| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
FLyinFieros, or whoever you are. The anonymous troll. |
|
You're poorly representing 'skeptics' when your argument is reduced to schoolyard name calling.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Your so called "evidence" comes from bloggers who are not, repeat, not qualified in the slightest, or more so than anyone posting on this thread. They need to be attacked if they represent themselves to be the source of factual data. |
|
The quality of your arguments are laughable.
No, my evidence doesn't come from bloggers or even Skeptical Science. Skeptical Science is the messenger. The vast majority of the content on the Skeptical Science website is peer reviewed and published. The difference between Skeptical Science and a lot of blogs that claim to be 'skeptical' about the human role in climate change is Skeptical Science honestly represents the scientist's study and does not attempt to spread misinformation through lies.
The people at Skeptical Science are highly qualified to read and understand scientific papers in order for them to inform the 'common man' on the issues. The people you specifically called out for being 'not qualified' are a chemist, a physicist, a mechanical engineer, another chemist, and a computer scientist. Considering their education, and one of them an actual educator, I consider them highly qualified to read scientific papers and correctly understand them. In fact, anyone with two eyes and a brain should be able to correctly read and understand anything- but pesky religion and politics gets in the way and people get screwy. For
example, they don't understand their own data when they think surface area = volume.
I cite skeptical science because when I read the papers they write about they were honest in their reporting. They don't flat out lie to their audience like a lot of 'skeptical' blogs and websites.
It shows poor character on your part to continue attacking the messenger instead of attacking the content. Demonstrate some knowledge!
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
So you are a high school teacher? What subjects are you trained in? |
|
You're more interested in me than you are the actual issue.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
I didn't demean teachers or their profession. I simply maintain they are not qualified to set themselves up as a scientific authority to quote just because they teach teenagers. |
|
Again, he is not representing himself to be THE scientific authority. He's simply the messenger. Teachers are qualified to be messengers of information. THATS THEIR JOB.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Your "arctic temperature" graph shows a net increase of only about 1/4 of 1 degree since 1800. Yeah I'll buy that. |
|
Tell me, when you say "Arctic sea ice retreat has nothing to do with anthropological influence" - are you qualified to disagree with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
| | | quote | … the warming after 1920 is increasingly difficult to ascribe to natural forcing.
The Overpeck et al. results confirm results of earlier regional studies that suggest the Arctic is warming like never before. |
|
The NOAA study is not the only study to conclude the Arctic is warming due to anthropologic influence:
| | | quote | | The modeling studies of Johannessen et al. (2004) showed the importance of anthropogenic forcing over the past half century for modeling the arctic climate. “It is suggested strongly that whereas the earlier warming was natural internal climate-system variability, the recent SAT (surface air temperature) changes are a response to anthropogenic forcing” |
|
Source.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
You Anthony Watts graphs show virtually "0" increase at the end of 3 decades. Ok. |
|
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
So let me get this straight. If I am a certified plumber (as example) this would qualify me for Electrical work? Not hardly. Their unrelated degrees mean squat. |
|
If you actually understood science you would see how ridiculous this comment is. The majority of the individuals you are criticizing as 'not qualified' have extensive knowledge about physics. Physics applies to all sciences. One of them is an actual physicists! Two of them have chemistry degrees! I'm sure chemistry and physics have no role when it comes to the planet.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
I don't care a lick about what Anthony Watts posted or published either. |
|
That would require you to be educated on the debate you profess to be so knowledgable.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
What I do care about is, |
|
pulling
World War II predictions out of the bible?
