In an excellent piece at The American Thinker. If there’s one thing I want you to take away from the article, it’s that pirates are to blame for rising temperatures.
It also suggests a cool new team name for my alma mater.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGHH. Pirates. And midgets.
Nothing undermines the AGW argument faster than the fact that the custodians of the primal data — those who go out and take core samples and junk — DO NOT MAKE THEIR RAW DATA NOR THEIR METHODOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
Go to climateaudit.org to see page after page of this scientific malfeasance. Steve McIntyre has tirelessly been exposing the bad methodology, the statistical “parlor tricks,” and what should be career-ending dishonesty of just a few scientists upon whose bad data other scientist base their “consensus.”
It’s time that the public pressure these malefactors to show their work the way the scientific method requires rather than hide behind their sneers and firewalls. But of course, they can’t allow the Emperor’s nakedness to be seen, lest they lose their precious funding.
Not since the Piltdown Man has such a fraud been perpetrated upon the scientific community.
The correlation between CO2 and global temperature is that the temperature goes up or down, and then about 800 years later, the CO2 follows.
The classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy is bad enough, but this requires pre hoc, ergo propter hoc, the effect preceding its cause!
I don’t remember who first pointed this out, but it stands to reason that scientists would get little grant money if they examined some situation and determined that 1) it’s not a crisis, and 2) it needs no further study. Thus, whether it’s a drop in bumblebee populations, or an increase in cow flatulence it’s probably an early harbinger of some impending disaster that can only be averted if a whole lot more expensive study is done. Suggesting there is no crisis is a threat to take the bread right out of their children’s mouths and make them scrape to make the payments on the Beamer.
Gets the same reaction as trying to discuss school vouchers with a public school teacher or tax cuts with a bureaucrat. It has nothing to do with the merits of the case and everything to do with their pocketbooks, which is why they get spit on their chins and start shaking and turning red.
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
There’s nothing quite as satisfying as finding a new way to cum.
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
There’s nothing quite as satisfying as finding a new way to cum.
And nothing quite as humiliating as fucking up your html tags.
I should hasten to point out that I don’t think the grant-chasing scientists are [necessarily] dishonest, but rather that they are human and as succeptible to self-delusion as the rest of us. I mean, it could be a crisis, right? And how will we know if we don’t give it further study? And the department is under pressure to bring in more grant money. And besides, the guy across the hall has been studying the clay composition of bisque doll heads from the 17th century for 15 years..
How does this one translate?
Enough with the Global Warning crap. I want to celebrate Coal Week with Glen Beck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL48jXRf-ps
I should hasten to point out that I don’t think the grant-chasing scientists are [necessarily] dishonest
I can’t say that all of them are, but if they are deliberately and dishonestly hiding their data and methodologies, then yeah, they’re being dishonest. Pons and Fleishmann went down because when people tried to reproduce Cold Fusion, they couldn’t.
With Michael Mann and Lonnie Thompson and James Hansen and the rest of the Hockey Stickers, they’re preventing anyone from looking at the data at all. No scrutiny, no debunking. Just name-calling.
Read this whole thread and then tell me that there’s nothing untoward going on.
Granted, it looks like an isolated case of mucking things up, but at Climate Audit, they’ve got pages upon pages of incidents like these, including blocking IP addresses from accessing data (Steve McIntyre’s in particular), claims of “lost” data (over and over), refusals to provide methodologies, and blatant apathy or willful disregard by national science organizations to egregious failures to follow the scientific method.
Spend about a week perusing Climate Audit: skim over the stuff you don’t understand, but look at where data sets are repeatedly unavailable, etc. It burns me up no end to see such bald-faced dishonesty on display.
And they’ll get away with it too, unless we get some kids to meddle in it.
I agree that withholding one’s data seems dishonest, but it’s a fairly common practice. When you’ve spent years of effort doing research and accumulating data there’s a tendency to think ‘this is my data, go get your own!’
I worked for two years collecting data on prehistoric ceramics for the Park Service. Then they decided they wouldn’t let me keep a copy. Nothing controversial at all, it was their data because they paid for it and by god they were going to do the analysis on it.. Whenever they got around to it, which, so far as I know, they never did. [Sigh] But it’s understandable that after paying for the analysis they didn’t want someone else getting publication credit.
“I don’t remember who first pointed this out, but it stands to reason that scientists would get little grant money if they examined some situation and determined that 1) it’s not a crisis, and 2) it needs no further study.”
And a newspaper whose headlines say The Sky is Falling will consistently outsell one who says nothing is happening, and a politician Who is Looking Out For You! will get elected over one who thinks there is nothing to worry about.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the Capitalist/Free Market/Representative Republic really is the primary force behind the Great Global Warming Machine.
