Willis Eschenbach is starting to remind me of Michael Mann, the global-warming obsessed alarmist who tries to destroy everyone while crying like a little sissy as soon as someone criticizes back. Willis commented here:
Finally, attacking me for what I said, without using my name and without quoting what I said? Really? Is this your idea of proper behavior?”
Right Willis, you’re just the right guy to tell us what proper behavior and attacks are. Please spare us.
45 responses to “Quote Of The Week: From Willis Eschenbach…Whines He’s Been Attacked…Preaches Ethics, Proper Behavior!”
I do not think that these blog entries are what we are looking for on this site.
Nor do I.
I’m just going to say that there a few characters out there that I’m getting tired of tiptoeing around constantly. So we’re all supposed to bow to Willis?
Willis is treading into territory that should be illegal if it isn’t.
You have my unconditional support on this (so long as you don’t back down under pressure from other distortion artists).
My one & only dead serious issue with Anthony Watts is and has been his tolerance of stalking, harassment, malicious misrepresentation, & devilish solar-terrestrial thought-policing (presumably to support some political &/or financial agenda) by dark agents of ignorance &/or deception, in particular Svalgaard (10), Eschenbach (5), & Mosher (1) (listed in decreasing magnitude of egregiousness, svalagaard scoring much higher due to extensive abuse of authority).
Do flower children ever grow up?
Sir you can snip this,yes please do
“I do not think that these blog entries are what we are looking for on this site”.
“Nor do I”.
Me neither … so bravo Pierre, for calling them both out. Had neither of them pointed fingers Pierre’s post would not have appeared. The sad fact is that both did point fingers, and a reprimand is in order.
Keep it scientific Mann and Eschenbach. And never, ever post anything on the interweb when angry (US pissed) or drunk (UK pissed).
When a war is won or lost, when it is over, or almost over, there is a danger that those who fought together so well and stood side by side, to start fighting each other. It has been seen several times in recent history. When you get used to fighting, perhaps it is hard to stop.
Anyway, sweeping these issues under the table is not the way to move forward. Hiding the inner disputes for the sake of (actually what is it for the sake of?), is like advocating an ecumenical view where there is no truth except that everyone agrees to not disagree and then promote not disagreeing as the common ground and great message to preach to the world.
Maturity is required from all those who have fought this battle, not full agreement, but as I am sure all will agree, the war is not over yet, and defeat can still be snatched from the jaws of victory.
Pierre does a stunning job, but as with all of us, we can react too quickly or too slowly. If it was too quickly then Pierre will be the best one to know.
Anthony goes to Willis and demands:
“Willis, be sensible.”
Don’t blame Pierre.
Paul, Very funny.
What goes on with this blog?
I would be very interested to know why my comments usually get delayed. Great that they have never been rejected.
This is just a test to see if it also gets delayed.
I’m not sure why it’s happening. I just made a change in the settings and see if that helps. Sorry for aggravation.
Patience, some of mine get delayed also.
I think that Eschenbach is being unfair on Scarfetta, who has taken a good deal of stick from him.
One of Eschenbach’s complaints is that Scarfetta does not give data and code. Having briefly read some of his papers, it seems to me that he references his data to publicly available databases and emphemeres (if that is the plural of emphemeris!). The theory and caculations are not very taxing and, if one seriously believes that he has made a mistake or that he is fudging the data, his calculations can be repeated.
What interpretation one puts on the calculations is up to the individual.
We are all fallable of course, but in these types of calculations, one might favour the opinion of a PhD trained, professor of physics at Duke.
I don’t agree with Nicola about most things solar & climate, but it was a breeze reproducing his work a few years ago.
NASA Horizons spits out the numbers. The calculations are trivial.
Bad optics is an insurmountable problem for the activists constantly begging for code.
They loudly advertise their independent lack of raw quantitative intuition & natural competence.
The louder they scream, the more they drown themselves in bad optics.
The problem is the Nicola thinks that Willis thinks it’s all clouds and thunderstorms, and Willis thinks the Nicola thinks it’s all planetary and lunar cycles. Both are wrong. Each has a piece of the truth. The fight is over how big each piece is, and whether the pieces are accurately described. I wish they would both sit down together and have a grown-up discussion. It’s to bad they live on opposite coasts.
Right now its better that they don’t
“Each has a piece of the truth. The fight is over how big each piece is, and whether the pieces are accurately described.”
