Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » The nature of the warming faith and the warning of another alarmist book to come…

The nature of the warming faith and the warning of another alarmist book to come…

With the amusing knowledge that one of my favourite Waminista journalist, the Ages’s Jo Chandler , has written a book about climate change (called Feeling the heat ) due out in May. I can’t help wondering just what qualifies her to write on this subject?

Nothing in her biography  suggests a scientific background, and her earlier suggestion that AGW was responsible for last year’s flood event in Pakistan utterly destroys her credibility  about any discussion of the climate further  as a self confessed Luddite* one has to wonder just what she could possibly bring to the debate on “climate change”.  You can be sure that it won’t be an objective mind or sound reasoning. Maybe there is still a quid in it.

My best guess is that it will be more of the leaps of faith that were so evident in her piece about the floods in Pakistan where she will look at every dramatic weather event and make some claim about just how it proves  “climate change” is real and all the fault of  Western industrial society. As the cute animation above suggests Climate alarmists will grab hold of any thing that fits the tenants of their faith and just ignore any “inconvenient truths” that contradict their climate liturgy just as Chandler has in relation to floods in Pakistan.

Anyway I’ll keep my eyes pealed for the release of the  book which will undoubtedly take a rather short time to be remaindered and then relegated to the “humorous pseudo-science” category right alongside such credible greats like Erich von Däniken None the less it  may be good for a laugh because I’m rather sure that it will be very far from useful to understanding  any of the scientific issues at hand if her previous sycophantic writings on the subject are anything to go by.

Cheers Comrades

*She confessed to being a Luddite in an email to yours truly
Hat tip to Andrew Bolt for the vid BTW

115 Comments

  1. PKD says:

    I can’t help wondering just what qualifies her to write on this subject?

    One can equally say the same thing about Bolt Iain, whose every word (or video in this case) was seem to worship and accept without question.

    And if, quote “her earlier suggestion that AGW was responsible for last year’s flood event in Pakistan utterly destroys her credibility about any discussion of the climate, one could also the same thing about you and your assumption that AGW isn’t responsible for the flood in any way – even as a secondary factor.
    Unless you can show thats been disproved by a more respected source than you or your high priest Bolt of course??? 😉

    Really you make it too easy some times…oh, and Happy New Year btw!
    I hope you are not at risk by the current non-AGW contributed floods?

  2. gigdiary says:

    PKD, you just won’t admit defeat will you? The weather, the climate is behaving just as it has for many decades, maybe millennia. Rather than common sense, you prefer to pretend humans have caused the variations in the climate. I’d suggest you take a longer term view. We have floods in Qld, unsurpassed since 1974, colder temperatures across Australia since, well, last time we had cold temperatures, as we will again. Climate change is part of life on this planet. We have had Ice Ages, are you going to argue they are caused by carbon emissions?

  3. PKD says:

    ‘Defeat’ – if it you really must insist about thinking of AGW debate in such facile terms – would be once AGW science has been disproved. Which it hasn’t, and in fact remains the most scientifically likely explanation for the currently observed warming (warmest decade on record if you are actually interested in the science).

    And yes, don’t pretend to be facile and make about claims on climate change that no serious AGW scientist claims, *of course* climate has natural factors too that can affect need not just greenhouses gases, emitted by man or not.

    Really, I thought you could do better than that attempt GD…but Happy New Year to you too though 🙂

  4. PKD says:

    That should read ‘absurd’ not ‘about’ on the 2nd para – c’est la vie!

  5. gigdiary says:

    PKD, you could try to refute my claims, instead you call them ‘facile’, and pretend that so-called ‘AGW scientists’ haven’t made those assumptions. Really, what is an AGW Scientist? Is it like a scientologist?

    Did you watch the clip that Iain posted? If so, how about responding to that instead of deriding me, one commenter, for ‘facile’ comments. State your argument, young man!

  6. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    *of course* climate has natural factors too that can affect need not just greenhouses gases, emitted by man or not.

    PKD, the second half of your comment is gibberish. May I suggest that you watch the video again. It shows how imbecilic your logic is.

  7. PKD says:

    pretend that so-called ‘AGW scientists’ haven’t made those assumptions

    I am not preteding – I have genuinely not seen one mainstream AGW scientist claim climate was static before AGW as you have claimed. Prove it, show me one or admit your error please GD…

    Oh and just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s gibberish. I suggest the problem lies between your monitor and your chair GD :/

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Jo Chandler is writing a book titled “Feeling the heat”? Must be an autobiography.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    One can equally say the same thing about Bolt Iain, whose every word (or video in this case) was seem to worship and accept without question.

    Actually the only connection that Andrew Bolt has to this post is my acknowledgement that I found the vid posted at his blog, He had nothing to do with its production or any of its content. The vid stands on its own merits and I join Gig diary in asking you to discuss them.

    And if, quote “her earlier suggestion that AGW was responsible for last year’s flood event in Pakistan utterly destroys her credibility about any discussion of the climate”, one could also the same thing about you and your assumption that AGW isn’t responsible for the flood in any way – even as a secondary factor.

    Those making the claim of connection are surely bound to substantiate their claims, Chandler made a faith based claim about the Pakistan flooding for which she offered no credible evidence. If you can help her then please go right ahead, that offer of space here at the Sandpit to do so to is still open 😉

  10. PKD says:

    Iain,
    Lets get this right – YOU are here claiming that AGW had absolutely no bearing at all on the Pakistan floods, as even a minor factor – which is contrary to AGW science. ITs like saying this years weather overall as the warmest or joint warmest (depending on who’s data you follow) likewise has nothing to do with AGW at all. Its up to you as a ‘sceptic’ to prove that AGW doesn’t exist, which you have constantly failed to do.

    Nothing needs to be done to substantiate AGW as at least one factor around weather events generally – its general AGW science. Your job as a ‘sceptic’ is to disprove the basic science…which you never will do of course!

    Likewise its up to GD to prove his wild claim that AGW somehow thinks that climate was static before man started pumping CO2 ad other greenhouse gases back into it.
    I won’t be holding my breath for either of you!

  11. Iain Hall says:

    PKD

    Lets get this right – YOU are here claiming that AGW had absolutely no bearing at all on the Pakistan floods, as even a minor factor – which is contrary to AGW science. ITs like saying this years weather overall as the warmest or joint warmest (depending on who’s data you follow) likewise has nothing to do with AGW at all.

    No you misunderstand my argument . What I am saying is that Chandler is wrong to claim that the floods are any sort “proof” of AGW as she does in her age piece. Pakistan is almost entirely a huge river flood plain and periodic flooding has happened there since well before human beings settled in the area. To make the claim that the flooding was on this occasion due to AGW stick in the first instance it has to be proved that flooding on this occasion was entirely unprecedented, Chandler fails right at this hurdle. No credible scientist has made the claim that she makes in her Age piece about the floods being the fault of AGW, any who have drawn any connection at all between AGW and the Pakistan flooding have been much circumspect than Chandler has been here.

    Its up to you as a ‘sceptic’ to prove that AGW doesn’t exist, which you have constantly failed to do.

    NO PKD it is those who pose the AGW hypothesis who have the onus of proof all I have to do is show that the proof claimed is flawed or wrong which I have managed to do many times .

    Nothing needs to be done to substantiate AGW as at least one factor around weather events generally – its general AGW science. Your job as a ‘sceptic’ is to disprove the basic science…which you never will do of course!

    🙄 you really could not write a more wrong headed claim than this one.

    Likewise its up to GD to prove his wild claim that AGW somehow thinks that climate was static before man started pumping CO2 ad other greenhouse gases back into it.
    I won’t be holding my breath for either of you!

