Video: Dissecting the Phony Climategate Scandal
Environment • Views: 3,270
Here’s another excellent video on the phony scandal unimaginatively titled “Climategate,” with extra added sarcasm.
301 comments
1 |
Gang of One Mon, Dec 7, 2009 1:56:52pm |
This one just keeps getting more and more interesting.
| 2 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:01:59pm |
What's insane to me is the people who are ignoring that this was an obvious political move right before Copenhagen.
Actually, scratch that, there's about a thousand insane things about this:
A) It was a crime.
B) AGW does not depend on CRU.
C) There are open-source models out there, anyway
D) Did I mention it was a crime?
E) Scientists are being castigated for being poor politicians.
F) Big Oil and various other industries actively fund climate change denial groups.
etc. etc.
| 3 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:02:14pm |
Lets go thru 10 years worth of emails and pick out 2-3 statements to sum it all up, shall we?
| 4 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:02:46pm |
There's not enough server space on YouTube to allow the number of videos necessary to convince the RWB that Climategate is all in their heads.
I don't know why you always have to be judging me because I only believe in science.
| 5 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:02:51pm |
re: #1 Gang of One
This one just keeps getting more and more interesting.
It really all depends on your point of view. If you think there us nothing amiss, then it is extremely boring. If you see problems with the content of the emails, if you imagine problems with the datasets that CRU has compiled or if you question the science, then maybe it is interesting.
| 6 |
Gang of One Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:05:48pm |
re: #5 Walter L. Newton
It really all depends on your point of view. If you think there us nothing amiss, then it is extremely boring. If you see problems with the content of the emails, if you imagine problems with the datasets that CRU has compiled or if you question the science, then maybe it is interesting.
I say that it is interesting because it has made me think more about the possibility that I may have been wrong about all this.
| 7 |
Randall Gross Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:07:06pm |
just an FYI: in one of the vids you see "RT" -- that's Russia Today, one of Putin's state propaganda outlets to the west. They have a Youtube channel as well, and you will find things dinging the US and the West there mostly.
| 8 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:07:27pm |
I'm more interested in exposing the person who hacked the emails than this supposed conspiracy that the deniers seem to think is so important.
| 9 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:11:05pm |
re: #8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I'm more interested in exposing the person who hacked the emails than this supposed conspiracy that the deniers seem to think is so important.
Signs are pointing to the Bear. But I suspect you knew that much already.
| 10 |
tradewind Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:13:56pm |
re: #5 Walter L. Newton
It must be interesting to get this much attention. Every major news outlet is running with it now, and as for the blogs...
I thought it was just a one-week story, at most.
| 11 |
Randall Gross Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:14:16pm |
re: #9 bosforus
Signs are pointing to the Bear. But I suspect you knew that much already.
The Bear, like the Sauds who are also calling for an investigation over this, has a vested interest in high oil prices and continued slavery to fossil fuels.
| 12 |
Neutral President Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:14:32pm |
If you find yourself in agreement with Alex Jones on any subject that is not self-evident (like him agreeing that the sky is blue or water is wet), you should probably stop and take a good look at your opinion or position. I'm looking at you in particular Rush.
| 13 |
tradewind Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:14:45pm |
re: #9 bosforus
Please don't take the name of Paul Bryant in vain.///
| 14 |
tradewind Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:15:38pm |
re: #12 ArchangelMichael
People can't even agree on what is supposedly ' self- evident', so that one's going to be hard to do.
| 15 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:16:11pm |
re: #14 tradewind
People can't even agree on what is supposedly ' self- evident', so that one's going to be hard to do.
I hold it self-evident that i am awesome. Does that help?
//
| 16 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:16:15pm |
re: #10 tradewind
It must be interesting to get this much attention. Every major news outlet is running with it now, and as for the blogs...
I thought it was just a one-week story, at most.
The fact that a bunch of screaming ignorant fools continue to do their best to hype this story doesn't change the fact that it's a phony scandal. Instead of posting these dumb little zingers, why don't you try to learn something about the issue?
| 17 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:17:24pm |
re: #10 tradewind
Nah, now they're running with the effects of it: Belief in AGW has sunk, for Republicans.
Wooo-yeah! The GOP became more anti-science than before! That'll take back the House and Senate!
| 18 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:20:15pm |
re: #6 Gang of One
I say that it is interesting because it has made me think more about the possibility that I may have been wrong about all this.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just in case anyone needs me to clarify my position again. In regards to pro/con AGW, I don't understand the science enough to firmly stand in either camp. On a high level, there seems to be warming going on, but that's as far as I could explain it to myself.
In regards to the hacked emails and documents from CRU at UEA, it's not a beginning, middle and end narrative. Bit's and pieces of this and that does not make a iron clad case.
But what this whole incident has done, similar to what you say, it has opened up myself to looking further into this. What I feel I have learned is that these scientist did not apply "best procedure" in regards to their information technology processes. Legacy data was not destroyed, but it was possibly not saved, according to their own admission. Coding techniques for building the software that was used to analyze the data was sloppy, and the coding, while probably workable, lends itself to errors if not kept a fine eye on.
It looks to me like there could be some straightening up that needs to be done at CRU, concerning data analyzing and information technology procedure and processes.
Does this change the over all AGW model, as presented by these scientist, I don't think so. What may be necessary is that faith and trust be cultured again between CRU and the rest of the public. It certainly couldn't hurt.
| 19 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:22:41pm |
re: #18 Walter L. Newton
So to annotate my own comment, I think there is something that needs to be fixed here, but it's not the over all AGW issue, and it's not the issue that the wacky right is screaming about, but there is some things that I feel need to be addresses, for the sake of the science.
| 20 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:24:56pm |
re: #17 Obdicut
Nah, now they're running with the effects of it: Belief in AGW has sunk, for Republicans.
Wooo-yeah! The GOP became more anti-science than before! That'll take back the House and Senate!
At this rate, in 15 years the only electable Republicans will be those who think airplanes are witches.
It blows me away that there is still snark around here attacking AGW. Might as well snark about gravity.
| 21 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:25:28pm |
re: #18 Walter L. Newton
Yeah, but that's scientists for you. Having worked both as a lab rat and as an operations manager in the 'corporate world' has been interesting. All of the scientists that i worked were academically honest, driven individuals...but messy and a little scatterbrained...like me. More importantly, they were in charge of their own lab.
That's the important part, because only in a more rigid corporate setting did I see a greater rigor imposed on the development of a solution, because you aren't in charge of your own lab. every single detail is open for criticism, including how you go about your work.
All that aside, I think it defies rational thinking to believe that scientists all over the world are colluding to the degree necessary to cover up data, misrepresent equations, etc. My faith is in the sheer number of smart people who are arriving at a similar conclusion...i have some questions, too, but they're mostly about what we do next.
| 22 |
Randall Gross Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:27:52pm |
Btw, well done video debunking and I"ve got a new youtube subscription in my ever growing list.
| 23 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:30:08pm |
re: #21 Aceofwhat?
to annotate my own comment, a scientist loses a bit of data and it's unfortunate. a manager loses a bit of data and gets their ass reamed. doesn't reflect poorly on science when 3542 other people are arriving at the same conclusion that you had before you lost a little data.
| 24 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:33:12pm |
re: #21 Aceofwhat?
Yeah, but that's scientists for you. Having worked both as a lab rat and as an operations manager in the 'corporate world' has been interesting. All of the scientists that i worked were academically honest, driven individuals...but messy and a little scatterbrained...like me. More importantly, they were in charge of their own lab.
That's the important part, because only in a more rigid corporate setting did I see a greater rigor imposed on the development of a solution, because you aren't in charge of your own lab. every single detail is open for criticism, including how you go about your work.
All that aside, I think it defies rational thinking to believe that scientists all over the world are colluding to the degree necessary to cover up data, misrepresent equations, etc. My faith is in the sheer number of smart people who are arriving at a similar conclusion...i have some questions, too, but they're mostly about what we do next.
And I never implied that "scientists all over the world are colluding to the degree necessary to cover up data, misrepresent equations, etc." did it?
I have worked, as a programmer, as a IT professional, in a research situation, with over 700 scientist, and I know how sloppy they can be in regards to data processing procedures.
And the try to build their own data collection and analyzing applications, they code themselves into a corner, and suddenly we have an "orphaned" application that became my baby.
So, like I say, this whole "hacking" incident did introducing me to something that I think is going on at CRU, sloppiness, the same sort of sloppiness that I have seen year after year, before, with scientist I have worked with.
It doesn't make the science invalid, but in the case of the CRU at UEA, it appears that their cage has been rattled and they have some cleaning up to do, so future science done there is nice and neat.
| 25 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:36:41pm |
| 26 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:37:39pm |
re: #24 Walter L. Newton
No, you didn't imply collusion. i wasn't talking about you - i was offering my own opinion. apologies if it was unclear.
| 27 |
mwalke5 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:38:02pm |
Agreed. Climategate is getting ridiculous. But, if anything good can come of it it is to shame these scientists into keeping their records open and public. Secrecy begets uncertainty and give the conspiracy theorists a foothold to latch on.
| 28 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:38:10pm |
re: #10 tradewind
It must be interesting to get this much attention. Every major news outlet is running with it now, and as for the blogs...
I thought it was just a one-week story, at most.
heh...hold onto your socks, it's not going away
| 29 |
swamprat Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:38:38pm |
This represents an excellent opportunity for the climate scientists to explain how nitrogen uptake cycles will, or are, causing less growth in trees, and why past global warming cycles, produced more growth in trees.
And it is pretty clear that someone simply did a edit search for the most incriminating words they could think of, and then presented this as some sort of scandal. The shame of it is, in a country with the attention span of a 4-year-old, it works.
| 30 |
recusancy Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:39:10pm |
re: #18 Walter L. Newton
I've said it before and I'll say it again, just in case anyone needs me to clarify my position again. In regards to pro/con AGW, I don't understand the science enough to firmly stand in either camp. On a high level, there seems to be warming going on, but that's as far as I could explain it to myself.
Something tells me you'd have more conviction if it was the right who was pro AGW and the left who was con. It's hard to side with those whom you've seen as the enemy for so long, even if you have an inkling that they may be right.
| 31 |
Gearhead Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:39:17pm |
I wonder how many other groups would be vulnerable to having their image tarnished by the revelation of a few choice emails. I would suspect a lot.
| 32 |
Big Steve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:39:20pm |
Don't know if you all saw this in Forbes magazine...it is almost the perfect storm of erroneous information. Yes indeed the writer brays on but manages to capture almost every lie and distortion...Fiction of Climate Change - Forbes Magazine. I actually wrote in to Forbes and canceled my subscription. After all if they are this bad on climate, who could trust their financial information.
| 34 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:41:51pm |
re: #31 Gearhead
I wonder how many other groups would be vulnerable to having their image tarnished by the revelation of a few choice emails. I would suspect a lot.
I wonder what perusing 10 years worth of Rush's or Glenn's private emails would turn up.
| 35 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:42:13pm |
re: #27 mwalke5
Everything they have to be "ashamed" of was taken out of context. Their communications were hacked illegally for political purposes. Whether or not they plan on making any kinds of internal changes to their work because of this, I don't know, but I wouldn't be upset if they didn't.
| 36 |
DaddyG Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:42:33pm |
re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I wonder what perusing 10 years worth of Rush's or Glenn's private emails would turn up.
