Crank alert! Organisers of the Oregon petition also have a cure for cancer

TinFoilHatArea

The recent paper by Cook et.al demonstrating the 97% consensus among the climate scientists has generated considerable angst among climate sceptic movement.

However, rather than accepting the research they’ve resorted to denial – see here for Anthony Watt’s particularly amusing response.

Perth sceptic and conspiracy theorist Jo Nova has pulled out the old Oregon Petition Project arguing that 31,000 scientists don’t agree with the consensus:

You want authority? Skeptics can name 31,500 scientists who agree, including 9,000 PhDs, 45 NASA experts (including two astronauts who walked on the moon) and two Nobel Prize winners in physics.

I won’t bore you with yet another dissection of this deeply flawed petition, but simply direct you to DeSmogBlog.

However, what I find curious is the credentials of originators of the petition project: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM).

Firstly, this grandly named organisation operates out of what can only be described charitably as a shed:

 OISM_Faculty

Ok – perhaps it is not fair to judge a book by its cover.

They could be doing some amazing, cutting edge research in their shed in rural Oregon (not to disparage what is most likely a charming part of the world).

So let’s be fair and evaluate the bona fides of the OISM by the quality of the research they conduct. After all they claim to conduct research into the following:

Current projects include work on the deamidation of peptides and proteins as it relates to fundamental biochemistry and to protein aggregation diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease; research on improved techniques for medical diagnosis; improvement in precollege education curricula, especially in the sciences; and improved civilian emergency preparedness.

In other words they sell kits to survive a nuclear war.

More interestingly they claim to have found a cure for cancer. No really they do.

Let me step you through this discovery of mine.

First, let’s start at the OISM homepage:

OISM_Home 

Note the left hand navigation menu and the option “Nutrition and Cancer”? This is what you get after clicking on the link:

Nut_Canc

Note the text:

This website presents a paper on Nutrition and Cancer that may well be the most important information a cancer patient can find to help him fight this dread disease.

Clicking the link takes you to yet another page:

Still_more_clicks 

Let me say for the record, this is really bad web design: three-click-rule be damned.

They’ve buried the “most important information a cancer patient can find” in a thicket of interlinked pages lacking a consistent design or user experience. It’s like they don’t want you to find it!

Eventually you get to the following essay subtitled “Beating cancer with a diet of raw fruits and vegetables.”

Let me quote:

A surgeon telephoned me to ask some questions about this diet. During the conversation, he told me why he had become interested in it (to the great displeasure of his colleagues).

A patient had come to him in whose throat was growing a completely inoperable and soon-to-be-fatal cancer. He told the patient that there was nothing he could do for him and that he would soon die.

The patient, however, went to Ann Wigmore’s establishment and started eating their initial diet of strictly raw fruits and vegetables. He pursued this fanatically, however, and never switched to Wigmore and Hunsberger’s phase-two diet including additional staples.

Many months later, the patient returned to the surgeon. The surgeon told me that there were three things that were unusual about this patient.

1. He was back. He should already have been long dead.

2. There was not a trace of cancer in his throat.

3. He looked like he had just stepped out of a Nazi or Communist concentration camp. The patient was almost dead of malnutrition. He was a walking skeleton.

The surgeon nursed him back to good nutritional health – but the cancer never returned.

Note the anecdotal and highly suspect nature of this claim: neither the surgeon nor patient is named. As far as personal testimonials go, that’s pretty p*ss weak.

Oh and the cancer – like totally gone.

Like it was never there…

Wooooooooooh waaaah woooh!

Amazing right?

Just so you know, the “raw fruit and vegetable” diet is pure alternative-medicine crapola.

What they are suggesting is a version of a macrobiotic diet: as far as science is concerned, it is totally implausible as a cure. Actually, it may be dangerous to cancer patients who elect to follow it.

It is one of the many alternative cures to cancer sold by hucksters who prey on those dealing with a life threatening disease.

This is yet another variation of the “extreme diet” cure, which the Cancer Council of Victoria (CCV) notes:

There are hundreds of alternative cancer therapies. You may hear about them from friends and family, or come across them in books, on the Internet or on radio, TV, etc. There is no science-based evidence to prove they can treat, control or cure any type of cancer.

There is some evidence a balanced diet – that includes raw fruit and vegetables – can help reduce the risk of some cancers.

But what our friends at the OISM claim is what experts in the field call “woo”.

To quote the CCV, promoters of such therapies are acting unethically:

Unfortunately, there are people who falsely promote treatments which don’t work or are even dangerous as ‘cancer cures.’ There are also people who wrongly claim that mainstream or conventional treatments such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone therapies don’t work. These people are acting unethically.

Whose opinion do you trust?

