I Finally Beat My Blog Into Submission

Guest Post by  Willis Eschenbach

Well, I finally bit the bullet and successfully got my own blog up and running. It’s called “Skating on the underside of the ice“.


The “About This Blog” page says:

My name is Willis Eschenbach. I am a generalist. My CV is here. This is a blog of my thoughts about this curious and mysterious universe.

I also write about climate science. There is a list of my posts located at Watts Up With That. Autobiographical posts are here, in reverse chronological order.

Misunderstandings are the bane of the internet. If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you object to. I can and will defend my own words, but I can only do it if I know which words you disagree with.

I strongly discourage speculations about motive, as I am often unclear on my own motives—how can I judge what drives you when I don’t know what drives me?

I also am not interested in “ad hominem” attacks, attacks “against the man”. That is to say , attack a person’s ideas all you want, but please don’t attack their person (morals, education, style, parentage, personal history, experience).

Finally, as I strive to remind myself, the fact that I am offended doesn’t mean that you are offensive. As such, your expressions of offense on your part may not have the desired effect. My experience of writing for the web is that no matter what I write, someone is always offended by my words …

I moderate this site myself, so there may be longish delays in comment approval. Patience is a virtue.

Opposing views are welcome as long as they are courteous.

Best to everyone,


There are a dozen or so posts at my site. If you read them and you think they deserve wider distribution, there are a few things you can do. For those who find the site worthwhile, II would like to ask everyone’s assistance in getting my new site as much publicity and as wide a reach as possible.

First, if you like the posts I ask that you to click the button at the right side of each page that says “Follow Skating on the Underside of the Ice”. You’ll get email notification of new posts.

Second, please share the site or favored posts on Facebook.

Third, if you are on Twitter, please tweet a link to the site or favored posts. I’m @WEschenbach, you’re invited to follow me.


I will assuredly continue to publish my scientific work here on WUWT. My blog is for my philosophical and political ideas and insights.

Finally, let me say that I have the best opportunity of any scientist I know. I get to do my research and my exploration in the full public view of all of the commenters and lurkers. The best part is that when I make a mistake, someone is sure to point it out, perhaps even politely, within the first few hours that the post is up.

This constant interaction provides me with what I see as absolutely invaluable ongoing course correction, constantly preventing me from investigating wrong ideas and following blind alleys.

So let me thank you all for your part in this continuing scientific enterprise. Science works by someone making a claim, providing all of the data and code, handing around the sledge-hammers, and inviting people to smash it. If it gets smashed, it goes. If it can’t be falsified, it stays … provisionally … until maybe someday somebody smashes it.

Now, for science to work like this, you gotta have people to hand the sledgehammers to, and that’s all of the guest posters and commenters and lurkers here. Y’all are an essential part of the continuing scientific enterprise here.

Anthony has provided the public arena. I and many others put our ideas in the bright light. You folks wield the sledgehammers. Science at its finest.

So, my best regards to everyone, check out my website.


117 thoughts on “I Finally Beat My Blog Into Submission

  1. Willis , have read your contributions and followed your exploits to our oz , also have been there when you constantly sort out Griff and co and love your work .

  2. Checking it out now. I never mist your climate contributions to WUWT Willis, so very interested to discover where else your mind has taken you.

  3. Willis your website is now bookmarked, and placed second in my Global Warming folder, just south of WUWT.
    So far it looks great and reads great! Congrats.

  4. It’s a great blog and already appreciated here in NZ. I’ve recommended it to several contacts here and in Oz so hope you enjoy it as much as we are going to. I especially enjoyed “How a Businessman Takes Over A New Industry.”
    My only hope is that it doesn’t take away too much time from the great pieces you do for WUWT…we all learn so much from them.

  5. Love the Blogs name (Skating on the Underside of the Ice);sounds like a NEW Pink Floyd song or something very heady! Congrats on the new Blog mate, Its about time!!

  6. Good luck with your new blog, Willis. I invariably enjoy your style of writing so am looking forward to having yet more enjoyment in my life.
    One very small word of caution though: I think it most unlikely that you will be able to anyway – and that is to publish too many articles per day. I LOVE WUWT but some some days (with maybe between 6 and 10 new articles appearing in one day) I struggle to keep up. The trouble is that many of them are so damned interesting, along with the comments, that I simply can’t stop myself from being glued to them.

