Cool it …

Posted: January 24, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

Pointman does it in style. Great piece on freedom of ideas and speech and the dangers of hyperargumentation.


I wrote the following paragraph in a previous piece on fanatics and the subtle perils of prolonged contact with them –

There is also an insidious danger to this sort of interaction with them; you start to get imprinted by them. If you’re not careful, you soon start to take on the same fanatical traits that you’re fighting, which is an even worse outcome. If you look, you’ll see this has happened at some of the more combative blogs on global warming. If the point of blogging is to inform and persuade, then it’s readily apparent that such vicious gladiatorial displays will quickly alienate the average person. It’s for this reason and a lack of proper moderation, that so many once highly respected blogs, have become PR liabilities in the fight against eco-fascism.

The beef this time around is about a special edition of a rather obscure journal called Pattern…

View original post 923 more words

  1. Guam says:

    We must have been reading that at the same time 🙂
    I agree he summarrised the whole debacle perfectly imho.

    One can but hope that Jo Nova inserts that into the thread in bold typeface For Richard S C and others to digest!

  2. oldbrew says:

    Another round of way-out accusations from WUWT’s Mr Eschenbach over there. Sounding increasingly lame for me at least.

  3. Chaeremon says:

    @oldbrew (January 25, 2014 at 10:02 am): the thread/author you mentioned seems to love self-contradictions w.r.t. “confluence of the orbital periods of [random] planets”, etc. The paper exposed says:

    A cause for such greater regularity in tidal forcing might be resonances of other bodies of the solar system, especially the outer planets. We are struck by the close correspondence of the average period of the 180-year tidal cycle of 179.5 years (1y10 of that of the 1,800-year cycle) and the period of the sun’s rotation about the center of mass of the solar system of 179.2 years, the latter a manifestation of planetary resonances

    I’d say: not just “increasingly lame” but rather “biased * ignorant = junk”. Nuff’ said.

  4. DirkH says:

    Even before this Eschenbach smear piece against Scafetta I long stopped reading Eschenbach; he had some nice pieces, his thunderstorm ponderings, but now often just throws a correlation at the wall and pontificates in the comment thread; not something I like to partake in. Especially he with his later postings should not attack other people who, like him, analyze correlations – only in more depth.

  5. tallbloke says:

    Comment left at WUWT:

    tallbloke on January 25, 2014 at 3:53 amYour comment is awaiting moderation. Willis Eschenbach on January 24, 2014 at 9:40 pmJarryd Beck says:January 24, 2014 at 6:37 pmAs I am yet to see an actual reasonable scientifically-founded refutation of the recently much talked about patterns in physics papers, I am amazed at the amount of hatred that keeps pouring their way.Jarryd, before letting your amazement run away with you, perhaps you missed my posts here and here. Also, see my comments here on Tallbloke’s paper hereand here.Finally, we can’t say what’s happening in Scafetta’s paper, because it’s not science at all, just an advertisement—he’s refused to reveal his code and data, so we don’t know what he did. That’s four papers … I don’t know if my stomach can handle reading more.OK Willis, I write a post summarizing your attempt to defame Prof Jan-Erik Solheim with a straw man argument over a single figure in his extensive and interesting paper.And another on your ludicrous attempt to ridicule R.J. Salvador’s intriguing solar-planetary model which successfully hindcasts 1000 years of solar variation as represented by Max Planck Institute chief Sami Solanki’s 14C reconstruction.And finally, after I’ve defended my esteemed colleagues, I’ll defend my own contribution. It’s a pity you didn’t have a go at the more interesting sections further into the paper where we get to the cyclicities which interact to produce periodicities which match climatic periods such as the AMO or the Hudson Bay beach ridges, but I appreciate that cowboys in a hurry to shoot from the hip won’t have the attention span required to fully absorb a paper before launching into a tirade of ignorant abuse.In the meantime I advise everyone else to download the papers and form their own judgements, rather than take this vengeful (he hates being banned) cowboy at his word. They are all still published and available from Copernicus here.