Rasool Schneider Daly & Connolley
Joshua Halpern
Well, if anyone is still interested, I went and got the infamous
Rasool and Schneider article. If you may remember Daly in answer
to Nudds quoted from what he claimed to be the abstract. Connolley
replied that the quote was from the text and he thought that Daly
was quoting from a secondary source, where substantial parts of the
original may have appeared. Daly counter claimed that
Connolley was bluffing.
In addition to looking at the original R&S report I also reviewed
the thread in Dejanews.
1. The original quoted material in Daly's post was the first
few paragraphs. The body of the report and Daly's first
post start: "The rate at which human...."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Subject: Re: Campaign Finance and Global Warming Uncertainty
From: John Daly <da...@vision.net.au>
Date: 1997/12/14
Message-ID: <349297...@vision.net.au>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
[More Headers]
Scott Nudds pontificated:
> I shall repeat myself for the conceptually challenged.
> The fact is, scientists never warmed of the imminent onset of ice
> ages. This is simply a lie told by environmental denialists, and
> cowards who fear societal change.
John Daly informs:
Liberal Scott Nudds, you should withdraw that crack about liars, as this
reference makes you the liar, or perhaps conceptually challenged, or
historically ignorant.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols -
Effects
of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971,
p.138-141
You could at least get your facts right before you make rash statements
and abuse other people. This paper was a peer-reviewed paper in Science
by the greenhouse guru himself Stephen Schneider, in which he was
warning of an ice age.
Just to prove this reference is what I say it is, here is the abstract
in full -
**************************** text begins ****************************
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
The rate at which human activities may be inadvertently modifying
the climate of Earth has become a problem of serious concern.
In the last few decades the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
appears to have increased by 7 percent. During the same period,
the aerosol content of the lower atmosphere may have been
augmented by as much as 100 percent 3 .
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
2. Daly did reverse the order of the authors signed to
the report.
3. In Daly's original quotation the references are omitted and
there are additional paragraph breaks which do not appear
in the original report
Connolley noted these discrepencies and said:
From: w...@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk (William Connolley)
Date: 1997/12/16
Message-ID: <34964...@wltss01.nwl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
[More Headers]
Hmm, people talking about getting facts straight should get the order of
their authors correct.
And perhaps it is worth pointing out that your quote is *not* from the
abstract of the paper - it is from the first few paragraphs. Could it
perhaps be that you are quoting R+S via a secondary source?
4. In one of his replies to Connolley, Daly responds:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Subject: Re: Campaign Finance and Global Warming Un
From: John Daly <da...@vision.net.au>
Date: 1997/12/19
Message-ID: <34992A...@vision.net.au>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
SNIPPPP....
""Nice try with the bluff. The quote I gave *is* the whole abstract. I
have the paper in front of me. It says - "Abstract. Effects on the
global etc...." The astract which I quoted is even printed in italic,
while the main body of the paper is in normal type. Need I go on?""
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Of course the abstract does start: "Abstract: Effects on the global..."
First it is clear that Connolley was right at all times
In order of probability I would conclude that Daly either
1. Was originally quoting from a secondary source, but when
Connolley suggested this was the case got the original and
tried to cover his tracks or
2. Did not realize the difference between the abstract and the
body of the report but would not admit to a simple misreading.
I would be happy to send a copy of the paper (not too many
remember copyright) to folks who are not at universities.
Send me your FAX No.or mailing address (I have not scanned it).
For those not in the US, it may take a while....(If I send copies
by sea). If the demand is too heavy, I many have to reconsider.
josh halpern
Rich Puchalsky
Joshua Halpern (j...@IDT.NET) wrote:
: First it is clear that Connolley was right at all times
I win my bet! Now to rake in the $$$$$ ... oh shoot, no one took me up
on it. Aren't there any sucker bettors out there anymore?
: In order of probability I would conclude that Daly either
: 1. Was originally quoting from a secondary source, but when
: Connolley suggested this was the case got the original and
: tried to cover his tracks or
: 2. Did not realize the difference between the abstract and the
: body of the report but would not admit to a simple misreading.
As nominated environmental ogre and McCarthy-proclaimed master of
ad homenums, you might expect me to go off on Daly at this point.
Unfortunately, Daly's error is of all too common a type for me
to marshal much condemnation of it. To add to the options above,
I suggest:
3. Daly quoted the body of the paper originally, thinking it was
the abstract ,then didn't go back and check to see that he'd
actually quoted the abstract when he was challenged later --
after all, he had the paper right in front of him, so he checked
that rather than his previous post.
If Daly really wants to learn anything from this episode I'd suggest
it as a lesson in hubris. Connolley is a professional in the field,
and it was foolish to challenge him as a non-professional without
making absolutely sure that no screwup had been commited.