Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(LA Times)   New Supercomputer will study climate change, compose Linkin Park songs   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, National Center for Atmospheric Research, atmospheric scientist, climate change, Wyoming, supercomputers, Central United States, carbon sequestration, Gulf of Alaska  
•       •       •

1145 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jun 2012 at 11:22 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-10 12:31:09 AM  
GIGO
 
2012-06-10 01:00:26 AM  
Unplug it.

Now...
 
2012-06-10 07:42:41 AM  
You need a supercomputer for that, not just a regular one?
 
2012-06-10 11:28:30 AM  
How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND
 
2012-06-10 12:00:39 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


Spot on. Cheers!
 
2012-06-10 12:07:01 PM  

What climate change?

www.woodfortrees.org



Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.
 
2012-06-10 12:11:01 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


Nice!
 
2012-06-10 12:14:10 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Is that graph just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time to branch out a bit..
 
2012-06-10 12:35:55 PM  
Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.
 
2012-06-10 12:37:50 PM  
So now they are going to do really inaccurate Navier-Stokes calculations much much much much faster? Sounds like the difference between runny stool and explosive diarrhea to me.
 
2012-06-10 12:38:19 PM  

SevenizGud: Erix: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.

Is that graph just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time to branch out a bit..

Are your thoughts of raping your dog just cycling through your head all day or something? It might be time for you to stop beating your daughter.


Wow, that was a good one. I can see yours is truly a formidable intellect.
 
2012-06-10 12:44:38 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.


I don't know. I think this computer will take us one step closer.
 
2012-06-10 12:47:52 PM  

Erix: Wow, that was a good one. I can see yours is truly a formidable intellect.


Uhm, actually, I was just pointing out to you that your post was nothing more than false premise - but you didn't understand that either. No surprise there.
 
2012-06-10 12:49:53 PM  
You could greenlight a story about where to get a decent bagel in Idaho, slap the phrase "climate change" into the headline, and get the same thread. Pavlov would be proud. Or maybe ashamed.

This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

/atmospheric science is not just climate change
//has account on Bluefire, soon to be moving over to Yellowstone
///getting a kick, etc...
 
Zel [TotalFark]
2012-06-10 12:55:40 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

I get a feeling you think it has to do with global warming.

And please dont put a straight line through a chaotic periodic system, its really misleading as spikes will strongly impact the result.
 
2012-06-10 12:58:50 PM  

Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?


No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.
 
2012-06-10 01:05:02 PM  

Zel: Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?


HadCRUT3 is a combined temperature record from UK centers (Hadley Center + CRU). I'm not sure what the "vgl" stands for. What I find more interesting is the watermark for "woodfortrees.org" in the corner. Google says woodfortrees is a private data analysis/consulting company.
 
2012-06-10 01:17:16 PM  
Hrm I actually liked Linkin Park's first two cds, are they not cool anymore?
 
2012-06-10 01:52:00 PM  

SevenizGud: No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.


Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-06-10 02:11:47 PM  

whatshisname: Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:


Oddly enough, cueing exactly the people who I said would be cued in my initial post.
 
2012-06-10 02:13:10 PM  
If you want to run climate models on your own PCs, go to BONIC, download it and participate in ClimatePrediction.net, using British climate models in a distributed computing environment.
 
2012-06-10 02:48:04 PM  
I wonder how far in advance it'll predict the eruption of the neighboring super volcano? Not that it'll matter...
 
2012-06-10 03:01:08 PM  
Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.


First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper. Because of your attitude towards properly presenting data, I would guess that you are not a scientist at all, but a partisan hack cherry picking your data (another no-no for credible scientists).

Secondly, climate change is about more than just temperature. If you look at the figures for arctic ice melt you will find that the polar sea ice started declining dramatically at the same time as the temperature leveled off. The heat energy is going to phase change rather than to further heat the air. This is triggering a significant positive feedback loop - the less ice cover, the lower the albedo and the more energy absorbed in the ocean.

/I may not be working in rocket science anymore but I know unethical science when I see it!
 
2012-06-10 03:37:58 PM  
More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.
 
2012-06-10 03:44:57 PM  
likeawhisper.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-10 03:49:50 PM  
Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?

And what does your ethical science say about the increase in Antarctic sea ice?
 