The peer-reviewed work of John and his team, or the “We have a cure for cancer!” woo from the cranks at OISM?

——

[Note: I will not be sanctioning a discussion on the merits alternative treatments: the evidence against them is compelling. Nor will I allow this bog to be hijacked by promoters of therapies known to be dangerous to people undergoing treatment for cancer and/or other serious illnesses.] 

 

Tagged , , , , ,

137 thoughts on “Crank alert! Organisers of the Oregon petition also have a cure for cancer

  1. john byatt says:

    Oh shit a horrible thought

    one doctor tells you that you have cancer

    you check with another ten and they all say NO you are okay

    you then find out that the ten signed the Oregon petition

  2. john byatt says:

    but my aunty maud could not walk so she went to a faith healer

    he prayed and laid his hands on her and behold she walked

    which was amazing because she only had one leg

  3. Eric Worrall says:

    Mike, given that you regularly quote Desmogblog, an organisation funded by convicted money launderer John Lefebvre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lefebvre , its a little rich suggesting the Oregon Petition should be ignored because one of the originators of the petition is a bit dodgy.

    Despite Desmogblog’s (which did I mention – is funded by a convicted criminal) attempted smear on other originators of the petition, Willy Soon, Fred Seitz and Sallie Baliunas are well credentialed researchers.

    But they are hardly the most prominent signatories. The list of the most prominent signatories of the petition, physicists like Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson, reads like a who’s who of 20th century Physics.

    Lets not forget the hilarious CBS incident, in which they had to blur out Edward Teller’s name, because they pulled his signature out of the pile of signatories at random, while dissing the quality of signatories – not noticing they had in their hand the signature of one of the physics greats of the 20th century.

    Your other suggestion that people of such stature were somehow tricked into signing the petition because the paperwork looked official is also a little implausible. You don’t get a reputation as one of the greats of Physics by lending your reputation to every piece of cr@p which someone shoves in front of you.

    So regardless of whether one of the originators of the petition is involved in dodgy health products (and I agree, they do look a bit dodgy), you can’t dismiss the fact that some of the world’s most famous scientists have lent their reputation to the call for the USA to reject Kyoto, and to reject similar attempts to curb CO2 emissions.

    • john byatt says:

      lie number four for the day

    • Nick says:

      Gee Eric,the Oregon Petition has no credibility because it is the classic argument from authority! A common logical fallacy,.in fact the OP is a two-fer… an appeal to a big number as well, 31,000 sounds good…

      The OP pretends to have weight through argument from authority,it is not an appeal to genuine science ‘domain’ experience and published relevant authority. Because John Doe took a degree in science in 1959,he is has the authority to dispute a specialist field’s findings? Nope. Never mind that John Doe does not use his degree,being employed in some other field. Never mind John Doe is dead [many of the signatories are,quite a few being added from an earlier incarnation] Never mind that the degree is in veterinary science,or dentistry. Never mind that the signatories with meteorology and climatology experience are a very small subset. Never mind that many signatories work in and around the petroleum industry. Never mind that many signatories are actually untraceable.

      31,000 {mostly irrelevantly} degreed folks looks big, but is also a very small proportion of US science graduate numbers who could have signed under such a broad umbrella.

      The OP is the ultimate zombie nonsense appeal,and it’s a great measure of Nova’s desperation that she needs to recycle crackpot chum-from a madman,to boot.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If you only accept advice from “domain experts”, how do you falsify pseudoscience? Do you have to wait until the parapsychologists finally declare there is no further point investigating the possibility that humans have psychic abilities? Do you wait for published homeopaths to declare their potions have no merit? Or do you allow scientists from closely related fields to review their work and declare “this is bullsh*t”?

        Scientists like Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson, who created the first atom bomb, have a deep understanding of radiative transfer physics, a key area of climate dynamics. Scientists like Willie Soon have specialised in and researched solar terrestrial physics for decades. You can’t simply dismiss such people because didn’t share Phil Jones’ office.

        As for “published work”, there are examples in the Climategate archive of Phil Jones and others attempting to have editors fired, when they allow papers which contradict their theories to be published, and discussing ways to suppress research which contradicts their POV. It *might* be because the papers are cr@p – but it could also be they are improperly restricting the scope of what is considered legitimate, to protect their reputations.

        As for you dissing Oregon as an argument from authority – its a bit rich coming from someone who believes the holy writ of the IPCC.

      • Nick says:

        Teller is one of those old buggers who has a deep investment in his own infallibility, and his part in the flowering of the post-war synthesis of science and industry. To him,such a downside to the miracle is not palatable. Legend,irrelevant,no work in the field.

        Dyson has uttered nothing but motherhood statements about the philosophy of modelling. Assertions easily contextualised by comparison with the published thoughts of many genuinely experienced and active climate and meteorology experts. Dyson is superficial.