  7. Willis I always look forward to your posts on WUWT. They are always entertaining, insightful and informative. I work in the area of environmental and waste management and I can assure you there are as many ideologues in that field that need to be challenged as there are in climate Science. In my own small way I have been attempting to debunk commonly held views like you do .
    If only we could have open debate without rancor and abuse as you promote we would be much better off and we would waste less resources chasing down green rabbit holes.
    I look forward to your musings on this site and will definitely subscribe. I expect wide ranging eclectic mix of thoughts, philosophy and theories
    All the best and have a great Christmas!
    Badger from Oz

    • Willis I always look forward to your posts on WUWT. They are always entertaining, insightful and informative. Noel, you took the words right out of my mouse!

  8. Congratulations Willis, I hope you get many hits as your contributions to the debate are both informative and interesting.
    One thing though, it might be better if your CV was PDF or some other more portable format 🙂

  9. Good luck Willis with your new endeavour.
    Like me, you no doubt get paid by the word for your writing, by big frack, big wind and big oil. Big solar has been making approaches to me recently as well, so no doubt you are also in negotiation with them about a hefty monthly retainer.
    As a result you will no doubt, like me, be able to employ a team of researchers, proof readers and publicists. The going rate for a moderator is about 5000 dollars a month and to maintain 24 hour attention you will need four.
    It’s a great life being a sceptic and untold riches await those who become involved.

  10. Ok Willis… Here’s, what I think, is an appropriate question for your new blogosworld.
    “Skating on the underside of the ice’… why isn’t it smooth like the topside?

  11. Willis, I’d just like to say, after reading your report of your latest south seas expedition, one or two photos of your native skin (body?) art would, in my opinion, be appropriate? It sort of grounds you and lends credence otherwise unavailable to your compendium of experience. Just an opinion.

    • Yeah Willis you should have a tattoo section, I think many people are interested in knowing about the lives of climate scientists such as yourself. I get here often and when I see you here,
      I always know your scientific analysis is going to be what the typical (in my case) non scientist needs to understand about the science of climate change and physics in general. The steel shell experiment you authored really made me think about what is happening with our atmosphere. After studying the Trenberth energy budget and seeing your shell experiment I see how the green house effect works: more energy comes out of the earth, as a blanket of green house gases gets thicker.
      This also proves that it is possible to put a blanket between a fire and the thing it is warming, and make that object warmer than if there was no blanket between them. That’s what a blanket does: warms.
      I will be very interested in your blog when you talk about science especially.

    • Plus, I’m heading to the south Pacific next year (aboard ship of course) and would appreciate tips. My Mom will be with me (she’s 80) so I’ll need to be discrete.

  12. Willis, best wishes with the new blog, have just followed you on twitter @digimus. One thing, on a mobile the blog title is unreadable against your header background.

  13. I will not be sharing anything on Twitter or Facebook but put a Google+ link and I would share by that.

  14. This will surely be a valuable and noteworthy addition to the blogosphere. Congrats on your determination to beat “the system”.
    I shall be a regular visitor.

  15. Nice one, Willis, I just had a look and it is a really attractive site with nice readable print for us old geezers out there. I love your comments about how regime-change in the USA is putting the cat among the green pigeons. I hope the new administration will have a look at how your taxpayers’ money is being used by your embassy in South Africa to teach people how to show solar and wind in a positive light!
    John Ledger

    • Thanks, John. It took me a long time to find a WordPress theme with geezer print, glad you like it.

  16. First noticed your great writing when I read your “Burning Man” post on WUWT 4 or so years ago.
    I just sent a link to that post a few days ago to an old HS friend of mine. I will check out your blog – haven’t yet…it’s 3am here in the Baja. Good luck on your presentation this Wed. with AW in San Fran…

  17. Congratulations and good luck with your very own blog!
    Is a bottle of digital champagne in order, to be smashed on the prow? I enjoy and learn a lot from your take on things, and I will visit, I hope often.

  18. Lang may yer lum reek.
    Intriguing CV, the naysayers will have trouble picking holes in that. ‘Tok Pisin, Bislama, Solomon Islands Pijin, — Excellent’, top marks for that and in fighting ‘giaman bilong em’!

