SkepticalScience vs WUWT

[Crick]

Prove Gleick fabricated any of the Heartland papers he released.

 

[westwall]

Prove Gleick fabricated any of the Heartland papers he released.

The overwhelming evidence says he did it. He admitted to everything else.

“Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.

FakeGate | The Heartland Institute

Peter Gleick and Pacific Institute emphasize water conservation - San Jose Mercury News

 

[Crick]

Neither of the documents poster Westwall links to in the post above state that Gleick admitted to forging the Heartland strategy document; they simply repeat Heatland's claim that he did. Additionally:

"But Gleick did not admit to faking the memo. Chris Lehane - the former Al Gore flack who is representing Gleick pro bono - notes that the two-pager contains "previously unknown facts" since confirmed. Lehane says Heartland should "get off its Trojan high horse and come clean by explaining the identity of its secret large donor.""
Global warming and earthly lies - SFGate

"Interestingly, Gleick does not, if I am reading his statement correctly, admit forgery of the strategy document from which most of the blog bombshells were derived."
Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents - Forbes

Care to try again? Gleick has never admitted to forging that document and facts within the document, unknown at the time, have since been shown to be have been correct. The memo was real. Heartland is and always has bee a complete shill producing whatever scientific "results" will best serve its conservative donors' aims.

 

[mamooth]

I'm particularly amused by the recent WUWT article from Eschenbach. At the end, he gives a long explanation as to why it's not the responsibility of Watts to make sure he's not peddling garbage, and that Watts should be encouraged to post all kinds of garbage, just so the garbage can be discussed.

The Beer Identity | Watts Up With That?

Needless to say, nobody from any rational AGW website is telling everyone why peddling garbage is desirable. They've all got this idea that science blogs should be pushing good science.

 

[mamooth]

Let's review Watts' finest hour again.

Briggs on Berkeley's forthcoming BEST surface temperature record, plus my thoughts from my visit there | Watts Up With That?
---

"I think, based on what I’ve seen, that BEST has a superior method."
...
"And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise."
---

And then, after the BEST results were published and contradicted him, came the great flipflop. Watts suddenly decided the results didn't count because peer review is the most important thing ever.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...mperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/
---
"There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review."
----

Don't worry. He flipflopped back to "peer review is totally meaningless" soon after that.

 

[Kosh]

Why WUWT well and truly sucks:

Anthony Watts
Roger Pielke Jr
Anthony Watts
Roy Spencer
Anthony Watts
Bob Tisdale
Anthony Watts
Tim Ball
Anthony Watts
William Happer
Anthony Watts
Willis Eschenbach
Anthony Watts
Christopher Monckton
Anthony Watts
Willie Soon
Anthony Watts
Sallie Bailunas
Anthony Watts
Don Easterbrook
Anthony Watts
Mark Steyn
Anthony Watts
James Taylor
Anthony Watts
Surveys by Rasmussen
and Anthony Watts

Questions?

Cool a list of those that the AGW cult can not stand due to them debunking the AGW religion.

Why are you against real science? Why do you insist on pushing the AGW cult religious scriptures? Why can you not post anything to do with science?

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

Let's look down that list and see how many real scientists we can find. Ready?

Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roger Pielke Jr: Political Scientist whose specialty is the politicization of science
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roy Spencer: PhD meteorologist, specialty is satellite telemetry, some creds, some whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Bob Tisdale: "Independent climate researcher", ie: no qualifications whatsoever
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Tim Ball: Retired Professor of geography, speaks publicly in opposition to AGW
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
William Happer: 75 yr old retired prof of atomic physics, optics & spectroscopy. Many whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willis Eschenbach: Certified massage therapist with BA in psych. No kidding.
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Christopher Monckton: MA in journalism. No science ed. Was NOT Thatcher's science advisor
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willie Soon: Astrophysicist. Famously rebutted, funded by Koch Bros and multiple oil corps
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Sallie Bailunas: Willie's BFF, famously rebutted, pair thinks warming from sun
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Don Easterbrook: World's Worst Climate Modeler
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Mark Steyn: Journalist and idiot about to sign over life saving to Michael Mann for defamation
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
James Taylor: Forbes climate shill
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Surveys by Rasmussen: The survey and polling arm of the Republican National Committee
and Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist

 

[Kosh]

God are you stupid.

Let's look down that list and see how many real scientists we can find. Ready?

Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roger Pielke Jr: Political Scientist whose specialty is the politicization of science
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roy Spencer: PhD meteorologist, specialty is satellite telemetry, some creds, some whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Bob Tisdale: "Independent climate researcher", ie: no qualifications whatsoever
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Tim Ball: Retired Professor of geography, speaks publicly in opposition to AGW
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
William Happer: 75 yr old retired prof of atomic physics, optics & spectroscopy. Many whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willis Eschenbach: Certified massage therapist with BA in psych. No kidding.
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Christopher Monckton: MA in journalism. No science ed. Was NOT Thatcher's science advisor
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willie Soon: Astrophysicist. Famously rebutted, funded by Koch Bros and multiple oil corps
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Sallie Bailunas: Willie's BFF, famously rebutted, pair thinks warming from sun
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Don Easterbrook: World's Worst Climate Modeler
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Mark Steyn: Journalist and idiot about to sign over life saving to Michael Mann for defamation
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
James Taylor: Forbes climate shill
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Surveys by Rasmussen: The survey and polling arm of the Republican National Committee
and Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist

And yet still smarter than any one of the AGW cult members here and more importantly understands real science.

