If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Tell me the truth, does this CO2 make me look fat?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 481
    More: Interesting, carbon dioxide, laboratory animals, postdoc, International Journal of Obesity, carbon emissions, pilot study, university hospital, carbon dioxide emissions  
•       •       •

14447 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2012 at 2:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



481 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-16 08:02:07 AM  

GeneralJim: But, you're SUCH a farktard I'm not going to get sucked into any of your stupid OCD bullshiat minutiae derpfests.


It's additionally worth pointing out, Jim, that you are once again projecting. It is you who breaks down entire arguments into sentence fragments, and then attempts to argue those fragments, ignoring the meat of the argument in favour of minutiae. It is I who attempts to restore the arguments in full. Amusing that you are once again faulting others for what you do. For example, here is my entire argument, with the sentence fragment you attempted to debate bolded:

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: you're a MASSIVE dick for torturing the mentally ill, at least in your mind. So, YEAH, BABY, CALL ME CRAZY! PROVE you're a dick... and a duck, er, quack.

Do you think that being insane ought to shield somebody from criticism? David Berkowitz claimed a dog told him to kill people. Charles Manson claimed that he could decode secret messages in Beatles songs. I think we would both agree that these are both examples of insane things to think, and also these people should not be shielded from criticism on that basis.

I doubt you're a murderer. I sincerely hope you aren't, anyway, but the point is, at what point do we stopped believing insanity is a shield from criticism and rebuke? And the answer is we don't, at all. We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.

We are not wrong to mock the TimeCube guy, or your pet peeve, anti-vaxxers. Nor are we wrong to deride your insane beliefs as insane.

No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


Ironically, the portion that follows that sentence fragment disproves your claim that I don't know what the insanity defence is (again, for emphasis, caught projecting, telling people what they believe) by taking it out of context (again caught projecting, for you attempted to decry the same behaviour in an imaginary argument with me), as I make a clear delineation between imprisonment and removal from society to, say, an asylum for the criminally insane.

You know what I find funny, Jim? For all your internet tough guy talk about gutting people and pissing on their corpses, you couldn't manage. You've told us you're disabled, and you're obviously and transparently both overarchingly stupid and completely insane. You are physically, mentally, and emotionally crippled. In an older society, you wouldn't have even been able to function as a village idiot, receiving coins tossed in the gutter as men laughed at your fumbling incompetence and imbecility. Only the very liberalism you constantly decry saw that even a life as weak, broken, and pathetic as yours had worth, if only in the fact that you were at least the shadow of a man, even if your rambling nonsense did not. Is that why you hate liberals so much? Because they look on your broken soul with pity that makes you feel weak, and serves only to remind of that weakness? Is that why talk of "gutting" your critics and pissing on their corpses to "balance the scales"?
 
2012-03-16 10:10:30 AM  

GeneralJim: AGW doesn't account properly for:
- Clouds - farking HUGE negative feedback


While this is unquestionably still an area of active research, back in reality the best available evidence to date is that clouds represent a net positive feedback[1][2][3][4]. A small net negative feedback cannot be ruled out at this time, but one sufficiently large to meaningfully offset the positive water vapor feedback can.

GeneralJim: - Water vapor - Actually a negative feedback


Back in reality, water vapor feedback has been observed to be both positive and inline with theoretical expectations[5][6][7][8][9][10].

GeneralJim: - Cosmic Rays - amplifies insolation via clouds
- Solar Activity - modulates cosmic ray flux


Back in reality, the "cosmic ray drives clouds drives climate" canard is utterly refuted by the actual scientific evidence. While solar activity does modulate GCR flux, solar activity over the past several decades has been in the wrong direction for GCRs to be driving temps[11][12].

Back in reality, the supposed correlation between changes in GCR flux and clime changes over geologic timescales has been shown to be based on flawed assumptions about our movement within the galaxy[13]. The main "confirmation" of the supposed correlation according to GeneralJim was supposed to be found in cosmogenic nuclides in iron meteorites, which allegedly showed the right periodicity in GCR flux to confirm correlations to climate changes on Earth. Back in reality, meteorites actually show no such periodicity, and thus likewise fail to support the alleged correlation[14].

And it's not as though we don't have the capability to put claims like GeneralJim's to a more direct test. According to GeneralJim, large changes in GCR flux should result in a large change in climate. But we can look at the paleoclimatic record and show that, back in reality, large changes in GCR flux (e.g. during the Laschamp excursion) had no impact on temperatures[15]:

i41.tinypic.com

But wait! We can do better! The timescale of response according to GeneralJim's sources posits that changes in GCR flux on much shorter timescales should result in changes in to cloud cover. Back in reality, looking at changes during an entire solar cycle shows no such connection between GCRs and cloud nucleation[16]. Back in reality, a decades' worth of monitoring shows no relationship between solar variability and cloud formation[17]. The recent solar minimum provided an ideal test to see the resulting increase in GCRs increase clouds, but back in reality, no such increase occurred[18]:

i42.tinypic.com

The solar-GCR-cloud-climate BS that GeneralJim is pushing has been examined from just about every possible angle and is demonstrably not occurring. Because back in reality, the main drivers of global temperature are long-lived greenhouse gases, aerosol loading, solar irradiance, and ENSO variability[19][20].

GeneralJim: - Earth's atmosphere is semi-transparent, not semi-infinite


Back in reality, the Miskolczi crap is quite simply plate tectonics-denying-levels of crazy. Full stop.

GeneralJim: - IPCC picks most alarmist numbers from a set, or makes up MORE alarming ones


Bare assertion. Back in reality, the mainstream estimate of climate sensitivity (1.5-4.5°C, with a best estimate of around 3°C) predates the IPCC by decades[21].

Back in reality, GeneralJim simply ignores the overwhelming body of evidence pointing to a ~3°C sensitivity[22][23][24][25].

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

References:

[1] Clement, A., et al. (2009): Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback. Science, 24, 460-464, doi:10.1126/science.1171255.
[2] Dessler, A.E. (2010): A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade. Science, 30, 6010, 1523-1527, doi:10.1126/science.1192546.
[3] Lauer, A., et al. (2010): The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific- A Regional Model Study. Journal of Climate, 23, 21, 5844, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1.
[4] Bender, F. A-M., et al. (2011): Changes in extratropical storm track cloudiness 1983-2008: observational support for a poleward shift. Climate Dynamics, online first, doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1065-6.
[5] Chung, E.-S., et al. (2010): An assessment of climate feedback processes using satellite observations of clear-sky OLR. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L02702, doi:10.1029/2009GL041889.
[6] Dessler, A.E., et al. (2008): Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003-2008. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L20704, doi:10.1029/2008GL035333.
[7] Dessler, A.E., and S. Wong (2009): Estimates of the Water Vapor Climate Feedback during El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Journal of Climate, 22, 6404-6412, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI3052.1.
[8] Wu, Q., D. J. Karoly, and G. R. North (2008): Role of water vapor feedback on the amplitude of season cycle in the global mean surface air temperature. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08711, doi:10.1029/2008GL033454.
[9] Gettelman, A., and Q. Fu (2008): Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback. Journal of Climate, 21, 3282-3289, doi: 10.1175/2007JCLI2142.1.
[10] Forster, P. M. F. and M Collins (2004): Quantifying the water vapour feedback associated with post-Pinatubo global cooling. Climate Dynamics, 23(2), 207-214, doi:10.1007/s00382-004-0431-z.
[11] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2007): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 463(2086), 2447 -2460, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.
[12] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2008): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Science, 464(2094), 1367 -1385, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347.
[13] Overholt, A. C., A. L. Melott, and M. Pohl (2009): Testing the link between terrestrial climate change and galactic spiral arm transit. The Astrophysical Journal, 705(2), L101-L103, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/705/2/L101.
[14] Wieler, R., J. Beer, and I. Leya (2011): The Galactic Cosmic Ray Intensity over the Past 10 6 -10 9 Years as Recorded by Cosmogenic Nuclides in Meteorites and Terrestrial Samples. Space Science Reviews, doi:10.1007/s11214-011-9769-9.
[15] Muscheler, R., J. Beer, P. W. Kubik, and H.-A. Synal (2005): Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be and 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24(16-17), 1849-1860, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.01.012.
[16] Kulmala, M. et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10(4), 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.
[17] Laken, B., E. Pallé, and H. Miyahara (2012): A decade of the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer: is a solar - cloud link detectable? Journal of Climate, 120118140033005, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00306.1.
[18] Agee, E. M., K. Kiefer, and E. Cornett (2012): Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective. Journal of Climate, 25(3), 1057-1060, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00169.1.
[19] Lean, J.L., and D.H. Rind (2008): How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L18701, doi:10.1029/2008GL034864.
[20] Huber, M., and R. Knutti (2011): Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's energy balance. Nature Geoscience, 5, 31-36, doi:10.1038/ngeo1327.
[21] Charney, J.G., et al. (1979): Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate. National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
[22] Annan, J. D., and J. C. Hargreaves (2006): Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06704, doi:10.1029/2005GL025259.
[23] Olson, R., R. Sriver, M. Goes, N. M. Urban, H. D. Matthews, M. Haran, and K. Keller (2012): A climate sensitivity estimate using Bayesian fusion of instrumental observations and an Earth System model. Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, 117, D04103, doi:10.1029/2011JD016620.
[24] Bender, F.A-M., A. M. L. Ekman, and H. Rodhe (2010): Response to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in relation to climate sensitivity in the CMIP3 models. Climate Dynamics, 35, 5, 875-886, doi:10.1007/s00382-010-0777-3.
[25] Knutti, R. and G. C. Hegerl (2008): The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geoscience, 1, 735-743, doi:10.1038/ngeo337.
 
2012-03-16 10:41:16 AM  
See?

He's IRREFUTABLE!
Like the pope!
 
2012-03-16 10:43:59 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: The problem is your apparent "illiteracy" as you would put it, for your lack of understanding what the word "hide" means.

hide
1 [hahyd] Show IPA verb, hid, hid·den or hid, hid·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.

Original Left, Altered Version Right
[i.imgur.com image 640x404][csccc.fcpp.org image 640x404]

Comparing the original version to the altered version, which has no change in attribution or note that it has been altered, it appears that the estimate of uncertainty has been concealed from sight, or prevented from being seen, which conceals knowledge of or exposure to the estimate of uncertainty for those viewing the altered version. Ergo we may say the estimate of uncertainty has been "hidden".

You're certain you're correct, so feel free to point out where and how the word "hide" has been misused. I'm sure you'll do so any minute now. Since it's all so obvious, of course, it should be effortless to "mock" me for using a word incorrectly. And why would you want to merely say so? After all, you are superior to me, it should require no effort to demonstrate which you will, of course, do.


All that IRREFUTABILITY and a bully, too!
Will you be my role model, Jon Snow?
 
2012-03-16 10:51:49 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: All that IRREFUTABILITY and a bully, too!
Will you be my role model, Jon Snow?


Uh, I didn't write that comment, champ. I try to make it a point not to interact with you unless you drag me into the conversation, due to all of your whining about people stalking you and threats of getting people banned.

But obviously, you have no problem in engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that you attack others for...
 
2012-03-16 11:07:51 AM  

Jon Snow: But obviously, you have no problem in engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that you attack others for...


He's the court jester; he apes the king and his court, mimicking their behaviour but being absurd about it.

Take it as the compliment that is -- it makes you the king.
 
2012-03-16 11:15:01 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Take it as the compliment that is -- it makes you the king.


I don't know about that. I just looked up the thread a bit and apparently he thinks you, me, and Damnhippyfreak are all the same person.
 
2012-03-16 11:23:21 AM  

Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: Take it as the compliment that is -- it makes you the king.

I don't know about that. I just looked up the thread a bit and apparently he thinks you, me, and Damnhippyfreak are all the same person.


Yes, it's a gimmick that's been running for a month or so now. We're also Envoy, Zafler, and chimp_ninja. Possibly others. Very exciting stuff.
 
2012-03-16 11:31:23 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: We're also Envoy, Zafler, and chimp_ninja. Possibly others. Very exciting stuff.


I wonder if GeneralJim or HotIgneous Intruder has any grasp of what it would take to pull off just two distinct personas on the same message board over a number of years, going so far as to post in dozens of other thread topics while maintaining the same "personality", all just to act as a sock puppet in climate threads. The time and concentration investments to do something like that are staggering.

And then to add a third.

And a fourth.

That's beyond implausible. It's so ludicrously, aggressively stupid as to be pitiable.
 
2012-03-16 11:31:42 AM  
You can always tell when JIM gets desperate, he pulls out the insults and pictures.

JIM has nothing to do with the issue anymore, like BEVETS doesn`t say anything constructive about religion.
 
2012-03-16 11:42:22 AM  

dready zim: You can always tell when JIM gets desperate, he pulls out the insults and pictures.


Much like chuckufarlie/nicksteel displays an increase in exclamation use when he gets really flustered, GeneralJim's comment length decreases, response relevance to actual comment content decreases, comment frequency increases, and image use increases. And I'd bet good money that if no one mentioned it to them, they'd be unaware of the behavior. It's that kind of stuff that makes accusations of mass sock puppetry so silly. It's just too much work crafting unique personalities with their own little tics to pull that kind of stuff off for sustained debates unfolding over years.
 
2012-03-16 11:52:30 AM  
last post
 
2012-03-16 11:55:32 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Jon Snow: Dr. Mojo PhD: Take it as the compliment that is -- it makes you the king.

I don't know about that. I just looked up the thread a bit and apparently he thinks you, me, and Damnhippyfreak are all the same person.

Yes, it's a gimmick that's been running for a month or so now. We're also Envoy, Zafler, and chimp_ninja. Possibly others. Very exciting stuff.


I'm not of of you am I?
 
2012-03-16 12:08:26 PM  
You know, until Jon Snow thoroughly biatch-slapped GeneralJim's list of assertions, my favorite exchange in the thread had been this:

Dr Mojo PhD explains that a shroud would have to be horizontal and floating above a corpse to produce the image in the shroud of Turin. (Link)

GeneralJim recognizes the truth of this, but explains that back in the olden days, shrouds could be made of really very stiff linen, so that they did indeed essentially float above the corpse they were wrapped around. (Link)


Hilarious.
 
2012-03-16 12:29:47 PM  

Jon Snow: I wonder if GeneralJim or HotIgneous Intruder has any grasp of what it would take to pull off just two distinct personas on the same message board over a number of years, going so far as to post in dozens of other thread topics while maintaining the same "personality", all just to act as a sock puppet in climate threads. The time and concentration investments to do something like that are staggering.


I tried explaining that to him. I tried explaining all the time that goes into maintaining a single personality, which we do autonomously and automatically. Even little tells like dialect choice -- our supposed alts range from America to Canada to the United Kingdom -- would reveal similarities. It's another reason I think Jim has a full-blown personality disorder; one of the major tells of certain PDs is paranoia. Unfortunately for him, he's graduated from non-delusional paranoia (everybody hates me and you're all just out to get me 'cause I'm better than you variety stuff) to full blown delusional paranoia (continuing to defend the idea that we're all the same person, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary).

Jon Snow: GeneralJim's comment length decreases, response relevance to actual comment content decreases, comment frequency increases, and image use increases. And I'd bet good money that if no one mentioned it to them, they'd be unaware of the behavior.


We do mention it, yet he still seems totally unaware of it. It's gotten to the point where I'll write a statement and a paragraph later I'll predict how he'll respond to it. Jim, not disappointing me in displaying his usual level of self-awareness, will reply with the defence mechanism I called, and my response will invariably be to quote my prediction, then quote him doing it, which will cause him to ignore that post all together.

Uchiha_Cycliste: I'm not of of you am I?


We've yet to get Jim's verdict on whether or not you're us or not. On the plus side, he doesn't like you -- so chances are good!

/He needs help
//He won't get it
///He lacks the self-awareness
 
2012-03-16 12:48:41 PM  

GeneralJim: lokisbong: GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim
No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?

Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the fact people get sent to insane asylums? They still exist and insane people still spend time there. For doing things like murder and using the insanity defense. It may not be regular prison but you sill get put in a cage dumbass.
Look, I know you're not real keen on that whole "logic" thing, so let me clue you in. YES, people are locked up if they are dangerous crazy. You know, it kind of goes without saying that if someone is so crazy they have, for instance, killed someone, they are dangerous, and should be locked up. Other people are locked up in exactly the same way without having committed a crime.

What has not penetrated that pustule with your mouth on it is that as soon as people thus locked up are "cured," they are released. If they get there from a courtroom, they were found NOT GUILTY of any crime, but are remanded to custody in a place where, at least theoretically, they will be helped; they are NOT sent there as punishment for their crimes. As soon as they are no longer dangerous to themselves or others, they are let go. Compare that with prison, numbnuts.


Hey dipshiat! I was quoting you in this comment. Read the bolded part. You claim people use the insanity defense to get away with crimes. If they are locked up in a Psychiatric hospital they didn't get away with a thing. And when people are rehabilitated in prison they get released. When released from prison they call it parole. and that can happen years before their sentence is through. FFS you really are insane aren't you. I like how you went off the rails and started spewing walls of lies and insults and pictures that do a better job refuting you arguments better than ours.
Like this gem

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: I've posted (with explanations, something which you seem incapable of) a refutation to the water-vapor canard (it's an amplifier of other greenhouse gases). You only partially responded to my criticism of the semi-transparent vs. semi-infinite debate. You have not shown that cosmic rays are a more significant climatic driver than CO2. More than one person has posted refutations of the alleged correlation with solar activity (there actually was a correlation for a while, until the increase in CO2 overwhelmed the signal). And the IPCC does not conduct its own research. The feedback relationship between temperature and cloud cover is plausible but still unproven, but I'll give you that one anyway.

[suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com image 640x512]

Which is the fractal wrongness caption.
 
2012-03-16 12:54:57 PM  

HighZoolander: You know, until Jon Snow thoroughly biatch-slapped GeneralJim's list of assertions, my favorite exchange in the thread had been this:


My personal favourite had been when Jim, displaying his usual level of intellectual curiosity and problem-solving skills, decided that because Imgur overwrites metadata, which he didn't know because he didn't bother to check or empirically verify by doing so much as selecting a random sample image from Imgur and seeing if it too had the same or different metadata (and even though he can't even manage to pull that off, which was the first thing I thought of checking even though I'm so much stupider than him, apparently, he's still able to second-guess hard science and really, truly understand it and what the flaws are in it), that naturally me and Envoy are the same person, because the metadata Imgur overwrites was the same in both our images (and every image on Imgur).

Well, I suppose it's not fair to call that an "exchange," since the second I pointed that out to him, he shut up and ran away from the topic completely, making sure to remind me that I was still a very stupid person that understood nothing in every other post he made.

But yeah, that exchange was, to me, indicative of Jim's typical lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of understanding of the world around him, lack of understanding of technology (he seriously can't figure out how an image host works, but knows everything there is to know about computer climate models? give me a farking break), stunted "investigation" skills, and attempts to make the data say whatever he wants it to say, as well as his usual level of introspection and personal responsibility for the stupid shiat that spews out of his mouth.
 
2012-03-16 12:56:39 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: /He needs help
//He won't get it
///He lacks the self-awareness


As do you.

Keep in mind that no matter how big a douchebag you are and no matter what you post here, AGW will never get any popular political traction because people aren't stupid and they intuitively know what that would mean for their way of lives and standards of living.
As I've posted here before, in the face of global warming, our jobs will be to adapt, not fix it (new window).

I understand that you AGW people all have whole careers wrapped up in this nonsense, but please spare the rest of us your prattling. I've got better things to do than to deal with your pointless chicken-little arm waving nonsense. You idiots are why I turn on the Discovery Channel and it's full of morons building suicide survivalist bunkers because, in part, people like you have scared them into a quiet irrational panic. You're no better than priests of some death cult. So kindly take your crap and sell it to some already-indoctrinated choir, we're full up here.

Global warming is a fact and we're in an interglacial warming period.
Have been for 13,000 years now. Get the fark over it, you neoliberal careerists.
 
2012-03-16 01:03:09 PM  
You sure biatch on and on that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't real, but unsurprisingly you offer no evidence.
 
2012-03-16 01:04:26 PM  
You are literally "begging the question"
 
2012-03-16 01:06:27 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: You know, until Jon Snow thoroughly biatch-slapped GeneralJim's list of assertions, my favorite exchange in the thread had been this:

My personal favourite had been when Jim, displaying his usual level of intellectual curiosity and problem-solving skills, decided that because Imgur overwrites metadata, which he didn't know because he didn't bother to check or empirically verify by doing so much as selecting a random sample image from Imgur and seeing if it too had the same or different metadata (and even though he can't even manage to pull that off, which was the first thing I thought of checking even though I'm so much stupider than him, apparently, he's still able to second-guess hard science and really, truly understand it and what the flaws are in it), that naturally me and Envoy are the same person, because the metadata Imgur overwrites was the same in both our images (and every image on Imgur).

Well, I suppose it's not fair to call that an "exchange," since the second I pointed that out to him, he shut up and ran away from the topic completely, making sure to remind me that I was still a very stupid person that understood nothing in every other post he made.

But yeah, that exchange was, to me, indicative of Jim's typical lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of understanding of the world around him, lack of understanding of technology (he seriously can't figure out how an image host works, but knows everything there is to know about computer climate models? give me a farking break), stunted "investigation" skills, and attempts to make the data say whatever he wants it to say, as well as his usual level of introspection and personal responsibility for the stupid shiat that spews out of his mouth.


Oh yeah, I had forgotten that one. That was pretty damn funny too.

What I liked about the shroud one was the speed with which modified his world view to incorporate your point. Usually it takes at least a few weeks for things like that to sink in with him.
 
2012-03-16 01:08:33 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: You sure biatch on and on that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't real, but unsurprisingly you offer no evidence.


Feel free to go ahead and prove a negative any farking time, genius.
Oh, wait. It's you.

/Never mind, Mister Narcissist. Carry on.
 
2012-03-16 01:09:34 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Have been for 13,000 years now. Get the fark over it, you neoliberal careerists.


I love the act and all, it's great, so don't take this too hard -- I don't know, maybe it's deliberate -- but neoliberalism is an economic free market movement. New liberalism, liberalism with an import on social justice, on the other hand, works with your schtick. Again, though, I don't know, maybe the deliberately misusing words angles is part of the gimmick, but you should be a little tighter in the future if it's not your intention.
 
2012-03-16 01:14:50 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: I love the act and all, it's great, so don't take this too hard -- I don't know, maybe it's deliberate -- but neoliberalism is an economic free market movement. New liberalism, liberalism with an import on social justice, on the other hand, works with your schtick. Again, though, I don't know, maybe the deliberately misusing words angles is part of the gimmick, but you should be a little tighter in the future if it's not your intention.


Sorry. My mistake.
I meant neoliberal authoritarian followers and pimps.
Because nobody knows who your daddy is or who butters your bread better than you AGW turds/jokesters.
 
2012-03-16 01:15:14 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Uchiha_Cycliste: You sure biatch on and on that Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't real, but unsurprisingly you offer no evidence.

Feel free to go ahead and prove a negative any farking time, genius.
Oh, wait. It's you.

/Never mind, Mister Narcissist. Carry on.


You are arguing that 98-99% of scientists have it wrong, you provide the irrefutable counter evidence.
 
2012-03-16 01:17:16 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: You are literally "begging the question"


Just to give you something to do over at the kids' table, I'll bite and throw you this bone: Tell me how burning fossil fuels could have begun warming the global climate thirteen thousand years ago.

/200 words or less, please.
 
2012-03-16 01:19:11 PM  

HighZoolander: my favorite exchange in the thread had been this:

Dr Mojo PhD explains that a shroud would have to be horizontal and floating above a corpse to produce the image in the shroud of Turin. (Link)

GeneralJim recognizes the truth of this, but explains that back in the olden days, shrouds could be made of really very stiff linen, so that they did indeed essentially float above the corpse they were wrapped around. (Link)


Hilarious.


Yeah, the whole defending the Shroud/Urantia thing is funny in a point and laugh kind of way, but it's instructional in that it demonstrates "crank magnetism". People who are cranks in one area are rarely, rarely cranks in that specific area only. So while GeneralJim likes to pretend to be on the side of science (aside from his obvious rejection of the mainstream scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming) when he talks about anti-vaxxers, he engages in magical thinking in plenty of other areas as well. Not just the Urantia stuff, but also with respect to CFCs as ODSs, as an example. Just as it's not sufficient to point and laugh at Roy Spencer being a creationist in order to debunk his climate claims (it's trivial to demonstrate why they're wrong on the merits), but it shows a pattern of placing ideology/belief ahead of scientific evidence.

GeneralJim: So, to believe the Shroud to be a medieval fake, one has to believe that the hoaxers generated a 3-D image that was beyond the technology of the 1960s, made it photo-negative, and then burned it onto the linen with UV or X-Ray lasers. Really? I think the resurrection story is easier to believe.


GeneralJim: You seem content to have medieval forgers using UV lasers to make their hoax relics. Really? And if not UV lasers, then HOW did they manage to make a phony image by carbonizing only the outside of the fibers? And, how did they make this image be a 3-D reconstruction more sophisticated than our best computer technology of the 1960s? I'll wait.


GeneralJim: Okay, from this point on, I WILL claim that there is ONLY ONE WAY to make an image on linen in the way that the image on the Shroud of Turin was made, and that is by high-intensity, in the UV or shorter range. Now, it's up to YOU to prove ANOTHER way to do it. So, what OTHER way is there, dipshiat?


GeneralJim: So, your claim of falseness for the Shroud is dependent upon medieval forgers constructing an excellent 3-D image, one that we could not make in the 1960s using a computer, and then they printed that image on a linen cloth with a UV laser.... or a technology of which we are unaware today that would carbonize the outside of the fibers while leaving the interior of the fibers untouched. Really? Just how would medieval forgers do ANY of that? And, also, even if they COULD, why WOULD they, when the fakes made with paint and pig's blood worked just fine in the phony relics market? Even if they COULD use their medieval computers and UV lasers, which didn't exist, that would be a horrid waste of effort. Please explain.


It's not as though a virtually indistinguishable object can be made using only materials and techniques available to Medieval artists, right? Oh, wait[1]:

i44.tinypic.com

GeneralJim: I've proved that the Shroud has been around for more than six hundred years.


As the burial shroud of someone who died about 2,000 years ago, the Shroud was supposed to have been about 2,000 years old. Not a few hundred. Yet it demonstrably dates from Medieval times, not biblical times[2].

GeneralJim: But the image on the Shroud of Turin is different. It is not paint


In fact, the image is comprised of ocher and vermillion[3], which were readily available and used as pigments during the time from which the cloth is actually dated. Which again, isn't thousands of years ago, but rather just hundreds.

The most rational explanation, supported by the scientific evidence, is that the Shroud of Turin is not a magical cloth dating from biblical times, but rather is a man-made object dating from Medieval times. A person with no ideological investment in the idea that the object was made via magic would probably concede that its age alone would be sufficient to prove that it's just one of many supposed relics from the time of Jesus that were produced during the Medieval period. The rest should just be icing on the cake. But rather the fact that the age is too young by more than a thousand years only increases GeneralJim's belief, rather than undermining it.

There's a nice symmetry in that, with respect to climate change threads, because GeneralJim has routinely cited the IPCC FAR's non-quantitative reconstruction of temperatures from a region of England as a perfect match to a "skeptic" reconstruction, despite the fact that their peak Medieval temperatures were hundreds of years apart. And he routinely posts that outdated Phanerozoic CO2 and temperature graph alongside another purporting to show correlations between GCRs and temp over geologic time, and the two temperature plots contradict each other over millions of year time periods. He routinely posted graphs of ostensible sunspot and temperature correlations that if the correlation actually held true would have us cooling by entire degrees Celsius during the recent solar minimum and then turns around and posts graphs showing that temps have done no such thing. In GeneralJim land, completely contradicting your own evidence in no way causes you to question your assumptions, but somehow only reinforces them.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Garlaschelli, L. (2010): Life-size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and its Image. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, 54, 040301, doi:10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2010.54.4.040301.
[2] Damon, P.E., et al. (1989): Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337, 611 - 615, doi:10.1038/337611a0.
[3] McCrone, W.C. (1990): The Shroud of Turin: blood or artist's pigment? Accounts of Chemical Research, 23 (3), 77-83, doi:10.1021/ar00171a004.
 
2012-03-16 01:21:04 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Uchiha_Cycliste: You are literally "begging the question"

Just to give you something to do over at the kids' table, I'll bite and throw you this bone: Tell me how burning fossil fuels could have begun warming the global climate thirteen thousand years ago.

/200 words or less, please.


You can't can you. You have no evidence 98% of scientists are wrong and lying. Wow, You sure are an intellectual heavy weight. How can we not trust you? If you have no proof quit your belly aching, your gut feeling it's wring doesn't count for anything.

From here on out put up or shut up. I'll respond with nothing else except that and possibly the alphabet, until you put up or shut up.

\You also apparently don't now what begging the question is.
 
2012-03-16 01:24:57 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: You also apparently don't now what begging the question is.


Please prove a negative.
Have you stopped murdering people?

There' is a metric buttload of evidence FOR global warming that has been going on for 13,000 (and more) years.

Do you even know what point I'm making, or are you too stupid to discern it?
 
2012-03-16 01:38:29 PM  
You have it wrong, you can never prove something is totally true, but you can prove it's wrong. Well, YOU can't, but it can be done.
 
2012-03-16 01:45:21 PM  

HighZoolander: What I liked about the shroud one was the speed with which modified his world view to incorporate your point. Usually it takes at least a few weeks for things like that to sink in with him.


What's really funny is that his adaptation of it into his worldview is still wrong, to wit:

GeneralJim: The "classy" way was to have a burial cloth about a meter wide, and just over twice as long as the deceased was tall. The body was placed with the feet at one end of the cloth, and the cloth was pulled over the head, and simply placed on the body. This is what happened with Jesus.


The problem with this?

i.imgur.com

This is indeed how the shroud is represented, as folding over the head. At the bottom of the image, the well-recognized face of the Shroud of Turin, and at the top is the representation of the back of a man, upside down, ostensibly bearing the marks of the scourging of Christ.

Problem is, even assuming that the shroud was extremely stiff to the point of being rectangular, folded like a squared, block letter C, if the image was produced by radiation translating a 3D object to a 2-dimensional representation (precisely how film and CMOS & CCD sensors operate), the top of the head should have left a similar mark, making one contiguous piece of head from the front to the back of the cloth. When we examine it, we see no such thing. Therefore, we know it isn't a two-dimensional mapping to a 3D object.

I'd have an easier time believing God made an indelible mark on the world by miraculously and without natural means creating an image meant to be easily recognizable to the people meant to see it than I would believing a pseudoscientific explanation that, when held to its own merits, makes no sense.

"Well, it did this, except where it didn't do that." Please. Why not just do what the mass of the faithful do, call it a farking miracle, and be done with it? I can at least respect the notion that God doesn't have the play by the rules. I can't respect the notion that the rules don't have to play by the rules.
 
2012-03-16 01:47:04 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Tell me how burning fossil fuels could have begun warming the global climate thirteen thousand years ago.


It didn't. The warming you're referring to was initially driven by changes in the amount of solar radiation received in the high latitude Northern Hemisphere summer due to variations in our position relative to the sun (i.e. Milankovitch cycles). Although CO2 did not initiate this warming, it contributed significantly to it, acting as a feedback in a process that we can accurately model.

But then again, you already know this, because I've explained it to you before.

And again.

And again.

And again.

And again.

And again.

And again.

And again.
 
2012-03-16 02:44:08 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I'm thinking you would probably get better responses if you weren't very much in the habit of doing pretty much the same thing (as in bold).
You got off to a bad start there. Try for more honesty.


I'm just saying that if you're going to complain about that sort of behavior, it would probably be a good idea to not be in the habit of doing the same thing yourself.
 
2012-03-16 02:50:36 PM  

Jon Snow: Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.


Dr. Mojo PhD: What's really funny is that his adaptation of it into his worldview is still wrong, to wit:


Exactly.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Problem is, even assuming that the shroud was extremely stiff


The funny thing is, the shroud still exists (and video is easy to find), and GeneralJim could have easily checked his claim against reality without making any assumptions at all. It's fairly obvious just looking at the shroud that it would never have been thick enough or stiff enough to float over a body the way he describes.

At this point, a halfway sensible person would recognize that they were wrong, and would have the integrity to admit it. I'm going to assume that GeneralJim will double down, and that will be even funnier.
 
2012-03-16 02:59:05 PM  

Jon Snow: In GeneralJim land, completely contradicting your own evidence in no way causes you to question your assumptions, but somehow only reinforces them.


What I like best isn't just when Jim's evidence A contradicts his evidence B. I like it when he posts something and then just fabricates claims that are in no way supported by what he posted.

For example, one time he posted a survey which he claimed demonstrated that a certain percentage, let's say only 20%, of scientists were sure about global warming.

I went to the actual survey (from the blog post Jim linked, because Jim can't parse information on his own, he needs an echo chamber). Not only did 20% appear nowhere (it wasn't actually 20%, but you get the idea), in fact that blog post -- and consequently Jim -- had gotten a number roughly near what they claimed by cherry picking the data in the extreme.

The actual survey was rated on, say, a seven-point scale. 7 being positive AGW was happening, 1 being positive it was not, with every number in between part of the spectrum. In other words, Jim/the blog decided that if a scientist was only "very sure" (6 on the scale) or "somewhat sure" (5 on the scale) or what have you, they didn't bother counting them as scientists that believed in global warming.

He literally made something up, cited something that in no way reflected what he claimed, down to the wholly invented percentage he claimed in his post, and ran with it. Unsurprisingly, when I pointed this out to Jim, he just ignored it.
 
2012-03-16 03:18:03 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. You could probably word the bit in bold in a better way given that you're responding to a point that explicitly states that "correlation does not equal causation" - that's exactly what you're doing here.

You farking STILL don't get it, do you? C=/=C failure is like TFA (remember it? (People are fatter, and its warmer, so warming fattened people up. FAIL.) The only correlation of significance IS the reverse, no doubt from the oceans. If you didn't spend all your time being a whiny little biatch every time I show THIS:


This is exactly what I mean. If indeed correlation is not causality, you can't make the statement in bold. Correlation is correlation - there's no such thing as directionality or 'reverse correlation' (unless you mean a negative correlation). By attempting to attribute a 'direction' from correlation, you are inferring causality from correlation and, in fact, violating the principle you were clumsily trying to agree with.


GeneralJim: MAYBE you would notice that while temperature certainly shows itself to be under control, it is CLEARLY not being controlled by carbon dioxide levels, which vary wildly, and have no apparent effect on temperature.


Now, pull your head out for a minute... I thought of a new way to try to pound this information into you... Look, above, at that carbon dioxide level. Given what we know about times closer to our own, you can bet that that level has, superimposed on it, a tiny little signal that follows the temperature swings by about 800 years, just like it does in OUR time scale. That signal is tiny, but it's real. It isn't controlling carbon dioxide levels any more than a few ppm. Something ELSE determines carbon dioxide levels. Do you get this?


You keep on running into the same problems. Other processes that can affect carbon dioxide levels does are not somehow mutually exclusive with anthropogenic climate change. Different processes dominate at different scales and are not somehow mutually exclusive with each other. That other processes can change CO2 concentration and temperature over millions of years doe not somehow mean that CO2 concentration can't affect temperature over tens or hundreds of years.

Yet again, you're conflating the inability to detect a process due to an inappropriate scale with the non-existence or non-importance of a phenomenon. Take another look at your graph - does it somehow disprove the existence or importance of the glaciation cycles you allude to? No, such changes (while even on the same magnitude) are not even visible in your graph, and you would be quite mistaken to infer they're not important or don't exist. Again, you're conflating the inability to detect a process due to an inappropriate scale with the non-existence or non-importance of a phenomenon.

I'm sorry, but you claim you understand this principle, but you keep on making mistakes that show just the opposite:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
To bring this back to anthropogenic climate change, using different scales isn't a sort of 'control' as you suggest since by changing scale, you're simply decreased the ability to detect temperature changes of the sort suggested by anthropogenic climate change. Again, by changing scale, you're conflating an inability to detect a phenomenon with the non-existence of a relationship. I hope that's clearer.

I understand that.


All that aside, you would still be running into the problem that I brought up earlier. That "correlation does not equal causation" also means that a lack of correlation does not equal non-causation as well.


GeneralJim: Right. There's the wealth re-distribution, the carbon credits market, and vastly increased funding for climate research, along with big fat promotions for those who give the data a little "help" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in supporting the politically correct hypothesis.

But, there isn't any real correlation in terms of carbon dioxide controlling temperature, despite the lovely plumage above. So you don't even get as far as "correlation does not equal causation" before you run into trouble. But, if there WERE good correlation, you would still have to prove that it is due to carbon dioxide.


CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma. ;)

For a different tack on the correlation/causality thing, note that the lack of correlation would only disprove the contribution of CO2 concentration only if there did not exist any third or more variables. This is the basis of my previous accusations that you're relying on the false idea that CO2 concentration is the only thing that can affect temperature.
 
2012-03-16 03:23:32 PM  

HighZoolander: GeneralJim could have easily checked his claim against reality without making any assumptions at all.


Well, it is consistent with his pattern of lacking intellectual curiosity. What's amusing to me is he seems to act like we're blowing this all out of proportion or something and doesn't seem to understand the whole pattern part is the part that matters. I mean, Jesus, if he said something that silly and it was once, you shrug your shoulders and go "whatever, everybody's wires short sooner or later". It's just that his pattern of behaviour is so obvious that even if you step back, the moiré gives you a headache.

For example, when Jon posted this:

Jon Snow: GeneralJim's comment length decreases, response relevance to actual comment content decreases, comment frequency increases, and image use increases.


I just went "yep, I noticed that too." Cause really, how could you not?

Over and over he rides this damn carousel, bouncing from intellectual stagnation to dishonesty to indignation to accusations and back to intellectual stagnation again, screaming and demanding the world stop spinning around him. I just don't get it.
 
2012-03-16 03:28:20 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: What I like best isn't just when Jim's evidence A contradicts his evidence B. I like it when he posts something and then just fabricates claims that are in no way supported by what he posted.


In his defense, I think that as you go on to note, it's usually not GeneralJim doing the initial fabrication, but is rather regurgitating third-to-nth party spin. Damnhippyfreak and I have caught him doing this on several occasions.

In what seemed like a miraculous departure from his usual linkspam tirades from American Thinker, Newsmax, Free Republic, and assorted denialist blogs, at one point in a discussion he actually cited real scientific papers! And did so using more or less standard formatting!! I was blown away.

Of course I was familiar with several of the papers, and several of the authors, and it was immediately clear that he was misrepresenting their views entirely. I pointed out that several of the authors he was citing (as evidence for negative water vapor feedback or the like) were actually leading scientists in the field on the effects of water vapor and clouds on climate and had all published numerous papers about the overall positive feedback water vapor and clouds had in response to an initial increase in radiative forcing (I think Amy Clement and Brian Soden may have been two of the authors). I then went paper by paper and found that the authors never made the claims GeneralJim was making. Moreover, several of the papers cautioned against using their data due to draw meaningful conclusions because of known biases in the obs (not correcting for diurnal drift in satellites, for example). I then pointed to follow up studies that confirmed the major problems these biases were having, and subsequent papers showing what happened when you corrected for these biases and/or used different observational data that didn't suffer from the same problems. Surprise, surprise, again the reality turned out to be exactly the opposite of what GeneralJim claimed.

Damnhippyfreak took a more crafty approach and simply fed GeneralJim's post into Google and it turned out that it was copypasta from a contrarian scientist posted on a denialist blog. This explained the actual proper formatting of the citations. And in the actual blog post, the contrarian was forced to acknowledge some of the very problems I had pointed out due to complaints from the scientists he was misrepresenting.

Now, was GeneralJim really going through these papers and deliberately misrepresenting them? Of course not. I don't think he was even cribbing directly from the original blog post. I think he got the information from an even more indirect source, like an email or forum comment.

You can see the kind of "telephone game" errors that you'd expect as a result of that kind of distance from a primary source in his comments all the time. I see it as less a sign of his mental issues and more an indication of laziness and inability to understand the primary scientific literature.
 
2012-03-16 03:37:50 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: See?

He's IRREFUTABLE!
Like the pope!



It's only irrefutable if you would judge scientific evidence and a pronouncement by the pope with an equal absence of critical thought. It's only irrefutable if you can't tell the difference between somebody supporting an argument with evidence and someone supporting an argument through authority.

This says much more about how irrationally you're approaching the subject than it does about the subject itself.
 
2012-03-16 03:48:02 PM  

Jon Snow: You can see the kind of "telephone game" errors that you'd expect as a result of that kind of distance from a primary source in his comments all the time.


I used to call him on that as well, as did chimp_ninja, and I'm pretty sure you did too. His response was that we cited blogs as well. I tried to explain to him, as did chimp, the difference between citing a commenter's argument and using the blog as a central primary source repository for that argument, and just regurgitating second- or third-hand information.

Then I tried explaining syllogistic logic to a cup of tea, and got much farther.
 
2012-03-16 03:48:12 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It's only irrefutable if you would judge scientific evidence and a pronouncement by the pope with an equal absence of critical thought. It's only irrefutable if you can't tell the difference between somebody supporting an argument with evidence and someone supporting an argument through authority.

This says much more about how irrationally you're approaching the subject than it does about the subject itself.


I often wonder what people like HotIgneous Intruder would think about people who deny that the Earth is round, and someone explaining to them that they are mistaken. Take any case where something for the purposes of argument is unquestionably true. In what way is someone supposed to respond to claims to the contrary without tripping the kneejerk "IRREFUTABLE" "POPE" response from people like HotIgneous Intruder? Are they supposed to pretend that something unquestionably false might be true merely to avoid any criticism from the kneejerkers? And in doing so, don't they stand to create the appearance of controversy, ignorance, and uncertainty where it does not actually exist, thereby misleading onlookers?

I'm not asking HotIgneous Intruder to take anything I say on faith (hence the citations), but I would like him to imagine a situation in which I could be both defending a scientifically correct position and not appear as though I was "IRREFUTABLE".
 
2012-03-16 04:39:58 PM  

Jon Snow: Damnhippyfreak: It's only irrefutable if you would judge scientific evidence and a pronouncement by the pope with an equal absence of critical thought. It's only irrefutable if you can't tell the difference between somebody supporting an argument with evidence and someone supporting an argument through authority.

This says much more about how irrationally you're approaching the subject than it does about the subject itself.

I often wonder what people like HotIgneous Intruder would think about people who deny that the Earth is round, and someone explaining to them that they are mistaken. Take any case where something for the purposes of argument is unquestionably true. In what way is someone supposed to respond to claims to the contrary without tripping the kneejerk "IRREFUTABLE" "POPE" response from people like HotIgneous Intruder? Are they supposed to pretend that something unquestionably false might be true merely to avoid any criticism from the kneejerkers? And in doing so, don't they stand to create the appearance of controversy, ignorance, and uncertainty where it does not actually exist, thereby misleading onlookers?

I'm not asking HotIgneous Intruder to take anything I say on faith (hence the citations), but I would like him to imagine a situation in which I could be both defending a scientifically correct position and not appear as though I was "IRREFUTABLE".



I hate to say it, but I think people rely on authority more than we would like to think. HotIgneous Intruder's comment only makes sense if the primary quality of the information you presented is the authority symbolized by scientific literature (and therefore is comparable to the authority symbolized by the Pope). Therefore, I suspect the answer to your question would be something along the lines of 'the Earth is round because Columbus or some Other Important Person said so, (so there)'.

Along these lines, I think HotIgneous Intruder (and many other people) are relying on authority because they are unwilling or unable to engage with scientific literature beyond the very surface. I mean, if you're not going to even glance at the paper (or instead rely on second or third-hand accounts), the following do seem similar:

Clement, A., et al. (2009): Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback. Science, 24, 460-464, doi:10.1126/science.1171255.

Jehovah et al. (1999): The Holy Bible - King James Version (1386th Ed.). American Bible Society, New York.


This reliance on authority sort of underpins how GeneralJim approaches the literature as well. Since he's using scientific literature as authority, it doesn't matter if the actual paper doesn't say what he think it means, or is insufficient to back up the point he's trying to make with it, or that most papers claim something different, or if that particular paper is shaky - the actual science within the publication is ancillary to the actual purpose or the value of him citing it - the blind authority it represents.

This dovetails with the idea of 'cargo cult science' that I've seen abb3w mention - attempting to gain the symbolic and rhetorical power of Science (with a capital 's') without having to incorporate the actual process of science (with a lowercase 's').

I'm rambling a bit, but just to note that we're used to working and dealing in a modality that has rational discussion and evidence at it's very core, and therefore we have a tendency to take it for granted. I know I do. We don't always see the full weight of authority that science represents because we're operating within it, and we have the skillset, ability, and access that allows us to actually judge the science by it's merits. Sadly, most people don't have that. Imagine what it would be like to not have easy access to the vast majority of the literature and the good citation indexes - even looking up most of the papers you cite would be difficult.
 
2012-03-16 04:41:56 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Gee Jim, I wonder why people complain when you use that image:


There're a few more amusing properties WRT the edited version versus the original. First, I should point out that even the undoctored version is not considered a best estimate of either temperature or CO2 at present. When the papers the data are based on were originally published, it would be fair to say it was. A lot has changed since then, with more sources of proxy data, discovery of sources of bias, increasingly sophisticated statistical methods, etc. That being said, in addition to the removal of the uncertainty envelope (which may or may not have been on the original, I don't know), let's look at a few things.

First, in GeneralJim's version of the graph, temperature not only gets to change up and down as it progresses forward in time, it actually gets to time travel as well! That's right, temperature gets to violate spacetime by going backwards as well as forwards.

i44.tinypic.com

And what's going on with the last ~100ma?

i44.tinypic.com

Where's the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary? Where's the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? Where's the Eocene-Oilgocene cooling? The mid-Miocene warming? Most of these are at least in the undoctored version.

But really, the problem with that chart should be self-evident. The climate doesn't just hover at 22°C or 12°C for millions and millions of years at a time without changing. Nobody believes that, not even GeneralJim, which becomes evident when he posts charts of Cenozoic temp.

GeneralJim posts that chart for one reason and one reason only. Because he thinks it shows that temperature and CO2 are not correlated over geological time. Because GeneralJim is scientifically illiterate, and as a consequence, is wrong about everything.
 
2012-03-16 04:48:09 PM  

Jon Snow: Take any case where something for the purposes of argument is unquestionably true. In what way is someone supposed to respond to claims to the contrary without tripping the kneejerk "IRREFUTABLE" "POPE" response from people like HotIgneous Intruder? Are they supposed to pretend that something unquestionably false might be true merely to avoid any criticism from the kneejerkers? And in doing so, don't they stand to create the appearance of controversy, ignorance, and uncertainty where it does not actually exist, thereby misleading onlookers?


I always did like this argument as well. "DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE RIGHT?" And what, they argue to be wrong? And if they do argue to be wrong, shouldn't they be happy you're right, not complaining about it?

Those arguments are always the last refuge of the babyish and childish.
 
2012-03-16 04:48:52 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: GeneralJim could have easily checked his claim against reality without making any assumptions at all.

Well, it is consistent with his pattern of lacking intellectual curiosity. What's amusing to me is he seems to act like we're blowing this all out of proportion or something and doesn't seem to understand the whole pattern part is the part that matters. I mean, Jesus, if he said something that silly and it was once, you shrug your shoulders and go "whatever, everybody's wires short sooner or later". It's just that his pattern of behaviour is so obvious that even if you step back, the moiré gives you a headache.

For example, when Jon posted this:

Jon Snow: GeneralJim's comment length decreases, response relevance to actual comment content decreases, comment frequency increases, and image use increases.

I just went "yep, I noticed that too." Cause really, how could you not?

Over and over he rides this damn carousel, bouncing from intellectual stagnation to dishonesty to indignation to accusations and back to intellectual stagnation again, screaming and demanding the world stop spinning around him. I just don't get it.


What really blows my mind is watching you make open predictions about how GeneralJim will respond to your comments. GeneralJim then (presumably) reads the prediction (since he responds to the instigating comment), but still replies exactly as predicted. it really is like he's incapable of not responding that way.
 
2012-03-16 05:30:47 PM  
Dr. Moo, Jon Snow. Here's the problem, solution, situation and a solution resolution.
He thinks that his opinion carries with it the equal weight of scientific inquiry, scientific data, scientific results, scientific predictions and scientific conclusions. To him, the stronger he believes the more evidence he has. I propose that we are stuck here until we can teach him to generate a conclusion based on evidence and not simply "what he thinks is right. "

I think you will both agree that until we can get him to change how he generates solutions to climate questions using *data* to fight on at this level is wholly purposeless. Give up until he is willing to fight like a reasonable and respectable adult.
 
2012-03-16 05:40:14 PM  

HighZoolander: What really blows my mind is watching you make open predictions about how GeneralJim will respond to your comments. GeneralJim then (presumably) reads the prediction (since he responds to the instigating comment), but still replies exactly as predicted. it really is like he's incapable of not responding that way.


It's a testament to the severity of how deep a mental pathology runs. A lot of people will report that personality disordered individuals are "unpredictable". It's a good a word as any to describe them and their sudden outbursts of relationship destroying violence, rage, promiscuity, temper tantrums, theft, or other destructive binges. But, in the end, it isn't true. They're extremely predictable. There's an old saying we've all heard, everywhere from cliched oracles on B-grade adventure shows to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, that getting an answer you didn't expect is usually because you asked the wrong question.

In the case of a personality disorder, the cliche actually tends to hold true. They're unpredictable if you keep asking "what should I expect from this person?" or "why is this person behaving unlike a rational adult" and understand that these questions are fundamentally immaterial to the person before you. Because they're incapable of being an adult, you cannot map their behaviour to normal mature behaviour. You can, however, begin to map their behaviour to, say, a child, for a better outlook or, if you know what you're looking for, to a personality disorder.

But a child is a great example of this behaviour. Have you ever dealt with children, or remember the stupid shiat you used to try to pull when you were a kid? GeneralJim is like a kid, his mother telling him "I see you with your hand in the cookie jar, Jim," and just like a kid, he'll turn to his mother and say "no you don't" while crumbs fall off his mouth. Kids do this, kids believe this might actually work, and -- when they're kids -- it's cute as hell. It's partly a way of soothing their anxiety and dealing with a problem the only way they know how, and it also lets them test the world around them, because they're going to find out real fast that this doesn't work. Jim is a kid who never learned that lesson.

PDs will run back to the same defence mechanisms over and over, because it's the only way they know how to deal with a world perceived as hostile and an ego perceived as small and worthless. They never grew out of feeling small and helpless, so for all their bluster (nothing more than a child playing king of the hill) and capacity for violence (again, a child throwing a toy car or a doll -- with all the force of a grown adult, and that toy is a knife or a fist or what have you), they will always, always go back to what a small and helpless person goes to to soothe their anxiety and protect their ego.

When you look at what Jim writes, don't see it through the lens of a grown man looking at the writings of another grown man. Look at it for what it is: A four-year-old boy in the body of a grown man, screaming that he isn't being taken seriously by the adults, throwing the predictable tantrums, and acting like a predictable child. It seems like he's incapable of responding that way because, well, he is incapable of it.
 
2012-03-16 05:57:56 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Dr. Moo


God I wish Fark had a name-change option, where I could stay on the favourites I'm on, keep the user ID, but be known now and forevermore as Dr. Moo.

Uchiha_Cycliste: To him, the stronger he believes the more evidence he has. I propose that we are stuck here until we can teach him to generate a conclusion based on evidence and not simply "what he thinks is right. "


Uchiha_Cycliste: Give up until he is willing to fight like a reasonable and respectable adult.


This will never, ever happen. Jim needs mental help. Help we're incapable of giving him, and help he's incapable of recognizing he needs. Damnhippyfreak made an excellent suggestion the previous thread, and it's something Jim should really do. Print these threads off, take them to a psychiatrist, tell him "I'm the guy that writes in green," and get a reality check. But it won't happen. It'll never happen. They're incapable of it. Mood disorders will make you ask "what's wrong with me? Why do I feel this way? I want to be a good person." Personality disorders will make you ask, "what's wrong with everybody else? Why do they make me feel this way? They should see what a good person I am."

/Psychotic disorders will make you ask, "should I be a wig today?"
 
2012-03-16 06:01:33 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: You're the one who brought up correlation, and how a low correlation between CO2 and temperature disproved AGW. I showed you what "low correlation" actually means. You didn't like what you saw and couldn't find a friendly blog to link to in response, but I guess you felt compelled to say something. Personally, I think you would have been better off sitting this one out, but I guess the mind of the curator of the Dung Bird Museum works in strange and mysterious ways far beyond mortal reckoning.

Listen, I'm not trying to be mean here, but, there's no other way to put it than that you are astonishingly ignorant. Remember when you said that negative feedback of carbon dioxide warming would mean that the planet cooled? What you're saying here is at LEAST that dumb. Trust me on this.


Yes, I remember. I also remember retracting that statement as being something like "simplistic to the point of error." But it seems to make you happy, so consider that an early Easter gift.

And, based on you well-documented understanding of science and statistics, I don't think I'll trust you on this.

Negative correlation means that the items are related in an inverse relationship. As an example, take cosmic ray flux and temperature. More cosmic rays, means that clouds forming are a little denser, and therefor reflect a little more of the Sun's energy back into space. So, as cosmic rays go up, temperature goes down. Since one is up while the other is down, the sign of their correlation factor is negative Now, how CLOSELY THEY TRACK is shown by the SIZE of the number, negative or positive. In other words, the absolute value of the CF tells how likely they are to have a causal relationship with each other. CF can vary from 1 to -1 (at least you got THAT right. They are often referred to the way percentages are. One half is actually 0.5, but we refer to that as 50%, or sometimes, when people who understand the concept are speaking, a CF of -0.33 will be referred to as a CF of 33. Because people KNOW it's 33 out of a hundred, and most people know the sign of what they are dealing with at least. YMMV.

You've done your homework. Very good.

So, when I say that the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature is in the upper twenties, that means that the number is actually between around 0.25 and 0.30. I normally leave the sign out, but in this case it is positive. Things at that level have very little causal relationship between them. And, YES, a level that low DOES mean that AGW is bollocks, as long as one includes the "official" estimates of how much the temperature will rise for each doubling of carbon dioxide percentage (which figure is also known as the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide) in the definition of AGW.

Wrong, wrong...so very, very wrong. And you were doing so well. First, things at any level of correlation don't necessarily have any causal relationship. A graph doesn't distinguish causality from coincidence. Second, even a low level of correlation does not rule out causality. Show me one legitimate article from one legitimate statistician stating that a causal relationship is ruled out if the correlation is less than x (your choice).

This is another fact that eludes all of this gaggle of ignorant warmers: What's important about AGW is NOT whether or not increases in carbon dioxide levels will raise the temperature -- they will. The question is "By how MUCH?" Using electric cars means that the cars' tires (and all their moving parts, also) generate heat through friction. But the AMOUNT of global warming from tire friction is so small it certainly cannot be detected with current technology. And, the warming from carbon dioxide is almost as small.

Another unfounded statement of "fact."

In raw warming, meaning with feedbacks removed, the amount of carbon dioxide we have added should have warmed the planet by something like 0.25K by now. It's late, and I'm lazy, so if you want a closer estimate, go calculate it. But that does NOT take into account feedbacks. The "official" bullshiat line is that feedbacks are around a factor of two, meaning that the 0.25K of raw warming would translate to about 0.75K. That hasn't happened.

The reason that hasn't happened, and the models ALL predict high, unless unauthorized fixes are made to them, is that they assume that water vapor and clouds are positive feedbacks, of large size. They are not. In reality, that is by MEASURING the damn things, rather than running a simulation in which you assume they are large positives, they are found to be rather large feedbacks, all right, but NEGATIVE ones. Now, just to assume that the boneheads got the size right, but the sign wrong, that means that that raw warming figure of 0.25K would translate, not to 0.75K, but somewhere around 0.08K. That fits what we've seen MUCH better.


Citations, please? Or is this just another assumption based on the semi-transparent vs. semi-infinite model straw man (which it is until Miscolczi's hypothesis is actually built into testable models)?

And, to get back to the CF, the reason the CF is so low is that the system works against any change in temperature caused by changing percentages of greenhouse gasses. The mechanism is by drying out the air in the upper troposphere. One GHG is reduced to counter the effects of another GHG gaining a higher concentration.

That's a new one. How does that work?

Hopefully this has reduced your ignorance by at least a tad. If not, well, too bad for you. I don't know how to make it any simpler than this.

Link to the source articles for your information. Like I said, I don't think I'll trust you on this.
 
2012-03-16 06:30:42 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Uchiha_Cycliste: Dr. Moo

God I wish Fark had a name-change option, where I could stay on the favourites I'm on, keep the user ID, but be known now and forevermore as Dr. Moo.

Uchiha_Cycliste: To him, the stronger he believes the more evidence he has. I propose that we are stuck here until we can teach him to generate a conclusion based on evidence and not simply "what he thinks is right. "

Uchiha_Cycliste: Give up until he is willing to fight like a reasonable and respectable adult.

This will never, ever happen. Jim needs mental help. Help we're incapable of giving him, and help he's incapable of recognizing he needs. Damnhippyfreak made an excellent suggestion the previous thread, and it's something Jim should really do. Print these threads off, take them to a psychiatrist, tell him "I'm the guy that writes in green," and get a reality check. But it won't happen. It'll never happen. They're incapable of it. Mood disorders will make you ask "what's wrong with me? Why do I feel this way? I want to be a good person." Personality disorders will make you ask, "what's wrong with everybody else? Why do they make me feel this way? They should see what a good person I am."

/Psychotic disorders will make you ask, "should I be a wig today?"


My bad. Some of what I said applies to Jim, but I was actually referring to HotIgneous Intruder I should have been more clear. I think Jim is a special case, because he is ill. However, HotIgneous Intruder is just a stubborn ass or a troll.
 
Displayed 50 of 481 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report