Head of IPCC writes trashy novel, global warming halts!

As ridiculous as that headline is, it is the theme du jour in the denialosphere….

The chair of the UN’s panel on climate change Dr Rajendra Pachauri was written a “racy” romance novel and therefore the IPCC AR4 is unreliable propaganda. Um…okay.

If I wanted the denialists to win the PR battle, I would quietly but urgently try to warn them about going a bit too far in the mud slinging ad hominems.

(see ClimateAudit and WUWT piling on this Telegraph “news” item.)


I mean, really, isn’t that a truly laughable thing to get worked up about? Can’t just about anyone with the minimal intelligence required to post a comment on a blog see how utterly irrelevant this “revelation” is to the real issues at hand?

(That would be a “yes” to the former question but sadly a “no” to the latter).

So I guess now the question is, is that as low as they can go? The answer will be worth waiting for I am sure…

37 thoughts on “Head of IPCC writes trashy novel, global warming halts!

  1. And in nearly the same breath WUWT sings the praises of Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who does a better job than Anthony Watts did as a TV weather reporter! Keep it comin’ Anthony, keep it comin’.

    Like

  2. I am glad the romance novelist wrote a book because i was sick of calling him the rail road engineer. You are right Coby any moron with half a brain can write a trashy romance novel and this fact should not effect his work for the IPCC.

    Mind you if he wins a Nobel prize for literature i will be crying foul.

    Like

  3. I’m wondering how many of these Pachauri-bashers who call him out for “not being a climate scientist” were also yelling at Ben Santer during that whole Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Understand Peer Review thing fifteen years ago, and how many of them haven’t even heard of Santer, the White House’s actions, and the memos sent to the White House just before Santer was replaced.

    Like

  4. The climate deniers are really getting desperate now. This is just the last poo-flings of defiance before they become sidelined crackpots along with the 9/11 truthers and antivaxxers.

    Like

  5. Thank goodness there are sites like this one for me to come to. You are the only people who understand me. I just got my copy of Pachauri’s book. It will keep me company here in my fall out shelter. I can only read in day light hours as it takes too much energy to pedal my bike-generator cuz my breathing creates too much CO2. I’ve been trying to put up a wind turbine up but I don’t want to damage a tree and metal and plastic take energy to create. I’m out on that! Any ideas? It’s a little cramped here but it’s worth it cuz I have my vaccines and anti virals for SARS, Bird flu and new version of Swine flu. Without the DDT I’m a little worried about the killer bees though. Keep up the info. Nothing has got me yet and it never will with your help!

    Like

  6. ^ When their responses consistently are nothing more than hyperbolic ranting, I know they’ve lost on substance.

    It always makes me think of creationists…

    Like

  7. Yeah it has no logical bearing on the science of AGW but PR is part of this; face it. Pachauri is now easily portrayed as a bungling prima donna. He should step down.

    But come on, Crakar, don’t knock it till you try it. Remember: Salinger and Miller were considered “porn” in their day but now radical Christians have to fight to have their books purged from/burned in public schools. Progress and evolving standards, baby.

    Like

  8. For what it’s worth (admittedly, not much), this post and others like it have made me decide to remove scienceblogs from my RSS subscriptions. I subscribed because I was interested in seeing scientific posts… but I see too many posts where the author is complaining about and belittling people with whom they disagree.

    This post even uses the phrase “ad hominem” with no apparent recognition of the irony.

    Like

  9. Some words or phrases that (in my opinion) have no place in a “science blog”:
    trashy, ridiculous, denialosphere, racy, denialists, laughable, minimal intelligence, utterly irrelevant

    Like

  10. Heck, I wrote a novel (pretty trashy in parts). I wonder which claims of mine that little indiscretion invalidated? 🙂

    This is a good point. The BLATANT, RABID PORNOGRAPHY in your novel clearly renders the degree you got from that overrated institution in Massachusetts TOTALLY INVALID.

    Like

  11. david (post #11)
    You wanted some ideas? Here’s one for you:

    If your fallout shelter is letting daylight in, you might want to rebuild.

    Like

  12. @communist pornographic crook: An ad hominem attack is one (such as the post to which we are replying) that attacks the person rather than the idea. Accusing someone of an ad hominem attack while insulting their character and the quality of their fictional writing is ironic, in the colloquial sense of the word.

    @Middlek: Yes, I recognize that I made a small comment to a trivial blog post (that was your point in saying “film at 11, I assume). I was not trolling, though. I was honestly hoping that I could have some positive influence on the quality of the blog. That comment was a continuation of my previous comment, intended to support my reference to the irony that this post complains of “ad hominem” attacks, while itself being one.

    And the ad hominem continues. Anyone else care to insult me for explaining that I am unsubscribing from this blog because it is too insulting?

    Like

  13. Neu Tral, it is never considered to be an “ad hominem” when the description is a true reflection of the person. Therefore calling some one a “liar” who continually distorts the truth is not an ad hominem attack.

