monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Voted for Obama. Go Izzy. Think the brown will ever come off your nose?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html


Popular Technology.net

"Impartial Analysis of Popular Trends and Technology" Copyright © 2004-2019 Popular Technology

† Internationally recognized by over 300 independent sources including Forbes, the International Journal of Modern Physics and the United States Senate.
Thursday, October 17, 2013

Who is Willis Eschenbach?


As of 2012, Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.

He is not a "computer modeler", he is not an "engineer" and he is certainly not a "scientist" (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

"A final question, one asked on Judith Curry's blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach..."

Willis Eschenbach has been a guest poster at Watts Up With That since June of 2009 and has had 20 pages of his writings indexed since tagging his posts began in December of 2009. Unlike apparently most of his regular readers, I took the time early on to check the credentials of Mr. Eschenbach;

Willis Eschenbach, B.A. Psychology, Sonoma State University (1975); California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage (1974); Commercial Fisherman (1968, 1969, 1971, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1995); Auto Mechanic, People's Garage (1969-1970); Cabinet Maker, A.D. Gibson Co. (1972); Office Manager, Honolulu Emergency Labor Pool (1972); Construction Manager, Autogenic Systems Inc. (1973); Assistant Driller, Mirror Mountain Enterprises (1975-1976); Tax Preparer, Beneficial Financial Company (1977); Accountant, Farallones Institute (1977-1978); Peace Corps and USAID (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1994); Cabinet Maker, Richard Vacha Cabinets (1986); County Director, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1986-1988); General Manager, Liapari Limited (1989-1992); Regional Health Coordinator, Foundation for the People of the South Pacific (1994-1995); Project Manager, Eschenbach Construction Company (1995-2003); Construction Manager, Koro Sun Limited (1999); Construction Manager, Taunovo Bay Resort (2003-2006); Accounts/IT Senior Manager, South Pacific Oil (2007-2010); House Carpenter (2012-Present)

Granted Mr. Eschenbach has an extensive background in Commercial Fishing, Construction and the Peace Corps, none of this has anything to do with real science.

With so many highly credentialed skeptical scientists to get my scientific information from, I generally ignored his posts and rambling stories.

This was until a post was made by Dr. Spencer correcting Mr. Eschenbach (who did not take the criticism well) and brought to light just how damaging the spread of misinformation by an amateur scientist can be. Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer's warning may have fallen on deaf ears.

The bigger concern is that Mr. Eschenbach either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented. Since he is so insistent that credentials do not matter, he should be the first one to correct these and I should not being doing his job for him;

Daily Telegraph 2009

In 2009, he was incorrectly labeled by the Daily Telegraph as a "scientist",

But just when you think it can't get any better, along comes this cracker of an expose at Watts Up With That, courtesy of scientist Willis Eschenbach.

Without the qualifier "amateur", this egregiously misrepresents his educational and professional experience and elevates an amateur's opinion to a level he has not earned.

New York Times 2010

In 2010, he was incorrectly labeled by the New York Times as an "engineer",

"I'll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored," Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian

Yet, he failed to correct this misinformation when given the chance,

Willis Eschenbach says:
March 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm

My comment to the piece in the NYT (number 197 in the stack) was this:

"Willis Eschenbach
Occidental, CA
March 3rd, 2010
12:08 pm

As one of the people quoted in the article, I’d like to commend the New York Times for several things.

1. The article is generally well balanced.

2. I am quoted directly, rather than paraphrased, and my original article is cited. This minimizes misunderstanding. I encourage people to read my article. [...]

My best to everyone, and my congratulations to John Broder and the New York Times."

He finally owns up to this misrepresentation in 2013,

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm

"...you are correct that I’m not an engineer,"

So why did he not correct the New York Times in 2010?

Daily Telegraph 2011

In 2011, he was incorrectly labeled by the Daily Telegraph [archived] as a "very experience computer modeler" [since corrected after I contacted the paper]. The context of which was clearly as a climate or scientific modeler,

"The study, based entirely on computer models, focused on the exceptional flooding that took place in England and Wales in the autumn of 2000. [...]

Why had this strangely opaque study been based solely on the results of a series of computer models – mainly provided by the Hadley Centre and RMS – and not on any historical data about rainfall and river flows? [...]

In the real world, the data show no evidence of an increase in UK rainfall at all. Any idea that there is one seemed to be entirely an artefact of the computer models.

On Friday came the fullest and most expert dissection of the Nature paper so far, published on the Watts Up With That website by Willis Eschenbach, a very experienced computer modeller.

Again, he failed to correct this misrepresentation when he had the chance.

It’s Not About Me
Posted on February 28, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach

"One response to Christopher Booker graciously mentioning my work in the Telegraph..."

When challenged on this in 2013, Mr. Eschenbach decided to double down on the misrepresentation of his credentials,

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 11, 2013 at 9:22 pm

"So while you are correct that I’m not an engineer, nor have I claimed to be, I am indeed a computer modeler of some small ability"

Mr. Eschenbach has no relevant computer programming experience. He was never trained or employed as a computer programmer, let alone a "computer modeler". He fails to list a single name of a program he actually wrote on his CV (unheard of for a real programmer) that can be verified for their quality and as confirmation of the programming languages he claims to be proficient in.