    Despite arguing the toss so many times how can you make an argument that suggests that “AGW” is a person with out looking very silly?

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    PKD, I think Iain’s main point here is not to argue against AGW per se but against the credibility of someone like Jo Chandler to write a book about it. She’s just a journo @ The Age looking to make a buck. I guess she needs the money after her first book venture on the life & times of Christine Nixon failed to eventuate due to something about Nixon going missing in action – and having a meeting with Chandler on her ‘memoirs’ – while the State burned on Black Saturday!

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray

    I think Iain’s main point here is not to argue against AGW per se but against the credibility of someone like Jo Chandler to write a book about it.

    Precisely right 😉
    Only a total fool would think that being a “senior writer” for the Age is any sort of qualification to write a book about “climate science” and only the truly deluded would think that winning a Walkley* award helps either.
    *The award has no scientific cred at all its an award for journalism given by journalists which makes it rather like a prize from Alice given in the in the Dodo race.

  14. JM says:

    Guys, it’s not floods – it’s extreme weather events and their frequency (which seems to be increasing).

    If you put more energy into a system it behaves more “energetically” – you get a lot more happening at what used to be extremes. Like “once in 100 year floods” that start happening more like “once in 30 years”. The extra energy starts sloshing around the system and banging into things.

    Same thing with hurricanes and the like. Even insurers recognize that with premiums going up world wide on “storm and tempest”.

    Chandler although she’s only a journalist is quite within her rights to turn all this into easily digestible prose for the wider community.

    Unlike Jo Nova who has recently argued in favour of increased cold – ie less energy and therefore less frequent extreme events. Nova who is supposedly qualified – although her CV lists nothing more than a short and apparently failed career as a “science administrator” – is out to lunch. Her views are in defiance of physical law of which she clearly has no understanding.

  15. PKD says:

    What I am saying is that Chandler is wrong to claim that the floods are any sort “proof” of AGW as she does in her age piece.

    Oh really – having read her article that you’ve linked to in The Age (‘Media’s crimes of omission leave disaster victims in the lurch’) I cannot see anywhere in that article where she’s made the statement you are claiming.

    Without other proof from you in front of me, this looks like another classic case of Hall misrepresentation…

    Despite arguing the toss so many times how can you make an argument that suggests that “AGW” is a person with out looking very silly?

    errrm, all I can say is thats more misrepresntation from you Iain – or a complete lack of comprehension to understand what I actually wrote… 😐

  16. PKD says:

    Oh I get it… the ‘AGW thinks’ is a typo as I was writing a different sentence originally and chopped it about without proof-reading enough afterwards…something I am sure you can relate with though Iain! 😉

    My bad anyway! If you want replace ‘thinks’ with ‘states’ and you’ll haved fixed it for me (would be nice if I could it myself but thats wordpress for you…)

  17. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    I think that the piece I linked to has been edited since I originally read it because I am sure that it was longer.
    That said she does conflate weather events as “proof” of AGW here
    Oh and re-read your previous comment where you may just appreciate that I am right about the way that you have worded your senstence.
    JM

    Guys, it’s not floods – it’s extreme weather events and their frequency (which seems to be increasing).

    Really??? I seem to recall that the world has had far less hurricanes/cyclones over the last year and if it has, as the Warministas keep insisting, been one of the hottest years on record then you would have to think that there would be an increase in hurricanes/cyclones rather than a decrease.

    If you put more energy into a system it behaves more “energetically” – you get a lot more happening at what used to be extremes. Like “once in 100 year floods” that start happening more like “once in 30 years”. The extra energy starts sloshing around the system and banging into things.

    Oh you aren’t going to suggest that our current flooding in Brisbane is due to “global warming” are you? 🙄

    Same thing with hurricanes and the like. Even insurers recognize that with premiums going up world wide on “storm and tempest”.

    Premiums are always going up even when there is no increase in the frequency of storm events, especially when the contents of peoples house have more and more expensive electronics like big screen TVs that inflate the sum insured for.

    Chandler although she’s only a journalist is quite within her rights to turn all this into easily digestible prose for the wider community.

    Why are you who has so often denounced lay people for writing about “climate change” now defending Chandler? Surely if you believe, as you have so often argued, that only the “qualified” should opine on this topic are you so prepared to give her a free pass?

    Unlike Jo Nova who has recently argued in favour of increased cold – ie less energy and therefore less frequent extreme events. Nova who is supposedly qualified – although her CV lists nothing more than a short and apparently failed career as a “science administrator” – is out to lunch. Her views are in defiance of physical law of which she clearly has no understanding.

    Hmm I have never encountered Jo Nova before but she makes more sense than Chandler does even on the most cursory examination.
    So I’ll put it to you again what makes Chandler qualified to write a book on the subject of Climate change?

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Yes PKD that was the point I was making 😉

  19. JM says:

    Iain sophistry won’t get you out of this one.

  20. gigdiary says:

    JM
    How much energy does it take to change the Earth’s climate? I reckon it’d be a bloody big amount. Did humans have that much energy available during the Mediaeval Warming Period? Of course they didn’t. Do you have a reference for the “once in 100 year floods” that start happening more like “once in 30 years”? How far do your records go back? I reckon it sticks in the craw of the alarmists’ platform to find that we have records of a similar flood in Brisbane thirty-six years ago. And probably further back. We can all do the layman’s research.

    I agree with author Michael Crichton who wrote that once the Cold War ended we needed a ‘new fear’, a new scare. What better than a global doomsday prediction? People, they’ve got you fooled. We need to negate our pollution of the planet for obvious reasons, but we don’t need to shut down civilisation to do it.

  21. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    I’ll get back to you…perhaps with a punctuation lesson

  22. JM says:

    GD don’t be an idiot.

    The earth is not warmed by human fireplaces. The sun pumps out more in a second than we could manage in an eternity.

    However, the CO2 we put there can retain a fraction of the suns energy and warm the planet quite nicely thank you – this is called the Greenhouse Effect.

    So increase CO2 and you increase the retained energy in the climate system. Got that? Simple really.

    (And the Cold War ended when the Soviet Union collapsed economically and the Berlin Wall came down. If Crichton ever said otherwise he was a bigger idiot than I ever thought possible.)

  23. gigdiary says:

    JM
    You don’t read do you? Or at least you don’t comprehend. Crichton was commenting after the fall of the Berlin Wall, not about its cause. He was making the point that we, no, just reread my last comment.

  24. gigdiary says:

    JM
    Just in case you can’t read, this is what I said…

    I agree with author Michael Crichton who wrote that once the Cold War ended we needed a ‘new fear’, a new scare. What better than a global doomsday prediction?

    And you’ve all fallen for it 😦

  25. JM says:

    Iain I’ve just read Nova’s article and I know what she’s talking about.

    In fact it’s nice that you (and her) are finally paying attention to real physics and not the witchcraft you’ve dealt with in the past.

    However, just let me warn you (and her) that before you jump into this that it might get a bit more subtle than you (and her) can handle.

    For example. Nova is discussing so-called “back radiation” from the sky where trace gases re-emit infrared in the direction of the earths surface. Ok, I can agree with her there (and her admission that this is a real effect is welcome).

    However what she fails to acknowledge is that if you change the composition of those trace gases you change the composition of the back radiation.

    For example if you increase CO2 you increase the back radiation and therefore the global temperature of the earth.

    Nova has just admitted the truth of the entire AGW case but she doesn’t realize it.

    The denialist argument is dead, it just hasn’t hit the floor yet.

    (Her mutilation of the Stephan-Boltzman law is so dumb it’s not worth dealing with.)

