You don't say...lol

[Confounding]

I don't trust anyone who lies. The only question is...why do you?

You are too ignorant to understand the difference between lies and adjustments in science. Surprisingly it seems some of the "scientists" in this thread are too.

 

[Confounding]

I disagree with flac when it comes to consensus science. There is NO place in science for consensus arguments. That type of science has slowed development for the three hundred years of the modern scientific methodology.

Well, doctor, I think Flac might actually understand what the word means and when/why it is appropriate to use it because his vocabulary is not limited to K-12. Do you seriously have a PhD? Flacal is the only one I believe may actually have a resume that technically allows him to call himself a scientist.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you think scientists the world over are floating a bullshit conspiracy with no evidence to support it?

in a word, Yes!

But its worse than that, they know data has been manufactured and still push the deception.

Michael Mann is a great example of this. His hockey stick has been shown a fraud and to this day he remains hiding his data from real scientist to keep the lie alive. Thousands of papers built on his deceptions. What do you think will happen when his work is exposed and his fraud confirmed?

That's part of it.. Michael Mann is one those 6 or 8 activists in labcoats that the press run for to get doom and gloom.. As in other areas where the media, fact checkers, and even some think tanks have just pissed away their credibility. this one is no different.. And they tend to use THE SAME talking heads to CREATE stories that don't really exist the way they paint them...

That's why those Bray and von Storch surveys show actual ANGER towards the media as a whole for misleading the public.. In fact, it was von Storch who dedicated his latest chapter of his career to reigning in HOW the public receives "climate science news"....

 

[flacaltenn]

You are too ignorant to understand the difference between lies and adjustments in science. Surprisingly it seems some of the "scientists" in this thread are too.

You'd see differently if you followed the WIDE diversion between the satellite record of GMAST (global mean surface temp) after about 2002... ALL these land based records like NOAA, NASA, Hadley, USE TO AGREE BRILLIANTLY with the satellite records until then.. Then all the land based systems changed their algorithms and the records look NOTHING alike.. They even wiped out the major El Nino events in the surface records THAT USED TO BE THERE....

It's not our imagination.. We know HOW they are doing this.. And it's by going back and CONSTANTLY diddling simple temperature records as far back as the 30s and 40s when surface record left most of AFRICA and the polar regions completely out..

 

[flacaltenn]

I disagree with flac when it comes to consensus science. There is NO place in science for consensus arguments. That type of science has slowed development for the three hundred years of the modern scientific methodology.

Well, doctor, I think Flac might actually understand what the word means and when/why it is appropriate to use it because his vocabulary is not limited to K-12. Do you seriously have a PhD? Flacal is the only one I believe may actually have a resume that technically allows him to call himself a scientist.

Westwall has been in both the academic sciences intimately related to climate science and on the practical side as well... He's "completely up to speed"..

You couldn't catch him...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, now show me where consensus is described anywhere within the scientific method. GO!

It doesn't have to be. It's just a word that can be used when scientists are in general agreement about something. When somebody mentions the consensus they are simply saying that there is a general agreement among scientists when it comes to this issue.

For it to be SCIENCE it does. Where did you get your so called education again? Out of a cereal box?

I am amazed that you have a PhD and fail to understand why it's not inappropriate for me to use the word consensus when describing the fact that there is a general agreement on a scientific matter. I am not saying a consensus is guaranteed to be right and leaves no room for skepticism.

Here is a quote from a pretty smart guy regarding consensus as it applies to science...and it hits the nail right on the head...you guys go on incessantly about consensus because you aren't able to provide even the first piece of observed measured evidence to support your case...if you had evidence, you wouldn't need consensus...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

“In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

There is "consensus for practical purpose" which is the type that occurs once stuff appears in multiple textbooks on the subject. THIS might be endangered due to the HASTE of declaring consensus BECAUSE politics is mightily involved, but it still holds...

 

[flacaltenn]

Because I AM a scientist, so know what I am talking about. Unlike you.

Oh, well Flacal, another alleged scientist, seems to disagree with you on some key points.