    Why does your list of “phrases that (in your opinion) have no place in a “science blog”” only include terms which are used, correctly I must add, to describe deniers? Why do the phrases, “fraudster”, “scientific hoax”, “scientific fraud” not appear? It doesn’t look like you are being “neutral” in this discussion at all.

    I am as confused on your stance on global warming as Chaucer was of the Pardoner in the Canterbury Tales: “I Trowe He were a Gelding or a Mare”.

    Like

  14. And the ad hominem continues. Anyone else care to insult me for explaining that I am unsubscribing from this blog because it is too insulting?

    No insult, but a well-intended question: Since your declaration was to “unsubscribe”, how was it you were about to note the reactions to it and respond?

    Come on. You like us; admit it.

    Like

  15. My original comment wasn’t very clear, and seems to have generated some noise. I’ll try to make my original point again, this time providing more information.

    I saw an interesting scienceblogs post at some point, and decided I would like to see more such posts, so I subscribed to this feed:
    ScienceBlogs Select – A constant stream of the best of ScienceBlogs: http://feeds.feedburner.com/scienceblogs/ScienceblogsSelect?format=xml

    As part of that feed, attack posts like this would show up from time to time, and this is not the sort of thing I want to read. I unsubscribed from the feed and commented here with the hope that someone someone in control would see my comment and think “hey, maybe these attack posts aren’t really part of the best ScienceBlogs has to offer.”

    When I commented, I did not realize that this particular blog (although not the feed to which I subscribed) was all about attacking people who were perceived to be ignorant.

    I am happy to explain all of this, because I still hope that someone will reconsider the inclusion of such posts in that feed.

    Now I’m going to unwisely allow myself to get drawn into the noise I’ve generated.

    @communist pornagraphic crook and @Ian Forrester: I think Blake Stacey summed up the ad hominem nature of this post in the first comment. I’m sorry my definition omitted one characteristic of ad hominem, but the post is still ad hominem and the irony is still present.

    @Ian Forrester: When I said “Some words or phrases that (in my opinion) have no place […]” I meant “Some words or phrases that were used in this post that (in my opinion) have no place […]”. It was not intended to be a comprehensive or representative list. I thought that would be clear from the context of my comment and the use of the word “some”. I did not spell that out because I thought that my comment would be more casual and less like a legal document if I did not fully qualify every aspect of what I was saying. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding regarding the list of words and phrases.

    @Ian Forrester: Regarding my stance on global warming, that is not what I am here to discuss, but since you (implicitly) asked: I am neutral. I have difficulty finding unbiased information, but there is a seemingly infinite supply of “information” like this post (and the noise to which this post is an echo) from both sides. I find that frustrating, so I am resigned to wait for truth to emerge. It would please me greatly if some of the people involved in the global warming mud slinging were to happen across this comment and change their approach.

    Like

  16. @skip: I am already unsubscribed from the RSS feed that included this post. Since commenting, I have reloaded this page periodically to see the replies. I hope that answers your question.

    Like

  17. Neu Tral, you might try Skeptical Science.

    It’s run by a physicist.

    Of course, the gold standard is Real Climate, run by leading climate scientists.

    I have difficulty finding unbiased information, but there is a seemingly infinite supply of “information”

    Well, if you really believe that weather tv personalities with a high school education (Anthony Watts) and the like provide information, then you’re bound to be confused.

    Go to Real Climate, click “start here”, and read. That’s science, by scientists.

    Of course, that assumes you’re interested in climate science, not amateur photography projects, fixations on a few e-mails, etc.

    Like

  18. @communist pornographic crook and @Ian Forrester: I just re-read the post, and it seems that I misunderstood it–not undue to lack of interest. I retract my claim that it is ad hominem, and thereby disavow my claim that it is ironic in the colloquial sense–the subject is still ironic in the strict sense. I still find the attack post to be uninteresting (although I find the discussion of its value interesting). I hope I’ve cleared up that confusion.

    Like

  19. @dhogaza: I am not particularly interested in climate science, as you might know if you read my other comments.

    Regarding your stalking attempt, I hope you didn’t base it on the email address that I provided based on the statement, “(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)”. That would be a violation of the scienceblogs.com privacy policy (http://scienceblogs.com/main/privacy/), and that could get you and scienceblogs.com into trouble.

    [dhogaza can not see your email address, only I can and I would not provide it to anyone, it looks like a fake anyway
    – coby]

    Like

  20. Neu Tral:

    “I’m sorry my definition omitted one characteristic of ad hominem”

    “the irony is still present”

    We agree 🙂

    (protip: most climate blogs were set up to debunk denialist trash, not to teach people climate science. If that is what you want, try here, here or here)

    Like

  21. Neu Tral

    I am completely confused by this statement:

    “…Regarding my stance on global warming, that is not what I am here to discuss, but since you (implicitly) asked: I am neutral. I have difficulty finding unbiased information, but there is a seemingly infinite supply of “information” like this post (and the noise to which this post is an echo) from both sides. I find that frustrating, so I am resigned to wait for truth to emerge…”

    If you want unbiased information, there is so much out there I don’t know where to start; but they are called ‘papers’. They are published in science journals. Try Google Scholar. But to seek for unbiased information on blog sites is, well, counter-intuitive.