His computer related experience includes things like training people in Fiji on using Macintosh computers (MacPacific) and using CAD/CAM software (MiniCad) for construction projects.

However, there is extensive evidence that he is a user of Excel and writes macros.

Willis Eschenbach Posted May 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM

"I program in Excel because I’m an order of magnitude faster in Excel. I have a host of specialized functions and macros that let me do the various functions and actions quickly."

Hardly the credentials of a "computer modeler".

Rebuttals:

Criticism: "There are no degrees in computer climate modeling"
Rebuttal: There are university degrees in computer modeling,

Bachelor of Science in Computer Modeling and Simulation (Georgia Institute of Technology)
Bachelor of Science in Modeling and Simulation Engineering (Old Dominion Univesity)
Masters of Science in Modeling and Simulation (University of Central Florida)

Criticism: "Anyone who follows the scientific method is a scientist."
Rebuttal: A scientist is "a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems." Willis has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist. The only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.

Criticism: "Popular Technology.net disagrees with Mr Eschenbach's scientific work."
Rebuttal: This is disingenous as his papers appear on our list of peer-reviewed papers.

References:

Skeptical Scienctist Credentials (Popular Technology.net)

Climategate: another smoking gun… (The Daily Telegraph, December 8, 2009)
Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate (The New York Times, March 2, 2010)
Unscientific hype about the flooding risks from climate change will cost us all dear (The Daily Telegraph, February 26, 2011)
Willis Eschenbach CV (Docstoc, February 8, 2012)
Willis Eschenbach ICCC7 (Heartland Institute, June 2012)
Citizen Scientist: Willis and the Cloud Radiative Effect (Dr. Roy Spencer, October 7, 2013)
Dr. Roy Spencer’s Ill Considered Comments on Citizen Science (WUWT, October 8, 2013)
Willisgate, Take 2 (Dr. Roy Spencer, October 10, 2013)

Discredit the graphs and the facts, not the source. Another fail from someone that thinks the truth only comes from sources he approves of. Ridiculous and just plain impossible.

Watts Up With That?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F
Launched November 17, 2006

Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog[1] promoting climate change denial[7] that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.[2][3]

The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally accommodating beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. Contributors include Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer as guest authors.[8] In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy, and a driving force behind its coverage.[8]

In the early months of 2010, it was reported the site might be "the most read climate blog in the world,"[9] and in 2013 Michael E. Mann referred to it as the leading climate change denial blog.[3]

Watts Up With That features material disputing the scientific consensus on climate change, including claims the human role in global warming is insignificant and carbon dioxide is not a driving force of warming.[10] It hosts several contributors, such as Christopher Monckton and Fred Singer, in addition to Watts.[11] It is among the most prominent climate change denial blogs,[5][12][13][14] and is described by climatologist Michael E. Mann as the most popular, having surpassed Climate Audit.[15] Columbia Journalism School writer Curtis Brainard has written that "scientists have repeatedly criticized [Watts] for misleading readers on subjects such as the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record."[1]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/






CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced climate denialism propaganda.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006. The blog predominantly discusses climate issues with a focus on anthropogenic climate change, generally supporting beliefs that are in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change. According to their about page “WattsUpWithThat.com is the world’s most viewed website on climate.” Anthony Watts states he was a “television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The blog is owned by Anthony Watts and is funded through advertising and donations. The website does not disclose donors.

Analysis / Bias

In review, the sole purpose of the website is to debunk human influenced climate change. Climatologist Michael E. Mann has called WUWT the leading climate change denial blog. There are numerous articles written about WUWT and many failed fact checks that can be seen here through a factual search.

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on the promotion of consistent human influenced climate denialism propaganda. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 9/26/2019)

Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Who cares? Everyone knows those fact checkers are biased. Discredit the facts in the article, not the source, or shut up.

You are being lied to.
https://disrn.com/news/co-man-dies-from-astounding-055-blood-alcohol-level-coronavirus-listed-as-cause-of-death

Who in their right mind supports that crap? Anyone going to admit it?

Blood alcohol content (BAC) is a measurement of alcohol intoxication used for legal or medical purposes.[1] A BAC of 0.10 (0.10% or one tenth of one percent) means that there are 0.10 g of alcohol for every 100 ml of blood which is the same as 21.7 mmol/l.[2] A BAC of 0.0 is sober, while in the United States 0.08 is legally intoxicated, and above that is very impaired.[1] BAC levels above 0.40 are potentially fatal.[1]

"Blood Alcohol Level: MedlinePlus Lab Test Information". medlineplus.gov. Retrieved 25 December 2019.

Drunks can get Corvtd19 and die of it.