Personally, I always thought that Al Gore was stupid for not tying into the really great hysteria you could generate with the uber volcano that will eventually happen in Yellowstone but then I saw the big picture.
China tried to buy Unocal but the US Senate blocked the sell of domestic oil to the Chinese national company. As a result, Gore has to try to drive Americans to want to get rid of oil companies so that China can buy them. Then , and only then, can he get the fat Chinese Presidential Donation style money that Hillary gets minus the need for the bid. In short, just a really big ass check.
(That’s my best loony wingnut impersonation. Thank you, thank you and the house reminds you to try the veal.)
Stupid is sustainable.
Stupid is sustainable.
100% all natural organic stupid is the easiest to sustain.
“100% all natural organic stupid is the easiest to sustain.”
Especially the stuff cultivated in pure bullshit.
“Nothing undermines the AGW argument faster than the fact that the custodians of the primal data  those who go out and take core samples and junk  DO NOT MAKE THEIR RAW DATA NOR THEIR METHODOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY.”
Who does this? The hockey stick dudes? This link has it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
Thats a pretty good website there.
I don’t know anyone who denies that the planet is warming (slightly), but the amount of CO2 man puts in the air is trivial. Think Mt. St. Helens.
Al Gore is nothing more than a giant, whirling black hole of horseshit, fronting for a new religion based on anti-capitalism, and populated by ignorant, ideological hacks.
“Carbon credits” my ass! Just another socialist scam to relieve the wallets of those who work hard for their money.
Junkscience is offering $125,000 to anyone who has evidence to prove man-made warming. Hmmmm. Nobody has come forward to claim it. Jeez! Why would that be? Maybe because there is not one iota of such evidence?
The only warming that I can find that even might have human origin is land use. New York city’s average temp has risen, but 50 miles north, West Point’s average temp is actually falling.
These people are absolutely full of crap.
Water vapor is by far the biggest warming gas. Why are we not fighting against water vapor? What’s going to happen when two billion cars use fuel cells for energy? Their only emission is – you guessed it – water vapor.
Asshats…Every one of them…
Also, Mars is warming and Jupiter has developed a second red spot. You wanna talk about a nasty hurricane season, look at Jupiter.
Thats a pretty good website there .
It is . Once you get past the deep geek , the comments are priceless .
“Junkscience is offering $125,000 to anyone who has evidence to prove man-made warming. Hmmmm. Nobody has come forward to claim it. Jeez! Why would that be? Maybe because there is not one iota of such evidence?”
And its only 15 dollars. And the scientists don’t know how it means to “prove” something. So Milloy will get to make it up!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-yes-no/
Why people don’t take on that “ultimate challenge,” I don’t know.
“Correct Roger, and also the word “proof†in science is reserved only for logical arguments, and therefore it is used only in the field of mathematics. It is not seen in other areas of science because by its very definition it cannot be refer to an empirical argument. Since climatology, physics, meteorology, biology, chemistry, and geology are all experimental sciences, the word “proof†has no meaning in them. The problem is that skeptics will argue that since something cannot be proved, it is therefore wrong.”
Skeptics more often argue that since something cannot be proven, it is not a fact, and might be wrong. Do you have a problem with that, andy?
I’m not skeptical. I think global warming is the provenance of fucking retards. I don’t want to debate them. I just want someone on my floor that will make fun of them behind their backs with me.
“And the scientists don’t know how it means to “prove†something.”
Then they are pretty piss poor scientists, or just being little semantic pussies. A scientific proof, while not absolute, is considered valid when a series of experiments are developed to test a hypothesis, then performed and the actual outcome measured against the predicted. Like if I were to look-up the physics of the theory of gravity, figure out how long it would take a golf ball to fall various heights, then go outside and drop one from those heights and see if the theory was correct. So far the Climatologists have been a little weak in the department.
Andy:
realclimate.org is a load. Go to climateaudit.org for some real mad statistical skillz. Mann et al. are perpetuating a colossal hoax.
I worked for two years collecting data on prehistoric ceramics for the Park Service. Then they decided they wouldn’t let me keep a copy. Nothing controversial at all, it was their data because they paid for it and by god they were going to do the analysis on it.
The Park Service is a government entity, and as such, don’t taxpayers have a right to their info, under the FOIA? Also, if we’re going to spend trillions of dollars and set up trans-national bureaucracies to create artificial energy shortages, thus screwing the poor Yet Again, shouldn’t that data be open to public scrutiny? After they’ve published their papers about it?
I mean, if the ice core sample is fresh off the boat, they’re certainly welcome to have the first stab at it, but after that, doesn’t the scientific method require that others be able to reproduce your methods?