  19. I’ll follow your blog via my Feedly account. (I’m not sure if that will show in your stats.) So many sources to read, so little time! 😉

  20. Here’s another endorsement of your blog, Willis. I immediately put your blog on my Bookmarks Toolbar during the first visit.
    For those of you that have enjoyed Willis’ personal tales, travelogues, and economic analyses here at WUWT, you’ll be getting all that and more; politics! Willis has kept his political views to a minimum here on WUWT, so here’s your chance to see another facet of Willis.
    There’s alt-right, alt-left, and now there’s alt-Willis; … diagonal parking in a parallel universe. Check it out.

  21. I can’t stop thinking about the blog subtitle, ‘Diagonal parking in a parallel universe.’ I just gotta find a way to illustrate that in fractal form…

  22. Caught your blog the other day when you linked to an article in it. Great stuff, I linked a couple of articles to friends. Congratulations Willis, keep up the good fight.

  23. I love the statement “the fact that I am offended doesn’t mean that you are offensive.”
    May I offer a corollary?
    “The fact that someone is offensive does not mean I am required to take offense.”
    I use this latter concept to identify when I am being confronted with a fool, and dismiss same.

  24. Well, good for you. Me too, since I now have one more place to check with morning coffee or late night adult libation or maybe before or after “nooner”. (Leaves it up to reader to determine what “nooner” might be, but will state that it is pleasurable and involves eye closures)

  25. Good work Willis. I have bookmarked your blog and placed it right under WUWT on my list. Keep it up and I may move you to a notch above WUWT.

  26. Willis,
    I visited, and read your posts. To say that you are a generalist understates the fact! I think your wide experience with many life-and-work roles informs your perspective, and your time leading, managing and working with many kinds of people doing many different things gives you ‘tone of voice’ that carries iover the din of the mass of bullsh*t so often encountered.
    Bravo! Best wishes for the site.

  27. Looks good! I have always found your interests…..well, ‘interesting”. I set up a follow, and will link to your thoughtful takes on the universe as it and the skating continues to unfold before our eyes.

  28. References:
    Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10
    This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
    An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is attached. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC heat balance problem.
    “Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.”
    ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That’s not just thin, that’s ludicrous thin.
    The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
    The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
    ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic’s power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
    But let’s press on.
    The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
    The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That’s a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
    Except they aren’t.
    The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable shortfall from 333.
    (99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)
    But wait!
    The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333.
    But wait!
    Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333.
    But wait!
    All of the above really doesn’t even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
    BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can’t possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.
    The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn’t apply to the atmosphere, it doesn’t even apply to warming a real greenhouse. (“How Global Warming was Discovered” Spencer Weart) It’s the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.
    The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
    The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.
    Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.

    • The Steel Greenhouse 2009-11-17
      There is a lot of misinformation floating around the web about the greenhouse effect works. It is variously described as a “blanket” that keeps the Earth warm, or a “mirror” that reflects part of the heat back to Earth, or “a pane of glass” that somehow keeps energy from escaping. It is none of these things.
      People Living in Glass Planets 2010-11-27
      Dr. Judith Curry notes in a posting at her excellent blog Climate Etc. that there are folks out there that claim the poorly named planetary “greenhouse effect” doesn’t exist. And she is right, some folks do think that. I took a shot at explaining that the “greenhouse effect” is a…

  29. “I will assuredly continue to publish my scientific work …..”
    I like to slap my hands on the table. I must be a musician. Maybe I should start a blog. I have international experience too.
    I worked at nuke plant in Spain. I learned to love how these folks could make music with their hands and feet.
    As a young sailor, I thought making electricity with steam was assume. I pursued a higher education in science and engineering that let me do that for the rest of my working life.
    After reading Willis background he is about as qualified as Al Gore to speak on science.
    As a skeptic, I often check the background of folks. Merely being interested is not a reason take folks seriously.
    WUWT would be much better if posters shared what they know and not their agenda.

      • No, I just get tired of self aggrandizing claims. For example how many claim to be an environmentalists but have never bothered to take college level classes about the environment.
        I am an environmental professional based on completing course in environmental engineering and being paid for such work.
        I am a little bitter about that part of my career. I learned that no good deed goes unpunished. Environmental manager is called the designated inmate.
        It is not about protecting the impressing your political base by building shinny things that do not work very well.

