Willie Soon paid to deny climate change

[bripat9643]

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

Hmmm...are you saying that the proxies I posted are NOT from Marcott 2013? They were taken directly from the SI of the paper.

I could care less.

Asked for a scientific source refuting the paper, and you post amateur analysis.

You only need logic to refute the paper.

 

[skookerasbil]

Amongst the many things that have so shocked me about the climate change k00ks is how naïve they are with regard to special interests related to the green industry, which is to say, they think NONE are attached. That people like Gore are just hyper concerned about the planet.These bozo's like Delta really think everything to do with global warming is some kind of altruistic endeavor................dang.........can somebody tell me how somebody can possibly get to that level of thinking?

 

[threegoofs]

LOL.

Deniers.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.

 

[jc456]

LOL.

Deniers.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.
Well, I asked what paper are you are expecting and you haven't stated.

From the biased paper from the link posted there is this excerpt.

"“Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said."

The big word here is 'staff' staff infers employment and as such would be paid by his employer for his work. So I just gave you information out of the very article of the link posted that shows that Soon was an employee. hmmmmmmmmmm... Maybe the biased reported could produce some paper that actually confirms his biased story. I laughed at the way the article started BTW,

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies,"

He can't even figure it out.

 

[threegoofs]

LOL.

Deniers.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.
Well, I asked what paper are you are expecting and you haven't stated.

From the biased paper from the link posted there is this excerpt.

"“Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said."

The big word here is 'staff' staff infers employment and as such would be paid by his employer for his work. So I just gave you information out of the very article of the link posted that shows that Soon was an employee. hmmmmmmmmmm... Maybe the biased reported could produce some paper that actually confirms his biased story. I laughed at the way the article started BTW,

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies,"

He can't even figure it out.

1) I wasn't asking for a paper on Soon. Try to keep up.

2) Soon was self funded at the Smithsonian. Look it up. No 'inferring' needed. His salary was 100% brought in by his grants.

 

[jc456]

LOL.

Deniers.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.
Well, I asked what paper are you are expecting and you haven't stated.

From the biased paper from the link posted there is this excerpt.

"“Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said."

The big word here is 'staff' staff infers employment and as such would be paid by his employer for his work. So I just gave you information out of the very article of the link posted that shows that Soon was an employee. hmmmmmmmmmm... Maybe the biased reported could produce some paper that actually confirms his biased story. I laughed at the way the article started BTW,

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies,"

He can't even figure it out.

1) I wasn't asking for a paper on Soon. Try to keep up.

2) Soon was self funded at the Smithsonian. Look it up. No 'inferring' needed. His salary was 100% brought in by his grants.

1) I wasn't asking for a paper on Soon. Try to keep up.
So I asked earlier for what paper you were looking for and you didn't address it. You know, foolish me, the thread is about Willie Soon why would I think you're looking for something different than Willie Soon the OP.
2) Soon was self funded at the Smithsonian. Look it up. No 'inferring' needed. His salary was 100% brought in by his grants
So, who gives him his check, is it from the Smithsonian, Harvard, but someone gives him a pay check and it isn't from any directed money, unless you can actually prove that. The article of the OP didn't. There was no actual documentation, only a reference to documentation. Why not post the info in the article if that is the bias expectation of it? Sorry, but I doubt any of you all have any actual documentation on where the pay stubs are from. Right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL.

Deniers.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.

Can't produce a paper, so they pretend all of science is wrong.
Well, I asked what paper are you are expecting and you haven't stated.

From the biased paper from the link posted there is this excerpt.

"“Willie Soon is a Smithsonian staff researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a collaboration of the Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory,” a Harvard spokesman, Jeff Neal, said."

The big word here is 'staff' staff infers employment and as such would be paid by his employer for his work. So I just gave you information out of the very article of the link posted that shows that Soon was an employee. hmmmmmmmmmm... Maybe the biased reported could produce some paper that actually confirms his biased story. I laughed at the way the article started BTW,

"A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies,"

He can't even figure it out.

1) I wasn't asking for a paper on Soon. Try to keep up.

2) Soon was self funded at the Smithsonian. Look it up. No 'inferring' needed. His salary was 100% brought in by his grants.

You dont have a fucking clue about how the grant process works do you.. Neither did the reporter in his article.

Grants are given to the INSTITUTION not the individual. It is the INSTITUTION who decides what the monies are used for and who is paid what..

In Dr Soon's case it was the Smithsonian that was paid. The Smithsonian was who gave the job to Dr Soon and it was the Smithsonian who paid Dr Soon.