Prescription requests for one... but I digress. /
| 37 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:42:44pm |
re: #31 Gearhead
I wonder how many other groups would be vulnerable to having their image tarnished by the revelation of a few choice emails. I would suspect a lot.
You're right, but a true professional (in any profession - mine is far more pedestrian than most) writes every email as if the recipient is going to share it with an audience wider than you intended. It's second nature to me now.
I'm in no way endorsing or excusing the phony scandal, but scientists could learn something useful here from the more buttoned-up work culture that many of us belong to.
| 38 |
Irish Rose Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:42:50pm |
I just wasted another couple of hours that I'll never get back, trying to reason with a group of fundamentalist anti-science climate deniers on Facebook.
They patently ignore every single news link and video that I post, and every rational comment that I make, while simultaneously regurgitating right-wing talking points. I mean seriously, they won't even freaking LOOK.
And to prove their obviously superior conservative intellect, they punctuate their non-conversation with the occasional epitath, calling me either an a. RINO b. liberal c. leftist or d. all of the above.
Why do I even bother?
| 39 |
Big Steve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:43:25pm |
re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I wonder what perusing 10 years worth of Rush's or Glenn's private emails would turn up.
responses to larger penis ads...
| 40 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:43:41pm |
re: #27 mwalke5
Agreed. Climategate is getting ridiculous. But, if anything good can come of it it is to shame these scientists into keeping their records open and public. Secrecy begets uncertainty and give the conspiracy theorists a foothold to latch on.
The only shame should be directed at the flat-earthers and snake-handlers attacking scientists. You are septic with this nonsense.
| 41 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:43:44pm |
re: #33 Obdicut
OT: You read any of that book I had linked to you?
| 42 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:44:14pm |
Whose the raving idiot at .57 seconds with the radio show?
| 43 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:44:16pm |
| 44 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:44:30pm |
re: #30 recusancy
Something tells me you'd have more conviction if it was the right who was pro AGW and the left who was con. It's hard to side with those whom you've seen as the enemy for so long, even if you have an inkling that they may be right.
Guess what fuck wad. This has nothing to do with left/right for me. What the hell more do I have to do. I'm publicly admitting that I am not smart enough to understand the finer details of the science. I'm publicly admitting that I am not smart enough to try to convince anyone about the climate science... so what's your problem?
What would you rather I do, say AGW is for sure and I understand it just because it serves your purpose?
My expertise is in database construction, database analyst and as a programmer, not a climate scientist.
You don't know shit about my politics in regards to my professional abilities. So fuck off, you're on my permanent ignore list now.
| 45 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:44:35pm |
| 46 |
swamprat Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:44:49pm |
As I have said before, if the world is going through a cooling cycle, (and Charles' video just said that it is) global warming is going to be a tough sell. I would rather sell trombones to the deaf.
| 47 |
recusancy Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:45:26pm |
re: #37 Aceofwhat?
You're right, but a true professional (in any profession - mine is far more pedestrian than most) writes every email as if the recipient is going to share it with an audience wider than you intended. It's second nature to me now.
I'm in no way endorsing or excusing the phony scandal, but scientists could learn something useful here from the more buttoned-up work culture that many of us belong to.
But they're writing the emails to their colleagues within the organization. When most people do that they are much more apt to use insider jokes/cultural memes, things that can easily be taken out of context because the context isn't explained in the email because the recipient and everyone else that may see it is in the know.
| 48 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:46:39pm |
re: #37 Aceofwhat?
Agreed. In my engineering classes we were told to communicate as if our words were going to end up in court because at some point they most likely will.
| 49 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:47:49pm |
re: #37 Aceofwhat?
You're right, but a true professional (in any profession - mine is far more pedestrian than most) writes every email as if the recipient is going to share it with an audience wider than you intended. It's second nature to me now.
I'm in no way endorsing or excusing the phony scandal, but scientists could learn something useful here from the more buttoned-up work culture that many of us belong to.
I work for a game developer that sells its products all over the world, and this is so not true. My boss and I trade Ims that would either look like nerd gibberish to an outsider, or could easily be taken out of context (context being running jokes) to make me sound insane or unstable.
| 50 |
Gearhead Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:47:58pm |
re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I wonder what perusing 10 years worth of Rush's or Glenn's private emails would turn up.
And that's just the low hanging fruit.
It could even be done here, as tightly as the extreme posts are policed. A quotation (or statistic) can be twisted to make it say what one wants it to say.
| 51 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:48:47pm |
re: #47 recusancy
But they're writing the emails to their colleagues within the organization. When most people do that they are much more apt to use insider jokes/cultural memes, things that can easily be taken out of context because the context isn't explained in the email because the recipient and everyone else that may see it is in the know.
The shorthand that can be taken out of context (like 'fixing' the data) is 100% professional and shame on those who think it means something nefarious. The personal comments and such could have been avoided with an attitude like Bosforus posted on #48 above.
| 52 |
DaddyG Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:48:56pm |
re: #46 swamprat
As I have said before, if the world is going through a cooling cycle, (and Charles' video just said that it is) global warming is going to be a tough sell. I would rather sell trombones to the deaf.
As a trumpet player I think that's probably a good market for trombones. /
You may have hit on an issue for environmentalists. If they latch onto global warming as the hot topic it distracts from a broader range of issues they may want to keep in the public eye. For example: It would be easier for me to defend low emmission power (cars, plants, etc) if I were showing the multiple effects of pollutants not just the somewhat complex descriptions of the CO2 build up.
This single issue stuff allows both sides to demonize and exaggerate doing no one any good.
| 53 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:49:15pm |
re: #49 WindUpBird
My boss and I trade Ims that would either look like nerd gibberish to an outsider, or could easily be taken out of context (context being running jokes) to make me sound insane or unstable.
But, you are. Insane and unstable, that is. Everyone in your industry is - requirement of the job.
:)
| 54 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:49:32pm |
re: #53 Guanxi88
But, you are. Insane and unstable, that is. Everyone in your industry is - requirement of the job.
:)
You know, i can't disagree ^_^
| 55 |
DaddyG Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:49:57pm |
re: #49 WindUpBird
I work for a game developer that sells its products all over the world, and this is so not true. My boss and I trade Ims that would either look like nerd gibberish to an outsider, or could easily be taken out of context (context being running jokes) to make me sound insane or unstable.
A colleague of mine got hauled up before a congressional panel to explain a single joke he e-mailed that made it look like was part of a broad conspiracy. It was a hard lesson.
| 56 |
b_snark Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:50:24pm |
re: #16 Charles
The fact that a bunch of screaming ignorant fools continue to do their best to hype this story doesn't change the fact that it's a phony scandal. Instead of posting these dumb little zingers, why don't you try to learn something about the issue?
Science is hard.
| 57 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:50:48pm |
re: #34 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I wonder what perusing 10 years worth of Rush's or Glenn's private emails would turn up.
I don't care. You couldn't pay me enough to peruse 10 years of either Rush or Glenn's e-mails.
| 59 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:50:57pm |
re: #49 WindUpBird
nerd gibberish won't get you in trouble. denigrations and things written about others will. it's the latter that i'm talking about.
perhaps i need to be more explicit. professionals don't need to communicate in a fashion that would allow everyone else to understand, but they do communicate in a fashion that would allow a subpoena to be obeyed without scandal.
| 60 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:51:07pm |
re: #45 WindUpBird
You can't make stupid people smart! I've tried too.
and what do you know about the climate besides what others tell you?...I don't ridicule AGW believers, but in the end the vast majority are simply taking the word of someone they trust...suggesting skeptics are flat earthers says more about you than about them
| 61 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:51:38pm |
re: #44 Walter L. Newton
I see you made it down the hill and back up over the weekend. Did you end up staying at the theatre the other night?
| 62 |
Gearhead Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:52:08pm |
re: #37 Aceofwhat?
You're right, but a true professional (in any profession - mine is far more pedestrian than most) writes every email as if the recipient is going to share it with an audience wider than you intended. It's second nature to me now.
I'm in no way endorsing or excusing the phony scandal, but scientists could learn something useful here from the more buttoned-up work culture that many of us belong to.
It's a new work habit / skill. I work in a heavily regulated industry where you know someone is always looking over your shoulder. That awareness helps. Same thing with the social networking sites. I've seen otherwise professional people post things that would raise a recruiter's eyebrow.
| 63 |
kittysaidwoof Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:52:56pm |
re: #30 recusancy
Something tells me you'd have more conviction if it was the right who was pro AGW and the left who was con. It's hard to side with those whom you've seen as the enemy for so long, even if you have an inkling that they may be right.
There's no significant difference of position between mainstream left or right parties on the topic of AGW in neither country I consider my own. The True Finns that are attending the denier conference are mostly rabid leftists.
| 64 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:53:13pm |
re: #57 SanFranciscoZionist
I don't care. You couldn't pay me enough to peruse 10 years of either Rush or Glenn's e-mails.
I'm guessing you'd see a lot of these :'-( in Becks'.
| 65 |
swamprat Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:53:31pm |
re: #52 DaddyG
Good opportunity to get the lumber, house construction, loan industry, farming industry, etc, on board.
Scientists seem to be pretty inept at public relations.
| 67 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:54:44pm |
re: #61 sattv4u2
I see you made it down the hill and back up over the weekend. Did you end up staying at the theatre the other night?
What the fuck does AGW have to do with whether I said down the hill or up the hill or... if the right agreed with AGW, would I have stayed at the theatre, or if the left was anti-AGW would the theatre... oh, wait... calm down Wally... :)
No, I was up and down all weekend, the snow never really amounted to everything they were saying it would be, although they are doing it again today, saying it's going to dump on us, but right now, it doesn't look like it will...
Who knows. (Maybe the right/left knows, I bet it's climate change related).
| 68 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:55:25pm |
re: #60 albusteve
and what do you know about the climate besides what others tell you?...I don't ridicule AGW believers, but in the end the vast majority are simply taking the word of someone they trust...suggesting skeptics are flat earthers says more about you than about them
Most AGW believers are taking the word of the world scientific community.
Most AGW deniers are taking the word of TV personalities, their brother-in-law, or their own gut feeling that this is somehow gonna give a social agenda advantage to someone wearing Birkenstocks.
I suspect that most of us don't understand the science perfectly, but sometimes you've got to decide who you're going to trust based on what they know.
| 69 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:56:20pm |
re: #16 Charles
The fact that a bunch of screaming ignorant fools continue to do their best to hype this story doesn't change the fact that it's a phony scandal. Instead of posting these dumb little zingers, why don't you try to learn something about the issue?
Agreed, the simpering idiots being on board weakens any issue and is a cautionary message.
| 70 |
ryannon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:57:09pm |
re: #45 WindUpBird
You can't make stupid people smart! I've tried too.
But you can sure as hell make smart people stupid.
Alas.
| 71 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:57:09pm |
re: #64 bosforus
I'm guessing you'd see a lot of these :'-( in Becks'.