    • After reading your CV, I was so exhausted that I had to rest.
      After I woke up, I decided no one person could have done so many different things.
      So I re-read the CV, looking for evidence it was fictional, or exaggerated.
      But the evidence I found supported your accomplishments being true … and explain the “generalist” label.
      I mean, if the CV was fiction, and you were just trying to impress people, you would not have listed old jobs that lasted three weeks (which makes you look like you can’t hold a job!) … and things like remodeling your house!
      I urge everyone to read your CV because it is actually interesting (as are your articles here).
      You obviously have an advantage over other climate writers because you don’t have a science PhD and do not play climate computer games on supercomputers on the government dole.
      Most important is that your articles on WUWT are consistently good, so I’ll bookmark your blog and give it a try.
      Hopefully you will have enough spare time to post on your blog — the tittle of this article made me worry about that — with you being so busy “beating your blog”.
      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

      • Richard the purpose of a resume is not to exhaust the reader but to get someone to pay you for work.
        For example, I built a low energy house in California which included 37 pages of hand calculation to meet Title 24 (energy code). It is not on my resume because the only construction is for myself. My resume does not include and experience before joining the navy because it was superseded by more applicable experience.
        The point is Willis has found a hobby in science. I won a science fair by building an x-ray machine but who cares.

      • Kit P,
        “Richard the purpose of a resume is not to exhaust the reader but to get someone to pay you for work.”
        But Willis isn’t applying for a job, he’s putting his life experiences online for anyone interested.
        It would be best to comment on the subjects, facts and conclusions, rather than trying to denigrate the author personally. (Just MHO, FWIW. YMMV. YOYO now.)

    • You forgot to discuss the climate in your comment.
      You had quite a few mean-spirited zingers, however.
      The Al Gore comparison was pretty low — Gore took two beginner science classes in college and was not smart enough to get an A or B in either of them.
      Gore’s 2007 climate predictions were among the least accurate climate predictions ever made to the general public.
      Knowing what the PhD (alleged) “climate scientists” have done to destroy the integrity of science with their wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate — grossly inaccurate for 40 years so far — I would think you’d be happy that Willis is not a PhD who plays climate computer games and then makes wild guess Piled high & Deep wrong predictions of the future climate.
      If you had read anything Willis has written, and refuted anything in your comment, we would take your post seriously.
      However you just launched one character attack after another.
      Which makes you a mean spirited doofus with no obvious climate science knowledge.
      YOU WROTE:
      “I like to slap my hands on the table.”
      You need a few slaps upside your head.
      I doubt if you are really a skeptic — skeptics read someone’s writings before debating or insulting them.
      Liberals and other climate cult members “debate” with character attacks
      … and that’s just what you did in your comment.

      • My December 13 11:08am comment is directed at Retarded Kit P’s mean-spirited character attack comment on December 13 at 9:59am.
        I should have typed that first to prevent any possible confusion.

      • “If you had read anything Willis has written, ….”
        I read his resume and then went back and read it again.
        “1964-5 University of California, Berkeley, CA.
        1968-9 University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
        1973-4 Laney College, Oakland, CA.
        1974 California Massage Certificate — Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA.
        1975 BA, Psychology — Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA.”
        Welcome to the land of the fruits and nuts. On paper Willis is a California hippie with a short attention span.
        “Knowing what the PhD (alleged) “climate scientists” have done to destroy the integrity of science ….”
        What do you know Richard? I know many here are not civil. Right after they attack anyone they might disagree with they start whining about character attacks.

    • “After reading Willis background he is about as qualified as Al Gore to speak on science.”
      Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, if a million PHD’s say the sun rises in the west and Willis shows proof that it doesn’t…………………………..

  30. You might be interested that Sigma Xi (publisher of American Scientist) community membership digest had a recent brief series of exchanges, one with concern about Trump asking for names (no 19 on your list as I recall ). Some one posted this to allay the concern.
    Sigma Xi has mostly stayed out of the controversy, but there were other interesting comments. Probably only available to members. I got the impression some commenting could use more education and writing skills.