  26. JM says:

    Iain

    This is from the SMH in 2003:


    Over the past 140 years, the cost and frequency of insurance claims have been steadily rising in line with global temperatures, Mr Hawker [then CEO of IAG] said. A 1 to 2.2 degrees celsius rise in temperatures can have a significant impact on the ferocity of natural disasters.

    “There is a pattern; they are weather related, they are expensive and we pay for that in our [insurance] premiums,” Mr Hawker said.

    …. IAG, AMP and BT found a temperature rise of just 1 degree celsius can increase the frequency of natural disasters from happening once every 300 years to once every 10 years.

    2003 Iain. Try to keep up with the news ok?

  27. PKD says:

    JM
    Just in case you can’t read, this is what I said…

    I agree with author Michael Crichton who wrote that once the Cold War ended we needed a ‘new fear’, a new scare. What better than a global doomsday prediction?

    And you’ve all fallen for it 😦

    Goodness me GD – fear and paranoia really is alive and well with you isn’t it.
    You still haven’t shown us any real AGW scientist who states that climate was static before AGW as you have claimed here. Yet you keep persisting with your fantasy.

    Fear, paranoia, and an inability to provide any evidence to back your baseless claims up – yup, you make a grand denialist!

  28. gigdiary says:

    JM
    So now you’re referencing the CEO of a corporation…that makes sense…..

    Of course he’d say that…

  29. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    I said I’d get back to you…

    Though I fail to find any mention of the word ‘static’ in my comments…over-reaching perhaps on your part? Clutching at straws? As I said, I’ll get back to you….

    btw, your opinion vs Michael Crichton’s? hmm…

  30. PKD says:

    Well put JM, if there is anyone who can vouch for whether the frequency of disaster events is increasing or not, its the insurance companies.

  31. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    You put your trust in insurance companies? Give us all a break

  32. PKD says:

    Well GD, you are the one saying nonsense like Climate change is part of life on this planet. We have had Ice Ages, are you going to argue they are caused by carbon emissions? which clearly implies you think that the existence on natural change somehow pre the Industrial Revolution has failed to be taken into account by AGW.

    I can assure you, you are wrong on your view, and you constant harping back to pre-AGW climate events the MWP is completely misleading…

  33. PKD says:

    You put your trust in insurance companies? Give us all a break

    Gosh you are losing the plot here aren’t you?

  34. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    I am still waiting for you to explain just why you are not going to criticise Chandler, a layperson, for writing a book about climate science when you show utter disdain for any other non scientist who dares to write on the topic.
    That is the most important thing at issue here and I am not at all inclined to argue the toss about insurance premiums until you provide an adequate answer.

  35. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    Well, why would you believe anything a corporation run for profit tells you? Lost the plot? Nah, you’re clutching at straws. Answer some of my other points. The Medieval Warming Period for example?

    btw you could also counter any of the points the video brought up. Guess it’s too embarrassing. Easier to resort to personal attacks I guess.

  36. PKD says:

    The Medieval Warming Period for example?

    If you actually have a point on this (or on the video for the matter) then I have no clue at all what it is. All you seem to have mentioned is that MWP happened – and so your point is????

    Not sure what personal attacks you are complaining about, but even if I have read your own comments GD – your tone in many of them could best be described as pot calling kettle black!

  37. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    Seems there’s no other way of talking to you. I’m not Robinson Crusoe on this one!

  38. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    So what do you think of the video clip?

  39. PKD says:

    The clip is another piece of politicised garbage that panders to denialists – I can see why Bolt posted it.
    What more do you want me to say?

    So care to tell us all what on earth (pardon the pun) your ‘point’ about MWP actually is?
    Or should we just assume you don’t have one?

  40. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    My point is it happened, as did many ice ages, and can happen again. This sudden fear that we are affecting the Earth’s climate is over-reacting, fear-mongering, scare-mongering of the highest level.

    Tim Flannery said in 2009 that Brisbane would run out of water by 2011. In fact, most of his predictions have already proven false. Not bad for Australian of the Year. Do you really believe that if we tax a few carbon emissions, we can alter the structure of global weather patterns?

    Hubris, sheer hubris!

  41. gigdiary says:

    PKD
    Now perhaps you could explain how the clip is ‘politicised garbage’. Where are the errors in the logic?

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    “Chandler although she’s only a journalist is quite within her rights to turn all this into easily digestible prose for the wider community.”

    Seriously JM? Have you ever read a Jo Chandler article? It’s all very self indulgent and over-descriptive “prose” – hardly “digestible for the wider community”. Chandler writes likes she’s trying to prove she’s a ‘senior writer’ who can use big words, long sentences and punctuation. She’s self absorbed, as boring as all hell and lacks any real substance.

  43. gigdiary says:

    Ray
    Geez, for a minute there I thought you were talking about me….

  44. Ray Dixon says:

    Um, no GD, I was talking about Age ‘senior writer’ Jo Chandler. Trust me, you are nothing like her … and you wouldn’t want to be.

  45. Iain Hall says:

    And where is JM on this issue now????

  46. JM says:

    Exactly where I’ve always been Iain.

    If Chandler is a popularizer who

    a.) accurately reflects the facts
    b.) can explain them in a palatable manner

    then I’ll support her.

    To the extent that Nova is

    a.) a snake oil merchant who’s only in it for the money
    b.) an obsfuscator who throws out a blizzard of pseudo-facts to confuse the lay person

    then I’ll decry her.

  47. Iain Hall says:

    That is a right load of inconsistent Bollocks JM

    You are only supporting a layperson to write on this topic because you think that she will be making a Pro AGW argument. Anyone who makes a counter argument gets attacked personally (as you do to Jo Nova in the previous comment) and denounced.

    Now I have read most of the stuff by Jo Chandler posted on the Age website and frankly I think your characterisation of her writing is, to say the least, rather fawning and bordering on the sycophantic, whereas you seem to look down your nose at just about every other person we have ever discussed frankly I wonder why you think that she is so special and why you seem to have lost all of your critical facilities when it comes to discussing her upcoming book.

  48. JM says:

    Iain, the difference is this:

    Nova makes up her own facts and theories, Chandler does not.

    Snake oil merchants always have the secret ingredient and magical cure don’t they?

  49. Iain Hall says:

    How on earth can you be so sure that Chandler does not make up her own facts and theories?

  50. JM says:

    A couple of reasons

    1. Because Nova – exactly like Watts, Monkton and the rest of the shysters – attempts to do her own numbers and makes absolutely howling mistakes

    2. Because I know – personally and in the past, professionally – the ideas she is trying to manipulate and can spot (usually, or at least with a little bit of reflection) when she’s making a howler.

    Chandler on the other hand doesn’t do this. She’s a reporter, she quotes professional, respected sources and usually does a good job of evaluating whether they are to be trusted. Like most reporters – decent ones at least – she uses professional status as an indicator. (What professional status does Nova have? None.)

    Honestly, Iain, you call yourself a conservative? You aren’t. You’re a naive, gullible fool being taken in (and right royally s****d) by a bunch of people who are only after your ‘approbation’ and preferably your dollars – directly or indirectly, either will do.

    True conservatives are actually conservative, trust institutions (with an appropriate amount of insistence on accountability, probing and genuine skepticism) but most of all totally reject conspiracy theories.

    You’re not a conservative, you’re a cynical, ignorant, small minded conspiracist. If you keep it up you’ll disappear up your kit-car’s tailpipe one day.

    Still, I guess it keeps you well supplied down at the local.

    Cheers.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    that rant does not answer my question about just why you are so willing to defend Chandler here

    Chandler on the other hand doesn’t do this. She’s a reporter, she quotes professional, respected sources and usually does a good job of evaluating whether they are to be trusted. Like most reporters – decent ones at least – she uses professional status as an indicator. (What professional status does Nova have? None.)