He freaks me out. I mean Rush, he's angry and over the top and arrogant, OK, but Glenn Beck is absolutely terrifying. The sadness! The sadness! Rush I often want to smack, but you could spend a day with him without going crazy.
| 72 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:57:19pm |
re: #67 Walter L. Newton
What the fuck does AGW have to do with whether I said down the hill or up the hill or... if the right agreed with AGW, would I have stayed at the theatre, or if the left was anti-AGW would the theatre... oh, wait... calm down Wally... :)
No, I was up and down all weekend, the snow never really amounted to everything they were saying it would be, although they are doing it again today, saying it's going to dump on us, but right now, it doesn't look like it will...
Who knows. (Maybe the right/left knows, I bet it's climate change related).
Don;t forget the medications Walter! Until then, i'll be sitting in the corner!
//seriously, glad you didn't have a problem
| 74 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:57:55pm |
| 75 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:58:15pm |
re: #66 JohninLondon
Wow, you're kicking it old school, claiming that there isn't even warming.
Way to set the Overton window.
| 76 |
Sam N Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:58:37pm |
re: #60 albusteve
and what do you know about the climate besides what others tell you?
I think this is a fair point, and I am far from an expert on climate change. However, I do know something about gauging the reliability of sources, and I discard sources that are demonstrably not trustworthy. I rarely see AGW deniers do the same. People that accept AGW might be just as unwilling to discard their sources, but evidence that backs up AGW is much more reliable than anti-AGW information from, so it's hard to tell.
| 77 |
Guanxi88 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:06pm |
re: #74 Bagua
Good grief, the guy is more demented than Glenn Beck.
I live here in Austin, his homebase - he's the kinda guy that Art Bell used to have to moderate and try to persuade to back away from the edge of the precipice of madness.
| 78 |
soxfan4life Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:17pm |
re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist
Could you explain how cap and trade, or taxing the industrialized countries to enrich developing countries while not curbing carbon emissions for for those developing countries is going to solve anything? As someone who believes in science but certainly is not on board with the current plans to fix it where can I turn?
| 79 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:29pm |
re: #75 Obdicut
Wow, you're kicking it old school, claiming that there isn't even warming.
Way to set the Overton window.
OT - you know it's a quick flounce when you can't even finish the ridiculing reply before poof goes the rabbit!
| 80 |
Randall Gross Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:36pm |
re: #74 Bagua
Good grief, the guy is more demented than Glenn Beck.
Corrected direct link to wiki article here
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
This guy makes his living off of Kookspiracy just like Glen Beck, he doesn't care who's in office they all represent the NWO...
| 82 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:44pm |
re: #55 DaddyG
A colleague of mine got hauled up before a congressional panel to explain a single joke he e-mailed that made it look like was part of a broad conspiracy. It was a hard lesson.
I don't anticipate being hauled in front of congress anytime soon, unless making little digital cartoon people walk around becomes a matter of national security.
| 83 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 2:59:51pm |
re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist
That's true. He could probably carry on a decent conversation for more than two minutes without mentioning the founding fathers and making things awkward.
| 84 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:00:09pm |
re: #75 Obdicut
Wow, you're kicking it old school, claiming that there isn't even warming.
Way to set the Overton window.
JohninLondon is legendary for this stuff. :)
| 85 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:00:20pm |
I'm going to delete links to American Thinker. It's a conspiracy/hate site that publishes the work of bigots and white supremacists, and I'm not going to send any traffic there if I can help it.
Not surprising at all to find that they're also climate change deniers. It all goes together.
| 86 |
recusancy Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:00:41pm |
re: #78 soxfan4life
Could you explain how cap and trade, or taxing the industrialized countries to enrich developing countries while not curbing carbon emissions for for those developing countries is going to solve anything? As someone who believes in science but certainly is not on board with the current plans to fix it where can I turn?
Charles posted a video on that yesterday. Their solution was to basically do what the EPA said they are going to do today. Cap emissions and treat it as a pollutant. No trading.
| 87 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:01:03pm |
re: #72 sattv4u2
Don;t forget the medications Walter! Until then, i'll be sitting in the corner!
//seriously, glad you didn't have a problem
Nope, there was some snowpack on Sunday, but not terrible, and this morning I had to go back down hill for a dentist appointment, it was icy this morning, but I took it slow.
Like I say, they are predicting all sorts of different things this afternoon, from a few inches to a foot, but up here right now, I can see broken clouds.
But, I've seen Colorado winter weather change in a few hours, so we'll see. I don't have to go anywhere until Thursday noon, so, I can just sit here and let it dump for a few days.
The new pellet stove is working fine.
| 88 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:02:33pm |
re: #87 Walter L. Newton
Nope, there was some snowpack on Sunday, but not terrible, and this morning I had to go back down hill for a dentist appointment, it was icy this morning, but I took it slow.
Like I say, they are predicting all sorts of different things this afternoon, from a few inches to a foot, but up here right now, I can see broken clouds.
But, I've seen Colorado winter weather change in a few hours, so we'll see. I don't have to go anywhere until Thursday noon, so, I can just sit here and let it dump for a few days.
The new pellet stove is working fine.
GREAT RE: the stove. I know it's been a long hassle.
And I forgot all about your dentist appt. How did it go?
| 89 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:02:46pm |
re: #78 soxfan4life
Could you explain how cap and trade, or taxing the industrialized countries to enrich developing countries while not curbing carbon emissions for for those developing countries is going to solve anything? As someone who believes in science but certainly is not on board with the current plans to fix it where can I turn?
I don't think you can turn anywhere, they way this is being played is all in or fold.
| 90 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:03:00pm |
re: #82 WindUpBird
Not to pry, but, you work on anything we might know about? You don't have to answer if you don't want. And I am well-versed in video games.
| 91 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:04:00pm |
re: #68 SanFranciscoZionist
Most AGW believers are taking the word of the world scientific community.
Most AGW deniers are taking the word of TV personalities, their brother-in-law, or their own gut feeling that this is somehow gonna give a social agenda advantage to someone wearing Birkenstocks.
I suspect that most of us don't understand the science perfectly, but sometimes you've got to decide who you're going to trust based on what they know.
yeah, on one side we have science, and on the other side we have a dude who juggles and pretends to cast spells.
| 92 |
checked08 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:04:05pm |
re: #74 Bagua
Argh, that was supposed to be the link to Alex Jones(Radio Host). The flu sucks :(
| 93 |
Crimsonfisted Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:04:16pm |
First (and hopefully LAST) time I have ever seen (or heard) Alex Jones. I have read his name here multiple times but JEEZ LOUISE!!
| 94 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:04:42pm |
re: #86 recusancy
Charles posted a video on that yesterday. Their solution was to basically do what the EPA said they are going to do today. Cap emissions and treat it as a pollutant. No trading.
So what happens when (inevitably) Company X exceeds their "cap". I'm sure there'll be a fine but where does THAT money go?
AND ,, when fined, don;t you think Company X just passes that on to the consumer (READ: you and me)?
| 95 |
_RememberTonyC Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:04:58pm |
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
| 96 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:05:08pm |
re: #90 bosforus
Not to pry, but, you work on anything we might know about? You don't have to answer if you don't want. And I am well-versed in video games.
Click on my nick and email me from my site, I'll let you know what I've worked on. it'd probably be okay to say here, but best to be safe ^_^
| 97 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:05:43pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
Tiger is a cheetah.
| 98 |
Randall Gross Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:05:48pm |
re: #80 Thanos
Corrected direct link to wiki article here
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
This guy makes his living off of Kookspiracy just like Glen Beck, he doesn't care who's in office they all represent the NWO...
It's funny that the Canadians are equal opportunity Kookstoppers:
On June 8, 2006, while on his way to cover a meeting of the Bilderberg group in Ottawa, Canada, Jones was stopped and detained at the Ottawa airport by Canadian authorities who confiscated his passport, camera equipment, and most of his belongings. He was later released without charge. Jones said regarding the reason for his arrest, "I want to say, on the record, it takes two to tango. I could have handled it better."
The other day they also held up the notorious Amy Goodman of Democracy now at the border.
| 99 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:06:29pm |
re: #88 sattv4u2
GREAT RE: the stove. I know it's been a long hassle.
And I forgot all about your dentist appt. How did it go?
They only had to do one fitting of the partials, so, they did the fitting and the partials will go back to the lab and next Wed. I will have another appointment and I will finally have a full mouth of teeth, first time in about 10 years. It's been a long haul getting these things taken care of, especially since I have no had dental coverage most of the time and it's been coming out of my pocket.
Word of wisdom, don't let your teeth go to hell.
Yea, the stove, this new one, finally got one that works and works well. The last one that gave us so much trouble was made in the U.S of A. This is made in China, and works like a charm. That says something about US manufacturing. We've certainly lost our touch, made in USA doesn't mean made good anymore.
| 100 |
_RememberTonyC Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:06:40pm |
| 101 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:06:46pm |
| 102 |
recusancy Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:07:11pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
Who cares?
| 103 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:07:14pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
Interesting take I heard yesterday. Woods had always played and lived for his dads approval. Seems as if these affairs started shortly (within 2 months) of dads death
| 104 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:07:22pm |
Tiger Woods is a cheetah and Kobe Bryant is a witch :D
| 105 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:07:37pm |
re: #92 checked08
Argh, that was supposed to be the link to Alex Jones(Radio Host). The flu sucks :(
The name was what I was after, I've seen his website before so I don't need to go there again. Major league Nutter.
| 106 |
cliffster Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:07:39pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
Looks like he's chasing Wilt Chamberlain at the same time he chases Nicklaus.
| 107 |
_RememberTonyC Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:08:03pm |
| 108 |
Kragar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:08:07pm |
re: #97 Charles
Tiger is a cheetah.
Whats the difference between a golf ball and a SUV?
Tiger can drive a golf ball over 400 yards.
| 109 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:08:08pm |
re: #86 recusancy
Charles posted a video on that yesterday. Their solution was to basically do what the EPA said they are going to do today. Cap emissions and treat it as a pollutant. No trading.
Well that makes more sense, but of course then everyone needs to cap.
| 110 |
_RememberTonyC Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:09:04pm |
re: #106 cliffster
Looks like he's chasing Wilt Chamberlain at the same time he chases Nicklaus.
this is the best comment i have seen yet!
| 112 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:09:29pm |
Get Yer Tiger Woods Christmas Card!!!
[Link: images.ctv.ca...]
| 113 |
recusancy Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:10:10pm |
re: #107 _RememberTonyC
millions of people care ...
Millions of people care about john and kate and octomom too...
| 114 |
soxfan4life Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:11:24pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Looks like Tiger is putting the grrr in tiger.
| 115 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:11:50pm |
re: #91 WindUpBird
yeah, on one side we have science, and on the other side we have a dude who juggles and pretends to cast spells.
sure, but what does Teller think?
| 116 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:11:58pm |
re: #95 _RememberTonyC
Tiger Woods ... your thoughts?
I have covered sports professionally since 1978 and I have never seen a story quite like this one. We have seen stories about serial adulterers before, but never anyone of the stature of Tiger.
Tiger = JAFA (just another friggin' athlete)...when we stop putting athletes on this pedestal of perfection just because they're good at one thing (two, in the case of Bo Jackson), then we'll stop getting our panties in a twist when they don't live up to our expectations of them. It's our expectations of ourselves that we should be more concerned about.
