Penn State scientist threatens legal action over Sandusky comparison

[Jonger]

That's not a refutation - that's a blog post. As we've all seen with WUWT, bloggers can make things up to their heart's content and post it without consequence. Even if he's honest that doesn't mean he's right and NOAA's wrong.

You seriously dismiss all non peer reviewed commentary in a casual setting like this forum? Come on, we aren't presenting this to the U.N.

[Jonger]

and it's a guest post on WUWT to boot:

http://wattsupwithth...global-warming/

why do so many people use that crap site as a knowledge base?

It was submitted to WUWT, it didn't originate there.

[WeatherRusty]

I just gave you an example in my post to wx trix. Misconstruging data to back up/generate an alarming statement

I get the impression that you believe AGW to be a fraud, a fabrication created to advance the profitability of corporations invested in green technologies. Are you a denier of significant warming, both past and especially future attributable to human activities?

[PhillipS]

You seriously dismiss all non peer reviewed commentary in a casual setting like this forum? Come on, we aren't presenting this to the U.N.

No. But there is a huge gulf between commentary and the claim that was made that the NOAA article has been repeatedly refuted. If it's been refuted then post a link to the refutation. Otherwise retract the claim.

[QVectorman]

I get the impression that you believe AGW to be a fraud, a fabrication created to advance the profitability of corporations invested in green technologies. Are you a denier of significant warming, both past and especially future attributable to human activities?

Thank you for finally throwing out the "denier" term. Was waiting for one of you to throw it out there. Just like I am a Holocaust denier too right?? Either way...yes I deny significant warming is CURRENTLY taking place. Warming has TAKEN place but recent studies have found it to have stalled in recent years. Attributing it to to humans is still left to debate in the academic community.

If so, why have the recent La Ninas failed to have the expected global cooling effects?

Already covered this...AMO PDO solar there are probably many other factors/signals that we are not even discovered yet that play a roll.

[QVectorman]

guest posts are volunteered: http://wattsupwithth...-guest-authors/

ergo it's something that scrapes the barrel bottom of science was voluntarily submitted to WUWT.

ergo x 2: it's denier nonsense.

Yes a professor of atmospheric science from the University of Washington is a hack and babbles denier non sense. You and all the other non red taggers in here certainly know more than he ever will when it comes to statistical analysis of atmospheric data and the atmosphere in general. And you are certainly more qualified than him to interpret any academic climate papers. It's glaringly obvious that by your shear number of posts you are a jack of all trades and master of none

ps I don't mean red taggers here have the answer but Cliff is obviously well qualified to provide an opinion and not some hack wanna be. All the non-red taggers sit around in here clucking like a bunch of chickens and babble. No one ever comes over here because you all think you have all the answers and everyone else is wrong. Your opinions might hold a little more weight when you get a BS MS or Phd in atm science.

[Msalgado]

Yes a professor of atmospheric science from the University of Washington is a hack and babbles denier non sense. You and all the other non red taggers in here certainly know more than he ever will when it comes to statistical analysis of atmospheric data and the atmosphere in general. And you are certainly more qualified than him to interpret any academic climate papers. It's glaringly obvious that by your shear number of posts you are a jack of all trades and master of none

Wow

[QVectorman]

1. "nonsense".

2. being a professor != automatically being an authority in a certain area.

1. "sheer".

1.b. "than he is"

2. I work in academic publishing in the physical sciences. I know enough to know that anyone who willingly submits something to WUWT as a 'guest author' is grasping at straws.

your best bet is to not champion anyone who voluntarily contributes to WUWT.

I will respect you your mastery of the English language. But working in academic publishing is just that...a glorified grammar nazi. That doesn't mean you have a greater knowledge of someone who has a BS MS or Phd in atm. science. I'm sure if it was Mann that wrote the blog you would be defending him to the death. And I have nothing against Mann since I knew him personally from my alma mater and I respect him intellectually...I just don't trust some of his interpretations of things.

[Msalgado]

I will respect you your mastery of the English language. But working in academic publishing is just that...a glorified grammar nazi. That doesn't mean you have a greater knowledge of someone who has a BS MS or Phd in atm. science. I'm sure if it was Mann that wrote the blog you would be defending him to the death. And I have nothing against Mann since I knew him personally from my alma mater and I respect him intellectually...I just don't trust some of his interpretations of things.

A BS, MS or PhD in any science does not mean you are automatically right. I don't get the point of waving a degree around in the air as a defense of anything. If whats in that WUWT post is worthwhile, it will make its way to peer reviewed research. That is pretty much the bottom line.

[QVectorman]

you guys are amazing...degrees don't count if it doesn't support your stance. Love that logic. Read the article its pretty black and white why the conclusions are flawed. There is no slight of hand tricks or trial mathematics going on. The model has a fairly large error. Why use it?