    Just why do you think that her being a “reporter” qualifies her to write a book on this subject?
    What you say in my quote above is not enough.

  52. JM says:

    Me: …you’re a cynical, ignorant, small minded conspiracist.

    I should add: who is incapable of rational thought or debate

  53. Iain Hall says:

    There is an a a great deal of humorous irony that you accuse me of being a “conspiracist(sic)” when your previous rant reads just like a conspiracy theorist who is absolutely losing it
    I have been discussing the topic in a most affable manner and you are right into the invective and personal insults.
    Why is that so?
    Anyone would think that my criticisms of Chandler were directed at you personally 🙄

  54. JM says:

    Iain, get a dictionary, your first sentence is absolutely perfect coming from a promoter of “climategate”. It is clear you have never encountered the word “irony” in a real setting but are intent on using it as a “big word” to impress to local lads.

    As for “affable”, I’m thinking seriously of giving up wrestling with pigs, no matter how affable.

  55. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Why the rancour?

    I would have thought that someone who has so often played the “experts only ” card when it comes to those who write on “climate change” would have agreed with me when I have been suggesting that Chandler does not meet any sort of definition of an expert on the subject The best that you can come up with is to claim that she is “a populariser” which I frankly think would not serve the alarmist cause very well anyway. Al Gore could very well be described as a “populariser” yet he is now widely discredited because his film had so many flaws in the science that it presented and his own profligate life style made him look the total hypocrite which he surely is . He was popular enough to win a Nobel prize and award for his “popular” film. Are you suggesting that because she won a Walkley award that Chandler must be a good writer?

    Haven’t you suggested previously that what is needed is someone with a science background to explain the “facts” in an accessible way? What makes you think that Chandler has enough understanding of the science to effectively paraphrase it for a lay audience without falling into the same sort of traps that led to the discrediting of Al Gore?
    There are some people who think that you are smarter than me, but anyone reading this thread would not come to that conclusion, but I reckon that no one will fail to notice that you have totally lost your rag here over what? Me suggesting that Jo Chandler is absolutely unsuited to write a book on the subject of climate change? There is not even any point about the science at issue here which would allow you to pull out your rather shop worn “trust me I am an expert” card. No, the only way that you can be an expert on this occasion is if you actually know Jo Chandler personally. Is that the case here?

  56. JM says:

    Firstly Iain, I’m not Jo Chandler. And I don’t know her and I’ve never met her.

    Secondly, clear thinking really is beyond you isn’t it? Al Gore doesn’t claim to be an expert, merely well informed. Jo Chandler doesn’t claim to be an expert either.

    But Jo Nova does. Even though she has absolutely no right to do so.

    And she’s written and published a book (“published in X languages”) from her supposed “expert” perspective.

  57. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    What a strange creature you are 🙄

    Firstly Iain, I’m not Jo Chandler.

    I wasn’t suggesting that you are Jo Chandler but I find it strange that you feel the need to make this claim.

    And I don’t know her and I’ve never met her.

    Well why are you so keen to defend her?

    Secondly, clear thinking really is beyond you isn’t it?

    Certainly not, I have been making a very clear and easily understood argument that is based upon your usual M O which is to denounce anyone who dares to comment on AGW if they are not qualified to your satisfaction and all that you offer in return is abuse and attempts to move the issue off into side issues.

    Al Gore doesn’t claim to be an expert, merely well informed. Jo Chandler doesn’t claim to be an expert either.

    But I was not making the comparison between Gore and Chandler because he is an expert, quite the opposite actually, The comparison stands because both are laypersons who have barrows to push and like Gore did in his film I expect that Chandler will make some humorous howlers in her book which is of course the theme of this post. Her background in science seems particularly sparse according to her official Biography at the Age so tell me again just why you have so much faith that she either understands the issue or that she is capable of making a fair and reasonable argument about climate change. Please provide examples of her writing (with citations ) that you think demonstrate here abilities as a SCIENCE writer.

    But Jo Nova does. Even though she has absolutely no right to do so.

    To be entirely honest I had never heard of Jo Nova before you mentioned her in this thread and to remedy that I have done a little reading and research and this is what she says about herself at her blog:

    Jo Nova is a science communicator, she’s presented science on TV, radio, on stage, in cartoons, exhibitions, reports and now in her blog which over 200,000 people visited in 2009.

    After winning prizes in her science degree in molecular biology, Joanne joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus and spent five years touring Australia first as a performer, then as manager of the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years.

    In the last two years Joanne has focused on the science of monetary systems, financial history, the gold market, and has also become heavily involved in communicating the science of carbon’s role in Climate Change. Joanne attended the UNFCCC in Bali Dec 07 as a delegate, has spoken in New York at the International Climate Change Conference, and to Staffers of the US Senate in Washington, as well as to Australian leaders of business and banking at Consilium, for the Centre for Independent Studies.

    Frankly I think that the comparison that you draw between her and Chandler when it comes to writing about Climate does you no favours here Nova has science degree, Chandler has NO science qualification at all, Oh that’s right according to you Chandler is a “populariser” so that makes up for no science background. 🙄
    But while we are on your claim that she is a “”populariser” just what has she popularised so well that makes you think her so qualified to do so on the issue of climate quotes and citations please.

    And she’s written and published a book (“published in X languages”) from her supposed “expert” perspective.

    Lets see You praise Chandler as a “populariser” yet when Nova has a book that is clearly popular enough to be translated into many languages you think popularity is a bad thing?
    How does that work???

  58. gigdiary says:

    Thanks, JM, for bringing Jo Nova to my attention. I’ve downloaded two of her books.

  59. Iain XXXX says:

    Iain, Jo Nova’s science degree was in microbiology, specifically in the study of DNA. This has little if anything to do with climatology, meteorology, paeleontology or any other earth science. Further more, she makes her living ‘selling science’ to schoolkids, which requires only basic scientific understanding. She does not research, she does not publish in peer-reviewed journals, she doesn’t even write books of note (a 16-page pamphlet is no more a book than your blog).

    Also, can we take anyone who changes their surname to “Nova” seriously? Maybe Jo Chandler should change hers to “Warmette” or something.

    Chandler is no expert, she’s a reporter. But “Nova” is no expert either.

    Peace and happy New Year to you and yours.

  60. Iain Hall says:

    Iain XXXX
    Surely its a “one eyed man is king” situation here. For all of the limitations that you cite about Jo Nova’s science credentials that do actually surpass any that Chandler has by several orders of magnitude. which is why I find JM citing her as a counter example such a hoot. and for someone like JM who has banged the “only trust the qualified” drum so loudly its ludicrous for him to so strongly endorse Jo Chandler over anyone who has even the most basic science degree, yes even one about microbiology.

  61. Iain XXXX says:

    Yes but JM hasn’t claimed Jo Chandler to be an expert at all. That’s one of your straw men. In fact JM said that she’s “only a journalist” who reports the findings of others. And that’s spot on.

    Nova, on the other hand, is a microbiologist sprouting theories about earth science. And in doing so she is claiming to know more than the world’s leading climatological researchers and theorists. Science is a very broad field with many specialisations. Being qualified in one area doesn’t qualify you in others. Just because you do a degree in French doesn’t mean you know how to speak Italian.

    Nova is as much an ‘expert’ in climate science because she has a biology degree, than you are in romantic literature because you write a blog.

  62. Iain Hall says:

    Iain XXXX

    Yes but JM hasn’t claimed Jo Chandler to be an expert at all. That’s one of your straw men. In fact JM said that she’s “only a journalist” who reports the findings of others. And that’s spot on.

