Australia See's the Light...

[Abraham3]

Abe:: I simply accepted your word that Cooker and Nutti didn't lie.. But YOU ARE --- when you continue to assert daily ANYTHING about "97% of ALL Climate Scientists....... " (without the qualification)

Sorry, but no. Cook, Nuccitelli et al's work is valid. So is the work of Oreskes, Doran, Zimmerman, Bray, von Storch, Harris Interactive and the Proceeding of the National Academies of Science. If you think all these people are lying, you need to find a good shrink.

Abe:: I simply accepted your word that Cooker and Nutti OTH ---- when Cooker and Nutti SAW that 66% of their reviewed papers showed NO OPINION, ETHICAL pollsters would have probably junked the methodology and the results.

Why?

Abe:: I simply accepted your word that Cooker and Nutti
And what I DO BELIEVE --- having skimmed this POS ----- is that their "classification" process of comments, and their MOTIVATION for gaining a PR product was Tremendous bias --- and is why ed many journals refused to print their later propaganda.

What journals have suggested their work is propaganda and have refused to print it? It was a homegrown, "citizen-science" project, just like Watts is so fond of pushing. That Nature or Science wouldn't publish it should come as a surprise to no one.

I'm still waiting for you to identify, SPECIFICALLY, the lie(s) you find in their letter. If you cannot, you need to retract your accusations.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well if you can use highly questionable and ideologically skewed websites as the basis for your arguments, you can't really object if we do the same can you?

I won't hold it against you for using such sites because, let's face it, it's pretty much all you've got. But it's good to hear someone on your side of the argument admit that at least some of your sources are "highly questionable and ideologically skewed". However...

The only website referenced in my post is IOPscience. If you think IOP is a biased site, I suggest you look a little further into the matter. There was also a secondary reference to Environmental Research Letters (a journal). If you think THEY are "highly questionable and ideologically skewed", I again suggest you've failed to do your homework.

So in rebuttal:

I haven't seen Cook or Nuccitelli calling anyone "clowns". This must be a trait of superior intellectual prowess and debating rigour that I'd somehow missed.



No. The "authors of 11,944 climate abstracts" made no such statement. This is a quote from Cook & Nuccitelli's abstract, used without giving proper credit.



No. I have just re-reviewed Cook et al's letter and I do not find this point nor do I find the value 97.1% applied anywhere to self-assessment results.

A more pertinent point along these lines is that a significant number of authors whose abstracts were rated as expressing no opinion or rejecting AGW, stated when asked that their papers (ie, not just the abstracts that Cook et al rated) supported the IPCC position. In Table 5 we see that the rate of IPCC endorsement went from 36.9% (per abstracts) to 62.7% (per self-ratings). The rate of no-position abstracts was found to be 62.5% but dropped to 35.5% among the self-rated evaluations. That is, more than half the authors whose abstracts had been rated to express no position stated that their papers expressly endorsed the IPCC position. And, finally, supporting your side's claims of growing disagreement, the number of papers rejecting the IPCC position in their abstracts tripled when authors were surveyed, going from 0.6% to 1.8%.



Where? By who?



Again, NO. Your math is incorrectly applied. They found 32.6% of ALL abstracts to endorse AGW. Those endorsing papers made up 97.1% of all papers EXPRESSING AN OPINION. Multiplying those two numbers produces a meaningless value.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds only 32.6% of climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming

Over and over again the folks on your side of the argument keep trying to claim that not expressing an opinion is equivalent to rejecting the IPCC position and the theory of AGW. IT IS NOT. Anyone who says so, implicitly or explicitly IS LYING TO YOU

And within this paragraph is the link again to this very well researched summary at Wattsupwiththat:
cook Nuccitelli | Search Results | Watts Up With That?

Wattsup, however, is a highly respected investigated and research site often quoted by those both on the left and right and cannot be legitamately accused of ideological bias.

Where in GOD'S NAME did you get THAT idea?!?!?

A few days ago I suggested you look up the technical qualifications of Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, Bob Tisdale, Steve McIntyre and Christopher Monckton. I'm going to take a wild guess that you didn't do that.

Anthony Watts never finished college. There is actually some doubt whether or not he ever attended. He was a television weatherman who started a company providing weather-related computer graphics to local news outlets around the country and got quite rich. He got a bug up his butt about urbanization around NWS weather stations causing higher temperature readings - his original hypothesis was that this Urban Heat Island effect (UHI) was the actual cause of perceived global warming. That, of course, turned out to be complete nonsense but he's milked it for all its worth. Watts is NOT highly respected. Investigations of his work and almost all the third party material he hosts, have shown it to be seriously and consistently flawed. NO ONE among actual climate scientists quotes or cites Watts save when writing about the follies of climate change deniers. Sorry to bust your bubble, but as far as real science goes, Watts is less than nobody. Do feel free to look him up yourself.

Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(meteorologist)

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

Anthony Watts | DeSmogBlog

WEBCommentary(tm) - Watts Up With That?

Anthony Watts - RationalWiki

http://www.whoislog.info/profile/anthony-watts-1.html

Again Abraham, I will not waste my time debating with the chopped up posts. It is frustrating to those trying to follow the thread, it too often distorts the writer's intent by separating the statement from any qualifiers or the full context of his/her remarks, and it is tedious and boring as hell.

