Bob Tisdale – wilful ignorance personified?

Yesterday I made one of Bob’s comments my denier comment of the day and it occurred to me that I should revisit it briefly because I think it highlights what it takes to be a WIG.

Bob’s blog entitled “Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations” has the nice little description “Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, and Other Climate Change Discussions”  which  is all great except when you read his comment from yesterday that, “I don’t pay attention to Arctic sea ice…” Why not? Isn’t the Arctic affected by sea surface temperature and ocean heat content? Surely it fits under the banner of “other climatic discussions”? Maybe this is why Bob doesn’t like to talk about it.

 

About these ads

4 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

4 responses to “Bob Tisdale – wilful ignorance personified?

  1. john byatt

    Bob may not pay attention to Arctic sea ice, but he should at least understand the possible consequences of the loss of sea ice

    Dr Jennifer Francis

  2. Watching the Deniers

    Bob is the very model of what I jokingly call “the Google Galileo”

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-reasons-we-know-your-are-not-a-scientific-genius/

    “You think downloading raw data sets and running them through Excel constitutes “science” – this is perhaps the most tragic, and fruitless, exercise committed by the more committed Google Galileo’s. There are literally hundreds of blogs out there in which their authors have downloaded data from NASA’s Goddard Centre or Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and run it through Excel. Of course they find “stunning errors” and evidence of “tricks”. They are hunting for anomalies (another logical fallacy). Having enormous gaps in your understanding of the science ensures your results are flawed.”

  3. Nick

    Bob is very keen on ocean heat changes and variation…except when it comes to the Arctic Ocean,it seems.

    There is nothing wrong with the basic data in his graphs,it’s the interpretations he draws from curve fitting over them,but you’re well aware of that. For Bob,all explanations of long term GT and GSST trend just HAVE to be drawn from natural variables [which are mistakenly accounted for or unnoticed by 'experts'],or from data manipulation by climatologists,apparently

    I was particularly amazed at his response to your comment on his ‘Blog Memo to James Hansen’ thread. When you asked why he hadn’t directly contacted Hansen -whose contact details are readily accessed- he seriously thought that his reply was that of a rational person. He clearly showed that he preferred to publicise his findings among fellow non-expert conspiracy whackos than to advance the findings seriously. He preferred uncritical adulation to exchanging ideas with Hansen [or for that matter other ocean/atmosphere specialists],who was in the position to usefully respond.

    Of course,he claims to have “no interest in peer-review” when it comes to climate science,and as a logical implication he has no respect for Hansen. Very convenient for justifying his ‘methods’. But somewhat paints himself into a corner….

    • Bob is only interested in selling books. Books don’t require peer review and genuinely only require the conversion of his “uncritical adulation” into money. He won’t contact Hansen because deep down he knows Hansen can quickly disavow him of any notions that he is somehow an equal in the understanding of the climate. No, Bob is one of those shady characters who probably knows he is full of shit and will say anything for expediency and to sell books to his sycophantic idiotic followers.