WUWT beats the failed cooker of the books skeptical science in ever aspect, including credibility going by the cooked books of the cook.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/the-other-divergence-problem-climate-communications/

WUWT is the place to be for climate science that is real. Go to skeptical science for your usual pseudo science.

Looks like the hockey schtick mann is p#ssed off that people are dissing his religion again

Who in their right mind would listen to that fraudster Michael Mann....?????

He wont let other scientists examine his program that produces the hockey stick graph.

He conveniently forgot the medieval warm period and the mini ice age.

He got caught red handed in the climate gate....????

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

He should be in jail for misleading the whole world.

WUWT is one of the best sites in the world about global warming.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 15^th, 2013 at 5:54pm:

... WUWT is the place to be for climate science that is real. Go to skeptical science for your usual pseudo science.

Uhuh. What's the record of WUWT with peer reviewed papers? How many awards has the site won?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 5:54pm: ... WUWT is the place to be for climate science that is real. Go to skeptical science for your usual pseudo science. Uhuh. What's the record of WUWT with peer reviewed papers? How many awards has the site won? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

#, you should log on to WUWT and run your arguments up the flag pole, broaden your horizons so to speak, will you be using the signature # ?  Looking forward to seeing you fly

# wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 8:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 5:54pm: ... WUWT is the place to be for climate science that is real. Go to skeptical science for your usual pseudo science. Uhuh. What's the record of WUWT with peer reviewed papers? How many awards has the site won? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

You mean like Cook et al.

How can you defend people that have actually been caught lying.....Cook.......Mann...etc.


Quote:

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony “0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%” PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.    Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus. Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

# wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 8:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 15th, 2013 at 5:54pm: ... WUWT is the place to be for climate science that is real. Go to skeptical science for your usual pseudo science. Uhuh. What's the record of WUWT with peer reviewed papers? How many awards has the site won? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science You mean like Cook et al. How can you defend people that have actually been caught lying.....Cook.......Mann...etc. Quote: Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony ... Read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

OK;
first, the journals.
Cook 2013 was published in Environmental Research Letters:-
H Index: 31
SJR:       1.71

The rebuttal is said to have been published in Earth System Dynamics:-
H Index: 4
SJR:       0.76
You'll need to provide a link to the rebuttal; I can't find it.

Next, the sources.
Watts Up With That:-

Quote:

Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the popular Watts Up With That (WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. He is also the owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks. He is the founder of Surfacestations.org, a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of weather stations in the United States. According to documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Watts previously worked as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, and later joined KHSK-TV in 1987. In 2002, Watts left his position as a television weatherman to devote time to his private business, ITWorks. He returned to work part-time at KHSL in 2004, and has also been the chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM (an affiliate of Fox News) since 2002. [21], [22] Watts admits "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is "AMS Certified" as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed.

Skeptical Science:-

muso wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:03pm:

... Personally I had never read anything over at Skeptical Science, but they quote a few graphs and data from published articles, so they turn up in Google searches. Quote: John Cook John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. In 2011, he co-authored the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, published by Earthscan. In 2013, he co-authored the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, published by Springer. He's actuallly in pretty good company. Many, but not all of the contributors are quite well qualified to comment on climatology. Another contributor is Dana Nuccitelli [quote] Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. :

These are two of the regular contributors to the Skeptical Science Blog.
...[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

Quote:

In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

I wonder after the rebuttal paper if skeptic science can win the award for bringing science in to the gutter

# wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

OK; first, the journals. Cook 2013 was published in Environmental Research Letters:- H Index: 31 SJR:       1.71 The rebuttal is said to have been published in Earth System Dynamics:- H Index: 4 SJR:       0.76 You'll need to provide a link to the rebuttal; I can't find it. Next, the sources. Watts Up With That:- Quote: Anthony Watts is best known as the founder and editor of the popular Watts Up With That (WUWT), a blog that primarily publishes articles skeptical of climate change. He is also the owner of the weather graphics company ItWorks. He is the founder of Surfacestations.org, a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of weather stations in the United States. According to documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute. Watts previously worked as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, and later joined KHSK-TV in 1987. In 2002, Watts left his position as a television weatherman to devote time to his private business, ITWorks. He returned to work part-time at KHSL in 2004, and has also been the chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM (an affiliate of Fox News) since 2002. [21], [22] Watts admits "I'm not a degreed climate scientist" on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is "AMS Certified" as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed. Skeptical Science:- muso wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:03pm: ... Personally I had never read anything over at Skeptical Science, but they quote a few graphs and data from published articles, so they turn up in Google searches. [quote]John Cook John is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally studied physics at the University of Queensland. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. In 2011, he co-authored the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, published by Earthscan. In 2013, he co-authored the college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, published by Springer. He's actuallly in pretty good company. Many, but not all of the contributors are quite well qualified to comment on climatology. Another contributor is Dana Nuccitelli [quote] Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010. :

These are two of the regular contributors to the Skeptical Science Blog.
...[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

Quote:

In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

[/quote]

What is your problem #........????

Can you defend CLIMATEGATE..............????

Will you try to defend it....................?????

We have seen that the alarmists hold most of the high positions when it comes to AGW religion and they will try anything to make sure the sceptics don't get to be heard.