I think Willis has described an important limiting mechanism for the upper bound. Solar influences though can excert a downward pressure on average temperatures. There is absolutely no contradiction.
The only open question is, how could the planet get into hothouse condition without ice at the poles. This does not seem possible with current orbital and atmospheric parameters.
I can see that Nicola is testing the plausible planetary cycles to see how they match. I doubt that he thinks it’s all planetary and lunar.
It’s hard to tell what Willis thinks because he writes for himself, not to lay bare a concept to expose it to analysis and critique. Willis is quite good at writing and I’m sure that he gets a lot of pleasure out of it.
Of course what drives the climate system is substantially determined by the fusion reactor located approximately 149 million km from here. Not only in terms of direct radiative effects but also the side effects of its various fluxes on our atmosphere and our whole solar system. (vis e.g. plausibly cosmic rays and solar winds). The orbital paths of the planets could also modulate some of those factors and their gravitational effects directly change how heat is distributed within the atmosphere and oceans by distorting their shapes.
Superficially; they would seem to be small. However, by changing the planet’s shape, it changes the length of day which means that the surface is exposed to direct solar radiation for a different period of time, which is all other things are held constant, alters the dirunal temperature difference. The nett effect isn’t simple to predict as it depends largely on the nature of the surface.
We know that surface insolation, which is how most of the heat gets into the atmosphere, is modulated strongly by variations in albedo; at the surface and in clouds. Measuring that albedo is fraught with complications because it’s spectrally sensitive and the sun’s radiation has variable spectral content. Its radiation is “harder” when active and “softer” when it’s calm, which also makes a difference as to the depth of direct heat absorbtion by water, which covers 70% of the planet’s surface and remains a significant thermal transport and storage.
While it’s plausible that we could some day understand all the substantial physical processes involved, the chaotic nature of the “experiment” precludes developing any deterministic forecast of climates with any reliability. We will still have to adapt.
First I do not think that it is all planetary and lunar cycles. This is the prime cause. The climate is modulated mostly by clouds which is what is forced by astronomical phenomena.
About Willis, this is his CV
He has no training in advanced science what so ever.
The problem with him and also with Anthony is their buffoonery, not heir lack of scientific training. They criticized our work without even reading it properly and systematically use defamation tactics that fool people who do not have time to study well the case by themselves.
See Saumarez’s comment. He read my paper and easily realized that Willis’ accusations that I do not give data and code are unfounded. All data that I use a public, everybody can download them and the calculations are not so complicated. The art is in the scientific interpretation that requires some training in science, that Willis or Anthony clearly do not have.
Nicola, you shouldn’t assume ignorance. It may be deception, in which case you look naive for wasting energy fighting them. I advise that you reconsider strategy.
Nicola, this works both ways. Roger Tattersall has no advanced training in science whatsoever yet he was both an editor and a reviewer in the PRP special edition.
Roger Tattersall, HNC [Higher National Certificate] Mechanical and Production Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University (1985); B.A. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds (1988); Customer Services manager, Vital online Ltd. (2000-2004); Fundraising Coordinator, Yorkshire Air Ambulance (2006-2008); Digital Content Manager, School of Education, University of Leeds (2009-2013)
I can see no reason for this, other than he posted a lot about this topic on his blog, which is not a defensible argument.
Why are you using the argument then?
Albert Einstein was just a lowly patent officer in Switzerland when he formulated his relativity theory. And at the same time, he did not run around telling everyone which science was correct and which wasn’t. Things have to be done with a little class. Last Sunday’s attempt to marginalize and discredit 19 scientists was hardly a class act.
SNIP – this is getting nowhere. Discussion over. Worse than a middle east conflict. PG
Very disappointed to see you censoring my comments simply because you do not agree with them.
[-not censored just removed because I’m tired watching you beat a dead horse over and over – we’re not getting anywhere. Both sides have already presented their points – PG]
As I said, The problem with Willis and also with Anthony is their buffoonery, not heir lack of scientific training.
I did not see the same behavior from Roger Tattersall. His way to comment and argue is good, his knowledge in the field is good too given that he has studied in detail the relevant literature for years.
Willis has studied nothing, he just jump around to deceive, not for leaning.
Which errors did you find in Roger published works?
I keep hearing the accusation that you have not made raw data and code available. Could you clear up this point?
