SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Wed May 23, 2012 7:05 am

So you have problems with my sources and I have problems with your sources

I know some claim SkepticalScience.com is no different from WattsUpWithThat.com.
I have been told: "it's just a different perspective, you choose to believe SkepticalScience.com and I choose to believe WUWT.”

But, is it as simple as that? How do we decide on the respective veracity of each?

I can only speak for myself, but when I look for information on the internet it is because I want to learn stuff. As for Anthropogenic Global Warming, I've been learning about it and paying attention to new findings since my high school science classes in the early seventies. So I expect something serious and I can see through many phony arguments simply because I have been learning about it for decades... {you know, "skeptics" arguments tend to be rather repetitive}.
~ ~ ~

What I like about SkepticalScience.com is that I am constantly engaged by their informed explanations. It's a place I can go to sink my teeth into real information and to work on learning something relevant about various aspects of our planet's global heat engine.

And I'm constantly impressed with new findings that answer old questions and often open entirely new perspectives and questions, also I’ve had some misperceptions of my own corrected, which is a good thing to do. I trust them, because SkS refers to actual studies and provides links to them for more detailed information, so it is easy to investigate a little deeper.

Why people can attack such an approach is beyond me.
Funny though, for all the carping going on, no one presents actual reasons for their personal rejection of SkS reported information.

Add to all that, is their discussions following each post. They are interesting as heck, with skeptics showing up regularly to challenge the authors of said posts. Given that SkS has a strict code of conduct, their dialogue remains on point, with information and arguments being passed back and forth, it is an intelligent informed discussion like we see too rarely these days.

Again, Why people can attack such an approach is beyond me.

~ ~ ~

Then there is WattsUpWithThat.com, the self-proclaimed: "World's most viewed site on global warming and climate change",
these folks present a totally different approach to incoming climate information.

WUWT is demonstrably about political advocacy, not about teaching climate science details. That's a huge difference!

And this observation is based on reviewing many posts over there. It's all raw emotions and anger over there, like being in a cat fight. It's a rare post at WUWT.com that tries to describe and consider some particular aspect of our global heat engine.

Rather than actually examining science, most of their posts revolve around attacking people, or organizations, or their ever present scientific conspiracy canard.

Most recently NASA was getting hammered based on a letter by a bunch of politically active non-climate scientists, who happened to have been NASA employees. SO WHAT, I read their letter, more hand waving and name calling, but have the NASA Forty-Niners presented any actually scientific arguments or evidence? NO. And it's so typical of what I find over at WUWT, and throughout that "echo-chamber."

As for learning anything from WUWT discussion forum, it is pretty slim pick'ns beyond self-congratulatory proclamations of Global Warming finally being dead, or vacuous charges and name calling of the most incredible {and obviously uninformed} variety.

Here’s a sampling off the most recent post... pretty much the same as any other day:

“The money wasted world wide on this Climate farce must be truly astounding...”
~ ~ ~
“The warmists are far past listening to anything approaching reason or common sense. They cannot be persuaded or convinced of the folly of their actions in any way; they can only be defeated. And even after they’re defeated, they’ll whine about it for the rest of their lives.
The scientific battle is over. The political one is just beginning...”
~ ~ ~
"Do they really think that we cannot keep ahead of a 1 m sea level rise in 100 years? 1 centimeter a year is nothing..."
~ ~
"There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been peer reviewed by Ph.D physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lacking over at WUWT are comments discussing Climate dynamics with explanations or reasoned lists of complaints, findings, or conclusions. Sure, sure a lot about graphs, and statistics, but this global warming is about much more that obsessing over subjective statistical minutiae. It's about understanding basic real physics and recognizing the full scope of the Earth Observation information available these days. Which is the sort of thing the folks at SkS do so well.

Instead at WUWT you'll hear the echo "it's too complex to understand."
Why should anyone be impressed by that defeatist attitude?
Besides, it's nonsense! If doctors can make sense of the human body, climatologists can make sense of Earth's processes!