        Willie Soon is deeply compromised by his funding.

        The editors of the journal that published the paper that aggravated Jones and colleagues resigned in agreement with Jones et als position. Don’t you know anything? The paper was crap,the decision to publish was compromised and the offending editors co-editors resigned because they felt the reputation of the journal was tarnished by including the paper!

        I have made the distinction between the logical fallacy the OP invokes –argument from authority–which is an appeal to social status,not core expertise– and argument by reference to genuine expertise,which is what an international subject field expert panel represents. You have failed to understand that distinction.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Talking of superficial platitudes, you haven’t provided any evidence to back up your BS.

        As for Willie Soon taking money from a few private businesses, how about the possibility that government researchers are corrupted by the desire to win more funding for their research?

        For example, Lewandowsky has won hundreds of thousands of dollars in new grants and a fellowship from the unfortunately partisan Royal Society since he took a high profile stance on climate denial.

        It could be this is a legitimate reward for a principled effort to investigate a difficult area of psychopathology – or it could be he deliberately ignited a high profile controversy to cash in on the publicity.

        As I’ve said several times, the evidence in the Climategate archive is that climate scientists believe – but what would one of them do if he suddenly had a lapse of faith? Would they give up the lucrative research grants, and face ostracisation from their former friends for turning to climate “denial”? Or would they simply stay quiet, keep making the same old noises, and continue to enjoy the perks of lavishly funded research grants?

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “Lewandowsky has won hundreds of thousands of dollars in new grants and a fellowship from the unfortunately partisan Royal Society since he took a high profile stance on climate denial.”

          Wrong. This was in the pipeline prior to writing his paper. As much as you and your equally moronic friends would like to try and rewrite the timeline about Lewandowsky’s move, it simply isn’t true. Your lies and distortions are tiresome.

          Mike, how much more?

      • john byatt says:

        eric and the hypotheticals

      • Lavish grants? More idiocy.

      • BBD says:

        Climate scientists follow the evidence. They are not “believers”. This is dishonest framing.

        The evidence is overwhelming. The scientists follow the evidence. The deniers deny using rhetoric instead of a scientific counter-argument because none exists.

        Get it straight, Eric.

      • john byatt says:

        I thought that the petitions were sent out to people with a science degree under a claimed affiliation with a scientific institute

        did they do that eric, was it then fraud?

      • Nick says:

        ‘BS’? Eric,you’re the guy who uncritically regurgitates the simply dimwitted spin on Baliunas and Soon,and the journal kerfuffle, without being able to present an explanation as to why three editors resigned ,fully disclosing their reasons. The episode is documented. It does not support your idiot framing,which you accepted with skepticism from liars for hire. Scientists are allowed to express disquiet at journal practises,and to present that disquiet as protest and boycott. Journal integrity is critical to science,and only scientists can look after it.

        You’re the guy who continually ideates about ‘The Team’,having enthusiastically and unskeptically accepted that framing at face value,and about gravy trains and grants irresistibly inducing a generation of scientists to collude and conspire to generate a false canon. Only your sheer ignorance of work practices could keep the idea of such an unwieldy plot afloat…or your motivated rejectionism.

        If government does not fund research into the basic nature and state of the commons,no one will. Private industry has narrow aims,serves limited social subsets,and has usually spends most of its time and money rewarding its executives and shareholders,privatising profits and socialising losses,and discovering new ways to make mess which it attempts to limit its financial exposure to. It is not fundamentally curious,curiosity is a means not and end in itself.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I wonder how many government employees outside climate science get to decide whether the government will fund their stay in a swanky hotel in Tahiti? Seems pretty lavish to me. Then of course we have all the regular junkets to major tourist spots like Cancun, Rio, Copenhagen…

        http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3930


        looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can
        >enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them.
        >
        >where are you planning on staying by the way? I
        >haven’t decided yet. The cheap options sound way
        >to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive!

        Mike,
        As I’ve booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I’m wondering if I can
        convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel….

      • Nick says:

        Now,you’re feeling sorry for ‘government employees outside science’? Sheesh. When did that start coming on? Seriously,you know that scientists are not the only ones who travel on expenses?

        And you ignore the fact that cities compete for conferences of all kinds,and the value to an isolated small economy like Tahiti’s of conventions.

        How much tax payers cash over the years have state governments spent on inducements to industry conventions, and things like Ecclestone’s Grand Prix circus? A f***ing fortune.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          As a former governement scientist, I would sincerely like to thank the taxpayers of the country for allowing me to stay at the Hyatt Coolum while attending a soilborne diseases symposium with all expenses paid, plus travel allowance. Oh hang on….I thought it was only climate scientists on the gravy train? Guess I….and Eric…was wrong.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          oops…forgot to mention my Hawaii trip, Vanuatu and Fiji. Damn those climate scientists getting all the good trips!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m not arguing against the idea that the government wastes money in many curious ways, I’m just suggesting that you can’t rule out the possibility that a government climate scientist might keep quiet about any doubts they might feel, because they enjoy the good life.