[ben4vols]

I will respect you your mastery of the English language. But working in academic publishing is just that...a glorified grammar nazi. That doesn't mean you have a greater knowledge of someone who has a BS MS or Phd in atm. science. I'm sure if it was Mann that wrote the blog you would be defending him to the death. And I have nothing against Mann since I knew him personally from my alma mater and I respect him intellectually...I just don't trust some of his interpretations of things.

Trixie's favorite site to quote from is skeptical science. Even though they have had their missteps from time to time. Trixie works in publishing and says that denier studies are funded by a billion dollars from oil/coal/gas companies. Yet so far she hasn't been able to back up that statement but she wants to play hall monitor.

[Amped]

My heart goes out to that data that got raped.

[Msalgado]

you guys are amazing...degrees don't count if it doesn't support your stance. Love that logic

If it weren't for the red tag, I would have figured you for a degree in strawmen.

Look at what I said. Did I say anywhere that degrees didn't count? No, I did not. What I said was that no degree made you automatically right. Are you saying that statement is false?

Its pretty insulting that you would sit there and lump everyone without red tag into some kind of a group that is incapable of understanding scientific research and arguments. Do you think you're the only one with a degree around here? Do you think you're the only one that has spent numerous times reading journal articles? I'm not sure what you're trying to by standing on a chair and shouting that you're more capable than everyone else but you're definitely not accomplishing anything constructive.

If you want to make a point based on science, then make it. But I don't see why a red tag should afford you the privileged of being an ahole.

[Msalgado]

you guys are amazing...degrees don't count if it doesn't support your stance. Love that logic. Read the article its pretty black and white why the conclusions are flawed. There is no slight of hand tricks or trial mathematics going on. The model has a fairly large error. Why use it?

A BS, MS or PhD in any science does not mean you are automatically right. I don't get the point of waving a degree around in the air as a defense of anything. If whats in that WUWT post is worthwhile, it will make its way to peer reviewed research. That is pretty much the bottom line.

I mean seriously. Reading comprehension? I assume getting your degree(s) involved it?

[QVectorman]

Seriously reading comprehension? I just stated red taggers don't have all the answers in my post above so its the pot calling the kettle black. And you said having a phd doesn't mean you have all the answers insinuating that most of you here probably know more than Cliff

[WeatherRusty]

Thank you for finally throwing out the "denier" term. Was waiting for one of you to throw it out there. Just like I am a Holocaust denier too right?? Either way...yes I deny significant warming is CURRENTLY taking place. Warming has TAKEN place but recent studies have found it to have stalled in recent years. Attributing it to to humans is still left to debate in the academic community.

Already covered this...AMO PDO solar there are probably many other factors/signals that we are not even discovered yet that play a roll.

So I shouldn't use a perfectly good english word to describe the fact that you deny the science of AGW, despite your apparent lack of credentials? Global warming is a long term process, ocurring over decades, centuries and millenia. So what if it stalled for a decade or two or even more, the physics demands that in the long term, warming will occur. Warming has slowed due to natural variability, but that same variability when reversed will accellerate the warming.

Your reference to the Holocaust is insulting, don't put words in my mouth.

What is your opinion on the scientific basis for AGW? Do you understand what you are denying?

[Msalgado]

Seriously reading comprehension? I just stated red taggers don't have all the answers in my post above so its the pot calling the kettle black. And you said having a phd doesn't mean you have all the answers insinuating that most of you here probably know more than Cliff

Actually, you edited your post, but whatever.

No one insinuated that we know more than the author of the post. And even if they had, just prove it wrong. You're going to get a lot further by doing that than by waving your hands over your head while yelling out "DEGREE!!!!!!!".

[Roger Smith]

I've always assumed that around half, maybe more and maybe less, of the observed temperature increase in recent decades is due to human activity. But some part of me would take considerable delight in a huge and undeniable temperature decrease, just to see the phenomenon of humility sweeping through climate science. Oh well, I suppose that's for the next world.

[QVectorman]

So I shouldn't use a perfectly good english word to describe the fact that you deny the science of AGW, despite your apparent lack of credentials? Global warming is a long term process, ocurring over decades, centuries and millenia. So what if it stalled for a decade or two or even more, the physics demands that in the long term, warming will occur. Warming has slowed due to natural variability, but that same variability when reversed will accellerate the warming.

Your reference to the Holocaust is insulting, don't put words in my mouth.

What is your opinion on the scientific basis for AGW? Do you understand what you are denying?

read my earlier post. I stated it. Yes I know what I am denying. I stated evidence is still up for debate on whether warming can be soley attributed to humans.

[WeatherRusty]

you guys are amazing...degrees don't count if it doesn't support your stance. Love that logic. Read the article its pretty black and white why the conclusions are flawed. There is no slight of hand tricks or trial mathematics going on. The model has a fairly large error. Why use it?