  31. Congrats on the new venture Willis. I was pleasantly surprised with the topics that you find of interest and that it really will be a generalist’s blog. I read everything! Good luck keeping up with that pace of quality posts. If you can, you will have many readers. How come you stopped updating your CV at 2010? I think that was about when you really got going!
    All the best

  32. Retired Kit P December 13, 2016 at 9:59 am

    “I will assuredly continue to publish my scientific work …..”
    I like to slap my hands on the table. I must be a musician. Maybe I should start a blog. I have international experience too.
    I worked at nuke plant in Spain. I learned to love how these folks could make music with their hands and feet.
    As a young sailor, I thought making electricity with steam was assume. I pursued a higher education in science and engineering that let me do that for the rest of my working life.
    After reading Willis background he is about as qualified as Al Gore to speak on science.
    As a skeptic, I often check the background of folks. Merely being interested is not a reason take folks seriously.
    WUWT would be much better if posters shared what they know and not their agenda.

    Kit, I have a peer reviewed “Communications Arising” which was published by Nature magazine … not a full-blown article to be sure, but assuredly peer-reviewed …how many of your words made it that far?
    In addition, the total number of citations of that and my other publications in various scientific journals is now over fifty.
    Here’s the deal. The peer-reviewers of my articles including the Communications Arising in Nature magazine were satisfied with my scientific credentials. The editors of Nature magazine and the other journals were satisfied with my scientific credentials. And the well over a hundred scientists involved in the over fifty studies that cited my peer-reviewed scientific publications are satisfied with my scientific credentials.
    You’ll have to excuse me if I take their word, backed up by their actions, in preference to yours. You see, they are actual climate scientists who have to live with and defend their scientific judgement of my work … and you’re a random anonymous internet popup who can say any nasty thing you please and just walk away and change your name. I’m sure you see the problem.
    Thanks for playing,

    • Nice deflection Willis.
      Let me cut through the BS. Willis is a freelance writer. He has no formal training in the physical sciences.
      It did take a while longer than normal to get a physiology degree. From his resume it looks like he soon lost or could not make a go of it. Willis has done lots of interesting things. Good for him.
      I also have had the pleasure of working with people who may not have not a degree in engineer or science but are very accomplished in those fields through hard work and self study.
      Willis is not one of those people. All I am saying is Willis is not a scientist.
      Sure everyone’s a critic. Willis sure can dish it out.

      • Kit: I thought a “scientist” was anyone who believes and follows the scientific method. Where in the world did you get the impression that a scientist = PhD. Sounds more like academic snobbery to me. GK

      • How could you, retarded Kit P, possibly be qualified to judge whether or not Willis makes sense on the subject of climate science?
        There is no climate science in your posts — we have no idea if you know anything about climate science.
        All you have to offer is character attacks.
        That makes you a liberal (that’s how they “debate”), or a mean-spirited dork, or both.
        Earth’s climate is always changing.
        No one is sure why.
        There is nothing unusual about the climate change in the past 150 years except that the climate stayed in a mere 1 degree C. range, which appears to be unusually stable, based on data from climate proxies such as ice cores.
        That’s my climate 101 lesson for you, retarded Kit P.
        Now you know something about climate science.

    • Willis says: ” not a full-blown article to be sure.” Correct, but you ought to characterize it properly…..it was a comment that was “reviewed.”
      “These are critical comments on recent Nature papers. After peer review, they may be published online as Brief Communications Arising (see 1.1), usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors; alternatively, the criticism may be addressed in the form of a clarification statement (corrigendum or addendum, for example) by the Nature authors.”
      Quit tooting your own horn by even suggesting it was even close to being an “article”
      Second Willis says: “The editors of Nature magazine and the other journals were satisfied with my scientific credentials.” ….except that Nature’s editors don’t care about anybody’s credentials. If they required to be “satisfied”, they would have ignored you.

