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.

(National Review)   If you've seen one tree ring dendrochronology, you've seen Yamal   (nationalreview.com) divider line 64
    More: Fail, tree rings, climatology, Yamal, Keith Briffa, Steve McIntyre, cherry-picks, hockey sticks, Armenian Genocide  
•       •       •

2292 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 May 2012 at 5:20 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-28 04:56:27 PM
misconduct at the University of East Anglia

Egads, so Sarah Palin is automatically president.
 
2012-05-28 05:33:10 PM
Never thought I'd see an NRO link on the Geek Tab.

Did not click.
 
2012-05-28 05:35:08 PM
actual scientists > Tebow > maverick amateur climatologist


Article was amazingly failful.
 
2012-05-28 05:35:25 PM
 
2012-05-28 05:56:08 PM
Climategate Continues

And I stopped right there... This has been so thoroughly debunked I'm shocked even the wingnuts are still trying t push it.
 
2012-05-28 06:08:37 PM

gingerjet: Climategate Continues

And I stopped right there... This has been so thoroughly debunked I'm shocked even the wingnuts are still trying t push it.


I tried reading the article with an open mind.
Yea... I kept saying things to myself like:

"That wasn't what he did/said"
"That isn't what that means"
"So? And?"
"Hey! Nice fallacy."

It's sad how shiat like this can get away with calling itself journalism.
 
2012-05-28 06:08:52 PM
The Yiddish Limahl?
 
2012-05-28 06:11:38 PM
If the original climate researchers had simply addressed his accusations several years ago, I might be inclined to believe this guy.
 
2012-05-28 06:12:35 PM
 
2012-05-28 06:12:59 PM

gingerjet: Climategate Continues

And I stopped right there... This has been so thoroughly debunked I'm shocked even the wingnuts are still trying t push it.


Creationists continue to issue out-of-context statements from Charles Darwin as disproof of evolution. Science denialism has never regarded truth as a necessary or even desirable foundation.
 
2012-05-28 06:14:44 PM
I don't know why I kept reading until they dropped McIntyre as their primary source... prob cause I've been drinking and cleaning with heavy duty cleaners. Who needs brain cells?

/csb
 
2012-05-28 06:36:37 PM
What exactly is the downside of reducing pollution? Why do we need to try to justify common sense with all this never ending bullshiat?
 
2012-05-28 06:47:33 PM

Torqueknot: gingerjet: Climategate Continues

And I stopped right there... This has been so thoroughly debunked I'm shocked even the wingnuts are still trying t push it.

I tried reading the article with an open mind.
Yea... I kept saying things to myself like:

"That wasn't what he did/said"
"That isn't what that means"
"So? And?"
"Hey! Nice fallacy."

It's sad how shiat like this can get away with calling itself journalism.


NRO? Journalism? More like conservative propaganda.
 
2012-05-28 06:51:54 PM

hamiltonjdavid: What exactly is the downside of reducing pollution?


Damage to fossil fuel company profits. This crap is basically part of their advertising budget, except instead of encouraging an increase in consumption they're trying to discourage a decrease.

Pretty easy once you find a bunch of rubes who don't believe in evolution because it conflicts with their bedtime stories.
 
2012-05-28 07:02:16 PM
A Google search shows that this is being covered solely (at least since "Climategate" first broke in 2009) by Climate Audit (NRO's source for TFA), Watt's Up With That, and (drum roll, please) Free Republic.

So what else is new?
 
2012-05-28 07:18:43 PM
FTFA:
one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology - that of cherry-picking data - when he assembled his data sample

img9.imageshack.us

Chicken Little has NOTHING but cherry-picked data? Unpossible!!

Hide the decline, Ken "One-Tree" Briffa.
 
2012-05-28 07:21:25 PM
I know a bunch of dendro people now, so I got a bit of a kick out of this headline.
 
2012-05-28 07:27:36 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology - that of cherry-picking data - when he assembled his data sample

[img9.imageshack.us image 471x464]

Chicken Little has NOTHING but cherry-picked data? Unpossible!!

Hide the decline, Ken "One-Tree" Briffa.



FYFP (from your farking post):
Sinner!


/it's hilarious that you're complaining about other people cherry-picking their data
 
2012-05-28 07:57:20 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology - that of cherry-picking data - when he assembled his data sample

[img9.imageshack.us image 471x464]

Chicken Little has NOTHING but cherry-picked data? Unpossible!!