Yes degrees count, but individual opinion, credentialed or not, carries less weight than consensus opinion. Let's wait and see how this paper shakes out. Hopefully we havn't heard the last of this story.

Don Southerland presented a paper by Hansen which strongly supports the conclusions of this study in principle. 3 sigma variance and standard deviation stuff make for a very strong case.

[WeatherRusty]

read my earlier post. I stated it. Yes I know what I am denying. I stated evidence is still up for debate on whether warming can be soley attributed to humans.

Do you deny the Planck temperature response to a doubling of CO2?

Do you deny the radiative forcing given by a doubling of CO2?

Do you deny the best estimates for transient equilibrium climate sensitivity?

Do you deny that general circulation pattern changes will occur as the climate warms?

Do you deny that sea level will rise by feet as the climate warms?

Do you deny that water vapor will increase as the atmosphere warms?

etc.

[Msalgado]

read my earlier post. I stated it. Yes I know what I am denying. I stated evidence is still up for debate on whether warming can be soley attributed to humans.

I'm not sure if this is a strawman or if its actually a statement made out of ignorance but I'm not aware of any credible scientific body who has said the warming is solely due to human activity.

[TerryM]

Just a casual observation, but anyone who conflates a BS with a PHD hasn't attained the later.

Terry

[QVectorman]

Do you deny the Planck temperature response to a doubling of CO2?

Do you deny the radiative forcing given by a doubling of CO2?

Do you deny the best estimates for transient equilibrium climate sensitivity?

Do you deny that general circulation pattern changes will occur as the climate warms?

Do you deny that sea level will rise by feet as the climate warms?

Do you deny that water vapor will increase as the atmosphere warms?

etc.

I'm pretty sure ORH_WX covered all those questions and refuted them in another post in another thread....which you all criticized. And so he has given you the answers to those questions. And I will give you the exact same response as he did. So go read it and I will save myself time typing it out myself bc it's a pointless argument with all of you. It just goes in circles. And if ORH _WX gave up arguing with this group of people it's quit obvious there is no hope with me so I will save my breath and fingers.

[phlwx]

you guys are amazing...degrees don't count if it doesn't support your stance. Love that logic. Read the article its pretty black and white why the conclusions are flawed. There is no slight of hand tricks or trial mathematics going on. The model has a fairly large error. Why use it?

Funniest part is that Cliff believes man has a role in GW...it's not good enough I guess.

http://cliffmass.blo...out-global.html

[WeatherRusty]

I'm pretty sure ORH_WX covered all those questions and refuted them in another post in another thread....which you all criticized. And so he has given you the answers to those questions. And I will give you the exact same response as he did. So go read it and I will save myself time typing it out myself bc it's a pointless argument with all of you. It just goes in circles. And if ORH _WX gave up arguing with this group of people it's quit obvious there is no hope with me so I will save my breath and fingers.

Oh come on, this is a discussion forum. We would like to hear from you what your thoughts are concerning the physical basis for AGW.

If you were to ask him, ORH_WX would inform you he has little doubt as to the legitimacy of AGW. However, he is what we term a luke warmer, regarding sensitivity to be on the lower side. Any difference I have with him mostly involves how likely climate sensitivity is to fall at any point within the scientifically determined range ( ~2.0 to 4.5C ). Based on current trends and a few recent studies he is lead to believe sensitivity is on the low end.

I tend to think the uncertainty gives reason to consider anywhere in the range as possible with something close to 3.0C as most likely. What do you think?

[Jonger]

I will respect you your mastery of the English language. But working in academic publishing is just that...a glorified grammar nazi. That doesn't mean you have a greater knowledge of someone who has a BS MS or Phd in atm. science. I'm sure if it was Mann that wrote the blog you would be defending him to the death. And I have nothing against Mann since I knew him personally from my alma mater and I respect him intellectually...I just don't trust some of his interpretations of things.

It actually has less to do with grammar and more to do with getting the Don's permission to speak your findings, if it clashes with the families wishes, you are silenced.

[tamarack]

Your reference to the Holocaust is insulting,

Insulting indeed. However, that equivalency (denial of AGW is in the same class as denial of the Holocaust) originally came from mediots who are fully on board with the most extreme AGW scenarios. It's wrong-headed, whoever says it.

[TerryM]

Insulting indeed. However, that equivalency (denial of AGW is in the same class as denial of the Holocaust) originally came from mediots who are fully on board with the most extreme AGW scenarios. It's wrong-headed, whoever says it.

Do I take it that you deny being in denial? Only a true denier would resort to such denialism.

I'm skeptical of your faux umbridge. Would you deny my skepticism?

BTW Some of the more delicate readers might take offence at being referred to as mediots, although I confess that I had to resort to an 'urban dictionary' to find the meaning. I suppose using verbiage from such a source implies that the targeted audience dwells in an urban setting, perhaps a ghetto. Could it be that you are hurdling racially charged invective's into this discussion? ;>)

Terry