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
there are no starving and drowning polar bears; islands are not being inundated; there is no increased record of hurricanes; the oceans continue to rise at their long term and usual rate, and....... the prognostications of the AGW advocates from up to 13 years ago, have uniformly not come to pass. In other words they were full of hot air. |
|
Oh… that
old debunked nonsense again.
| | | quote | Originally posted by Arns85GT:
Anybody can pay to publish a book, or sell it on a website.
|
|
Not anybody can pass peer review due to their erroneous data and conclusions, like 'skeptic' Anthony Watts.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
The BEST study? LOL. flyinfieros thinks he can criticize Watts and his paper, |
|
I like how you skipped the NOAA peer reviewed and published paper that completely debunks the Watts paper you have cited several times as proof of your position. Two examples of you citing the debunked paper as evidence:
1 &
2 Watts didn't respond to it either, why should you?
I expected you to go off about the Berkeley Earth Temperature Study in a poor attempt to save face. Especially after the study clearly demonstrated what a liar Watts is:
| | | quote |
"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. 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." - Anthony Watts |
|
Of course when the study proved his entire premise wrong and debunked his paper he realized he'd have to get a new day job and doubled down on delusion.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
when the BEST study was REJECTED by a climate science journal |
|
The purpose of publishing in a journal is to pass peer review. The BEST study released all their information for anyone with an internet connection to download and verify. Their preliminary findings have been available since October 2011. Has anyone found anything wrong with the data or method? Nope.
Since the leading author was a climate change skeptic going into the study, when he found solid evidence that he himself was wrong he went into publicity mode. "The people needed to know." This was against the advise of the scientific community and looked down on. My only criticism of the BEST study is their media blitz strategies that seem to put the formal scientific publishing methods on the back burner.
Despite being the largest temperature study ever completed, the study really discovered nothing new. The scientific community has been aware of the Berkeley results for a long time. This is the knowledge gap that exists between the scientific debate on climate change and the political debate on climate change.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
and could only get published in an unknown, pay-to-play new journal. With NO reputation. |
|
They publish papers for anyone to read and download without a paywall. They have to charge something to cover peer review and publishing. Are you really criticizing a free market business model in some poor attempt to slam science?
You also failed to mention the publisher has
several dozen journals.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
FlyinFieros said "I'm sure it has a good reputation", but the BEST study was the FIRST thing published there. |
|
Actually that's not what I said but I hardly expect you to quote someone correctly.
What I actually said was:
| | | quote | Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
It is a new journal, however SciTechnol does have a good reputation. |
|
Source.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
When I confronted him with that fact, he tried to back off of his OWN CLAIM by contradicting himself, saying a journal's reputation was only "opinion"... His OWN OPINION! You can't make s*** like this up! |
|
Sometimes I wonder if you realize how delusional you sound.
Obviously you should have at least fact checked your quote before spouting off this crazy conclusion.
You've repeated this nonsense previously:
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
I have this interesting fact, though, about this "journal" with the "good reputation". |
|
Source.
I again set the record straight
| | | quote | Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
I said it was SciTechnol who had a good reputation. I'm well aware it is a new journal. |
|
Source.
Here's Liz Muller's comments on publishing in SciTechNol:
"SciTechnol is relatively new, I think their very first publication was only a few years ago. They do have a good and growing reputation in the scientific community, and are part of the new generation of journals that have totally open access and quick turn around times. I expect most important articles will be published in similar open online journals in the not-too-distant future. We chose GiGS because we liked their emphasis on statistics, their quick turn around, and their open and free access."
Source.
Again, try discrediting the science. At least when I criticize one of your publishers I do so with hard evidence of manipulation and lies.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
FlyinFieros favorite study is nothing but a McPaper published in McJournal, |
|
The BEST paper is not my favorite study, but I do enjoy it for it's "exposing skeptics as liars" factor. Remember when the study was launched and even Anthony Watts praised it? The study was supposed to expose how the different organizations studying climate didn't agree with each other at all either due to manipulation or incompetence. Then BEST exposed that the results actually agree with each other:
Source.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
and his favorite source is a blog site, |
|
The difference is you can't provide example after example of fraud, manipulation, and flat out lies about Skeptical Science that I can expose about WUWT. Anyone who takes the time to go over our conversation is seeing that.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
and he's been critical of any of our use of blog sites. |
|
The blog sites you reference are politically biased and have a historic record of manipulation and lies. Hardly the kind of quality offered by the scientific community.
| | | quote | Originally posted by fierobear:
How can anyone take flyinfieros posts seriously? |
|
Any fact checker would.
You're working very hard to discredit yourself. Open minded readers see that every time you open your mouth.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-30-2013).]