You really should stop lying and defaming Dr. Soon. Its called Liable and you can be sued for it. Dr Soon's attorneys are looking into several inflammatory things that are being said and who is saying them. The Smithsonian is on notice already, that is why they have retracted the letter they sent Soon..

 

[Crick]

Jesus, what a maroon. He's going to sue everyone badmouthing him on environmental discussion boards?!?! He's got far more important things to worry about - like what he's going to do with the rest of his life now that he's made himself completely unemployable, unpublishable and unlikely to be invited to speak anywhere outside of Exxon Mobil.

BTW, it's LIBEL, not LIABLE. God are you stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Jesus, what a maroon. He's going to sue everyone badmouthing him on environmental discussion boards?!?! He's got far more important things to worry about - like what he's going to do with the rest of his life now that he's made himself completely unemployable, unpublishable and unlikely to be invited to speak anywhere outside of Exxon Mobil.

BTW, it's LIBEL, not LIABLE. God are you stupid.

After pointing out the consequences of contradicting the official dogma, a moron like you will then go on to gloat that 97% of scientists support the official dogma.

Do you understand what an idiot you are?

 

[skookerasbil]

Willie Spoon?

Nobody cares...........how many people ever heard of the guy? About 274?

Walk onto most college campuses and they don't even know what the National Debt number is but of course, they are going to know this guy Willie Spoon!!!

Willie!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[threegoofs]

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

There is nothing seriously complicated about a temperature study. If you can read Scientific American -- you can understand the bulk of it. But that's irrelevent. Because the AUTHOR of that paper has been interviewed and has honestly admitted that the the exact work inside this paper is INCAPABLE of proving that there were no previous excursions of temperature similar to -- or exceeding our current warming blip.. Leading to obvious conclusion that the fantastical exaggerations of the work in this example are a result of fanatics making claims for stuff that's not in evidence.

See what you miss by throwing your hands up in the air and not caring about the science? Do you do that if your doctor diagnoses a serious problem? If your tax preparer is asking you to choose a method for reporting your income?

The tools used in Climate Science are generally fungible and there are DOZENS of specialties that are similar to other fields in science and engineering. And in SOME cases, expertise in physics, math, data preparation, thermodynamics, geology, and modeling are COMPLETELY open to folks who work in those fields and can check the work. Scientists/engineers jump application areas readily. And that cross fertilization is BROADLY encouraged.

 

[IanC]

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

There is nothing seriously complicated about a temperature study. If you can read Scientific American -- you can understand the bulk of it. But that's irrelevent. Because the AUTHOR of that paper has been interviewed and has honestly admitted that the the exact work inside this paper is INCAPABLE of proving that there were no previous excursions of temperature similar to -- or exceeding our current warming blip.. Leading to obvious conclusion that the fantastical exaggerations of the work in this example are a result of fanatics making claims for stuff that's not in evidence.

See what you miss by throwing your hands up in the air and not caring about the science? Do you do that if your doctor diagnoses a serious problem? If your tax preparer is asking you to choose a method for reporting your income?

The tools used in Climate Science are generally fungible and there are DOZENS of specialties that are similar to other fields in science and engineering. And in SOME cases, expertise in physics, math, data preparation, thermodynamics, geology, and modeling are COMPLETELY open to folks who work in those fields and can check the work. Scientists/engineers jump application areas readily. And that cross fertilization is BROADLY encouraged.

yup, you can take a horse's ass to the data but you can't make him think.

 

[bripat9643]

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

As if any of you AGW cult members are qualified to interpret science.

Hilarious.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

As if any of you AGW cult members are qualified to interpret science.

Hilarious.

Most of "ours" are not. We need better warmers.. Desperately... Think a Craig's List ad would work?
One of the questions should be -- "Who is Willy Soon" ?? If they DON'T know the answer to that.. They are probably pretty smart..

 

[threegoofs]

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

There is nothing seriously complicated about a temperature study. If you can read Scientific American -- you can understand the bulk of it. But that's irrelevent. Because the AUTHOR of that paper has been interviewed and has honestly admitted that the the exact work inside this paper is INCAPABLE of proving that there were no previous excursions of temperature similar to -- or exceeding our current warming blip.. Leading to obvious conclusion that the fantastical exaggerations of the work in this example are a result of fanatics making claims for stuff that's not in evidence.

See what you miss by throwing your hands up in the air and not caring about the science? Do you do that if your doctor diagnoses a serious problem? If your tax preparer is asking you to choose a method for reporting your income?