What happened to our natural curiosity and wanting understand how the world around us functions ???

Where does Mr. AW, actually try to teach folks anything, other than opposing any admission that something has gone very wrong and demanding we do nothing until 99% proof is forthcoming {something he knows damned well is impossible}?

This is why I don't trust Anthony Watts or his WUWT,
well that and his WUWT's well documented list of peddled misrepresentations of the science and promoting outrageous liar of the first order. In particular, I'm offended by Anthony's championing of Sir Lord Monckton a supreme political performer, but manipulator of evidence, adulterer of others graphs/data, hate-monger, world-government conspiracist and documented liar {dozens of times} over. But people like his political story and that's OK by Anthony. Well that sort of double standard is not OK by me. That's why I don't trust Mr. Watts.

WE NEED TEACHERS NOT SCHEISTERS! :mrgreen:

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Thu May 24, 2012 4:33 am

Global Climate Change skeptics have a list of claims, complaints and charges
that they certainly profess great faith in.
So go ahead examine those assumptions in the light of actual scientific knowledge. . . . .

In the spirit of my opening post, I figure I may as well add to the above post with other stories regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming contrarian arguments being put to a fair examination.

Here are links to a detailed response to "Professor Ian Plimer 101 climate questions"
where he questions the basics of the general Climate Sciences consensus... that is their considered understanding.

Australian Government
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate ... limer.aspx
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Responses to Professor Ian Plimer's 101 climate questions

In late 2011, Professor Ian Plimer, a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background in climate science, released his latest book How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.

In response to Professor Ian Plimer's 101 questions[/b] on climate change science, the department provides Accurate Answers.

The answers and comments provided are intended to give clear and accurate responses to Professor Plimer's questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer-reviewed science and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists.
For additional reliable information on climate change science, good resources include:
• The Australian Academy of Science's report The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (PDF 1.81 MB)
• The Climate Commission's report The Critical Decade
• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report
• The CSIRO's climate change website, and
• The Bureau of Meteorology's climate change website .

Let's hear some rational arguments that go beyond assuming some huge conspiracy and no need for alarm, when the record of Earth Observations clearly show cause for alarm.

Post by **Pyrrho** » Fri May 25, 2012 3:39 am

Do they have a forum?

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Fri May 25, 2012 4:28 am

Pyrrho wrote:Do they have a forum?

:scratch:

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:36 pm

Funny though, for all the carping going on, no one presents actual reasons for their personal rejection of SkS reported information.

Oooh. Have they not been caught revising threads; changing what was said, changing who was replying to what, altering the history ?
That's enough for me, thanks !
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/ ... books.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is what they were showing

Skeptic arguments that Antarctica is gaining ice frequently hinge on an error of omission, namely ignoring the difference between land ice and sea ice.

One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite.

... sea ice is not the most important thing to measure. In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

As Andrew Montfort, writer BIshopHill says

So there you go, simple enough even for a sceptic to follow. Or perhaps not simple enough - take a look at comment #3 from AnthonySG1
OK smarties. If Antarctica is overall losing ice, then how do you explain the data?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Arctic doesn't seem to be doing so bad anymore, also:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... t.area.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This particular scurvy sceptic is sent packing with a rapier-like thrust:
It's somewhat discouraging that the first point I make is that people often fail to distinguish between sea ice and land ice. They are two separate phenomena. And yet you repeat the error. To clarify, Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.
And then there's comment #5 from PaulM himself:

The misinformation on this site is astonishing. Antarctic ice is increasing.
In addition to the cryosphere link provided Anthony,
This is confirmed by NSIDC,
http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancilla ... rctic.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
by NCDC,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/res ... tml#seaice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and by numerous scientific papers, including
Cavalieri and Parkinson, J. Geophys. Res. 113, C07004 (2008),
Comiso and Nishio, J. Geophys. Res. 113, CO2S07 (2008).