I did not dis IOPscience, They were quoted in the source I linked. But IOPscience does not create the material on their website themselves but are in business to publish the work of others and they do not distinguish between the credible and the quacks. And I doubt you or the other AGW religionists would consider any person or any website qualified as a credible source if they in any way disagreed with the dogma and creed of the religion you embrace.

And I don't remember ever quoting any of the people you mention with the possible exception of Monckton who I might have quoted at least once on another thread. I did not write the information you accuse me of creating and you demonstrate again your serious reading deficiency in that you so often are unable to read and comprehend what the other person is clearly stating.

I know Anthony Watts, or at least his website, is highy respected because of all the awards he has won for it, the fact that it is likely the most viewed website on climate science out there, and the fact that people like you and other leftwing, partisan, and/or tunnel visioned sources go out of their way to trash him so often. Neverthless, I see the information from that site frequently quoted by those both on the left and right.

 

[Abraham3]

I did not dis IOPscience, They were quoted in the source I linked. But IOPscience does not create the material on their website themselves but are in business to publish the work of others and they do not distinguish between the credible and the quacks. And I doubt you or the other AGW religionists would consider any person or any website qualified as a credible source if they in any way disagreed with the dogma and creed of the religion you embrace.

And I don't remember ever quoting any of the people you mention with the possible exception of Monckton who I might have quoted at least once on another thread. I did not write the information you accuse me of creating and you demonstrate again your serious reading deficiency in that you so often are unable to read and comprehend what the other person is clearly stating.

I know Anthony Watts, or at least his website, is highy respected because of all the awards he has won for it, the fact that it is likely the most viewed website on climate science out there, and the fact that people like you and other leftwing, partisan, and/or tunnel visioned sources go out of their way to trash him so often. Neverthless, I see the information from that site frequently quoted by those both on the left and right.

You accused me of having made use of material from "highly questionable and politically ideological" websites and used that assumption as an excuse to do the same. I suspected that you thought I'd referred to Skeptical Science.com (to which your description does NOT apply) but thought I'd point out that I had done no such thing

No science journal creates the material in their publication. And IOPScience does not publish the work of quacks. Have a look at IOPscience and correct your misperceptions.

When I talk about someone's qualifications, it has been, virtually without exception, centered about their education, training and experience. I have criticized persons such as Roger Pielke Sr for his age and Roy Spencer for his extremist religious views, but I believe these are pertinent criticisms when discussing the real level of their expertise; they are factors that have a real effect or simply shed light on the quality of their judgement.

I embrace no religion and the practice you and yours have taken up of making such an accusation is worse than pointless. Deniers are far more likely to, effectively, idolize certain individuals - primarily because you have so few to choose from. You would have a hard time demonstrating that any of us in the "AGW-is-real" camp consistently quote or refer to any given individual. You will find that there will be much mention of new studies when they are fresh, but do not mistake this for evidence that we are fixated with the authors. As it should be, it is the substance of these studies - the EVIDENCE - that we are following. A review of the denier postings would find far more personal commentary attached to names like Phil Jones, Michael Mannn, Kevin Trenberth, Shawn Marcotte and now John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Like most folks here (on both sides) I had never heard of any of these folks until they published something noteworthy or (as in Mann's case) became a target for insane levels of unjustified, denier persecution.

The names I suggested you look up are all regular contributors to WattsUpWithThat. You had mentioned Anthony Watts and I was attempting to give you a more objective review of his websites true scientific value. You may recall at the time that you had just posted factually incorrect characterizations of Cook and Nuccitelli's qualifications (something you have yet to admit and retract).

" I did not write the information you accuse me of creating..." What information did I falsely accuse you of having created?

You're not doing your homework. Anthony Watts is very proud of having been named "Best Science and Technology blog, THREE TIMES, by WordPress.com. This is not an award presented by scientists or technologists, it is a LITTLE known contest of the "click-to-vote variety, which Watts and several other denialist bloggers have been gaming for some time in order to lay claim to scientific worth they can gain by no other means. Have a read here: Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners! | Wott's Up With That?.

Globally, Watts site ranks 10,110th in popularity. In the US, he moves way up, rating 4,762nd. Wattsupwiththat.com Site Info

The comment that WUWT was the "the world's most viewed climate website" came from Fred Pearce, author of 'The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming'. The comment was off the cuff and was not based on any hard data.

Watts site was also named by 'The Times' one of the world's 30 best science blogs. That's Rupert Murdoch's 'Times'.

Watts has received at least $88,000 in funding from the Heartland Institute.

 

[westwall]

I did not dis IOPscience, They were quoted in the source I linked. But IOPscience does not create the material on their website themselves but are in business to publish the work of others and they do not distinguish between the credible and the quacks. And I doubt you or the other AGW religionists would consider any person or any website qualified as a credible source if they in any way disagreed with the dogma and creed of the religion you embrace.

And I don't remember ever quoting any of the people you mention with the possible exception of Monckton who I might have quoted at least once on another thread. I did not write the information you accuse me of creating and you demonstrate again your serious reading deficiency in that you so often are unable to read and comprehend what the other person is clearly stating.