The tools used in Climate Science are generally fungible and there are DOZENS of specialties that are similar to other fields in science and engineering. And in SOME cases, expertise in physics, math, data preparation, thermodynamics, geology, and modeling are COMPLETELY open to folks who work in those fields and can check the work. Scientists/engineers jump application areas readily. And that cross fertilization is BROADLY encouraged.

yup, you can take a horse's ass to the data but you can't make him think.

Except the author states that the rate of temp rise today is unprecedented.

For your odd scenario to work, temps would have to spike by a degree and then descend a degree in the space of 150 years.

I suppose it COULD happen.....but so could the birth of a winged pig.

 

[flacaltenn]

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

It IS the data used in the Marcott proxy study.
It WAS published in a Scientific Journal.
And they were hardly DENYING anything inside their paper.

It was the misinterpretation of their work by a handful of activist scientists and the media that probably knows less than you do about GW/CC that the paper is remembered for. Wild claims of "proving" that our little temperature change is "UNPRECEDENTED".. The paper did no such thing as "proving" that.

One thing WORSE than a denier.. And that's folks who have NO CLUE what a science debate is about -- but still spend pages of posts telling everyone their version of the truth.. What you got here is 99.5% FAITH. Not facts or informed opinion..

Oh fer crissake.

Clipping pieces from papers and coming up with your own amateur interpretation is not science.

"Faith" is looking at a science you are wholly unqualified to interpret, and pretending you know more than the experts.

There is nothing seriously complicated about a temperature study. If you can read Scientific American -- you can understand the bulk of it. But that's irrelevent. Because the AUTHOR of that paper has been interviewed and has honestly admitted that the the exact work inside this paper is INCAPABLE of proving that there were no previous excursions of temperature similar to -- or exceeding our current warming blip.. Leading to obvious conclusion that the fantastical exaggerations of the work in this example are a result of fanatics making claims for stuff that's not in evidence.

See what you miss by throwing your hands up in the air and not caring about the science? Do you do that if your doctor diagnoses a serious problem? If your tax preparer is asking you to choose a method for reporting your income?

The tools used in Climate Science are generally fungible and there are DOZENS of specialties that are similar to other fields in science and engineering. And in SOME cases, expertise in physics, math, data preparation, thermodynamics, geology, and modeling are COMPLETELY open to folks who work in those fields and can check the work. Scientists/engineers jump application areas readily. And that cross fertilization is BROADLY encouraged.

yup, you can take a horse's ass to the data but you can't make him think.

Except the author states that the rate of temp rise today is unprecedented.

For your odd scenario to work, temps would have to spike by a degree and then descend a degree in the space of 150 years.

I suppose it COULD happen.....but so could the birth of a winged pig.

No.. The author states that our current temperature experience IS LIKELY to be unprecedented. USUALLY in science -- that would quantified as a probability. Never happens for global warming "predictions" and claims.

However, since his study only had TERMINAL resolutions (no detected variance at all) at about 500 years AND the actual peak values for any variances under a couple years would be attenuated by 50% or more -- there is NOTHING in this study (or ANY of the hockey studies) that back up that claim.. Marcott ACKNOWLEDGES this. There's a difference between science and what's being called "post-modern" science. These post-modernists see themselves as "Socio-Political Engineers". And if the "problem" needs some exaggerations or hype or fear -- all that neutral objective observer business goes out with the trash.

Now you example of 150 yr up and 150 yr dwn would produce maybe a 10% or 20% response of its TRUE value in any of these hockey stick studies. And it's NOT unlikely to see that type of temperature profile at all. It's about the period of the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period which are nowhere close to fully resolved in these studies.

HOWEVER --- If you look at the more accurate SINGLE proxies from anywhere on the planet -- you can see the higher resolution produces peaks comparable to our current 100 yr experience.

One frailty in this bad batch of climate science is the focus on reducing EVERYTHING to a dumb-ass GLOBAL number. And in doing so -- removes a LOT of information about how the climate system works as a whole or how regional influences are involved in MOVING heat around the planet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Jesus, what a maroon. He's going to sue everyone badmouthing him on environmental discussion boards?!?! He's got far more important things to worry about - like what he's going to do with the rest of his life now that he's made himself completely unemployable, unpublishable and unlikely to be invited to speak anywhere outside of Exxon Mobil.

BTW, it's LIBEL, not LIABLE. God are you stupid.

What I find totally funny? That an idiot like you would tout the same old 97% lie over and over again knowing its a LIE! And have no problem with it ethically.

Then you go on to a spelling error as if your some patron saint..

GAWD...... YOUR SO STUPID! (See, I can play your ignorant games too)