A real epidemiologist on Covid19

DISRN

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/disrn/





RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate Disrn Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favors the Christian right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the occasional use of poor sources, questionable views on science and a failed fact check.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Founded in 2019 by Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford, and the satire site’s current owner, Seth Dillon, Disrn is a news and opinion website/app that summarizes news from a conservative leaning perspective. The website somewhat lacks transparency as they do not provide an about page or clearly disclose who is involved with the website. However, in an interview with the Daily Caller, Adam Ford states “Our news articles will be objective, but we will report on things that Christians and conservatives care about,” Ford told the DC. “The opinion pieces, newsletters, and coming podcasts will be, of course, from a Christian and conservative perspective.” Finally, Disrn’s tagline is “brief, smart, faithful.”

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The website does not clearly state who owns Disrn, however at the bottom of each page there is a 2020 copyright listing to Disrn LLC. According to their welcome page, Adam Ford and Seth Dillon are the owners of Disrn LLC. Revenue is generated through advertising and subscription fees.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Disrn does not produce original news stories, but rather summarizes news in less than 300 words. The website also offers a newsletter written by Adam Ford and a second for the website as a whole. Disrn is available as an app on both IOS and Android.

Story selection ranges from low biased straightforward news reporting such as this Virginia, Maryland governors issue stay-at-home orders to more sensationalized right leaning headlines such as this Lindsey Graham slams Pelosi’s “shameful, disgusting” remarks about Trump. Stories are properly sourced to credible media outlets such as The Hill, Whitehouse.gov, Worldometers and the Washington Post. However, they sometimes use sources that have poor track records with fact checkers such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. For example, On March 12th, 2020 Disrn ran a story sourced to the Daily Caller with the headline: Pelosi sought to include federal funding for abortions as part of coronavirus bill: White House officials. This claim was rated false by Politifact.

Editorially, Disrn aligns with Pro-Life advocates and holds pro-Christian perspectives such as this: Opinion: The delusion of godlessness and the limits of hope. Further, many opinion pieces denigrate the left such as this: Opinion: We need to accept that Joe Biden is not mentally sound. When it comes to science many opinion pieces do not align with the consensus regarding human influenced climate change. A quote from an Op-Ed reads “Given that they view me with such utter contempt, I understand that it’s highly unlikely that those belonging to this religion of Warmerism will express any interest at all in my advice to them on this topic.” Finally, many opinion pieces also promote biblical literalism on positions such as the resurrection and views on evolution. In general, Disrn is mostly factual in their news summaries, but has failed a fact check, while editorially aligning with the conservative Christian right.

Failed Fact Checks

Pelosi sought to include federal funding for abortions as part of coronavirus bill: White House officials – False

Overall, we rate Disrn Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favors the Christian right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the occasional use of poor sources, questionable views on science and a failed fact check. (D. Van Zandt 3/30/20)



Who the heck is "Bryan Brammer"????

Are you saying the man did not die? Are you saying that Covid 19 should be listed as a cause of death? Are you saying this did not happen? What is biased when relating facts? It is not the fault of the site that the truth bothers you.

Trump can't have all the fun.

That would work with Biden too.

Hardly an answer. Just more infantile crap from someone who thinks people should be censored and that a source can change facts. Especially when it is one of theirs. Facts do not change no matter who reports them.

You do not possess the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Keep on singing!!!

I made my point. You can't change that either.

New York barber cutting hair 'illicitly' during lockdown tests positive for coronavirus
Source: NBC

A barber who continued to cut hair at a shop in New York over the past few weeks in violation of the state's stay-at-home order has tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to the Ulster County Department of Health and Mental Health.

In a statement Wednesday, the county health commissioner advised anyone who received a haircut in the past three weeks at a barbershop on Broadway in the city of Kingston, about 20 miles north of Poughkeepsie, to seek testing for the coronavirus. The statement did not identify either the barber or the shop.

Nonessential businesses have been closed since March 22 under an order issued by Gov. Andrew Cuomo that is set to expire Friday, when certain parts of the state that have met public health metrics will be allowed to begin a phased reopening.

Under the order, barbershops, beauty salons, nail salons and other businesses that provide personal care services are not allowed to be open and operated to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-barber-cutting-hair-illicitly-during-lockdown-tests-positive-n1207076?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

I have to admit, I wish we could just shut out the whole pandemic and all it's attending ramifications and issues associated with it. It seems the more you know, the scarier it gets. I know several people in my surrounding family who get drunk or at least drink more than they should with my husband being right up there with them. He also has COPD and to be honest, he hasn't quit doing his side jobs, but he has taken precautions, such as gloves and masks and sanitizer; and he won't do inside jobs.

I noticed on the news, bars was one of the first places people went when the judge ruled against the restrictions in place. I saw a scene where none of them were practicing safe distancing, let alone a mask.

Perhaps if there is proof some of these folks recklessly put themselves in danger and get sick, they or their family would have to pay a penalty with the proceeds going to first responders. (just kidding, sort of)

NBC just does not think people are very bright, do they? And has Covid 19 put this guy in the hospital or is he asymptomatic? They do not say, why?

More fearmongering and the lies they are so accomplished at like the lack of details or just plain omissions.