        Suggesting that scientists who take industry money are unreliable scientific whores, but that we can always trust the word of government scientists, seems impossibly one sided. There are temptations on both sides.

      • Nick says:

        ‘The good life’…that’s for the private sector and you know it. Send the group financial controllers off to Victoria Falls for ten days with ex-heads of government motivational speakers and the Miami Sound Machine. Fly in the celebrity chef with team…

        You are nuts!

      • Michael says:

        Is Eric insane?

    • john byatt says:

      lie number five

      The Edward teller signed paper is the only one headed at the OISM site

      http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

      prove you are not lying post two more in the same format

    • Stuart Mathieson says:

      Teller wanted to nuke everything into submission and the other bloke trots out Templeton stuff.

  4. uknowispeaksense says:

    Put this together with the claims by the darling of the deniers Monckton and his cure for AIDS, and the climate deniers have some of the worst diseases covered.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Monckton’s “cure” for AIDS was simply an intellectual exercise (I hope), a way of demonstrating almost any problem is solvable. From memory, his suggestion was that AIDS could be cured by forced internment and quarantine of all HIV carriers, isolating them from the general population, preventing any new infection.

      Thankfully HIV is not, by any rational assessment, a disease which would require such drastic measures. Though I do see HIV / AIDS as a wakeup call – a disease like AIDS which could be transmitted like the flu would probably have wiped out the human race.

      I guess though we need to count better funding for research into new methods to combat disease as yet another casualty of public cash draining climate madness.

      • john byatt says:

        he is a creationist, a fruitcake,

        ( i hope) sorry another lie

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Monckton is certainly a hardline right to lifer, which I find distasteful.

        I’m waiting for Monckton’s response to the new Pope calling for an end to the tyranny of the free market – should be interesting.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10061700/Pope-Francis-urges-global-leaders-to-end-tyranny-of-money.html

        But in any case, more than a little O/T – Monckton having a few odd views about the sky fairy doesn’t mean he is wrong about climate change. Though to be fair Einstein’s belief in god was his undoing as a scientist – he couldn’t bring himself to believe that God played dice with the Universe.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Trying to claim Einstein was religious is the same bullshit pushed by idiotic creationists so it’s no surprise you’d try the same crap Eric.

          “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” 1954

          “Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.” 1936

      • Mockton is bonkers. So are his followers.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Spinoza believed that God was the orderly universe we see around us. As I understand, Einstein’s problem with Quantum Physics is its implication of disorder and unpredictability – that you can never fully predict the future based on knowledge of the present. But I guess we’ll never know for sure.

      • john byatt says:

        so Einstein saying that God does not play dice with the universe makes your

        “Einstein’s belief in god was his undoing as a scientist – he couldn’t bring himself to believe that God played dice with the Universe”

        a load of nonsense .

      • Eric Worrall says:

        FFS John learn something about science.

        Einstein famously rejected the assumptions of Quantum Physics, and spent a lot of the latter part of his life trying to find the flaw in it, because he could not accept that at its most fundamental level the Universe is random – that some events are unpredictable – that at the Quantum level, all you can predict is the probability of some events, not whether they will actually happen.

      • So, famous scientists, outside their field, can be wrong. Einstein was wrong about quantum physics. Therefore Dyson is wrong about AGW. Deniar logic is wondrous to behold. Watch, I shall now make zero equal one and turn lead into gold.

      • john byatt says:

        FFS right back at you, so you are pulling your crap that his belief in god was his problem……. when he followed spinoza ?

        so now you rephrase it why not just admit that what you said was crap ?

      • uknowispeaksense says:

        Justifying Monckton’s lunacy comes as no surprise. Don’t forget the other raft of diseases he claimed to have a cure for…pending patents of course.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        So, famous scientists, outside their field, can be wrong. Einstein was wrong about quantum physics.

        Quantum Physics was very much a development of Einstein’s ideas. Einstein received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for his explanation of the photo-electric effect, the theory that electrons orbiting atoms could only receive energy at discrete levels – fixed quanta of energy.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

        Einstein had no problem understanding Quantum Physics, it was very much based on the ideas he himself had formulated. It was in no sense “outside his field”.

      • I’m pleased to see you tacitly admit Dyson is out of his depth by your “Squirrel” comment on Einstein.🙂

  5. Steve says:

    According to Wikipedia one of the people who signed the Oregon Petition was Charles Darwin.
    But he didn’t have a science degree so his name should not be counted.