2012-06-10 03:52:05 PM  

SevenizGud: whatshisname: Oddly enough, if you post the data without messing with it, the graphs look a little more familiar:

Oddly enough, cueing exactly the people who I said would be cued in my initial post.


The reason that everyone is in agreement that you are a complete and utter moron is because you can't seem to understand that a small flat spot is irrelevant.

Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!

Can you figure it out yet?? The dip in the 40's and the flat spot you harp on and on about ... they do not impact the overall picture. When you artificially attempt to assign importance to them you are just identifying yourself as a liar with an agenda.

Nobody is going to take you seriously while you insist on cherry-picked data.
 
2012-06-10 03:53:37 PM  

WelldeadLink: Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?


Because your counter "hypothesis" would require thermodynamics to operate backward?
 
Zel [TotalFark]
2012-06-10 03:59:37 PM  

dready zim: More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.


They do if we had infinite cores, but that could cause a lot of heat to be exhausted from the data center.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Zel: Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

HadCRUT3 is a combined temperature record from UK centers (Hadley Center + CRU). I'm not sure what the "vgl" stands for. What I find more interesting is the watermark for "woodfortrees.org" in the corner. Google says woodfortrees is a private data analysis/consulting company.


Thank you. So this is temperature in the UK, and i suppose the vertical axis is delta millifarenheit. woodfortrees can die in a fire for propagating unlabeled graphs.

NotARocketScientist: Zel: Ive see n that pic used before, each time like it had any meaning or carried some weight. Are you ever going to tell us what the units are on the vertical axis, or even what a hadcrut/3vgl is?

No, do your own homework, junior. If you don't know the first thing about climate change data expression, then maybe you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper.


Thank you also. I'm actually reviewing a paper for pediatric genomics and the authors (who appear to be otherwise very accomplished and respected) have made these same mistakes. It appears common when someone is so immersed in their dataset they forget to ever actually explain what it is. This can be a confirmation bias, because you just 'know' the things youre looking for will be there... The biases in the statistical analyses are often overlooked until an outside observer tries to make sense of it.

That's why we use a peer-review system instead of cherry-picking graphics.

I could probably make a dozen graphics showing a downward trend by selecting the (in-)appropriate segments of whatshisname's full data post.
 
2012-06-10 04:03:44 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: WelldeadLink: Maybe you have it backwards. If the arctic ice started decreasing when the temperature leveled off, maybe less ice causes a negative feedback which stops the temperature from rising further. Why do you think there is a positive feedback, when the temperature has not been rising?

Because your counter "hypothesis" would require thermodynamics to operate backward?


Nope. I did not give a mechanism, so you can't refute my mechanism. But the existence of a negative feedback of some type makes more sense than the original claim of a relationship between two measurements. (And there obviously is a lot more involved in weather and climate than a single gas or a single mass of ice.)

The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?
 
2012-06-10 04:06:25 PM  

WelldeadLink: Nope. I did not give a mechanism, so you can't refute my mechanism.


I think you just won the "stupidest thing ever said in a GW thread" award. Congratulations.
 
2012-06-10 04:35:56 PM  

Gunderson: How Linkin Park songs are made:

LINKWITHSOUND


this just made my day.
 
2012-06-10 04:40:16 PM  

WelldeadLink: The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?


Where the heat is going.
 
2012-06-10 04:51:54 PM  

dready zim: More cores does not change a hard problem into a classical problem.


No, but they might change it into a statistical problem.
 
2012-06-10 04:54:20 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

/atmospheric science is not just climate change
//has account on Bluefire, soon to be moving over to Yellowstone
///getting a kick, etc...



Well, it didn't help that they interviewed the tech guy, who clearly doesn't understand the difference between weather prediction and climate change projections, and in his excitement probably talked out his ass to the reporter:

"These are chaotic systems, but it's just math," said Richard Loft, director of technology development at NCAR's Computational and Information Systems Laboratory. "We play statistics in the climate game. We feed in the basic laws of science, and out comes something that looks like the Earth's climate. It's an instrument. This is a mathematical telescope." ...

Those two sentences in bold are completely contradictory. Sigh.


