Marcott2013

[westwall]

No one said it was easy. But I tell yas what, Private, that kind of work is done all the time. You didn't know this? Huh.

Not easy? Actually it is. I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.

Good thing it was incredibly expensive.. Paid my salary helping to design the image array processors that drove some of the LandSat and other earth resource processing..

Did you happen to work with a guy named Mitch Levitz? He was a hell of a bike rider.

 

[westwall]

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...

However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[

To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

It's not possible to learn from a clone. They are all the same. They are fun to bop though!

 

[westwall]

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Quite telling here the "TONE" of this "alternate" Wiki...



To tell ya the truth, I'd never BEEN to the "rationalWiki" before.. So I thought I'd bop on over there.. Front page proudly proclaims its objectives..

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

NOTE CAREFULLY #4.. If you DISAGREE --- you are welcome to "engage in constructive dialogue", but any chance of you CONTRIBUTING or swaying our mission is hopeless. Remind you of any academic roadblocks to publishing that you've seen lately in science anywhere??

And then you find an ENTIRE screed section on anti-religious debunking and baiting..

My God --- these are the boys who can't get along and decide to go form their own minute and inconsequential site catering to their over-inflated egos..

I'm beginning to doubt if I'm gonna learn much from our new contributor...

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

Yeah, that's code for we might talk to you but your posts will never see the light of day. Funny how the scientists who are so sure that they're right are so damned afraid to conduct a dialogue for all to see.

 

[westwall]

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference between them and your sissy boys. They invite you to challenge them and their statements. They don't edit or prevent posts from AGW supporters, unlike YOUR people.

 

[orogenicman]

Not easy? Actually it is. I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.

Good thing it was incredibly expensive.. Paid my salary helping to design the image array processors that drove some of the LandSat and other earth resource processing..

Did you happen to work with a guy named Mitch Levitz? He was a hell of a bike rider.

The old Landsat thematic mapper is old technology, and has nothing to do with the kind of processing I'm talking about. But back to the point, which apparently went over your pointy little heads, the point being that there is a lot that can be done to clean up noisy data. It's done all the time. And the more data you have, the more signal you have, the easier it is to filter out the noise. Marcott's database is the most extensive proxy database, and the best calibrated available. Again, if ANY of you know of a better one, I'm all ears.

By the way, when are the boys at Wattsup going to collect their own original database? Or are they going to continue ad nauseum to scavenge off of the rest of the scientific community? One would think that if they truly want to prove that global warming is not real, or whatever it is that they are actually attempting to do, I mean, being the renowned scientists that you folks see them as being, they would go out of their way to not only collect their own original data so no one can accuse them of using "faulty data" and wouldn't have to whine for two years because no one will let them steal their own data, but then could use said original database to make a serious case to present to the scientific community. Why don't they so this like everyone else does? What makes them so special? Oh right. What makes them so special is that they aren't actually scientists. Next.

 

[orogenicman]

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.

Yes, there is a HUGE difference between them and your sissy boys. They invite you to challenge them and their statements. They don't edit or prevent posts from AGW supporters, unlike YOUR people.

Actually, I know at least four people who have posted at Wattsup that had their posts removed because they disagreed with Watt. But so frelling what? Again, science is not a democracy, nor a popularity contest. And there is plenty of dissention on many issues within the scientific community. The difference is that they do it in formal peer reviewed publications. That's what scientists do. Your folks aren't scientists. They've done virtually no original work of consequence. What goes on at a political blog site is irrelevant to the scientific process. If their work isn't formally submitted before the scientific community, it doesn't mean squat.

 

[IanC]

Because the claim that their data is not available is a lie. McIntyre whined about Briffa not providing his data for a couple of years until it was revealed - HE HAD IT ALL ALONG! So why do you support liars working on behalf of the petrochemical industry who aren't even scientists?

Explain exactly what you mean by saying 'he had it all along'. Briffa would not divulge the data set he used until the journal Phil Trans B forced him to. And even then he only released it in parts, over the course of a year, in secluded, unannounced links on his website. How is that open science? I believe you are accusing the wrong party of unethical behaviour.

