I’m sure Phil Jones will need to be notified right away that this paper on HadCRUT4 was never actually published.
Justin Templer writes on Twitter and provides screencaps:
Meet @ForecastFacts campaign manager and degreed environmentalist @emilyrsouthard clueless about HadCRUT
From her Twitter feed
and then later, there was this gem:
While some people might agree, I don’t think it means what she thinks it means. How embarrassing.
Who is Emily Southard? Her Linked in profile says:
These are the sorts of low information activists that are bullying weathercasters and TV meteorologists into saying what the activists want them to say about climate.
Be sure to tell you own local TV weathercaster or meteorologist to watch out for these folks, since they are obviously clueless.
*blinks* Okay, I’m instantly lost. MoveOn.org is anti-HadCRUT ?
And earlier today, David Suzuki declared himself to be anti-immigration. Did something cosmic happen today that I missed?
I really don’t understand why you give exposure to irrational idiots like this.
I suppose someone has to say it. Emily sounds like a real twit.
Sorry.
What a fool. Glad she’s on THEIR side, lol.
@007 because if I don’t nobody will know just how irrational these idiots are.
007 says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:54 pm
> I really don’t understand why you give exposure to irrational idiots like this.
It’s not exposure, it’s documentation and ensuring that what you say on the ‘net lives forever.
Aw, come ON, Bond, James Bond (007 above) — that’s easy!
Because it is SO MUCH FUN! #[:)]
Okay, let’s see if Ric Werme and I post at the same time again….
Ric! Where were you?!
Maybe things have changed since she graduated, but Connecticut College seems to have a degree in “Environmental Studies,” not “Environmental Science.” Minor technicality in name, but it helps to get your major right when you’re trying to use it in an argument.
Doesn’t exactly read like a rigorous program in “climate science,” to say the least
http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/majors-departments-programs/academic-programs/environmental-studies/courses/
I am sure I’ve studied at least as much “climate science” during my environmental engineering degree programs. On top of that, I had rigorous math and stats courses – something clearly lacking from too many of the so-called “climate scientists.”
Her cluelessness regarding HadCRUT is quite amusing. I like how she found the means to attack it thanks to “I googled HadCRUT” and a write-up from SkepitcalScience.
Actually she has a point – according to Phil Jones, nobody who peer reviewed his papers ever asked him to produce method or data. So in a very real sense, his papers have not been peer reviewed – pal reviewed maybe…
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html
Should they rename it to PushOver.org?
And the Lord said, “Let there be crackpots.”
And there were crackpots.
“These are the sorts of low information activists that are bullying weathercasters and TV meteorologists into saying what the activists want them to say about climate.
Be sure to tell you own local TV weathercaster or meteorologist to watch out for these folks, since they are obviously clueless.”
They’re clueless ’cause they don’t check out WUWT, CA, B-H, JoNova, NFC,…
Aren’t you s’posed to know your enemy?
Bob Tisdale: … and there were crackpots…
..and it was good…for a laugh
Ahem. Mr. Worrall, #[:)]
We agree with her conclusion. We are ridiculing the irony of her saying it.
And sneering at her abysmal ignorance of the meaning of what comes out of her mouth.
Yes, yes, Mr. Worrall, she IS pretty… . (smile)
I think she has gotten datasets confused. We know that after all the adjustments and manipulations it is GISS that is bunk science.
Most Environmental “Science” B.S. degrees are nearly worthless and almost all Environmental “Studies” B.S. programs are completely worthless. Maybe a step up from Communications or Business but not much. Usually they have very little in the way of real science of math courses and often are taught by extreme “watermelons” from the social sciences. I can’t speak to graduate programs in these areas. I’m sure they are a bit better but probably still not much science. Phil Jones can’t even fit a straight line in Excel so I am guessing his degrees are in Env. “Science”
She hasn’t learned her lesson yet, I wonder how long she will continue before she experiences some peer review firsthand by her bosses at @ForecastFacts
Bill_W,
Conn College’s program actually has two different tracks: (1) natural science and (2) social science.
The natural science track has two different stat courses as math options.
The general ed requirements require either a 100-level comp sci class, a 100- or 200-level math class, a philosophy class, or a 12X frosh seminar class (currently limited to “robotics and problem solving”).
It appears that you can get a 4-yr environmental studies degree without taking a single math class (unless possibly one is a pre-requisite for a required class).
Based on her educational and career background I’d say she’s chosen to marinate in deep stupid all her adult life and her ‘climate studies’ program was a couple years of crackpot catechism.
So, judging by her Linked In profile, one could safely say:
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, become Community Organizers for MoveOn, Green Corps. and O for A? With an added splash of “do as I say and not as I do” for good measure?
Question, do you think she took the Natural Science or the Social Science Track in Environmental Studies at Connecticut College? Plus, do you think it was the Major or the Minor route..
Hey, I studied Physics in tech. school, that doesn’t make me a Professor in Physics.
But I once stayed in a Holiday Inn, does that count?
And after all that Phil Jones could do, HadCRUT 4 is going down. Down, down, down. You know, “down”, as in “not up”. It’s almost like CO2 doesn’t matter much.
This cooling thing, what is causing it Mr IPCC? Could it be you are wrong? Could it be we don’t need to be inflicted with $trillions in tax servitude for a lie?
HadCRUT4 was fabricated for one reason: because version 3 didn’t show sufficient global warming: see the difference?