    • john byatt says:

      so why did they delete mickey mouse he has one

      Essay on Mickey Mouse in Disneyland
      http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/72500.html‎
      Greatly honored in his lifetime, with numerous Oscars–including a special award for Mickey Mouse in 1932–and an honorary degree from Harvard, he remains .

    • Eric Worrall says:

      http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

      In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

    • Steve says:

      I regard the definition of a scientist used for the Oregon petition as being badly flawed.

    • It’s amusing to watch Eric’s gyrations attempting to justify the OISM’s lack of rigour whilst attempting to deny that 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is happening – a figure supported my multiple, independent, studies – published in meaningful journals. Long live Blog Science and all her fruitcake sailors!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The 97% figure is curious. One day psychiatrists will have a field day, trying to work out why the figure had to be 97%.

      • It’s probably higher than 97%, granted. The other 3% are living off those lavish grants you think exist.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Deciding whether or not to get the government to fund sipping cocktails in a Tahiti resort seems pretty lavish to me. And Lewandowsky for example has certainly done well out of the controversy he stirred up – well over a quarter of a million dollars worth of grants from the Australian Research Council and Royal Society since he made his debut.

        Might not be very lavish from the POV of say an episode of the TV series Dallas, but it seems pretty cushy to me.

      • Nick says:

        Well,if its just envy,why didn’t you simply say so at the outset?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        My point is there are a lot of perks to being a government scientist who promotes ideas politicians want to hear.

        I’ve had my taste of the good life – drinking cocktails with bankers in London Docklands, holidays in the Caribbean, trips to the Middle East and Asia. I gave it up because I wanted to spend more time with my family – working 12 – 14 hours in the city, including some weekends, and spending time away on business, I just wasn’t seeing enough of them.

      • Nick says:

        Your point would be better served with touch of reality…

        So you think the government ‘wants to hear’ about AGW? ROFLMAO

      • If it’s lavish energy entertainment, with no scientists in view, try the three nights and 750 tents of free drinks and food of corporate entertainment before the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. I did, courtesy of my energy friends. Sure beats bringing your own tea bags to drink in a university lab.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “So you think the government ‘wants to hear’ about AGW? ROFLMAO”

        Yes, hearing about AGW did the Gillard government a lot of good, didn’t it? Har, har, good joke Eric.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yet when I point out blatant lack of rigour from your climate heroes, you have nothing to say.

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html

      Jones conceded that he did not usually publish raw data from weather stations, which was often covered by confidentiality agreements, nor the computer codes he used to analyse the data. “It hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should, but it’s not,” he said.

      Asked whether other climate scientists reviewing his papers ever required such data, he said, “They’ve never asked.” In response to a specific question about why he had failed to grant freelance researcher Warwick Hughes access to data, he said simply, “We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it.”

      • john byatt says:

        seems reasonable which bit don’t you like,

        that he should break confidentiality agreements an leave himself open to being sued

        we have been through the codes thing a hundred times with you

        get that memory app going

      • Nine time loser! Nine investigations and you can’t admit you lost.🙂

        Keep flogging the crappiest app in the appstore.🙂

        Eric, 9TL.

      • john byatt says:

        hope that you are not knocking the egg timer

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If Jones is to be believed, in climate science, you don’t actually get your hands dirty and actually *review* another chap’s paper, ask for data and method, and check some calculations – you just take the other chap’s word for it. At least, this is the case, if the person submitting the paper is the mighty Phil Jones.

      • BBD says:

        Still trying to personalise and demonise?

        Still trying that cheap rhetorical trick of false equivalence?

        But Phil Jones ≠ climate science. Never did; never will.

        You have *nothing*, Eric. Nothing at all. Which is why you are still going on and on about Jones and that ridiculous OISM petition.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Phil Jones is claiming, out of the 50 papers or whatever which he published, no reviewer ever asked to see his data or method.

        Assuming that reviewers were chosen randomly from climate research institutions across the world, that is 100 geographically scattered climate scientists (2 reviewers per paper) who *never* asked to see Jones’ method or data.

        So either Phil Jones is a liar, or the practice of not properly reviewing the papers of prominent climate scientists (or maybe just Phil Jones?) is widespread.

      • Is 9TL still here?🙂

      • Nick says:

        How is that Jones statement an indicator of ‘lack of rigor’? It’s a statement about disclosure of supplementary info,not about the rigor or methodology which were published and available. Independent researchers can access and aggregate their data according to the methodology and can write their own code.

        You get this wrong every time. It is deliberate,You know better.

        Warwick Hughes papers? Where are they? He has a website. Are they self-published and available there?

        You never ask,every time,It is deliberate.You know better.

        We understand you,Eric…. hardly surprising,given the repetition Same old same old.