I know Anthony Watts, or at least his website, is highy respected because of all the awards he has won for it, the fact that it is likely the most viewed website on climate science out there, and the fact that people like you and other leftwing, partisan, and/or tunnel visioned sources go out of their way to trash him so often. Neverthless, I see the information from that site frequently quoted by those both on the left and right.

You accused me of having made use of material from "highly questionable and politically ideological" websites and used that assumption as an excuse to do the same. I suspected that you thought I'd referred to Skeptical Science.com (to which your description does NOT apply) but thought I'd point out that I had done no such thing

No science journal creates the material in their publication. And IOPScience does not publish the work of quacks. Have a look at IOPscience and correct your misperceptions.

When I talk about someone's qualifications, it has been, virtually without exception, centered about their education, training and experience. I have criticized persons such as Roger Pielke Sr for his age and Roy Spencer for his extremist religious views, but I believe these are pertinent criticisms when discussing the real level of their expertise; they are factors that have a real effect or simply shed light on the quality of their judgement.

I embrace no religion and the practice you and yours have taken up of making such an accusation is worse than pointless. Deniers are far more likely to, effectively, idolize certain individuals - primarily because you have so few to choose from. You would have a hard time demonstrating that any of us in the "AGW-is-real" camp consistently quote or refer to any given individual. You will find that there will be much mention of new studies when they are fresh, but do not mistake this for evidence that we are fixated with the authors. As it should be, it is the substance of these studies - the EVIDENCE - that we are following. A review of the denier postings would find far more personal commentary attached to names like Phil Jones, Michael Mannn, Kevin Trenberth, Shawn Marcotte and now John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Like most folks here (on both sides) I had never heard of any of these folks until they published something noteworthy or (as in Mann's case) became a target for insane levels of unjustified, denier persecution.

The names I suggested you look up are all regular contributors to WattsUpWithThat. You had mentioned Anthony Watts and I was attempting to give you a more objective review of his websites true scientific value. You may recall at the time that you had just posted factually incorrect characterizations of Cook and Nuccitelli's qualifications (something you have yet to admit and retract).

" I did not write the information you accuse me of creating..." What information did I falsely accuse you of having created?

You're not doing your homework. Anthony Watts is very proud of having been named "Best Science and Technology blog, THREE TIMES, by WordPress.com. This is not an award presented by scientists or technologists, it is a LITTLE known contest of the "click-to-vote variety, which Watts and several other denialist bloggers have been gaming for some time in order to lay claim to scientific worth they can gain by no other means. Have a read here: Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners! | Wott's Up With That?.

Globally, Watts site ranks 10,110th in popularity. In the US, he moves way up, rating 4,762nd. Wattsupwiththat.com Site Info

The comment that WUWT was the "the world's most viewed climate website" came from Fred Pearce, author of 'The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming'. The comment was off the cuff and was not based on any hard data.

Watts site was also named by 'The Times' one of the world's 30 best science blogs. That's Rupert Murdoch's 'Times'.

Watts has received at least $88,000 in funding from the Heartland Institute.

Ooooooh, a whole 88,000 Wow. That's a shit ton of money. Of course Mann received 2,400,000 dollars from the stimulus program. I bet that stimulated him a bunch.

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

And how about that doyen of the climate world Phil Jones, that incompetent fool (who can't even plot a trend in EXCEL) has received over 13.7 million pounds of public money. Imagine that, a "world renowned" climatologist can't do something my 7 year old now knows how to do.

Pathetic. And you idiots think these guys actually are competent.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants

The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants - Telegraph

 

[Abraham3]

I did not dis IOPscience, They were quoted in the source I linked. But IOPscience does not create the material on their website themselves but are in business to publish the work of others and they do not distinguish between the credible and the quacks. And I doubt you or the other AGW religionists would consider any person or any website qualified as a credible source if they in any way disagreed with the dogma and creed of the religion you embrace.

And I don't remember ever quoting any of the people you mention with the possible exception of Monckton who I might have quoted at least once on another thread. I did not write the information you accuse me of creating and you demonstrate again your serious reading deficiency in that you so often are unable to read and comprehend what the other person is clearly stating.

I know Anthony Watts, or at least his website, is highy respected because of all the awards he has won for it, the fact that it is likely the most viewed website on climate science out there, and the fact that people like you and other leftwing, partisan, and/or tunnel visioned sources go out of their way to trash him so often. Neverthless, I see the information from that site frequently quoted by those both on the left and right.

You accused me of having made use of material from "highly questionable and politically ideological" websites and used that assumption as an excuse to do the same. I suspected that you thought I'd referred to Skeptical Science.com (to which your description does NOT apply) but thought I'd point out that I had done no such thing

No science journal creates the material in their publication. And IOPScience does not publish the work of quacks. Have a look at IOPscience and correct your misperceptions.

When I talk about someone's qualifications, it has been, virtually without exception, centered about their education, training and experience. I have criticized persons such as Roger Pielke Sr for his age and Roy Spencer for his extremist religious views, but I believe these are pertinent criticisms when discussing the real level of their expertise; they are factors that have a real effect or simply shed light on the quality of their judgement.

