Originally posted by wlf15y
reply to post by mc_squared
Ok, so the OP bailed on this thread days ago. Maybe he found out the papers this thread was based on have now been officially rejected?
Didn't bail - simply have a job and a life that prevents me from wasting my entire week getting repeatedly sucked into this inane debate, thank
Anyway you're right though - the BEST papers apparently haven't been published yet, so I was mistaken about that. However they ARE currently (still)
under peer-review. There is more info at this link:
Amid criticism, Berkeley Earth extends
record, upholds findings
All of the articles have been submitted to journals, and we have received substantial journal peer reviews. None of the reviews have indicated any
mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature. One review had no complaints
about the content of the paper, but suggested delaying the publication until the long background paper, describing our methods in detail, was actually
As for Richard Muller's trigger happy publishing strategy - I already said myself on page 2 I personally think he is just a shameless self-promoter.
I have made no attempt to big him or his research up in this thread - I simply posted it because I think it's hilarious how all the typical deniers
bigging him up, until the results did not go the way they wanted/expected.
This is the very point I have used this thread to make: The "skeptics" in this debate are not true skeptics at all - they make no attempt to judge
the available information rationally or objectively. They simply pick a pre-determined outcome and fight tooth and nail (read: bend reality) to
confirm that outcome. Then they make all sorts of completely unfounded - and not to mention obviously tainted with
- claims about "data manipulation" when it comes to anything that
doesn't conform to their own beliefs. Meanwhile they are so obviously threatened by anything that challenges this warped dogma, that all they seem to
do is rant about how "religious" the other
side must be (see Jean Paul Zodeaux's thread for a perfect example).
So I think it's also particularly ironic that you believe you've forced me to turn from my own thread and run, when all you're doing is helping me
prove my original point:
First of all, you're chastising the BEST study for publishing their results before passing peer-review - but simultaneously contrasting that against
Anthony Watts new "paper", which was posted on his blog before even being submitted for peer review?
Watts' work is already being eviscerated online (see here
) for egregious
errors and spotty, unproven conclusions that are so physically unrealistic that even other
deniers are distancing themselves from them
Watts' "research" is absolutely typical of exactly what I described above:
This so-called "skeptic" has conducted an analysis that was clearly engineered to deliver the results he wanted. In doing so he carelessly omitted
all sorts of well-known data biases like changing observation times, instruments, and locations with absolutely NO justification for any of it - other
than the fact these elements were inconvenient to the conclusion he
wanted to get. Even perpetual denier Steve McIntyre seems to agree:
There is a confounding interaction with (time of observation) that needs to be allowed for, as has been quickly and correctly pointed out.
But this sort of hypocrisy is nothing new to anyone who has truly familiarized themselves with the (fake) global warming debate - it is the absolute
signature M.O. of the climate deniers.
From their shoddy research to their manufactured scandals to all their over-the-top sensationalist claims about the "alarmists". It's so
obvious to anyone who practices true skepticism, rather than prancing around the internet just calling themselves one because they think it makes them