Rather than warning of a tornado risk in the central U.S. between noon and 9 p.m., scientists might one day warn of a tornado risk in Woodson County, Kan., between 1 and 3 p.m. Rather than warning of a hurricane striking the coast of Texas, they hope to be able to warn of a hurricane striking the town of Freeport, with a top wind speed of 90 mph and a tidal surge of 4 1/2 feet.

That regional accuracy is particularly critical in the study of climate change. "The disaster of climate change happens on a regional scale," Loft said. "Everything is connected."


And that latter bit in bold is a completely different beast from climate projections, which are all about long-term trends. Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?

It's also nice to see such resources being made available, but it's a big mistake to assume that faster computer and more processors will instantly equal better results - that again is the tech man talking, not the scientist. Yes, climate and weather models will be able to run faster at significantly higher resolutions, but that doesn't mean the model code automatically work as well at those higher resolutions - especially if you introduce new code meant to replace parameterizations of previously sub-grid-scale processes.


/just waiting for the first person to start complaining about the lack of miraculously good forecasts given the money spent
 
2012-06-10 05:11:32 PM  

Lydia_C: Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?


I would guess that it comes down to the climatologist who was interviewed (I'm guessing an interview actually took place) simply didn't have anything to say that the journalist could (a) understand, and (b) easily frame as "bigger computer solves global warming" which is clearly the narrative the journalist was going for.

I work in the same building where the State Climatology Office is located, and that guy is always complaining about this kind of thing. Journalists are, at best, trained in journalism via a four-year college degree that may or may not have required even basic science courses. They write for an audience with an even worse science education, and need to grab people with easily relate-able stories. So a climatologist who goes on and on about the limits of predictability and the value of confidence in levels of uncertainty gets dropped, and when some tech expert blurts out "this'll solve all our problems forever", the journalist grabs onto that quote with both hands and refuses to let go.

And I'll give you three guesses which of the three gets blamed when all of our problems aren't solved forever ...
 
2012-06-10 05:29:42 PM  
The thread started out so well dumping on Linkin Park then went all climate change graphy. But I guess in the end it doesn't really matter.

/must be a LP lyric
 
2012-06-10 05:41:21 PM  

NeverDrunk23: Its pointless to look at climate change. It will be the same result no matter what. In the end, it doesn't even matter.


But, things aren't the way they were before.
 
2012-06-10 05:42:40 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Lydia_C: Why the hell didn't NCAR PR make sure an actual climatologist got to put two cents in?

I would guess that it comes down to the climatologist who was interviewed (I'm guessing an interview actually took place) simply didn't have anything to say that the journalist could (a) understand, and (b) easily frame as "bigger computer solves global warming" which is clearly the narrative the journalist was going for.

I work in the same building where the State Climatology Office is located, and that guy is always complaining about this kind of thing. Journalists are, at best, trained in journalism via a four-year college degree that may or may not have required even basic science courses. They write for an audience with an even worse science education, and need to grab people with easily relate-able stories. So a climatologist who goes on and on about the limits of predictability and the value of confidence in levels of uncertainty gets dropped, and when some tech expert blurts out "this'll solve all our problems forever", the journalist grabs onto that quote with both hands and refuses to let go.

And I'll give you three guesses which of the three gets blamed when all of our problems aren't solved forever ...


I hear you on the journalist issue, and have run into it myself. I also know that climate scientists as a group are often crappy communicators to the general public, and we need to get much better at that. But there's a good bit of fail in that article that goes back to a poorly-informed person making definitive-sounding statements, as if we haven't had enough of that already...

And yup, I can guess exactly who will get the blame for any unhappiness down the road. Sigh.
 
2012-06-10 06:29:10 PM  

SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Cue the idiots who don't know the difference between these two sentences:

A) Temperatures are not going up presently.

B) Temperatures have never gone up.


Back again LIAR?
www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-06-10 06:56:15 PM  
I like Linkin Park.

Sure I may have horrible taste in music in your opinion and that means I have a worthless human being with little intelligence and style, but I like Linkin Park's music.
 
2012-06-10 06:57:05 PM  

NotARocketScientist:
First off it is the responsibility of a good scientist to make sure the data is understood. That includes labeling axis, titles and captions on figures. This plot, presented the way you did would never be accepted in any peer reviewed paper. Because of your attitude towards properly presenting data, I would guess that you are not a scientist at all, but a partisan hack cherry picking your data (another no-no for credible scientists).