    I have not claimed that JM is citing Chandler as an expert (there goes your straw man) what I have said is that it is inconsistent for JM to endorse Jo Chandler’s book (sight unseen) as he has consistently argued that the laity should not opine on climate science because they are not qualified to do so. Thus I am saying that if you insist that writing on this topic requires a suitable scientific background it is stark raving bonkers to endorse Chandler’s book at this stage of the game. A wiser and more honest commentator would just say “I’ll reserve judgement until I see the text” even if they think that it will be a great step forward for their faith.

    Nova, on the other hand, is a microbiologist sprouting theories about earth science. And in doing so she is claiming to know more than the world’s leading climatological researchers and theorists. Science is a very broad field with many specialisations. Being qualified in one area doesn’t qualify you in others. Just because you do a degree in French doesn’t mean you know how to speak Italian.

    No matter what you discipline is in science if you have formally trained in it you have to be better at any other discipline of science that someone who has no training in the subject at all, is what JM has consistently argued when I, as a lay person have opined on the subject and what I am doing here is pointing out that JM can’t have it both ways either he sticks with his usual “appeal to authority” and at least reserves judgement on Chandler’s book or he is obliged to explain why he endorses her writing on the subject of climate sight unseen when she has no scientific cred at all.

  63. gigdiary says:

    Hmm… JM professes to only give regard to qualified opinions, yet also gives credence to Al Gore, ex-politician, as being ‘well-informed.

    Given the fact that Jo Nova has scientific qualifications, in many instances it gives her just as much right to offer opinions as others in the discussion, most of whom did not earn their degrees in ‘climate science’ either.

    Iain XXXX
    Your analogy of speaking French, but not Italian applies to laymen, but not to a linguistics professor, who would be more prepared to understand a new language, as scientists of all persuasions are at evaluating a new field of inquiry (we hope.)

    Climate science, in today’s parlance, is new ground. Individually, the geologist, the meteorologist, and the biologist are not qualified to pontificate about the climate, but together can offer research that hopefully shines a light on the repeating cycles of climate change throughout the millennia.

    Given the current weather in Australia it seems absurd that non-climate scientists such as Tim Flannery have been lauded as prophets, when merely a few years down the track their predictions fall in a heap.

  64. Iain XXXX says:

    Iain, why can’t you argue based on what has been said, not what you think has been said or wish had been said?

    JM hasn’t backed Chandler’s book or its contents at all. He’s merely ‘defended’ her right as a journalist to report what other EXPERTS have said. In contrast, Jo Nova is a self-declared ‘expert’ who comes up with her own theories on climate data and causal aspects.

    That is the critical difference. Nova theorises and opines. Chandler reports what others theorise and opine. JM is well aware of the distinction. You, it seems, are not.

    Sure, Nova is allowed to give her opinion and alternative theories about climate change. Just as we are allowed to question her credibility to form those opinions and theories.

    I am always highly sceptical about ANY climate-related claim made by anyone without qualifications and a research background in earth science. This includes Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, you and 99 percent of other bloggers. And myself (not that I make any such claims.)

  65. Iain XXXX says:

    Your analogy of speaking French, but not Italian applies to laymen, but not to a linguistics professor, who would be more prepared to understand a new language, as scientists of all persuasions are at evaluating a new field of inquiry (we hope.)

    Maybe. But holding an undergrad or honours degree does not make you a “professor”.

    Put it this way… ifthe object of Iain’s admiration Jeremy Sear (a barrister working in criminal law I believe) made a long winded whingey post about taxation law, Iain would claim that he has no specialist understanding of the field. And that would be entirely correct.

  66. gigdiary says:

    Nice come-back, Iain XXXX; yet even an Honours graduate would be better enabled to contemplate a new language than the layman. Jezza arguing tax law: I’d have to admit he’d have a better idea about it than the average Joe, although some of us who’ve been through the hoops may disagree.

    As for whining, you’re spot on there.

    His awful post about the rights of looters during the floods, suggesting rehabilitation instead of increased penalties, was beyond whiny, it was sickening.

  67. Iain Hall says:

    Iain XXXX

    Iain, why can’t you argue based on what has been said, not what you think has been said or wish had been said?

    But I am arguing about what has been said by JM , not just what has been posted here on this thread but also the entirety of the arguments put under the name JM since he began posting here under that pseudonym. Now if you don’t believe that the “arguments form authority” have been repeatedly made and laypersons commenting on climate change have been repeatedly disparaged by JM then I will give you the password to a post at another blog that contains the collected comment’s of JM and you can see for yourself.

    JM hasn’t backed Chandler’s book or its contents at all. He’s merely ‘defended’ her right as a journalist to report what other EXPERTS have said. In contrast, Jo Nova is a self-declared ‘expert’ who comes up with her own theories on climate data and causal aspects.

    Sorry Iain but I don’t read his comments that way at all I read his comments to mean that he is unequivocally endorsing her book, show me a single caveat or reservation about it in any of the “JM” comments here. In any event being a journalist does not qualify anyone to write a cogent longer piece on science where the requirements of the form will necessitate the book having and proving a greater argument or thesis. so it will have to be more than just reporting on the opinion of others as you suggest.

    Jo Nova has not to may knowledge claimed to be any kind of “expert” but I only heard of her the day before yesterday so if you have a citation for any such claim then please post it in the comments.

    That is the critical difference. Nova theorises and opines. Chandler reports what others theorise and opine. JM is well aware of the distinction. You, it seems, are not.

    And here is the problem with JM’s gives an unequivocal endorsement to Jo Chandler, won’t hear a bad word said against her, even though she has no cred at all in science and his counter example at the very least has a degree in science but all that JM wants to to is a bucket job on her. Don’t you see the inconsistency in that?

    Sure, Nova is allowed to give her opinion and alternative theories about climate change. Just as we are allowed to question her credibility to form those opinions and theories.
    I am always highly sceptical about ANY climate-related claim made by anyone without qualifications and a research background in earth science. This includes Jo Nova, Andrew Bolt, you and 99 percent of other bloggers. And myself (not that I make any such claims.)

    And I am rather sure that you should be sceptical about any journalist who dares to write about climate science , even when they have a position on the subject broadly consistent with your own, in fact if you really believe in AGW shouldn’t you be more demanding of those who are arguing for the AGW because if they get it wrong (think of George Monboit’s book “Heat”) it does more harm than good to your cause.

  68. Iain XXXX says:

    But I am arguing about what has been said by JM , not just what has been posted here on this thread but also the entirety of the arguments put under the name JM since he began posting here under that pseudonym.

    Iain I’m not interested in the blog dispute history of Hall vs. JM, or trawling through back catalogues of your correspondence. JM hasn’t given blanket support of Chandler’s book in this thread. If he has SPECIFICALLY supported it elsewhere, you can link to it here and prove me wrong. Otherwise I’ll just presume you’re putting words into his mouth (you do have a habit of doing that).

    Sorry Iain but I don’t read his comments that way at all I read his comments to mean that he is unequivocally endorsing her book

    Yeah well I don’t see it that way. Perhaps your preconceptions about this JM character are colouring your own interpretations.

    Jo Nova has not to may knowledge claimed to be any kind of “expert” but I only heard of her the day before yesterday so if you have a citation for any such claim then please post it in the comments.

    Just look at her blog Iain. She bills herself as a “prize-winning” scientist and a “science communicator”, she comes up with scientific theories and presents them as fact, she writes and publishes mini e-books on the topic. She’s gone beyond just having an opinion, she openly debunks conventional understanding and calls better credentialed earth scientists “witch doctors”. She’s nothing more than a glorified blogger with a scientific understanding a few notches above the layman.