Hardly any that matter actually to our conclusions and observations. Westwall does tend to go back to the Jurassic/Cretaceous period often -- and I find THAT annoying....

 

[flacaltenn]

There's various "bars" in science to pass for consensus.

Thank you for confirming that you agree that it's not inappropriate to use that word in science when there is in fact a general agreement. You bogged what I asked for down with a lot of extra shit. You'd be wrong if you think I don't understand the nature of consensus in science. I am not an alarmist clown.

SSDD

Billy_Bob

westwall

Are you scientists and scholars seeing this? Flacal thinks there's a place for the word consensus in science. I'm pretty sure that contradicts some of your claims in this thread. What do you think about that? I look forward to your dancing and excuses.

I disagree with flac when it comes to consensus science. There is NO place in science for consensus arguments. That type of science has slowed development for the three hundred years of the modern scientific methodology.

It is consensus science that prevented plate tectonics from being an acceptable theory for at least 60 years, it is consensus science that prevented the field of paleontology from advancing for over 100 years.

I can go on and on, but the one thing that is obvious is consensus is a weapon used by poor scientists to maintain their position in academia and it needs to be eliminated.

Thanks.. I think???

 

[Confounding]

Westwall has been in both the academic sciences intimately related to climate science and on the practical side as well... He's "completely up to speed"..

You couldn't catch him...

I think you both overestimate your credentials and go out of your way to brag about them a little too often. Westwall is nobody.

 

[flacaltenn]

Most often they are found by statisticians

And these statisticians that find most of the mistakes and correct the climate scientists believe that AGW is a sham? Can you show some evidence of your claim?

They don't "believe" anything. That is the realm of religion. What they observe (that's what science does) does not comport to what we have been told. I can go back throughout history and in no place do I find anything happening now, that is inconsistent with what has happened before. And in fact, this era is by far the most stable we have experienced since the Medieval Warming Period.

I suggest you actually look at some real science and educate yourself so that you can better discuss things.

Just to clarify for Confounding, are you talking about the Medieval Warming Period that the Klimate Kult altered the past temperature record to destroy?

Yup, that very one. Amazing how mann was able to disappear it, wasn't it...

Not all THAT magical and amazing.. Global proxy studies can only provide a LONG TERM running mean of the actual temperature fluctations. It's limitation in time resolution and spatial sampling and using data that has various unknown resolving differences.. They are incapable of showing temperature swings over periods less than about 500 years at anywhere NEAR full amplitude..

Mann just simply disappeared his honesty and scientific integrity -- LOL -- by not bringing that to the public and hyped "conclusions" that his data never could support... UNTIL -- he caught someone else using the proxies to prove something else.. THEN -- he got caught admitting what I've just asserted.. Others in the proxy biz have since been very careful about "hyping" the accuracy of ice cores, tree rings, mud bug shells when combined on a "global scale"....

 

[Confounding]

Hardly any that matter

Apparently one of you believes that AGW is happening and the other believes it's a hoax floating without any real evidence.

Westwall does tend to go back to the Jurassic/Cretaceous period often -- and I find THAT annoying....

Care to explain in detail which part of my position you disagree with?

 

[flacaltenn]

Westwall has been in both the academic sciences intimately related to climate science and on the practical side as well... He's "completely up to speed"..

You couldn't catch him...

I think you both overestimate your credentials and go out of your way to brag about them a little too often. Westwall is nobody.

Gee.. That was a quick interview.. You get 10 quick posts about a complicated topic with a LONG TORTURED history and you're already GRADING us -- huh Professor? Don't think anyone here is flirting with you to win your confidence and praise...

You can THINK all you want.. I encourage and admire that.. But it didn't take me 25 years to earn my degrees or learn the 3 or 5 specialities that I have.. Twenty five years is how long I've been CLOSELY following climate science. And it's far less challenging to understand than most of what I've done in my career....

 

[flacaltenn]

Hardly any that matter

Apparently one of you believes that AGW is happening and the other believes it's a hoax floating without any real evidence.