      • BBD says:

        God this is tedious.

        I repeat: you have *nothing*, Eric. No scientific counter-argument whatsoever.

        Nothing.

        Which is why you are still going on and on about Jones (false equivalence) and that ridiculous OISM petition (fake evidence).

        Ridiculous and embarrassing. And tedious.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Independent researchers can access and aggregate their data according to the methodology and can write their own code.

        I’m not arguing against the need for researchers to independently write their own code, what I am arguing is that data and code should be available – otherwise you can’t perform the most basic checks, such as whether running code against the supplied data produces the reported results.

        If your attempt to replicate an experiment produces a different result, and code is not available, yet you believe you followed the description of the method correctly, your only hope of discovering why your result is different is to try to guess the mistake made by the other author, and replicate it.

      • BBD says:

        Yack from EW.

        You have no scientific counter-arguments to the standard scientific position on AGW.

        You are reduced to rhetorical trickery, including continual misdirection, as here.

        You have *nothing* Eric.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Rather disappointing piece of rhetoric BBD. Usually you have something more interesting to say.

      • BBD says:

        Statements of fact are not rhetoric, Eric. Your response to my statement of fact was further misdirection.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Let me know when the world starts warming again BBD.

      • Oi, Worrall, the world is warming again (still).

        I count the oceans as part of the world. Are deniars allergic to water?

      • Nick says:

        Let’s imagine that no one wanted to ‘check Jones’ work’ because of his mastery of the famous Welsh Death Stare….

        So other groups accessed the collecting agencies, downloaded the data,designed their own methods,wrote their own code and produced regional and global temperature data sets…Jones’ Death Stare is pure danger after all.

        Then their projects produced nearly identical results. Agreement at the highest level.

        Imagine if they did that….we can only dream I suppose.

      • BBD says:

        Let me know when the world starts warming again BBD

        Another misdirection from Worrall! Here’s reality Eric!. Look hard.

        You are a case study in intellectual dishonesty.

      • Michael says:

        Is Eric the dullest of the dullards??

  6. Stuart Mathieson says:

    I’m not so charitable. Clearly a charade for channeling funds to the denial industry.

  7. Steve says:

    The Oregon Petition was started in 1998 and still includes people who signed it last century.
    I used to be skeptical of Global Warming, but I changed my mind about 25 years ago. Some of the people who signed it before could have changed their minds by now as well.

  8. john byatt says:

    eric FFS get someone to edit your about page, it reads like a six year old’s effort

  9. Eric Worrall says:

    Watts took the trouble to ask some authors of papers Cook classified as part of his 97%. Here are the replies:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

    Cook messed up – he missed papers which contradicted the IPCC consensus, and mid classified papers which substantially disagreed, e.g including papers which suggest only 50% of warming is due to CO2 in his 97%.

    What a waste of effort – 12000 papers, a team of 10 people spending half an hour or less on each paper could have correctly classified each paper in 3 months.

    • BBD says:

      And the laws of physics continue to ensure that the increasing fraction of atmospheric CO2 results in an energetic imbalance at TOA.

      You fake sceptics have no scientific counter-argument to the standard position. Hence your obligate and intensely tiresome reliance on incessant misdirection.

      You know what you are doing and why you are being forced to adopt these tactics. You should be soul-sick. Why aren’t you?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The IPCC estimate of 3c / doubling is not based on CO2 forcing, it is based on CO2 amplification of water vapour forcing.

        CO2 alone can only deliver around 1c / doubling – without the water vapour amplification of 2c / doubling, you’ve got nothing.

        The key prediction of this hypothetical amplification is the equatorial tropospheric hotspot. The lack of a hotspot, the failure of a key prediction, would falsify a normal scientific theory – but climate seance doesn’t do falsification.

      • john byatt says:

        How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg – loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

        Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
        The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in empirical studies such as Soden 2001 which observed the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past.

        Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study (Santer 2007), otherwise known as “fingerprinting”, was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels. Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system.

        Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world’s major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world’s oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of ‘atmospheric moistening’ was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

      • BBD says:

        Thank you John

        No matter how often Eric is corrected on this point, he repeats his error.

        To me, this is intellectual dishonesty. Lying.

      • BBD says:

        From way back…

        Rind D et al (1991) Positive Water-Vapor Feedback In Climate Models Confirmed By Satellite Data Nature 349, 500-503:

        Chief among the mechanisms thought to amplify the global climate response to increased concentrations of trace gases is the atmospheric water vapour feedback. As the oceans and atmosphere warm, there is increased evaporation, and it has been generally thought that the additional moisture then adds to the greenhouse effect by trapping more infrared radiation. Recently, it has been suggested that general circulation models used for evaluating climate change overestimate this response, and that increased convection in a warmer climate would actually dry the middle and upper troposphere by means of associated compensatory subsidence1. We use some new satellite-generated water vapour data to investigate this question. From a comparison of summer and winter moisture values in regions of the middle and upper troposphere that have previously been difficult to observe with confidence, we find that, as the hemispheres warm, increased convection leads to increased water vapour above 500 mbar in approximate quantitative agreement with the results from current climate models. The same conclusion is reached by comparing the tropical western and eastern Pacific regions. Thus, we conclude that the water vapour feedback is not overestimated in models and should amplify the climate response to increased trace-gas concentrations.