Yamal controversy - RationalWiki

The Yamal controversy was an explosion of drama in the global warming blog wars that spilled over into the pages of mainstream newspapers. In the wake of Climategate, deniers latched onto a set of tree-ring data called the Yamal series that had been the topic of some of the leaked e-mails (after they were done squawking about "nature tricks" and "hiding the decline," of course). The Yamal series refers to the tree-ring data taken from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia by a team of Russian researchers, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late '90s. Hantemirov and Shivatov released more of their data in 2009 and Steve McIntyre jumped all over it, snarking:


“”I’m assuming that CA readers are aware that, once the Yamal series got on the street in 2000, it got used like crack cocaine by paleoclimatologists, and of its critical role in many spaghetti graph reconstructions, including, most recently, a critical role in the Kaufman reconstruction.[1]


Keith Briffa, a climatoligist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, had based a number of temperature reconstructions on a subset of the Yamal data. He claimed he had used a different methodology than Hantemirov and Shivatov because the original methodology didn't preserve long-term climate change.[2] McIntyre accused Briffa of cherry-picking. Of course, it would be perfectly legitimate to criticize Briffa's reconstruction and perform a new reconstruction on one's own. However, McIntyre just downloaded some other unrelated Yamal dataset from the internet and chucked it into the original set.[3] Deniers, obviously, failed to care about this and the "Yamal is a lie!" claim shot through the deniosphere, with Anthony Watts picking up the story next.[4] It then found its way into the right-wing rags, with James Delingpole and others declaring that the "hockey stick" graph had been soundly "debunked."[5][6]

However, Briffa's Yamal reconstructions were only included in four of the twelve hockey stick reconstructions and even McIntyre criticized other deniers for blowing his "critique" of Briffa out of proportion and walked back his accusations of cherry-picking. Sure enough, both Briffa and a member of the original Russian team released full reconstructions using the previously unreleased data and the hockey stick shape returned, confirming Briffa's original assertions.[7][8]

However, the incident was still missing something: That classic McIntyre hypocrisy. McIntyre had been whining for quite some time that Briffa had been blowing him off (gee, wonder why?). However, Briffa, even though he had a good excuse, hadn't been stonewalling McIntyre — the complete dataset was under the control of the Russian team that had collected it. After Briffa notified him of this, McIntyre then flippantly replied he had had the data all along!


“”In response to your point that I wasn't "diligent enough" in pursuing the matter with the Russians, in fact, I already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I'd had since 2004.[9]

Your link seems more of a political screed than an information source. I would recommend that people read both sidesbefore making up their minds as to who is more forthcoming.

Here is a link that describes the chronology of the yamal fiasco.

- Bishop Hill blog - The Yamal*deception

Choose for yourself. Better yet, investigate further and see which side appears to match the known facts. B-H has a bibliography too.

 

[flacaltenn]

I suppose the statement "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" bypassed your frontal cortex altogether, eh? What the "anti-religious debunking and baiting" done elsewhere on that site has to do with my posts or our discussion is for you to explain. Having said that, I could care less, just so you know.

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.

I use those sites as "spyders" to scope out what may be interesting.. WUWT and McIntryre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. NOT a compendium of basic facts and encyclopedic knowledge.. The only use for a wiki as biased as that one is because some flaming zealots have an axe to grind..

There have been controversies on WikiPedia.. But these are resolved in what I can tell is a wonderfully open process. It has been remarkably Bullshit proof. If you asked me 10 years if that would EVER happen with a Wiki --- I would have been skeptical..

That RationalWiki is simply appalling to any serious investigator... It's embarrassing.

 

[IanC]

Wikipedia is a good source for basic subjects but not so much for controversial ones like global warming. W Connelly has been a one-man wrecking crew on rewriting any thing sceptical, to the point where he lost his management authpority for a time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not easy? Actually it is. I worked on the LANDSAT Thematic Mapper when I worked for SBRC back in the day and while incredibly expensive the process was amazingly simple.

Good thing it was incredibly expensive.. Paid my salary helping to design the image array processors that drove some of the LandSat and other earth resource processing..

Did you happen to work with a guy named Mitch Levitz? He was a hell of a bike rider.

Might have been an Exec at Ramtek by that name. It's ancient to me now.. There were many suppliers like Gould, Ramtek, Inter. Imaging Sys (I2S), ect. I2S was one of my last employee gigs before I went independent. Was Mgr. of Adv Development there. And worked with Ramtek on NextRad Doppler as a consultant. Got a broad exposure to MANY fields doing that. Medical, Earth Resource, Machine Vision, miltary, etc, etc..

 

[orogenicman]

Told you... I might get "constructive dialogue" but would never have a chance striking the inflammatory language from your RationalWiki quote above.. THAT'S editorial style book and DESIGNED to attract narrow-minded folks such as yourself who must be always protected from being subjected to facts and opinions you don't like.

All the news we're screened for you in a political dialectic wrapper you can comprehend.