Westwall does tend to go back to the Jurassic/Cretaceous period often -- and I find THAT annoying....

Care to explain in detail which part of my position you disagree with?

You've been completely sketchy and elusive about YOUR beliefs.. Probably on purpose hey??

Why don't you get up to tell your story and let us grade YOU???

 

[Confounding]

You've been completely sketchy and elusive about YOUR beliefs.. Probably on purpose hey??

My belief is that AGW scientists in general are not going out of their way to deceive the public, and that observations made by them are not without evidence. What they're saying should be respected and considered. Your thoughts?

Oh, and you seem to have missed part of my post. I'll reiterate for you.

Apparently one of you believes that AGW is happening and the other believes it's a hoax floating without any real evidence.

True or false?

 

[flacaltenn]

My belief is that AGW scientists in general are not going out of their way to deceive the public, and that observations made by them are not without evidence. What they're saying should be respected and considered. Your thoughts?

So you don't give a ratzass about the science anyway? You just care about that "immutable integrity of science as an infallible and venerable institution... LOL...

I SAID there's about a dozen "activists in labcoats" who are mainly responsible for "playing on people's fears" as Al Gore likes to scream.. And won't miss an opportunity to push the MARGINAL views and theory or HYPE the "worst case number" as the LIKELY scenario, or LIE about the IMPORTANCE of their own work... That's just irrefutable...

You have to understand, before the space program, what climate science could actually KNOW was quite limited. So -- it's a new field with much too much public attention on it to get their "integrity" footing...

You don't CARE what the temperature anomaly is GONNA BE in 2100? Or whether the modeling has failed to provide predictions good for even 25 years? Or whether the SATELLITE record is more reliable,less "corrected" than the 200,000 thermometer 19th Century version??

No fucking wonder you're grading US on what we know and believe... Science will protect ITSELF from primadonnas and political pressures... Hopefully, won't need you to defend it...

 

[Confounding]

So you don't give a ratzass about the science anyway?

Do you think AGW scientists are basing their claims on no evidence?

You just care about that "immutable integrity of science as an infallible and venerable institution... LOL...

You refuse to actually engage my position. Why?

I SAID there's about a dozen "activists in labcoats"

Okay, so what about all of the other ones? Are scientists and scientific institutions all over the world deliberately misleading the public and pushing hyped propaganda?

You have to understand

You should understand that a PhD doesn't make you qualified to prattle on about an area of science you're not actually a career expert in.

Oh, and I'm going to try this one more time...

Apparently one of you believes that AGW is happening and the other believes it's a hoax floating without any real evidence. True or false?

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you think AGW scientists are basing their claims on no evidence?

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe?? My question was --- "So you don't give a ratzass about the ACTUAL science?? "": Well apparently you don't and have no use for understanding what the projections are, what they are based on, and what the history of this circus has been in terms of theory, numbers or opinions...

You refuse to actually engage my position. Why?

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC... You only seem to concerned about defending every pronouncement you ever heard or read that MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY reflect what the science says...


QUOTE="Confounding, post: 22923751, member: 56667"]You should understand that a PhD doesn't make you qualified to prattle on about an area of science you're not actually a career expert in.[/QUOTE]

You have no fucking idea how fungible and transferring basic science/engineering is to other specialities and disciplines. In my background and training I've worked at Kennedy Space Center, developed and designed MANY medical instruments that went into different labs and applications, spent 7 years in Intelligence, published across 3 very different disciplines... I've detected signals and images in data that no one else could find, help marine biologists understand dolphin communications, helped develop algorithms for some of 1st earth resource satellites to classify and use their multi-spectral imagery.. Aint NO PLACE I haven't been and worked hardly..

And each time I moved from Medicine to space vehicles to basic research in AI, I've had to go learn the lingo and the basics of each application area.. Aint nothing difficult about reading and interpreting temperature records. And MODELING is one of my specialties..