      • Steve, I specified exactly what it was—a PEER-REVIEWED COMMUNICATIONS ARISING. Clear. Simple. I got five hundred words and one picture, and it was well reviewed, three reviewers.
        How many words of yours has Nature ever published?
        Am I proud of that? Damn sure I am. I am entirely self-educated regarding science. I took two science classes as a freshman-intro to physics and intro to chem. That’s it. I suspect I’m the only self-educated scientist to have anything peer-reviewed and published in Nature in a long, long time.
        Next, you say, as though it were a great revelation, that “Nature’s editors don’t care about anybody’s credentials”.
        Damn right. All they care about is, is my science defensible. I defended it and improved it discussions with three peer reviewers. They accepted it to be published in Nature. What’s your problem?
        Next, it seems you have a very narrow view of what makes someone a scientist. Science is a process. It goes like this.
        Someone has a scientific idea about the observable world. They find whatever kind of evidence they can find to support that idea—logic, observations, mathematics, graphics, whatever.
        Then they put it out in the middle of the public square, with total transparency, all the data, all the code, everything that went into the idea.
        Then comes the beauty part, the part that makes it science. They pass around the hammers, and see if anyone can smash or damage the idea.
        If they can falsify it, it goes in the garbage. If all their hammering can’t dent it, then it becomes provisionally true … until the time if and when someone can find a flaw in it.
        It is this adversarial public testing of new ideas that distinguishes science from say religion. A scientist, then, is not an attainable state. A scientist is someone who practices science by transparently putting their ideas and all supporting information into the arena to be tested.
        So yes, folks, I am indeed a scientist. A self-taught scientist to be fair, but one with over fifty citations in the scientific journals to my scientific work.
        Finally, I just came back today from presenting a poster at an American Geophysical Union poster session. The poster was about this interesting piece of work. It was a good session. I had used RSS data, and Dr. Mears of RSS showed up. He found no fault with my science, thought the study was quite interesting … what’s your problem?

      • I don’t have a problem, but your ego needs to get reeled in buster. You seem to think that getting a comment published in a journal enables you to claim you are a “scientist.” You are hilarious.

  33. Hello Willis,
    May I make one suggestion regarding the presentation of your new ‘venture’.
    I personally prefer your type size to be a little smaller, say like that on the WUWT site. I feel the existing font takes up too much space and reads a little like a children’s book.
    Please do not take this the wrong way. Whatever you do I shall continue to enjoy reading your articles.

  34. “You seem to think that getting a comment published in a journal enables you to claim you are a “scientist.” You are hilarious.”
    I have to agree with Steve. First it is the totality of your work. Second it is getting paid to do the work.
    We while Willis was:
    ”1975-77 Self-employed, St. Helena, CA — Jewelry Maker. Made and sold sterling silver rings, pendants, and jewelry with precious and semi-precious gems. Part time, 2 years.”
    I was personally selected by Admiral Rickover for the navy nuclear program, completed a BSME from Purdue and became a commissioned officer in the navy, went out to sea on a sub, completed extensive training leading to being a nuclear a qualified Engineering Officer of the Watch (EOOW), was assigned to a nuclear cruiser during commissioning, completed EOOW qualifications, and was a division officer supervising 75 enlisted men.
    So while Willis was playing hippie some of us were slanding the line during the cold war.
    How did Willis build on that experience.
    “1983 DTI, Inc. — Trainer, Pre-service Training for Peace Corps, in Micro-Hydropower. Designed and conducted training in construction of micro-hydropower dams and systems ….”
    During that time I was a shift supervisor for the reactor designer during commissioning for a 1200 MWe commercial nuke plant. Part of the task was plant specific senior reactor operator certification which was self study after our regular job.
    Three points here. Science builds with experience. Because I was good at science, I got to do a lot of interesting things as an engineer. Second there is a test. You have demonstrate you understand the science before doing important work.
    Finally, life is an open book test. Not understanding science can get you vaporized or worse you can kill a bunch of children.

    • Kit, it’s actually a good thing that Willis as an amateur got a comment published in Nature. He should be commended for that. But when he refers to it as “not a full-blown article to be sure” it’s a clear case of him inflating his accomplishment. A comment isn’t a full-blown, a half-blown, a quarter blown, nor a tenth blown article…..IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE PERIOD. The manner in which he talks of it he is making an implication that it was almost an “article.” But it wasn’t, It was a comment.

