A Fascinating Look at Temperature Data -- And Some Startling Conclusions (1 Viewer)

[MoSurveyor]

You should not fear the data so much.eace

It has nothing to do with the data and everything to do with what I quoted - the name of the ignoramus you chose to interpret said data for you ...

 

[Jack Hays]

It has nothing to do with the data and everything to do with what I quoted - the name of the ignoramus you chose to interpret said data for you ...

You are at odds with the facts. As is usually the case at WUWT, Watts himself is merely an aggregator. The data was provided by one Frank Lansner in this case. The immediate resort to ad hominem is of course a strong signal of a lack of confidence in your argument.eace

 

[MoSurveyor]

You are at odds with the facts. As is usually the case at WUWT, Watts himself is merely an aggregator. The data was provided by one Frank Lansner in this case. The immediate resort to ad hominem is of course a strong signal of a lack of confidence in your argument.eace

Not ad hominem. Watts is ignorant of the subject of his writings - hence, an ignoramus ...



... but you can attempt to prove me wrong starting with the presentation of evidence of his degree in climate science. Where did he get his degree and when? Please provide references.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not ad hominem. Watts is ignorant of the subject of his writings - hence, an ignoramus ...

But you can prove me wrong by presenting evidence of his degree in climate science.

Again, Watts is not involved in the data at issue. You have added non sequitur to your ad hominem. The desperation displayed by the defenders of a dying orthodoxy is sometimes startling.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not ad hominem. Watts is ignorant of the subject of his writings - hence, an ignoramus ...



... but you can attempt to prove me wrong starting with the presentation of evidence of his degree in climate science. Where did he get his degree and when? Please provide references.

Wow...

Attempt to destroy the messenger, because you can't destroy the message... Right?

I understand the material. Maybe you do too, and can't rebut it...

 

[MoSurveyor]

Wow...

Attempt to destroy the messenger, because you can't destroy the message... Right?

I understand the material. Maybe you do too, and can't rebut it...

Don't need an ignoramus like Watts to present it, which was what my comment quoted. It's no wonder you guys have issues - you can't seem to stay on point. Why not reference the original material? Why add the ignorant middle man with the personal agenda? If the data speaks for itself then why are you referencing someone who has little or no education in the subject? Let the data speak for itself instead of putting it in some neat little biased package. :screwy :screwy



PS
Is it because the data doesn't speak for itself? Or because you must bow to your God of Climate?
:lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't need an ignoramus like Watts to present it, which was what my comment quoted. It's no wonder you guys have issues - you can't seem to stay on point. Why not reference the original material? Why add the ignorant middle man with the personal agenda? If the data speaks for itself then why are you referencing someone who has little or no education in the subject? Let the data speak for itself instead of putting it in some neat little biased package. :screwy :screwy



PS
Is it because the data doesn't speak for itself? Or because you must bow to your God of Climate?
:lamo

As I have pointed out to you twice already, the data is the original data. Watts did not create it; he is the aggregator. Your argument is phony.:lamo

 

[Lord of Planar]

As I have pointed out to you twice already, the data is the original data. Watts did not create it; he is the aggregator. Your argument is phony.:lamo

Hard to shake true believers away from their religion.

 

[MoSurveyor]

As I have pointed out to you twice already, the data is the original data. Watts did not create it; he is the aggregator. Your argument is phony.:lamo

How do YOU know it's the original data? I sure as hell don't trust Watts to believe it on his say-so. Why not cite the data itself? Or is it as fictional as Watts usual conclusions?



PS
Oh, yeah, of course! I get it! You can't list more than one source so you have to reference Watts instead of the original data sources. Yeah, sure ... :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Hard to shake true believers away from their religion.

You're the ones who keep quoting and referencing Watts instead of people educated in the subject. Who's the "true believer" here? You and JH & Co for running to Anthony 'the God of Climate' Watts all the time for his interpretation of climate data? (even though he doesn't even have a college degree!) Or me for wanting the original data from the scientists that actually collect it? What is it you all are so afraid of in the original data that you want to hide it's origins???

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're the ones who keep quoting Watts instead of people educated in the subject. Who's the "believer" here? You for running to Anthony 'the God of Climate' Watts all the time for his interpretation of that data? Or me for wanting the original data from the scientist that collected it?

Wow... Another knee-jerk reaction from you.

Please show me where I have quoted Watts.

Please show me where someone has ever show Watts to use bogus material. How hypocritical are you going to be? Do you also automatically disregard material from RealClimate, ClimateSkeptic, etc?

He uses other peoples peer reviewed work, but I know you guys automatically gag on him, so I present things in my own words from the knowledge I have developed over the years.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Wow... Another knee-jerk reaction from you.

Please show me where I have quoted Watts.

I edited to include referencing him.

Please show me where someone has ever show Watts to use bogus material. How hypocritical are you going to be? Do you also automatically disregard material from RealClimate, ClimateSkeptic, etc?