Hide the decline, Ken "One-Tree" Briffa.


Fabricate a decline, Seven "Half-ENSO" izGud.
 
2012-05-28 08:02:55 PM
These anti-climate-science guys are real idiots. They just KNOW climate science is wrong and so go about building their arguments from a subset of the data, discard anything that doesn't verify their findings, and then apply a certainty that even people like Lindzen don't apply to their AGW skepticism. It's sad, really.

I have an uncle who I love to troll by telling him the conservative position on things he has yet to have seen on tv. But because I am a Democrat, he feels compelled to disagree and tell me I am wrong. It's quite entertaining to see him pretend the conversation never happened the next time I'm over.

Anyway, he's one of these anti-science people. In the '80s, he was insisting AIDS would only affect gay people, while my dad, a scientist at the NIH, asked him what the physiological difference was that would account for that, and did he mean that being gay was therefore genetic. Here's the punchline: my uncle is an MD.

It just goes to show that when it comes to politics, people tend to ignore facts that disagree with how they WANT to see the world, even in areas in which they are professionals.
 
2012-05-28 09:36:42 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Fabricate a decline, Seven "Half-ENSO" izGud.


Yeah, just imagine how much it would be warming if it were, you know, warming.
 
2012-05-28 10:07:01 PM

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Fabricate a decline, Seven "Half-ENSO" izGud.

Yeah, just imagine how much it would be warming if it were, you know, warming.


Here you go...

www.concordy.com

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-28 10:18:29 PM
There are no trees with more than 6000 rings, therefore, the Bible is fact and nothing ever changes...including climate.

/Noah's Flood was just weather
 
2012-05-28 10:45:39 PM
Dendrochronology is exactly what it means:

Dendro: tree
Chronology: time

For trees of the same approximate species and same geologic and climatic areas you can use tree-ring data to get a date to an exact year. This is a very common technique used to date archaeological sites.

Typically, the wider the spacing between rings means that more moisture was present at that time. In areas covered by trees that are of a certain age, mineral and nutrient content can be excluded as a variable as they vary little in an established period of time.

So, now it's down to 'is moisture and indicator of temperature?'

More and more evidence is mounting to suggest that that is the case.

/Was almost an archaeologist
//Became a molecular biologist
 
2012-05-28 11:07:40 PM

GAT_00: I know a bunch of dendro people now, so I got a bit of a kick out of this headline.


One tree to rule them all, and in the darkness, bind them.
 
2012-05-28 11:22:41 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: Here you go...


Here I go, what?

Here I go, posting data that ends in 2006, instead of ending in the most recently completed month reported?

Talk about cherry-picking. What don't you end your graph in 1998, what with the blatant cherry-picking, you lying liar. But way to lie through your lying liar's liar-teeth while lying your lying liar's lies you liar.
 
2012-05-28 11:26:55 PM

common sense is an oxymoron:

[http://www.concordy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rodbell-graph.jpg ]


In other news, land now covers the entire surface of the earth.

This is what the Chicken Little's actually believe!!
 
2012-05-28 11:47:55 PM

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: Here you go...

Here I go, what?

Here I go, posting data that ends in 2006, instead of ending in the most recently completed month reported?

Talk about cherry-picking. What don't you end your graph in 1998, what with the blatant cherry-picking, you lying liar. But way to lie through your lying liar's liar-teeth while lying your lying liar's lies you liar.


SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron:

[http://www.concordy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rodbell-graph.jpg ]

In other news, land now covers the entire surface of the earth.

This is what the Chicken Little's actually believe!!


vortex.accuweather.com

And this (repeated from my earlier post, since you chose to ignore it) is what you deniers can't (or won't) comprehend.

True ignorance is a reversible oversight. Willful ignorance is a pathological waste of oxygen.
 
2012-05-28 11:48:17 PM

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron:

[http://www.concordy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/rodbell-graph.jpg ]

In other news, land now covers the entire surface of the earth.

This is what the Chicken Little's actually believe!!


You seem obsessed with chickens, like it's a fetish of some kind.
 
2012-05-29 01:13:50 AM
This isn't helpful for Stephen mcintyre. As much as he is an ass to researchers, he doesn't seem to blow his horn so much as people blowing it for him in an inarticulate manner. One good thing I've learned from his blog has been to show that if you don't understand the math in these studies, you should stfu about climategate.
 