I embrace no religion and the practice you and yours have taken up of making such an accusation is worse than pointless. Deniers are far more likely to, effectively, idolize certain individuals - primarily because you have so few to choose from. You would have a hard time demonstrating that any of us in the "AGW-is-real" camp consistently quote or refer to any given individual. You will find that there will be much mention of new studies when they are fresh, but do not mistake this for evidence that we are fixated with the authors. As it should be, it is the substance of these studies - the EVIDENCE - that we are following. A review of the denier postings would find far more personal commentary attached to names like Phil Jones, Michael Mannn, Kevin Trenberth, Shawn Marcotte and now John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Like most folks here (on both sides) I had never heard of any of these folks until they published something noteworthy or (as in Mann's case) became a target for insane levels of unjustified, denier persecution.

The names I suggested you look up are all regular contributors to WattsUpWithThat. You had mentioned Anthony Watts and I was attempting to give you a more objective review of his websites true scientific value. You may recall at the time that you had just posted factually incorrect characterizations of Cook and Nuccitelli's qualifications (something you have yet to admit and retract).

" I did not write the information you accuse me of creating..." What information did I falsely accuse you of having created?

You're not doing your homework. Anthony Watts is very proud of having been named "Best Science and Technology blog, THREE TIMES, by WordPress.com. This is not an award presented by scientists or technologists, it is a LITTLE known contest of the "click-to-vote variety, which Watts and several other denialist bloggers have been gaming for some time in order to lay claim to scientific worth they can gain by no other means. Have a read here: Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners! | Wott's Up With That?.

Globally, Watts site ranks 10,110th in popularity. In the US, he moves way up, rating 4,762nd. Wattsupwiththat.com Site Info

The comment that WUWT was the "the world's most viewed climate website" came from Fred Pearce, author of 'The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming'. The comment was off the cuff and was not based on any hard data.

Watts site was also named by 'The Times' one of the world's 30 best science blogs. That's Rupert Murdoch's 'Times'.

Watts has received at least $88,000 in funding from the Heartland Institute.

Ooooooh, a whole 88,000 Wow. That's a shit ton of money. Of course Mann received 2,400,000 dollars from the stimulus program. I bet that stimulated him a bunch.

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

And how about that doyen of the climate world Phil Jones, that incompetent fool (who can't even plot a trend in EXCEL) has received over 13.7 million pounds of public money. Imagine that, a "world renowned" climatologist can't do something my 7 year old now knows how to do.

Pathetic. And you idiots think these guys actually are competent.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants

The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants - Telegraph

Would you actually like to put the scientific competence of Phil Jones and Michael Mann up against Anthony Watts? Say the word, dude.

ps: why do you guys so frequently answer for poster Foxfyre?

 

[westwall]

You accused me of having made use of material from "highly questionable and politically ideological" websites and used that assumption as an excuse to do the same. I suspected that you thought I'd referred to Skeptical Science.com (to which your description does NOT apply) but thought I'd point out that I had done no such thing

No science journal creates the material in their publication. And IOPScience does not publish the work of quacks. Have a look at IOPscience and correct your misperceptions.

When I talk about someone's qualifications, it has been, virtually without exception, centered about their education, training and experience. I have criticized persons such as Roger Pielke Sr for his age and Roy Spencer for his extremist religious views, but I believe these are pertinent criticisms when discussing the real level of their expertise; they are factors that have a real effect or simply shed light on the quality of their judgement.

I embrace no religion and the practice you and yours have taken up of making such an accusation is worse than pointless. Deniers are far more likely to, effectively, idolize certain individuals - primarily because you have so few to choose from. You would have a hard time demonstrating that any of us in the "AGW-is-real" camp consistently quote or refer to any given individual. You will find that there will be much mention of new studies when they are fresh, but do not mistake this for evidence that we are fixated with the authors. As it should be, it is the substance of these studies - the EVIDENCE - that we are following. A review of the denier postings would find far more personal commentary attached to names like Phil Jones, Michael Mannn, Kevin Trenberth, Shawn Marcotte and now John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. Like most folks here (on both sides) I had never heard of any of these folks until they published something noteworthy or (as in Mann's case) became a target for insane levels of unjustified, denier persecution.

The names I suggested you look up are all regular contributors to WattsUpWithThat. You had mentioned Anthony Watts and I was attempting to give you a more objective review of his websites true scientific value. You may recall at the time that you had just posted factually incorrect characterizations of Cook and Nuccitelli's qualifications (something you have yet to admit and retract).

" I did not write the information you accuse me of creating..." What information did I falsely accuse you of having created?

You're not doing your homework. Anthony Watts is very proud of having been named "Best Science and Technology blog, THREE TIMES, by WordPress.com. This is not an award presented by scientists or technologists, it is a LITTLE known contest of the "click-to-vote variety, which Watts and several other denialist bloggers have been gaming for some time in order to lay claim to scientific worth they can gain by no other means. Have a read here: Congrats to all the 2013 Bloggie Finalists and Winners! | Wott's Up With That?.