My buds at Lawrence Livermore went from atomic weapons to kidney dialysis machines after the Cold war.. There's a fabric of knowledge that REQUIRED in ALL application areas..

GW/CC science is about 25 different disciplines.. That's how little you apparently know..

 

[flacaltenn]

And no. I'm interested only in the science here. Not in your pleasuring yourself by pitting members against each other when YOU have no real interest in ANY of the scientific details of this topic... Why explain nuances to some guy with a mission who won't answer basic questions about the ACTUAL science??

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that after I answered Confounding silly POST 3 comment, with THIS post 21, he ignores it. His question was honestly answered with another source, but he ignored it anyway.

Then I responded to his never ending dishonest complaint about WUWT he had answered Flacaltenn with. My reply at POST 243 makes clear that the DANISH website says essentially the same thing WUWT said about a retraction over faulty temperature data. WUWT was factually correct and posted the DMI tweets and a link to their website, to back it up.

Now his reply at POST 257, is the same cup of mendacious bullcrap since he KNOWS he can't answer his irrational deflections over the properly reported retraction, he just wants to flog WUWT no matter what, that is a truly small minded behavior of someone who can't tell the difference between a good article and a bad one. He never has showed WUWT being wrong or dishonest about the Retraction news, just scream about them like a little child who flops all over the floor turning blue in the face.

His reply:

"The difference being that one source is an opponent of AGW science and the other isn't. Do you really not understand why that is significant? The scientists being propped up by you clowns for their "whistle-blowing" still believe that AGW is happening. They are the same kinds of scientists you call frauds and liars."

All you offer here are irrational thoughts and comical biases. It must gall you to see that WUWT is NUMBER ONE science blog on the internet, far outpacing the never winning crappy warmist blog sites you seem to be so easily conned by, the warmist blog sites that have a long known reputation of censoring civil skeptical replies and even just ban to stop the rational arguments skeptics provides.

This topic was about a Greenland’s ‘Record Temperature’ denied – the data was wrong, but all you have done here is pee all over the thread with your I don't like WUWT whine.

You must be a miserable person when you write like that every day, Why not just make a debate instead over the evidence/data of any article posted, or stay away without all the whining over the source of an article, which doesn't help you when the claims in the article gets ignored?

 

[westwall]

Do you think AGW scientists are basing their claims on no evidence?

what kind of question is that to MY QUESTION of what YOU believe?? My question was --- "So you don't give a ratzass about the ACTUAL science?? "": Well apparently you don't and have no use for understanding what the projections are, what they are based on, and what the history of this circus has been in terms of theory, numbers or opinions...

You refuse to actually engage my position. Why?

Apparently, you HAVE NO POSITION on whether GW/CC is a nuisance, a concern, or a freak-out PANIC... You only seem to concerned about defending every pronouncement you ever heard or read that MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY reflect what the science says...


QUOTE="Confounding, post: 22923751, member: 56667"]You should understand that a PhD doesn't make you qualified to prattle on about an area of science you're not actually a career expert in.

You have no fucking idea how fungible and transferring basic science/engineering is to other specialities and disciplines. In my background and training I've worked at Kennedy Space Center, developed and designed MANY medical instruments that went into different labs and applications, spent 7 years in Intelligence, published across 3 very different disciplines... I've detected signals and images in data that no one else could find, help marine biologists understand dolphin communications, helped develop algorithms for some of 1st earth resource satellites to classify and use their multi-spectral imagery.. Aint NO PLACE I haven't been and worked hardly..

And each time I moved from Medicine to space vehicles to basic research in AI, I've had to go learn the lingo and the basics of each application area.. Aint nothing difficult about reading and interpreting temperature records. And MODELING is one of my specialties..

My buds at Lawrence Livermore went from atomic weapons to kidney dialysis machines after the Cold war.. There's a fabric of knowledge that REQUIRED in ALL application areas..

GW/CC science is about 25 different disciplines.. That's how little you apparently know..[/QUOTE]




Did you work on Landsat 1? I was brought in by SBRC to help them and Hughes with the MSS.