Tiger's 'stature' as a golfer isn't in dispute. His stature as a husband and father is between him and his family.
| 117 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:13:49pm |
re: #85 Charles
I'm going to delete links to American Thinker. It's a conspiracy/hate site that publishes the work of bigots and white supremacists, and I'm not going to send any traffic there if I can help it.
Not surprising at all to find that they're also climate change deniers. It all goes together.
Charles
I know nothing about American Thinker's politics. I simply posted a link that dealt with the PRIMARY issue - is there global warming or not ?
If that site offends you, I am sorry, I don't know anything else they have published. But when it suits one of your posts you do link to sites you disagree with, I believe ?
I stated at some length in my post why I am not yet convinced that there is Global Warming - A or not A. Why I am a sceptic - or what you choose to term a "denier"
I regret that you have seen fit to delete not just the link to American Thinker, whcih came right at the end of my post - but my entire post altogether.
And I notice that in your post you did not explicitly state that you had deleted my entire post. I find that a bit surprising.
| 118 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:13:54pm |
re: #104 WindUpBird
Tiger Woods is a cheetah and Kobe Bryant is a witch :D
He's not even a great golfer. Elin beat him using only one club...
| 119 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:15:38pm |
If a person's personal life could be kept from their professional life that would be great. But then, how would we be able to criticize politicians?
| 120 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:15:53pm |
re: #113 recusancy
Millions of people care about john and kate and octomom too...
That's tetradecamom, actually. She had six kids already when she went lab-rat on the planet and started spitting out enough kids for a flag football team.
| 121 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:16:03pm |
re: #71 SanFranciscoZionist
He freaks me out. I mean Rush, he's angry and over the top and arrogant, OK, but Glenn Beck is absolutely terrifying. The sadness! The sadness! Rush I often want to smack, but you could spend a day with him without going crazy.
Rush was on William Shatners new show last night and he really came across pretty well. They discussed healthcare for about 20 sec and Shatner changed the subject when Rush started getting agitated. It was interesting because usually Rush makes me nauseated.
| 122 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:16:34pm |
re: #117 JohninLondon
As great as this site is and as good as Charles has programmed it I doubt once it's posted he could take just a link off of the post and leave the rest. I may be wrong, but it's like edititing a book once it's published and has the jacket and binder on it and is sitting on the shelf in ths store
| 123 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:16:40pm |
re: #113 recusancy
Millions of people care about john and kate and octomom too...
make sure to tell us when you don't care, fun guy...then post again about it
| 124 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:17:14pm |
re: #117 JohninLondon
really? i noticed he explicitly deleted your post when i saw that your post had been explicitly deleted. sheesh. no wonder you still have so many questions. you're like a bee on a window...you smack into it 439 times and still don't believe that it's there...
| 125 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:17:53pm |
re: #119 bosforus
If a person's personal life could be kept from their professional life that would be great. But then, how would we be able to criticize politicians?
I like to use their policies myself...
| 126 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:18:22pm |
re: #123 albusteve
make sure to tell us when you don't care, fun guy...then post again about it
We'll be waiting with baited-breath...
| 127 |
soxfan4life Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:18:23pm |
re: #121 Kewalo
That is why I don't usually listen to him. My parents think he is great as do my inlaws, so in the sake of unity I listen when we get together. To me he is a hypocritical wind bag, would have had more respect if he had served jail time for the oxycontin thing.
| 128 |
Spare O'Lake Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:18:43pm |
Stupid Question:
If a scientist is trying to determine whether GW is A, is it enough for him/her to demonstrate that the amount of observed warming cannot be accounted for by the hypothetical model he is using, and thus the cause must be A by the process of elimination?
Is this considered by science sufficient to form a firm conclusion, or does it instead call for further experimentation before the conclusion is rock solid?
| 129 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:18:48pm |
The thing about Tiger is that the hyper-tabloid media coverage like that usually ends up as a car wreck.
In Tiger's case, is started out with a car wreck.
| 130 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:19:39pm |
re: #125 brookly red
I like to use their policies myself...
Naturally, I was more referring to our (America's) political culture.
| 131 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:20:07pm |
re: #119 bosforus
If a person's personal life could be kept from their professional life that would be great. But then, how would we be able to criticize politicians?
nice. in addition, when you market yourself as a celebrity, i'm a little deaf to the pleas for privacy when things go south. i'm not allowed to ask tiger to stop making cheesy Gillette commercials...i just change the channel. he's not allowed to ask me to stop making cheesy tiger jokes...but he doesn't have to listen.
i'll send him a golf towel to help soak up the tears.
| 132 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:20:48pm |
re: #127 soxfan4life
That is why I don't usually listen to him. My parents think he is great as do my inlaws, so in the sake of unity I listen when we get together. To me he is a hypocritical wind bag, would have had more respect if he had served jail time for the oxycontin thing.
And Tiger Woods may be abusing pain killers...
[Link: www.examiner.com...]
| 133 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:21:01pm |
| 134 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:21:20pm |
re: #124 Aceofwhat?
really? i noticed he explicitly deleted your post when i saw that your post had been explicitly deleted. sheesh. no wonder you still have so many questions. you're like a bee on a window...you smack into it 439 times and still don't believe that it's there...
Charles did not state in his post 85 that he had deleted entirely my long post 66 where I tried to explain my scepticism. I remain surprised he did not.
| 135 |
soxfan4life Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:22:06pm |
re: #132 Walter L. Newton
And Tiger Woods may be abusing pain killers...
[Link: www.examiner.com...]
Tiger should think about abusing some smart pills.
| 136 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:22:11pm |
re: #132 Walter L. Newton
Don't forget Brett Farve!
Although that was overshadowed by his then-teammate Mark 'Age of Consent isn't an Issue to a Married Guy Like Me' Chmura.
| 137 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:22:15pm |
I have a few select albusteve posters around the bunkhouse...celebrity worship notwithstanding
| 138 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:22:39pm |
re: #134 JohninLondon
Charles did not state in his post 85 that he had deleted entirely my long post 66 where I tried to explain my scepticism. I remain surprised he did not.
It's his blog. He doesn't have to explain everything to you. Deal with it.
| 139 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:23:29pm |
re: #134 JohninLondon
Charles did not state in his post 85 that he had deleted entirely my long post 66 where I tried to explain my scepticism. I remain surprised he did not.
well it's all over now...and you'll know better next time...happens to everybody sooner or later
| 140 |
cliffster Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:23:39pm |
What a rat that Tiger Woods is, donating all those tens of millions of dollars and helping all those tens of thousands of children..
| 141 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:23:56pm |
re: #136 Fenway_Nation
Don't forget Brett Farve!
Although that was overshadowed by his then-teammate Mark 'Age of Consent isn't an Issue to a Married Guy Like Me' Chmura.
I don't know who Brett Farve is (is that even a name?) and I don't understand the rest of your comment. I've never eaten Chmura, I don't like fish.
| 142 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:24:18pm |
re: #140 cliffster
What a rat that Tiger Woods is, donating all those tens of millions of dollars and helping all those tens of thousands of children..
He just did that so he could score with their moms...
| 143 |
Girth Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:24:38pm |
re: #134 JohninLondon
Charles did not state in his post 85 that he had deleted entirely my long post 66 where I tried to explain my scepticism. I remain surprised he did not.
I'd rather have my posts subject to deletion than subject to editing.
| 144 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:24:42pm |
re: #139 albusteve
well it's all over now...and you'll know better next time...happens to everybody sooner or later
It's never happened to me... wait, maybe... ok, it's happened to me a lot... nevermind.
| 145 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:24:56pm |
re: #134 JohninLondon
i know. he didn't have to state it. because your post is gooone. do you also need me to tell you that the sky is blue when there are no clouds, or can you handle that on your own?
And good for him. Why did you need to be told not to link to a white supremacist site? Oh, wait. it would have been obvious. i'm beginning to see a pattern here...
| 146 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:25:01pm |
re: #141 Walter L. Newton
I don't know who Brett Farve is (is that even a name?) and I don't understand the rest of your comment. I've never eaten Chmura, I don't like fish.
hahaha!...
| 147 |
steelerjoe Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:25:35pm |
I am still a denier but I did see this posted on Democratic Underground yesterday.
At least the replies didn't find a way to mix Triggate/Palingate into the topic.
| 148 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:27:16pm |
re: #147 steelerjoe
I am still a denier but I did see this posted on Democratic Underground yesterday.
At least the replies didn't find a way to mix Triggate/Palingate into the topic.
Joe, did you even notice that the video you linked to is the same as the topic of this thread?
Scary, isn't it? (cue Twilight Zone music).
Is there a Monday afternoon drinking contest going on, and I wasn't invited?
| 149 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:27:41pm |
re: #136 Fenway_Nation
Don't forget Brett Farve!
Although that was overshadowed by his then-teammate Mark 'Age of Consent isn't an Issue to a Married Guy Like Me' Chmura.
Favre played like a Packer last night...though I will say that the Cardinals had the Vikings' number last night...great defense...bastards.
| 151 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:27:58pm |
re: #148 Walter L. Newton
Joe, did you even notice that the video you linked to is the same as the topic of this thread?
Scary, isn't it? (cue Twilight Zone music).
Is there a Monday afternoon drinking contest going on, and I wasn't invited?
Seeeriously. Pass the brownies, because the seem to be loaded today...
| 152 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:28:18pm |
re: #135 soxfan4life
Tiger should think about abusing some smart pills.
I can't for sure say the happiest person in the world but I think his lawyer is in the top 10...
| 153 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:28:23pm |
re: #141 Walter L. Newton
I don't know who Brett Farve is (is that even a name?) and I don't understand the rest of your comment. I've never eaten Chmura, I don't like fish.
To successfully catch the Chmura fish, first you need a 17 yr old babysitter lure.
| 154 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:29:05pm |
re: #149 darthstar
Favre played like a Packer last night...though I will say that the Cardinals had the Vikings' number last night...great defense...bastards.
Warner is way underrated.
| 155 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:29:32pm |
re: #152 brookly red
I can't for sure say the happiest person in the world but I think his lawyer is in the top 10...
#11: Elin's lawyer
| 156 |
soxfan4life Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:29:53pm |
| 157 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:30:31pm |
| 158 |
cliffster Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:30:51pm |
| 159 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:30:52pm |
re: #117 JohninLondon
IMO the point is why would you use a political site link to discuss anything about science when there are so many good scientific links. There are literally tons of good articles, here's a good one for you.
[Link: www.scientificamerican.com...]
| 160 |
brookly red Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:31:12pm |
| 161 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:31:12pm |
re: #154 Aceofwhat?
Warner is way underrated.
by who?...I predicted last year the the Cardinals would play the Steelers to a draw in the SB and maybe even win it...of course people blew me off for a lunatic...Warner is an exceptional QB and his numbers prove it
| 162 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:32:27pm |
re: #156 soxfan4life
How can a former MVP be underrated?
Get benched for Eli, McCown, and Leinart respectively.
| 163 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:33:29pm |
and I also took a bunch of shit from Favre haters this season, claiming nobody knows if he's washed up or not and let him play...get off his case, he deserves to do what he wants...see what happened?
| 164 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:34:50pm |
re: #127 soxfan4life
LOL I agree that he's a hypocritical windbag. That's part of the reason I watched the show last night, I thought I would like to see him in a different setting and he did come across pretty well until Shatner brought up healthcare, and then he started going off until he was cut off by Shatner.
| 165 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:35:04pm |
re: #163 albusteve
and I also took a bunch of shit from Favre haters this season, claiming nobody knows if he's washed up or not and let him play...get off his case, he deserves to do what he wants...see what happened?
