SkepticalScience vs WUWT

[SSDD]

So you'll boarding a spaceship to Nibaru, I take it?

Well maybe some of us will go and watch it take off with you and the other AGW believers..

Cults love space ships to distant paradise planets...and are always talking about them and they play a large part in their unconscious projection.

 

[Crick]

That must explain the strong affinity between deniers and former astronaut Walt Cunningham

 

[SSDD]

That must explain the strong affinity between deniers and former astronaut Walt Cunningham

Which distant paradise planet did he claim to have visited?

 

[jc456]

That must explain the strong affinity between deniers and former astronaut Walt Cunningham

Which distant paradise planet did he claim to have visited?

Perhaps some defamation of character here by ole crick. Calling a former astronaut nuts. There you go! Person with NC, no class.

 

[mamooth]

Did SkS bring up the weaknesses of the Marcott or Gergis papers? Or any of a host of other bad warmist papers?

The Gergis paper was discussed in detail at RealClimate. SKS references that, and does not use Gergis as a reference, being the paper was withdrawn for resubmission. The RealClimate discussion was free of conspiracy theories and accusations of fraud, making it much different from the witch hunts at WUWT and ClimateAudit. So, points again to the AGW side for rationality and a lack of hysteria.

Marcott, again there were detailed discussions at RealClimate, and also at Tamino. Again, actual quality discussion. Outside of the deniersphere, nobody thinks there are problems with Marcott.

So, AGW side, you get a rational discussion on such things. Denier side, not.

 

[Kosh]

Did SkS bring up the weaknesses of the Marcott or Gergis papers? Or any of a host of other bad warmist papers?

The Gergis paper was discussed in detail at RealClimate. SKS references that, and does not use Gergis as a reference, being the paper was withdrawn for resubmission. The RealClimate discussion was free of conspiracy theories and accusations of fraud, making it much different from the witch hunts at WUWT and ClimateAudit. So, points again to the AGW side for rationality and a lack of hysteria.

Marcott, again there were detailed discussions at RealClimate, and also at Tamino. Again, actual quality discussion. Outside of the deniersphere, nobody thinks there are problems with Marcott.

So, AGW side, you get a rational discussion on such things. Denier side, not.

So I take it you bordered the spaceship already, because you just posted something not even close to reality. Of course that is the nature of the AGW religion.

Any site that allows Michael Mann to post on a regular basis is not about presenting science or facts.

 

[IanC]

Did SkS bring up the weaknesses of the Marcott or Gergis papers? Or any of a host of other bad warmist papers?

The Gergis paper was discussed in detail at RealClimate. SKS references that, and does not use Gergis as a reference, being the paper was withdrawn for resubmission. The RealClimate discussion was free of conspiracy theories and accusations of fraud, making it much different from the witch hunts at WUWT and ClimateAudit. So, points again to the AGW side for rationality and a lack of hysteria.

Marcott, again there were detailed discussions at RealClimate, and also at Tamino. Again, actual quality discussion. Outside of the deniersphere, nobody thinks there are problems with Marcott.

So, AGW side, you get a rational discussion on such things. Denier side, not.

Its hard to believe we are discussing the same two papers. Gergis was shred to pieces and left unpublishable. Marcott was forced to admit all of the 20th century stuff was not statistically significant and was just left with his non inflamatory PhD thesis. Total failure for both. And yet you claim your side is the reasonable one. Hahahaha.

 

[Crick]

Did SkS bring up the weaknesses of the Marcott or Gergis papers? Or any of a host of other bad warmist papers?

The Gergis paper was discussed in detail at RealClimate. SKS references that, and does not use Gergis as a reference, being the paper was withdrawn for resubmission. The RealClimate discussion was free of conspiracy theories and accusations of fraud, making it much different from the witch hunts at WUWT and ClimateAudit. So, points again to the AGW side for rationality and a lack of hysteria.

Marcott, again there were detailed discussions at RealClimate, and also at Tamino. Again, actual quality discussion. Outside of the deniersphere, nobody thinks there are problems with Marcott.

So, AGW side, you get a rational discussion on such things. Denier side, not.

Its hard to believe we are discussing the same two papers. Gergis was shred to pieces and left unpublishable. Marcott was forced to admit all of the 20th century stuff was not statistically significant and was just left with his non inflamatory PhD thesis. Total failure for both. And yet you claim your side is the reasonable one. Hahahaha.

Reread this conversation and tell us that you believe yours is the rational position. Gergis was withdrawn and the reasons behind that were openly and clearly discussed at SKS without the paranoid denier conspiracy nonsense included. That Marcott's 20th century extrapolations were of little value is almost completely irrelevant. That was never the purpose of his research. This thread is supposed to be a discussion of the merits of the two sites. Their respective treatments of these two papers is a clear indication that WUWT is an uneducated, paranoid, amateur witch hunt compared to the discussions one sees at SKS.

 

[mamooth]

At the real-skeptic websites such as SKS and RealClimate, screaming "LIAR! FRAUD!" at people is forbidden.

At the phony-skeptic sites like WUWT and Climate Audit, it's encouraged and more or less required.

The fake-skeptic denier sites are about gossip, dogpiling and conspiracy theories, while the mainstream climate sites are about data.

 

[IanC]

The Gergis paper was discussed in detail at RealClimate. SKS references that, and does not use Gergis as a reference, being the paper was withdrawn for resubmission. The RealClimate discussion was free of conspiracy theories and accusations of fraud, making it much different from the witch hunts at WUWT and ClimateAudit. So, points again to the AGW side for rationality and a lack of hysteria.

Marcott, again there were detailed discussions at RealClimate, and also at Tamino. Again, actual quality discussion. Outside of the deniersphere, nobody thinks there are problems with Marcott.

So, AGW side, you get a rational discussion on such things. Denier side, not.

Its hard to believe we are discussing the same two papers. Gergis was shred to pieces and left unpublishable. Marcott was forced to admit all of the 20th century stuff was not statistically significant and was just left with his non inflamatory PhD thesis. Total failure for both. And yet you claim your side is the reasonable one. Hahahaha.

Reread this conversation and tell us that you believe yours is the rational position. Gergis was withdrawn and the reasons behind that were openly and clearly discussed at SKS without the paranoid denier conspiracy nonsense included. That Marcott's 20th century extrapolations were of little value is almost completely irrelevant. That was never the purpose of his research. This thread is supposed to be a discussion of the merits of the two sites. Their respective treatments of these two papers is a clear indication that WUWT is an uneducated, paranoid, amateur witch hunt compared to the discussions one sees at SKS.

I just searched SkS for articles on Gergis 2012 and only found the announcement of the paper being published. thanks in advance for linking me up with their explanation of what went wrong and why the paper was retracted.

I just searched SkS for articles on Marcott 2013. I found more articles than on gergis but they didnt deal with the criticisms. why is that? dont the readers of SkS want to know about the problems? more time was spent on ranting about how unfair Watts and McIntyre are than clearing up the issues.

to reiterate; gergis 2012 did not follow their written methodology and could not fix the paper so it was retracted. Climate Audit and WUWT followed the whole progression with details about the flaws, and the discussions between the authors and the journal. SkS had nothing but the announcement of the paper before it received 'web review' rather than 'pal review'.

SkS likewise refused to discuss the problems in Marcott 2013 and none of the criticisms were put down in detail so that their casual readers would even know what the fuss was about. lots of ad homs against Watts and McIntyre though.


I have a strong suspicion that knowledgible warmists know they have to go to skeptical sites if they actually want to find out details about contested data, proxies, etc. they just arent there on warmist sites.

 

[IanC]

At the real-skeptic websites such as SKS and RealClimate, screaming "LIAR! FRAUD!" at people is forbidden.

At the phony-skeptic sites like WUWT and Climate Audit, it's encouraged and more or less required.

The fake-skeptic denier sites are about gossip, dogpiling and conspiracy theories, while the mainstream climate sites are about data.

I encourage all of the readers here to simply pick a subject that they are interested in, and then go to both sites and see how much information is presented by each side. and by all means read the comment section to see how the readers react and interact. then decide.

 

[mamooth]

Dont the readers of SkS want to know about the problems?

Most sites don't publish UFO theories of global warming either. Clearly, that's also a conspiracy.

I have a strong suspicion that knowledgible warmists know they have to go to skeptical sites if they actually want to find out details about contested data, proxies, etc. they just arent there on warmist sites.

Are you getting any traction with the conspiracies outside the denier bubble? No? No matter. That just confirms the righteousness of your cause. If nobody is paying attention to the conspiracies, it proves the conspiracies are correct.

 

[IanC]

Dont the readers of SkS want to know about the problems?

Most sites don't publish UFO theories of global warming either. Clearly, that's also a conspiracy.

I have a strong suspicion that knowledgible warmists know they have to go to skeptical sites if they actually want to find out details about contested data, proxies, etc. they just arent there on warmist sites.

Are you getting any traction with the conspiracies outside the denier bubble? No? No matter. That just confirms the righteousness of your cause. If nobody is paying attention to the conspiracies, it proves the conspiracies are correct.

Hey, I admit I don't read SkS much anymore. Perhaps I just missed where they discussed why Gergis12 was retracted. Care to link me up?

 

[mamooth]

So why do you think they should have made a special report that one paper out of thousands was retracted, along with many other papers that were retracted?

Others don't necessarily share your opinion concerning what's vitally important. Can you explain why it's so vitally important that it warrants a special breaking news top headline billing?

 

[IanC]

So why do you think they should have made a special report that one paper out of thousands was retracted, along with many other papers that were retracted?

Others don't necessarily share your opinion concerning what's vitally important. Can you explain why it's so vitally important that it warrants a special breaking news top headline billing?

reeeeeeeeealy? are retracted new paleo reconstruction hockeystick papers so common that they do not warrant discussion? interesting....

care to name a few more?

basically the main reason why it was retracted is because they stated it wasnt made from cherrypicked data. but it was. I expect the next one will learn a lesson from this and simply cherrypick....