      • Steve Heins wrote, “it’s a clear case of him inflating his accomplishment. A comment isn’t a full-blown, a half-blown, a quarter blown, nor a tenth blown article…..IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE PERIOD.”
        You have no idea what you are talking about, Steve.
        Here’s Willis’s paper, doi:10.1038/nature02689; full text here:
        It is what Nature calls a “Brief Communications Arising” article. It is a short peer-reviewed paper, written in response to another paper. This is what Nature says about them:

        Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors…
        Brief Communications Arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in Nature. They are published online but not in print.
        Submissions should challenge the main conclusions of the Nature paper and contain new, unpublished data to support the arguments.
        Submissions that pertain to a non-central part of the Nature paper are not considered.

      • Again I agree Steve. There is a difference between enjoying something and being good at something. Relative to most people am good at tennis, chess, and sailing. Relative to those who make a living doing what I enjoy, I am not very good. However, I am good enough share the basics with children who might otherwise get to do those things.

      • It was an unusually long comment in Nature — I’d call it a one page article — the magazine thought enough of it to publish it, and the authors of the original article thought enough of it to make an attempt to refute it.
        I don’t know if they succeeded.
        Heiny, your posts demonstrate no knowledge of climate science — apparently you know nothing about climate science, but are an expert at character attacks.
        Why don’t you put that on your resume?
        You might have a future job with the Dumbocrat Party.
        I’m sure Willis has forgotten more about science than you’ll ever know.
        Go away.

    • Retarded Kit P:
      YOU WROTE:
      “I was personally selected by Admiral Rickover for the navy nuclear program, completed a BSME from Purdue and became a commissioned officer in the navy,”
      Another tedious post from you, and it provides more evidence you know nothing about climate science.
      This is a climate change website.
      Willis has contributed climate science articles.
      You have contributed character attacks, and are now bragging about yourself.
      You apparently have nothing to contribute about climate science..
      So why are you here?

  35. Steve Heins December 15, 2016 at 3:33 pm

    Kit, it’s actually a good thing that Willis as an amateur got a comment published in Nature. He should be commended for that. But when he refers to it as “not a full-blown article to be sure” it’s a clear case of him inflating his accomplishment. A comment isn’t a full-blown, a half-blown, a quarter blown, nor a tenth blown article…..IT IS NOT AN ARTICLE PERIOD. The manner in which he talks of it he is making an implication that it was almost an “article.” But it wasn’t, It was a comment.

    Look, Steve, I built my own house that I live in. It’s a beautiful house, done with a craftsman’s touch. I did the electrical, and the plumbing, and the foundation. I did sub out the sheetrock because I hate the stuff. I built it from the ground up with my own hands, and as the wind blows outside tonight, it’s warm and snug.

    Not only that, but I built this million-dollar villa in Fiji. Of course in addition to my own work, I ran a local crew for this one, it varied from 5 to 20 guys depending on the phase of construction.

    Now, I never went to house building school. I do not have a contractor’s license. I don’t have a single piece of paper to show that I know how to build a doghouse. I didn’t spend my life building houses. And as a result, according to you and Kit, I’M NOT REALLY A HOUSE BUILDER AT ALL.
    … but despite that, I’ve left a trail of lovely houses behind me that I built over my lifetime … and last week someone asked me to come out of retirement to build houses with them.
    I leave it to the reader to draw all of the obvious corollaries between science and house building.
    A piece of paper doesn’t make a man into a house builder, any more than a PhD turns a man into a scientist. A person is defined by what they can DO, not what kind of paperwork they have.
    Nor, as Kit claims, does one have to be paid for their work to be a scientist. That just shows how little Kit knows about science, no matter what Rickover thought of him.
    A scientist like me, who does science because he loves to do it, and who may be self-educated as I am, is called an “amateur scientist”. He is not called a “non-scientist” as you’d love to convince us, Kit. That’s just your mind working overtime. Many scientific discoveries have been made by amateur scientists. And don’t accuse me of comparing myself to them, I make no such comparison. I’m just stating an indisputable fact—amateur scientists are indeed scientists and have contributed to science in the past.
    Finally, you are grasping at straws regarding Nature. I was quite clear about exactly what my contribution was. I was quite clear that it was not a full-blown article. I was clear that what it was was a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising”, where they allow you 500 words and one graphic to make your point.
    Now you want to bitch and whine about how you inferred other things from my description? Man, you guys are pathetic. Nothing is good enough for you, no nit is too small to pick. My over fifty scientific citations mean nothing, it should be much more than that. My other peer-reviewed papers mean nothing, there’s not enough of them. The opinions of the over a dozen peer-reviewers and of the Editors of the scientific journals I published in mean nothing.
    In your eyes, unless I have some particular piece of paper I’m not a real scientist … well, I’m gonna leave you and Kit in your cold, sniping, bitter twisted place where all you can do is try to tear other men down. Unlike you, I guess, I’ve got more science to do … and I have no interest in trying to tear you or Kit down. You may both be fine scientists. So am I. So what’s your problem that you want to attack, attack, attack? I don’t attack you in that vile fashion. Why should I care if you are a scientist or not?