10 & 2 isn't terrible. And he was due for a good loss (which it was, I'll admit...the Cards were all over the place on defense). Next week, the Vikings will be back to their winning ways.
| 166 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:39:15pm |
re: #164 Kewalo
Apropos of Shatner, i love his Priceline commercials. Although when that's the best that someone can say about your past 5 years' work...
| 167 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:39:39pm |
re: #138 darthstar
It's his blog. He doesn't have to explain everything to you. Deal with it.
Yes it is his blog.
He explained fully why he does not approve of American Thinker, that he was deleting the link there to an article on AGW. All he needed to do was add "and the post that contained the link".
Is that unreasonable on a debate blog ? I had posted in good faith, a fairly long post I had tried to spend care on. I was unaware that American Thinker deals in racial supremacy, I would not have linked to them had I known.
Charles has expressed irritation several times at some of my earlier posts on AGW. He thinks that ClimateGate is a non-issue that should have gone away 10 days ago, , I think it revealed intereference with peer review and raised very serious doubts about the quality and reliability of CRU programming.
Those are lesser issues. I had set out to explain why I was sceptical before ClimateGate broke. Sceptical that there truly is Global Warming - at least as regards recorded or proxy temperature graphs. And that until GW is proven, the AGW folks have not got to first base.
The American Thinker article was simply something I had seen today that reflected views I already had about AGW.
| 168 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:42:07pm |
re: #166 Aceofwhat?
Apropos of Shatner, i love his Priceline commercials. Although when that's the best that someone can say about your past 5 years' work...
Doesn't it look like he's having the time of his life? That's why the commercials seem so good. I also liked him on the law program who's name escapes me at the moment. He just looks like he's having fun and for an old man that's pretty darn good as far as I'm concerned.
| 169 |
Charles Johnson Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:43:17pm |
re: #167 JohninLondon
Of course it reflects your views -- you're a hardcore, completely irrational denier of climate change, who ignores all evidence shown to you and just continues parroting false and misleading talking points endlessly. And I'm beginning to reach the limits of my patience.
| 170 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:44:04pm |
| 171 |
Killgore Trout Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:45:28pm |
Outrageous outrage of the day isn't so outrageous...
Secret Service: White House security breached 91 times in past 30 years
It's happens a few times a year.
| 172 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:45:50pm |
re: #168 Kewalo
Absolutely. Add in a mix of self-depreciation (where the Asian guy parrots the Shatner patois) and it's legitimately funny.
I think you mean Boston Legal wrt the show...
| 173 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:47:55pm |
re: #167 JohninLondon
So what you're saying is that scientists, who have spent countless combined years of study and millions of dollars looking at empirical evidence, and making sense of that evidence, need to spend more countless years and millions of dollars to convince you because they don't match your pre-conceived notions of whether or not Global Warming is real?
By the way, I notice noone's trying to prove the scientists are wrong...they're just simply accusing them of lying based on cherry-picked passages from emails going back to 1996. Prove the scientists wrong, using raw data...believe it or not, they love that kind of shit. But you'll not find anyone who doesn't 'believe' in Global Warming doing that, because it's impossible to prove a negative (just ask Saddam Hussein who was asked to prove that he didn't have WMDs...oh wait, we can't.).
| 175 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:50:12pm |
re: #169 Charles
Of course it reflects your views -- you're a hardcore, completely irrational denier of climate change, who ignores all evidence shown to you and just continues parroting false and misleading talking points endlessly. And I'm beginning to reach the limits of my patience.
I'm sorry, Charles, I have always tried to post in good faith at your site. I simply disagree with your view that "the science is settled", and have sought to explain why.
The points I posted tonight I had not posted before here.
And sorry - I believe I am just as rational as you.
| 176 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:51:20pm |
re: #175 JohninLondon
I'm sorry, Charles, I have always tried to post in good faith at your site. I simply disagree with your view that "the science is settled", and have sought to explain why.
The points I posted tonight I had not posted before here.
And sorry - I believe I am just as rational as you.
It might help if you dropped the word 'faith' from your posts on 'science'...it's like oil & water, you know. They don't mix all that well.
| 177 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:51:24pm |
re: #167 JohninLondon
...All he needed to do was add "and the post that contained the link".
Is that unreasonable on a debate blog ?...
Yes. Because it's not a blog owner's responsibility to cater to the technical whims of its users. Not that it'd be beyond Charles' abilities, of course. But what you're talking about is a feature where Charles would have to have a list of "no-no websites" that, whenever a user tried to enter a link to them, replaced the text. It's more trouble than its worth.
| 178 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:52:17pm |
re: #175 JohninLondon
I'm sorry, Charles, I have always tried to post in good faith at your site. I simply disagree with your view that "the science is settled", and have sought to explain why.
Well, think hard and retype them.
I'll get out of the conversation now.
| 179 |
bosforus Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:52:55pm |
re: #178 bosforus
Meant for that to be a reply to this:
The points I posted tonight I had not posted before here.
| 180 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:54:10pm |
re: #169 Charles
Of course it reflects your views -- you're a hardcore, completely irrational denier of climate change, who ignores all evidence shown to you and just continues parroting false and misleading talking points endlessly. And I'm beginning to reach the limits of my patience.
It's the passive-aggressive 'good faith' crap that gets under my skin. Fuck, that's annoying.
| 181 |
SilentAlfa Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:54:14pm |
re: #159 Kewalo
IMO the point is why would you use a political site link to discuss anything about science when there are so many good scientific links. There are literally tons of good articles, here's a good one for you.
[Link: www.scientificamerican.com...]
None of these articles helped me convince anyone and I doubt that most global warming deniers will ever change their opinion, no matter how much evidence is thrown at them. Most true skeptics I know are now debating the methodology used or the amount of global warming that is actually happening rather than the fact that humans are, on some level at least, contributing to global warming.
I have a friend who's a denier who literally believed every single claim in that article and more. I had known the rebuttals beforehand from keeping at least minimally informed on the issue--but no amount of argument could convince him. Even after showing him conclusively that his sources for 'information' on the 'AGW hoax' were full of lies, he wouldn't have any of it. This is the same friend of mine who compares evolution to alien astronaut theory, who says the big bang is the most ridiculous idea ever proposed by scientists and who watches Glenn Beck everyday.
There is no argument to be had with these people--no amount of evidence will ever be able to convince them.
| 182 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:55:24pm |
re: #167 JohninLondon
Why don't you just retype your post without the link?
| 183 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:55:49pm |
re: #167 JohninLondon
Yes it is his blog.
He explained fully why he does not approve of American Thinker, that he was deleting the link there to an article on AGW. All he needed to do was add "and the post that contained the link".
[...]
John, whenever there is a deletion it is always the whole post and never just the link. You are not being singled out, you are asking for special treatment.
| 184 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:56:23pm |
re: #172 Aceofwhat?
Absolutely. Add in a mix of self-depreciation (where the Asian guy parrots the Shatner patois) and it's legitimately funny.
I think you mean Boston Legal wrt the show...
Thank you, I did indeed mean Boston Legal. I sometimes have CRS and at the same time feeling too lazy to go look, so I appreciate the help.
| 185 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:56:28pm |
re: #178 bosforus
Well, think hard and retype them.
I'll get out of the conversation now.
I was thinking about re-typing basically what I had written earlier, explaining why I am sceptical. Minus the link at the end to American Thinker, of course
But post 167 by Charles suggests that that would be a sure way to get banned from the site. So I can't.
| 186 |
Girth Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:56:36pm |
re: #181 SilentAlfa
Sadly, this is the attitude that I've been forced to adopt with respect to several members of my immediate family.
| 187 |
RogueOne Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:56:40pm |
OT but I need some help. I'm looking for a pic/graphic of a male strapped down. For the first time ever I had to turn safe search on when I googled but it wasn't much help. Can anyone think of a movie/book/album cover that would have a graphic like that? I've tried Deviant Art with no luck too, which was kind of surprising to me. I'm trying to help my sis-n-law work on a book cover for an english project.
| 188 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:57:44pm |
re: #185 JohninLondon
I was thinking about re-typing basically what I had written earlier, explaining why I am sceptical. Minus the link at the end to American Thinker, of course
But post 167 by Charles suggests that that would be a sure way to get banned from the site. So I can't.
How about this, John. Why don't you present us with some good, reliable data sources that show the globe isn't warming. We'll go from there.
oh, right...
___/
| 189 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:57:58pm |
re: #176 darthstar
It might help if you dropped the word 'faith' from your posts on 'science'...it's like oil & water, you know. They don't mix all that well.
are you an expert on AGW?...or do you put your faith in those you trust?...I know very little about it and trust Charles word...he's done the legwork for me and come to his conclusions, not easily either...I have faith in others because I'm too lazy or stupid or whatever to understand the science...what about you?
| 190 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:58:08pm |
re: #187 RogueOne
OT but I need some help. I'm looking for a pic/graphic of a male strapped down. For the first time ever I had to turn safe search on when I googled but it wasn't much help. Can anyone think of a movie/book/album cover that would have a graphic like that? I've tried Deviant Art with no luck too, which was kind of surprising to me. I'm trying to help my sis-n-law work on a book cover for an english project.
I take a pic of me, for 5 dollars, just let me know. What part do you need strapped down?
| 191 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:59:15pm |
re: #190 Walter L. Newton
I take a pic of me, for 5 dollars, just let me know. What part do you need strapped down?
I'll do it for 4 dollars.
| 192 |
RogueOne Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:59:29pm |
re: #190 Walter L. Newton
I take a pic of me, for 5 dollars, just let me know. What part do you need strapped down?
I gotta pay $5? So you're cheap but not easy?//
| 193 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 3:59:46pm |
re: #190 Walter L. Newton
I take a pic of me, for 5 dollars, just let me know. What part do you need strapped down?
Oh god make the mental images stop.
| 194 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:00:09pm |
re: #187 RogueOne
OT but I need some help. I'm looking for a pic/graphic of a male strapped down. For the first time ever I had to turn safe search on when I googled but it wasn't much help. Can anyone think of a movie/book/album cover that would have a graphic like that? I've tried Deviant Art with no luck too, which was kind of surprising to me. I'm trying to help my sis-n-law work on a book cover for an english project.
Try photobucket. Search for things like 'male bondage' but be prepared for some disturbing personal family pics that people post. Chances are you'll need to scroll through lots of pics of women strapped down.
| 195 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:00:29pm |
re: #192 RogueOne
Dexter. Practically every episode (as long as shrink wrapping will work for the project).
| 196 |
RogueOne Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:00:42pm |
re: #191 Bagua
I'll do it for 4 dollars.
Race to the bottom, I'll do it for free. I'm cheap and easy.
| 197 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:00:48pm |
re: #193 Obdicut
Oh god make the mental images stop.
For you I'll do it for nothing, revenge is sweet.
| 198 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:01:39pm |
re: #196 RogueOne
Race to the bottom, I'll do it for free. I'm cheap and easy.
