....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Steve Jones and the BBC Auto Reply Lie



Here are my observations on Auto Replies with the BBC Trust Science Review and Steve Jones. The attached graphic shows the exchange (click for a closer view). I submitted some comments online - using the BBC form. Then I received fairly immediately a seemingly personal note of thanks from Steve Jones saying that he had read my comments with interest. (Somewhat unlikely as the message was sent at 3:30am, and his response was titled 'Auto Response'). So much for either honesty or intelligence at the BBC.

Here are the texts of the messages. They are rather sadly funny. The BBC is organizing a 'Trust Science Review' and wants to be doing the 'right' thing. But in the process the BBC just cannot be honest. Then there is the "Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately." What is the point of the BBC sending email if the resulting text cannot be used in any way? I presume that the lawyers intended this to say 'If you have received this in error, then...' but perhaps the lawyers don't like to check up on how people are using their portion of the licence fee.

Anyway -I shall be most interested to see if I receive a threatening letter from the BBC on this post! (I may post it here!).

Trust Science to me; Subject: Trust Science (Auto Reply Message)
show details 9/22/10

Thank you very much for your email and your contribution to the BBC Trust's Impartiality Review of Science Coverage which I've read with interest.

The findings of the Review will be published in spring 2011.

Background notes about this Review can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/march/science_impartiality.shtml

Thank you for contacting us.

Professor Steve Jones Author,
Impartiality Review of Science Coverage


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.


Z T to Trust; Subject: Re: Trust Science (Auto Reply Message)
show details 9/22/10
Hey Steve,

Thanks for reading my message at ~3:30am UK time and titling your reply 'Auto Reply Message'. Something tells me you aren't being completely honest (that is - you haven't really read my message with interest). Let's call that my hypothesis.

I would be delighted to be proved wrong on this hypothesis - this would be what we call 'falsification' (in science).

So - I would also like to submit this exchange to your 'trust science' review as an example of the lack of intrinsic honesty currently transparently apparent at the BBC.

I doubt that Steve Jones has had much to do with this particular email trail yet (another hypothesis). Though, Steve, you should be careful how your name is being employed in these dishonest messages.

However, someone or some people at the BBC have thought that it would be 'nice' to give the impression that my input had already been factored into Steve Jones' thinking. This is not honest or factual. (Assuming my hypothesis is correct).

Science is about the facts, about how things actually are. Not about how we would like them to be or how we would like people to 'feel'.

So - when someone is lying about something in science - like hiding the discrepancy between temperature proxies and thermometers - it should not be hidden - it should be reported on and discussed. If the BBC, of all organizations, cannot deal with this - then god help us all.

...No reply...

Steve Jones Borrowing Friedman on Ashkenazi DNA

As posted on Bishop Hill

Doug Keenan demonstrated quite painlessly that the current climate alarm-ism is bogus. His WSJ article is accessible to everyone: journalists, scientists, politicians, even climatologists.

However, it seems that reporting in the UK media is more concerned with activism (e.g. the BBC), plagiarism (Hari), and corruption (operation Motorman).

Intrigued, I had an attack of Mashey-ism (hopefully it is not genetic)....and.....

Found, for example, in a 2010 Steve Jones article, this lilting phrase 'Judaism is inherited down the female line – as are mitochondria.' and thought I'd check where else that might have appeared:

Interestingly, this sentence: 'They used the complete sequence of DNA to trace their ancestry down the female line and found 40% of present-day Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four women'. Was written by J Friedman, published in 2009, in 'Tay-Sachs Desease'. Just a little commonality as far as google is concerned. Common words, strongly related subject, no big deal.

But then Jones goes on to say 'Around half descend from just four women...' A nice match for the 'descended from just four women' written by Friedman. So it would appear to me to be a significant coincidence, or evidence that Jones has used Friedman (unattributed) as the source of some of the text in his popular genetics article.

see:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/7346496/View-from-the-Lab-Who-is-a-Jew-DNA-can-hold-the-key.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSYEEHOHXYkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA28#v=onepage&q&f=false

Copying text from one place to another for profit is clearly not a practice limited to climatology. I wonder if Steve Jones does this much? I wonder if Steve Jones would care to comment?

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Input for Beddington 'Preparing for the Future'


'Sir' John Beddington has released a report titled 'Preparing for the Future'. His blog on this report requests input, and I responded with the attached comment (the screen capture above), simply questioning how 'Sir' John, who is aware that there are 'issues' (!) with the Hockey Stick, can proceed to scare the public on this subject. We shall see if this question passes moderation, or receives a response.

The 'Sir' John Beddington post can be accessed here.

Update 7/14/2011: All credit to 'Sir' John, my post appeared! Now, will he reply...?

Update 8/3/2011: 'Sir' John posted a 'response' here but (of course) this did not address the established issues with the Hockey Stick, which he had previously said that he knew about. Extraordinary to have such a preference for pushing policy, over science, for a science adviser. Anyone might think that 'Sir' John had an agenda. I left 'Sir' John another question, which went into moderation (as shown below).



Updated 8/20/2011: Apparently the 'Sir' John plot is to allow postings to occur in a delay fashion, and then to have his shills respond once the posters have lost interest. And as plans go, this appears to be 'working' - no body it too interested in waiting weeks for a response to a comment. But, in the meantime, I'll post my occasional contributions here, e.g.:

ZT says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I’m delighted to read that ‘lolwot’ and/or Sir John believe that no policy is based on the discredited hockey stick graph.
(Now would be a good time to bring the indefensible hockey stick lie to the attention of school children forced to sit through interminable indoctrination sessions on this subject).
Perhaps ‘lolwot’ and/or Sir John could succinctly and scientifically summarize the anticipated effects of proposed UK energy policy changes on:
a) global temperatures and
b) the UK’s economy?