    • After writing that and considering it, I got to thinking about why you are attacking my education and experience so vehemently.
      As far as I can remember, which is not that far at times, neither you nor Kit have raised any valid objections to my literally hundreds of scientific researches and investigations which I’ve published here on WUWT. Your objections instead have been to 1) my education, and 2) my experience.
      Here’s the funny thing about science. It doesn’t matter that I have zero formal scientific education. It doesn’t matter if I have zero work as a traditional scientist. All that matters is, IS MY SCIENCE VALID?
      That’s all the peer-reviewers asked me. That’s all that’s worth asking in science. Is it valid, meaning will it withstand the hammers of its scientific opponents?
      Objecting because my thousands of hours of homework were accompanied and directed by books and by interactions with other climate scientists rather than professors is MEANINGLESS! I could be a fifth-grader with no experience of any kind, doesn’t matter. The question is, IS MY SCIENCE VALID?
      The sooner that you and Kit focus on the science and stop attacking the man, the less damage you will do to your reputations. I am an amateur scientist, with peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals including Nature, and over fifty citations to my work but … so what?
      It’s not about me, it’s about my scientific claims.

      • “why you are attacking my education and experience so vehemently”
        Wow! I find it hard to believe that Willis is so thin skinned and worked in construction. What a little girl!
        To answer Willis’ question which he should have not have to ask because he has a psychology degree; certain titles command respect such as medical doctor, engineer, and navy seal. It takes brains and hard work. Other like to coop these titles to make their job sound important.
        In high school and college before joining the navy, I was a sanitation engineer. That right I cleaned toilets and mopped floors. It is an important job and I did it with pride.
        If Willis want to call himself a scientist, it is a free country. The mistake Willis made is posting his resume. It screams California hippie bumming from one interest to another. Willis is ‘special’ because he participated in life.

      • Willis, you need to learn one important thing. Writing for a blog is not doing science. So, when you say: ” ,,,hundreds of scientific researches and investigations which I’ve published here on WUWT.” They don’t count. Why? No peer review.
        Getting a comment into Nature is fine, but it was only a comment. Now your stuff in E&E, well, I won’t talk about Boehmer-Christiansen, but I will reference what Roger Pielke Jr. said:
        “[E&E] has published a number of low-quality papers, and the editor’s political agenda has clearly undermined the legitimacy of the outlet. If I had a time machine I’d go back and submit our paper elsewhere.”

        PS, just because you can build a house, doesn’t mean you can do science. It seems you have a pressing need to “prove” yourself, which is serious character flaw. If you were self-confident, you would brush aside any criticisms instead of digging in your heels and trying to prove your abilities in science by posting something about your construction skills. You strike out at the anyone that offers any valid criticism.
        Saying the COMMENT is not a full blown article is correct, but it is still just a comment and not an article. Suggesting it might be similar to an article is a serious misrepresentation.

      • Willis, they are obviously liberals who went to your blog, and saw you were conservative and liked Trump.
        They blew their tops, and started character attacking you.
        The primary goal of character attacks are to put you on the defensive.
        Every minute you spent defending yourself is one minute less to contribute articles on climate science or any other serious issues.
        Ignore Steve Heiny and Retarded Kit P.
        I’ll deal with them using the Alinsky-style ridicule they understand.
        I’ve read both Alinsky books and his Playboy interview.
        Trump won the election because he attacked Alinsky-style.
        I recommended in a mid-2014 three-page newsletter article that Republicans had to do that to win.

Comments are closed.