    And here is the problem with JM’s gives an unequivocal endorsement to Jo Chandler, won’t hear a bad word said against her, even though she has no cred at all in science and his counter example at the very least has a degree in science but all that JM wants to to is a bucket job on her. Don’t you see the inconsistency in that?

    I’d rather wait for the book to actually appear and decide then. No point playing the man instead of the ball when the ball hasn’t even appeared on the field. If Chandler comes out and writes a stringently pro-AGW polemic than yes, of course she will be open to scrutiny about her motives/qualifications.

  69. Iain XXXX says:

    His awful post about the rights of looters during the floods, suggesting rehabilitation instead of increased penalties, was beyond whiny, it was sickening.

    Didn’t read it, not going to, and therefore not going to comment. You, Iain and Leon are tuned to Channel Jeremy 24/7 and keeping the western world safe from his blog, so there’s nothing for me to add.

  70. Ray Dixon says:

    Is it just me or did JM really morph into Iain XXXX before our eyes? Not that I give a shit.

    Anyway, I love this quote: “Maybe Jo Chandler should change hers (i.e. her name) to “Warmette” or something”

    How many more names do you want her to have?

  71. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t think that JM & XXXX are the same person Ray but on the other part of your comment where you ask: How many more names do you want her to have? I think that I should make it very clear that I am making NO claims that Jo Chandler is anyone else other than herself as to do so would, according to her last email, invite litigation.

  72. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, I used the “s” word. Just delete my comment from moderation and I’ll say it again here:

    No one actually “invites” litigation, Iain, and just saying that someone uses an alias is not in itself defamatory. If you said she uses an alias and, under that alias, she also abuses, threatens, harasses & sta*lks people over the Internet then that might “invite” litigation. Then again, not if it’s true.

  73. Sax says:

    Ah fellas, the threat of litigation ?

    the last bastion of a person with something to hide ?
    😉

  74. Iain Hall says:

    No worries about the comment in moderation Ray
    Oh I agree with what you are saying and my use of the word “invite” was a just figure of speech

  75. Iain XXXX says:

    Is it just me or did JM really morph into Iain XXXX before our eyes?

    No, it’s just you.

    Not that I give a shit.

    You gave enough of one to mention it.
    I am not JM, I am just supporting his position and calling Iain on his strawman.

    How many more names do you want her to have?

    I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, but it sounds like it might be an accusation of some kind.

  76. Iain XXXX says:

    Ah fellas, the threat of litigation ?
    the last bastion of a person with something to hide ?

    Or the last resort of a person who has to deal with internet loonies making persistent false accusations, Sax. Didn’t Iain’s mate Tim Blair use this “last bastion” because his wife was trolling from his computer, and someone claimed it was him?

  77. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain XXXX aka about ten other names, I didn’t say you were JM, I commented on how you clearly took over his role. I don’t expect you to understand the difference – logic & comprehension not being your strong suit and all that.

    As for your last sentence … please try harder than that.

  78. Iain XXXX says:

    Iain XXXX aka about ten other names, I didn’t say you were JM, I commented on how you clearly took over his role. I don’t expect you to understand the difference – logic & comprehension not being your strong suit and all that.

    No problem. One correction though, I have only one other pseudonym that I use/have used on the net. Much like yourself. Not sure where you get this “ten other names” bit from.

  79. Iain Hall says:

    Iain XXXX

    No problem. One correction though, I have only one other pseudonym that I use/have used on the net. Much like yourself. Not sure where you get this “ten other names” bit from.

    There are at least two that I can name of the top of my head, I previously accepted comments form you here under the name of “Billy Bedlam” which you acknowledged in your comment of 10.17* when you said :

    it was you who changed my comments under a pseudonym to “aka Iain XXXX”.

    and you more commonly called yourself “Broken left leg” or BLL

    Anyway lets not dwell on such things that are rather off topic.
    Instead let me ask you just what level of expertise that you think an author needs to write a clear and cogent treatise on Climate change? Because It would be nice to hear what a former Greens candidate has to say about just why they are still so sure that the perceived changes in the climate can be tributed to human activity rather than natural variability.
    🙂

    *Held in moderation because it is an O/T argument about the Sandpits comments policy

  80. Ray Dixon says:

    You have also used the aliases ‘Joel Bryan’ & ‘Meg’, as well as Bedlam. There were some others too but I’ve forgotten the names you used. The one thing they had in common (apart from them being you) was they all had a rather nasty disposition. Oh yeah, they all lacked reasoning power & comprehension too, like you do.

    I don’t really care how many names you use but your statement about only ever using one pseudonym pretty much confirms that no one can believe anything you say.

    It also confirms my suspicions that you comment (under yet another name) at that lowlife, pathetic and anonymously-authored blog that was set up specifically as a sta*lking vehicle. You know the one. I won’t pay it the respect of mentioning its name.

    Now I know you’ll deny all that but I don’t care if you do – you’ve proven yourself to be a liar. Maybe you’d like to sue me for saying that too? Go ahead.

  81. Iain XXXX says:

    There are at least two that I can name of the top of my head

    Iain, this is the point I made in that “private” discussion. You love to discuss the pseudonyms and real identities of other people. But as soon as I happen to mention someone’s real name, you kick up a stink.

    Instead let me ask you just what level of expertise that you think an author needs to write a clear and cogent treatise on Climate change?

    Anyone can “write a clear and cogent treatise on climate change” if they are discussing and referencing expert opinions, such as those of climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists or research scientists. It’s when laymen like you and the Boltmeister start putting forward their own scientific theories that the whole thing falls apart. I don’t know what’s in Chandler’s book but I will wait and see before forming a conclusion.

  82. Iain Hall says:

    Ray you are I right, I had forgotten about “Joel Bryan” & Meg 🙄

    Sorry Iain but your “one pseudonym”claim has been utterly blown away.

    Anyone can “write a clear and cogent treatise on climate change” if they are discussing and referencing expert opinions, such as those of climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists or research scientists.

    Do you seriously think that we sceptics don’t appropriately reference the research of experts?
    Your problem is that you genuflect too readily when someone says “trust me I’m an expert” The thing that you must realise is that a great deal of the research that is done into this subject has huge margins for error and that any research on this topic is very dependant upon the assumptions made about some rather scant data(especially when it comes to proxies in paleo-climatology)

  83. Iain XXXX says:

    Iain XXXX, you have also used the aliases ‘Joel Bryan’ & ‘Meg’, as well as Bedlam.

    No I have not. You are delusional.

    You’ve proven yourself to be a liar. Maybe you’d like to sue me for saying that too? Go ahead.

    Why would I bother? I’ve got a thicker skin than you and better things to do. And I doubt you’ve got two cents to rub together anyway.

    Your problem is that you genuflect too readily when someone says “trust me I’m an expert”

    No Iain, we don’t “genuflect”, we consider the professional and research credibility of the person/people involved and draw appropriate conclusions. Of course some climate related research is dubious, that is the nature of ALL research, it can be re-examined, tested for ‘repeatability’ and debunked. In science it is silly to say that ‘Research X’ is indisputable and beyond question, of course it is. There is no genuflection, at least on my part. But at least I don’t worship false idols.

  84. Iain Hall says:

    Come off it Iain, the Billy bedlam, RT Fan, Meg, and the Joel Bryan comments were posted from the same IP address ( Billy Bedlam180.222.26.98 Joel Bryan
    180.222.26.98)
    One of the beauties of the WP blogging platform is that it provides a search-able comment system and that it records the IP of every comment.
    This is smoking gun stuff mate You have admitted to Billy and that ID was used from the same computer as Joel, RTfan and Meg .
    Case closed!

    No Iain, we don’t “genuflect”, we consider the professional and research credibility of the person/people involved and draw appropriate conclusions.