You have managed to find one paper that finds a decrease - but that only covers a 3 year period! Obviously you cannot get a significant trend from 3 years data.
These sceptics! How do you get through to them? Send 'em packing again:

Please, people, pay attention! Sea ice is increasing. Land ice is decreasing. Read and reread the post above until you realise they are two separate phenomena.
The exchange is, apparently at least, a damning indictment of the behaviour of what are sometimes referred to as "so-called sceptics".

Well, damning of the sceptics, that is, until you examine the same page on the Wayback Machine... The archive version is dated 3 February 2009, nearly six months after the comments were posted.

And its completely different!

Here is what the post originally had said - what those disingenuous denier idiots were replying to:

While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antartic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.

BishopHill sums it up

Astonishingly, more than six months after having their errors pointed out to them, the denizens of Skeptical Science rewrote the article and then inserted comments suggesting that their commenters hadn't read the article properly.

The SS crew, after being raked over the coals, then changed the thread responses and added an advisory that they had performed routine "updating" of the original flawed post. Unacceptable as that bit of revisionism is, the excuse unfortunately does not explain why they inserted derisory commentary about posters (as if the posters had not read the article) .

John "the books" Cook limps in with this

When I posted the responses to those particular comments, I mistakenly thought they were comments to the updated post

So he revised the original post, and then thought those dated time stamped posts which happened to be among the first responses made earlier, were just posted ( 6 months later, somehow inserting themselves right after the secret "revision").

WUWT looks like heaven compared to that hell of a kitchen.

citizenschallenge wrote:Add to all that, is their discussions following each post.

Precisely !

They are interesting as heck, with skeptics showing up regularly to challenge the authors of said posts. Given that SkS has a strict code of conduct

Oh yes. GOD, YES. Deletion of "unfortunate for them" posts is mandatory in order to have any front at all. You see it as SS never losing an argument.

their dialogue remains on point, with information and arguments being passed back and forth, it is an intelligent informed discussion like we see too rarely these days.

Or a highly manipulative spin machine in action. Depends on your point of view.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:37 pm

How about linking to the SkS article in question?

Also can we expect Andrew Montfort and Bishop Hill to live up to their own apparent high standards?

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:42 pm

oh incidentally,

AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008
OK smarties. If Antarctica is overall losing ice, then how do you explain the data?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Arctic doesn't seem to be doing so bad anymore, also:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... t.area.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.

Damning truly damning

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ediate.htm

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:55 pm

It's astounding behaviour.
Imagine the shame of being caught doing that. Oh,forgot. Shameless.

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:37 am

citizenschallenge wrote:Also can we expect Andrew Montfort and Bishop Hill to live up to their own apparent high standards?

You're not trying to change the topic from "WUWT vs SS", are you ?
You asked a question. You waved a challenge.

Funny though, for all the carping going on, no one presents actual reasons for their personal rejection of SkS reported information

A disturbing reply came.

You do not want to hear it. You do not want to face it and admit it. You will not condemn the cookabook actions.

The very action of echochamberly denial which you constantly accuse others of, is precisely what you engage in as second nature.

You ask about something else (as a diversion). "Oh, what about so and so ? What about that other so and so?" You comment on a comment - that the comment made was not very damaging. Or that the notice you now see after all this, is not damaging.

The comment made was not more than a tiny little bit damaging, in truth.
What is damaging is the uncovered SS response: twist history.
It's how and why you never see SS lose an argument. To you it seems they must be pretty smart fellers and always right. You never get to see the deleted and the banned. You call that their enforcing of a strict code of conduct.

What I like about SkepticalScience.com is that I am constantly engaged by their informed explanations. It's a place I can go to sink my teeth....

...And I'm constantly impressed...

.. I trust them, because SkS refers to actual studies...

Why people can attack such an approach is beyond me

And it will remain so.The outlook is not good.

Flash · Post by **Flash** » Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:05 pm

I am sorry but all of this quoting and counter quoting of sources got me lost so I have a simple question for SweetPea; Are you denying that the global warming is occurring, practically as we speak, or if you are not, are you denying that it is anthropogenic in origin?