Oh great, another socialized market.
| 199 |
RogueOne Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:02:08pm |
re: #194 darthstar
Yeah, but I'm about to eat. I only managed to make it through a couple GIS pages before I had to turn on safe search.
| 200 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:02:19pm |
| 201 |
Aceofwhat? Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:03:14pm |
re: #185 JohninLondon
I was thinking about re-typing basically what I had written earlier, explaining why I am sceptical. Minus the link at the end to American Thinker, of course
But post 167 by Charles suggests that that would be a sure way to get banned from the site. So I can't.
Because it's annoying. Because your questions have all come up 5,437 times before. Use the search function on the site, it's free of charge (feel free to tip), and stop wasting our time. If by some stroke of fortune you happen to have an original, interesting question left once you've exhausted all the posts, comments and links on this site...i for one would be all ears.
Until then, go search.
| 202 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:03:45pm |
re: #181 SilentAlfa
Damn! That's just depressing.
Especially since I haven't found the science to be all that difficult and I just can't understand why people refuse to educate themselves. Literally everything one needs to know about the issue is on the web and dumbed down for people like me who are not scientists.
| 203 |
cliffster Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:04:54pm |
re: #197 Walter L. Newton
For you I'll do it for nothing, revenge is sweet.
| 204 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:05:38pm |
re: #189 albusteve
are you an expert on AGW?...or do you put your faith in those you trust?...I know very little about it and trust Charles word...he's done the legwork for me and come to his conclusions, not easily either...I have faith in others because I'm too lazy or stupid or whatever to understand the science...what about you?
Different context of faith there. London's posts are all passive aggressive attempts to keep people arguing about him, not AGW. It's saccharine and insincere. If there's anything scientific about his views, it's that they're faith-based (speaks of what he believes is true, cites sites that support his beliefs). Whether or not I'm an expert on AGW isn't relevant.
| 205 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:06:01pm |
| 206 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:06:36pm |
| 207 |
Neutral President Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:06:47pm |
re: #175 JohninLondon
I simply disagree with your view that "the science is settled", and have sought to explain why.
Parroting already debunked (hundreds of times if they were once) talking points is not the way to go about that.
| 208 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:07:08pm |
re: #78 soxfan4life
Could you explain how cap and trade, or taxing the industrialized countries to enrich developing countries while not curbing carbon emissions for for those developing countries is going to solve anything? As someone who believes in science but certainly is not on board with the current plans to fix it where can I turn?
I don't know that such things would help. I'm not a cheerleader for them, certainly. All I am prepared to say is that if the science is accurate, we are probably in for a world of hurt if we don't start doing some smart things pretty damn quick.
I will also say that deciding that the science is bad because you don't agree with this one or that one's idea about what to do about it is just silly. Sounds like that's not your problem.
| 209 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:07:13pm |
re: #204 darthstar
Different context of faith there. London's posts are all passive aggressive attempts to keep people arguing about him, not AGW. It's saccharine and insincere. If there's anything scientific about his views, it's that they're faith-based (speaks of what he believes is true, cites sites that support his beliefs). Whether or not I'm an expert on AGW isn't relevant.
wrong...the question is if you have faith...do you?, or are you an expert yourself?
| 210 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:09:08pm |
re: #93 Crimsonfisted
First (and hopefully LAST) time I have ever seen (or heard) Alex Jones. I have read his name here multiple times but JEEZ LOUISE!!
My mother in law thinks that man is on to something. I think he's ON something. It's lovely how families can do family things together that don't involve talking about politics. Like making lovely cookies! Or, um, making lovely Christmas tree ornaments!
| 211 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:10:27pm |
OT - 1 degree (f) here, and they are saying 4 inches to a foot of snow during the next 24 hours... oh joy.
| 212 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:11:30pm |
re: #209 albusteve
wrong...the question is if you have faith...do you?, or are you an expert yourself?
Oh, god...you're not going to try and 'save' me are you?
I tend to trust the scientific community, and enjoy reading their research when I have the opportunity...however I do keep an objective mind and if something doesn't make sense I try digging a little deeper (if it interests me, as Global Warming does). Does that make me an expert? No. Does it help me stay educated on the subject and prevent (but not entirely stop) me from saying stupid shit? Yes. Most times. But I'm human and I screw up on occasion.
I will say have zero faith in deniers.
| 213 |
Dancing along the light of day Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:11:52pm |
re: #211 Walter L. Newton
At least you don't have to drive in it tonight, IIRC.
Raining heavily here. Well, an inch in LA is a lot...
| 214 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:12:26pm |
re: #211 Walter L. Newton
OT - 1 degree (f) here, and they are saying 4 inches to a foot of snow during the next 24 hours... oh joy.
We had a 1/2 inch of snow last night (Woodside, Ca, near Stanford). Sure was pretty this morning when I got up.
| 215 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:13:10pm |
re: #212 darthstar
Oh, god...you're not going to try and 'save' me are you?
I tend to trust the scientific community, and enjoy reading their research when I have the opportunity...however I do keep an objective mind and if something doesn't make sense I try digging a little deeper (if it interests me, as Global Warming does). Does that make me an expert? No. Does it help me stay educated on the subject and prevent (but not entirely stop) me from saying stupid shit? Yes. Most times. But I'm human and I screw up on occasion.
I will say have zero faith in deniers.
Is a AGW denier the same as a AGW sceptic?
| 216 |
RogueOne Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:13:28pm |
Who would have thought it would be "the princess bride" that would give me almost what I'm looking for:
Image: 28kmu8l.jpg
| 217 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:14:12pm |
re: #204 darthstar
Different context of faith there. London's posts are all passive aggressive attempts to keep people arguing about him, not AGW. It's saccharine and insincere. If there's anything scientific about his views, it's that they're faith-based (speaks of what he believes is true, cites sites that support his beliefs). Whether or not I'm an expert on AGW isn't relevant.
That's a load of tosh - and you know it.
And everyone cites sites that they agree with - including you.
My views are not based on some sort of faith. They are based on what I have read - I started accepting all the AGW stuff, became sceptical later on.
Like you and I assume everyone else here, I am not an "AGW expert". But I studied sciences to A Level at school, and I have a BSc and MSc. I don't believe in kooky stuff like creationalism, but I am old enough to have seen "established" theories overturned by newer and better analyses. Plate tectonics as a case in point.
And I have seen close up the process of peer review being subverted.
| 218 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:15:29pm |
re: #207 ArchangelMichael
Parroting already debunked (hundreds of times if they were once) talking points is not the way to go about that.
Both sides of the AGW argument say that they have demolished time and time again the talking points of the other side.
| 219 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:16:10pm |
re: #212 darthstar
Oh, god...you're not going to try and 'save' me are you?
I tend to trust the scientific community, and enjoy reading their research when I have the opportunity...however I do keep an objective mind and if something doesn't make sense I try digging a little deeper (if it interests me, as Global Warming does). Does that make me an expert? No. Does it help me stay educated on the subject and prevent (but not entirely stop) me from saying stupid shit? Yes. Most times. But I'm human and I screw up on occasion.
I will say have zero faith in deniers.
It might help if you dropped the word 'faith' from your posts on 'science'.
your words...faith is trusting people that presume to know more than you...everybody does it, right, wrong or otherwise...and no I'm not trying to save you...I could care less where you are heading
| 220 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:16:18pm |
re: #217 JohninLondon
Plate tectonics as a case in point.
Please tell me you don't deny plate tectonics and continental drift too.
| 221 |
cliffster Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:16:59pm |
re: #215 Walter L. Newton
Is a AGW denier the same as a AGW sceptic?
Great question. I'd say the denier is actively trying to poke holes in the theories. The skeptic says, "hmm - lots of money, politicians, hmm"
| 222 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:17:16pm |
re: #219 albusteve
and no I'm not trying to save you...I could care less where you are heading
whew...
| 224 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:17:47pm |
To me it is just common sense that if we have put tons and tons of shit into the air it's going to cause a problem. What in the hell do people think smog is if not the crap we've been spewing for all these years. IMO all AGW science has done is explain that is isn't just smog that's a problem but other things too. I didn't know that before and now I do and I'm honestly thankful for so many people took the time to dumb down the science so I can understand what is happening.
But the deniers sure do piss me off.
| 225 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:19:02pm |
re: #220 darthstar
Please tell me you don't deny plate tectonics and continental drift too.
I referred to plate tectonics as a theory that displaced earlier, strongly-held "truths". An area where "the science was settled"
| 226 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:19:22pm |
re: #222 darthstar
Maybe you missed my question... I'll try again... "Is a AGW denier the same as a AGW sceptic?"
| 227 |
Neutral President Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:19:44pm |
re: #218 JohninLondon
Both sides of the AGW argument say that they have demolished time and time again the talking points of the other side.
Except for one side that is the truth, for the other that is also a previously debunked talking point.
| 228 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:20:54pm |
re: #224 Kewalo
And when a volcano like Mt Pinatubo or Mt Redoubt throws up more ash, residue, toxins and carbon dioxide than any of the cars, trucks, trains, planes, power plants and factories in the industrial world combined does?
| 229 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:21:27pm |
re: #218 JohninLondon
Both sides of the AGW argument say that they have demolished time and time again the talking points of the other side.
I remember Iraq claiming they had US forces surrounded and we were about to be crushed by their Republican Guard, didn't mean it was true...
Objective facts and reality conquered ill-informed bravado.
| 230 |
borgcube Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:22:05pm |
re: #2 Obdicut
What's insane to me is the people who are ignoring that this was an obvious political move right before Copenhagen.
Actually, scratch that, there's about a thousand insane things about this:
A) It was a crime.
B) AGW does not depend on CRU.
C) There are open-source models out there, anyway
D) Did I mention it was a crime?
E) Scientists are being castigated for being poor politicians.
F) Big Oil and various other industries actively fund climate change denial groups.etc. etc.
Copenhagen is an obvious political move.
| 231 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:22:51pm |
re: #224 Kewalo
To me it is just common sense that if we have put tons and tons of shit into the air it's going to cause a problem. What in the hell do people think smog is if not the crap we've been spewing for all these years. IMO all AGW science has done is explain that is isn't just smog that's a problem but other things too. I didn't know that before and now I do and I'm honestly thankful for so many people took the time to dumb down the science so I can understand what is happening.
But the deniers sure do piss me off.
sometimes it's better to ignore people you disagree with, rather than attack their point of view...if you do, you better come with something better than science says so...science says alot of things and is not infallible...
| 232 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:22:59pm |
re: #226 Walter L. Newton
Maybe you missed my question... I'll try again... "Is a AGW denier the same as a AGW sceptic?"
It's cute when you go trolling for a fight Walter.
I don't think they're the same but I do believe they're both wrong.
| 233 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:23:25pm |
re: #231 albusteve
sometimes it's better to ignore people you disagree with, rather than attack their point of view...if you do, you better come with something better than science says so...science says alot of things and is not infallible...
It's better than "god told me so"
| 234 |
Crimsonfisted Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:23:31pm |
re: #210 SanFranciscoZionist
My mother in law thinks that man is on to something. I think he's ON something. It's lovely how families can do family things together that don't involve talking about politics. Like making lovely cookies! Or, um, making lovely Christmas tree ornaments!
I would agree. Definitely ON something.
| 235 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:24:26pm |
re: #228 Fenway_Nation
Then the crap we're spewing into the air only adds to the problem. Sheesh, that should be easy to understand.
| 236 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:24:27pm |
re: #232 Cineaste
It's cute when you go trolling for a fight Walter.
I don't think they're the same but I do believe they're both wrong.
isn't it part of the role of science to be skeptical?
| 237 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:24:43pm |
re: #226 Walter L. Newton
Maybe you missed my question... I'll try again... "Is a AGW denier the same as a AGW sceptic?"
Sorry...got distracted...good question. I suppose it's possible to be a skeptic about something without denying its possibility. And one could be skeptical of certain studies with regard to AGW without dismissing the entire concept. But to be skeptical of AGW itself isn't much more than denial with a fresh coat of paint...in my opinion. Sea surface temperatures, glacial reduction, these are things we can pretty easily see right in front of us.
| 238 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:24:53pm |
re: #231 albusteve
"Stone the unfaithful AGW monkey!"
| 239 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:25:49pm |
re: #235 Kewalo
Umm...no- the crap we're spewing into the air pales into comparison to what nature's capable of putting up in there regardless of our intervention.
| 240 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:26:13pm |
re: #233 Cineaste
It's better than "god told me so"
I don't know about that...I don't 'believe in god'
| 241 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:26:48pm |
re: #232 Cineaste
It's cute when you go trolling for a fight Walter.
I don't think they're the same but I do believe they're both wrong.
I'm not trolling for a fight... how many fucking times do I have to say the same thing...
"I've said it before and I'll say it again, just in case anyone needs me to clarify my position again. In regards to pro/con AGW, I don't understand the science enough to firmly stand in either camp. On a high level, there seems to be warming going on, but that's as far as I could explain it to myself."
Now, how many times do you want to act like a jerk. My question was honest and I was hoping for an answer, or at least an opinion, but it is evident that those who think they are so much better then someone has no need to be helpful.
You know something, people like you start sounding like those snide right-wing fundamentalist, it gets hard telling you all apart.
Did you take people skill lessons from Ludwig?
| 242 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:27:34pm |
re: #230 borgcube
Everything is a political move. Don't be naive.
| 243 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:28:14pm |
re: #237 darthstar
Sorry...got distracted...good question. I suppose it's possible to be a skeptic about something without denying its possibility. And one could be skeptical of certain studies with regard to AGW without dismissing the entire concept. But to be skeptical of AGW itself isn't much more than denial with a fresh coat of paint...in my opinion. Sea surface temperatures, glacial reduction, these are things we can pretty easily see right in front of us.
Thank you.
| 244 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:29:22pm |
re: #237 darthstar
Sorry...got distracted...good question. I suppose it's possible to be a skeptic about something without denying its possibility. And one could be skeptical of certain studies with regard to AGW without dismissing the entire concept. But to be skeptical of AGW itself isn't much more than denial with a fresh coat of paint...in my opinion. Sea surface temperatures, glacial reduction, these are things we can pretty easily see right in front of us.
yes, but are those man made phenomenon?...I trust the earth is warming, but why attack me because I'm skeptical whether it's man caused or not...as far as I know that is not proven yet
| 245 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:29:40pm |
re: #243 Walter L. Newton
Thank you.
You're welcome. And no, I didn't think you were trolling for a fight. Life's too short to get into a virtual pissing match on the internet...if I'd thought you were looking for a fight, I'd have left you unanswered to stew in "Why won't he answer me!?!" hell.
| 246 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:30:38pm |
re: #236 albusteve
isn't it part of the role of science to be skeptical?
It's also part of the role of science to seek truth.
| 247 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:31:36pm |
re: #246 Cineaste
It's also part of the role of science to seek truth.
I never said it wasn't...that seems obvious
| 248 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:31:47pm |
re: #241 Walter L. Newton
Dang Walter - you get so worked up so easily.
| 249 |
borgcube Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:32:21pm |
re: #242 WindUpBird
Everything is a political move. Don't be naive.
Never. I do find it rather amusing however that people are looking toward Copenhagen and the farce getting underway there as anything but the largest money grab in human history. And that they think I'm the naive one at that.
| 250 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:33:32pm |
re: #248 Cineaste
Dang Walter - you get so worked up so easily.
You're on my ignore list. I asked you an honest question, and you go spoiling for a fight, and on top of it, claiming that is what I am doing. Spend a little fucking time up thread and you will see that I have been engaging honestly on this AGW subject.
Go piss up a rope.
| 251 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:33:40pm |
re: #231 albusteve
Of for pete's sake...one doesn't have to be a scientist to just look at the air and realize that what we are spewing is doing something. I suppose some people might look at smog and think it's a good thing, but when your kids are kept at home and can't go to school because of it, then it seems to me a person sound be interested in what is really happening.
So I don't think I was saying "because science said so" because I was explaining what I can see with my own eyes. I was saying that I do believe the scientists explainations of what the crap is causing, but it's based on my personal observations to begin with. And then plenty of reading...and thinking.
And this is all over the world. If you ever sail into a port in Europe you can see the sky change and go grey/brown miles before you see the coast. I'd hate to see the day when the whole world was covered. So beyond GW there are good reasons to modify our behavior.
| 252 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:34:17pm |
re: #248 Cineaste
Dang Walter - you get so worked up so easily.
best part...
You know something, people like you start sounding like those snide right-wing fundamentalist, it gets hard telling you all apart.
| 253 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:36:02pm |
re: #244 albusteve
yes, but are those man made phenomenon?...I trust the earth is warming, but why attack me because I'm skeptical whether it's man caused or not...as far as I know that is not proven yet
There's a big freakin' hole in the ozone over the south pole, and it sometimes reaches South America. UV ratings are so bad in New Zealand that children are required to wear wide-brimmed hats to school in addition to slathering SPF goop on themselves. Skin cancer rates in southern Chile are through the roof. An ice-shelf the size of Texas broke apart in the last couple of years around Antarctica. The question should be "Is there anything man can do to change his current behavior that might have an effect on slowing this process?" If it isn't, then we're not asking the right question.
We've already proven we can turn rivers into toxic waste dumps that would kill you if you fell in them. And we've proven that we can clean up these things so that they won't kill you if you drink the water.
This has nothing to do with you personally, unless you actively work to stop science from working to protect the planet...then it's personal.
| 254 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:36:23pm |
re: #251 Kewalo
Of for pete's sake...one doesn't have to be a scientist to just look at the air and realize that what we are spewing is doing something. I suppose some people might look at smog and think it's a good thing, but when your kids are kept at home and can't go to school because of it, then it seems to me a person sound be interested in what is really happening.
So I don't think I was saying "because science said so" because I was explaining what I can see with my own eyes. I was saying that I do believe the scientists explainations of what the crap is causing, but it's based on my personal observations to begin with. And then plenty of reading...and thinking.
And this is all over the world. If you ever sail into a port in Europe you can see the sky change and go grey/brown miles before you see the coast. I'd hate to see the day when the whole world was covered. So beyond GW there are good reasons to modify our behavior.
probably so, but that was not the gist of my post you are replying to
| 255 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:37:53pm |
re: #253 darthstar
There's a big freakin' hole in the ozone over the south pole, and it sometimes reaches South America. UV ratings are so bad in New Zealand that children are required to wear wide-brimmed hats to school in addition to slathering SPF goop on themselves. Skin cancer rates in southern Chile are through the roof. An ice-shelf the size of Texas broke apart in the last couple of years around Antarctica. The question should be "Is there anything man can do to change his current behavior that might have an effect on slowing this process?" If it isn't, then we're not asking the right question.
We've already proven we can turn rivers into toxic waste dumps that would kill you if you fell in them. And we've proven that we can clean up these things so that they won't kill you if you drink the water.
This has nothing to do with you personally, unless you actively work to stop science from working to protect the planet...then it's personal.
what's any of that got to do with AGW?
| 256 |
Fenway_Nation Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:38:12pm |
re: #249 borgcube
Never. I do find it rather amusing however that people are looking toward Copenhagen and the farce getting underway there as anything but the largest money grab in human history. And that they think I'm the naive one at that.
Couple that with some nations with newfound wealth and influence (the CRIB countries, Malaysia and a few others) suddenly maybe deciding to plead poverty at this farce.
| 257 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:38:18pm |
| 258 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:40:33pm |
re: #257 darthstar
Quite a bit, actually.
can you prove that an ice shelf the size of Texas broke off the Anarctic coast as a result of AGW?
| 259 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:41:29pm |
re: #258 albusteve
can you prove that an ice shelf the size of Texas broke off the Anarctic coast as a result of AGW?
When did that happen? Seriously?
| 260 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:42:43pm |
re: #239 Fenway_Nation
Umm...no- the crap we're spewing into the air pales into comparison to what nature's capable of putting up in there regardless of our intervention.
I disagee, eventually a volcano cools down and stops it's spewing. The air around Mt St. Helens is clear as a bell. You can't say the same thing about the carbon we are putting into the air, at the moment it seems enless.
Do you think that scientists don't take that into consideration?
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, human activities generate roughly 120 times more carbon dioxide than all of the volcanoes worldwide--those under the sea as well as those on land.
[Link: environment.about.com...]
| 261 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:43:13pm |
re: #259 Walter L. Newton
When did that happen? Seriously?
it's a claim darthstar made, #253...no links
| 262 |
allegro Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:43:37pm |
re: #259 Walter L. Newton
[Link: www.defendingthetruth.com...]
| 263 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:44:32pm |
re: #258 albusteve
can you prove that an ice shelf the size of Texas broke off the Anarctic coast as a result of AGW?
Well, I'm guessing it wasn't spontaneous combustion or the filming of "Happy Feet".
| 264 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:45:16pm |
re: #263 darthstar
Well, I'm guessing it wasn't spontaneous combustion or the filming of "Happy Feet".
so your answer is no?
| 265 |
Dancing along the light of day Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:46:19pm |
re: #258 albusteve
re: #259 Walter L. Newton
Here's what Google found.
(SLOW to load page!)
[Link: www.independent.co.uk...]
| 266 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:46:29pm |
| 268 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:50:05pm |
Time for me to go play in traffic for a while and expand my carbon footprint. Thanks for the exchange, everyone. I may have been wrong about the size of the Wilkins ice shelf in Antarctica...it's not as big as Texas...but it's still fuckin' huge.
Cheers.
| 269 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:50:22pm |
re: #267 allegro
the question was not whether it's happening, but where is the proof that humans have caused it
| 270 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:50:55pm |
| 272 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:51:31pm |
re: #263 darthstar
Well, I'm guessing it wasn't spontaneous combustion or the filming of "Happy Feet".
It's this sort of bullshit answers that shoot your credibility to hell. You, Recusancy, Cineaste, Ludwig can't just field honest questions with honest answers. You have to get your "better than thou" snark on.
Maybe you should consider how you look to the rest of the blog world from this end... because it looks cheap-assed.
| 273 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:54:19pm |
re: #272 Walter L. Newton
How does sarcasm impinge credibility?
| 274 |
darthstar Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:54:22pm |
re: #272 Walter L. Newton
It's this sort of bullshit answers that shoot your credibility to hell. You, Recusancy, Cineaste, Ludwig can't just field honest questions with honest answers. You have to get your "better than thou" snark on.
