Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

[ScienceRocks]

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

August 25, 2015

A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus



http://www.theguardi...ntrarian-papers

Well, no shit...That is why they were rejected!

 

[flacaltenn]

There goes that cartoonist cum propagandist AGAIN.. I read until I saw Dana Nuccitelli's name as the author of this hit piece..

lunar --- solar cycles -- vague idea --- YEAH --- that's the ticket..

The guy is the hack who attempted to perpetrate the 97% fraud in the 1st place.. And you have absolutely no issue with that?? He's a CARTOONIST Matthew.. And part owner of SkepShitScience. What you doing weighing his choice of "denier" papers and analysis?

Stop wasting my time.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Your time is already wasted, Flacaltenn, since you will not accept real evidence, and only back the frauds of the deniers.

 

[flacaltenn]

Your time is already wasted, Flacaltenn, since you will not accept real evidence, and only back the frauds of the deniers.

Certainly not consuming anything from SkepShits either...
Not with those atom bomb counters ticking away on their website...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your time is already wasted, Flacaltenn, since you will not accept real evidence, and only back the frauds of the deniers.

Models are not evidence

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Then stop using them. I am talking about the real time loss of alpine glacial ice, Arctic Sea Ice, and ice from the two continental ice caps. You fruitloops constantly talk about the coming cooling based on a model. One that has failed 100% for the last 36 years.

 

[mamooth]

Certainly not consuming anything from SkepShits either...
Not with those atom bomb counters ticking away on their website...

Yet another Cook Derangement Syndrome meltdown?

On the plus side, at least you're consistent in your chosen method of denial of the evidence.

Just to be clear, do you now regard the full list of authors of that paper as heretics, people who need to be sent to the gulag along with Mann and Hansen?

 

[flacaltenn]

Certainly not consuming anything from SkepShits either...
Not with those atom bomb counters ticking away on their website...

Yet another Cook Derangement Syndrome meltdown?

On the plus side, at least you're consistent in your chosen method of denial of the evidence.

Just to be clear, do you now regard the full list of authors of that paper as heretics, people who need to be sent to the gulag along with Mann and Hansen?

Accomplices for the crime? Hang 'em Of course.. They'd have to be retarded to associate their names with him.. Of course, I haven't COMPARED the author list to that original pile of infamous snake dung --- maybe some of them are just part of the "ends justify the means" cabal..

Am I writing on your level now? Can you understand me better?

 

[IanC]

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers

August 25, 2015

A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus



http://www.theguardi...ntrarian-papers

Well, no shit...That is why they were rejected!

Matt- I read the Guardian article, abstract and paper. All I saw was opinion. Am I supposed to download and run the R program????? This is nonsense. Did they run at least a representative sample of the consensus papers? Honestly, I have never seen such an information free paper. 'Where's the Beef?'

 

[Billy_Bob]

The usual fools fall for the usual garbage of Nutter-cellie and Skeptical Science lie farming... You alarmists need to get some brains, critical thinking skills and commonsense... you have a zero level in all of these areas..

The opinion piece is a piece of crap.. Wait, its a huge pile of crap.. My bad!

 

[Crick]

From the man whose been telling us there'd be no el Nino.

Why don't you explain why you believe it to be a piece of crap? Provide evidence, show where their calculations in error, demonstrate the flaws in their logic - FALSIFY their contention.

Till then, you're just ranting.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeppers.. This paper is a SkepShitScience production. Both Cook and Nutti on the author line..

This is another propaganda piece. It's the Contrarians versus the Religious Zealots folks..
Would be like a structured debate between RDean and GrandpaMurkedme on USMB...

(PS -- MY money in on Gramps)

.

 

[IanC]

Yeppers.. This paper is a SkepShitScience production. Both Cook and Nutti on the author line..

This is another propaganda piece. It's the Contrarians versus the Religious Zealots folks..
Would be like a structured debate between RDean and GrandpaMurkedme on USMB...

.

I tried to read the paper but it is all op-ed. I didn't even see a concise list of the papers they 'analyzed'. Apparently they published an R program. I can hardly wait until someone uses it to check consensus papers because all of the fallacies they mentioned have been identified in major AGW papers. Would Marcott 2013 pass? I think not. Mann with his bristlecones and upsidedown proxies? How did they define cherrypicking? Gergis12 was 'retired' or something but still lives on in PAGES2K. Would they pass?

 

[mamooth]

Accomplices for the crime? Hang 'em Of course.. They'd have to be retarded to associate their names with him.. Of course, I haven't COMPARED the author list to that original pile of infamous snake dung --- maybe some of them are just part of the "ends justify the means" cabal..

Am I writing on your level now? Can you understand me better?

You've made your death-lust clear. You're a very proud Stalinist. Most deniers think like you to some extent, but few are as willing as you to state their homicidal desires so directly.

Time to point out again how the two sides aren't even remotely alike. Almost every denier wants to kill or imprison climate scientists. Almost nobody on the rational side wants to kill or imprison deniers. (This would be where deniers now cherrypick some nobody person that said such a thing, in an attempt to excuse their own open thuggery with a "but they do it too!" big lie.)

Now, since you've announced your wish to hang all the authors, I hope you understand why I can't take any of your ravings seriously. Your position is now so morally reprehensible, no decent person should stoop to engaging with you.

 

[flacaltenn]