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,
w.
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.
w.
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.
Melvyn.
TMI. Willis.
“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:
http://sealevel.info/eschenbach2004.pdf
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:
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,”
MY COMMENT:
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?
Steve Heins December 15, 2016 at 3:33 pm
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?
w.
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.
w.
“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.”
..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
…
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.
Mr.Willis Eschenbach,
a good start.
Proceeding as good as you’re known here.
Cheers
Nice. I’ve added a link on my blogroll:
http://sealevel.info/blogroll.html#eschenbach
“You have no idea what you are talking about, Steve.”
Apparently DaveB does not understand the difference between a comment and a research paper.
Kit P, when are you gonna stop digging that hole you’re in?
Please use his full name to show respect because he was once in a submarine:
Retarded Kit P.