Get your facts straight, Baccheus. Watts has been published in a peer reviewed journal. The publication in question was a letter, but the poster never claimed it was a peer reviewed paper. Of course, that alone does not make him a climate scientist. He is a meteorologist by trade.
To say he corrected errors in the scientific record is a bit of a stretch. He analyzed the a complex set of data and came up with a different conclusion. There is no prima facia right or wrong here, just scientists doing what they do- discussing, debating, trying to convince their peers that theirs is the right conclusion.
And yes, skeptics should be engaged when the bring substantive issues to the table. To hide behind some consensus or engage in character assassination only shows a weak debating position.
Edit: Getting anything published in a journal with the name "Nature" is significant.
@Baccheus: You only wish that Watts had lied. He didn't. If you actually read more than the headline you would find Watts identified his rebuttal accurately:
"Our findings have just been published (paywalled) in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change as a Comment on the original Oustin ?str?m paper..."
They were published as a comment on the original paper. Or maybe you think that is a lie as well.
It doesn't take a very smart person to spot the evils of the hypocrites. Watts is smart and also has integrity.
Baccy, quit trying to change the English vocabulary in order to suit your evil agenda.
Publish, according to Dictionary.com, "to make publicly or generally known." The root word is 'public' so even the newspaper boy is a 'publisher'. It is of little wonder how you get conned into believing such farces as AGW and Climate Change. You don't even know what the English language is about.
Watts is not climate scientist. He is a blogger and propagandist who used to be a media weather announcer. He did some useful work documenting sitings of instrument shelters. Unfortunately when these were scrutinized the results were not what he'd hoped for, so he hasn't really pursued this any further. As others have said, this was a response to an article--not an article itself. The original article seemed of peripheral interest at most, anyway, so whether the criticisms are valid or not it's not going to shake the foundations of climate science.
Something that you seem unaware of, or perhaps have swept under the rug in your effort to puff up Watts, is that he is only the third author on a response with two other people that have advanced degrees--one of whom has a Ph.D. For all we know Watts may have done no work at all on the paper, but it served their purposes to put his name on it.
Kano ---
>>Anyone searching for the truth through scientific methods is a scientist.<<
Let’s ignore the fact that Watts and his coauthors are complaining about something that has nothing to do with the article – since Watts is a proven liar and you have proven that you do not care about either “science” or the “truth” since you have never – ever – actually investigated anything you talk about.
Oudin ?str?m et al., explicitly state that their study does, “not make any direct comparisons between mortality to temperature extremes during 1900-1929 and mortality to temperature extremes during 1980-2009.”
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/10/21/...
Heaven forbid that you - or any Denier - ever actually bother to fcking read something before claiming to know everything about it.
But, let’s get to the heart of the matter – the scientific method – specifically, the fact that Watts ignores it and you Deniers are too ignorant to know that he ignores it.
Watts claims, “We were immediately skeptical because the original Oustin ?str?m results run contrary to a solid body of scientific evidence (including our own) that shows that heat-related mortality and the population’s sensitivity to heat waves was been declining in major cities across America and Europe as people take adaptive measures to protect themselves from the rising heat.”
Everyone knows that improved health-care, socio-economics, “air conditioning,” etc., have reduced heat-related mortality rates over time. However, these are long-term trends and not intentionally planned actions to protect people from “the rising heat” and they are not “adaptive measures” taken in anticipation of specific short-term heat events like those analyzed in the Oudin ?str?m et al. study.
Here is the (scientific) question: How would you study the impacts of “adaptive measures” on
heat-related mortality?
And – here is what you need to apply the scientific method to the question.
1. Define what the “adaptive measures” are – including your justification (e.g., by referencing existing scientific knowledge and research) for selecting these as the variables you will investigate.
2. What data do you need to study these adaptive measures and - how will you collect the data?
3. How do you know that these data represent the information you need to study the adaptive measures – specifically, how do you know that the data you intend to collect are not actually measuring some effect other than – or in addition to - the one you are studying?
4. What tests will you perform to determine if the data indicate that the “adaptive measures” are having a significant impact on mortality?
5. What “results” will the tests provide?
6. How do these results indicate whether the adaptive measures have any influence on mortality?
7. What validation procedures will you use to verify the correctness of your test results?
If you can answer these questions, I will ask a question for all to see that explicitly references your skilled scientific understanding – and that also includes a personal admission that I have been wrong to ever question your knowledge of science or your honesty in pursuit of that knowledge. Until then, however, I maintain that you – and every other Denier here - are scientifically illiterate ideological nitwits and liars who are too stupid to be AGW skeptics.
Watts is as much a "Climate Scientist" as Mann.
You are so easily mislead. He did not "correct the scientific record", he wrote a "letter-to-the-editor". When he claims to have "published' he lies, and you then repeat the lie. The term "published" in a scientific journal refers to publishing of peer-reviewed research. That is much much different than the Correspondence section.
Nature Climate Change published his correspondence and published the reply from the peer-reviewed researchers. Watts et al made a bunch of claims with no support and the researchers replied very politely but clearly that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/current_i...
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038...
***********
Wave Slave, my facts are straight. Watts is claiming today that "Rebuttal to ?str?m" is published. However, once we look at the journal, he is again exposed as a liar.
I am aware that he has previously published in GRA. That was his paper that he had to contradict his own blogging claims because even his own analysis showed he was wrong.
I'm just going to stick with the basics. Failure to account for adaptation is like forgetting to wipe. That's why alarmist stink.
Notorious science denier Watts CLAIMING to have rebutted some obscure bit of climate science is NO proof whatever of him actually having done any such thing. IF he actually has proven something, the trillion dollar fossil fuel industry will find a way to overcome the global conspiracy of the world's scientists, universities, and newspapers, and get the word out. Watts tooting his own horn happens dozens of times daily. One more example today is barely worth a yawn.
"Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but has been unwilling to state whether he graduated. [1], [2]
He is a former television meteorologist".
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
He is only a self proclaimed climate scientist who has not studied nor does he have a degree in climatology
He is a dumba** denier who manipulates data and promotes lies and misinformation
Not to be trusted and linikng to him shows how little you know about AGW
Anthony Watts is a published climate scientist, but according to the regulars on here, he is not a climate scientist.
So how did this non-scientist blogger manage to correct the scientific record, if he is so stupid? Does this suggest that perhaps skeptics should be engaged more often?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/30/new-skeptic-publication-in-nature-climate-change-rebuts-strm-et-al-claims-of-increased-deaths-due-to-heat-waves/
Make up your mind : either he is or is not a scientist.
Either way wuwt claim is false