      • BBD says:

        Sixteen years of intensive study later…

        Brogniez & Pierrehumbert (2007) Intercomparison of tropical tropospheric humidity in GCMs with AMSU-B water vapor data Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, Article Number: L17812:

        We make use of microwave measurements of the tropical free tropospheric relative humidity (FTH) to evaluate the extent to which the water vapor distribution in four general circulation models is faithful to reality. The comparison is performed in the tropics by sorting the FTH in dynamical regimes defined upon the 500 hPa vertical velocity. Because microwave radiation penetrates non-rainy and warm clouds, we are able to estimate the FTH over most of the dynamical regimes that characterize the tropics. The comparisons reveal that two models simulate a free troposphere drier than observed (< 10%), while the others agree with the observations. Despite some differences, the level of agreement is good enough to lend confidence in the representation of atmospheric moistening processes. A climate change scenario, tested on two models, shows a tendency to maintain the FTH to an almost fixed value be it an ascending or a subsiding regime.

    • john byatt says:

      It seems to come down to what most means

      IPCC most equals more than 50%

      Scafetta is claiming that most is 90% which he rejects

      he may be confusing very likely as 90%

      should get something from SKS today

    • Dr No says:

      I hear that more than 97% of experts DON’T believe a diet of raw fruit and vegetables will cure cancer.

      We all know that is just a conspiracy by the medical profession.

      I am making a petition signed by REAL experts and will be asking Chris Monckton to be the first to sign.

      • john byatt says:

        Scafetta is digging himself a deep hole,

        he is claiming that his paper shows that it is the higher levels of CO2 which bring about early spring growth rather than warmth

        which is good to know as I will just give my plants more nutrient and water which according to Scafeta should make them respond earlier without the warmth.

        would not be the first to misrepresent the findings of his own paper

        interesting day ahead

      • john byatt says:

        correction Idso

    • Nick says:

      We can safely assume that this is another cock-up from Watts.And his idiot site is the last place to host a discussion about grading papers, and consistency!

      He’s criticising the study design? Look at the nonsense criteria that he entertains! From indiscriminately pushing incompetent ant-AGW polemic to falsely representing pro-AGW papers.

      Reality inversion again, Eric.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Try reading it Nick – they are transcripts of conversations Watts had with a sample of scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s 97%. Cook fscked up – he didn’t check the papers properly.

      • john byatt says:

        the consensus is not a show of hands it comes from the papers

        which paper did you read that does not support the category it was placed in

      • john byatt says:

        stunned silence

      • Nick says:

        OK,Eric…let’s look at the first example…. ah,an Idso rejects the classification of his paper…well,he would wouldn’t he! . CO2 science disinformers have form.

        Idso et al’s paper does “implicitly endorse AGW without minimising it” as the Cook classification stands. It most certainly does not reject warming as a factor or as a major one. The enhancement of spring branch growth is argued by Idso to be ‘quite likely/could be’ solely attributable to the increased CO2 content of the air cannot dismiss the temperature argument,and in fact in the abstract Idso claims his finding might explain 2 of the 7 days seasonal advance observed! So he does not after all claim that his work offers an explanation for all the change observed. This implicitly acknowledges warming as the major [the other 5 days] factor in this phenological issue. The Idso et al argument,a partial explanation at its most ambitious, is advanced very tentatively;there is no possible way it can be seen as a rejection of AGW except by semantic torture,and can be seen as an implicit endorsement.

      • Nick says:

        Let’s look at example 2.Scafetta’s claim…well,he flops about basing his comments on a false claim about the IPCC’s position on attribution:

        Scafetta: “Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions.”

        Bullshit! AR4 2007 chapter 9 Executive summary on attributions: “GHG forcing has very likely caused most of the observed warming over the last 50 years” [my emphasis]

        Scafetta has made up an IPCC position. And uses that falsehood to rationalise his nonsense,

        But, from his paper : “.. we estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the 1900-2000 warming..” In black and white. Then in his offering to Watts he claims 40-70%…confused?…after saying that critics like me have always figured 50/50 natural / anthro… what a chump!

      • Nick says:

        Shaviv 2005,from the abstract:

        “Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K.”