Secondly, climate change is about more than just temperature. If you look at the figures for arctic ice melt you will find that the polar sea ice started declining dramatically at the same time as the temperature leveled off. The heat energy is going to phase change rather than to further heat the air. This is triggering a significant positive feedback loop - the less ice cover, the lower the albedo and the more energy absorbed in the ocean.

/I may not be working in rocket science anymore but I know unethical science when I see it!


You didn't quantify the amount of arctic ice melt, which you would have done if you had any idea about science. So I am going to conclude, based on the evidence, that you have never had a science class in your life, and are in the 3rd grade.
 
2012-06-10 07:01:34 PM  
Unknown_Poltroon:


Back again LIAR?


Nothing says "liar" like posting the last 15 years of data straight from the source and giving the URL so everyone can check:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

How dare I lie by showing the actual data for the last 15 years.
 
2012-06-10 07:02:58 PM  
1998 0.486 0.739 0.520 0.608 0.570 0.579 0.651 0.616 0.400 0.409 0.342 0.424 0.529
1998 81 82 81 79 80 78 79 79 78 79 79 80
1999 0.366 0.540 0.290 0.322 0.248 0.266 0.282 0.253 0.274 0.241 0.223 0.338 0.304
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.212 0.363 0.334 0.446 0.271 0.252 0.261 0.338 0.309 0.213 0.159 0.179 0.278
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 78 78 79
2001 0.329 0.289 0.475 0.426 0.399 0.416 0.452 0.498 0.405 0.378 0.491 0.323 0.407
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 78 80 78 78 79 80
2002 0.568 0.593 0.586 0.443 0.432 0.455 0.462 0.417 0.413 0.362 0.397 0.326 0.455
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 81 80
2003 0.514 0.427 0.418 0.408 0.439 0.437 0.457 0.514 0.499 0.550 0.419 0.519 0.467
2003 80 80 81 79 78 79 79 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.496 0.560 0.501 0.484 0.323 0.350 0.380 0.418 0.442 0.468 0.521 0.381 0.444
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 79 79 78 79 81
2005 0.452 0.364 0.493 0.530 0.476 0.506 0.532 0.502 0.498 0.495 0.478 0.366 0.474
2005 81 81 80 78 79 79 80 81 81 80 80 81
2006 0.320 0.435 0.380 0.378 0.352 0.442 0.456 0.482 0.425 0.472 0.440 0.518 0.425
2006 81 81 82 80 79 80 81 81 82 81 80 81
2007 0.601 0.498 0.435 0.466 0.372 0.382 0.394 0.358 0.402 0.362 0.266 0.226 0.397
2007 81 80 80 80 79 80 80 81 82 81 81 82
2008 0.074 0.198 0.447 0.278 0.283 0.315 0.406 0.407 0.378 0.440 0.394 0.330 0.329
2008 81 82 83 82 81 81 82 82 82 82 81 82
2009 0.376 0.374 0.369 0.409 0.401 0.499 0.504 0.531 0.462 0.442 0.446 0.418 0.436
2009 83 83 83 80 81 81 81 83 82 82 82 83
2010 0.477 0.462 0.568 0.558 0.512 0.530 0.536 0.486 0.392 0.397 0.452 0.269 0.470
2010 82 83 83 82 82 82 83 84 83 82 82 83
2011 0.203 0.268 0.326 0.404 0.339 0.426 0.450 0.432 0.361 0.342 0.270 0.252 0.339
2011 83 82 81 81 81 80 80 80 80 81 80 81
2012 0.231 0.207 0.308 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.249
2012 81 80 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


All lies, according to dipshiat.
 
2012-06-10 07:42:48 PM  
they "forgot" to mention it will be running Linux, as do 95% of all Supercomputers.


sorry, couldn't help it. its just so juicy.
 
2012-06-10 07:44:35 PM  

SevenizGud:
All lies, according to dipshiat


Your lies are not the data you do report ... your lies are in the data you omit because it does not support your agenda.

"Lies of omission" are still lies.
 
2012-06-10 07:54:25 PM  

Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.


Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.
 
2012-06-10 07:55:45 PM  

Farking Canuck: the data you omit


Hide the decline.
 
2012-06-10 08:29:59 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.


I do not measure or collect the data ... I can only get what the source provides.