Maybe you should consider how you look to the rest of the blog world from this end... because it looks cheap-assed.
My credibility? Oh, dear...I didn't realize that was on the line here. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go cringe in fear.
| 275 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:54:51pm |
Here's another from NASA
[Link: jpl.nasa.gov...]
| 276 |
albusteve Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:56:02pm |
my point here is that the AGW proponents have jumped on the bandwagon and they themselves have no more credibility than to trust the graphs and models of others...to ridicule those of us who are as yet skeptical of the degree of human influence seems hypocritical to me
| 277 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:57:16pm |
re: #273 Obdicut
How does sarcasm impinge credibility?
Do you feel left out? Do you want to be on the list? :)
| 278 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 4:59:36pm |
re: #44 Walter L. Newton
Guess what fuck wad.
I'm publicly admitting that I am not smart enough to understand the finer details of the science. I'm publicly admitting that I am not smart enough to try to convince anyone about the climate science...
You don't know shit about my politics in regards to my professional abilities. So fuck off, you're on my permanent ignore list now.
re: #272 Walter L. Newton
Walter - you're the one who starts blowing up the thread with f-bombs and barking at everyone. Then you proclaim that you're not smart enough to talk read and then talk intelligently about the subject. No one else here said that about you, you said it about yourself. That's why it's easy and vaguely entertaining to dismiss you. You do reliably put on a good show though, so thanks for that.
Uh oh, I guess I'm going on the 'permanent ignore list'.
| 279 |
borgcube Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:22pm |
re: #274 darthstar
My credibility? Oh, dear...I didn't realize that was on the line here. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go cringe in fear.
Still can't answer his question? Stop being such a wuss.
| 280 |
Walter L. Newton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:00:30pm |
re: #278 Cineaste
re: #272 Walter L. Newton
Walter - you're the one who starts blowing up the thread with f-bombs and barking at everyone. Then you proclaim that you're not smart enough to talk read and then talk intelligently about the subject. No one else here said that about you, you said it about yourself. That's why it's easy and vaguely entertaining to dismiss you. You do reliably put on a good show though, so thanks for that.
Uh oh, I guess I'm going on the 'permanent ignore list'.
Yep.
| 281 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:01:09pm |
re: #278 Cineaste
On correction - I thought those would appear as separate block quotes. I pulled three separate quotes from #44 and that should not be read as a full quotation of Walter's comments there.
I apologize for that.
| 282 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:01:51pm |
re: #280 Walter L. Newton
Yep.
But wait! You must have read that one! But I thought I was already 'on ignore'!?!
| 283 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:02:20pm |
re: #277 Walter L. Newton
No. I try for civility and only use sarcasm with the worst of the deniers, like John. However, no matter how sarcastic someone is, it doesn't affect their credibility in the least.
re: #276 albusteve
my point here is that the AGW proponents have jumped on the bandwagon and they themselves have no more credibility than to trust the graphs and models of others...to ridicule those of us who are as yet skeptical of the degree of human influence seems hypocritical to me
But we do. Their graphs and charts not only are understandable and match observations, but their being offered by a consensus of scientists. Trusting scientists is not the same thing as having 'faith'. There's plenty of reasons to trust scientists-- they're a very self-policing community. They live to tear each other's theories to shreds, not to support them. Witness the epic Dawkins vs. Lewontin & Gould battle.
| 284 |
Cineaste Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:05:07pm |
re: #283 Obdicut
Furthermore, the notion that thousands and thousands of scientists around the globe at dozens or even hundreds of different institutions have cleverly all agreed to collude is, well, absurd. That is one of the great canards of the anti-AGW argument.
| 285 |
Bagua Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:11:31pm |
re: #284 Cineaste
Furthermore, the notion that thousands and thousands of scientists around the globe at dozens or even hundreds of different institutions have cleverly all agreed to collude is, well, absurd. That is one of the great canards of the anti-AGW argument.
Where have you seen this absurd canard and who here has said that?
| 286 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:15:22pm |
re: #284 Cineaste
Furthermore, the notion that thousands and thousands of scientists around the globe at dozens or even hundreds of different institutions have cleverly all agreed to collude is, well, absurd. That is one of the great canards of the anti-AGW argument.
No-one is saying that there is some sort of conspiracy involving thousands of scientists.
You keep ignoring the FACT that the whole IPCC case as regards warming based on temperature charts - is the work of a handful of scientists. And there are clear enough signs that they work together.
Mann, Jones, Briffa in particular. Their work is pivotal.
Who else has produced long-run temperature charts for the IPCC, quoted in all the successive IPCC reports, pray ?
| 287 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:16:45pm |
re: #286 JohninLondon
John, how many different major climate models are there?
| 288 |
Stuart Leviton Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:27:26pm |
Rush, Glen, in case you read lgf daily:
The machine learning community uses the word trick.
Google kernel trick to confirm. Here's a link to the wiki entry, if that helps, Wikipedia: The Kernel Trick
| 289 |
Roadkiller Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:29:48pm |
Got no time to read climategate emails or reclama's. Got to get out in the garage and prep the snowblower. Expecting 10-15 inches here in Wisconsin by tomorrow night. Crazy-big early snowstorm - I hear its already clobbered Nevada and Colorado with up to 3 feet!
| 290 |
Kewalo Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:31:26pm |
re: #286 JohninLondon
Wow! I'm stunned. You really haven't done any research.
The IPCC Assessment Reports
The preparation of the Assessment Reports on Climate Change is a key activity of the IPCC. We are now beginning the process towards our Fifth Assessment Report. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was released in 2007, and it consists of four volumes: the three IPCC Working Groups (WGs) Reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR)...
[Link: www.ipcc.ch...]
| 291 |
borgcube Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:37:38pm |
re: #256 Fenway_Nation
Couple that with some nations with newfound wealth and influence (the CRIB countries, Malaysia and a few others) suddenly maybe deciding to plead poverty at this farce.
Copenhagen in itself is enough reason for me to assign myself into the skeptic anti-AGW camp, or whatever it's called. In fact, the more the UN and other such worthless international anti-capitalist thieves push that agenda, the closer to the denial camp I go. I was fairly open minded about all of this stuff and frankly didn't really care too much about it for that matter until the AGW agenda itself started to resemble a bunch of people rolling around the floor with snakes a few years ago, with proponents damning you to hell if you dare disagree with their ultimate truths and of course, attempt to deny them access to your bank accounts.
| 292 |
steelerjoe Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:39:52pm |
re: #289 Roadkiller
Got no time to read climategate emails or reclama's. Got to get out in the garage and prep the snowblower. Expecting 10-15 inches here in Wisconsin by tomorrow night. Crazy-big early snowstorm - I hear its already clobbered Nevada and Colorado with up to 3 feet!
Don't you know that kind of weather is normal as a result of global cooling global warming climate change!
| 293 |
SilentAlfa Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:48:49pm |
re: #291 borgcube
Liberals being associated with global warming doesn't make global warming wrong.
| 294 |
solomonpanting Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:50:46pm |
re: #293 SilentAlfa
Liberals being associated with global warming doesn't make global warming wrong.
Or even catastrophic.
| 295 |
JohninLondon Mon, Dec 7, 2009 5:52:57pm |
re: #287 Obdicut
John, how many different major climate models are there?
I was not asking about models. I was asking - who else but Mann, Jones and Briffa has produced the IPCC charts of temperatures, covering the past couple of thousand years.
The charts that should be showing that we are in a period of unprecedented and continuing warming.
Nothing to do with models projecting future possibilities, possible or probable causes of climate changes past or present, - just the temperature "FACTS" expressed in charts reading left to right over time.
| 296 |
Obdicut Mon, Dec 7, 2009 6:49:10pm |
re: #295 JohninLondon
Let's see:
Esper et al. (2002), Bradley et al. (2003a), Jones and Mann (2004), D’Arrigo et al. (2006)
You see those 'et. als' in there, by the way?
They stand for other people.
| 297 |
borgcube Mon, Dec 7, 2009 7:27:22pm |
re: #293 SilentAlfa
Liberals being associated with global warming doesn't make global warming wrong.
Did I say that?
| 298 |
JohninLondon Tue, Dec 8, 2009 4:26:15am |
re: #296 Obdicut
Let's see:
Esper et al. (2002), Bradley et al. (2003a), Jones and Mann (2004), D’Arrigo et al. (2006)You see those 'et. als' in there, by the way?
They stand for other people.
I asked for examples of charts showing we are in a period of unprecedented and continuing warming.
So why don't you check things before you post ?
Your first example is Esper et al(2002) But that stopped at 1990. So where is the "continuing" part ? And Esper et al showed that the Medieval Warming Period was fact, that warming from mid-19th century up to their end-point of 1990 was not unprecedented. Which the work of Mann, Jones and Briffa (pivotal in IPCC reports) disguised.
[Link: www.co2science.org...]
You then mention Bradley, Jones and Mann - but they are all in the "clique" that pushed the hockey-stick case, Bradley is a supporter on various Mann papers and vice versa. Likewise Jones sometimes leads, sometimes supports - but those three names crop up time and time again as joint authors.
I was asking for examples not in the "club". And in the context of the thread - the emphasis is on which scientists the IPCC turns to every time.
D'Arrigo et al (2006) goes up to 1997. It clearly recognises the Medieval Warming Period that is somehow "flattened" to the point of invisibility in papers by Mann, Jones, Briffa etc - and suggests that there was a minimal difference between the MWP and their reconstruction for the 1990's. So that paper cannot be cited as support for the idea of unprecedented warming - and as it stops at 1997 it cannot be used to support the idea of CONTINUING warming.
...
I repeat. The work of Jones, Briffa and Mann (with Bradley as a collaborator) is seminal to the IPCC's claim that we have global warming on a scale that warrants huge economic change. Leaving aside the questions that have been raised about how data points were selected, much of that work involves masses of statistical analysis. But their papers do not appear to have been verified by expert statisticians. Seldom if ever is there the sort of qualification one would expect in papers relying on statistical analysis - "these findings are subject to such-and-such a margin of error"
And if Jones/Mann/Briffa are unreliable - or unreproducable - why should there not be scepticism as to whether unprecedented and continuing Global Warming is happening ? Regardless of possible cause, regardless of suggested remedies.
| 299 |
Obdicut Tue, Dec 8, 2009 7:51:18am |
re: #298 JohninLondon
Esper showed, among other things, that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.
The present temperatures are observable. You're denying them. That's insane, or desperate. I wouldn't want to be you.
| 300 |
JohninLondon Tue, Dec 8, 2009 10:10:23am |
re: #299 Obdicut
Esper showed, among other things, that the MWP was not a global phenomenon.
The present temperatures are observable. You're denying them. That's insane, or desperate. I wouldn't want to be you.
That is a total non-reply - coupled with your usual resort to insults.
That style of arguing is Stalinist - you won't persuade people by trying to browbeat them, trying to coerce them to agree with you. It is counter-productive.
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
1 weeks ago
Views: 1,192 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 253 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
2 weeks ago
Views: 366 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11 
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
3 weeks ago
Views: 503 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 9
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
3 weeks ago
Views: 529 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 512 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5- A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...KGxvi
3 weeks ago
Views: 421 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4 
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 744 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
5 hours ago
Views: 52 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 161 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