        “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise”? Yes. ‘…the rest should be mainly attributed…’ not quantified,but endorsed as anthropogenic.

        You can only read what’s in front of you. Shaviv’s ‘protestations’ to Watts are not in the paper,Eric.

        Watts misdirects,with the co-operation of those three authors.

      • Nick says:

        Apologies. Typo: in the Idso piece; “The enhancement of spring branch growth as argued by…” Still a clumsy sentence,sorry.

      • Nick says:

        So there you have it Eric. Watts doing the usual–lying,I’m afraid. And your response?

        [notices wind sighing,distant contrail…]

  10. john byatt says:

    Shaviv claims that it was the peer reviewers of his paper which made the paper appear to endorse the consensus

    “Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19°K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04°K”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      If solar effects contributed around half the warming observed today, RIP alarmism.

      A climate sensitivity of 2c / doubling or less puts you on the ropes. Less than 1.5c / doubling, and its just not worth bothering about.

      • john byatt says:

        That is not the point , the point is that the paper supports the IPCC that most of the warming , more than fifty percent is due to to AGW

        have you forgotten already what the debate is about?

      • john byatt says:

        just because shirav’s paper was crap is not the point either

        . Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s “top,” young, award-winning scientists. Has been heavily debunked by many of his peers for his one contribution to climate science:

        it was whether the abstract supports the consensus, which it does

      • Nick says:

        A few points>The Shaviv paper is really,really fluffy,even without anyone taking a position on anything to do with climate. Huge assumptions about GCR influence on cloud formation lie within. We are better placed now to find these assumptions even more fluffy. Nobody is running around waving this paper as an active promotion of AGW,just that dispassionately,by its words,it endorses anthropogenic influence.

        You have to understand the classification process Cook et al use. and the meaning of words. The paper ‘endorses’ as in accepts or acknowledges the reality of anthropogenic warming…it’s not looking for it, or cheering for it. He wants to explore the GCR/Sun thing in the main….[unless he wants to change his position for the sake of a spit with Anthony.]

      • BBD says:

        If solar effects contributed around half the warming observed today, RIP alarmism.

        A climate sensitivity of 2c / doubling or less puts you on the ropes.

        How can very minor solar variability, even amplified by cosmic ray flux change, have caused “about half the warming observed today” if fast feedbacks sensitivity (S_ff) is 2C or lower?

        Low S_ff means that the climate system is insensitive to radiative perturbation.

        Presumably “the warming observed today” in this context means the ~0.8C increase in GAT over the last century or so plus the ~25×10^22J increase in OHC since the 1950s plus whatever occurred prior to measurements beginning etc.

        This is the *transient* response, do not forget. The transient response so far. We’ve not even had one doubling of CO2 yet.

      • john byatt says:

        qavin’s response to Lindzen’s nonsense claim that we are already at 2 X CO2e

        Lindzen’s point is fundamentally flawed. Temperatures will respond to net forcing – not just CO2, or CO2-eq, and net forcing is around 1.7 W/m2 from the pre-industrial – that is under 50% of the forcing from 2xCO2, not 76%, nor 80% nor ‘almost’ a doubling. Claims that we should have reached equilibrium with that forcing are equally risible. Lindzen is effectively assuming zero heat capacity in the oceans and that aerosol forcing is 0 W/m2 with no uncertainty. The statements he makes on this have only rhetorical content – no science. – gavin]

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “If solar effects contributed around half the warming observed today”

        CO2 forcing (since 1750): 1.7 W/m2

        Solar forcing (since 1750): 0.1 W/m2

        Those are the only sort of credible numbers anyone has come up with.

  11. john byatt says:

    Humid air and the Jet Stream help to fuel more intense thunderstorms/tornadoes http://climatestate.com/2013/05/21/humid-air-and-the-jet-stream-help-to-fuel-more-intense-thunderstormstornadoes/

    A quick collection of some findings

  12. Debunker says:

    From Eric:

    “There were a number of efforts to find peacetime uses for nuclear explosives. My personal favourite is Project Orion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    Yes, and Eric’s anti AGW hero, Freeman Dyson spent a year of his life working on this patently ludicrous project. If he and his fellow bomb jocks had had their way and managed to test some of their ideas, the world would be in a much worse position than it is in now.

    Brilliance in an extremely narrow area of specialization does not necessarily equate to common sense. Dyson is also on record as stating that he believes in ESP, a rather unusual scientific position, and of course he has stated that he knows very little about climate science, and has no inclination to find out, as he is uninterested in the subject.

    Quoting him as an authority is rather like asking a proctologist for an opinion on your forthcoming eye surgery.

    Eric seems quite willing to risk his daughter’s future on the opinions of a minority of non-specialists just because they happen to be famous for something else.

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

%d bloggers like this: