Australia See's the Light...

[Abraham3]

No. Heartland agreed to help Watts raise the rest. See the subtle difference? Heartland didn't raise the money and give it to Watts. Heartland provided resources to Watts so that Watts could raise the money he needed to complete an important and useful scientific research project.

From Wikipedia: "The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest."

That was a HEARTLAND document. And THE INSTITUTE, not Watts, will seek to raise the rest. I'm not the one here with a reading comprehension problem.

Watts has a point of view, yes, but it is based on hard science and not on any political motive and provides no political advantage to anybody.

Hard science?!?!? The man never finished his bachelor's degree. He's not intellectually capable of performing "hard science". I have more education than he does.

Fighting off a response to global warming is enormously beneficial to one group: the fossil fuel industry. If you think they aren't spending millions to do so you're criminally naive.

Nor does he sell the results of his research. He gives it away. With the overwhelming popularity and effectiveness of his website, he could be raking in millions in grant monies if he sold out and went with the pro-AGW theory and promoted that. He apparently has too much personal integrity to do that.
He goes with real science, not contrived science. Which I suspect is why you don't like him.

All you've shown here is that you have zero experience with actual scientific research. Watts is an uneducated blogger. He is NOT a research scientist by any stretch of the imagination. His opinions, findings and conclusions are completely ignored among climate scientists.

I have to be honest: your encomium of the man makes you look nothing but foolish.

 

[mamooth]

Just after 35th anniversary of Jonestown, the denialist cultists might want to take note that drinking the koolaid is not a good idea.

Yes, your fellow denialist cultists will be enraged if you try to leave the cult. So don't do it openly. Just slip out into the jungle, and return to rationality by the back trails.

And Fox? Watt's bogus surface station propaganda piece was debunked moments after being released. Each time it was released. We could explain it in detail, but you'd do what you always do. You know, declare the data was all a big conspiracy. Hence, there's no point wasting time. Go on, have another big swig of that koolaid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just to fill in the corners; from the Wikipedia article linked above, much of which comes directly from Watts own site:

Affiliation with Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute published Watts' preliminary report on weather station data, titled Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?.[13] Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.[56]
Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, "devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA's web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public."[57][58][59] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[56] Watts explained the funding by stating, "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around."[60][61] and added, "They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind."[60][62]

13) Watts, Anthony (2009). Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?. Heartland Institute. ISBN 978-1-934791-29-5. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
56) Gascoyne, Tom (February 23, 2012). "Leaked documents hit home Climate-change scandal has a local connection". Chico News & Review. Retrieved August 8, 2012.
57) "2012 Fundraising Plan". The Heartland Institute. January 15, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-15.
58) Hickman, Leo (February 15, 2012). "Climate sceptics – who gets paid what?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-02-15.
59) Watts, Anthony (February 15, 2012). "Some notes on the Heartland Leak". Watts Up With That?. Retrieved 2012-02-23.
60) Hickman, Leo (February 15, 2012). "Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
61) Burleigh, Nina (February 17, 2012). "Secret papers turn up heat on global-warming deniers". Salon. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
62) Goldenberg, Suzanne (February 14, 2012). "Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-08-10.

Sounds like a good harmless idea. So what? Providing parsed weather data for Media weather folks is a sensitive issue for you?

 

[Abraham3]

As I just stated, I don't care that Heartland is funding him. But someone attempting to contend that Watts is an objective scientist ought to.

 

[Abraham3]

And it was at Watts' request for a project that has produced a LOT of data that was not available before and is important in evaluating climate change. And is used by credentialed scientists around the world, both on your side and mine.

Who here agrees with this assessment regarding the value of Watts' work?

 

[flacaltenn]

As I just stated, I don't care that Heartland is funding him. But someone attempting to contend that Watts is an objective scientist ought to.

Well why the fuck not? You ignore the juvenile acts of Cooker and Nutti et al over at SkS dontcha? Guess were just gonna have to deal with whos better at the science part.

How do u get off chastizin folks for stuff that u do?

 

[westwall]

And there it is. You see dear silly person "morality" is the realm of religion....NOT SCIENCE. Science deals in fact, not morals. When you began appealing to morals you abandoned any pretense of following scientific procedure and entered full on into the arena of political activism and religious cultism.

So, you believe there are areas of life in which morality is not only unneeded but unwanted.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

ps: I wasn't talking about the conduct of science. I was talking about poster FlaCalTenn's interpretations of polls and surveys. I was talking about lying. Do you approve of lying?

