Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Well, very clearly, he hasn't done that.
Welcome to the Age of Denial
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Well, very clearly, he hasn't done that.
Science is based on repeatable experiments. We've seen science perverted to allow powerful entities to justify inhumane treatment. Science is a fucking tool, not a god
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
my mistake, I thought that is what he had stated...
That I was engaging in fear mongering was the claim you failed to support.
Of course, there is a consensus.
So you believe that a scientific paper published in a peer reviewed journal was effectively debunked by some jackasses blog post?
http://wottsupwiththat.com/
[URL]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts[/URL]
Whatever, but go ahead tell us, what impact does it have and what are the primary factors? Do you have published paper(s) supporting your hypothesis and accurate climate models?
sf's go to denialist source...
The "BEST" (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) study, under lead scientist (and former skeptic) Richard Muller, was sponsored by institutions that had previously supported the denial of the standard interpretation of the climate data. But when the BEST results came out, they confirmed the previous results that the Earth is warming.
Watts had initially declared (about BEST) that "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." But when the results came out he changed his position and his site published numerous attacks against Muller and the BEST study.
The "BEST" (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) study, under lead scientist (and former skeptic) Richard Muller, was sponsored by institutions that had previously supported the denial of the standard interpretation of the climate data. But when the BEST results came out, they confirmed the previous results that the Earth is warming.
Watts had initially declared (about BEST) that "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." But when the results came out he changed his position and his site published numerous attacks against Muller and the BEST study.
Muller had never expressed any denial of current dogma. Can you cite anything that supports your parroting of the meme that Muller was a skeptic?
I already know that you can't, but let's see what FUD you come up with.
You have fallen for one of the oldest tricks i the book. Pretend to represent a position so you can debunk it.
Too bad your confirmation bias allows you to be duped so easily
I already know that you can't, but let's see what FUD you come up with.
You have fallen for one of the oldest tricks i the book. Pretend to represent a position so you can debunk it.
Too bad your confirmation bias allows you to be duped so easily
Who cares. The point was that Watts seemed to expect credible results from BEST but when it did not support his presupposition he turned on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/
His attempts to deny that warming is even really happening, which sf claims no one does, with surfacestations.org data failed too. The guy is a science denialist.
Here is Watts on Muller...
It’s one of the many works of global warming art that pervade Wikipedia. In the description page for this graph we have this:
The original version of this figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde from publicly available data, and is incorporated into the Global Warming Art project.
And who is the lead scientist for BEST? One and the same. Now contrast Rohde with Dr. Muller who has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with some of the methods seen in previous science related to the issue. We have what some would call a “warmist” and a “skeptic” both leading a project. When has that ever happened in Climate Science?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
#1 is bullshit
#2 is bullshit. In fact you obviously don't understand science. For if you did, you would know that if evolution were demonstrated conclusively to be the factual basis of human common descent it would cease to be a theory. I can't believe you are a judge in the debate. Who did you blow?
#3 not a strawman at all. In fact this thread and your post proves my point. To question science is anathema to you Warmers. Whenever anyone questions the models you say they "are like flat earthers"
Nw run along with your little debate judge power trip
Why are you such a douchebag?
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
When are you such a fuckhead?
tekkychick
New member
The eternal question.
Was it too little parent-love when he was young?
Did his favorite puppy get run over by a car?
Was he denied an A for his paper in history that he worked on so very hard?
Did his parents refuse to get a VCR when he was a teenager?
Was he turned down by the cute redhead at the drive-in SonicBurger as a young adult?
Perhaps it was his years of slaving in the corporate jungle?
No one knows why ILA is such a douchebag...but he is one...
Almost never except in response to you.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
For someone who claims to have me on ignore and doesn't think about me, you sure out a lot if thought into this. I live rent free inside your head. If I didn't know any better, I would say you have an online crush. I should let you know that I am happily married to a gorgeous, intelligent strong woman whom I live dearly.
But I am flattered
You are attempting to change the subject. I was talking about Watts and his denial of science. Watts said the BEST study would be credible and that he would accept it. Watts called Muller a skeptic. It seems it was due to Muller's questioning of Mann's (hockey stick) chart. After the BEST studies conclusions contradicted Watts he reacted as denialists often do. So you tell me, why did Watts call Muller a skeptic? Is Muller only a "skeptic" when he is confirming your/Watts denialist bias?
The fact that Muller questioned Mann's chart might mean the label skeptic did fit him. You are using it to mean denialist. Muller does not appear to be a denialist as he is open to considering new data.
Watts never gave him the skeptic label. It was other websites that wanted to claim the BEST study converted a skeptic!
You are either dishonest or ignorant.
In fact it was Muller himself who claimed to be a skeptic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
You are either dishonest or ignorant.
In fact it was Muller himself who claimed to be a skeptic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/o...imate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
YOU ARE WRONG. I linked to Watts' post and quoted him referring to Muller as a skeptic. Here it is again...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/
And who is the lead scientist for BEST? One and the same. Now contrast Rohde with Dr. Muller who has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with some of the methods seen in previous science related to the issue. We have what some would call a “warmist” and a “skeptic” both leading a project. When has that ever happened in Climate Science?
He is referring to Rohde as the "warmist" and Muller as the "skeptic." He went on to say...
Other than making a lot of graphical art that represents the data at hand, Rohde hasn’t been very outspoken, which is why few people have heard of him. I met with him and I can say that Mann, Hansen, Jones, or Trenberth he isn’t. What struck me most about Rohde, besides his quiet demeanor, was the fact that is was he who came up with a method to deal with one of the greatest problems in the surface temperature record that skeptics have been discussing. His method, which I’ve been given in confidence and agreed not to discuss, gave me me one of those “Gee whiz, why didn’t I think of that?” moments. So, the fact that he was willing to look at the problem fresh, and come up with a solution that speaks to skeptical concerns, gives me greater confidence that he isn’t just another Hansen and Jones re-run.
But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.
As a reflection of my increased confidence, I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data. The only caveat being that they won’t release my data publicly until our upcoming paper and the supplemental info (SI) has been published. Unlike NCDC and Menne et al, they respect my right to first publication of my own data and have agreed.
And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell. If the project was terminated tomorrow, nobody loses jobs, no large government programs get shut down, and no dependent programs crash either. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet. Dr. Fred Singer also gives a tentative endorsement of the methods.
Once the BEST results came out and contradicted Watts he went on the attack which is what is expected from a denialists, not a skeptic. It is Watts who is not a skeptic. He is denialist that is taking advantage of stupid conspiratards like you and sf.