Globally, Watts site ranks 10,110th in popularity. In the US, he moves way up, rating 4,762nd. Wattsupwiththat.com Site Info

The comment that WUWT was the "the world's most viewed climate website" came from Fred Pearce, author of 'The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth about Global Warming'. The comment was off the cuff and was not based on any hard data.

Watts site was also named by 'The Times' one of the world's 30 best science blogs. That's Rupert Murdoch's 'Times'.

Watts has received at least $88,000 in funding from the Heartland Institute.

Ooooooh, a whole 88,000 Wow. That's a shit ton of money. Of course Mann received 2,400,000 dollars from the stimulus program. I bet that stimulated him a bunch.

Michael Mann Received Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

And how about that doyen of the climate world Phil Jones, that incompetent fool (who can't even plot a trend in EXCEL) has received over 13.7 million pounds of public money. Imagine that, a "world renowned" climatologist can't do something my 7 year old now knows how to do.

Pathetic. And you idiots think these guys actually are competent.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants

The professor at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.

'Climategate' professor Phil Jones awarded £13 million in research grants - Telegraph

Would you actually like to put the scientific competence of Phil Jones and Michael Mann up against Anthony Watts? Say the word, dude.

ps: why do you guys so frequently answer for poster Foxfyre?

I'll put my 7 year old DAUGHTER up against Phil Jones...........................dude.

 

[bianco]

Tony Abbott is a dickhead who thinks climate change doesn't exist. He's a fuckwit wanker and I hope his own party give him the boot.

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Climate change does exist.
The climate is always changing...ice ages come and go.

Abbott is wise enough [a Rhodes Scholar] to know that levelling a massive carbon dioxide tax on Australian society was gonna make no difference to anything.

Even Gillard-Labor's Climate Commissioner said it would take 1000 years for the carbon tax to work;

Radio hosts were very polite and asked some simple but direct questions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI]1000 years for carbon tax to work says Tim Flannery - YouTube[/ame]


LOL Bet Gillard and co nearly choked on their cornflakes when they heard him say that.

 

[flacaltenn]

And, in the long run he will help more Aussies than Gillard hurt. I spend a lot of time in OZ, and no one I know was in favor of the bullshit Gillard and Co. pulled.

Climate change exists. End of story.

Climate change does exist.
The climate is always changing...ice ages come and go.

Abbott is wise enough [a Rhodes Scholar] to know that levelling a massive carbon dioxide tax on Australian society was gonna make no difference to anything.

Even Gillard-Labor's Climate Commissioner said it would take 1000 years for the carbon tax to work;

Radio hosts were very polite and asked some simple but direct questions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8hX9HXWzrI]1000 years for carbon tax to work says Tim Flannery - YouTube[/ame]


LOL Bet Gillard and co nearly choked on their cornflakes when they heard him say that.

Thanks for posting that.. It was a total beat-down.. Worth listening to it to get the gem nugget. At about 4:20, When asked how much the 5% tax would reduce global temperatures by in 2050, the clown responds with .....

"That's a bogus question"... Press him more --- "The drop will be insignificant"..

Press him again.... "It's a rough question, we're dealing with probabilities here. Won't drop for a thousand years"...

Not a great deal?? No crap...

 

[Abraham3]

Philip Douglas Jones (born April 22, 1952) is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1][2]
His research interests include instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He has also published papers on the temperature record of the past 1000 years.
He is known for maintaining a time series of the instrumental temperature record.[3] This work was featured prominently in both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports, where he was a contributing author to Chapter 12, Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, of the Third Assessment Report[4] and a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, of the AR4.[5]
Contents [show]
Education[edit]

Jones obtained a B.A. in Environmental Sciences (1973) from the University of Lancaster, an M.Sc. in Engineering Hydrology (1974) and a Ph.D. in Hydrology (1977) from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne.[1][6] His doctoral thesis was titled, A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne.[1][7]
Career[edit]

Jones has spent his entire career with the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).[8] He began as a Senior Research Associate in 1976, advancing to Reader in 1994 and later to Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences in 1998. Jones served as Director of the CRU jointly with Jean Palutikof from 1998 to 2004 and by himself since 2004.[1][9]
He was on the editorial board of the International Journal of Climatology from 1989 to 1994 and has been on the editorial board of Climatic Change since 2004.[1][2]

*****************************************************

Michael E. Mann (born 28 December 1965) is an American physicist and climatologist, currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has made significant contributions to the understanding of climate change over the last two thousand years. He has introduced techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from noisy data. He has had an outstanding publication record, including very influential papers, and has pointed out publicly the implications of dangerous climate change, in the face of political and personal attacks.[3]
Mann is well known as lead author of a paper produced in 1999 which introduced new statistical techniques for hemispherical climate reconstructions and produced what was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report published in 2001, and the graph was highlighted in several parts of the report. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of many others who contributed substantially to the reports including lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC, jointly with Al Gore.
He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection by Scientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.
Mann is author of more than 140 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, published in early 2012. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.
Contents [show]
Early life, undergraduate studies[edit]