You look at what the source provides and cherry-pick out just a few years and pretend it shows what is happening.

Intelligent people look at all available data ... you don't.
 
2012-06-10 09:30:35 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.


Not familiar with the Industrial Revolution are you? Taking a look at the graphs I can tell exactly where World War 1 and World War 2 occurred as temperatures dropped temporarily. That, alone, should tell you that human influences are there.
 
2012-06-10 09:33:25 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.



Besides being somewhat nonsensical, nobody is pretending that "temperature started in 1880". If you're going to throw a childish tantrum about other people being liars, don't start your post with one yourself.

That aside, I posted this in the other thread, but since you're running the same shtick in this one, I'll copy-and-past most of it:

It looks like you're not giving much credence to the idea that looking at just 15 years tends to capture more short-term variation and therefore is misleading in terms of determining longer-term trends:

i39.tinypic.com

Therefore, we can try a different tack. Let's look at the last five years then:

www.woodfortrees.org

According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years. You will have a very hard time arguing against this in a way that does does not also undermine your own assertion in regards to 15 years.
 
2012-06-10 09:51:10 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.


Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?
 
2012-06-10 09:54:50 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.

Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?



It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this? ;)
 
2012-06-10 09:55:02 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.

Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?


Fail troll is fail.
 
2012-06-10 10:04:21 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this?


Wow, it's almost like whether it is warming or cooling depends on your start date.

I'll drag you along, even with your kicking and screaming.
 
2012-06-10 10:13:32 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this?

Wow, it's almost like whether it is warming or cooling depends on your start date.

I'll drag you along, even with your kicking and screaming.



Okay, we're getting somewhere, and we can agree on this.

The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:

i39.tinypic.com

If you don't understand, we can try to tackle this in another way.
 
2012-06-11 02:34:47 AM  
Temperatures rise and fall. Ice caps come and go. Sea level rises and falls. Climate stability is not an option. Get used to it.
 
2012-06-11 06:03:29 AM  

SevenizGud: Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?


Closer to 4 thousands of a degree in 5 years, which is the same order of magnitude per-year change as the "cooling" your cherry-picked data for 15 years shows.

Which reminds me, you have yet to justify why your particular choice of start date should be considered a valid basis for extrapolating a long-term trend from. I know it's been asked before but I've only ever see you evade the question. What is the significance of your time window?


Lastly: "Hide the decline"

There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline':

1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.

2. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.

3. The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.


=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 06:32:10 AM  
Welfare Xmas:
So now they are going to do really inaccurate Navier-Stokes calculations much much much much faster? Sounds like the difference between runny stool and explosive diarrhea to me.

*SNERK*
 
2012-06-11 06:36:32 AM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

Thank you for identifying one of the GLARING idiocies of TFA. If I don't see the other downthread, I'll point it out...
 
2012-06-11 06:47:06 AM  
Farking Canuck:
Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!

Oh, FFS. You're biatching about cherry-picking, and present a cherry-picked graph? There's a REASON that warmer alarmists only use data starting somewhere in the 1850-1880 range. They are cherry-picking. That's the only range in which the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is better than piss-poor.

They sure as hell don't want to start BEFORE then, like, say, 1800, because that is before the industrial revolution, and the warming trend was in full effect then. Get it? The current trend was in place BEFORE mankind started making merry with all the carbon dioxide. And the rate of increase hasn't changed much over that time, either. Awkward.
 
2012-06-11 06:54:33 AM  
Sheseala:
WelldeadLink: The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?

Where the heat is going.

No, sorry, that doesn't make any sense in the real world. Air and water currents isolate areas from each other. The whole planet is not going to stop warming waiting for all the ice to melt.

Also, if you take a glance back, you will find the temperatures rising quickly in, say, the 1980s, while glaciers melt. So, melting glaciers do NOT stop warming.
 
2012-06-11 07:01:09 AM  
Farking Canuck:
SevenizGud:
All lies, according to dipshiat

Your lies are not the data you do report ... your lies are in the data you omit because it does not support your agenda.

"Lies of omission" are still lies.

So, what were temperatures doing from 1800 to 1880, liar?
 