I disregard material that isn't either source material or references the source material well enough to find it with a cursory search. Study name, date, and scientist/institute is sufficient for most references. I don't have any of the above mentioned sites on speed dial, no.

He uses other peoples peer reviewed work, but I know you guys automatically gag on him, so I present things in my own words from the knowledge I have developed over the years.

What is it you guys have against the original data? Must be something pretty big considering how hard you avoid the subject. I've haven't seen this kind of footwork since I quit watching boxing.

 

[Jack Hays]

How do YOU know it's the original data? I sure as hell don't trust Watts to believe it on his say-so. Why not cite the data itself? Or is it as fictional as Watts usual conclusions?



PS
Oh, yeah, of course! I get it! You can't list more than one source so you have to reference Watts instead of the original data sources. Yeah, sure ... :roll:

Rather than preemptively insulting everyone why don't you just read the post and tell us what you think?eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

I edited to include referencing him.

OK, when have I done that? Since your side has such a knee-jerk reaction to him, I avoid using his material. Now I agree with it when I read it, but I don't reference him, and if I ever has, it is very rare for me to do so. I normally link peer reviewed papers, but I sometimes use grey material.

I disregard material that isn't either source material or references the source material well enough to find it with a cursory search. Study name, date, and scientist/institute is sufficient for most references. I don't have any of the above mentioned sites on speed dial, no.

Then you disregard the majority of the alarmists materials... since you cannot since their source data, right?

What is it you guys have against the original data? Must be something pretty big considering how hard you avoid the subject. I've haven't seen this kind of footwork since I quit watching boxing.

I love original data. Too bad by the time the alarmists publish it, they have already added their corrections to it, and it is no longer raw/original.

 

[Earthling]

Rather than preemptively insulting everyone why don't you just read the post and tell us what you think?eace

Probably because that wouldn't be as much fun for a repressed personality, as ripping into a few other faceless people on an internet forum.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Rather than preemptively insulting everyone why don't you just read the post and tell us what you think?eace

Worship at Watts alter? I'm not giving that ignoramus one penny - or were you too busy being spell-bound to notice he has ads splattered all over his page? Why don't you post the relevant scientific references instead?


On the issue of "insults":
I see you're still having problems with English, first 'ignoramus' and now 'preemptive'. It's only preemptive if I start it but I've been giving only what I've been getting. If you don't like it, then don't start it.

 

[Earthling]

Worship at Watts alter[sic]?

What was altered on the altar?

 

[MoSurveyor]

What was altered on the altar?

It's very early here - not enough coffee ... yet.

 

[Jack Hays]

Worship at Watts alter? I'm not giving that ignoramus one penny - or were you too busy being spell-bound to notice he has ads splattered all over his page? Why don't you post the relevant scientific references instead?


On the issue of "insults":
I see you're still having problems with English, first 'ignoramus' and now 'preemptive'. It's only preemptive if I start it but I've been giving only what I've been getting. If you don't like it, then don't start it.

On the contrary, I only posted the OP to invite discussion. You replied immediately with insults. You gave before you got. In any case, if you prefer to avoid the substance of the discussion that is your right.eace

 

[MoSurveyor]

On the contrary, I only posted the OP to invite discussion. You replied immediately with insults. You gave before you got. In any case, if you prefer to avoid the substance of the discussion that is your right.eace

Insults? So you know what college Mr Watts got his degree and what that college degree was in? Then post that info up, man!!!


Otherwise I'll stick with my 'ignoramus' label for dear Mr. Watts, since it's obvious that's what he is.
Apparently you're a little ignorant, yourself, of English.

 

[Jack Hays]

Insults? So you know what college Mr Watts got his degree and what that college degree was in? Then post that info up, man!!!


Otherwise I'll stick with my 'ignoramus' label for dear Mr. Watts, since it's obvious that's what he is.
Apparently you're a little ignorant, yourself, of English.

I can think of few things less relevant than the education level of Anthony Watts. As I'll remind you for the fourth time, Watts is merely the aggregator; the data originated elsewhere. I regret to conclude that you are committed to dodging substantive discussion. eace

 

[Threegoofs]

Watts doesn't aggregate. He distorts science, has little regard for thing, and gives a platform for vermin like Monckton to trumpet their distortions.

He's a pied piper for the voluntarily gullible among us.

 

[Jack Hays]

Watts doesn't aggregate. He distorts science, has little regard for thing, and gives a platform for vermin like Monckton to trumpet their distortions.

He's a pied piper for the voluntarily gullible among us.

Tsk tsk. Looks like ad hominems are all the warmists have in the tool kit this evening.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

Tsk tsk. Looks like ad hominems are all the warmists have in the tool kit this evening.eace

If that's what you got from the post, you're farther gone than I thought.

 

[Jack Hays]

If that's what you got from the post, you're farther gone than I thought.

I can only get what's there.eace