 

[Kosh]

.

How much did you have to give to Al Gore to off set your carbon foot print on that post?

And yes you are correct it more like everywhere that the AGW cult pushes it's religious agenda!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

God are you stupid.

Let's look down that list and see how many real scientists we can find. Ready?

Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roger Pielke Jr: Political Scientist whose specialty is the politicization of science
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roy Spencer: PhD meteorologist, specialty is satellite telemetry, some creds, some whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Bob Tisdale: "Independent climate researcher", ie: no qualifications whatsoever
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Tim Ball: Retired Professor of geography, speaks publicly in opposition to AGW
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
William Happer: 75 yr old retired prof of atomic physics, optics & spectroscopy. Many whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willis Eschenbach: Certified massage therapist with BA in psych. No kidding.
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Christopher Monckton: MA in journalism. No science ed. Was NOT Thatcher's science advisor
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willie Soon: Astrophysicist. Famously rebutted, funded by Koch Bros and multiple oil corps
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Sallie Bailunas: Willie's BFF, famously rebutted, pair thinks warming from sun
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Don Easterbrook: World's Worst Climate Modeler
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Mark Steyn: Journalist and idiot about to sign over life saving to Michael Mann for defamation
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
James Taylor: Forbes climate shill
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Surveys by Rasmussen: The survey and polling arm of the Republican National Committee
and Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist

"Yeah, we have real science on our side"

"Tell then what they won, Vanna!"

 

[westwall]

Neither of the documents poster Westwall links to in the post above state that Gleick admitted to forging the Heartland strategy document; they simply repeat Heatland's claim that he did. Additionally:

"But Gleick did not admit to faking the memo. Chris Lehane - the former Al Gore flack who is representing Gleick pro bono - notes that the two-pager contains "previously unknown facts" since confirmed. Lehane says Heartland should "get off its Trojan high horse and come clean by explaining the identity of its secret large donor.""
Global warming and earthly lies - SFGate

"Interestingly, Gleick does not, if I am reading his statement correctly, admit forgery of the strategy document from which most of the blog bombshells were derived."
Peter Gleick Admits to Stealing Heartland Documents - Forbes

Care to try again? Gleick has never admitted to forging that document and facts within the document, unknown at the time, have since been shown to be have been correct. The memo was real. Heartland is and always has bee a complete shill producing whatever scientific "results" will best serve its conservative donors' aims.

Big fucking deal. If this case ever gets to a court of law Gleick will be found guilty. A forensic document firm found that Gleick was more than 90% probable the creator of the forged document.

Your defense of the indefensible is laughable, as is all of your nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

Prove Gleick fabricated any of the Heartland papers he released.

He admitted that he knew that they were fabrications...do you really see a difference between fabricating the papers himself and using papers that he knew were fabrications which strangely mimic his own writing style?

If your neighbor knocks on your door and asks to borrow your gun so he can kill his wife, his children, and then himself, do you think you can remain guiltless if you loan it to him?

You libs and your lack of ethics and principles are completely amazing...and tragic.

 

[SSDD]

Let's review Watts' finest hour again.

Briggs on Berkeley's forthcoming BEST surface temperature record, plus my thoughts from my visit there | Watts Up With That?
---

"I think, based on what I’ve seen, that BEST has a superior method."
...
"And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise."
---

And then, after the BEST results were published and contradicted him, came the great flipflop. Watts suddenly decided the results didn't count because peer review is the most important thing ever.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review | Watts Up With That?
---
"There’s only one problem: Not one of the BEST papers have completed peer review."
----

Don't worry. He flipflopped back to "peer review is totally meaningless" soon after that.

So if someone shows you a new sort of investment strategy which appears promising to you...and you agreed to invest in it. Sometime later, you find that the strategy wasn't all that you thought it was at first glance...do you continue to watch your money disappear or do you cut your losses?

He said that he thought it had promise...turned out that the promises weren't what they appeared to be. What's your problem...because he recognized that best wasn't what it was advertised to be prior to its completion?

There is a reason that best couldn't get that piece of crap paper published in any respectable journal.

 

[SSDD]

God are you stupid.

Let's look down that list and see how many real scientists we can find. Ready?

Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roger Pielke Jr: Political Scientist whose specialty is the politicization of science
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Roy Spencer: PhD meteorologist, specialty is satellite telemetry, some creds, some whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Bob Tisdale: "Independent climate researcher", ie: no qualifications whatsoever
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Tim Ball: Retired Professor of geography, speaks publicly in opposition to AGW
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
William Happer: 75 yr old retired prof of atomic physics, optics & spectroscopy. Many whoppers
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willis Eschenbach: Certified massage therapist with BA in psych. No kidding.
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Christopher Monckton: MA in journalism. No science ed. Was NOT Thatcher's science advisor
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Willie Soon: Astrophysicist. Famously rebutted, funded by Koch Bros and multiple oil corps
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Sallie Bailunas: Willie's BFF, famously rebutted, pair thinks warming from sun
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Don Easterbrook: World's Worst Climate Modeler
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Mark Steyn: Journalist and idiot about to sign over life saving to Michael Mann for defamation
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
James Taylor: Forbes climate shill
Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist
Surveys by Rasmussen: The survey and polling arm of the Republican National Committee
and Anthony Watts: High school diploma, didn't finish college, worked as a TV meterologist

And back to the ad hominem. If you had a valid position, you would not have to continually resort to logical fallacies in an attempt to support it. Rather than attack them personally, why not attempt to argue their points? Oh, I know...because you can't...ergo the ad hominems.

It doesn't matter whether a person is a garbage collector...if their point is valid, it is valid and pointing out that they are a garbage collector doesn't advance your own position a millimeter if you haven't effectively refuted their argument.

 

[IanC]

I'm particularly amused by the recent WUWT article from Eschenbach. At the end, he gives a long explanation as to why it's not the responsibility of Watts to make sure he's not peddling garbage, and that Watts should be encouraged to post all kinds of garbage, just so the garbage can be discussed.

The Beer Identity | Watts Up With That?

Needless to say, nobody from any rational AGW website is telling everyone why peddling garbage is desirable. They've all got this idea that science blogs should be pushing good science.

I am behind in my reading about climate current events, summer intrudes...

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

"l hear rumblings that people think that Anthony shouldn’t have published this piece of mine, or should disavow it in some fashion. This totally misunderstands both what Watts Up With That (WUWT) does, and Anthony’s position in the game. The strength of WUWT is not that it is always right or that it publishes only the best stuff that’s guaranteed to be valid.

The beauty and value of WUWT that it is the world’s premier location for public peer review of climate science. On a personal level, the public peer review afforded by WUWT is of immense use to me, because my work either gets falsified or not very quickly … or else, as in this case, there’s an interesting ongoing debate. For me, being shown to be wrong is more valuable than being shown to be right. If I’m right, well, I thought so to begin with or I wouldn’t have published it, and it doesn’t change my direction.

But if someone can point out my mistakes, it saves me endless time following blind alleys and wrong paths. And my opinions on the Kaya Identity may indeed be wrong.

There is much value in this*public defenestration of some hapless piece of bad science, whether it is mine or someone else’s. It is important to know not only which ideas are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong. When Anthony publishes scientific claims from the edges of the field, generally they are quickly either confirmed or falsified. This is hugely educational for scientists of all kinds, to know how to counter some of the incorrect arguments, as well as giving room for those unusual ideas which tomorrow may*be mainstream ideas.

So it is not Anthony’s job to determine whether or not the work of the guest authors will stand the harsh light of public exposure. That’s the job of the peer reviewers, who are you and I and everyone making defensible supported scientific comments. Even if Anthony had a year*to analyze and dissect each piece, he couldn’t do that job. There’s no way that one man’s wisdom can substitute for that of the crowd in the free marketplace of scientific ideas. Bear in mind that even with peer review, something like two-thirds of peer-reviewed science is falsified within a year, and Anthony is making judgements, publish or don’t publish, on dozens of papers every week."

I read WUWT to get exposure to interesting ideas. Others read SkS to be told how to talk to skeptics. When anew paper comes out the only way to find out its strengths and weaknesses is to read both the critics and the supporters. WUWT has both, SkS has only one.

People should read both and decide for themselves which site offers up more info.

 

[mamooth]

Indeed, we should all reading and giving serious consideration to papers about the wonders of homeopathy, how vaccines kill, the dangers of flouridation, the harmlessness of smoking and the approach of planet Nibaru.

Well, at least according to deniers, that is.

Good luck with that. Most people would say you should just avoid the junk science.

 

[SSDD]

Indeed, we should all reading and giving serious consideration to papers about the wonders of homeopathy, how vaccines kill, the dangers of flouridation, the harmlessness of smoking and the approach of planet Nibaru.

Well, at least according to deniers, that is.

Good luck with that. Most people would say you should just avoid the junk science.

Got that little mind of yours shut down tight as a drum don't you? Nothing but the true dogma in there.

 

[mamooth]

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

 

[IanC]

Indeed, we should all reading and giving serious consideration to papers about the wonders of homeopathy, how vaccines kill, the dangers of flouridation, the harmlessness of smoking and the approach of planet Nibaru.

Well, at least according to deniers, that is.

Good luck with that. Most people would say you should just avoid the junk science.

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

WUWT slams skeptical papers when they deserve it. And they are 'on the fence' when that is warranted as well.

You only get one side with SkS. And they are very slow to admit mistakes, and sometimes never do even with undeniable evidence.

Like I said, everybody gets to choose where they get climate news. I just think you miss out a lot of information if you ignore the skeptical side.

 

[Kosh]

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..