Then the calculations are trivial.
Even if Nicola is 100% wrong about everything else, he has been harassed too much (a severe understatement) about this.
The strategy appears to be:
1. Repeat something (without regard for whether it’s true or not) until it becomes accepted in the community as axiom.
2. Build up a system of such axioms (e.g. (a) “never ever smooth data under any circumstances whatsoever”, (b)”sun has no effect”, (c) “real science demands this, real science demands that [insert personal desires, political &/or financial agenda here]).
3. Use this system of “axioms” to deliver “proofs”.
The proofs and therefore the axioms are derived (in reverse) from the political &/or financial agenda.
It’s not sensible to expend time & energy fighting the arguments, as they appear logical to those who accept the axioms and acceptable (even if illogical) to those welcoming the merry fun of mobbing.
A side-effect is the impact on the appearance to sensible parties (who may be in the minority):
Any publicity is good publicity?
If an aim is increasing traffic by engineering protracted controversy (“popcorn thread”), perhaps.
Talk to anyone who works in online marketing. You need to push hard for competitive advantage. You need to drive traffic to be successful — *this* becomes the top priority.
Be aware that it’s easy to black-hat up an army of supporters. An unknown proportion of IDs & comments are black-hatted. No need to be paranoid about this, just real rather than naive. There are people who earn a living black-hatting. (Have a conversation with one of them about what they do.) Climate is a high stakes, religiously-intense (life & death according to some) issue, so why wouldn’t all means available be mobilized?
I can’t see any sensible reason why Nicola should spend one more second addressing purely tabloid criticism about data & code.
Nicola’s ideas are another matter. (There we have some pretty serious differences…)
End of the Day:
WUWT’s going to do what WUWT’s going to do and sensible folks will be, have been, and are looking for alternative non-tabloid venues. That’s the avenue I see towards peace Pierre.
Nicola, I am not permitted to respond to your comments here as they will get snipped.
I posted a similar comment to the one above on WUWT
I received this from Willlis Eschenbach, which is a similar response to those I have had in the past.
I responded with this:
I’m sorry, I didn’t finish the post above.
WUWT claims to be the premiere science blog. Yet it tolerates intemperate abuse and patronising comment on science from someone who has no credentials.
Observing the spat between Eschenbach and Scarfetta, I am astonished that anyone would take Eschenbach seriously. Scarfetta is a professor at Duke and publishes in his field extensively while Eschenbach is a nobody who feels, because of his priviledged position at WUWT can hurl brickbats at anyone he feels like.
While lectures on the scientific method are valuable, they carry greater force when delivered by someone who has a track record.
I do not respect the way Willis attacks everyone in a personal way. Anthony gave him a platform that he does not deserve.
Willis is the Mann of the Skeptics and sadly Watts is turning into the G Schmidt.
Willis is totally about himself. Watts does not see that.
I objected to your attacking me anonymously, Pierre … so obviously that makes me the bad guy.
PS—I see Nicola Scafetta is still defending hiding his data and code, using the exact same pathetic excuses that Michael Mann used, and nobody here objects but me … and once again, obviously that makes me the bad guy for arguing for scientific transparency. So pile on, guys, tell me how awful I am …
Others say his data is available.
Concerning the “piling on”, what do you expect Willis?
19 scientists were attacked in an unconventional manner. Do you expect they’ll just go down on their knees? You’re not that naive I think.
I think now is good time to call a truce and to get back to good, respectable behavior and treating other peers with courtesy. Everyone has said now, what there is to say.
Finally, I think the “anonymous” matter has now been resolved.
I told Eschenbach already several times in the past that less is more. Unfortunately the only person who’s piling on is Eschenbach himself, he’s unstoppable. He’s spamming on WUWT endlessly with useless stories and unfortunately Watts is giving him the podium. I suggest people google for the definition of a “narcist”. Dr.Spencer also had enough of Eschenbach, and so do I.
Must be a good friend for Anthony to put up with it.
I don’t think friendship can explain tolerance of the wild escalations we’ve been seeing lately. Things have degenerated to the point where it even becomes sensible to speculate about the possible existence of hidden administrative structures (in which Anthony’s not top dog).
Or maybe it’s simpler.
Maybe it’s just all about the sexy lure of those Alexa web-traffic ratings and to h*ll with integrity…
My advisory for sensible parties:
Boycott (or at least stoically minimize participation in) the threads where artificial dominance is deliberately engineered and facilitated (by uneven application of policy).