    The thing is “research credibility” seems to be entirely dependant upon firstly believing in AGW for the likes of Jo Chandler and JM.

    Of course some climate related research is dubious, that is the nature of ALL research, it can be re-examined, tested for ‘repeatability’ and debunked.

    The problem is not doing this, which I of course endorse, but the ad hominem stuff that so many Warministas (like JM or Jo Chandler) indulge in when they have no”scientific” response to an argument. The “big oil or big coal retorts’ are a classic example and in this thread JM insisting that Jo Nova is a “snake oil salesperson” is another.

    In science it is silly to say that ‘Research X’ is indisputable and beyond question, of course it is. There is no genuflection, at least on my part. But at least I don’t worship false idols.

    Sorry but I think that you do to some extent, in the form of writers like Flanery Mann et al or any of the popular AGW enthusiasts

  85. Ray Dixon says:

    “I’ve got a thicker skin than you and better things to do. And I doubt you’ve got two cents to rub together”

    Actually XXXX, you mistake having a thick skin for having a “hide” .. and a thick head. Pissant.

  86. Ray Dixon says:

    Btw, no one has “outed” you here. “Outing” is what happens to people who are quite harmlessly using one pseudonym. It’s usually done for no justifiable purpose by pricks. like you. But someone who uses multiple aliases to abuse & harass people (like you do) doesn’t get outed – they get exposed for being a prick.

  87. Iain XXXX says:

    This is smoking gun stuff mate You have admitted to Billy and that ID was used from the same computer as Joel, RTfan and Meg .

    Iain, if that is your “smoking gun” then be careful you don’t shoot yourself in the foot. Yes I may have posted as Billy but I did so from work, from an IP I share with other people. My home IP is different, i.e. the one I am using now. Maybe one or more persons I work with posted as those characters. But it wasnt me, so your detective work is a bit skew wiff.

    Actually XXXX, you mistake having a thick skin for having a “hide” .. and a thick head. Pissant.

    Ray you are an angry man, for no apparent reason. I have no beef with you, but if you are looking for a reason for your anger, perhaps start by gazing into a mirror. You might not like what you see.

  88. JM says:

    Iain: the same IP address ( Billy Bedlam180.222.26.98

    Are you a network expert now? Clearly a man of many talents – welding, spiral staircases, political commentator, reviewer of complex scientific questions, and now a network engineer!

    Well there’s money to be made there ol’ chap, get out there and get some of it. Go, man, go.

  89. Iain Hall says:

    Iain XXXX
    Although it is possible that more than one person in your workplace could have been posting comments to this modest blog it is so unlikely that you are grasping at straws. especially if you consider the time signatures of some of those comments .

    JM

    No I’m not a network expert But I have learned a little bit about how such things work over the years

  90. JM says:

    Iain: “research credibility” seems to be entirely dependant upon firstly believing in AGW

    No it isn’t Iain. It’s almost solely based on

    1. The number of papers published by the person
    2. The number of citations those papers get in other published papers.

    This has become so mechanical a process in academia that there are search engines like CiteSeer that automate it. Also many academics complain bitterly about it because those are two criteria are so crude that they encourage “salami slicing” of results to get as many papers as possible out of a single piece of research (2-3 is common, 6-7 not unheard of)***

    But that’s academia. For people like Jo Chandler I suspect it is professional kudos – positions and affiliations held, along with openly expressed regard from peers – that matters. Nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s better than paper counting because it tells you what other people think.

    And for people like me I’d add on “coherence” (also called “consilience”) – ie. does the idea match up with everything else we know or is the originator saying

    “of course this also means the last 100 years of science in every other field is also wrong, but that’s just a detail. Did I tell you I’m the re-incarnation of Galileo?*

    And while I’ve got you’re attention can I tell you about my other idea?**

    Then I know I’m dealing with a crank.

    The vast majority of denialists – Watts, Monckton, Nova, et all – are cranks.

    * Einstein rarely gets a guernsey here because most of these idiots think he was wrong too.

    ** A bit like Monckton who has claimed to have a cure for HIV.

    *** However, salami sliced papers also slice up their citations so if they’ve got something good it’s rarely done.

  91. JM says:

    Iain: a little bit about how such things work over the years

    Clearly not if you think that a single IP address match is confirmation of anything.

  92. Ray Dixon says:

    No, I’m not angry, XXXX, I’m just calling a spade a spade. Or, in your case, an Internet prick a prick.

    You make me laugh. You have used multiple aliases to abuse harass and (effectively) sta*lk people over the net – look up the legal definition of sta*lking, you’re doing it! – yet you come up with this unbelievably stupid response:

    “Maybe one or more persons I work with posted as those characters. But it wasnt me”

    LMAO. You’re an idiot.

    JM, what drugs are you on?

  93. gigdiary says:

    Is JM the same guy I had that ridiculous argument about sight-reading music?

  94. Ray Dixon says:

    Yep, GD. He’s an expert on so many things. I bet he’s an expert on self pleasuring too.

  95. Iain XXXX says:

    yet you come up with this unbelievably stupid response:

    Ray, I’ll help you out with this internet stuff, OK? An IP is a number that identifies a network that connects to the internet. A network can belong to a household, a company, a school, a library or a government department. A number of people can use the same IP. They can also read/discuss/post to the same blogs.

    Remember when a certain internet news site got sued for saying that a certain blogger was sockpuppeting on other blogs? It was because someone else had the same IP. Yet the certain blogger had a defamation case and got a payout.

    Might pay to be careful what you say here. Not because I’ll sue (I won’t) but because you might make a fool of yourself. Well, more of one.

  96. JM says:

    Ray: JM, what drugs are you on?

    A = Number of available IP addresses (after military, management and other ranges etc are taken out because they are unavailable) = approx 800M at best.

    B = Number of internet connected devices in the world > 1 B

    B > A

    I leave the resolution of this problem to Iain “network engineer” Hall.

    (It is a solved problem BTW, but if you think I’m going to give you clowns any hints you’ve got rocks in your head – the thought of Iain let loose with actual, fair-dinkum network skills is enough to have me supporting preemptive arrest.)

  97. gigdiary says:

    Still seems rather unlikely that a number people from the same workplace are commenting on the same unpublicised blog in a similar timeframe. Doesn’t take rocket science to work that out.

    I reckon even Jo Chandler, for all her limited qualifications, could see a connection there.

  98. Ray Dixon says:

    JM, why are you rallying to XXXX’s defence? Just like you (and Lygo) rallied to defend Chandler. F*cken weird.

  99. Sax says:

    Same IP address is pretty much the sealer here people.
    Can’t achieve that unless your at the SAME computer.
    Workplace or not.
    It’s a bitch when you make enemies of everyone isn’t it ?
    Sooner or later, it comes back to bite you on the a*se.
    I guess for XXXX and his many alter egos, that is probably now ?
    Relish in your success Mr Lygo.

  100. JM says:

    Sax: Can’t achieve that unless your at the SAME computer.

    Horseshit. But of course Iain “hacker to the stars” Hall will be able to explain otherwise.

  101. gigdiary says:

    What is your problem, JM? Get up on the wrong side of the bed? Haven’t had a good sh*t for a few days? Geez, you’re making even less sense than you used to.

  102. Iain XXXX says:

    Same IP address is pretty much the sealer here people.
    Can’t achieve that unless your at the SAME computer.

    The same NETWORK, Sax. There is a difference. A network can contain more than one computer. Someone who supposedly flies planes with computerised avionics systems, etc. should know that…
    Also, IPs can be spoofed, e.g. forged. And people who use the same proxy server or site will also have the same IP.
    So nothing is sealed and no a**e has been bitten. You can all apologise when the urge takes you. Cheers.