Just as a completely anecdotal story, albeit the one which can be scientifically confirmed, I was in the Rockies this summer and didn't see what I was supposed to see, glaciers. In Montana, in Yoho B.C. Banf and Jasper a lot of glaciers were missing, just gone, either melted away or stolen. What do you think SweetPea? I think you will say stolen and don't forget to quote your "scientific" sources. :mrgreen:

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:52 am

Flash,
Thank you for the questions.
In order to avoid thread-jacking I cannot reply to your questions here. It would make this truly excellent citizenschallenge thread harder to follow.
I will, however, post links below, to the Rocky Mountain and Glacier National Park glacier topic as googled for WUWT and SS. You may then compare info available from the two sites.

Which glacier location that you actually observed, was missing the glacier? Say in Montana. Glacier National Park ? Which glacier?
Edited from here on
First, a Thank You goes out to Flash for his most interesting question.

I'll offer a quote for background - a simple Anecdotal Account - coming from another knowledgeable young visitor to the scene of the crime. It's absolutely confirming of the Flash Anecdotal Account!
Now it's a game of Catch the Thief.

While standing upon that peak overlooking the terrain above the rim wall, we got the thrill of thrills, for there lay the glacier, shriveled and shrunken from its former size, almost senile, with its back against the mountain walls to the east of it, putting up its last fight for life. It was still what seemed to be a lusty giant, but it was dying, dying, dying, every score of years as it receded, it was spewing at its mouth the accumulations buried within its bosom for centuries.

Albert Sperry, 1894
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... 0/sec3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Flash · Post by **Flash** » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:45 pm

SweetPea wrote:

Which glacier location that you actually observed, was missing the glacier? Say in Montana. Glacier National Park ? Which glacier?
Edited from here on
First, a Thank You goes out to Flash for his most interesting question.

Your welcome SweetPea. Well, to be proper I must say that the entire park has missing glaciers, lots of them. That's why the park has such lovely alpine valleys now. You know, when the last period of glaciation ended the mountain glaciers retreated quite naturally, but I think you know all of that, right? It was a slow process. But even as long as hundred years ago there were 150 glaciers which now, have been reduced to only 37 shrinking glaciers. The one we saw was the Jackson glacier and in the Jasper National Park it was the Athabasca shrinking glacier. We didn't see Yoho but it's also melting as we speak.

A few years ago I was in Europe and saw some missing Alpine glaciers, Mont Blanc is the one I remember the best.

So to make a long story short, if you google for the rapidly melting mountain glaciers you get Patagonia, the rest of the Andes, the Alps, the Rockies, Pyrenees, the Pacific Coast Ranges, Even the Himalayas and Mount Kilimanjaro. Some glaciers in New Zealand are not melting but my sources tell me that's because of the locally shifting rain patterns. Of course you still haven't answered my question; do you deny that the mountain glaciers are melting?

BTW, my sources are the people of the same cut as the ones who split the atom, look for the cure for cancer, and try to find out a bit about the Universe, the climatologists, the majority of the world's scientists. Who are yours, the Flat Earth Society, the few scientists who made a Faustian bargain with Kochs and the fossil fuel peddlers? The demagogues and the right wing doctrinaires?

You know SweetPea, I am not a scientist so I have to trust the reputable scientists who tell me things, like that molecules are made out of atoms, electrons are real, Earth is not flat and that there is only one moon around our planet. They follow a self checking procedure that even if they are wrong initially, eventually straightens things out, that's how science including the climate science works. So when some rogue scientists come forward denying that Earth is round or that it has one moon or that the general relativity works, or that the evolution theory is true and that the anthropogenic warming is real, I've got to be pretty skeptical. Add to this the obvious vested interests, you know of people and companies lying about the climate change, purposely misleading us because it's good for their business plus those whose ideology tells them what to think or not to think, one can't help but be really, and I mean really skeptical about the claims by the climate change denialists. Why aren't you skeptical as well SweetPea?