Yes. Scientific endeavors must be kept clear of questions of morality as that leads to the politicization of science. When that happens people die. The eugenics movement is an excellent example of the "morality" police twisting science to make murder palatable.

 

[westwall]

And it was at Watts' request for a project that has produced a LOT of data that was not available before and is important in evaluating climate change. And is used by credentialed scientists around the world, both on your side and mine.

Who here agrees with this assessment regarding the value of Watts' work?

It is a factually correct statement. Even NOAA has used the data.

 

[Abraham3]

A minor syntactical error on your part. ONLY NOAA has used the data. And the only thing NOAA did with the data was to determine that it was false.

 

[Abraham3]

As I just stated, I don't care that Heartland is funding him. But someone attempting to contend that Watts is an objective scientist ought to.

Well why the fuck not? You ignore the juvenile acts of Cooker and Nutti et al over at SkS dontcha? Guess were just gonna have to deal with whos better at the science part.

How do u get off chastizin folks for stuff that u do?

Because Cook and Nuccitelli's conclusions are based on peer reviewed science. Watts' uninformed opinions are just that.

And no one with as clearly a paid-for agenda as Heartland, is funding Cook and Nuccitelli.

 

[Abraham3]

And there it is. You see dear silly person "morality" is the realm of religion....NOT SCIENCE. Science deals in fact, not morals. When you began appealing to morals you abandoned any pretense of following scientific procedure and entered full on into the arena of political activism and religious cultism.

So, you believe there are areas of life in which morality is not only unneeded but unwanted.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

ps: I wasn't talking about the conduct of science. I was talking about poster FlaCalTenn's interpretations of polls and surveys. I was talking about lying. Do you approve of lying?

Yes. Scientific endeavors must be kept clear of questions of morality as that leads to the politicization of science. When that happens people die. The eugenics movement is an excellent example of the "morality" police twisting science to make murder palatable.

Yes, you approve of lying?!?! Although I don't doubt it for a second, that's a pretty incredible admission.

Again, the morals in question were not those of any scientist, but of poster FlaCalTenn. And now, given your admission re: dishonesty, I suppose we'd have to add yours to the list.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is considerable question about a lot of what passed for 'peer reviewed' science these days. One example is chronicled here:
Journals Not Enforcing Their Policies | Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts further does some pretty good research re this kind of problem:
peer review | Search Results | Watts Up With That?

I guess Watts himself probably doesn't submit scientific papers for peer review. He is more of an investigator and one who can put facts together in cohesive and understandable form: a reporter capable of digging out and exposing the credible and the flawed science that makes it into discussions like this. And he is quoted again and again and again in scientific discussions and even in such esteemed publications as Time, the Wall Street Journal et al. And if peer review is important, the following study cited WAS peer reviewed:

A few days ago, the Georgia Tech press release for Wyatt and Curry (2013) included a quote from Marcia Wyatt, who said the stoppage in global warming “could extend into the 2030s”. (See the WattsUpWithThat post here and Judith Curry’s post here. The paper is here. Also see the SpringerLink-ClimateDynamics webpage.)

Now, there’s another paper predicting the cessation of global warming will last for more than another decade, with Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation-induced cooling in the Northern Hemisphere through 2027 (prompted by the North Atlantic Oscillation).

See TheHockeySchtick post New paper finds natural North Atlantic Oscillation controls Northern Hemisphere temperatures 15-20 years in advance. The paper is Li et al (2013) NAO implicated as a predictor of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature multidecadal variability. (Full paper is here.) The Li et al. (2013) abstract reads (my boldface):. . . .

. . . . It’s time for the IPCC to start thinking about cutting back on their predictions of future global warming by at least 50%. The public is catching on to the fact that if natural variability can stop global warming for 2 to 3 decades, then it also contributed to the warming from 1975 to the turn of the century—something the IPCC failed to account for in its projections.
Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Predicting the Cessation of Global Warming Will Last At Least Another Decade | Bob Tisdale ? Climate Observations

All of which explains why Wattsupwiththat gets so many hits, why it is so oft quoted, and why the AGW religionists do their damndest to discredit it and/or Anthony Watts because one thing bogus science cannot tolerate: truth and the cold hard reality of facts.

And meanwhile, there appears to be much sound reasoning and excellent evidence supporting the Australian Prime Minister backing off the global warming religion and taking a practical look at all that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bottom line: It doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that when scientific papers are peer reviewed by ONLY people who will applaud the paper, the peer review doesn't count for much.

