"It Is Clear the Science is Not Settled": 49 Employees Call Out NASA for Unsubstantiated Climate Science" (suspect, solutions)

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Nomander

*chuckle*

Try to keep up.

Final 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Summary – Sea Ice News #30 | Watts Up With That?

I think you are the one who should try to keep up...The Watts Up With That readers are an "emotional" little gang of online trolls that spend way too much time on their hands - with way too little science - trying to prove that climate change is nothing to worry about. Kevin Grandia: Debunking Another Climate Change Crock: What's Up with Anthony Watts? [video]

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

Is "it reads like the Drudge Report" a proper reason it seems silly to me?

I like the pic of James Hansen looking quite proud to be arrested during a protest with the caption "An Embarrassing image for NASA". Really? NASA's embarrassed that a retired employee is engaging in activism?

Actually, it is. Keep in mind that a lot of people work for NASA (even directly in GISS) who really dislike the antics of Hansen and people like Schmidt. They politicize the issue, use their position improperly to push for political ends and people feel they should be more professional (removed from political position and reserved in judgement). Watts, McIntyre, and many who appear on that site deal with many from those agencies and they aren't all crack pot activists. A scientists is not an activist and Hansen actions are a conflict with the position and purpose of science (ie it is embarrassing to any scientist who respects the proper process and position of one). There was even an "insider" in the CRU who was in contact with McIntyre concerning some of the antics Jones was pulling because they was disgusted with their politicizing of the issue. Just because an administration gets up and takes the liberty of claiming their membership toes the line does not mean this is so. There is a lot of division in those institutions, but when your job may be on the line for not toeing the line, well... you get the idea why it takes a lot for some to step up and speak out about it.

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

Also: "This paper marks, in my opinion, the death of credibility for Nature on global warming" Uh huh.

Better " in my opinion" than an opinion portrayed as fact with "absolutely definitive evidence that... blah... blah... blah..." which is all too apparent in the theatrics of some AGW researchers, most notably the sensationalism of Hansen.

Watt's site is certainly more political than lets say Climate Audit (which is extremely dry, to the point, and often without colorful descriptors in its language), but then his site isn't meant to be simply a dry scientific approach.

That said, the thing about those who post their position on that site is that they provide their data and methodology upfront and are very receptive to the questions and issues brought up concerning their comments. For instance Willis Eschenbach spent 3 or 4 separate updates and posts on the work of Shakun's recent paper because there were questions posters felt were unanswered or that he didn't account for.

Shakun The Last, I Hope | Watts Up With That?

You just don't get that sort of attention to an issue by some people as they tend to dismiss any questions to their work or arguments (one of the problems with Jones, Hansen, Mann, etc...).

Because of the mix of positions that respond on that site, people can't get away with simply demanding appeals to authority or expecting an echo chamber of approval. Steve Mosher is a perfect example of someone who doesn't let that sort of stuff pass.

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

I know Matt Ridley is a fan of the site. Matt Ridley also believes in AGW.

Yep, there are quite a few that are and stop by the site, be it to simply to respond in the comment section or to bring by a paper they are testing out for input (on both sides of the position).

This is how science should be. It shouldn't be about running to the bunkers and dismissing and disregarding all that do not pledge their allegiance to "the cause".


I agree though that the language on his site is definitely a bit theatrical, but the content is solid. If you like the dry approach, go to Climate audit (it is extremely respected by many scientists) as the discussions and content tend to be "matter of fact" and missing a lot of the flare you see on Watts. It has a down side though as McIntyre has very little patience for unsupported accusations and so a lot of the stuff we see on this site and even a bit on Watts are not allowed. That is good though as it applies to all sides of the argument.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

I think you are the one who should try to keep up...The Watts Up With That readers are an "emotional" little gang of online trolls that spend way too much time on their hands - with way too little science - trying to prove that climate change is nothing to worry about. Kevin Grandia: Debunking Another Climate Change Crock: What's Up with Anthony Watts? [video]

Sorry, but you are wrong. The evidence was in the link provided. Please try not to be a puppet for propaganda, it is unbecoming.

Might I also note that Huntington Post was one of the reporting agencies that ran with the forged documents that Peter Gleick stole (yes, it was confirmed he obtained them fraudulently as he admitted to it) AND then fraudulently created an addition to them to place Heartland in a bad light (this also confirmed). Your news source does no due diligence in their investigation of an issue. They have no credibility.