Think I'll go back -- register --- and offer them that front page banner idea for free.

As well as being given the warm feeling that you will find NO GOOD words or deeds of "religious" zealots in the following pages..

Really man --- can't you use a PUBLIC Wiki that doesn't incite partisian bashing on every entry? Please explain...

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.

I use those sites as "spyders" to scope out what may be interesting.. WUWT and McIntryre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. NOT a compendium of basic facts and encyclopedic knowledge.. The only use for a wiki as biased as that one is because some flaming zealots have an axe to grind..

There have been controversies on WikiPedia.. But these are resolved in what I can tell is a wonderfully open process. It has been remarkably Bullshit proof. If you asked me 10 years if that would EVER happen with a Wiki --- I would have been skeptical..

That RationalWiki is simply appalling to any serious investigator... It's embarrassing.

And yet, you apparently agree with its finding that (essentially) WUWT and McIntyre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. Duly noted.

 

[IanC]

Have you read the crap posted at Wattsup? At McIntyre's web site? And you are complaining that someone not a right wing born again anti-science crusader is daring to use inflammatory language on their web site? Oh my. Dude, there is no "Wiki" that doesn't have some sort of bias. Many of them do, however, have valid information, and what's even more important, at least they provide bibliographies with their postings.

I use those sites as "spyders" to scope out what may be interesting.. WUWT and McIntryre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. NOT a compendium of basic facts and encyclopedic knowledge.. The only use for a wiki as biased as that one is because some flaming zealots have an axe to grind..

There have been controversies on WikiPedia.. But these are resolved in what I can tell is a wonderfully open process. It has been remarkably Bullshit proof. If you asked me 10 years if that would EVER happen with a Wiki --- I would have been skeptical..

That RationalWiki is simply appalling to any serious investigator... It's embarrassing.

And yet, you apparently agree with its finding that (essentially) WUWT and McIntyre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. Duly noted.

Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.

 

[orogenicman]

I use those sites as "spyders" to scope out what may be interesting.. WUWT and McIntryre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. NOT a compendium of basic facts and encyclopedic knowledge.. The only use for a wiki as biased as that one is because some flaming zealots have an axe to grind..

There have been controversies on WikiPedia.. But these are resolved in what I can tell is a wonderfully open process. It has been remarkably Bullshit proof. If you asked me 10 years if that would EVER happen with a Wiki --- I would have been skeptical..

That RationalWiki is simply appalling to any serious investigator... It's embarrassing.

And yet, you apparently agree with its finding that (essentially) WUWT and McIntyre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. Duly noted.

Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.

You mean "statistician" singular. As in Mcintyre. Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university. And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?

 

[IanC]

And yet, you apparently agree with its finding that (essentially) WUWT and McIntyre's site are NOT REFERENCE MATERIAL. Duly noted.

Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.

You mean "statistician" singular. As in Mcintyre. Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university. And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?

I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.


There are a large contingent of scientists from many fields who regularly comment at CA. Or didn't you know?

 

[westwall]

Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.

You mean "statistician" singular. As in Mcintyre. Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university. And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?

I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.


There are a large contingent of scientists from many fields who regularly comment at CA. Or didn't you know?

He knows, but he's intellectually dishonest so doesn't care.

 

[orogenicman]

Climate Audit is definitely a reference site. More importantly it is a site where statisticians analyze papers in real time. One discovery leads to the next. Even the false trails are enlightening. I have learned more of the techniques of climate science there than anywhere else. Anyone who can't learn something from the expert discussion there isn't paying attention.

You mean "statistician" singular. As in Mcintyre. Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university. And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?

I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.

In other words, you are a welfare 'scientist' (you want others to do the work for you; you want the information without paying for it). McIntyre is like that too. No wonder you two get along. Wow, that must be embarrassing when you go to your tea party meetings.

 

[IanC]

You mean "statistician" singular. As in Mcintyre. Climate audit is NOT a valid scientific references, and I can guarantee that were you to use it as a reference in a professional paper, they'd laugh you out of the university. And speaking of universities, if you are truly interested in learning about the scientific method, may I suggest you take a class?

I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.

In other words, you are a welfare 'scientist' (you want others to do the work for you; you want the information without paying for it). McIntyre is like that too. No wonder you two get along. Wow, that must be embarrassing when you go to your tea party meetings.

McIntyre is a forensic auditor. What skill set did you expect him to bring to the table? Should he go out and collect tree cores? Wait, didn't he actually do that?

In any other field occasional scrutinization is expected and necessary. Why do you think climate science should be exempt?