  103. JM says:

    No GG, it’s about credibility. If Iain can’t explain this one (how the Internet sustains more devices than it has addresses for), then he has no business flapping his wings about IP addresses.

    This one isn’t even a “pons asinorum” of networking, it’s entry level stuff.

    And if he doesn’t know it then all of his wild accusations are just that:- wild, (possibly paranoid), arms flapping accusations of absolutely no merit whatsoever.

    Which isn’t going to help him much if he ever ends up in a court case over his adventures – because after this thread he won’t be able to fall back on a “belief sincerely held”.

    His failure to respond would clearly demonstrate to the world – and him if he’s got a brain in his head – that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Any subsequent accusations he makes would then be – by definition – reckless.

  104. gigdiary says:

    Mate, it’s his blog, all you have to do is piss off!

  105. Sax says:

    Talking about lack of credibility ?
    Nice attempt at stand over tactics JM pity it’s all b/s. Thou dost protest just a bit much ? You will have to come up with better than that. There is only one way you can have the same IP address, and that is, if you are logged in from the same modem, computer et al, and you don’t disconnect or reset the modem from the internet. The only time you can change your ip address, is if you disconnect from the internet, and then reconnect. Pretty simple really. Obviously, utilising his massively superior intellect, he has forgotten to do that ? Oops !

    I would also be careful about criticising someone’s brain power as well. You are just making yourself look the goose. As for a court case, what a load of chest beating rhetoric. You are talking through your ar*e.

    It’s not weird Ray, seems pretty normal behaviour to me, in this situation. Lets face it, from what I hear, he has been banned off every blog, with a standard above the gutter, so what else is left, but to hide behind b/s personas. The one thing is though, whatever persona is used, human nature being what it is, his true personality will inevitably shine through eventually.

  106. Iain XXXX says:

    There is only one way you can have the same IP address, and that is, if you are logged in from the same modem, computer et al, and you don’t disconnect or reset the modem from the internet. The only time you can change your ip address, is if you disconnect from the internet, and then reconnect. Pretty simple really.

    And pretty wrong. As JM correctly said above, there are more internet-connected computers in the world than there are IP addresses. That’s because networked computers often share an IP. Such as those in a workplace, school, government dept. Being informed in all things network, Iain will know this.

    As for the unlikeliness of people in the same work place reading/posting to the same blog, didn’t you replace your “workmate” “David” in commenting here, “Sax”? Hmmmmmmmm?

  107. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain Lxxx said: “Remember when a certain internet news site got sued for saying that a certain blogger was sockpuppeting on other blogs? It was because someone else had the same IP. Yet the certain blogger had a defamation case and got a payout.”

    Yes, I remember it. The difference is that Tim Blair – unlike you – hadn’t already been proven to be a liar about how many different aliases he uses. The other difference is that Blair is a high profile mainstream blogger for News Ltd with a reputation to protect, whereas you are a nobody with a reputation of being a scumbag. Oh, and of course, you couldn’t afford to sue me!

    Why don’t you just admit that you’ve been an arsehole and move on?

  108. Iain XXXX says:

    Yes, I remember it. The difference is that Tim Blair – unlike you – hadn’t already been proven to be a liar about how many different aliases he uses.

    No Ray, you are wrong. He was accused of using different identities on the basis of a shared IP. Exactly as you and Iain have accused me. You haven’t “proven” anything about me as his accusers hadn’t “proven” anything about him. You have simply made an allegation.

    Why don’t you just admit that you’ve been an arsehole and move on?

    You go first and I might follow. You’re not exactly Mr Popularity on the net yourself these days, so I’ll just shrug off your abuse.

  109. Iain Hall says:

    Sax
    What JM and Iain XXXX miss in their insistence that I don’t understand the way the net works is the fact that I really don’t care that much if I am are right or wrong about all of those identities posting from the same IP address being one person or several. the fact that I have accepted that Iain XXXX may be right seems to have slipped right past them. All that I have said is that I think its unlikely that they are more than one person. If I could be bothered I would look to stylistic cues in the rhetoric to see if they originated from the same mind but frankly that is just too much like hard work for me to be bothered.
    The fundamental thing here is that Iain XXXX has claimed that he only ever used one pseudonym on the net and yet its very clear that he has used more than one (because he admits to “BLL” and “Billy Bedlam” here) so its not much of a stretch to think that if he has trouble with counting the net personas that he admits too then why should we believe his rather unlikely suggestion that three other people in his workplace should all want to comment here at the Sandpit and that all of them would have the same sort of political viewpoint and style of writing?
    In any case Its not a commenting deal breaker as far as I’m concerned Iain XXXX is now commenting under his own name and I respect that even though I am fundamentally at odds with so many of his opinions and as long as he keeps it civil I’ll accept his comemnts. After all isn’t the best blogging too and fro in the threads when we have people with quite different opinions arguing the toss?

    JM

    Iain: “research credibility” seems to be entirely dependant upon firstly believing in AGW

    No it isn’t Iain. It’s almost solely based on

    1. The number of papers published by the person
    2. The number of citations those papers get in other published papers.

    That is still just a very basic appeal to authority JM and the flaw in that is that when the authority is less than scrupulous (climategate or Mann’s Hockey stick anyone?) then the whole thing falls in a heap doesn’t it?

    But that’s academia. For people like Jo Chandler I suspect it is professional kudos – positions and affiliations held, along with openly expressed regard from peers – that matters. Nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s better than paper counting because it tells you what other people think.

    So you are suggesting that Jo Chandler will just find the appropriate authorities to appeal to and it will be job done?
    You should surely be expecting more than just being true to the Green religion and choosing from the faith approved for her sources as a measure of her ability to write on the subject. Because your endorsement of her upcoming book seems to be entirely based upon the expectation that she will sing from an approved song sheet rather than any proven ability to write about climate science or any other science for that matter.

  110. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain XXXX, we all know you’re rather thick but do you have to keep proving it? Look, you started off saying you’d only ever used one pseudonym. Then you admitted to lying about that. You’re right when you say that Iain and I haven’t proven anything – we don’t have too. Give up.

    Btw, I have never engaged in the type of shit you have over at the blog I referred to earlier. You know, the one set up to sta*lk people. When you can retract and apologise for your arsehole behaviour and wrongheaded attitude, then I’ll stop calling you for the prick you are.

  111. Iain Lygo says:

    The fundamental thing here is that Iain XXXX has claimed that he only ever used one pseudonym on the net and yet its very clear that he has used more than one

    When I said that I meant here on your blog, Iain. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough.

    I am fundamentally at odds with so many of his opinions and as long as he keeps it civil I’ll accept his comemnts. After all isn’t the best blogging too and fro in the threads when we have people with quite different opinions arguing the toss?

    Hear hear sir!

    Btw, I have never engaged in the type of shit you have over at the blog I referred to earlier. You know, the one set up to sta*lk people. When you can retract and apologise for your arsehole behaviour and wrongheaded attitude, then I’ll stop calling you for the prick you are.

    Ray I’m not interested in your petty little blog wars. I have had my quibbles with Iain but that’s all they are. I am not interested in the ‘he said, she said’ and the allegations of st*lking, that stuff is for numpties. So why don’t you build a bridge and get over it. Or better still, leave me out of it, since it has nada to do with me.

  112. Iain Lygo says:

    As the young kids like to say, Ray…

    “Whatever!”

  113. Ray Dixon says:

    I’ll take that as an admission that you are involved with that crap blog, “Lynot” (or whatever other name you’re using over there). You do realise that it’s a breach of The Crimes act in relation to sta*lking don’t you? Not that that would bother you. Hypocrite.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: