s wife into it just shows what a cretin you are. You’re sounding more & more like one of Iain’s old enemies. Why don’t you just give up this harassment and get on with your life?
Btw, it’s NOT st*lking.
(# JM’s comment republished for the purposes of review & criticism. LMFAO)
Don’t be tedious JM
If you were genuine rather than a toothy Trojan you would not have been discussing this in public you would have done it by email, likewise you would be asking me nicely having first conceded the point that I was right about how lose “JM” has been about personal details and asking me nicely to not draw further attention to those comments.
That is all it would take, and all it ever would have taken so put aside all of your piss,vinegar and rancour and stop acting like a silly chook about this and be grown up about it and we can settle the matter here and now.
Well Iain, if that’s all you need. Then I’ll ask you nicely.
Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top.
Regards
so JM I take it you are conceding that I was right in my original observation then?
Your original observation? Which was what?
My observation that we all reveal things about ourselves when we comment on the internet, you denied this was the case and made an accusation that I would have to be doing something nasty to know anything about you.
The post at “Still being Nice” is now password protected
Cheers
Iain
Oh and please pick one email address and stick to it because I am only going to remove the one that you use next from the moderation filter and I will add the other one to the spam filter when you have decided which one you want to use.
Iain, I think we misunderstood each other then. I was not saying that comments containing deliberate revelations were not made.
Rather I was saying that attempts to identify someone who (for good reasons) wishes to remain private almost always involve something “nasty”.
But anyrate. Thank you. Issue closed.
JM
I have never cared about who you are nor have I even tried to find out.
Sadly as is often the case in these things the worst arguments are often about misunderstanding’s.
Really if you have any future issues with me lets be grown ups and do it in private.
Cheers
…and stay out!