2012-05-29 01:28:02 AM

piledhigheranddeeper: This isn't helpful for Stephen mcintyre. As much as he is an ass to researchers, he doesn't seem to blow his horn so much as people blowing it for him in an inarticulate manner. One good thing I've learned from his blog has been to show that if you don't understand the math in these studies, you should stfu about climategate.


"...lies, damned lies, and statistics."

BTW, "Climategate" was at least as much about misinterpreting technical jargon (i.e., referring to a standard data-processing technique as a "trick") as it was about the numbers themselves. So, if you don't understand technical language, I guess you should STFU about Climategate.

/the vast majority of actual climatologists still disagrees with McIntyre
 
2012-05-29 02:11:01 AM
For those who haven't been playing along with the home version, here's the alleged (raw?) data grouping

i.imgur.com

Now, I never did any advanced statistical work, but I've always been led to believe that if one data point is removed from a grouping, the trend shouldn't change in a remarkable fashion.

All climate science aside, the initial work done on the so called MBH hockey stick appears to have been done with what amounts to what I believe to be fairly shoddy science. Whether subsequent work proves or fails to prove the hockey stick shape does not mitigate the shoddy science that I believe was done on the early version. Admitting to such alleged shoddy science would be prudent for any actual scientists working in the field.

The flip side of that is refusing to police your own scientific field invites others to do so.
 
2012-05-29 03:06:51 AM

SVenus: For those who haven't been playing along with the home version, here's the alleged (raw?) data grouping

[i.imgur.com image 474x531]

Now, I never did any advanced statistical work, but I've always been led to believe that if one data point is removed from a grouping, the trend shouldn't change in a remarkable fashion.

All climate science aside, the initial work done on the so called MBH hockey stick appears to have been done with what amounts to what I believe to be fairly shoddy science. Whether subsequent work proves or fails to prove the hockey stick shape does not mitigate the shoddy science that I believe was done on the early version. Admitting to such alleged shoddy science would be prudent for any actual scientists working in the field.

The flip side of that is refusing to police your own scientific field invites others to do so.


I've never done advances statistics, either, but I've plotted enough data to distrust graphs with unlabeled y axes. (What are they, anyway? Degrees [C or F?]? Tree ring thicknesses [adjusted for other environmental factors or not?]? Something else entirely? It matters.)

Even if Briffa's dendrochronology study is flawed (and until these graphs are anything more than "alleged [raw?] data," I'm still unconvinced), the temperature curve is based on far more than this, and calling all of the existing science "shoddy" based on a single supporting dataset is either naive or deceptive.

How can anyone go about "policing" a scientific field when they not only don't understand the science, but they see their lack of knowledge as an asset?
 
2012-05-29 03:35:19 AM

SVenus: For those who haven't been playing along with the home version, here's the alleged (raw?) data grouping

[i.imgur.com image 474x531]

Now, I never did any advanced statistical work, but I've always been led to believe that if one data point is removed from a grouping, the trend shouldn't change in a remarkable fashion.

All climate science aside, the initial work done on the so called MBH hockey stick appears to have been done with what amounts to what I believe to be fairly shoddy science. Whether subsequent work proves or fails to prove the hockey stick shape does not mitigate the shoddy science that I believe was done on the early version. Admitting to such alleged shoddy science would be prudent for any actual scientists working in the field.

The flip side of that is refusing to police your own scientific field invites others to do so.


So you're not competent to judge their statistics, but you believe the work is shoddy, therefore they should admit that they're wrong and that your naive opinion is correct. Or else they'll be judged again by others even less competent?

I'm sure they'll get right on that. A correction by someone with barely an undergraduate understanding of statistics is exactly what they've been waiting for to make their major breakthrough! With your oversight, they'll win the Nobel Prize now for sure!

(that was sarcasm, in case you're really as dumb as you sounded just now)
 
2012-05-29 07:01:08 AM
I haven't looked at a single comment yet.

My prediction: The usual suspects will be shucking and jiving, backing up Keith "One Tree" Briffa's outrageous behavior, and defending the "hockey stick" that depends upon his cherry-picked data.
 
2012-05-29 07:04:04 AM
HighZoolander:
actual scientists > Tebow > maverick amateur climatologist


Article was amazingly failful.

Right out of the box, I nailed it.

/ Not much of an accomplishment. Shills be shillin'.
// But I DID forget to mention personal attacks on anyone without Kool-Aid stained lips in my prediction.
 