[Don9]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

Not really sure why people who are not climatologists or oceanographers feel they are experts in climate science?

Walter Cunningham, has a BA in physics, hardly makes him an expert in the field yet he has become the voice of the AGW movement. Where are the papers he has published? The peer review?

NOAA, the actual organization dedicated to studying this area, has the opposite view, and more expertise. They publish papers, they peer review. Whose science stands up to the scientific method is readily clear.

That's because political appointees run these organizations. Obama has appointed activists to run many agencies so that the agency represents his own views and agenda.

[crbcrbrgv]

Who am I going to believe about this subject? The OP, or an actual expert? Here's his opinion:

Is NASA really in an open revolt over climate change? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

[lkb0714]

WOW.

So we are going to disparage actual scientists, and their actual peer reviewed papers and then put up information from "WATTS up with that?" a blog produced by a non-scientist who is PAID (by the Heartland Institute no less)to be a climate denier?

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

His credentials or lack there of:

Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]



His credibility or lack thereof:
"
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.[13]
Watts had initially declared (about BEST) that "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[14] But when the results came out he changed his position and his site published numerous attacks[15] against Muller and the BEST study."

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

WOW.

So we are going to disparage actual scientists, and their actual peer reviewed papers and then put up information from "WATTS up with that?" a blog produced by a non-scientist who is PAID (by the Heartland Institute no less)to be a climate denier?

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

His credentials or lack there of:

Watts held an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[7] with a status of "retired".[8]

Credentials not held

Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[9], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[10], and Watts posesses neither certification.[11],[12]



His credibility or lack thereof:
"
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.[13]
Watts had initially declared (about BEST) that "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong."[14] But when the results came out he changed his position and his site published numerous attacks[15] against Muller and the BEST study."

Peer review? You mean Pal review.

And you are being quite dishonest about the incident with BEST, even Curry was upset at the trick Muller pulled with Anthony. Tsk tsk!

As for the Heartland institute issue, well... the fact that you even attempt to promote that garbage of a position makes you completely obvious to the dedication of your so called discipline.

why not produce the rest of the story for the issues you bring up? Hmm? Don't want to hear the people you are attacking defend themselves? No... I mean, like "real science" (tm) with the "real science" your field applies these days, proper review of your claims would be... well... "unscientific" now wouldn't it?

At first I thought you were simply a hard AGW supporter, willing to deal with the science and a bit grumpy about the politics and the like being introduced here. Now, it is obvious you retain the title of yet another lackey for the cause. Seriously, it is insulting how you use the above as a position. Down right typical of your cabal, but from a group that thinks the "cause" is more important than the science, well... it isn't a surprise.

You wonder why I respond to you with fallacies? (I can admit when I do, can you?), it is because you really don't deserve an honest response because you don't offer honest arguments.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

Who am I going to believe about this subject? The OP, or an actual expert? Here's his opinion:

Is NASA really in an open revolt over climate change? | SciGuy | a Chron.com blog

What these men and women are not is climate scientists. Most are not even scientists in the sense that they have pursued scientific research during their careers, in any discipline.

Typical dismissal drivel.

There is an interesting saying a radio host, I think his name is Andrew Wilcow, to which he stated "your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument."

What that means is, your appeal to authority does not validate your position nor properly establish your objection to mine.

So, when idiots make such claims, well... you have to kind of well.. dismiss them. /shrug

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Typical dismissal drivel.

There is an interesting saying a radio host, I think his name is Andrew Wilcow, to which he stated "your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument."

What that means is, your appeal to authority does not validate your position nor properly establish your objection to mine.

So, when idiots make such claims, well... you have to kind of well.. dismiss them. /shrug

Yes, you are very good at dismissing things aren't you, but your do accept any garbage that agrees with your denialist mind set.
Wotts up with that?

[seattlenextyear]

Says the guy who gets in a pissing matches over the number of math classes he had.

Originally Posted by Nomander

Typical dismissal drivel.

There is an interesting saying a radio host, I think his name is Andrew Wilcow, to which he stated "your academic pedigree does not outweigh the strength of my argument."

What that means is, your appeal to authority does not validate your position nor properly establish your objection to mine.

So, when idiots make such claims, well... you have to kind of well.. dismiss them. /shrug