2010-10-19 17:07:06Heads up Peter, WUWT respond to your DMI article
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Just breezed past WUWT today (as you do) and noticed their latest blog post:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/18/sea-ice-extend-answer-to-skepticalscience-com/

Frank Lansner responds to Peter's article about the DMI data on Arctic cooling.

2010-10-20 02:51:59
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
195.137.107.165

Thanks John, I'll look at it later (and I thought I could just get on with another article...).  I suppose this is free advertising, though haven't seen comments referring to it here yet. 

2010-10-20 04:49:05Some graphs
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
All Seasons - 10 Year Averages


Arctic Summer Temperatures


Arctic Yearly


More Links Below
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AllSeasons.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSummer.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticWinter.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_ArcticTemperature.png


Arctic = 66 - 90 N

2010-10-20 14:31:06Comments at WUWT re SkS
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

It's always an entertaining read ploughing through the comments at WUWT when the subject turns to SkS. I get the distinct impression WUWT readers are not a fan of SkS. Some examples:

Rocky Balboa
Why do you continue to even acknowledge skepticalscience.com? It is not skeptical science – it is propaganda for CAGW. It is a garbage website that even a five year old could refute. Pure crap.

Andrew30
Re: skepticalscience
They blow like the wind and change their arguments as often.
They abuse the data but never change their position. The just silently delete the old arguments as soon as any evidence does not support it.
Often the new argument completely contradicts the old ‘robust’ argument, which of course has been silently deleted from their web site.
Don’t bother trying to counter the skepticalscience.com junk, just wait a while, they will delete it and contradict it themselves soon enough.
They are just making stuff up.

And this one is interesting:

Lucy Skywalker
I still believe we could do with a wiki-type deconstruction of Skeptical Science.

Lucy has been suggesting an anti-SkS wiki for several years now.

2010-10-20 18:49:56
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

Mix tape: Andrew30's making up pure crap.

You guys are robust, all right. Somebody's obviously got to put on a haz-mat suit and dive into the comments at WUWT but I just can't take it. I start out laughing and then end up with high blood pressure.

Robert, what's the source for those graphs?

2010-10-20 20:21:11On Lucy Skywalker's suggestion
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.92

An anti-SkS deconstruction? What a great idea.

The only problem is that when they start de-constructing, they should find out that it's THEIR "science" that gets de-constructed.

That would be cool.

2010-10-21 03:19:14Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
So science evolves and that's a bad thing? apparently we should stick to the same lame arguments like them!

I went and pointed out the error to goddard, argued with him a bit and figure its a waste of my time. He was too lazy to plot out the data and then he couldn't recreate it without the actual data... shocking... I gave him the links to both sets of data and told him to do 5-year averages and see what he got, then he changed his argument towards rationalizing using moburg et al. 2005.

Quel surprise. Not worth responding to but worth noting perhaps at a later venture. Long story short, using all these graphics software that he uses does not work well in place of actually getting the data and plotting it and he far too quickly jumps to conclusions rather than exhausting his resources and actually trying it himself. Clearly he has the presumption that anyone who disagrees with him is fudging the data.
2010-10-21 10:11:20Email with Frank Lansner
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

Just to keep everyone posted, I read on WUWT how Frank was complaining about getting his comment deleted. I had a look, it was deleted (appropriately) for being a link only comment. So I emailed him to explain why it was deleted and invite him to post a more substantive comment, to let him know that readers would appreciate if he would engage in the discussion. He seemed to appreciate the email, posted a comment, seems to also appreciate Peter's manner.

A little bridge building can go a long way.

And yes, I will get onto that whole 'email the deleted commenter' thing as soon as I can.

2010-10-21 11:26:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.92

Excellent move with Lansner.

 

2010-10-21 13:18:46
Ned

ned.flounders@yahoo...
71.181.49.164

Speaking of bridge building, fixing the other misspelling of his name ("Frank Lansnser" in the third sentence) probably wouldn't hurt.

:-)

On the other hand, I suspect that no amount of bridge building will enable us to span the gap between the level of scientific reasonableness we expect on this site and the conditions where Lansner is coming from over at WUWT.  Don't get your hopes up re the prospect of any especially fruitful discussion.

2010-10-21 15:17:54Damped down expectations
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.160.198

I have no expectation that Lansner will suddenly become convinced by the evidence. But an important aspect of our outreach is how people perceive our behaviour - that does have an influence on how undecided, "independent" onlookers will process our information. So it's important that we behave in a grown-up manner, courteously and professionally.

I think we should take the high road - both because it's the right thing to do and because it happens to be IMHO the most effective thing to do.

2010-10-21 19:27:17
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.123.185
I agree whole-heartedly with John's last statement. We are trying to be the "adults" in this situation in taking care of the crisis we're facing. It's important that we conduct ourselves that way - at least in public.
2010-10-25 00:58:52
Peter Hogarth

peter.hogarth@geoacoustics...
81.157.14.238
Thanks for these comments, I've been a bit late in reading them, but think we've done ok (so far).  Robert, thanks for the chart work, sorry I didn't pick up on them earlier.