« Climate Change »

Your hoaxer?

http://www.davidthorpe.info/davidthorpe.htm

Hi Roger. I think that it's important to point out that, unlike the Sokal paper, this one did not get published. In fact, I would say that it's highly, highly unlikely that something this obviously false would ever make it through peer review at JGR, GRL, etc. The only lesson here is that Peiser is either (a) careless or (b) knows nothing about climate science. Both could also be true.

Andrew -

I think you're being too hard on poor Benny. Maybe he's just open-minded?

Roger -

You pointed the finger of blame at this "Thorpe" character awfully quickly. Frankly, it makes me suspicious. I've been wondering what you've been up to out there on your "European sabbatical". :-)

Ha. Amazing what you can learn via a web domain whois query;-)

Thorpe looks like the consultant, I'd bet there is a collaborator as well ...

It'll be interesting to see if the "paper" shows up on political sites . . .

One born every minute:

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/11/this-paper-could-not-be-more-damaging.html

This poor fellow doubts that the "paper" will be reported on by the BBC. I think he is probably right;-)

Looks like Ron Bailey apparently also got taken, albeit briefly:

http://denisbider.blogspot.com/2007/11/journal-of-geoclimatic-studies.html

Someone posted a link to the paper on my blog. I`ve been enjoying the spoof references that the paper contains.

Two of the authors claim to be from department of Atmospheric physics at Göteborg University, Sweden. As an employee of that university I have never heard of that department. It simply does not exist. And there are no employees at the university with these names.

Wow. It is amusing at how fast this "hoax" was ferreted out, and the belly-slapping that some folks are getting in their analysis of who reported it when and how long it took them to correct themselves, and yet other such obviously ludicrous statements are published in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/opinion/01gore.html) and embraced the world around.

"CO2 PRODUCTION BY BENTHIC BACTERIA: THE DEATH OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY?" -- who'd be dumb enough to believe that?!? snicker, snicker

"Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings." -- oh yeah, right on, let's give that man a Nobel Prize!

Both premises are equally "made up."

-Chip Knappenberger

Anyone mistaking for science a 'paper' presenting such pure gibberish as :

4δ161 x Λ³Жญ5,6,1,8Φ-4 = {(ΣΨ²Њyt3 - 14๖P9) x 49}/2β x ⅜kxgt -§"

and dealing in concentrations of "4.3 x 10ˉ²¹g/m²" --quite literally a drop in the ocean -- is the lawful prey of whoever devised this comedy classic.

Need I remind you that Limbaugh does not believe that CFC's cause O3 depletion either, and was deliberately misrepresening _Nature_ to that effect as recently as September 27 ?

When people have an agenda they want to push, they won't necessarily be upfront or obvious about it. Reading this three paragraph statement, it helps to be attentive to the wording of this seemingly innocuous statement against scientific censorship: does any real scientist, who publishes something as ground-breaking as a anthropogenic global warming - busting study, announce with a kind of Hollywood bravado "we lay our careers on the line"? Or "As dangerous as these choices are, we feel we have no choice but to publish." Doesn't sound like a real scientist, to me.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: