PDA

View Full Version : Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate


Whatfur
11-28-2009, 08:00 AM
Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.

Whatfur
11-28-2009, 08:03 AM
"Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science.""

Read the source. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/cap_and_trade_is_dead__99322.html)

Whatfur
11-28-2009, 08:18 AM
"The way the Kultursmog works, liberal elites through their undemocratic dominance of cultural institutions -- the media, the universities, government bureaucracies -- create beliefs, problems, and bugaboos, by studiously ignoring disagreement and by ceaselessly repeating deceits and distortions."

Read the rest... (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/25/global-warmists-caught-red-han)

Whatfur
11-28-2009, 07:56 PM
Some old and some interesting additions. FOIA request chronology. (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295147.php)

Whatfur
11-28-2009, 10:15 PM
Pure Peer Review. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI=&w=MA==)

Whatfur
11-28-2009, 11:06 PM
Wow, lets look at what Melanie Phillips had to say 2 years ago. (http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1469)

Whatfur
11-29-2009, 08:27 AM
Playing hockey with polar bears...or something like that. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html)


Just a nice breakdown of all the bullshit we have had to wade through...

Whatfur
11-29-2009, 04:07 PM
"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html)

osmium
11-29-2009, 07:35 PM
The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

But more importantly, modeling work always sounds this way. I have a problem with journalists who focus on climate models because they sound pleasing and technical.

Models are models, and that's fine, but the discussion of the earth's climate should be based (in every article) on concrete, provable facts, such as:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) Basic material balances can be used to show the problem: draw a box for carbon in condensed matter (the ground) and a box for carbon in the air. Draw arrows to show the rates of transfer between the two. The imbalance in possible rates is clear.

3) Venus and Mars show us examples of extremes in greenhouse effect.

Add to that the fact that the research going into reducing CO2 emissions is proceeding through the same channels as our military, computing, and health research. Capitalism is in play, the people who can make energy cleaner will become rich men and women. Frankly, I continually fail to understand why everyone doesn't think that's a good thing.

If the world read my personal emails about my research, and saw my daily cynicism, it would come off much the same I think. People are due the knowledge that they are communicating on the record, to state things the proper way.

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/science/earth/28hack.html?_r=1&ref=science). The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.

Whatfur
11-30-2009, 10:06 AM
The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

...

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/science/earth/28hack.html?_r=1&ref=science). The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.


First, thanks for replying here!!! I was hoping you might.

I think the keeping of the data secret is the least of the problems. So is part of the scientific landscape also denigrating the work of others, not because it is wrong but because it points out flaws in yours? You seem to be giving them a rather large benefit of doubt. Don't you think the size of their "landscape", what they personally had invested, and the fact that the limb they crawled out on was visable around the world gave them added incentive to make sure people thought they were right...even in cases they were wrong? I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)

I found it also funny that on the same day I read that they had agreed to make their entire database public...they admitted that most/much of the raw data that most/much of their models/claims are based on has been deleted. Supposedly, the deletion was not a recent development (although the admittance is), but this just does not bode well.

Other than that:

1. Yes, C02 is a greenhouse gas...Has it not reached heights in history surpassing those of today and generally with positive effects on life?

2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.

3. Dynamics on Venus and Mars, although interesting, are barely comparable. Not many factories or cars there either. (Kind of like your mother saying, keep crossing your eyes and they will stay that way)

But, yes lets look at doing things as thinking humans that reduce our impact without lying about it or turning AGW into the new religion that trys to tell everyone that you either think the way they do or the world will end.

bjkeefe
12-01-2009, 08:14 AM
Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.

Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Strassel), Emmett Tyrell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Tyrrell), Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/08/cpac-blogger-of-year-dont-forget.html) of the Year! (now fallen (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/priceless.html))), Mark Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn), Melanie Phillips (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/poor-beleaguered-melanie-phillips/), Christopher Booker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science), ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.

osmium
12-01-2009, 08:44 AM
I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)

People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.

Whatfur
12-01-2009, 08:51 AM
...

I do agree with you, however, ...

And I agree with you on some too but there are some obvious prejudice you casually espouse...that I don't have time now to get into right now. Later.

osmium
12-01-2009, 08:53 AM
2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.

What I mean by "possible" is "what is actually possible." As in, there is not a way anyone knows of yet to speed up the rate at which carbon is removed from the air and placed into a condensed (solid, liquid) state, such as rock or petroleum.

Finding a way would solve a lot of problems.

BTW, When I was looking around at info on these climate email hacks to respond, I read something I really liked, but I don't remember where. Someone pointed out that Freeman Dyson's "carbon-eating trees" thing he wrote in the New York Review is nuts. (He's saying you could genetically engineer trees to consume carbon at a faster rate, i.e. condense carbon.) I should point out that I like Freeman Dyson, but that idea is totally made up. The press gave him a pass on that because he's Freeman Dyson, but if anyone else said that you'd say "Okay, show me a carbon-eating tree. How about a uranium-eating tree to clean up nuclear waste. A PCB-eating tree for the Hudson River. Etc."

Whatfur
12-01-2009, 09:36 PM
People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.

By conjoining "hyper-political hyper-scrutiny", I would have to agree. Because this research has so many implications on our lives, and the world I believe hyper-scrutiny by itself is just fine and necessary. You may or may not want to admit it but the alarmists are the ones who have been trying to shut down the debate...we now have some evidence for the reason.

Jones and Mann and their ilk may wish to advance science, but it certainly was shown that they want it on their own terms and they are not always above board. The "everybody does it" defense does not fly here.

Your statement that no one deals in conspiracy to save research is a bit far reaching. I would bet it happens every day and you cannot deny the proof there there was conspiracy here to hide data, and ignore valid input from others.

I was just in a little discussion with popcorn_karate concerning an article documenting that even the scientists don't know what currently is going on. They are just guessing and some of the guesses now being used by the "alarmist" crowd are the same ones the "denialist" crowd have been pointing to for a decade and being told they were full of it. And so it goes.

Whatfur
12-02-2009, 09:02 PM
Had a feeling John Stewart may pick this up (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/02/video-jon-stewart-dumps-on-climategate-researchers/)...he didn't quite go as far as I would have liked...but still close to being on the money.

Whatfur
12-03-2009, 08:34 AM
Hmmmm. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093) Cap and Trade IS a farce.

Ocean
12-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Hmmmm. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6941974.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093) Cap and Trade IS a farce.

So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?

Whatfur
12-03-2009, 08:59 AM
So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?

No, I agree with him that nothing positive will come out of Copenhagen and that Crap and Tax legislation does nothing it advertises.

Whatfur
12-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Its all unravelling. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-its-all-unravelling-now/)

Whatfur
12-03-2009, 10:53 AM
Not a surprise but India says shove it (http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSDEB00309720091203).

Whatfur
12-03-2009, 09:03 PM
No music...no coming to face it. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/)

Whatfur
12-04-2009, 11:48 AM
Unbelievable, the U.N. has some questions too? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm)

Whatfur
12-04-2009, 04:24 PM
C02 weigh stations next to volcanos...it just keeps getting better and better. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html)


...and a bit of irony. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/global_warmings_new_clothes_1.html)

Whatfur
12-04-2009, 05:58 PM
Day 14 and counting. (http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx)

Whatfur
12-04-2009, 06:47 PM
Climate debate derailed? (http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece)

bjkeefe
12-04-2009, 08:24 PM
Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Strassel), Emmett Tyrell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Tyrrell), Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/08/cpac-blogger-of-year-dont-forget.html) of the Year! (now fallen (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/priceless.html))), Mark Steyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn), Melanie Phillips (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/poor-beleaguered-melanie-phillips/), Christopher Booker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science), ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.

And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet (http://twitter.com/randomphrase/statuses/6254552818):

randomphrase (http://twitter.com/randomphrase) "This doesn't seem to be a smoking gun so much as a gun that hasn't been fired." http://is.gd/59tW3 (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) #esr (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23esr) #fail (http://twitter.com/search?q=%23fail)

As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond (http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archives).

Starwatcher162536
12-04-2009, 08:52 PM
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.

claymisher
12-04-2009, 08:59 PM
And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet (http://twitter.com/randomphrase/statuses/6254552818):



As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond (http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archives).

Once at a programming conference I was at there was this horrible smell -- like feces and rotting meat put together -- that would come and go. Nobody could figure out what it was or where it was coming from. Turned out it was Eric Raymond.

Whatfur
12-04-2009, 09:43 PM
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.

It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed the % of people that voted for McCain and doubted the facts in Al Gore's Documentary and the % of people that voted for Obama who rely on it for their AGW facts. Ok...maybe it would be just as silly as your little poll of interest.

Deny what you will, the Climategate scientists were caught being more Gore-like than like scientists. Some of what it looks like they did WAS fraud (ok we can call it a "trick") and by doing so have perpetrated a hoax.

Where we are currently left with is the fact that things actually have been cooling again and they are pinning their "hopes" (Yes I said hopes...if you read the Climategate emails you would see the disappointment they expresses when their warming evaporated) on mother nature (not carbon emissions) to turn it around.

Botton line is AGW needs to continue be examined but we have been shown that things are certainly not a done deal. Wake the fuck up.

Starwatcher162536
12-04-2009, 11:55 PM
Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down. :D

Starwatcher162536
12-04-2009, 11:56 PM
Well, maybe tomorrow.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 08:56 AM
Well, maybe tomorrow.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php


Oh the dancing...

First, I could have stopped reading after the first sentence when this boob you found initiated his little tango with worrying about throwing out the fact that the acquisition of the emails etc was done illegally. You and I both know that if the whistle-blowing was done on something from the other side in the same manner y'all would not give a rats ass how it was obtained.

Second, this "computer programmer from New South Wales" says he debunked the debunking of computer code by showing us that: Well yeah sure there WAS/IS some fudge factored into the code but Hey look it is later commented out by a semi-colon.

Of course you and I should both be smart enough to know that the mere fact that it existed and the mere fact that the "semi-colon" could be toggled any time they wished it to is a much larger story than the existance of the toggle.

Sorry, that is as far as I bothered to read...if there are huge points made further on feel free to bring them forward.

Nice try though.

TwinSwords
12-05-2009, 10:30 AM
LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php):

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 11:17 AM
LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php):

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.

What author? Where am I defending him?

How can you possibly imagine a debate when "wingnut" is your chosen adjective for everything that falls outside your own limited scope of logical thought? As the debate is being compiled and lunatics are being excluded, you will be sitting with them.

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 11:59 AM
Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down. :D

Not every use of "Wake the fuck up" is said without calm. :D
By the same token, you are not constantly beating back inanities from sources who have no real interest in participating in real discussion, so if I sometimes put the wrong people in the wrong camp...I apologize for it.

Starwatcher162536
12-05-2009, 12:04 PM
For those of you that want something from someone who does think Climategate is not a case of politically convenient outrage, and is not part of Whatfur's AGW is debunked every six weeks crowd, here you go.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/12/01/climategate_and_scientific_conduct.php

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 01:03 PM
For those of you that want something from someone who does think Climategate is not a case of politically convenient outrage, and is not part of Whatfur's AGW is debunked every six weeks crowd, here you go.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/12/01/climategate_and_scientific_conduct.php

Pretty sure it was you who started the "AGW debunked" thread here. Find me where I said AGW is debunked. You are a lying sack of shit.

And the timing may be convenient, but the facts are not.

bjkeefe
12-05-2009, 01:15 PM
Pretty sure it was you who started the "AGW debunked" thread here. Find me where I said AGW is debunked. You are a lying sack of shit.

Ooooo. Protests too much, methinks.

piscivorous
12-05-2009, 01:41 PM
Here is a pretty good look at the "atmospheric greenhouse effect: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4) the link is to the abstract of the article on the Cornell University (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4) pre print server

handle
12-05-2009, 03:25 PM
Oh the dancing...
Second, this "computer programmer from New South Wales" says he debunked the debunking of computer code by showing us that: Well yeah sure there WAS/IS some fudge factored into the code but Hey look it is later commented out by a semi-colon.


Sooo you are inferring they somehow knew in advance someone was going to make political hay of this subroutine, but they weren't smart enough to delete it all together, instead of just turning it off with a semi-colon?
Who's using logic here? Your pretense of employing it is, for lack of a better word, crap.

handle
12-05-2009, 03:39 PM
Not every use of "Wake the fuck up" is said without calm. :D
By the same token, you are not constantly beating back inanities from sources who have no real interest in participating in real discussion, so if I sometimes put the wrong people in the wrong camp...I apologize for it.

Allow me to translate, in Buttfur language, "Wake the fuck up" means he wants to have your babies.
And just for the record, he earned every "inanity" he will ever get.

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 04:54 PM
Ooooo. Protests too much, methinks.

Oh really...well first Twinswords comes on and mistakenly aligns me with someone that I didn't even bring into the conversation...

I call him on it and...shocker...he disappears.

Then Starwatcher puts me into a camp that I never claimed to be in...

I call him on it and...shocker...he disappears.

I mention something about those who follow me around not to involve themselves in serious debate or discussion but who instead show up to spew inanities...

and...shocker...handle and bjkeefe appear.

So it goes...

bjkeefe
12-05-2009, 05:00 PM
[...]

Now you're whimpering about being ignored AND responded to ... in the same post!

Any excuse to wear your victim cloak, I see.

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 05:22 PM
Now you're whimpering about being ignored AND responded to ... in the same post!

Any excuse to wear your victim cloak, I see.

...and reappear.

handle
12-05-2009, 05:58 PM
Oh really...well first Twinswords comes on and mistakenly aligns me with someone that I didn't even bring into the conversation...

I call him on it and...shocker...he disappears.

Then Starwatcher puts me into a camp that I never claimed to be in...

I call him on it and...shocker...he disappears.

I mention something about those who follow me around not to involve themselves in serious debate or discussion but who instead show up to spew inanities...

and...shocker...handle and bjkeefe appear.

So it goes...
Let's get this straight boys and girls, He shows up with the attitude that "my shit don't stink, but yours sure does.. don't argue as I am never, ever proven wrong" and then cries about getting no respect?

Hint: Everybody knows who's camp, or pocket, you are in, so don't even go there.

Posters disappear on you because they made their point, and they know you will just make it about something else... (see above) the strategy of the weak.

Starwatcher162536
12-05-2009, 06:13 PM
I was busy for a whole 5 hours, shocking I know.

Moving on, from your very first link here you link to this. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/cap_and_trade_is_dead__99322.html)

Furthermore, you specifically quote this:

"Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science.""

Given the assumption, you are quoting a piece of the article that particularly resonates with you, not a huge leap of faith given your history of posts, then it follows that you think climatology needs to "start over". As such, you are implying that all the gathered evidence for AGW is worthless, I will stipulate that this is equivalent to denying AGW.

Last words yours.

Edit:
Btw, I have a number of recent posts questioning assumptions I have heard from people that some would call alarmists, and other posts stating that I don't even think AGW is the most major problem facing the environment.

When's the last time you didn't put yourself squarely on the side of the deniers?

handle
12-05-2009, 06:54 PM
I have a hard time thinking of a valid rebuttal for a statement made recently by Buttfurs nemesis, Al Gore. He directly addressed his critics, a number of whom were protesting outside the lecture venue, saying: "whether you believe it or not, please help us end our dependence on foreign oil".

Whether it is to stop climate change or enhance national security and economic stability, I'm pretty sure the guy who started this thread is dead set against it.

I think by now we all know why. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=78491&highlight=haliburton#post78491)

Whatfur
12-05-2009, 08:33 PM
Last words yours.



Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to apologize? What you, I guess, are trying to say above is that you were unable to actually come up with any statement of mine that would validate your erroneous label and thus my label of "lying sack of shit" comes at least as close as yours.

For future reference, unless I follow a link that I provide with something like..."and I agree with everything in this article", please "assume" that I do not necessarily agree with everything in the article but merely found the article interesting for one reason or another. Even if I quote something from an article as the link selection criteria...please only assume that I do so to facilitate the actual reading of the whole article by others.

If anything I believe I have been clear that I feel there are valid reasons to study current and historical trends. I believe man has an affect but I believe no one has proven conclusively that it is anything but negligible and with that we are also unable to prove that anything we may do will reverse trends governed by mother nature. You poo poo the fact that CO2 rises have followed, not preceded, warming trends by saying that they increase the intensity. There are still a bunch of unanswered questions in that area beginning with how the heck can we have been cooling then for pretty much the last decade and why are scientist betting on the sun and PDO and not the evil C02 to turn around the latest cooling and how could the earth have reached CO2 levels 1000 times greater than we have now without man's help, and for that matter how did it possibly survive those levels.

By the same token, yes, lets look at alternatives to fossil fuels and give incentives to do so. However, lets do so without screwing everyone in the mean time with unproven theories and lying to them with bad science and scary movies.

[added] Thanks for stepping up and I appreciate you having something else to do.

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 01:02 AM
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to apologize?

There was absolutely no reason for Starwatcher to apologize. You're starting from a fatally flawed assumption -- that a few questionable choices may have been made, at one facility, and concluding that therefore, GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIBERAL HOAX!!!1!

And no, before you start whimpering, I acknowledge that you haven't said those exact words. That has, however, been your entire tone for the past two weeks on this issue. Either you think that if you keep linking to a bunch of wingnut opinionators who have no scientific background, your case somehow gets stronger, or you know, deep down, that it doesn't, and so you're trying to browbeat the one person on this site who isn't in your little klatch who hasn't written you off completely.

Face it, 'fur: you're not going to win anything by doubling down on your unpleasantness. If you really cared about this issue, you'd realize your strategy ought to change. As far as it appears now, this is nothing more to you than one more political football to kick around, and your beyond premature attempts to declare victory make whatever valid points you may have buried somewhere in your posts all that much harder to see.

TwinSwords
12-06-2009, 08:32 AM
What author? Where am I defending him?

In this post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141337#post141337), Starwatcher linked to a bebunking (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) of this post (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447), which you defended, here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141351#post141351).

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 09:40 AM
GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIBERAL HOAX!!!1!
.


Sorry you feel that way. I don't. But yes...for the most part I feel liberals have taken the largest draw on the AGW kool-aid straw and have already swallowed. Most on the other side wish to still examine the frosty glass a little bit.

Oh and BTW, a number of my links had scientific input as well as some that explain things from "your" side. Why do you feel compelled to continue to lie and misrepresent here?

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 09:46 AM
In this post (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141337#post141337), Starwatcher linked to a bebunking (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) of this post (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447), which you defended, here (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141351#post141351).

Pretty funny...I guess clarity is not something you are striving for here. That is understandable. I asked 2 specific questions here. Afraid to give me a name?? Or do you think providing link and links of links is enough of a diversion to keep others from also realizing that you are attempting to cover up your little faux pas.

As I told SW, wouldn't an apology have been easier?

<enter Mother Keefe>

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 10:28 AM
<Editted above>

TwinSwords
12-06-2009, 11:26 AM
Pretty funny...I guess clarity is not something you are striving for here. That is understandable. I asked 2 specific questions here. Afraid to give me a name?? Or do you think providing link and links of links is enough of a diversion to keep others from also realizing that you are attempting to cover up your little faux pas.

As I told SW, wouldn't an apology have been easier?

<enter Mother Keefe>

Fur: I'm not going to do the endless and pointless back and forth thing with you. I know it's your specialty, but it bores me.

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 11:37 AM
Fur: I'm not going to do the endless and pointless back and forth thing with you. I know it's your specialty, but it bores me.

Figured as much. You accuse me of something I did not do and then when called on it you first try to confuse the masses and then run away yelling insults over your shoulder. I guess that is YOUR specialty.

One last time, either provide the backup for your LIE, apologize for the mistake, or wear the label of "Fucking Phony".

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 12:05 PM
Why do you feel compelled to continue to lie and misrepresent here?

Pot, kettle.

Starwatcher162536
12-06-2009, 01:42 PM
As I said, you can have the last word on how accurate my representation of you is.

As for this...

You poo poo the fact that CO2 rises have followed, not preceded, warming trends by saying that they increase the intensity. There are still a bunch of unanswered questions in that area beginning with how the heck can we have been cooling then for pretty much the last decade and why are scientist betting on the sun and PDO and not the evil C02 to turn around the latest cooling and how could the earth have reached CO2 levels 1000 times greater than we have now without man's help, and for that matter how did it possibly survive those levels.


Short term variability swamps out the increases in temperature over short time intervals. This is why there is a "Gold Standard" of thirty years (I have seen 15 years used, but that is not the standard).

5 minutes with Excel illustrates my point well. I started by setting A1 equal to zero and A2 to 1+A1, then copied/pasted that cell to the next 98 cells down. I then set B1 to (.014*A1)+(RANDBETWEEN(-35,30)/100)*, I then copy/pasted this to the next 99 cells down. Next plot this in a scatterplot. You will usually see several times a century where someone can point to an unusually warm year, and draw a straight line over 10 years and get a line with m<0. As such, you can see that a decade of stagnant/cooling temperature is consistent with AGW being real.

Now, as no one really thinks short term temperature swings are our fault or anything to be concerned about, and we tend to only worry about the long term trend, lets make it easier to see the signal by applying a 3-y moving average. You can do this setting C2 to equal (B1+B2+B3)/3, and then copying this to the next 98 cells down.*. Now, plot this in a scatterplot. This is what people actually care about.

*1st term accounts for the "CO2 signal", the second term is to account for natural variation. It's worth noting that my signal-noise ratio is dependent on the given IPCC climate sensitivity being more or less right, but as we are trying to use the last 10 years as a means to falsify the IPCC's claims, it makes sense to use their numbers.

*Usually this will be a weighted moving average, but this is just a simple explanation and doesn't need to get into that. It's also worth noting, that this is what my curve post awhile back was refering to, a possible explanation of cutting off the ends of the graph, is that the first and last data point will be weighted more then the others.

P.S.
A number of things are wrong with what I did, for instance the CO2 signal is not constant, but is some function of the carbon cycle and our emission rates. The "noise" is not white noise, some portions of the damping in the noise are showing steady decreases. It's good enough to make my point though.

Starwatcher162536
12-06-2009, 01:43 PM
Btw, I forgot to mention, but hitting F9 re-randomizes the B column.

Edit:
This has actually sparked my interest. I'll put something a little more accurate up using maple in a few days.

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 04:01 PM
As I said, you can have the last word on how accurate my representation of you is.


You get your schooling on "last words" from your buddy Branflake, I see. Well if it was the last word then STFU. There was nothing "accurate" about your representation. You put me in a specific category based on a bad assumptions...and now I am suppose to listen to YOU "the scientist".


Short term variability swamps out the increases in temperature over short time intervals. This is why there is a "Gold Standard" of thirty years (I have seen 15 years used, but that is not the standard).
...


I can plug numbers into a spread sheet and make them come up with anything I want to, too. To say thirty years is the gold standard for determining climate change is like saying a grain of sand constitutes a beach.
(Yes, there was some facetiousness in my questions)


P.S.
A number of things are wrong with what I did
...

Thanks for the admission, but I look forward to your attempts here.

handle
12-06-2009, 04:01 PM
By the same token, yes, lets look at alternatives to fossil fuels and give incentives to do so. However, lets do so without screwing everyone in the mean time with unproven theories and lying to them with bad science and scary movies.
* Quote bolded by me*

Has anybody tried to raise an issue with their boss only to have them say "Thanks for the suggestion, we'll look into that"?

Does anybody ever doubt for a minute that what they really mean is "shut up and get back to work, we don't take suggestions from the rank and file, especially if it could effect the company profits, or more importantly, the bonus I get for shutting down underlings like you"?

I consider this evidence that Nhutfur just might operate in some management capacity. He seems to know the lingo, anyway.

But let's be fair people, let's not "lie" and say he is a "climate change denier", or an "it's been debunkeder"!
Nooo, he's just a very thoughtful and gentle creature who implies over, and over, and over again, that most of the data, science, and scientists involved with studying this phenom, have no credibility whatsoever, and their conclusions are almost completely without substance.

An important distinction.... to ahhhh.... him anyway.....

And just because he dumps a link with no explanation of what it means to him, it is a travesty to assume he actually meant that he agrees with anything covered in the piece!
How could you violate him in such a manner? The nerve of you people!

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 04:09 PM
You get your schooling on "last words" from your buddy Branflake, I see. Well if it was the last word then STFU.

The only possible way to interpret this whimpering is to say that 'fur realizes he just got schooled.

I knew you would have absolutely nothing useful to say in response to Starwatcher's Excel demo, 'furry.

Keep bleating! Keep denying! And most of all, keep denying you're denying!

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 04:13 PM
[...]But let's be fair people, let's not "lie" and say he is a "climate change denier", or an "it's been debunkeder"!
Nooo, he's just a very thoughtful and gentle creature who implies over, and over, and over again, that most of the data, science, and scientists involved with studying this phenom, have no credibility whatsoever, and their conclusions are almost completely without substance.

An important distinction.... to ahhhh.... him anyway.....

Yup. The 'furry one is not a denialist in the same way that Steve Sailer is not a racist.

And just because he dumps a link with no explanation of what it means to him, it is a travesty to assume he actually meant that he agrees with the anything covered in the piece!
How could you violate him in such a manner? The nerve of you people!

That was particularly comical, and typically gutless. It's his new tactic, I think -- put the link in to give a sheen of authority, but add no comment to it, to preserve plausible deniability.

handle
12-06-2009, 04:21 PM
Yup. The 'furry one is not a denialist in the same way that Steve Sailer is not a racist.



That was particularly comical, and typically gutless. It's his new tactic, I think -- put the link in to give a sheen of authority, but add no comment to it, to preserve plausible deniability.

Pile on with insult! Pile on with insult! Pile on with insult! BRAAAAAK!

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 04:31 PM
The only possible way to interpret this whimpering is to say that 'fur realizes he just got schooled.

I knew you would have absolutely nothing useful to say in response to Starwatcher's Excel demo, 'furry.

Keep bleating! Keep denying! And most of all, keep denying you're denying!

The only possible way to interpret Branflake's continual need to jump in and insult under the guise of mother hen is that Fur has schooled him so often and so thoroughly that his puny balls have been sucked up into his stomach and this gives him some relief from the perpetual herniated frustration he obviously feels. Ya know Branflake, its a bit laughable to come in here and lament the usefullness of someones elses response when you have done nothing but spew NOTHING yourself. You fucking prig.

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 04:32 PM
Pile on with insult! Pile on with insult! Pile on with insult!

Oh, yes. I'm sure we're about to get a flood of whimpering from the 'furry one. Looks like he's pounding his keyboard right now, matter of fact.

handle
12-06-2009, 04:35 PM
<shudder>

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 04:38 PM
The only possible way to interpret Branflake's continual need to jump in and insult under the guise of mother hen is that Fur has schooled him so often and so thoroughly that his balls have been sucked up into his stomach and this gives him some relief from the perpetual herniated frustration he obviously feels. Ya know Branflake, its a bit laughable to come in here a lament the usefullness of someones elses response when you have done nothing but spew NOTHING yourself. You fucking prig.

Whimper, whimper, whimper.

Whimpfur?

I have to laugh that you have nothing to offer except empty assertions and words that lost their shock value halfway through elementary school.

If you can't take being called out for what you write, don't post it in a public forum. You spend all this time patting yourself on the back for being the burr under everyone's saddle, but as soon as you get a little reaction, it's pull on the victim cloak and complain about what everyone else has to say. Make up your mind -- either clean up your own act or accept that there are no free passes for being a blowhard.

handle
12-06-2009, 04:45 PM
Whimper, whimper, whimper.

Whimpfur?

I have to laugh that you have nothing to offer except empty assertions and words that lost their shock value halfway through elementary school.

If you can't take being called out for what you write, don't post it in a public forum. You spend all this time patting yourself on the back for being the burr under everyone's saddle, but as soon as you get a little reaction, it's pull on the victim cloak and complain about what everyone else has to say. Make up your mind -- either clean up your own act or accept that there are no free passes for being a blowhard.

Oh the humanity!

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Whimper, whimper, whimper.
... blowhard.

How about you and handle just get a room?

handle
12-06-2009, 04:53 PM
How about you and handle just get a room?

Your fantasy not mine... sorry to disappoint.

graz
12-06-2009, 05:06 PM
Fur has schooled him so often and so thoroughly

This is also your fantasy alone. The forum comments speak for themselves. Denial must be the only salve for your beaten carcass.

handle
12-06-2009, 05:16 PM
This is also your fantasy alone. The forum comments speak for themselves.

I disagree, he has a PHD in non-science, and has schooled all of us in the fine art of suffering fools, at least until we just can't take it anymore.....

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 05:47 PM
How about you and handle just get a room?

We would, but I heard you and "Mr. Stones" had booked it for the foreseeable future.

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 07:28 PM
Ahhh he grabbed one of my CRU favorites...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

BTW..."this 'moment' is in its second decade"!!!

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 07:43 PM
Ahhh he grabbed one of my CRU favorites...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

BTW..."this 'moment' is in its second decade"!!!

Ah, yes. George Eff Will. And who (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/lying-or-stupid-bowtied-twerp-edition.html) could (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-know-at-least-at-times-it-was-bill.html) question (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-good-will-hunting.html) his (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/will-not-correct.html) credibility (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-fullest-extent-possible.html) on this issue?

[Added] Is this one of those "science links" you were trumpeting a short while ago?

handle
12-06-2009, 07:44 PM
Ahhh he grabbed one of my CRU favorites...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/04/AR2009120403073.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

BTW..."this 'moment' is in its second decade"!!!

Was that a segue from my post, or are you just happy to see me?

Wait.... whats this? Travesty denied? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)

handle
12-06-2009, 07:47 PM
And don't forget to watch the documentary! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/)

handle
12-06-2009, 08:18 PM
And here is Haliburton (Buttfurburton?) offering to bury your CO2... for no reason apparently....
(http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?pageid=2768&navid=1333&SRC=MPChallenge)

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 08:20 PM
Ah, yes. George Eff Will. And who (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/lying-or-stupid-bowtied-twerp-edition.html) could (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-know-at-least-at-times-it-was-bill.html) question (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-good-will-hunting.html) his (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/will-not-correct.html) credibility (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-fullest-extent-possible.html) on this issue?

[Added] Is this one of those "science links" you were trumpeting a short while ago?

Is this one of those responses where you actually add something to the conversation?

Oh yes... ad hominem. No discussion. No debate on points. Just links looking to shoot the messenger and then some sort of support from your dick sucker. You must be proud.

handle
12-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Is this one of those responses where you actually add something to the conversation?

Oh yes... ad hominem. No discussion. No debate on points. Just links looking to shoot the messenger and then some sort of support from your dick sucker. You must be proud.

I feel like I'm a character in "American beauty"! What you saw through the window nhutfur, was just two guys having a conversation. Now put your Luger back in your pants and go home.....
I knew your now deleted blog photo reminded me of a gay Nazi character from a movie but until you mentioned your closet ....

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 08:39 PM
Oh yes... ad hominem. No discussion. No debate on points. Just links looking to shoot the messenger and then some sort of support from your dick sucker. You must be proud.

The last resort of whimpfur and his fellow denialists. Sorry, old man, maybe you've forgotten, but you've played this card way too often, and my answer has always been the same: if you're going to appeal to authority, it's legitimate to question that authority. Looking to George Will for honesty on global warming is like ... well, looking to you for originality in insults.

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 08:55 PM
...a little humor. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/29/a-friendly-chat-with-the-global-warming-evangelist-who-lives-in-my-head/)

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 10:10 PM
...a little clarity. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html)

Osmium? Starwatcher? Any critique?

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 10:14 PM
...a little clarity. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html)

Starwatcher?? Instead of pulling column A and B out of some oriface how about you give us your critique of this?

I know this clown from NewsBusters.

When I saw his panting "... the greatest scientific fraud in history," I had to wonder whose ass you were talking about pulling things out of.

Whatfur
12-06-2009, 10:51 PM
I know this clown from NewsBusters.

When I saw his panting "... the greatest scientific fraud in history," I had to wonder whose ass you were talking about pulling things out of.

Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 11:06 PM
Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.

I don't waste my time debunking your opinion pieces anymore. There's no point -- you're determined to be a denialist, and you've never budged in the slightest or conceding the first thing whenever I've spent the time to show where your big time hoaxer pieces are wrong. The most I ever have gotten out of you is whimpering, followed by name-calling, followed by attempts to change the subject.

Now I'm just in it for the lulz, as far as you're concerned, so keep those "science links" coming!

handle
12-06-2009, 11:10 PM
Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.

Remember folks! Friends don't let friends drink and post. Got a designated driver? Got a friend? Got advil? Got a sponsor? Got a way out of this?

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 11:12 PM
Remember folks! Friends don't let friends drink and post. Got a designated driver? Got a friend? Got advil? Got a sponsor? Got a way out of this?

'fur has friends?

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 11:20 PM
Ah, yes. George Eff Will. And who (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/lying-or-stupid-bowtied-twerp-edition.html) could (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-know-at-least-at-times-it-was-bill.html) question (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-good-will-hunting.html) his (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/will-not-correct.html) credibility (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-fullest-extent-possible.html) on this issue?

Carl Zimmer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/12/06/george-will-uncheckable/), that's who.

(h/t: Balt. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141702#post141702))

bjkeefe
12-06-2009, 11:27 PM
Carl Zimmer (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/12/06/george-will-uncheckable/), that's who.

And via Carl, George Monbiot's column is worth a look (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists).

osmium
12-07-2009, 09:45 AM
...a little clarity. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html)

Osmium? Starwatcher? Any critique?

I do not believe the graphs in that article look damning in any way. "But I defy anyone to compare the above chart..." Okay, he has defied me, but I will retort that it looks like science to me. It looks messy. Every day I come to work and deal with messy. It's not my field, but to me nothing in this looks unusual.

I want to do an experiment where the graphs and models used to make jet engines and rockets, medicines, and cars are made political and released onto the internet. In all of those fields, you will see the same kind of thing: where the efforts of lots of people go into teasing out trends and truths from noise and ambiguities.

This "climategate" is political, and people whose jobs it is to be political see an ambiguity in that green line, and it is their job to get as much out of it as they can. (The black line is frankly enough for me. Why not talk about that?) The stuff at the end about the personal liberties of every America: what the hell is he talking about? Whoever this guy is, he should go outside and get some fresh air, walk around, put his life in perspective. This is a graph. A graph. Its consequence is what?--to make energy cleaner? No one is executing people over this graph.

My take is that, yes, all this weather data and its digestion should be more open. In fact, all data should be more open, because then people can get used to what data really looks like.

Whatfur
12-07-2009, 10:17 AM
I do not believe the graphs in that article look damning in any way. "But I defy anyone to compare the above chart..." Okay, he has defied me, but I will retort that it looks like science to me.
...
In fact, all data should be more open, because then people can get used to what data really looks like.

I guess the visual representation of how the "warming" was manipulated is something scientist can debate and there were a dozen graphs in the article so I am not sure which one you are referring to...however, the opinion I was looking for was on the "hidden decline". The blatent removal of the MWP. The blatent manipulation of data. Does this not bother you?

But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.

osmium
12-07-2009, 11:01 AM
I guess the visual representation of how the "warming" was manipulated is something scientist can debate and there were a dozen graphs in the article so I am not sure which one you are referring to...however, the opinion I was looking for was on the "hidden decline". The blatent removal of the MWP. The blatent manipulation of data. Does this not bother you?

But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.

I was talking about the 5th and 6th plots, the one concerning the "hidden decline" that appears in one of several proxy data sets. Discrepancies like that could mean that the data is not a valid proxy, or that it lags with an unknown time constant, or it could mean we don't understand anything (which is what the climategate pushers are claiming). Then you would also have to explain the rise in thermometer data, which seems more relevant to me.

It is without a doubt true that things like "the decline" have been excluded on purpose to keep from obscuring the message. The message being that global temperature is rising, and the level is above the levels far in the past (this latter is the assertion in question). This is what you and others are objecting to. Your assumption is that this amounts to a conspiracy. There is a second possibility--that there is frequently some inconsistent component of data, and it is in fact standard procedure across all fields of science to remove those kinds of things when presenting data to an audience. This is in fact a dumbing down of the information leading up to the message. The amount you dumb it down is a subjective call, depending on your audience. This is done by 100% of scientists, because when you show an undigested mess to people, you are not helping or doing your job: taking complexity and boiling it to a theory.

However, the argument about truth and falsity of your conclusion takes place at a level where people understand all the data, at conferences and in the literature. It is an evolutionary, dialectical process, and the general public does not take part in it.

But when something becomes political, you get things like laymen who frankly have just enough background to be a pain but not to actually understand drawing irresponsible conclusions from messy raw data. These people are doing something wrong.

And here is the part you will like, so don't miss it: Then the scientists involved go to greater pains to keep things locked down, keep outsiders from looking at the raw data. And these some of these outsiders end up being other scientists who disagree in some way with their conclusion. This is really wrong.


But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.

No this is not what I'm saying. I think that scientists who disagree have to be allowed to see as much of the thought process as the as the scientific "free market" allows, which appears to be more than they've gotten in the historical climate field. (Maybe not, I dunno, I'm assuming climategate means that someone has actually been excluded.)

But all the articles you are posting are by non-scientists as far as I can tell. So I don't care that much about them. The worst you will be able to pin on me is this: I am in fact an elitist in the sense that everyone's opinion who matters has been to graduate school and gotten a PhD in the field (I am not really included in that, I point out).

Politics turns on a dime. Science turns like a freight train. So I don't really seem affected by a dip in a green line on a plot with five lines on it. Note it and proceed. If there is major fallout from this, it will happen in about a year, when the ripple has had a chance to go through the scientific community, and we see what comes out. What exactly are you expecting? There is not any clear falsification of data here--none. No matter how much people want there to be, there is not. This is not cold fusion.

So, Whatfur, your concern has been noted. I trust you have noted my counterpoint. So ...? Let's keep watching with interest if the science changes. I'm not name calling, I'm not being disrespectful. I'm saying this is important, but not a smoking gun revealing that CO2 is actually good.

Whatfur
12-07-2009, 05:54 PM
First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.

Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys. Sure, there are numerous ways to explain the graphs and or the reasons in manipulating them. However, one would have to ignore the email vernacular of these guys to think their goal is "dumbing" things down to make it more understandable to the masses. (That's ridiculous). One would have to ignore the vernacular to say there is nothing conspiratorial about it. You obviously choose to ignore the vernacular. Now you do throw in a couple generalizations that most certainly would agree with...but you want to fall short of applying those rules to the Jones/Mann clan or suggesting they fell outside of them. They did.

Lastly, yes lets keep watching and lets keep international and national governments from making decisions for us based on incomplete and short-sighted analysis. Starwatcher here mentions 30 years as some gold standard in this arena...that is silly...1500 years maybe, ...but lets not drop off a couple hundred years here and there when it suits what we want our final analysis to look like.

handle
12-07-2009, 06:17 PM
First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.

Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys. Sure, there are numerous ways to explain the graphs and or the reasons in manipulating them. However, one would have to ignore the email vernacular of these guys to think their goal is "dumbing" things down to make it more understandable to the masses. (That's ridiculous). One would have to ignore the vernacular to say there is nothing conspiratorial about it. You obviously choose to ignore the vernacular. Now you do throw in a couple generalizations that most certainly would agree with...but you want to fall short of applying those rules to the Jones/Mann clan or suggesting they fell outside of them. They did.

Lastly, yes lets keep watching and lets keep international and national governments from making decisions for us based on incomplete and short-sighted analysis. Starwatcher here mentions 30 years as some gold standard in this arena...that is silly...1500 years maybe, ...but lets not drop off a couple hundred years here and there when it suits what we want our final analysis to look like.

He sobers up pretty good folks.... but the old song never changes, not even one bit:
Here's a Nhutfur post from a year and a half ago (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=78481&highlight=haliburton#post78481) where he explains his point of view on the subject, proving that no matter who rebuts him, or how they go about it, he is unwavering in his conviction, and downright nasty when effectively countered. He solicits "discussion" but can't stand it when no one is buying his boiler plate talking points .

May '08
A couple things...I do not deny that humans have an effect on the environment, but how much I believe is guesswork and currently with what has happened in the last 10 years as well as the recent ocean temp studies coming back surprising so opposite to what Gore predicted...I just have to say hang onto the farm for 50 years or so until there actually is something conclusive. I am on the side of wanting to be proactive but smart about it.

osmium
12-07-2009, 09:34 PM
First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.

Well, I didn't read them all, but I read six or so, and the one that starts this thread I replied to caught my eye. They're not bad--I am learning stuff from them. I just don't think I am going to decide on the technical conclusion based on them. I don't think that's arrogant. All the time people tell me that, like, shampoo causes cancer and stuff like that. I'll let my mind be made up on that by a doctor or shampooist. Etc.

And BTW, I'm pretty much just reading you and me in this discussion, so I'm not taking any cues from anyone.

Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys.

I don't mean to make excuses for *them*. I think they did something wrong--kept things too secret from the rest of the scientific community. I'm just saying I don't think it affects the overall science. And also that I think it started not by a conspiracy, but by a defensive crounch (which is maybe somewhat understandable, but still not defensible).

Whatfur
12-07-2009, 10:33 PM
Well, I didn't read them all, but I read six or so, and the one that starts this thread I replied to caught my eye. They're not bad--I am learning stuff from them. I just don't think I am going to decide on the technical conclusion based on them. I don't think that's arrogant. All the time people tell me that, like, shampoo causes cancer and stuff like that. I'll let my mind be made up on that by a doctor or shampooist. Etc.

And BTW, I'm pretty much just reading you and me in this discussion, so I'm not taking any cues from anyone.



I don't mean to make excuses for *them*. I think they did something wrong--kept things too secret from the rest of the scientific community. I'm just saying I don't think it affects the overall science. And also that I think it started not by a conspiracy, but by a defensive crounch (which is maybe somewhat understandable, but still not defensible).

We may disagree a bit...but thats ok. Thanks again, I appreciate your input.

graz
12-08-2009, 01:43 PM
A perspective and contrast:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/they_could_study_this_in.php

bjkeefe
12-08-2009, 01:57 PM
A perspective and contrast:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/they_could_study_this_in.php

Why, it's almost as though there wasn't a firewall at the WaPo between news and George Eff Will's columns!

Thanks for the link. And please keep it handy for the next time some wingnut says the WaPo is part of the "liberal media."

popcorn_karate
12-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Figured as much. You accuse me of something I did not do and then when called on it you first try to confuse the masses and then run away yelling insults over your shoulder. I guess that is YOUR specialty.

One last time, either provide the backup for your LIE, apologize for the mistake, or wear the label of "Fucking Phony".

this trick of yours is getting old. anyone willing to follow those links will see immediately that you are citing garbage that has been thoroughly debunked. the fact that you are either too dishonest or too stupid to acknowledge that just shows everybody what a waste of time it is to listen to your ranting.

if anybody wonders whether this douche bag has anything relevant to say - follow those links! - this is a golden opportunity to see for yourself the depths of his dishonesty. of course, there is the humor value when he starts screeching about others being "phony", that is icing on the cake.

Whatfur
12-08-2009, 04:27 PM
this trick of yours is getting old. anyone willing to follow those links will see immediately that you are citing garbage that has been thoroughly debunked. the fact that you are either too dishonest or too stupid to acknowledge that just shows everybody what a waste of time it is to listen to your ranting.

if anybody wonders whether this douche bag has anything relevant to say - follow those links! - this is a golden opportunity to see for yourself the depths of his dishonesty. of course, there is the humor value when he starts screeching about others being "phony", that is icing on the cake.

Popcorn,

Yes follow the links. Find me the name of the author that Twinswords is accusing me of defending. Show me where I am defending him. And I will apologize. It is YOU who is the douche bag. Just like I busted you with phony quotes, phone numbers and phony rightousness, you try to help TS out in the same kind of douche bag liberal BS.

But yeah, find me the author he is talking about and lead me to my apology.
Give me the name that was so difficult for him to come up with.

handle
12-08-2009, 06:00 PM
Popcorn,

Yes follow the links. Find me the name of the author that Twinswords is accusing me of defending. Show me where I am defending him. And I will apologize. It is YOU who is the douche bag. Just like I busted you with phony quotes, phone numbers and phony rightousness, you try to help TS out in the same kind of douche bag liberal BS.

But yeah, find me the author he is talking about and lead me to my apology.
Give me the name that was so difficult for him to come up with.

Yeah! Follow the links! I did and discovered the plot behind the conspiracy of confusion perpetrated by the lying liberals!!...
See, Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!
Sooo this means he has changed the subject to spitting hairs and lashing out at the messenger once again, because he can't understand what commenting out a subroutine call does, but he knows it left egg on his face.

handle
12-08-2009, 07:31 PM
Yeah! Follow the links! I did and discovered the plot behind the conspiracy of confusion perpetrated by the lying liberals!!...
See, Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!
Sooo this means he has changed the subject to spitting hairs and lashing out at the messenger once again, because he can't understand what commenting out a subroutine call does, but he knows it left egg on his face.

Ya know, now that I think about it, in Twinswords defense, three lefts, do in fact, make a right.

So a negative criticism of a negative criticism of a negative criticism, may in fact be considered to be a defense of the original negative criticism.
Which means not only has Muttfur given me a headache, but he did in fact defend Eric Raymond, who wrote this (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447) that was debunked here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) which Scumfur tried and failed to debunk here. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141351#post141351)

Which of course means Drunkenskunkfur owes everyone on the planet an apology.
And me some asprin.

Whatfur
12-08-2009, 10:52 PM
this trick of yours... is icing on the cake.


Ahhhh...as they say, leave a pile of dog shit lying around long enough and a libtard is going to step in it.

I am actually starting to think that handle is not really graz's sock-puppet, but mine.

First, I see him chime in to my discussion with osmium here after obviously seaching the forum annals for something to use to ridicule me with and the best he comes up with (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141804)is a post from a year and a half ago that if anything it shows that I am consistant and true. Now he did try to put a lame spin on it, but I am pretty sure that anyone who happens to be intellectually honest (a rare commodity I am finding here amongst the libtards) probably felt a bit sorry for that bit of ineptitude. I suppose that after all the time he spent agonizingly searching for something to use against me, trying to spin my "unwavering" "convictions" as a negative was better than just writing off the time as wasted.

Now, like a gift that just keeps giving, I see handle comes through for me again and provides me exactly the name we all have been waiting for and he even bolded it. The name Twinswords was smart enough to run away from, because he knew I caught him with shit on his shoes. Yes, the guy with a sword in each arm was not big enough to admit his mistake and instead, like so many others here, ran away while continuing to spew insults over his shoulder. The Phucking Phony!! When will any of you just decide to man up? And, too funny, just like others here who ignorantly ran to Popcorn's defense recently when he misquoted an article and made up numbers whilst crawling out of the woodwork because he thought he saw a way to insult me here; he is stupiding returning the favor to Twinswords. And what does HE get for it? Further humiliation and yep... shit on his shoes. What is that quote again about those not knowing history being destined to repeat it?

In any case yes lets look at the unveiling:

Which means not only has Muttfur given me a headache, but he did in fact defend Eric Raymond, who wrote this (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447) that was debunked here (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php) which Scumfur tried and failed to debunk here. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141351#post141351)


Yep! Eric Raymond, who was brought into this thread by Branflake and I never commented on him. Claymisher chimed in about Raymond smelling like his mother or something...and I never commented on him. Starwatcher brings in an article that links to him...and I never commented on him. My comments were specifically targetted on the methodology utilized by Lambert in trying to legitimize the computer code. Dozens of articles have been written that include and talk about this code. Nothing I wrote defended anything unique to Raymond's take on it. EVERYTHING I wrote was specific to Lambert's take on it. Twinsword's made a mistake. Twinswords tried use that falsity to align me with something completely different again that Raymond said. And I am the one having to defend myself from the jackels.

Fuck off you stupid pricks. You lose...again. Oh wait...except for handle.
Him I need to acknowledge separately as in one fall swoop (foul swoop?) he proved that since at least "May, 08" I have acknowledged AGW and man's involvement...thus proving Starwatcher wrong in his little insulting backhand in my direction....he enabled me to once again to take Popcorn to task for his errant quoting and use of imaginary numbers in a failed attempt of jumping all over me for what again? Oh yeah ...posting a link (full of scientists, btw)...and now HANDLE is THE MAN that not only steps in the dog shit but wallows in it enough to allow me to point out that it is true Twinswords is a fucking phony and a small one at that. Swords turned into butter knives, one might say. So, could one of you please let handle know how much I appreciate the extra work he performed here? Cuz we ain't talkin. LOL!!!1!

graz
12-08-2009, 11:05 PM
Hark... I heard a wimpfur, was my name called?

So it's the old: I might have linked to something, but that don't mean you all can attribute agreement to it by me. And further let me draw out the tale to a convoluted and near interminable length, so as the only likely one with patience enough to respond or foolish enough to follow would be handle or his sockpuppet. Who really put it best:
Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!

TwinSwords
12-08-2009, 11:12 PM
* pant! pant! pant! *

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7239/lol2b.png (http://whatfur.blogtownhall.com/)

LMAO.

Whatfur
12-08-2009, 11:37 PM
LMAO.

How nice. You have grabbed a picture of my father. Now deceased. Killed by a drunk on the highway just over 5 years ago at 70 yo. At 70, he too could have still kicked your ass. If it was me you were looking to pant over you would have to choose the one on the left.

Nice try though butterknife. I know, not easy for you being a fucking phony.

Whatfur
12-08-2009, 11:39 PM
Hark... fool...:

When the truth is on one's side, insults from the little people are alot like music. Sing away.

AemJeff
12-08-2009, 11:56 PM
How nice. You have grabbed a picture of my father. Now deceased. Killed by a drunk on the highway just over 5 years ago at 70 yo. At 70, he too could have still kicked your ass. If it was me you were looking to pant over you would have to choose the one on the left.

Nice try though butterknife. I know, not easy for you being a fucking phony.

My dad was about a dozen years older than yours and from the same part of the country; though he's been gone nearly thirty years, now. So, I sympathize; but, I know for sure that you'd have little problem pulling a profile pic and saying something snide and pointless - so why pull the outrage thing out on this?

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 12:13 AM
My dad was about a dozen years older than yours and from the same part of the country; though he's been gone nearly thirty years, now. So, I sympathize; but, I know for sure that you'd have little problem pulling a profile pic and saying something snide and pointless - so why pull the outrage thing out on this?

Funny...I saw you lingering a bit here and actually had the silly thought that you might read the goings on and decide to be large. You were almost there.

Outrage? Ha. Not something one can do in a forum...really. I WILL give Butterknife the benefit of the doubt that he thought it was me and most certainly did not know it was my dead father. I certainly would never grab a profile pic of someones dead parent and utilize it here...and actually if I did by mistake and was told about it...I would remove it. But, thats me.

graz
12-09-2009, 12:18 AM
When the truth is on one's side, insults from the little people are alot like music. Sing away.

Not in good voice this evening...cue clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L6REYd_64Y&feature=fvsr)

graz
12-09-2009, 12:24 AM
Funny... I certainly would never grab a profile pic of someones dead parent and utilize it here...and actually if I did by mistake and was told about it...I would remove it.

But as you are a proven liar... what's to convince anyone of your bona fides now? Maybe just like the little boy on the left... you still have some growin' up to do... or at least some self-pity to bury and a new self-myth to cultivate.

look
12-09-2009, 08:52 AM
Whether the weather be fine,
Or whether the weather be not,
Whether the weather be cold,
Or whether the weather be hot,
We'll weather the weather,
Whatever the weather,
Whether we like it or not!

-Nursery Rhyme

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 09:30 AM
But as you are a proven liar... what's to convince anyone of your bona fides now? ...

Lacking proof you sound rather hollow and well ...like Butterknifes...tiny.

Unlike you, I am obviously not here to fill a friendship void. I do that with those more tangible. So my statement of facts are not meant to convince anyone but those who deal in the truth... nor would I bother with a weasel like yourself.

graz
12-09-2009, 10:03 AM
... nor would I bother with a weasel like yourself.

And yet you continue to respond. To bad that your mythical old man didn't teach you how to fight anything other than fish. He might have done well to learn ya some respect for others. And pride in conveying your feelings -let's leave ideas aside- with words that convince, instead of bluster that fools a handful at best.

Regards,
An Inconvenient Truth (-teller)

bjkeefe
12-09-2009, 10:13 AM
... has a short post (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/12/08/climategate/) on the events the denialists would like to call "Climategate."

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 10:19 AM
And yet you continue to respond. To bad that your mythical old man didn't teach you how to fight anything other than fish. He might have done well to learn ya some respect for others. And pride in conveying your feelings -let's leave ideas aside- with words that convince, instead of bluster that fools a handful at best.

Regards,
An Inconvenient Truth (-teller)

Respect begets respect.

graz
12-09-2009, 10:20 AM
Respect begets respect...dickhead.
And I have little for you.

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 10:23 AM
And I have little for you.

Breaks my heart. I am sorry you grew up fatherless though. It obviously has taken its toll.

graz
12-09-2009, 10:26 AM
Breaks my heart. I am sorry you grew up fatherless though. It obviously has taken its toll.

What you talkin' bout Willis, here's his picture:http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Science/Images/al-gore-thumbs-up.jpg

handle
12-09-2009, 04:18 PM
First, I see him chime in to my discussion with osmium here after obviously seaching the forum annals for something to use to ridicule me with and the best he comes up with (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141804)is a post from a year and a half ago that if anything it shows that I am consistant and true. Now he did try to put a lame spin on it, but I am pretty sure that anyone who happens to be intellectually honest (a rare commodity I am finding here amongst the libtards) probably felt a bit sorry for that bit of ineptitude. I suppose that after all the time he spent agonizingly searching for something to use against me, trying to spin my "unwavering" "convictions" as a negative was better than just writing off the time as wasted.



Once again, Drunkenskunkfur declares victory. This is so convoluted, that he literally has degraded this "discussion" into a complete waste of time. But he doesn't care as long as he is defending his imaginary "honor".
But since you lied about never responding to me, and I took two ibuprofen and got a good nights sleep, and we have no doubt chased off anyone looking for any real substance in this thread, let's have some fun:

First, the link to you showing your "commitment" in May '08 was directly above the one where you purport to working for Halliburton, so it jumped right out at me. In the post in question, you are saying you think man has an effect on the environment, but you are saying the evidence (your evidence) does not show climate change:
A couple things...I do not deny that humans have an effect on the environment, but how much I believe is guesswork and currently with what has happened in the last 10 years as well as the recent ocean temp studies coming back surprising so opposite to what Gore predicted...I just have to say hang onto the farm for 50 years or so until there actually is something conclusive. I am on the side of wanting to be proactive but smart about it.
Hang on to the farm?... for 50 years? Does anyone deny this is denial? Anyone?.. Bueller?

This next bit is beside the point, but who's fulla shit here?:
And actually good or bad although McCain is heads above Obama...in spite of how it sounds sometimes...I really do not have a dog in this hunt...which does not mean I cannot recognize the lesser dog.

As for the rest of the more recent post I'm responding to here (See? We are talking), you are showing evidence of acute "old fart persecutia syndrome," a symptom of which is an insane obsession with dominating an exchange by deconstructing any substance out of it, a condition I too suffer from, but I gotta thank you for helping me with it by showing me the folly of ridiculing the non-sencient:

Now, like a gift that just keeps giving, I see handle comes through for me again and provides me exactly the name we all have been waiting for and he even bolded it. The name Twinswords was smart enough to run away from, because he knew I caught him with shit on his shoes. Yes, the guy with a sword in each arm was not big enough to admit his mistake and instead, like so many others here, ran away while continuing to spew insults over his shoulder. The Phucking Phony!! When will any of you just decide to man up? And, too funny, just like others here who ignorantly ran to Popcorn's defense recently when he misquoted an article and made up numbers whilst crawling out of the woodwork because he thought he saw a way to insult me here; he is stupiding returning the favor to Twinswords. And what does HE get for it? Further humiliation and yep... shit on his shoes. What is that quote again about those not knowing history being destined to repeat it?

In any case yes lets look at the unveiling:



Yep! Eric Raymond, who was brought into this thread by Branflake and I never commented on him. Claymisher chimed in about Raymond smelling like his mother or something...and I never commented on him. Starwatcher brings in an article that links to him...and I never commented on him. My comments were specifically targetted on the methodology utilized by Lambert in trying to legitimize the computer code. Dozens of articles have been written that include and talk about this code. Nothing I wrote defended anything unique to Raymond's take on it. EVERYTHING I wrote was specific to Lambert's take on it. Twinsword's made a mistake. Twinswords tried use that falsity to align me with something completely different again that Raymond said. And I am the one having to defend myself from the jackels.

Fuck off you stupid pricks. You lose...again. Oh wait...except for handle.
Him I need to acknowledge separately as in one fall swoop (foul swoop?) he proved that since at least "May, 08" I have acknowledged AGW and man's involvement...thus proving Starwatcher wrong in his little insulting backhand in my direction....he enabled me to once again to take Popcorn to task for his errant quoting and use of imaginary numbers in a failed attempt of jumping all over me for what again? Oh yeah ...posting a link (full of scientists, btw)...and now HANDLE is THE MAN that not only steps in the dog shit but wallows in it enough to allow me to point out that it is true Twinswords is a fucking phony and a small one at that. Swords turned into butter knives, one might say. So, could one of you please let handle know how much I appreciate the extra work he performed here? Cuz we ain't talkin. LOL!!!1!

Just FYI, in this completely unhinged rant, you mistakenly swamp any valid arguments with toothless slobbering drivel, without effectively refuting my comical "debunking the debunking of the debunking" rant that was designed to shed a light on how insanely convoluted your defensive bullshit had already become. but since you are now taking it to a new level, I begin to have a legitimate concern that you may be a danger to your self and others.

Maybe this will help make the voices in your head go away:

You were right about the author of the thing where he said the author of the other thing was wrong about the author of the post where somebody else outlined a mistake in the code... what the fuck was the deal again? Jesus H. Criminy!
If this actually made sense to me, I'd go in for a CAT scan.
Never mind, I can't even patronize you to save your own thread, it's probably too late anyway.

In others words you are getting too nuts to even make fun of and I am a little concerned.

I still think we are both useless to this forum, but if it keeps you from running up all our insurance premiums for inpatient therapy, consider yourself a winner here, the slayer of all libtardium. Why, you cleverly trapped everyone by not commenting on the linking to the author of the critic of the blogger on the code that was commented out and.... and you said they were a lying sack of shit because you only commented on the first.... fuck me.... here comes that headache again... like I said, YOU WIN!!!! Good for you!!!

BTW, What's the deal with you copying Keefe's "!!!!1!!"??? I 'm not smart enough to get the meaning of it.

But seriously, and with all due respect Mr. Skidmark, here's something that really does bother me: please, please, please,... next time you make up a headline for a thread, try not to reach so far for a stupid pun... it makes you look like a moron before you even get your first talking point in...
Just FYI, and because you fancy yourself literate, it's "fell swoop" (http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-fel1.htm), not "fall swoop", and a "foul swoop" would probably be attributed to birds...
Added: or is that fowl? Sorry, I'm not the great author Snotfur thinks he is, so beg forgiveness!

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 07:58 PM
What you talkin' bout Willis, here's his picture -gore-thumbs.jpg

OMG, you were fathered by Al Gore's thumb?!? Things are starting to make sense.

Oh and thanks for passing on my thanks to handle, I see he was quite taken by it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXIMLyH2HWk). He becomes humorously animated when so obviously tweaked. LOL!!!1!

handle
12-09-2009, 08:27 PM
OMG, you were fathered by Al Gore's thumb?!? Things are starting to make sense.

Oh and thanks for passing on my thanks to handle, I see he was quite taken by it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXIMLyH2HWk). He becomes humorously animated when so obviously tweaked. LOL!!!1!

Serious fun, to be sure! Let's recap:

* Bhutfur reneged on his declaration of last response (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=140221#post140221). (Who's a "lying sack of shit" now?)

* His predictable declaration of victory was so convoluted, profane, and defensive, I would worry about myself if I could follow it. And I am worried about he who penned it.

*I don't understand the !!!!1! thing he stole from bjkeefe.

*the headline of this thread is a sickeningly moronic stretch for an inane pun.

Sooo clever of you to once again turn one of the things that is so annoying about your posts on another poster. How many times have you been accurately characterized as humorously animated when so obviously tweaked?

handle
12-09-2009, 09:04 PM
C'mon Yellowbellyfur! The cat's out of the bag! You just couldn't let me make fun of your obtuse canned wingnut talking points anymore could you?
You "rose above" (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=141970#post141970) like the Hindenburg.

handle
12-09-2009, 09:31 PM
Here's our hero (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=142124#post142124) chiming in like Penelope on SNL.
(http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/penelope-therapy/926141/)
I read stuff too soooo...

Whatfur
12-09-2009, 10:18 PM
Ahhhhhh...2350 Chooooo. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019301/climategate-another-smoking-gun/)

Whatfur
12-13-2009, 09:47 AM
I think I could have created a better round-up but...

...this ain't bad. (http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/12/12/a-memo-to-the-global-warming-cult/)

graz
12-13-2009, 10:51 AM
I'm certain that I couldn't have written as nuanced or reasoned a post but...
...this is good. (http://www.samefacts.com/2009/12/climate-change/precaution-uncertainty-insurance-and-morality/)

If anyone tries to tell you that uncertainty about climate change is a reason for inaction, he’s either a fool or a scoundrel. Probably a bit of both.
'Fur, are you already wearing those fine-fitting shoes?

Whatfur
12-13-2009, 11:13 AM
I'm certain that I couldn't have written as nuanced or reasoned a post but...
...this is good. (http://www.samefacts.com/2009/12/climate-change/precaution-uncertainty-insurance-and-morality/)


'Fur, are you already wearing those fine-fitting shoes?

Nope, barefoot...about to dawn some moose-hide mukluks though...more comfortable than anything in your closet.

Who would be stupid enough to deny climate-change when we have millions of years of it happening?

[added] But thanks for a post that actually adds more than the little backhand. Progress.

graz
12-13-2009, 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by Whatfur: ...more comfortable than anything in your closet...
Come out of the closet already... we know where you and yours stand on propaganda and such.

Originally Posted by Whatfur: Nope, barefoot...about to dawn some moose-hide mukluks though.
It's about six hours past dawn... regardless of whether your mukluks are made of down or 'fur, at least you didn't don the victim cloak in this exchange.





Botton line is AGW needs to continue be examined but we have been shown that things are certainly not a done deal. Wake the fuck up.

Originally Posted by Whatfur: Lastly, yes lets keep watching and lets keep international and national governments from making decisions for us based on incomplete and short-sighted analysis.

You want to convey that you're not a denier... but clearly wish to do nothing. So which is it one or both? :
Quote:
If anyone tries to tell you that uncertainty about climate change is a reason for inaction, he’s either a fool or a scoundrel. Probably a bit of both.

Whatfur
12-13-2009, 04:26 PM
Come out of the closet already... we know where you and yours stand on propaganda and such.

It was your closet I spoke of and yes I tire easy of propaganda.


It's about six hours past dawn... regardless of whether your mukluks are made of down or 'fur, at least you didn't don the victim cloak in this exchange.


Ummm...moose-hide of course is neither down nor fur, but thanks for telling us all the time ...although I am not sure I understand the point.


You want to convey that you're not a denier... but clearly wish to do nothing. So which is it one or both? :

You quote me saying "Botton line is AGW needs to continue be examined" and then say the above? I have also said that I am very much behind alternative energy. IMO, Crap and Tax, and Carbon taxation IS doing nothing. What I deny is the need to blow up the world like Orr and Gore seem to want based on what we currently know.

Whatfur
12-14-2009, 10:27 PM
Some pretty reasoned thoughts (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc90fb80-e817-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html).

**you may have to register

Whatfur
12-17-2009, 08:04 AM
I suppose we cannot call this another Cold War... (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/)

Whatfur
12-20-2009, 11:44 AM
Another one that could have gone in the fraud thread. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/20/follow-the-money-ipccagw-edition/)

Whatfur
12-20-2009, 10:29 PM
Let me start with the authors:

David H. Douglass is Professor of Physics, University of Rochester. John R. Christy is Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, the University of Alabama in Huntsville.


The article. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html)

Whatfur
01-14-2010, 10:42 PM
...Here comes the sun..dootndoodoo (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_how_to_hide_the_su.html)

and I say...its all right.

Whatfur
01-14-2010, 10:46 PM
Myths and those who believe them. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/antarctica_and_the_myth_of_dea_1.html)

bjkeefe
01-14-2010, 11:42 PM
Myths and those who believe them. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/antarctica_and_the_myth_of_dea_1.html)

Someday, you'll stop being fooled by the name "American Thinker," one would like to imagine, particularly when the byline reads "Marc Sheppard (http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/13/american-thinker-marc-sheppard-global-warming-denier-joe-romm-projected-temperature-rise-sea-level-permanent-dust-bowl/)."

Title and opening paragraph from your link:

Antarctica and the Myth of Deadly Rising Seas

On Monday, scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute reported that they'd measured sea temperatures beneath an East Antarctic ice shelf and found no signs of warming whatsoever. And while the discovery's corollaries remain mostly blurred by the few rogue mainstream media outlets actually reporting it, the findings are in fact yet another serious blow to the sky-is-falling-because-oceans-are-rising prophecies of the climate alarm crowd.

Would one of those myths be the wingnut assertion that measuring water temperature is the best way to measure changes in sea level?

As to the idea that someone measured water in contact with ice and found it to be -- shockingly! -- the same temperature as the last time water in contact with ice was measured ... uh, time for a refresher of Physics 101, if not General Science 8. As in "8th grade."

Even by the astoundingly low standards you have managed to establish, 'fur, this is especially weak sauce.

Whatfur
01-15-2010, 12:26 AM
Just posted an article, dick breath. What? it wasn't covered by Wonkette??? Sheppard and the American Thinker were not the only ones covering this story.

I guess you missed the part that graphed the fact that'

"Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has remained virtually unchanged for over thirty years."

The other posting was from the American Thinker also. Maybe your 8th grade science would like to attack that one too. Dr. Jones tried to. How about Scientist Keefe.

bjkeefe
01-15-2010, 12:46 AM
Just posted an article, dick breath.

Drat. I had half my money on "YOU HAVE SHIT ON YOUR'E SHOOZ!!!1!" and half on "I CAN KIKC YORE ASS, LE'TS HAVE A CAGE MATCH!!!1!"

I forgot about your unresolved fears about your own sexual orientation.

Get some help, 'fur. You're old, but not too old.

bjkeefe
01-21-2010, 11:36 PM
Past Decade Warmest Ever, NASA Data Shows

The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.

The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.

James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. “When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability,” said Dr. Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, “we find global warming is continuing unabated.”

A separate preliminary analysis from another NASA office, the National Climatic Data Center, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. [...]

[...]

The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.

“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”

Damn that liberal NASA (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html).

Starwatcher162536
01-24-2010, 04:17 PM
Past Decade Warmest Ever, NASA Data Shows


...so what?

AemJeff
01-24-2010, 04:37 PM
...so what?

It takes the air out of one of the dumber denialist arguments, don't you think?

Starwatcher162536
01-24-2010, 04:44 PM
Not really. All it does if give the impression that a 10-year time span is important. It is not.

Things like that NYT article just promote more "no warming since 1998" crap.

AemJeff
01-24-2010, 04:53 PM
Not really. All it does if give the impression that a 10-year time span is important. It is not.

Things like that NYT article just promote more "no warming since 1998" crap.


There are logical arguments and rhetorical arguments. The class of arguments such as"the last few years haven't been part of a warming trend, therefore there is no AGW" are specifically refuted by this observation.

bjkeefe
01-24-2010, 11:43 PM
Not really. All it does if give the impression that a 10-year time span is important. It is not.

Things like that NYT article just promote more "no warming since 1998" crap.

Your two responses in this sub-thread sound as though you're responding to the headline only. Never mind the whole article, I am inclined to think you didn't even read the blockquote.

kezboard
01-25-2010, 01:13 AM
Damn that liberal NASA.

Psssh. NASA. What sort of score do you think Groseclose and Milyo (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001169.html) would give them? Liberal bias!

handle
01-26-2010, 12:41 PM
He's on my "no read" list since he proved what a repugnant intellectual crybaby he is, but one thing I gleaned previously, was that his climate denial might have something to do with the region he lives in.
CBS Sunday Morning did a piece (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6136446n&tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea.2)on a place he lives near (http://www.embarrass.org/).

No Mr. earned-a-spot-on-my-ignore-list, I didn't hack anything, your blog states that you are an "Iron Range conservative" and it ain't to hard to figure out where that is.
If I lived there, global warming would be high on my list of things... to pray for.

Whatfur
03-29-2010, 08:30 AM
Ahhh I have some catch up to do...

Why have the Germans gone quiet? (http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100327-26163.html)

Sorry for my sabbatical kids...some may have noticed a trend. Ice still remains on my lake but the snow is gone and my winter camp dismantled.

Whatfur
03-30-2010, 08:00 PM
...must be terrorists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html)