Do you so honestly think John Cook from  sceptical science would not use shrewd methods like lying to get his point across.

Have a look at the sceptical science blog its anything but sceptical, even the name of the site is misleading.

They preach the anthropogenic global warming religion in accordance with Al Gore's theories.

FFS this fraudster has ties to The Pope of the AGW religion, Al Gore himself.

The paper that proved John Cook from sceptical science is a fraudster.

http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf

Ajax wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

# wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: OK; first, the journals. Cook 2013 was published in Environmental Research Letters:- H Index: 31 SJR:       1.71 The rebuttal is said to have been published in Earth System Dynamics:- H Index: 4 SJR:       0.76 You'll need to provide a link to the rebuttal; I can't find it. ... ... The paper that proved John Cook from sceptical science is a fraudster. http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf

Right, so the rebuttal wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal?

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 18^th, 2013 at 5:17pm:

I wonder after the rebuttal paper if skeptic science can win the award for bringing science in to the gutter

If the rebuttal was published as reported, then it's of substantially lower standing than Cook 2013. Judging by the link that Ajax provided, the rebuttal wasn't published as reported.

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:01pm: # wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: OK; first, the journals. Cook 2013 was published in Environmental Research Letters:- H Index: 31 SJR:       1.71 The rebuttal is said to have been published in Earth System Dynamics:- H Index: 4 SJR:       0.76 You'll need to provide a link to the rebuttal; I can't find it. ... ... The paper that proved John Cook from sceptical science is a fraudster. http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf Right, so the rebuttal wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal?

While I cant find the paper in the Earth System Dynamics journal, even John Cook aknowledges the paper below and replies to it.

That's means the science community stood up and took notice.

Trying to discredit the author imo is a very weak defence.



Quote:

UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9


Quote:

John Cook at sceptical science writes Recently, David Legates, Willie Soon and William Briggs published a paper in the journal Science & Education, Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology. The paper comments extensively on Bedford's agnotology paper. Unfortunately, it comprehensively misrepresents Bedford's arguments. Consequently, Daniel Bedford and I have co-authored a response to Legates' paper that was just published in Science & Education: Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs. For those without library access, our paper is unfortunately behind a pay-wall. However, the full pre-press version of our paper is available here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-paper-agnotology-scientific-consensus.html

Very sneaky of John Cook has taken the attention completely away from himself.

What a smacking crook.

That 'bringing science in to the gutter' award for skepticalscience is getting to be a sure thing.

Meet Dana Nuccitelli

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/dana-nuccitelli-cant-come-to-terms-with-the-death-of-the-agw-hypothesis

Dana, meet gutter. Gutter, meet Dana. Skeptical science, you know gutter, meet Dana. Sorry, you know Dana. My bad.

Sceptical cranks.com is on a par with moon landing and 9/11 conspiracy theory sites, just pure unadulterated f#ckin garbage produced for consumption by dumb arse leftists. 

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 10:14am:

# wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 1:32pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 9:01pm: # wrote on Oct 18th, 2013 at 12:59pm: ... You'll need to provide a link to the rebuttal; I can't find it. ... ... ... While I cant find the paper in the Earth System Dynamics journal, even John Cook aknowledges the paper below and replies to it. ... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Quote: John Cook at sceptical science writes Recently, David Legates, Willie Soon and William Briggs published a paper in the journal Science & Education, Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology. The paper comments extensively on Bedford's agnotology paper. Unfortunately, it comprehensively misrepresents Bedford's arguments. Consequently, Daniel Bedford and I have co-authored a response to Legates' paper that was just published in Science & Education: Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs. For those without library access, our paper is unfortunately behind a pay-wall. However, the full pre-press version of our paper is available here. http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-paper-agnotology-scientific-consensus.html ...

OK, so the so-called rebuttal wasn't published in Earth System Dynamics. If Watts was careless with that simple fact, then what else does he get wrong?

The SkS post is well worth reading in full, as are the comments. One comment in particular caught my eye:
Quote:

It is worth noting that Legates was involved in the publication of the first and most infamous Soon & Baliunas paper, the one that led to the resignation in protest of 5 members of the editorial board.

Anyway, since we're down to duelling journals:
Cook 2013 was published in Environmental Research Letters:-
H Index: 31
SJR:       1.71

Legates 2013 was published in Science and Education:-
H Index: 21
SJR:       0.75

I gather it's traditional for a rebuttal to appear in the same journal as its subject. I wonder why Legates couldn't manage it?

Science and Education is paywalled, which explains why neither you nor I could find the papers. Cook has made his response freely available. Its intriguing that Legates hasn't.

I don't understand why people would allow their attention spans to be polluted by this crap.

Ajax wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

Who in their right mind would listen to that fraudster Michael Mann....????? He wont let other scientists examine his program that produces the hockey stick graph.

So Burt Rutan made stuff up?

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2013 at 8:53am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 16th, 2013 at 9:02am: Who in their right mind would listen to that fraudster Michael Mann....????? He wont let other scientists examine his program that produces the hockey stick graph. So Burt Rutan made stuff up?

What has Michael Mann not giving other scientists access to his hockey stick program have to do with Burt Rutan....???