You don't seem to be a stupid, politically doctrinaire and without a clue. Why do you take the side of people who are not only wrong but self serving and evil as well. Quoting sources from the Flat Earth Society will not convince anybody that Earth is flat. Similarly, quoting endless articles by the scientific sell outs is not going to change the fact that to the most of the world scientists the anthropogenic climate change is real.

There is another question I have asked you and got no reply. It's clear to almost everybody why most denialist deny climate change (see above). I would like you to tell us here why you think most of the world's climatologists who support the climate warming theory would lie in order to promote it. It couldn't be the ideology, because politically they are just like everybody all over the map so to speak. Are you a believer in the conspiracy theory ? That would require some type of political cohesion which as I mentioned is not there. Free Masons, the royal families, the Jews, Nazis, The pope? Why would the majority of hard working, ordinarily trustworthy climatologist suddenly join together and start lying about the climate change?
It's like having the majority of the cosmologists suddenly start lying about the age of the Universe. Any clue?

xouper · Post by **xouper** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:06 am

Flash wrote:. . . I am not a scientist so I have to trust the reputable scientists who tell me things, like that molecules are made out of atoms, electrons are real, Earth is not flat and that there is only one moon around our planet. They follow a self checking procedure that even if they are wrong initially, eventually straightens things out, that's how science including the climate science works.

That's my position as well.

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:15 pm

Flash,
An excellent forum for your personal questions is provided for your convenience here:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=18575" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But for the subject of glacial import to you, a dedicated thread would be better.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:28 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:oh incidentally,
AnthonySG1 at 20:25 PM on 9 May, 2008
OK smarties. If Antarctica is overall losing ice, then how do you explain the data?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Arctic doesn't seem to be doing so bad anymore, also:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... t.area.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.
Damning truly damning

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ediate.htm

SweetPea wrote:It's astounding behaviour.
Imagine the shame of being caught doing that. Oh,forgot. Shameless.

You know SkS folks are human too, so they make some mistakes. However, considering this,

Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.

it seem to me you, and the truly shameless Bishop et al. are doing a bit of over reacting (or would that be over reaching) in thinking this somehow makes them an unreliable source... particularly when you bring in an appeal to the authority of the likes of Bishop Hill into the discussion.

Besides in the end their analysis holds up. And the observed changes are for real.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ah actually the Arctic is in deep slush:

27 August 2012
Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20120827_20 ... ecord.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arctic sea ice cover melted to its lowest extent in the satellite record yesterday, breaking the previous record low observed in 2007. Sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles).

and the tundra is in trouble too:

EarthSky // Blogs // Earth Earth Trekker by Deanna Conners Apr 25, 2011
Erosion threatens valuable Arctic coastlines
http://earthsky.org/earth/erosion-threa ... coastlines

A new report titled “State of the Arctic Coast 2010″ documents how Arctic coastlines are retreating by approximately 1 to 2 meters per year due to climate warming and erosion. Warmer temperatures in the Arctic have greatly reduced the extent of sea ice and melted permafrost. Together, these changes on land and sea are creating more frequent and severe storm waves that are battering an increasingly bare coastline.

An international team of more than 30 scientists from 10 countries worked on the 178-page State of the Arctic Coast 2010” report, through the Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Center for Materials and Coastal Research.

This new and unique stuff (that is for in many thousands of years) happening here.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:49 pm

We had a sweet deal going and of course climate always changes and was going to change a bit one way or another anyways. But we have heaped blanket upon CO2 blankets worth of insulation upon this planet... unfortunately our society depends on a relatively stable predictable climate for healthy functioning as recent global events, er calamities should be making clear. Notice the crop yields for this year? Or, for that matter, have you heard about trains derailed because of over expansion of rails http://blog.nwf.org/2012/08/coal-train-tracker/

And in my travels I've noticed that newspaper temp maps now include a 110+ color, that wasn't there a few years back.

Oh but every wart on a climatologist is hyper-inflated into mountains - while the really important facts and information is treated with derisive contempt and a level of rationalization and denial that would have even astounded Samuel Clemens.

