Smokey says: April 25, 2011 at 7:20 pm
...
True dat. Santer is a real vermin, one of the most despicable Climategate worms. This is a real indictment of the formerly great AGU, which has sold its soul to Mammon.
=============================
John Blake says: April 25, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Santer remains a blinkered ideologue, concerned not to promote objective scientific inquiry but to make his Green Gang bones preparatory to foisting willfully ruinous damage on coal, oil, nuclear energy economies in Gaia’s name.
Whatever Luddite sociopathology drives climate cultists to sabotage human ease-and-comfort at every opportunity, Santer exhibits it in spades. Like Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. he is complicit in the most massive, savagely destructive fraud in human history
============================
Pamela Gray says: April 25, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I’ve been privy to the spectacle of seeing all kinds of accolades being directed to first class jerks. And have sometimes been at the receiving end of “jerk” intelligence and their special kind of superiority. It seems to be a fact of life that those who find being a jerk a rewarding way of life also tend to be at the top of a pile.
============================
And now showing at CA
Pete Posted Apr 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM
You are totally wrong on a number of counts. This body of work has massive impact on public policy and there is continuing public interest, and I would contend a requirement for full disclosure. The University is also a public body and receives grants for it’s work from numerous public sources.
Apart from this there are significant grounds to suspect dishonest or corrupt practice at this institution.
============================
and
Henry Posted Apr 27, 2011 at 5:39 AM
Almost all of these AGW nuts especially academics are card carrying communist the idea that their protecting the sanctity of private property is too funny.
============================
SteveGinIL Posted Apr 24, 2011 at 11:57 PM
...
Lying scientifically means fudging the data, mostly. And no other scientific filed [field?] would give that a pass.
============================
Anthony Watts says: June 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm
I’m now of the opinion that Nick Stokes is either disingenuous or deranged in his thought processes, such as selective memory.
=============================
Chris Colose
This is WUWT I guess…whatever
REPLY: This is Chris Colose, inexperienced student, http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colose/ whatever. – Anthony
.......
You obviously know how I feel about you and your blog, and the level of scientific understanding here, so the insults are pointless. I will do my best to suspend my anger at some of the things people are spoon-fed (and that they actually eat) daily.
REPLY: You are right, your predictable insults are pointless, so stop it and take it up with Dr. Gray rather than dissing me for publishing his essay at his request. Consensus does not equal fact, and the moment consensus replaces empirically proven facts in science, science is lost. – Anthony
....
REPLY: He’s not at GISS, which is in NYC, he’s in Madison at UW, Home of McIdas and SEIU riots taking over the capital and all that. – Anthony
==================
Joshua says: August 29, 2011 at 11:57 am
....
…simply because you don’t like Pat Michaels and are too much of a coward to put your own full name to posts- Yes he made a gaffe, then corrected it, now move on.
OK. Pat Michaels isn’t a “coward” because he uses his own name when he writes a comment about only 8 bodies being “coughed up?”
Gaffe? Really? You call that a “gaffe?”
And I think that “scrubbed” is more accurate than “correction.” Did he make a statement about his original phrasing, or was his post just silently edited?
REPLY: Scrubbed would imply removal. Correction is changing words/spelling. Now if you have something to discuss about TV media, then discuss it, otherwise take a hike. I get tired of your thread jackings here. Note the policy page. Note there I state WUWT has a low tolerance level for people using taxpayer funded resources to spout snark from the comfort of anonymity. – Anthony
-------------------------------
uknowispeaksense says:
He's really getting rattled these days:
“Moderator REP says:
August 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Jan P Perlwitz says: August 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Or is this a subtle try to intimidate me by bringing my employer into the argument? BTW: Who do you think is my employer anyway?
Jeez…. unless the budget cuts bit deeper than we thought or you developed a conscience, everybody and his brother knows you work for NASA/GISS.”
So once again, the MO here appears to be that if you agree with the work, anonymous review is fine, but as soon as significant or legitimate criticisms appear, you find it necessary to make a point of hunting down and exposing/blackmailing identities. This is DISGUSTING, and of course will not be a tactic available to you in peer review.
REPLY: Mr. H- whatever. You really want to go this way? Fine. Dr. Perlwitz is well known and well-respected in this community. It really doesn’t matter if he adheres to our “line” or not, he has my respect and that of many others. You can vehemently disagree with him, but if you try to silence him you may run into more of a problem than you thought. Dr. Perlwitz puts his name on his words.
You, on the other hand, are a sock puppet. Young Mr. Roberts is more than welcome to comment here… but if young Mr. Roberts wants to play stupid games, fine. His information gets dumped. One last warning, Mr. Roberts…. before I was allowed to be a moderator here, I made a comment in seven or eight different languages that in the cold light of morning I begged Charles to remove. Anonymity doesn’t make you free, it makes you stupid.One more humbolt comment like this and your
contact information gets published.
Actually, that’s not gonna happen. but you are pushing the envelope. -REP
Hmmm - I seem to remember his email getting published as well - more secret snipping!!!
August 1, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Jan P Perlwitz says: August 1, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Or is this a subtle try to intimidate me by bringing my employer into the argument? BTW: Who do you think is my employer anyway?
Jeez…. unless the budget cuts bit deeper than we thought or you developed a conscience, everybody and his brother knows you work for NASA/GISS.”
So once again, the MO here appears to be that if you agree with the work, anonymous review is fine, but as soon as significant or legitimate criticisms appear, you find it necessary to make a point of hunting down and exposing/blackmailing identities. This is DISGUSTING, and of course will not be a tactic available to you in peer review.
REPLY: Mr. H- whatever. You really want to go this way? Fine. Dr. Perlwitz is well known and well-respected in this community. It really doesn’t matter if he adheres to our “line” or not, he has my respect and that of many others. You can vehemently disagree with him, but if you try to silence him you may run into more of a problem than you thought. Dr. Perlwitz puts his name on his words.
You, on the other hand, are a sock puppet. Young Mr. Roberts is more than welcome to comment here… but if young Mr. Roberts wants to play stupid games, fine. His information gets dumped. One last warning, Mr. Roberts…. before I was allowed to be a moderator here, I made a comment in seven or eight different languages that in the cold light of morning I begged Charles to remove. Anonymity doesn’t make you free, it makes you stupid.
Actually, that’s not gonna happen. but you are pushing the envelope. -REP
Hmmm - I seem to remember his email getting published as well - more secret snipping!!!
REPLY: We are all still waiting for you to produce something of value other than whining from behind the curtain of anonymity.