2012-05-29 07:09:25 AM
gingerjet:
Climategate Continues

And I stopped right there... This has been so thoroughly debunked I'm shocked even the wingnuts are still trying t push it.

www.closedstacks.com
gingerjet
 
2012-05-29 07:16:26 AM
bartman21:
So, now it's down to 'is moisture and indicator of temperature?'

Ironically, another factor "measured" by tree ring width is atmospheric carbon dioxide content.
 
2012-05-29 08:00:51 AM

GeneralJim: bartman21: So, now it's down to 'is moisture and indicator of temperature?'
Ironically, another factor "measured" by tree ring width is atmospheric carbon dioxide content.


Of course, for the resident "expert" GeneralJim, when given a choice between indirect measures of atmospheric CO2 and actual samples trapped in ice, he will always take the indirect data. No, wait, that's not right. He'll take whatever supports his position and discard the rest.

Because he's a scientist.

And then he'll repeat all the lies that Mojo debunked multiple times, hoping Mojo doesn't show up to embarrass him again.
 
2012-05-29 09:23:56 AM
WTF is wrong with all you jackasses? The FACT that Keith Briffa cherry-picked data does not PROVE that AGW isn't as the warmer alarmists say it is -- it's just a bad study done by someone who should know better.

But, this crooked science is supported by almost EVERY warmer scientician wannabee, blindly. WTF is this? "Our team can do no wrong?" Fark, that's not true ANYWHERE.

And, Briffa has YET to release his data. There is NO reason he should be keeping it secret. And, there is no reason any of his studies involving "secret" data should ever pass peer-review. THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE IS DONE.

And, Michael Mann, who based his "hockey stick," and, more importantly, the "justification" of the "hockey stick" which followed, upon Briffa's work, can be shown to have done fraudulent science -- check his "survey" of the literature, which claims to find no evidence of the medieval warm period (MWP) in the literature, against those papers he claims to have "surveyed." Do it yourself -- look up the papers he lists, and you will find that EVERY ONE of those papers has data which CLEARLY shows the MWP.

And, then there's the "hockey stick" itself. Look at the sequence of events: Michael Mann produces a report showing the "hockey stick." People check his work, and discover that red noise sorted and fed into his graphing program produces a "hockey stick" shaped graph 99% of the time. Research paper HERE.

Mann's response? He has Keith Briffa do a "special version" of his study, which is cherry-picked to be the "proper" shape, and combines that study with other studies to make it look "sciency." But that averaging takes away from the "hockey stick" shape, so Mann gives the Briffa study extra weight -- a LOT of extra weight. All the Kool-Aid drinkers are satisfied.

Can you imagine, say, Exxon doing a study, which is found to be fraudulent? You probably can. Okay, then they do ANOTHER study, which backs up their first one. You can probably imagine this as well. But, can you then imagine all the greenies saying, "Oh, well, then, I guess the first one was right" upon hearing of the second Exxon study? I think not.

But that is EXACTLY what happened. Michael Mann is caught fudging the printing of a graph. When someone plots the data on their own, their plot does not match Mann's at all. They look into it, and find that Mann's program gives the same shape graph with random red noise, 99% of the time. Clear fraud. So, Mann does ANOTHER study using questionable methods, and the second study, after sufficient tweaking, matches the first rather well. AND YOU BUY THIS SHIAT? How goddam dumb ARE you? You can SEE the fraud in action, with IPCC publications, compared with the simple, averaged data from 18 different studies:


www.ianschumacher.com
IPCC Historical Temperature Graph - 1990

2.bp.blogspot.com
IPCC Historical Temperature Graph - 2001

www.worldclimatereport.com
Multiple Non-Tree-RIng Temperature Proxies - Loehle, 2007
 
2012-05-29 09:45:47 AM
vygramul:
GeneralJim: bartman21: So, now it's down to 'is moisture and indicator of temperature?'

Ironically, another factor "measured" by tree ring width is atmospheric carbon dioxide content.

Of course, for the resident "expert" GeneralJim, when given a choice between indirect measures of atmospheric CO2 and actual samples trapped in ice, he will always take the indirect data. No, wait, that's not right. He'll take whatever supports his position and discard the rest.

Because he's a scientist.

You are a lying sack. Show me some ice-trapped carbon dioxide readings from, say, 10 million years ago. Well? There goddam AREN'T any. The current ice age started just over two and a half million years ago. Before that, there were no ice sheets on the planet. Dumbass.