Sensible alternative venues were, are, & will be welcome.
As Paul says, Anthony, Willis, Mosher, Leif are against a few scientists (like me) who are working in alternative theories able to explain climate changes and other things.
In fact, the AGW establishment knows well that AGW is wrong and that the IPCC AGW scientists are behind the few scientists that just tried to look for a valid interpretation of these natural phenomena.
However, the AGW establishment does not want to acknowledge our research and our achievements (my models are far superior than theirs, for example). So, they need that scientists like me be defamed. The best way to do this is through trying to prevent our publications and, if they fail, they try other things.
Now, they have even arrived to a blatant act of censorship and of burning of an entire journal just because the editor of the journal was Morner, that they could not corrupt.
About the monotonic request of data and code, it is highly inappropriate because methods and codes are available free on internet and or in common textbook of data analysis. My papers always contain all details where to get this information.
About my own two papers in the PRP I used:
1) global temperature records: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
2) HORIZONS Web-Interface:
3) Analysis algorithms are taken from Numerical Recipes:
4) TSI satelite records:
Please note that “scientific replication” does not mean that people must be able to replicate a scientific study without studying it first and without doing the proper homework required to learn the methodologies. Which is some like to reason. Note that Leif has some scientific credentials (lower than mine, but he is a scientist) and he has never requested from me data and codes.
As Paul says, it is not difficult to replicate my calculations with a little of study.
Nicola – I’ve edited some of your comments. No use in stirring things further. Let’s not focus on the personal issues and animosities from now on. Can certainly understand your anger, though.
Pierre, the editing is good.
People should ask Anthony, Willis, Mosher and Leif to provide us their own interpretation of the physical phenomena.
Anthony, Willis, Mosher and Leif have been not able to propose anything until now. But their are quite good in criticizing others without even reading their works first.
Our “Copernicus Censored” Special Issue
is now available with a short epilogue written by
Morner “Epilogue: An Unbelievable Decision”
Problems always arise, in a search for truth, when the searcher for said truth, identifies closely with their idea of the truth. When dealing with truth, step back, be willing to step back. The truth is “out there” – it is on the table between parties, not inside your mind or heart – truth is objective. It is only our human, all too human weakness, that personalizes truth.
Take it easy. Truth is beatiful.
as Nicola Scafetta says:
26. Januar 2014 at 21:30 | Permalink | Reply
“””As Paul says, Anthony, Willis, Mosher, Leif are against a few scientists (like me) who are working in alternative theories able to explain climate changes ……
This is grass root, the bottom problem……One would expect that those would
embrace with hearty support all alternative theories which come up. There
must exist one great one out there, because AGW is scientific pits and will soon be discarded, just a matter of time.
Alternative approaches are trail blazers, many need additional prove….
so what, supportive facts will be found….. these 4 are stuck in “Cyclemania-phobia” – I would name it this way.
Really bad the narrowmindedness against alternative approaches….
Is it partly nuances of California state politics (something most of us know little about) driving the antics? (They’re all from California.) It’s not clear what — beyond the lust for Alexa ratings — drives them to act up so badly at times. Pondering root causes is worthwhile, but it’s not sensible to dwell on this, so…
To help brainstorm an efficient path away from the recent mess, I’ve sorted issues into the following categories:
A. Acceptable issues
B. Unacceptable issues
To be even more efficient, I’m not going to bother addressing the acceptable issues. (It isn’t necessary.) So here are the unacceptables:
Strictly Unacceptable (& Non-Negotiable):
3. malicious misrepresentation
Relentless stalking & targeted harassment need not be tolerated in person and they also need not be tolerated online. My suggestion for people who refuse to cooperate on this: jail time.
I ran online forums for years in a professional setting. I ran a cleansed — one could even say sanitized — environment.
Efficient Moderation Tip:
It only takes 1 or 2 bad apples to ruin the barrel. Nasty behavior is contagious & infectious. Deal promptly with the worst 1 or 2 individuals and 80% of the problem immediately goes away.
While this discussion was active I was too busy with paid work & outdoor recreation to finish saying what I had in mind.
I’ve now shared some of those thoughts in comment-trees beginning here…
Apologies for the delay.
Thanks for being a sensible host.
I will leave it at that for now.