Andy, go read this after you’ve saved up enough to buy a clue.
“Skeptics more often argue that since something cannot be proven, it is not a fact, and might be wrong.”
From what I know, facts aren’t “proven.” They’re observed. I’d like to see an example of a skeptic doing this, so we are sure about what is going on. Nobody doubts that “man causes global warming” might be wrong. Its logically necessary. The question is about the size of that “might.”
That’s not what I meant, provenance. Whatever. Someone else pick the word. I promised New Girl I would help her fix her “ugly chart,” and it’s almost five.
“From what I know, facts aren’t “proven.†They’re observed. I’d like to see an example of a skeptic doing this, so we are sure about what is going on.”
Walked right into that one, you are so predictable.
Mann et al. are perpetuating a colossal hoax
They’re also perpetrating one. I would say that it’s the MSM, led by GE-owned NBC and MessNBC, who are perpetuating the hoax. Yes. GE. The benign company who makes wind turbines by the gross. And owns all of the IP addresses that start with the number 3.
“Then they are pretty piss poor scientists, or just being little semantic pussies.”
Actually they try to be precise in the words they use. This really pisses off people who are interested in political debate, rather than scientific inquiry.
“Like if I were to look-up the physics of the theory of gravity, figure out how long it would take a golf ball to fall various heights, then go outside and drop one from those heights and see if the theory was correct.”
You would have successfully tested the theory. But you wouldn’t have proven it though.
“Go to climateaudit.org for some real mad statistical skillz”
by a real scientist!
“Andy, go read this after you’ve saved up enough to buy a clue.”
Where was it published?
“Walked right into that one, you are so predictable.”
Thats one of the features of science.
“Nobody doubts that “man causes global warming†might be wrong. Its logically necessary. The question is about the size of that “might.â€Â
Lets take a look at another “might” scenario, then. Let’s elect Al Gore, let’s enact all the drastic measures he is suggesting. The economy is going to take a blow, but we would survive. Then it turns out that either man didn’t have all that much to do with it, or he did but India and China keep right on churning industrially and the global warming worst case happens, droughts, sea level raising, heat waves, the whole enchilada. Now we desperately need irrigation projects. Sea walls, dikes, and pumps. Massive relocation of sick and elderly back northward because we don’t have anymore air conditioners. How are we going to pull that off if we have severely crippled our industry and transportation capabilities trying to stave off the inevitible rather than prepare for it?
Man bad. Make Earth hot.
“Actually they try to be precise in the words they use.”
And that is why I made the distinction between the mathematical usage of proof and the more informal common usage. You can make the point that the theory of gravity hasn’t been proven, and in the strict technical sense you would be right. Most people, scientists included, would still think you a bit of a simpleton.
Nobody doubts that “man causes global warming†might be wrong. Its logically necessary.
Parse: Everybody believes that “man causes global warming” might be true. You’re easier to understand when you use positives  otherwise, we have to count the negatives to see how the sentence turns out.
If you’re talking about humans causing urban heat islands, then I’m right there with you.
You want an observation from a skeptic? I gotcher observation right here!
Oh, of scientific dishonesty, again exposing the “divergence” problem, wherein the proxies don’t correspond with observed temps.
And another, where the adjustments to the raw temperature sensor data has been adjusted upwards as if to correct for observed cooling in the U.S. What’s up with that?
And here is the single best reason not to panic about Global Warming, as if Al Gore weren’t enough.
I don’t think I want my taxes increased because somebody thinks something ‘might’ be true. At one time ‘scientists’ thought that mice were spontaneously generated from old rags. While a ‘climate scientist’ will tell you that a good portion of our current climate is man made a meteorologist will have a differing opinion. i would suggest to the people at realclimate go back and recheck their core data.
I’m playing golf tomorrow in Central Ohio, so a spike in global warming would be appreciated.
Uh, andy, is Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Anthropogenic Climate Change, falsifiable?
“And that is why I made the distinction between the mathematical usage of proof and the more informal common usage.”
125 grand is at stake. The dude is at a science website. Which usage is he using? The problem with the informal usage is that it doesn’t have the precision necessary to talking about science.
“You can make the point that the theory of gravity hasn’t been proven, and in the strict technical sense you would be right. Most people, scientists included, would still think you a bit of a simpleton.”
Its been verified. I’m fine with relying on it. But in science i don’t think thats called “proof.” If 125 grand was at stake, I’d point out that this doesn’t quite fit with general relativity.
“Uh, andy, is Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Anthropogenic Climate Change, falsifiable?”
I would think that if one shows that the mechanisms by which anthropogenic global warming is taking place don’t actually exist, then AGW is falsified. Or if one shows that those mechanisms could not or do not give the expected result, then it is falsified.
All of that doesn’t really tell us about what policy to have towards AGW. But it does make the policy discussion harder when some people fuck around with the science.
I would suggest to the people at realclimate go back and recheck their core data.
They already know that their core data tells a different story than the one they say it does, hence the FUD, hysteria, obfuscation, ad hominems, and general scientific malfeasance.
Because this is the thing:
• The warming spell we’re going through is just like the one we went through in the 1920s and 1930s, complete with the Arctic sea passage opening up and glacier retreat. This was, ahem, BEFORE 1945, when our C02 emissions really skyrocketed. If you take out the dubious adjustments to raw temp data, there’s nothing remarkable about current temps.
• There is no objective evidence to show that CO2 is a primary driver of global temps. The ice core data that Gore cites shows an 800-2000 year lag behind temperature rise, which means that it’s entirely possible that the higher CO2 we’re measuring now is a result of temperature increases, not the cause.
• The Crying Wolf that we see here is Yet Another Iteration of the anti-capitalist, anti-industry, pro-transnational government, Green and watermelon alliance (loose and spontaneous though it is) that began with Rachel Carson and repeats itself every so often. Past hysteria: Nuclear Winter, Overpopulation, Ozone Layer, DDT, chemicals in general, etc.
DOOMSDAY SELLS! And this time, Big Industry stands to make a killing with alternate energy technologies that people won’t adopt unless they’re forced to by gubmint regulation and fear.
Tell me, andy, do you really want to see the formation of an international body that is in charge of regulating CO2 emissions? Isn’t it true that whoever controls CO2 outputs controls economies? This body will be accountable to no one, and it will consist of entirely fallible humans who, in all likelihood, will abuse the power given to them. They’ll be bribed silly by governments and industry, and the only real outcome will be increased poverty where it already exists, squabbles and wars over “carbon credits,” and a whole lotta people getting rich on other people’s misery. As for CO2 emissions, those won’t fall by any measurable amount, and the world won’t end, which will end up “validating” the organization’s existence, thus guaranteeing its long, intractable life.
Sound’s like a socialist’s dream, I know, but andy, are down with that? Do you really want to give a small group of people that much power?
“Tell me, andy, do you really want to see the formation of an international body that is in charge of regulating CO2 emissions?”
I just dig reading realclimate smacking down morons. I have no idea what global warming policy should be. Haven’t seen al gore’s movie.
But I do think environmental policy can’t just be local, because clearly the effects aren’t local. As to how to make it be more than local, I don’t know. We could include standards in our trade treaties. Toss in labor standards too.
What about the claims made by AGW campaigners? Are they falsifiable? Are they being treated as falsifiable? What happens when their claims are, in fact, proven false?
Why are there claims that a warmer, wetter climate will be catastrophic, when the historical and archaeological evidence says just the opposite?
But I do think environmental policy can’t just be local, because clearly the effects aren’t local. As to how to make it be more than local, I don’t know. We could include standards in our trade treaties. Toss in labor standards too.
….Like Kyoto , only more socialist … ?
“What about the claims made by AGW campaigners? Are they falsifiable? Are they being treated as falsifiable? What happens when their claims are, in fact, proven false?”
What are the claims? I suspect that there is something called AGW, which is quite specific, and then there are people who are not scientists, who are not making scientifically careful claims.
“Why are there claims that a warmer, wetter climate will be catastrophic, when the historical and archaeological evidence says just the opposite?”
I’m not familiar with the claims, nor with the historical or archeological evidence. But it may indeed be the case that a warmer earth has some benefits (can you give me some? ) but other harms (like submerging lots of coastal cities). Harms which wouldn’t have been around in archeological time in the same way they are today.
“….Like Kyoto , only more socialist … ?”
Kyoto is multilateral. And not a trade treaty. So not like kyoto at all.
BTW .. mistook a link above , climate-skeptic is not climate audit ….. worry not ….my billion ” hail Gaia’s ” should offset sumpthin ….
I just dig reading realclimate smacking down morons.
Raise your standards, andy: read Climate Audit smack down Real Climate. It’s a lot more subtle, but they actually show their work.
If you can handle it.
Kyoto is multilateral. And not a trade treaty. So not like kyoto at all.
Could you please tell me what Kyoto has to do with reducing green house gases ?
Andy, it’s evident to me that you’re the last person on the blog who should be discussing AGW. If you’re not even familiar with the claims, how can you declare that “there are people who are not scientists, who are not making scientifically careful claims”?
Do you actually believe that having a degree in science means that every word out of your mouth is the God’s honest truth? How old are you?
other harms (like submerging lots of coastal cities). Harms which wouldn’t have been around in archeological time in the same way they are today.
You have no idea what you’re talking about; you’ve just been drinking up the hype like so much Kool-Aid. Unbelievable.
Or rather, it’s quite believable. It’s par for the course when dealing with lefty trolls. “Hey, I don’t know the facts nor do I want to know them, but this here narrative is pretty kewl, so I’ll just go with that. Besides, all the Kewl People believe it, so it must be true.”
Kyoto is multilateral. And not a trade treaty. So not like kyoto at all.
Heh , sounds like a Wayans brother skit …
Andy … BAM …. AGW IS REAL … What do we do ???
“I have no idea what global warming policy should be. “
“As to how to make it be more than local, I don’t know.”
“What are the claims? I suspect that there is something called AGW…”
“I’m not familiar with the claims, nor with the historical or archeological evidence.”
“I dont know much about what it does. I could copy and paste wikipedia for you.”
“I said i’m not familiar with the claims.”
“I just dig reading realclimate smacking down morons.”
Heh.
Welcome to the Gaia-Boyz shoppin’ nutwerk … yo …yo …yo , kreditz , we got the kreditz….
Well,
That last part is mine not part of a quote.
Andy ?
“I’d say that Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has no doubt that man causes global warming.”
Or he still has some doubts the Earth is round.
DOOMSDAY SELLS! And this time, Big Industry stands to make a killing with alternate energy technologies that people won’t adopt unless they’re forced to by gubmint regulation and fear.
It will be interesting to see how the marketing of these technologies avoids deceptive advertising lawsuits. What should we conclude when they don’t claim that their products will mitigate global warming?
The historical warm periods (Medieval Climate Optimum, Roman Warm Period, etc) are correlated with the expansion of human civilizations. The MCO, for example, saw a culture of unprecedented size and power in North America. The capital (more or less; hard to say if it was a unified political body) had 10,000 people living in it, and their influence stretched the length of the Mississippi, along its tributaries, and all the way to the east coast south of the Smokies.
That culture declined markedly around the end of the MCO; there are signs of political and cultural splintering, and many of the largest settlements were abandoned. Despite that, their cultural descendants held on until they were finally destroyed by the French in the early 1700s. They did all this with stone-age technology, only one — less than ideal — grain, and only a single domesticated animal, the dog.
At the same time, the MCO saw the peak of the Pueblo-builders in the Southwest, and of Greater Zimbabwe in Africa.
Pushing back earlier to the Roman Warm Period, you had not only Britain with a thriving wine industry and Egypt as Rome’s breadbasket, but here in the American midwest you had the rise of the Adena/Hopewell complex. Not quite as advanced as the Mississippians, they none-the-less had sufficient surplus to produce massive monuments, and similarly had a cultural influence throughout the eastern half of the US. While the Adena/Hopewell center is here in Ohio, I’ve been to sites associated with the culture in Louisiana and Iowa.
Now, certainly it’s possible that all these massive growths in human culture and population are unrelated to warmer, wetter climates. However, when both the rise and fall of the cultures are closely timed with the climate shifts, it’s a compelling argument. When you add in the record of the Little Ice Age, it’s even clearer that warm is better than cool:
Concerns over flooding are MASSIVELY overstated. Reputable estimates place the potential rise to be less than a meter over the next century. If mankind cannot adapt to such a slow change, it’ll be because we chose not to.
Most importantly, if we want to protect humanity and improve its general lot, we’re better off doing things like building waste-water and drinking water systems in areas that don’t have them. The opportunity costs of most “Green” programs are horrific, in terms of human life and liberty.
“Andy … BAM …. AGW IS REAL … What do we do ???”
Make websites denying it? I have no idea. I don’t even know exactly what AGW claims or what its effects are going to be.
“Heh.”
See, and people think i’m drinking the Kool Aid.
“I’d say that Mr. Nobel Peace Prize has no doubt that man causes global warming.”
Just because there are doubts doesn’t mean they get equal time.
Make websites denying it? I have no idea. I don’t even know exactly what AGW claims or what its effects are going to be.
Just what are you trying to say then Andy ? Please , you’re amongst friends ..
Andy:
Read this, then , and then tell me where the geeks live.
McIntyre is a crack statistician, and correctly interpreting one’s data through statistical analysis is the trickiest part of any scientific study. Which is also why it’s the easiest to fake: most people either don’t have the time or the expertise to tease apart the equations to see if the data was handled properly.
And most scientists are not that good at statistical analysis; Michael Mann has admitted that he’s not a statistician. That’s why it takes a mathematician like Steve McIntyre to expose the frauds and the sloppy science.
Like he did here. In a published paper, since that seems so important to you.
Open tag alert Di ….
“Just what are you trying to say then Andy ? Please , you’re amongst friends ..”
I asked, up in 17, who supposedly does this:
“DO NOT MAKE THEIR RAW DATA NOR THEIR METHODOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY.”
I’ve also asked for links so that I can compare climate audit and realclimate.org. For that i get accused of drinking the Kool-aid. amongst friends.
Some days, I really hate HTML. Let’s try that again:
Read this, then this, and then tell me where the geeks live.
<cut>
Like he did here. In a published paper, since that seems so important to you.
Also try this.
Andy ,
I tend to take this issue far more seriously than most …… after all , M. Strong is Canadian and all …. and Andy , 17 made sense , all after , not so much .
Climate Audit , it’s linked up thresd as well .
.. kinda like up thread
“Read this, then , and then tell me where the geeks live.”
So you don’t have any where realclimate.org and climate audit address each other? Thats what you promised me so I could decide. Never fear! see below
Also, what the hell is this (from one of your links):
that guy sounds weird.
“In a published paper, since that seems so important to you.”
Peer review is important. That journal’s website didn’t say whether it was peer reviewed. Realclimate seems to address that paper here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
Is that on point? So now I can go read at my leisure and compare.
Andy ,
M. Strong , Kyoto …… thoughts ?
Also, what the hell is this?
In Soviet Russia, it called hyoo-mur. It was forbidden in Soviet Russia.
Peer review is important. That journal’s website didn’t say whether it was peer reviewed. Realclimate seems to address that paper here:
Why don’t you review it? Use your own brain and your own judgment. Or did you have this happen to you awhile back?
Yes, peer review is important. But whose peers? Michael Mann’s? Because those are the ones who “support” MBH98 with their own parlor tricks.
I can’t give you all the links to the conversations between Mann and his acolytes and McIntyre. I’ll give you this:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=2
Which is all of the Climate Audit threads marked “MBH98.” You’ll have to take it from there.
“Comment by happyfeet on 11/12 @ 6:01 pm #
I’m not skeptical. I think global warming is the provenance of fucking retards. I don’t want to debate them. I just want someone on my floor that will make fun of them behind their backs with me.”
feetman – I’ll be there as soon as I can, but I think I’ll be stopping in NashVegas on the way to kick Steve Earle’s junkie ass, so be patient.
I also might have to take a few moments to do his fan club director. I hate Steve but I love her – uh – things….
“For that i get accused of drinking the Kool-aid. amongst friends.”
Just for the record, I accused you of being a moron. I imagine the recipe for Kool-Aid would be a bit complicated for you.
“Why don’t you review it?”
I could. But its much more efficient to have peer review. You understand that system right? You understand that no matter how much brain I got, I cant just pick up a scientific journal. Its theoretically possible to do so, thats the point of science, but I can’t just do it.
“But whose peers?”
Like how about a congressman?
“I can’t give you all the links to the conversations between Mann and his acolytes and McIntyre. ”
I just want a back and forth to compare. You don’t read realclimate.org? You don’t have any links of them addressing the climateaudit people so I can compare?
“I could. But its much more efficient to have peer review. You understand that system right? You understand that no matter how much brain I got, I cant just pick up a scientific journal. Its theoretically possible to do so, thats the point of science, but I can’t just do it.”
That is one of the most idiotic, incoherent pieces of drivel anyone has ever posted here, andy. You have rocketed right past actus to alphie territory. How long before we are discussing Giant Balloon Parasols to cool the planet back down?
“That is one of the most idiotic, incoherent pieces of drivel anyone has ever posted here, andy.”
What? I’m supposed to go review a scientific paper instead of relying on peer review? And this is idiotic? I’m accused of not doing it because I don’t have a brain? Its been years since i’ve done a principal components analysis. I can’t just review those papers myself.
Thanks, Dog. Long as you make it before our Inconvenient Truth screening it’s all good.
Also that’s not a feeble joke. It’s for real, and it scares me.
Folks – This is the rhetorical equivalent of beating your testicles against a brick wall just for fun. andy, on a good day, is aggressively ignorant. At times like this, willfully obtuse. Y’all are 75 comments in, and the ‘tard is yet to make an actual point.
happyfeet – I would be most honored to join you in the mocking of the co-workers, especially on the day that the gorebot’s movie is shown.
Thanks, JD – I’m betting it’ll give New Girl a lot to think about on her hour plus commute home. She believes, but hasn’t seen it yet.
“Comment by andy on 11/12 @ 6:03 pm #
“Skeptics more often argue that since something cannot be proven, it is not a fact, and might be wrong.â€Â
From what I know, facts aren’t “proven.†They’re observed. I’d like to see an example of a skeptic doing this, so we are sure about what is going on. Nobody doubts that “man causes global warming†might be wrong. Its logically necessary. The question is about the size of that “might.—
andy –
Observed facts are rife about “Global Warming”. There is no computer program existant that predicts climate changes that can even predict what already has happened by inputting facts we already have. As a matter of fact, the climate predicting programs that exist do just as well with random numbers as they do with real input.
Ah, screw it. You and yours have no desire to know the truth. Whatever hurts people who strive and make money and better themselves – that’s what you guys hate.
I feel sorry for you.
This is fucking total gobbledy-gook. Do you actually have anything to say besides: “Yeah. What he said”?
Show us something that points to the fact that one molecule per million in three months (average) raises the ability of a substance that makes up a little over 3% of our atmosphere, is raising temperatures on the Earth.
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RIDICULOUS!!!!!! I feel sorry for someone like you who has no desire to know the truth, because life is about “how do I feel” – and “those dickheads have more money than I do!” The Dems will show THEM! How could someone who works his/her ass off have a greater reward than anybody else?
Let’s take the engine out of the car and give those people a dose of reality!
Once we take the well oiled engine out of our society, we can all share equality of misery!! That’s the goal, right?
It’s time to wake up before Charlie Rankin, Barbara Boxer, ans Henry (make me puke) Waxman control your life. I guarantee that, no matter how much you revere these idiots, you will not be happy when they own your life. Wake up, Bozo….
I wonder how much CO2 she produces in an hour long commute. Somehow, I doubt she gives the grey matter much of a workout in the car.
“As a matter of fact, the climate predicting programs that exist do just as well with random numbers as they do with real input.”
This would be an interesting citation. Though I don’t think I can point to even one climate model.
“Y’all are 75 comments in, and the ‘tard is yet to make an actual point.”
He has made one point rather eloquently, that he has no fucking idea what is going on.
“What? I’m supposed to go review a scientific paper instead of relying on peer review? And this is idiotic?”
What is idiotic is you pretending to know jackshit about peer review or smack downs of morons when you repeatedly assert you complete and utter ignorance of anything to do with the subject.
Reread post 52, and every post of yours since then. Then read it again out loud for fucks sake, maybe then it will soak in to that melon on your shoulders that you are making a fool of yourself.
“That is one of the most idiotic, incoherent pieces of drivel anyone has ever posted here, andy. You have rocketed right past actus to alphie territory. How long before we are discussing Giant Balloon Parasols to cool the planet back down?”
B Moe –
I have always admired your sense of humor, but after reading this post, I have to say “Ah LOVE you!!!!”
Thank God for Jeff, you, and all the really, really funny and amazing people who hang out here…
The Lost Dog – You give andy waaaaaaaaaaaay to much credit. His intention is not to debate you. He/she/it just makes random non-points with the intention of diverting the conversation from the topic at hand. In this case, he does not actually want to talk about the facts, as a careful and honest analysis of them do not support his side’s Narrative, which must be protected at all costs.
It’s next point will be its first.
Giant Balloon Parasols. Fascinating idea … Did you get that from Kucinich or Ron Paul ? ;-)
Comment by andy on 11/12 @ 10:21 pm #
“As a matter of fact, the climate predicting programs that exist do just as well with random numbers as they do with real input.â€Â
“This would be an interesting citation. Though I don’t think I can point to even one climate model.”
I think this is a result of your rampant curiosity. It’s not too hard to find, but I’m not giving it to you. You should be forced to do SOMETHING besides listening to Al Gore’s bullshit and then regurgitating it. THAT MAN IS RETARDED!!!! Next time you see him on T.V., turn the sound down and tell me he didn’t just step off the short bus. The BLUE short bus….
Believe me – it’s there.
“Comment by JD on 11/12 @ 10:25 pm #”
I know it is useless to bray at andy and his “guys”.
I’m just in an unrelated bad mood, and sometimes it’s very therapeutic (hmmm. Doesn’t look right, does it?) to actually try to cram some reality into the heads of people who think that what they feel is more important than facts.n A waste of time, I know, but it’s better than freaking out in my real life. I am also listening to “classic country”, which makes me even more aware of how old I am (but I do love it. I am a Hee Haw vet – as in I played on Hee Haw).Jeebus!
Thanks
TLD – I could not agree more. It is therapeutic, and the only reason that I am not engaging the little crapweasel more is that he/she/it hasn’t yet made my blood boil with its inanity yet. I am the first to admit that I rarely follow my own advise, and truly enjoy playing whack-a-troll for hours on end.
“He has made one point rather eloquently, that he has no fucking idea what is going on.”
Clearly. It all started when I asked who it was that this is addressing:
“DO NOT MAKE THEIR RAW DATA NOR THEIR METHODOLOGIES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY.”
And I still haven’t heard.
“It’s not too hard to find, but I’m not giving it to you. You should be forced to do SOMETHING besides listening to Al Gore’s bullshit and then regurgitating it.”
I don’t listen to his bullshit. Haven’t watched his movie. Don’t know what the claims of the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming are. I have asked people here for them though.
“The historical warm periods (Medieval Climate Optimum, Roman Warm Period, etc) are correlated with the expansion of human civilizations”
How many warm periods are this? How did that occur? Is it expected to occur again?
“Most importantly, if we want to protect humanity and improve its general lot, we’re better off doing things like building waste-water and drinking water systems in areas that don’t have them.”
Thats a great policy point. There’s a lot we could do to better the lot of people in this world.
When I was little watching Hee Haw meant dinner was late. I guess it came on Sunday nights and things took longer to grill than when Mom cooked. It’s like how if I saw that little kid with flippers singing on that Roy Rogers show that meant that we were skipping church.
America is not as surreal as it used to be. That’s sad.
I knew we were skipping church when I got to watch Wrestling at the Chase with Ox Baker, Harley Race, the Von Erich’s, et al. I am frankly amazed that I remember that, and I am even more amazed that “professional” wrestling still exists.
Wrestling at the Chase
There’s a resonance here with the British theatre thread but mostly it doesn’t really need articulating.
It was quite embarassing to admit that I once enjoyed “professional wrestling”. Were I to ever accidentally vote for a Democrat, that would probably be more embarassign. Getting a Lewinsky from Lewinsky would be more embarassing too.
Andy, andy, andy.
You were pointed at the examples.
No one else’s fault you can’t follow directions.
Chronic problem, I imagine.
Andy, old chum, I actually own one of the bridges over the Chicago River in downtown Chicago. I’m a little strapped for cash and I have an opportunity I’ll let you in on…………………………………
“You were pointed at the examples.”
At climate audit. One full of nonsense I cut and pasted here. I’m interested in getting examples from both the websites on the same issue so I can compare.
“I’m interested in getting examples from both the websites on the same issue so I can compare.”
No you are not, or you would be over there doing it. You are interested in being a prissy little douche-bag troll. Fuck off.
Then get to it! You’re a literate person, and perfectly capable of doing your own research.
Wow! 102 comments circling around andy. I can summarize andy’s position in two words.
I dunno.
He’s playing with you people. He has no interest in engaging a real debate. He just wants to see all of us ruffle our feathers and growl. Which only adds to the CO2 problem…
I miss Lazar and a real scientific debate about this topic, even if fully half if it I won’t understand.
“I dunno” and I am going to take affirmative steps to assure that I do nothing that could potentially challenge my view that the apocolypse brought on by AGW is looming in the near future.
Why anyone would choose to be so obtuse is beyond me.
BJTexas wrote:
More like “pay attention to meeeeeeeeeee…..”
More words, but I think closer to the truth.
As BJTexas said, it’s a game.
What makes you think it is a choice, JD?
intentionally obtuse = unintentionally stupid (by habit)
Wow, that was really dumb:
“Of course, had the CO2 increases trailed those of temperature — as many believe to be the case (solar and/or volcanically warmed oceans emit more CO2) — then the entire GHG theory crumbles. Indeed, without such temporal reference, Gore is employing a common correlation versus causation confusion trick called Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (with this, therefore because of this).”
Why is heating much greater over continents than oceans? Why is the upper atmosphere warming slower than the lower atmosphere?
His intelligentsia walk through the fallacies was wonderful, but it was
a. A huge straw man inasmuch as he cherry picked (or ignored) the scientific arguments to allow for his ham fisted Logic 101 course and
b. he did not make (nor cite) any coherent SCIENTIFIC interpretations of the available data (which, BTW, is the only thing that really cuts any ice here). Probably because he doesn’t really understand any of it. Oh NO! I engaged in an ad homenem attack!
He even cited the most useless scientific petition (appeal to authority!) for which anyone (scientist or no) can affix their name. Not that all scientists agree. But if we are going to go down that road, the Oregon petition does not trump the community as a whole. I know – time to grab for the Giant Scientist Conspiracy, wherin all geo-scientists report to the Illuminati, or whatever your variant.
Where exists an equally cogent explanation for the data being observed? Anthro influences on warming simply explain the data better than anything else. And the only thing that could concievably change that would be a SCIENTIFIC re-interpretation of the data – not some freshman rhetorical analysis of an Inconvenient Truth.