Besides, EXACTLY the process you are describing is what Keith Briffa has been caught doing. And, the FOIA processing is almost done, and he will be FORCED to release his data, and prove his perfidy.


And then he'll repeat all the lies that Mojo debunked multiple times, hoping Mojo doesn't show up to embarrass him again.

Yeah, keep living that fantasy. Your defintion of "debunk" is in conflict with reality. If Mojo has "debunked" what I've said, then I have also thoroughly debunked AGW, and we can go home. He biatches and whines about it, and throws up piles of vomitus from the SkepticalScience blog, and considers that whole "debunking thing" done. Sometimes, his "debunking" has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand. That's because he knows nothing about science, only copying crap from the 'nets.

It's not my fault you morons are too dull to recognize a scam, even after the Nigerian banker has your money. "Debunking," in case you are wondering, is what Steve McIntyre did to Keith Briffa's study, and Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Maybe you should READ ABOUT IT.
 
2012-05-29 10:00:26 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: I've never done advances statistics, either, but I've plotted enough data to distrust graphs with unlabeled y axes. (What are they, anyway? Degrees [C or F?]? Tree ring thicknesses [adjusted for other environmental factors or not?]? Something else entirely? It matters.)

Even if Briffa's dendrochronology study is flawed (and until these graphs are anything more than "alleged [raw?] data," I'm still unconvinced), the temperature curve is based on far more than this, and calling all of the existing science "shoddy" based on a single supporting dataset is either naive or deceptive.


If this is the first time you've seen this graph, then you might have to admit you haven't followed much in the way of the events that led up to the disclosure of what the above graph represents. If you haven't followed all of the allegations, of which the graph is but one piece, I can easily see how you would remain unconvinced. The choice to follow or not follow all of the discussions, on both sides of the issue, is certainly up to you.

common sense is an oxymoron: How can anyone go about "policing" a scientific field when they not only don't understand the science, but they see their lack of knowledge as an asset?


I'll give the example of a statistician, respected in his field and not otherwise involved in the climate debate, who looks at the statistical methods presented by climatologists and finds the methods and the data sets lacking in what I believe is called "robustness".

--

HighZoolander: So you're not competent to judge their statistics, but you believe the work is shoddy, therefore they should admit that they're wrong and that your naive opinion is correct. Or else they'll be judged again by others even less competent?

I'm sure they'll get right on that. A correction by someone with barely an undergraduate understanding of statistics is exactly what they've been waiting for to make their major breakthrough! With your oversight, they'll win the Nobel Prize now for sure!


You'll note I've only given my opinion on the matter. I also believe that OJ Simpson really did murder his wife based on evidence of his DNA being at the scene. It's only my opinion.

Quite a bit of evidence about the hockeystick was presented in Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion book that I've never seen debunked or overturned by the other side. Very little of the corruption alleged in that book requires a degree in climatology. The only argument I've seen to date claims that the hockey stick no longer matters, that the conclusion can be reached without the hockey stick math and tree ring data. There hasn't been much in the way of argument that said the alleged corruption never took place and here's why... Perhaps that's seemingly beneath many climatologists, addressing such alleged manipulation.

I'll repeat my point: No matter what the climate is doing now, if there has been ANY bad science (not just faulty science) done and hasn't been addressed properly, it will ultimately be uncovered. Perhaps after Mann and Jones have retired, those following in their footsteps will want to make a name for themselves, by trying to get all of the facts straight.
 
2012-05-29 10:45:44 AM

GeneralJim: wharrgarbl


Yawn. We've seen your lies before. You've had them proved lies and yet you continue to repeat them. You've been exposed as a fraud and a liar. Seriously - you do know that people can read your being pwned right? Stuff on Fark doesn't just disappear... unlike you after Dr. Mojo shows up in the thread to give a detailed debunking of your outright lies.
 
2012-05-29 05:04:25 PM

SVenus: common sense is an oxymoron: I've never done advances statistics, either, but I've plotted enough data to distrust graphs with unlabeled y axes. (What are they, anyway? Degrees [C or F?]? Tree ring thicknesses [adjusted for other environmental factors or not?]? Something else entirely? It matters.)

Even if Briffa's dendrochronology study is flawed (and until these graphs are anything more than "alleged [raw?] data," I'm still unconvinced), the temperature curve is based on far more than this, and calling all of the existing science "shoddy" based on a single supporting dataset is either naive or deceptive.

If this is the first time you've seen this graph, then you might have to admit you haven't followed much in the way of the events that led up to the disclosure of what the above graph represents. If you haven't followed all of the allegations, of which the graph is but one piece, I can easily see how you would remain unconvinced. The choice to follow or not follow all of the discussions, on both sides of the issue, is certainly up to you.

common sense is an oxymoron: How can anyone go about "policing" a scientific field when they not only don't understand the science, but they see their lack of knowledge as an asset?

I'll give the example of a statistician, respected in his field and not otherwise involved in the climate debate, who looks at the statistical methods presented by climatologists and finds the methods and the data sets lacking in what I believe is called "robustness".


--

I believe you're contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that the graphs need to be seen in the context of the full history of the allegations in order to be understood, but you then claim that your hypothetical detached statistician can look at just the raw statistics and effectively "police the science." Which is it?

And you still haven't explained how, even if this single study is less than first-rate, it automatically calls into question any other, independently derived data which might happen to show the same thing.
 
2012-05-29 05:18:34 PM

SVenus: Quite a bit of evidence about the hockeystick was presented in Montford's Hockey Stick Illusion book that I've never seen debunked or overturned by the other side. Very little of the corruption alleged in that book requires a degree in climatology. The only argument I've seen to date claims that the hockey stick no longer matters, that the conclusion can be reached without the hockey stick math and tree ring data. There hasn't been much in the way of argument that said the alleged corruption never took place and here's why... Perhaps that's seemingly beneath many climatologists, addressing such alleged manipulation.


I haven't seen that book, so I don't know which specific allegations you're referring to, but as far as I know every single climatologist that has been investigated in any context of wrongdoing, corruption, or scientific misconduct has been cleared. Every time.

I don't think it's that it's beneath them, so much as they were never found to have done anything wrong. Although, I am sure it is considerably annoying for them to be constantly reminded of these allegations by people who haven't bothered to learn the outcome of the investigations that cleared them.
 
2012-05-30 06:58:35 AM
vygramul:
GeneralJim: wharrgarbl

Yawn. We've seen your lies before. You've had them proved lies and yet you continue to repeat them. You've been exposed as a fraud and a liar. Seriously - you do know that people can read your being pwned right? Stuff on Fark doesn't just disappear... unlike you after Dr. Mojo shows up in the thread to give a detailed debunking of your outright lies.

You're so full of shiat. You morons are all alike -- enough to suggest it's just one wanker with a closet full of alts.

Listen, farkwit, sometimes life-other-than-Fark has things I, and anyone with even a puny life, has to do. If out of ten threads, I have to leave one, THAT is taken as "running away." Blow me. In the same way, sometimes a day goes by in which I don't read Fark. If I then get involved in a thread started earlier, SOME dickweed is sure to comment about coming in at the end of a thread.

And, sure as shiat, it's all about what I am "really trying to do," or some such rot. You are all morons, and not a single one of you has EVER made a comment that accurately described the situation. I bring this up now because, like the FRAUD described in TFA, your stupidity hinges on cherry-picking. You ignore all the times I come in at the beginning of a thread, point to one case where I don't and call it "his usual pattern." This shows that in any thread where logic might come up, you should simply STFU, and increase the average worth of the posts.

Perhaps you don't know how stupid your comments and conspiracy theories based upon posting time appear to others. I am in a privileged position, as I am the ONLY person on the planet who knows what I am thinking, so I KNOW how stupid your comments and conspiracy theories are. However, statistically speaking, there must be MANY people out there who immediately recognize that you are talking out your arse and having paranoid fantasies.

I have literally been accused of conferring with my "shill boss" because I had the temerity to take a dump while someone (No names, let's just call him "Monkey Boy") was replying to things I wrote. Really? How goddam pathetic is THAT behavior? So, is the idea that the biggest no-life loser wins all Fark discussions to compensate for imaginary girlfriends and tiny little peens? Sitting at the keyboard uninterrupted for an entire thread means invincibility?

In short, no. Whine and biatch, throw stupid insults, and make claims you cannot possibly support at every turn, and, the end result is that, MANY times over, fraud has been proved on the part of a small number of scientists involved in climatology. If you are too goddam stupid to see a fraud when it is displayed right in front of your eyes, that is YOUR fault. And, make no mistake, that is EXACTLY what has happened.

Denouncing those who have discovered the frauds, and those who prove the frauds, and those who comment on the fraudulent data, and any scientist whose research doesn't support the falsified AGW hypothesis is what you do EVERY FARKING TIME... and it's getting boring as hell. You have brought stupid left-wing politics into science, and damn you to Hell for that. Did you ever see "Little Nicky?" Well, here's your pineapple.
 
2012-05-30 07:29:45 AM
HighZoolander:
I haven't seen that book, so I don't know which specific allegations you're referring to, but as far as I know every single climatologist that has been investigated in any context of wrongdoing, corruption, or scientific misconduct has been cleared. Every time.

Well, you're an asshole, then. Do you really call having it noted that CRIMINAL activity took place, but it was not detected within the time allowed for prosecution being "cleared?" I don't. It was found that criminal violations of the FOIA were committed.

And, of course, if this is like all the previous times it was brought up, the apologetic will be that "guilt is only determined in court." This means that you think these committees of people in government, who are corrupting the science themselves, and people from the universities which will lose massive grants if scientific fraud is detected, ARE capable of "clearing" someone, but not of determining wrongdoing. Nice little scam you are running.

And, on complex scientific issues, do you think that an accurate finding can be reached by interviewing the perpetrators for a couple of hours WITHOUT hearing from ANYONE skeptical, and without hearing from those who have proven the fraud? Really? Only the defense gets witnesses?

Well, just like the fact that you morons are all too stupid to recognize bad science by the slime trail it leaves, you are also too stupid to see a classic whitewash when it takes place.

Oh, yeah, and Mann's Clintonesque response to the inquiry "Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?" was that he did not delete e-mails. As the Penn State whitewash committee put it, "Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones' request."

Phil Jones asked Mann to tell Eugene Wahl to erase e-mails. Penn State asked Mann about this, and Mann only said that he, himself, did not erase any e-mails. Penn State declined to ask him a second time if he passed on the request for Eugene Wahl to erase them, and also declined to ask Eugene Wahl himself.

But, hold on to your knickers, Buttercup -- a federal inspector general is investigating the case now, and he DID interview Eugene Wahl, who said that, indeed, Michael Mann did ask him to delete e-mails, and he (Eugene Wahl) did erase them. Expect criminal charges, and a full exposure of the whitewash in the near future. Read about it HERE.
 
2012-05-30 08:51:19 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: I believe you're contradicting yourself. You seem to be saying that the graphs need to be seen in the context of the full history of the allegations in order to be understood, but you then claim that your hypothetical detached statistician can look at just the raw statistics and effectively "police the science." Which is it?


The allegations, in this case, involve quite a bit more than I have mentioned here. The article this thread is based on does contain the word "continues".

As to the graph I posted, it represents key data points that were left in. The criticism of the tree ring proxy data here is that removing one set of tree ring proxy data influences the entire trend remarkably. I'm not the one making the criticism; I'm just reading BOTH sides of the argument and forming my opinion on what I've read. I don't have to convince a single person on this thread.

As to the opinions of statisticians, hypothetical or otherwise, I'm fairly patient. They deal in data, and I'm sure before any formal conclusion can be made, they would need quite a lot of data. And, if you haven't been playing along, much of the data, including that which that image I posted was derived from, was initially obscured by refusal to give up much of the raw data.

Now, I'll restate my point: If those that believe the evidence shows that AGW exists and is of prime importance to all of humanity, then they would be best served by removing evidence acquired in a less than scientific manner.

/OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but the police may have moved a bloody glove to make him look more guilty.
 
2012-05-30 09:48:04 AM

GeneralJim: WHARRGARBL and still more lies


Conspiracy theories and bringing liberal politics into science? The conspiracy theory is believing that the majority of scientists have colluded to defraud the public because they get research grants for finding the "right" answer. THAT is a conspiracy theory. And science is about integrating all the facts and trying to find explanations for them, not ignoring the stuff that doesn't agree with your position like YOU like to do.

And YOU base your "scientific" beliefs on your religion. If it does not comport with it, it must be wrong. That is not science. That is anti-science.
 
2012-05-30 10:52:12 AM

GeneralJim: But, hold on to your knickers, Buttercup -- a federal inspector general is investigating the case now, and he DID interview Eugene Wahl, who said that, indeed, Michael Mann did ask him to delete e-mails, and he (Eugene Wahl) did erase them. Expect criminal charges, and a full exposure of the whitewash in the near future. Read about it HERE.



Why am I not surprised that you believe a blog written by an industry shill?

Read the other side of the story here: Link


/too busy to summarize now.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report