IOP critised ...

[Questioning_Climate]

The IOP has a piece today which ought to be read:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41965

Please feel free to comment on the site. BishopHill jumped in early. It looks like it could get interesting.

[Sunsettommy]

I noticed that J Bowers has ignored your last posted reply #90.

I find it hilarious that science presentations MUST be published in certain publication places to be considered worthy of attention.

[Questioning_Climate]

I have to admit that I thought he'd have come back with a reply. Those people generally always have to be right and have the last word.

I had to hold myself back from criticising the IPCC for publishing evidence that had not passed 'peer-review'.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go through and correct all the non-sense that he has posted.

[Questioning_Climate]

He now appears to be trying to discredit Richard Courtney:

#90:

Quote:

Quote:Quote:

Originally posted by JJDrake:
I suggest you ask him. From memory, he was approached by NOAA to do the job, so presumably they consider him expert.

It's okay, I found them in this document:
ff.org…20060331_wind.pdf

"Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath)."

Not to be confused with Richard Courtney, Ph.D., or Dr. Richard Courtney, as many on the internet seem to do.

The linked document is this:
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf

I have posted the climate paragraph that J Bowers seems to have missed.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:He now appears to be trying to discredit Richard Courtney:

He appears not to address what Richard Courtney writes about.



When they spend a lot of time whining about someone's supposed lack of education or publish papers in the "wrong place",then I know they lack the desire to discuss the topic.

I have read of people telling Richard in blog comments section that he is not really a scientist or lack sufficient credentials and that sort of thing,all the while Richard is trying to discuss the tropic in the comment thread.

These AGW believers are somethin!

[Questioning_Climate]

SST,

You are correct. He is ignoring anything that does not go his way. Although he was gracious enough to retract his statement about Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen. His assertions regarding peer review of E&E are pretty well squashed. However, he is using the usual spin to twist off topic and is now playing the 'vested interests' card.

I was going to respond again but I have better and more productive things to do.

I doubt many people actually read the thread, but those that do should be able to see through him.

[Richard S Courtney.]

Friends:

I have a DipPhil and I do not have a PhD but both qualifications provide the title Dr. Indeed, if you view the video of my presentation at Heartland 1 (that Derek attended) you can see
(a) that I was (correctly) introduced as Dr
and
(b) that my name plate stated DipPhil and not PhD.

But why does any of that matter? Either my research is right or it is significantly flawed. And so far I have not seen - or been informed of - any significant flaws in my work. The only meaningful challenges to my work have been from Ferdinand Engelbeen and Jack Barrett who assert that my findings on the carbon cycle must be wrong because they differ from Engelbeen's (whose work I do say is wrong because it relies on a circular argument).

Sadly, 'warmers' attack me and not my work. Indeed, entire web sites have been set up to malign me and other climate realists.

The first of such web sites against me (and the late John Daly) was established by John Hunter as a retaliation. Hunter had published fabricated data in GRL and John Daly presented a paper to GRL that proved Hunter's misbehaviour. Daly's paper relied on documents I obtained from the Royal Society (RS) library (Daly was not a member of the RS so could not get access to them himself). Hunter's response was to set up a web site that purportedly revealed "facts" about Daly and myself. However, the contents of that web site were pure invention. Subsequently, other warmer smeer web sites have copied from Hunter's. I can usually tell those that have copied from Hunter's web site (or from copies from Hunter's web site) because they say I live in Epsom. But I have never lived there and have never visited there.

At first I was angry and considered legal action. But I soon learned that this would be expensive and pointless. I could sue some who published under their own names (e.g. Hunter) but not others who publish under pseudonyms (e.g. Eli Rabbett) because it could never be demonstrated in a Court of Law that every post under an alias was by the person who usually posted under that alias. So, the legal advice I obtained was that Court action would be expensive and pointless: the best thing to do was to ignore it.

This advice has proved correct. Fred Singer did sue over similar smeering and won his case, but the person he sued has repeated that libel. The only defence is to repeatedly sue, and that is prohibitively expensive in most places (the exception is the UK where libel damages are high) and there is no extradition for libel actions.

Hence, I have become resigned to the smeers. 'Warmers' can malign me all they want. Their lies, smeers and innuendoes make no difference to the value of my work.

But, if they were to show that my work is wrong then I would be grateful because then I would learn something. Unfortunately, they do not point to flaws in my work.

Richard

[JohnWho]

(03-17-2010 07:44 PM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  'Warmers' can malign me all they want. Their lies, smeers and innuendoes make no difference to the value of my work.

But, if they were to show that my work is wrong then I would be grateful because then I would learn something. Unfortunately, they do not point to flaws in my work.

They attack you because they can not attack your work.


For what it is worth - we appreciate you and your work.

[Derek]

(03-17-2010 07:44 PM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote:  Friends:

I have a DipPhil and I do not have a PhD but both qualifications provide the title Dr. Indeed, if you view the video of my presentation at Heartland 1 (that Derek attended) you can see
(a) that I was (correctly) introduced as Dr
and
(b) that my name plate stated DipPhil and not PhD.

I have never looked into the "he isn't a Dr." insult commonly thrown wrongly at yourself,
and I had never considered it worthwhile worrying about, because as you say it is your work that counts.
That plainly stands on it's own facts, observations and reasoning, and that is what I and so many, so widely now, take from it so gratefully.

That said, thank you for such a simple, and plain retort to such nonsense, namely,
" Ricahrd S. Courtney HAS a DipPhil qualification and does NOT claim to have a PhD, but
both qualifications provide the title Dr. "

AND, Yes, I still remember Heartland 1, most days to be honest.
It changed my life and view for the better, irrevocably.
Your "sermon" and Dr. Miskolczi's presentation to mention just two unforgetable memories.

PS - It is good to know you are still around, Richard,
there has been some concern expressed recently (mostly privately) as to your whereabouts / what you are doing.
OK, OK, I'll say it, you have been missed.

[Sunsettommy]

The last few comments have devolved into the usual lies and distortions that I have come to expect from those who push the long invalidated AGW hypothesis.