Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2012, 01:04 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
The following is from Roger Pielke Sr. who is a noted and distinguished climate scientist with hundreds of Peer reviewed papers to his credit.

Comments On The Game Changer New Paper “An Area And Distance Weighted Analysis Of The Impacts Of Station Exposure On The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Temperatures And Temperature Trends” By Watts Et Al 2012 | Climate Science: Roger


"In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. "

What is interesting is that Watts new paper shows that the NOAA's "adjustments" are nearly double to triple in upwards adjustments.

Oh, and Mullers paper was rejected by JGR Ferd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2012, 01:10 PM
 
45,396 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23754
Regarding the OP's skeptic - this article is by Richard A. Muller from October 2004...

Global Warming Bombshell

Exerpt from page 2 of the article...

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.

So this guy always believed in man contributing to global warming.

All this thread proves is that THIS scientist is using science to prove what he already believes in his heart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 01:46 PM
 
20,419 posts, read 12,338,684 times
Reputation: 10204
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
The really funny thing is that in Muller's own op ed, he calls himself a former "denier"...sooooo....


Written by Anthony Muller - entitled "I WAS A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER."
I was a climate change denier | StarTribune.com

First paragraph:
Exactly. 2 years ago he wasnt a deniar, now he is not one but was one...interesting. sounds like a guy who never was a real skeptic trying to play that card for cred to me.

Im not buying what this guy is selling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 01:57 PM
 
20,419 posts, read 12,338,684 times
Reputation: 10204
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
Regarding the OP's skeptic - this article is by Richard A. Muller from October 2004...

Global Warming Bombshell

Exerpt from page 2 of the article...

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.

So this guy always believed in man contributing to global warming.

All this thread proves is that THIS scientist is using science to prove what he already believes in his heart.

You are right about what this thread proves....except I would add one more thing. In attempting to prove what he already believed, he is now saying he did not believe what clearly he did believe. Down here in the south we call that a lie.

which begs the question... if he will lie about that, what else is he lying about???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:21 PM
 
3,201 posts, read 3,850,725 times
Reputation: 1047
This is good news for the Global Warming Movement!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:38 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,088 posts, read 13,423,185 times
Reputation: 14266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
What is interesting is that Watts new paper shows that the NOAA's "adjustments" are nearly double to triple in upwards adjustments.

Oh, and Mullers paper was rejected by JGR Ferd.
It's a fair point on the peer review. Definitely a bad step not to have that hurdle cleared before going public, and it decreases my assessment of his credibility.

That's not to say that I'm convinced that global warming doesn't have a significant man-made driver. I suspect it does - fair amount of data out there to suggest this to be the case other than Muller - but I can't unequivocally prove that, of course. The big problem is that we will only be certain when looking back after many, many years...and by then, if we are contributing to it, it will be way too late to do anything about it. My guess is that it's already too late now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:41 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,207,047 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
What is interesting is that Watts new paper shows that the NOAA's "adjustments" are nearly double to triple in upwards adjustments.

Oh, and Mullers paper was rejected by JGR Ferd.

So we can expect Watt to publish his paper in a reputable peer reviewed science journal very soon, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:44 PM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,870,912 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
You are right about what this thread proves....except I would add one more thing. In attempting to prove what he already believed, he is now saying he did not believe what clearly he did believe. Down here in the south we call that a lie.

which begs the question... if he will lie about that, what else is he lying about???
I've heard this from Watts and Marc Morano. Muller was for global warming, then he was (mildly) against it, and is for it again. He was never a real "skeptic" like Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and the people in Watts' new whitepaper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:45 PM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,870,912 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
So we can expect Watt to publish his paper in a reputable peer reviewed science journal very soon, right?
His whole paper is uploaded on his site so it is available for anyone with a global warming bias to peer review, not just the established journals
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2012, 06:46 PM
 
3,201 posts, read 3,850,725 times
Reputation: 1047
Peer Review!!!

My favorite type of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
It's a fair point on the peer review.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top