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:15 am

citizenschallenge wrote:You know SkS folks are human too, so they make some mistakes. However, considering this,
Response: Note: the rebuttal above has been updated since this comment was posted, incorporating later references and clarifying that sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomena. Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. The reasons for sea ice increasing in a warming Southern Ocean are complex and described in detail above.
it seem to me you, and the truly shameless Bishop et al. are doing a bit of over reacting (or would that be over reaching) in thinking this somehow makes them an unreliable source... particularly when you bring in an appeal to the authority of the likes of Bishop Hill into the discussion.

Your question was wrt SS vs WUWT.

You smear BishopHill, but tell nothing. Maybe you are trying to suggest that it never happened. ...a little echochamberly denial on the side? Shoot the messenger ! Never admit the scurvy, dishonest tactics ! Point elsewhere !

BIshopHIll is not the subject. Crop yields are not the subject.

Your favourite source is the subject.
It's not clear at all what went on, from looking at their page now. You cannot tell that all that had happened there, when you visit.
They could have used strike-out to show what was removed, the comments later added, then what happened after they got caught.
but that would be admitting what they do, for posterity - on their own site.
Even what you ended up getting, is censored in their favour.
Unreliable for my purposes, thanks.

Deny away.
+2 Denier Points, collect 1000 toward a trip to the tropical destination of your choice!.

There are more incidents for your entertainment. It's not isolated.error.

You can deny that this behaviour has any significance wrt trust, believability. For echo chamber megaphone artists, it does not. Just keep pointing elsewhere and talking about corn.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:24 pm

The point is honest curiosity and learning.

SkepticalScience does a great job of explaining the known science and offering up the sources upon which they base their posts. I'm still not sure what your claim is... that they gotta be perfect or be damned. And if that is your claim (which it sort of sounds like) then I'm wondering why you don't hold your own sources to that standard?

Oh yea, and the bigger point is understanding what this society is doing to our planet.
~ ~ ~

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:05 am

Oh, but I do hold higher standards. That is precisely why I consider SS to be a substandard source! You may disagree. I understand :lol:

It will be fun to watch how that SS page changes now.

First they made a messy article with bold claim which did not differentiate between sea ice and land ice.
Comments were made, and replies inserted by SS admin.
6 months later John Cook goes in and reworks the original post, then adds commentary into reader posts, as if they had not read the article.
When caught, John Cook says it was routine updating. That does not explain why he entered misleading comments into reader comments. He later said he thought the comments had just arrived ! (ha ha. Inserted themselves in the front).

So after being caught, he erases those new replies to reader comments which he had just inserted, and he inserts an advisory that the original post as been updated.
Now he has erased
a) the SS admin original replies to reader comments.
Those were replaced with 6-month-later replies inserted clandestinely.
And he also erased .
b)those clandestinely inserted admin replies !

Then he inserts the advisory notices in their place.

Now that it is found that Antarctica is gaining land ice mass after all, his whole futile effort is utterly comical.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120 ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

July 14

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:27 am

Thread commentary shows that the SS clientele first learned about the NASA report through WUWT reporting.

Guess that tells a bit, eh ?
WUWT +1

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 1:31 pm

SweetPea wrote:Thread commentary shows that the SS clientele first learned about the NASA report through WUWT reporting.

Guess that tells a bit, eh ?
WUWT +1

Are you by any chance claiming this shows that WUWT is a superior and trustworthy website?

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:49 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
SweetPea wrote:Thread commentary shows that the SS clientele first learned about the NASA report through WUWT reporting.

Guess that tells a bit, eh ?
WUWT +1
Are you by any chance claiming this shows that WUWT is a superior and trustworthy website?

No.

Just a better site than SS is, for science news. +1
SS is -1 for their covert changes to the record.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:44 am

SweetPea wrote: Now that it is found that Antarctica is gaining land ice mass after all, his whole futile effort is utterly comical.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120 ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You talk about distracting from the topic.

The topic is trying to understand Climate Change !
and you my dear sp are the one doing the distracting here.