Mann was brought up in Amherst, Massachusetts, where his father was a professor of mathematics at the University of Massachusetts. At school he was interested in math, science and computing. In 1983 he was prompted by seeing the film WarGames to write a rudimentary self-learning tic-tac-toe program which made random moves and listed losing moves which it would not repeat. Mann found a "trick" of using symmetry to reduce the number of unique moves to store so that the computer would not slow down so much.[4]
In August 1984 he went to the University of California, Berkeley, to major in physics with a second major in applied math. His second year research in the theoretical behaviour of liquid crystals used the Monte Carlo method applying randomness in computer simulations. Late in 1987 he joined a research team under Didier de Fontaine which was using similar Monte Carlo methodology to investigate the superconducting properties of yttrium barium copper oxide, modelling transitions between ordered and disordered phases.[5] He graduated with honors in 1989 with an A.B. in applied mathematics and physics.[1]
Doctoral and postgraduate studies[edit]
Mann then attended Yale University, intending to obtain a PhD in physics, and received both an MS and an MPhil in physics in 1991. His interest was in theoretical condensed matter physics but he found himself being pushed towards detailed semiconductor work. He looked at course options with a wider topic area, and was enthused by PhD adviser Barry Saltzman about climate modelling and research. To try this out he spent the summer of 1991 assisting a postdoctoral researcher in simulating the period of peak Cretaceous warmth when CO2 levels were high, but fossils indicated most warming at the poles, with little warming in the tropics. Mann then joined the Yale Department of Geology and Geophysics, obtaining an MPhil in geology and geophysics in 1993. His research focused on natural variability and climate oscillations. He worked with the seismologist Jeffrey Park, and their joint research adapted a statistical method developed for identifying seismological oscillations to find various periodicities in the instrumental temperature record, the longest being about 60 to 80 years. The paper Mann and Park published in December 1994 came to similar conclusions to a study developed in parallel using different methodology and published in January of that year, which found what was later called the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[6]
In 1994, Mann participated as a graduate student in the inaugural workshop of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Geophysical Statistics Project aimed at encouraging active collaboration between statisticians, climatologists and atmospheric scientists. Leading statisticians participated, including Grace Wahba and Arthur P. Dempster.[7]
While still finishing his PhD research, Mann met UMass climate science professor Raymond S. Bradley and began research in collaboration with him and Park. Their research used paleoclimate proxy data from Bradley's previous work and methods Mann had developed with Park, to find oscillations in the longer proxy records. "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" was published by Nature in November 1995.[8]
Another study by Mann and Park raised a minor technical issue with a climate model about human influence on climate change: this was published in 1996. In the context of controversy over the IPCC Second Assessment Report the paper was praised by those opposed to action on climate change, and the conservative organisation Accuracy in Media claimed that it had not been publicised due to media bias. Mann defended his PhD thesis on A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system in the spring of 1996,[9][10] and was awarded the Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences in the following year. He was granted his PhD in geology and geophysics in 1998.[1]

*****************************************************************

Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958)[1] is an American meteorologist[2][3] (AMS seal holder, certification retired by AMS),[4][5] president of IntelliWeather Inc.,[6] editor of the blog, Watts Up With That?,[7] and founder of the Surface Stations Project, a volunteer initiative to document the siting quality of weather stations across the United States.[8]
Contents [show]
Early life and education[edit]

Anthony Watts grew up in Indiana.[9] He attended Purdue University.[10][11] According to writer John Grant, there is no record of him graduating and he has been unwilling to discuss his education.[12]
Career[edit]

Anthony Watts began his broadcast meteorology career in 1978 as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana and then joined KHSL-TV, a CBS affiliate based in Chico, California in 1987.[5][13] He stopped using his first name "Willard" to avoid confusion with NBC's The Today Show weatherman Willard Scott.[5] Watts temporarily resigned from KHSL in 2001 but was able to negotiate more personal time to use for his private business, ITWorks.[14] In 2002 he left KHSL to devote his full-time to ITWorks.[15] He returned to KHSL part-time in 2004.[16] Watts has been the chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM, a Fox News affiliate based in Chico, California since 2002.[10][17][18] In 2002, Watts won a Chico News & Review "Readers' Best Of" award for "Best Local Personality".[19]
Watts has been the director and president of IntelliWeather Inc. since 2000,[6] and the managing member of Zev2Go LLC, an electric vehicle company since 2008.[20][21] Innovative Tech Works, Weathershop and ITWorks are all alternate business names for IntelliWeather.[22]
Watts was a member of the Chico, California school board from 2002 to 2006.[23][24][25] In 2006, he was briefly a candidate for county supervisor, to represent Chico on the Butte County Board of Supervisors, but withdrew his candidacy due to family and workload concerns.[26]
In 2010, Watts went on a speaking tour arranged by the organization, "The Climate Sceptics" to 18 locations around Australia.[27]

*******************************************************************************************************

And so one may judge by the evidence which of these three men is least qualified to speak knowledgeably concerning the climate sciences.

 

[Abraham3]

Should I assume, based on denialist practices regarding Cook & Nuccitelli, that this failure to make any comment about S Fred Singer's 'survey' is prima facie evidence that you reject it?

 

[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?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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

This is simply a false statement.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also you will note that Abraham didn't provide a link for that $88,000 that Watts allegedly received from Heartland? Why? Because the only place he would be able to find such a 'fact' would be on one of the rabid and too often dishonest environmental religionist sites that he seems to so favor.

To set the record straight about that:

Some notes on the Heartland Leak | Watts Up With That?

However, it is not difficult to find legitimate sources tracking the huge amounts of money the pro-AGW scientists are receiving. Money that would evaporate should they engage in the truth about AGW and not promote the political demand that AGW exists, that AGW is a life threatening problem for humankind, and AGW justifies more and more government control and encroachment into our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.

 

[Abraham3]

Also you will note that Abraham didn't provide a link for that $88,000 that Watts allegedly received from Heartland? Why? Because the only place he would be able to find such a 'fact' would be on one of the rabid and too often dishonest environmental religionist sites that he seems to so favor.

To set the record straight about that:

Some notes on the Heartland Leak | Watts Up With That?

I've got a better idea. Why don't we actually speak the truth here. The $88,000 of support - and numerous other means of support Watts has received from Heartland - are discussed HERE: Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, it is not difficult to find legitimate sources tracking the huge amounts of money the pro-AGW scientists are receiving. Money that would evaporate should they engage in the truth about AGW and not promote the political demand that AGW exists, that AGW is a life threatening problem for humankind, and AGW justifies more and more government control and encroachment into our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.

Again, you make these charges but you do not present ONE SINGLE F-ING SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

No evidence that scientists are pressured to falsify their results
No evidence that they ARE falsifying their results
No evidence that AGW is not a valid description of a process underway for the last 150 years
No evidence that global warming does NOT threaten humanity
No evidence that responding to global warming will encroach on anyone's liberties.

 

[Abraham3]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also you will note that Abraham didn't provide a link for that $88,000 that Watts allegedly received from Heartland? Why? Because the only place he would be able to find such a 'fact' would be on one of the rabid and too often dishonest environmental religionist sites that he seems to so favor.

To set the record straight about that:

Some notes on the Heartland Leak | Watts Up With That?

I've got a better idea. Why don't we actually speak the truth here. The $88,000 of support - and numerous other means of support Watts has received from Heartland - are discussed HERE: Anthony Watts (blogger) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, it is not difficult to find legitimate sources tracking the huge amounts of money the pro-AGW scientists are receiving. Money that would evaporate should they engage in the truth about AGW and not promote the political demand that AGW exists, that AGW is a life threatening problem for humankind, and AGW justifies more and more government control and encroachment into our liberties, options, choices, and opportunities.

Again, you make these charges but you do not present ONE SINGLE F-ING SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

No evidence that scientists are pressured to falsify their results
No evidence that they ARE falsifying their results
No evidence that AGW is not a valid description of a process underway for the last 150 years
No evidence that global warming does NOT threaten humanity
No evidence that responding to global warming will encroach on anyone's liberties.

That reading dysfunction problem kicking in for you again Abraham? Please read what it says in the link you provided. Heartland did NOT fund Watts with $88,000. It helped him RAISE $88,000 just as he and Heartland have both testified. 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.

As for what you say there is no evidence for, I won't waste my time posting the enormous amount of evidence and I numerous others have already posted here, on numerous other environmental threads, all of which you ignored then. And there is no reason to believe you would not ignore now.

You have proved that you are incapable of articulating a comprehensive argument for why you believe about anything. Just like every single one of the other AGW religionists, you have been unable to form a single coherent argument for your point of view that did not involve trashing somebody else's point of view or accusing somebody or other typical leftist SOP. And you post massive amounts of stuff from pro-AGW sites that you couldn't defend if your life depended on it.

It is THAT kind of dishonesty that makes the rest of us skeptics. When we see scientists omitting critical data again and again when it doesn't fit with the religious dogma--when we see report after report of AGW skeptics being excluded from the 'scientific journals' or omitted in the policy summaries--when we see credible news accounts that scientific study groups intentionally falsified infomration. . . .that makes skeptics out of intelligent people. And all of that has been fully documented here and/or on other environmental threads--all of which you ignored.

True science is not afraid to let in all points of view and all reasonable arguments because it seeks truth rather than validation of a political initiative or motive.

 

[Abraham3]

The anonymous source of the first $44,000 was donating to Heartland. Heartland than promises to raise the rest (and give it to Watts). ALL $88,000 came from Heartland and went to Watts. BTW, ALL of Heartland's money comes from donors, most of whom remain anonymous for some reason. I guess they're not as proud of their work as you are.

And, don't get me wrong. Heartland can help out Watts all they want. I don't like Heartland and I don't like Watts - for just about the same reasons. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they should be bed partners. I just want YOU to realize Watts is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Foxfyre]

The anonymous source of the first $44,000 was donating to Heartland. Heartland than promises to raise the rest (and give it to Watts). ALL $88,000 went from Heartland to Watts.

And, don't get me wrong. Heartland can help out Watts all they want. I don't like Heartland and I don't like Watts - for just about the same reasons. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they should be bed partners. I just want YOU to realize Watts is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh.

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.

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. 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.

 

[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.

HAHAhahhahahaaaaaaa. Find us ONE single published study that cites Watts work.

As for what you say there is no evidence for, I won't waste my time posting the enormous amount of evidence and I numerous others have already posted here, on numerous other environmental threads, all of which you ignored then. And there is no reason to believe you would not ignore now.

Pathetic.

You have proved that you are incapable of articulating a comprehensive argument for why you believe about anything. Just like every single one of the other AGW religionists, you have been unable to form a single coherent argument for your point of view that did not involve trashing somebody else's point of view or accusing somebody or other typical leftist SOP. And you post massive amounts of stuff from pro-AGW sites that you couldn't defend if your life depended on it.

I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. I believe AGW because the vast majority of the world's climate science experts believe it. The evidence is available in their studies, to which I have linked on numerous occasions; and, of course, in the first, second, third, fourth and now fifth analysis report of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.

It is THAT kind of dishonesty that makes the rest of us skeptics.

And it is that sort of dishonesty - or willful ignorance - that creates in me an extreme paucity of respect for you as a conversationalist on this topic.

When we see scientists omitting critical data again and again when it doesn't fit with the religious dogma--when we see report after report of AGW skeptics being excluded from the 'scientific journals' or omitted in the policy summaries--when we see credible news accounts that scientific study groups intentionally falsified infomration. . . .that makes skeptics out of intelligent people. And all of that has been fully documented here and/or on other environmental threads--all of which you ignored.

I agree that others have posted such accusations. But, as you yourself have seen, making accusations takes nothing but imagination and the ability to spell intelligibly. If you think your accusations have been "fully documented", you must think yourself the reincarnation of the Spanish Inquisition.

The few AGW skeptics actually submitting work rarely get published because there work doesn't stand up to peer review

The evidence supporting AGW is massive, well-documented and is very widely accepted by the world's climate science experts. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE that even BEGINS to look plausible. Until you do, you lose.

True science is not afraid to let in all points of view and all reasonable arguments because it seeks truth rather than validation of a political initiative or motive.

Do you expect medical journals to accept articles suggesting human diseases are caused by demons from Hell? Should astronomy publications publish submissions that contend the Earth is flat and the oceans pour off the edges? Should something like American Chemist publish an author who claims to have proved that all matter IS composed of earth, air, water and fire? Why not? Are these sciences afraid to let in all points of view?

Don't be an idiot. The reason skeptics suffer all this is that they are simply, factually, demonstrably wrong.

And because I know you hate dealing with a chopped up post and I'm actually a very nice guy, I will put everything together for you.

***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************

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.

As for what you say there is no evidence for, I won't waste my time posting the enormous amount of evidence and I numerous others have already posted here, on numerous other environmental threads, all of which you ignored then. And there is no reason to believe you would not ignore now.

You have proved that you are incapable of articulating a comprehensive argument for why you believe about anything. Just like every single one of the other AGW religionists, you have been unable to form a single coherent argument for your point of view that did not involve trashing somebody else's point of view or accusing somebody or other typical leftist SOP. And you post massive amounts of stuff from pro-AGW sites that you couldn't defend if your life depended on it.

It is THAT kind of dishonesty that makes the rest of us skeptics.

When we see scientists omitting critical data again and again when it doesn't fit with the religious dogma--when we see report after report of AGW skeptics being excluded from the 'scientific journals' or omitted in the policy summaries--when we see credible news accounts that scientific study groups intentionally falsified infomration. . . .that makes skeptics out of intelligent people. And all of that has been fully documented here and/or on other environmental threads--all of which you ignored.

True science is not afraid to let in all points of view and all reasonable arguments because it seeks truth rather than validation of a political initiative or motive.

********************************************

HAHAhahhahahaaaaaaa. Find us ONE single published study that cites Watts work.

Pathetic.

I'm afraid that's complete bullshit. I believe AGW because the vast majority of the world's climate science experts believe it. The evidence is available in their studies, to which I have linked on numerous occasions; and, of course, in the first, second, third, fourth and now fifth analysis report of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.

And it is that sort of dishonesty - or willful ignorance - that creates in me an extreme paucity of respect for you as a conversationalist on this topic.

I agree that others have posted such accusations. But, as you yourself have seen, making accusations takes nothing but imagination and the ability to spell intelligibly. If you think your accusations have been "fully documented", you must think yourself the reincarnation of the Spanish Inquisition.

The few AGW skeptics actually submitting work rarely get published because there work doesn't stand up to peer review

The evidence supporting AGW is massive, well-documented and is very widely accepted by the world's climate science experts. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE that even BEGINS to look plausible. Until you do, you lose.

Do you expect medical journals to accept articles suggesting human diseases are caused by demons from Hell? Should astronomy publications publish submissions that contend the Earth is flat and the oceans pour off the edges? Should something like American Chemist publish an author who claims to have proved that all matter IS composed of earth, air, water and fire? Why not? Are these sciences afraid to let in all points of view?

Don't be an idiot. The reason skeptics suffer all this is that they are simply, factually, demonstrably wrong.

And because I know you hate dealing with a chopped up post and I'm actually a very nice guy, I will put everything together for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here you go Abraham - re name a study with Anthony Watts' name on it:
New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

That one study might have contributed more to the critical knowledge of science than anything the IPCC scientists have contributed in all these years.