 

[orogenicman]

I am not writing referreed papers. If I want data from a certain paper I check CA first because I know I won't find it elsewhere because of paywalls.

In other words, you are a welfare 'scientist' (you want others to do the work for you; you want the information without paying for it). McIntyre is like that too. No wonder you two get along. Wow, that must be embarrassing when you go to your tea party meetings.

McIntyre is a forensic auditor. What skill set did you expect him to bring to the table? Should he go out and collect tree cores? Wait, didn't he actually do that?

In any other field occasional scrutinization is expected and necessary. Why do you think climate science should be exempt?

He worked on the stock market side of the mineral exploration business. That hardly qualifies him as a climate scientist. De holds no science degree, no advanced degree, holds no scientific certifications, but has published two articles in a journal that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. But I wasn't, strictly speaking, talking about McIntyre. I was talking about you.

 

[gslack]

In other words, you are a welfare 'scientist' (you want others to do the work for you; you want the information without paying for it). McIntyre is like that too. No wonder you two get along. Wow, that must be embarrassing when you go to your tea party meetings.

McIntyre is a forensic auditor. What skill set did you expect him to bring to the table? Should he go out and collect tree cores? Wait, didn't he actually do that?

In any other field occasional scrutinization is expected and necessary. Why do you think climate science should be exempt?

He worked on the stock market side of the mineral exploration business. That hardly qualifies him as a climate scientist. De holds no science degree, no advanced degree, holds no scientific certifications, but has published two articles in a journal that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. But I wasn't, strictly speaking, talking about McIntyre. I was talking about you.

And you hold no such degrees and here you are trying to argue it anyway.. See that's the reality here. Anyone can argue anything they choose, and if they are found right, they win. No degrees required, but if you want to win you should be able to debate it meaning some form of education would be helpful. Mcintyre was correct, degree in "climate science" or not, he can do the math well enough, actually better than the schmuck he was correcting.

And what degree did that schmuck have? Seems Shaun Marcott is a post-doctoral researcher at the oregon state university..

Home

I’m a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University working on a number of different projects that involve paleoclimatology, glacial geology, geochemistry, and both numerical and statistical modeling. Presently, I am developing a carbon dioxide record from WAIS Divide, Antarctica for the last 20,000 years, which will shed new light on the relationship between past climate changes and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
My professional interests span a broad range of geological and climatological questions that typically encompass the last 100,000 years. I consider myself an Earth Scientist, which is reflected in my research interests and education in geology, oceanography, and mathematics. Part of the pleasure I receive from my research comes from working on new approaches to long standing problems in glacial geology and paleoclimatology, the ability to split my time between the lab and field, and working with a number of different people and friends who share similar professional interests, but who approach the scientific questions much differently than I. Please explore the site where you’ll find information about myself, my research, and other areas of interest.

That is quite literally all I can find about the man... LOL, WTH is he? A paleo-climatologist? what exactly?

The vague information makes me wonder... You should be wondering as well. After all you seem to think degrees in climatology matter most...

 

[orogenicman]

McIntyre is a forensic auditor. What skill set did you expect him to bring to the table? Should he go out and collect tree cores? Wait, didn't he actually do that?

In any other field occasional scrutinization is expected and necessary. Why do you think climate science should be exempt?

He worked on the stock market side of the mineral exploration business. That hardly qualifies him as a climate scientist. De holds no science degree, no advanced degree, holds no scientific certifications, but has published two articles in a journal that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. But I wasn't, strictly speaking, talking about McIntyre. I was talking about you.

And you hold no such degrees and here you are trying to argue it anyway..

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisville and a Masters of Science degree from the University of Kentucky. I was a registered geologist for 15 years before I became disabled. From 1990 to 2003 I was an environmental consultant. Clients included The States of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, Chevron, BP, Shell, Ashland Petroleum, Enro Marketing, which is a subsidiary of Marathon, Marathon, Caterpillar, the City of Louisville, and many others. I've written over 400 proprietary environmental reports (though many are accessible via FOIA request with various agencies). I am also published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and in the Journal of the Louisville Museum of Natural History (now the Louisville science Center). And two of my astrophotographs were published today in the Courier Journal newspaper in relation to an article about the Louisville Astronomical Society's 80th anniversary, of which I am currently a board member and have been a member since 1984. That's the reality here, gslack.

And what degree did that schmuck have? Seems Shaun Marcott is a post-doctoral researcher at the oregon state university..

Right, as opposed to McIntyre, who holds no advanced degree in any field whatsoever, holds no science certifications, and is not published in any recognized peer reviewed journal. Next.