    I will give you the same advice I have provided over and over again to some of our more interesting correspondents. You need to do your research. You cannot rely on blog sites – including this one by the way (no matter what my opinion may be) – you MUST follow up every story you read by reading the original source material, plus getting some background on the author (what his/her viewpoint may be). The stories on sites like this may be interesting, but you will ALWAYS get the spin of the site owner. This MUST be followed up with further investigation to find out what is underlying that spin. Be a skeptic – but be a REAL skeptic, not a denialist.

    Like

  22. Coby, it seems like a strange coincidence that dhogaza’s comment alludes content of the web site associated with the domain I used in the email address. I can’t imagine how else he would have thought that web site had anything to do with me. I think maybe someone else has access to my email address.

    Like

  23. @mandas: I will try to clarify the statement that you find confusing. Global warming is not a passion of mine. I once read an interesting scienceblogs.com article on a completely different topic (psychology, as I recall). I subscribed to an RSS feed that claimed to contain only the best posts from scienceblog. Unfortunately, inflammatory posts like this one kept showing up, so I unsubscribed. I thought I would try to do scienceblogs.com a favor and mention that here. Now I am being flamed, talked down to, insulted, and stalked.

    My opinion of scienceblogs.com goes beyond “unimpressed” at this point. I am approaching “shocked.”

    Regarding your advice, I will politely decline. I think you offered that advice in response to the statement that you said you did not understand.

    I regret clarifying that I am neutral on the topic, because that seems to be consistently interpreted according to the false dichotomy, “if you are not with us, you are against us.” Please disregard my position on global warming. I have absolutely no interest in discussing it here.

    I am here to express my opinion of the value of this post as a feature of the RSS feed I mentioned previously.

    Thank you for your time and interest.

    Like

  24. [snip]Neu Tral (I assume you are one and the same)

    I do not care whether you are for or against climate change, and I do not care what your position is on any subject. I am confused when you say you have difficulty finding ubiased information, and that you are ‘waiting for the truth to emerge’. I am confused, because blogging is not the way to achieve either objective. It can be a good first step – to highlight information that you may otherwise be unaware of – but that is all it is.

    The truth is already ‘out there’, and there is plenty of unbiased information available, but you have to do the hard yards and actually read the science. NOTHING else will suffice.

    If you are hoping for blog sites where no-one ever says anything bad, or offers personal abuse, or speaks completely unbiased, non-spin, opinions, then good luck. But I believe you are being naive. No such place exists this side of the rainbow.

    Like

  25. @mandas: OK. I think I understand your confusion. I have not been searching blogs for unbiased information. I subscribed to a scienceblogs.com RSS feed because I read an interesting article about a recent study (psychology-related, I think). I thought the scienceblogs.com “best of” might be a good source of similar articles, but I kept seeing posts like this one. Rather than just unsubscribing quietly, I decided to share my reason in case it would help.

    I am not looking for a mythical blog where all of the commenters are kind and have good intentions, but I am interested in finding an RSS feed where someone has selected just a few particularly interesting scientific posts to share, and NOT posts like this one.

    Does that make more sense to you?

    Like

  26. Neu Tral

    1. I accept your criticism that this post should not have been in the select feed, I actually don’t recall intentionally sending it there.

    2. dhogaza mentioned Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com He is a very big player in climate change obfuscation and denial and a likely first name to come to mind when chosing a random denialist site at random. Photographs of weather stations and discussion of private email between climate scientists are a good portion of the content there. I fail to see any connection whatsoever with that site and the domain or handle of your email address, and I visited the www site of that domain.

    Stalking is a pretty serious accusation and you have made it three times now. Firstly, you should be assured nothing like that has occurred, secondly you should not make an accusation like that without very solid reason.

    Thanks for the visit!

    Like

  27. @coby: Thank you for accepting that criticism. If this had been the first time, I would have overlooked it, but there have been others as well. In particular, a couple posts insulting anti-vaccination people, and a post gloating about driving a couple people away come to mind. It is this recurring pattern that made me decide to unsubscribe. If they were all unintentional, that seems like a problem worth correcting.

    Regarding multiple handles, I typed the wrong thing in the “Name” field. I did not see a way to change it after posting, but I did quickly send you an email asking you to change it for me. When enough time passed without you doing that, I decided to continue posting with the new name (for what I believed was better continuity).

    I would prefer that they all be “Neu Tral”, so please feel free to make that change. I have switched back to that handle in this post.

    Regarding the stalking accusation, I agree that it is serious. I will take that up with you via email (the coby101 gmail address). I don’t want to explain the details in public. I apologize in advance if I am incorrect, and if that turns out to be the case, I will freely admit it here.

    Like

  28. It seems that I was indeed mistaken about my stalking accusation. It was a case of the horoscope effect. I am sorry about that, Coby and dhogaza.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s