Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[gslack]

lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....

The only thing busted here is your brain, g'tard. I notice that once again, as usual, you have no real response to actual scientific research that invalidates your denier cult myths.

 

[gslack]

lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....

The only thing busted here is your brain, g'tard. I notice that once again, as usual, you have no real response to actual scientific research that invalidates your denier cult myths.

Dumbass I posted full post showing your bullshit and you ignored it and posted more of the same bullshit. Its what you do ...

And since you decided to show your ass and insult my mother with no apology, you do not deserve anything more than contempt.

 

[Oddball]

No evidence, huh?

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008

The Navy requires accurate sea ice information for their operations, and has spent a lot of effort over the years studying, measuring, and operating in Arctic ice both above and below, such as they did in the ICEX 2009 exercise.

The US Navy attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009. The two-week training exercise, which is used to test submarine operability and war-fighting capability in Arctic conditions, also involved the USS Helena (SSN 725), the University of Washington and personnel from the Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

So, if you are planning on bringing a $900 million Los Angeles class submarine through the ice, as the captain might say to the analyst after receiving an ice report: “you’d better be damn sure of the ice thickness before I risk the boat and the crew”.

Below is a blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, zoomed to show the primary Arctic ice zone.

Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?

Lemmie guess...The United States Navy is now a bunch of "deniers!"

 

[gslack]

Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.

Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity

Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH....

Denier Cult Myths: Climate scientists never talk about water vapor -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

BUllshit... On various levels...

1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...

2. This sentence in the above quote.. "It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."

Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?

3. This sentence above...."It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."

Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either.... Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

BULLSHIT!

1. What the fuck does "(in terms of climate response times)" mean exactly? pretty ambiguous statement really, could mean anything... We call that a bullshit statement. Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...

2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."

Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure.... Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...

Completely ignorant and anyone who uses this as some kind of evidence of anything other that the authors ignorance, is a complete moron....

3. This entire paragraph really....."This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."

OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..

precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????
WTF??????

The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!!

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

More bullshit....

1. The following sentence..... "CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess."

Oh Really???? So CO2 from fossil fuels is different than other CO2? And natural sinks are the only way it is removed from the atmosphere now? Meaning of course no ocean acidification from man made CO2 emissions... If fossil fuel CO2 (man made) relies on sinks to be removed from the atmosphere than no way it can be adding to the oceans acidity....

You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...


Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????


RE-POST for the tool who tried to ignore it...

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.

Oh must I, can you do nothing for yourself? OK, here is one site I found after a cursory check....

Mount Toba Eruption – Ancient Humans Unscathed, Study Claims Anthropology.net

Excellant site. Thank you.

Here's a favorite source of yours so that people can see what you base your opinion on,
You should notice at the top they say the following..

"This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Geology or the Geology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2009)"

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And this link deals with the genetic conditions of the possible effects of the explosion.

Mt Toba Eruption 74,000 years ago

Now I love volcanoes as much as any geologist. And I know what they can accomplish having been near them at full boil. And I assure you that they are extraordinarily powerful
and when there is another Long Valley Caldera type eruption, most life will perish down wind from that eruption.

But the Toba theory as I said has some major problems. First off the genetic bottleneck occured sometime between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago. That is quite simply far too much time to have to deal with. If the bottleneck occured 5,000 years plus or minus the Toba explosion I would certainly be more inclined to give it some creedence, but 100,000 years? I think that is asking an awful lot...don't you?

Secondly the ash fall was predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. So while I agree that
life would certainly be much more difficult there, we once again do not see a mass extinction of the megafauna (like tigers etc.) in the region. If people couldn't make it neither could anything else.

Lastly there is actually quite a lot of archeaological evidence that shows people doing quite well after the Toba eruption and Java man did very well indeed up till around 40,000 years bp (I missed a zero on my first post).

So yes it's an interesting hypothesis, but it still lacks quite a bit of evidence to support it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just means it lacks the evidence so far.

Damn, a reasonable post. With an excellant source cited. Thank you, again.

 

[gslack]

Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.

Oh must I, can you do nothing for yourself? OK, here is one site I found after a cursory check....

Mount Toba Eruption – Ancient Humans Unscathed, Study Claims Anthropology.net

Excellant site. Thank you.

Here's a favorite source of yours so that people can see what you base your opinion on,
You should notice at the top they say the following..

"This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Geology or the Geology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2009)"

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And this link deals with the genetic conditions of the possible effects of the explosion.

Mt Toba Eruption 74,000 years ago

Now I love volcanoes as much as any geologist. And I know what they can accomplish having been near them at full boil. And I assure you that they are extraordinarily powerful
and when there is another Long Valley Caldera type eruption, most life will perish down wind from that eruption.

But the Toba theory as I said has some major problems. First off the genetic bottleneck occured sometime between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago. That is quite simply far too much time to have to deal with. If the bottleneck occured 5,000 years plus or minus the Toba explosion I would certainly be more inclined to give it some creedence, but 100,000 years? I think that is asking an awful lot...don't you?

Secondly the ash fall was predominantly on the Indian subcontinent. So while I agree that
life would certainly be much more difficult there, we once again do not see a mass extinction of the megafauna (like tigers etc.) in the region. If people couldn't make it neither could anything else.

Lastly there is actually quite a lot of archeaological evidence that shows people doing quite well after the Toba eruption and Java man did very well indeed up till around 40,000 years bp (I missed a zero on my first post).

So yes it's an interesting hypothesis, but it still lacks quite a bit of evidence to support it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just means it lacks the evidence so far.

Damn, a reasonable post. With an excellant source cited. Thank you, again.

Yeah and he obviously READ the source well enough too....Learning anything yet tool?

 

[jeffrockit]

Not really.

I give you links supporting my argument and the best you can come back with is "not really". I guess if I were still in school, I would respond with a "sez you". Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and your comprehension.

Personal insults are not going to stop the ice cap from melting.

You guys really are grasping at straws.

Claiming personal insults (which there were not) will not change the fact that you warmers have been proven wrong, your "scientist" have been proven as liars that falsify info to fit their personal belief system. That is not how science works because if it were we would probably still believe the Earth is flat. I would say those are more than "straws". When faced with facts that the islands are increasing in size, you chose to divert the discussion.

 

[jeffrockit]

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests.

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com

And yet with all the hysteria we get this
Pacific Islands Growing, Not Sinking

Wow....you are spectacularly clueless, jeffrockhead. The thread topic is Arctic sea ice so you are way off topic but the real hoot is how awful and phony your source is. You must be really gullible to believe a nutjob like Benny Peiser or anything off of denier cult blog like his. He is a social anthropologist and has no education, training or experience in climate science. He is a proven liar. His claims about the islands are false. You've been duped, again.

Benny Peiser

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. He runs CCNet (network) and is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

Peiser makes invalid claims on climate change scientific consensus

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[1] Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[2][3][4]

Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"

Peiser claims to be a climate change "skeptic," but on October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." [1]

Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist or Climate Policy Analysist

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser's departmental webpage describes him as:-[5]

* Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
* Main research interests:
o societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
o social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
o ritualised and sanctioned violence
o origins and evolution of sport


(Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.)

You lost me with the immature name calling. I gave that up in high school but maybe you are still their. Don't like the facts, attack the messenger or the site it is posted on or any number of outs you warmers seem to have.

 

[gslack]

Another attempt at this same topic from chris??

How many times you going to try this same topic dude?

Its been busted every time so far, but hey its not about truth because truth is what you make it right???

LOL

 

[gslack]

And yet with all the hysteria we get this
Pacific Islands Growing, Not Sinking

Wow....you are spectacularly clueless, jeffrockhead. The thread topic is Arctic sea ice so you are way off topic but the real hoot is how awful and phony your source is. You must be really gullible to believe a nutjob like Benny Peiser or anything off of denier cult blog like his. He is a social anthropologist and has no education, training or experience in climate science. He is a proven liar. His claims about the islands are false. You've been duped, again.

Benny Peiser

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. He runs CCNet (network) and is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

Peiser makes invalid claims on climate change scientific consensus

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[1] Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[2][3][4]

Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"

Peiser claims to be a climate change "skeptic," but on October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." [1]

Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist or Climate Policy Analysist

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser's departmental webpage describes him as:-[5]

* Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
* Main research interests:
o societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
o social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
o ritualised and sanctioned violence
o origins and evolution of sport


(Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.)

You lost me with the immature name calling. I gave that up in high school but maybe you are still their. Don't like the facts, attack the messenger or the site it is posted on or any number of outs you warmers seem to have.

Sourcewatch??? Again!!!!

Already busted that liberal PR firm twice now... Shall we do it again??

 

[Old Rocks]

I give you links supporting my argument and the best you can come back with is "not really". I guess if I were still in school, I would respond with a "sez you". Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and your comprehension.

Personal insults are not going to stop the ice cap from melting.

You guys really are grasping at straws.

Claiming personal insults (which there were not) will not change the fact that you warmers have been proven wrong, your "scientist" have been proven as liars that falsify info to fit their personal belief system. That is not how science works because if it were we would probably still believe the Earth is flat. I would say those are more than "straws". When faced with facts that the islands are increasing in size, you chose to divert the discussion.

Hey dingleberry, how about linking some sites for your points? You do know how to do that, do you not? Otherwise, your yap-yap is just unsupported yap-yap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Come on, Suckee...... Demonstrate that Source Watch is wrong. We have demonstrated numerous times that your wingnut sources are not only wrong, but supported by those who stand to lose money if action is taken to alleviate the problems that the inevitable change in climate will create.

 

[Old Rocks]

More than I ever learned from you, Suckeee........ Now why don't you give me a pleasant surprise and post something that is interesting, informative, and accurate?

 

[gslack]

More than I ever learned from you, Suckeee........ Now why don't you give me a pleasant surprise and post something that is interesting, informative, and accurate?

Like the way I wreck your bullshit propaganda? Sure just post some more....

 

[gslack]

Come on, Suckee...... Demonstrate that Source Watch is wrong. We have demonstrated numerous times that your wingnut sources are not only wrong, but supported by those who stand to lose money if action is taken to alleviate the problems that the inevitable change in climate will create.

Already did that..remember? it was you who helped me...LOL

 

[gslack]

Like this post for instance???

Ocean Acidification #92

here is its contents....

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

But Watts does not have either certification. They require a degree, which Anthony Watts does not have.

Dude I said it once and I will say it again... Sourcewatch is unreliable.... Completely and totally run by irresponsible and unethical lazy dipshits... here is the proof....

Your link to source watch page on anthony watts.... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

They claim the following part you keep commenting on. In their words....

Credentials held
Watts holds an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval (a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology from an accredited college/university)[6] with a status of "retired".[7]

Now see the little numbers on the site next to the claims they make? Those are for references to back the claims.... pay close attention to number 6. shown on the site as subscript number 6 just after the college/university words.

Well I followed the link and low and behold I get this site...Untitled
The site says the following....

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

WOW!...... Just completely and totally WOW!!!! UNFUCKINGBELEIVABLE!!!!!!

YOUR site source watch caught red-handed and bald faced outright and undeniably lying through there fucking teeth!!!!!!!!

You two bit, pseudo-science pushing, shit talking imbecile..... NOW do me and everyone else here a favor and kiss both sides of my ass you complete and total hack!!!!!

yeah they lied man......

 

[RollingThunder]

Like this post for instance???

Ocean Acidification #92

here is its contents....

Credentials not held
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts posesses neither certification.[10],[11]

Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

But Watts does not have either certification. They require a degree, which Anthony Watts does not have.

Dude I said it once and I will say it again... Sourcewatch is unreliable.... Completely and totally run by irresponsible and unethical lazy dipshits... here is the proof....

Your link to source watch page on anthony watts.... Anthony Watts - SourceWatch

They claim the following part you keep commenting on. In their words....

[/B]
Now see the little numbers on the site next to the claims they make? Those are for references to back the claims.... pay close attention to number 6. shown on the site as subscript number 6 just after the college/university words.

Well I followed the link and low and behold I get this site...Untitled
The site says the following....

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.

WOW!...... Just completely and totally WOW!!!! UNFUCKINGBELEIVABLE!!!!!!

YOUR site source watch caught red-handed and bald faced outright and undeniably lying through there fucking teeth!!!!!!!!

You two bit, pseudo-science pushing, shit talking imbecile..... NOW do me and everyone else here a favor and kiss both sides of my ass you complete and total hack!!!!!

yeah they lied man......

I tried googling Watts and could not find any sources, including wikipedia which usually lists people's education and degrees, that talk about his education or degrees. Even the sites like the Heartland Institute who promote Watts don't cite any degrees or talk about his education. He had worked as a TV broadcast weather reporter for 25 years and although he managed to get the AMS Seal of Approval, he never managed to get their actual certifications, the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist or the Certified Consulting Meteorologist. As the SourceWatch piece on him mentions:
Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts possesses neither certification.[10],[11]

The AMS website says this about the Seal of Approval:
AMS Seal of Approval

The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public. Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must have applied to the Society offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application was judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded.

As the SourceWatch site mentions:
Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]

"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]

Possibly Watts got his Seal at a time when the degree requirements weren't as strict as they later became. It is rather curious that he won't reveal his educational background. But of course, he was basically just a talking head weather presenter on the tube, not a full fledged working meteorologist doing any research in the field.

I did find this:

Does Anthony Watts have a college degree?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

(I should clarify, the issue isn't whether he has a diploma or not, it's whether he has the relevant scientific education, or any scientific education for that matter. The self-taught - who've always graded their own tests, as it were - frequently don't realize what they don't know.)
-----

Neither the Wikipedia nor SourceWatch page on climate inactivist blogger Anthony Watts mentions his academic background, which leads one to wonder if he has a degree at all, much less in a relevant field.

So I asked. First I emailed him, at his company address, but got no reply; then I phoned the company, ITWorks, and asked Lisa, the nice woman at the other end of the line. She went off to find out, but returned empty-handed, saying he wasn't willing to provide that information.

So the next time you're face-to-face with Anthony, don't be at a loss for words; ask him where and when he got a degree, and in what field - then add what you find to Wikipedia and SourceWatch.


So maybe you should call him and ask him yourself, g'tard, instead of guessing.

Of course, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists.

 

[gslack]

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!

You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????

you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.

(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.


yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....

 

[Big Fitz]

G, it's why I've stopped paying attention to them. It's like fighting with a tape loop that somehow gets more personally in it's posts as time goes on.