You know,
it seems to me the prerequisites for this discussion should be establishing your basic AGW understanding
{... to yourself and us}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE GET OUT OF KINDERGARDEN AGW QUIZ

Has society been consuming fossil fuels in ever increasing gargantuan quantities for the past couple centuries?
yes or no

Has this consumption resulted in the injection of geologically speaking (see the atmospheric CO2 hockey stick graph) stupendous amounts of CO2 and other GHGs into our atmosphere?
yes or no

Have scientists been studying the physics of these so-called “greenhouse gases,” for more than a century?
yes or no

Do scientists understand those atmospheric GHG physics with a {Newtonian} certainty, if perhaps not to an {Einsteinian 99.99...%} accuracy?
yes or no

Do these so-called “greenhouse gases” insulate and warm our atmosphere?
yes or no

Do scientists understand the outlines of the various mechanisms/dynamics that translate this atmospheric warming down into our biosphere (that includes the oceans)?
yes or no
If no - specify your understanding of their failings
~ ~ ~

Those are the Get Out of Kindergarden Questions !

Without facing those questions and grasping their answers you are incapable of moving on to discussing, let alone understanding, the many dynamics that influence the distribution of that extra atmospheric warmth throughout our biosphere.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Yet, folks like you do everything in your power to distract from those crucial questions and achieving that first base for any sincere quest towards a genuine understanding of our planet's Climate and what is happening to her.

Instead contrarian-skeptics play the guy at the bar, telling the baseball player on TV how to get from third base to Home, when they themselves don’t have a clue about getting to first base.

So don’t cry to me with your disingenuous indignation about "avoiding the Antarctic Ice/Snow Mass Balance “question.”"

When you don’t even have the cojones to admit where all that extra mass is coming from !

Come on! Bonus question... here I’ll let you peek at my notes:
Warmer ocean currents, more moisture in the atmosphere, circulation patterns and weather. Dynamics that have undergone significant changes over and around the Antarctic during the decades scientists have been observing.

As a kid I remember reading about what a desert Antarctica actually was... that ain't really the case for many parts of the continent anymore, is it big guy?

So tell me sp - nice and simple:
What is your point with this Snow {seems to me, it'll be a while before we can classify it as "ice" mass} Mass balance question?

How does your "snow mass hard-on" deny the scientific understanding of human driven global warming?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:59 am

The topic is trying to understand Climate Change !
and you my dear sp are the one doing the distracting here.

Oh. Silly me. I thought the topic was SS vs.WUWT

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:13 am

SweetPea wrote:
The topic is trying to understand Climate Change !
and you my dear sp are the one doing the distracting here.
Oh. Silly me. I thought the topic was SS vs.WUWT

Yea you are one silly and disingenuous sweat pea.

So how about it?
Let's see how you do on those questions.

Then perhaps we can move on.

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:13 am

citizenschallenge, I will never knowingly assist you in thread jacking.

I'm sure you can find a place for quizzes and games where you are not being abusive of the forum.

citizenschallenge · Post by **citizenschallenge** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

:lol:

:roll:

SweetPea · Post by **SweetPea** » Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:05 pm

citizenschallenge wrote: :lol:

:roll:

Skeptical Science INSIDER REPORT on SS vs. WUWT

Sometimes you just want to let loose and scream about how you want to take those {!#%@} arseholes, those closed-minded bigotted genocidal pieces of regurgitated dog {!#%@} and do unspeakable violence to their bodies and souls for what they are doing to the safety of what and who we all hold dear. (Ain’t a lack of a moderation policy a cleansing and liberating thing?)…

Work out what you are best suited too and do that. But be able to distance yourself enough from your personal reactions to also see the bigger picture of the entire war and contribute to framing that broad campaign – “We need to focus on this and this and this. But my personal contribution will be to ripe Anthony Watts’ throat out – metaphorically of course.

Skeptical Science: -2

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

The Skeptics Society Forum

SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

... and then there is professor Ian Plimer

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com

Re: SkepticalScience.com compared to WUWT.com