And it doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that 100% of a few does not carry the same weight as 50% of thousands.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bottom line: It doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that when scientific papers are peer reviewed by ONLY people who will applaud the paper, the peer review doesn't count for much.

And it doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that 100% of a few does not carry the same weight as 50% of thousands.

In fact -- the VAST MAJORITY of science papers are NOT peer reviewed. Because peer review is UNIQUE to academia.. Industry is the majority wellspring of science, not govt sponsored or granted research. And those industry sponsored papers contain proprietary info and data. Doesn't slow down science acheivement, and doesn't make it LESS effective.

It's "peer reviewed" by competitors all right. There is just not all the back-biting and drama about running gauntlets to getting published. THE READERS are just as capable of assessing the value.. NOT just an annointed few...

 

[Abraham3]

Watts is an uneducated AGW denialist blogger, nothing more. His lifetime's contributions to climate science are absolutely nil. He attacks peer review because that's what has prevented him, for years now, from publishing his nonsense. He is doing the work of the fossil fuel industry and staunch conservatives who oppose global warming efforts on perceived political grounds. I haven't the faintest interest in anything he has to say and anyone bringing him up to me in support of an argument has gone beyond wasting our time.

If you'd like to argue with me that the world isn't getting warmer or that it's not due to human GHG emissions or that we shouldn't do anything about it, I'll be glad to oblige. If you want to try to convince me that Anthony Watts is anything but a waste of the air he breathes, you're wasting your time.

 

[Abraham3]

Bottom line: It doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that when scientific papers are peer reviewed by ONLY people who will applaud the paper, the peer review doesn't count for much.

And it doesn't take a genius or a scientist to know that 100% of a few does not carry the same weight as 50% of thousands.

In fact -- the VAST MAJORITY of science papers are NOT peer reviewed. Because peer review is UNIQUE to academia.. Industry is the majority wellspring of science, not govt sponsored or granted research. And those industry sponsored papers contain proprietary info and data. Doesn't slow down science acheivement, and doesn't make it LESS effective.

It's "peer reviewed" by competitors all right. There is just not all the back-biting and drama about running gauntlets to getting published. THE READERS are just as capable of assessing the value.. NOT just an annointed few...

I'd say the existence of deniers such as yourself clearly refutes your conclusion.

 

[westwall]

Climate change exists. AGW is a complete joke. Constantly getting railroaded by actual science.

This is simply a false statement.

No, it's actually correct. You need to read something other than your favorite propaganda websites.

 

[westwall]

A minor syntactical error on your part. ONLY NOAA has used the data. And the only thing NOAA did with the data was to determine that it was false.

Care to provide a link to that assertion.

 

[westwall]

So, you believe there are areas of life in which morality is not only unneeded but unwanted.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

ps: I wasn't talking about the conduct of science. I was talking about poster FlaCalTenn's interpretations of polls and surveys. I was talking about lying. Do you approve of lying?

Yes. Scientific endeavors must be kept clear of questions of morality as that leads to the politicization of science. When that happens people die. The eugenics movement is an excellent example of the "morality" police twisting science to make murder palatable.

Yes, you approve of lying?!?! Although I don't doubt it for a second, that's a pretty incredible admission.

Again, the morals in question were not those of any scientist, but of poster FlaCalTenn. And now, given your admission re: dishonesty, I suppose we'd have to add yours to the list.

I will be negging you as soon as possible for willfully misstating what I said. I said quite clearly that science only cares about "FACTS". Facts are not lies. Morality, and those who wrap themselves in the cloak of morality, lie, cheat, steal, and murder all of the time in an effort to push their version of morality.

Thank you, but no, you're an excellent example of that sort of bullshit in operation in just that one post.

 

[westwall]

Watts is an uneducated AGW denialist blogger, nothing more. His lifetime's contributions to climate science are absolutely nil. He attacks peer review because that's what has prevented him, for years now, from publishing his nonsense. He is doing the work of the fossil fuel industry and staunch conservatives who oppose global warming efforts on perceived political grounds. I haven't the faintest interest in anything he has to say and anyone bringing him up to me in support of an argument has gone beyond wasting our time.

If you'd like to argue with me that the world isn't getting warmer or that it's not due to human GHG emissions or that we shouldn't do anything about it, I'll be glad to oblige. If you want to try to convince me that Anthony Watts is anything but a waste of the air he breathes, you're wasting your time.

And a greater example of how much you fear and hate Watts, for being correct and destroying your little lies, would be hard to find than this little tantrum!