2012-06-11 07:21:44 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:

You're being too short. Climate has cycles measured in hundreds of millions of years. I mean, we should at LEAST look at the whole interglacial period. Thus:

i49.tinypic.com



Yep, we're in an 8000 year cooling trend, and the last couple hundred years of warming is just a blip.

And, are you going to now say that the ONLY valid time frame is your cherry-picked one chosen to imply better correlation with carbon dioxide than exists?
 
2012-06-11 07:42:37 AM  
 
2012-06-11 07:59:21 AM  

Smidge204: Which reminds me, you have yet to justify why your particular choice of start date should be considered a valid basis for extrapolating a long-term trend from. I know it's been asked before but I've only ever see you evade the question. What is the significance of your time window?


It's the last 15 years.
 
2012-06-11 08:04:39 AM  

Smidge204:
1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed.


I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.

But hey, a hockey-teamer did it, so it's okay, right?
 
2012-06-11 09:18:49 AM  
Speaking of lies ... the green thread-shiatter is here.

Yay!!
 
2012-06-11 09:45:00 AM  

SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.


You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.



So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 10:32:47 AM  

Smidge204: SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.

You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.


So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=


What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.

You pretend that I don't know what's going on? Gotcha. You pretend that I am misrepresenting the situation, when I point out that Briffa deleting data is nothing to the warmers, and not a lie of omission? Gotcha!! I am asserting what's false when I assert that deleting data is deleting data? Gotcha!!!!!!eleventy!!

Take your imagined victories and ram them up your snout.
 
2012-06-11 10:42:02 AM  
For the idiots who still don't get it:

The Briffa Method:

img9.imageshack.us

No lies of omission there, nosireebob.
 
2012-06-11 10:56:00 AM  
Remember kids, the proxy data proxies, except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't, you just delete the data and substitute it with other data that you like better. There's nothing dishonest about that, is there?

If you think that deleting data you don't like is academically dishonest, just remember this one piece of advice:

1. Drink more kool-Aid.
 
2012-06-11 12:39:47 PM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!
Oh, FFS. You're biatching about cherry-picking, and present a cherry-picked graph? There's a REASON that warmer alarmists only use data starting somewhere in the 1850-1880 range. They are cherry-picking. That's the only range in which the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is better than piss-poor.

They sure as hell don't want to start BEFORE then, like, say, 1800, because that is before the industrial revolution, and the warming trend was in full effect then. Get it? The current trend was in place BEFORE mankind started making merry with all the carbon dioxide. And the rate of increase hasn't changed much over that time, either. Awkward.



The above is based on false information. You know the bit in bold is completely false, and the reason why you see many graphs starting in the "1850-1880 range" is that this is when the 'global' instrumental record begins. No need to construct some sort of conspiracy.
 
2012-06-11 12:51:48 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:
You're being too short. Climate has cycles measured in hundreds of millions of years. I mean, we should at LEAST look at the whole interglacial period. Thus:

[i49.tinypic.com image 640x434]

Yep, we're in an 8000 year cooling trend, and the last couple hundred years of warming is just a blip.

And, are you going to now say that the ONLY valid time frame is your cherry-picked one chosen to imply better correlation with carbon dioxide than exists?



Actually, what you've said here isn't that bad. The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

Let's use your graph as an example. The graph you've presented would be very informative and appropriate if we're primarily interested in ice ages. Looking at a scale of millions of years, the trends apparent in the graph you've presented would also be merely a 'blip', and would such a scale would be much less useful, again, since we're primarily interested in ice ages. Again, these other scales can be informative, but not even remotely close to as informative as one that is similar to the the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs

It becomes much more of a problem if you attempt to make inferences solely based on scales other than which the phenomenon occurs, which is something you and the person I'm responding to have a tendency to do.
 
2012-06-11 12:59:47 PM  

SevenizGud: Smidge204: SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.

You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.


So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=

What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.

You pretend that I don't know what's going on? Gotcha. You pretend that I am misrepresenting the situation, when I point out that Briffa deleting data is nothing to the warmers, and not a lie of omission? Gotcha!! I am asserting what's false when I assert that deleting data is deleting data? Gotcha!!!!!!eleventy!!

Take your imagined victories and ram them up your snout.



Trying to change the subject (and throwing a childish tantrum) doesn't somehow invalidate the basic question that Smidge204 posed, and that you seem unwilling or unable to answer. Again, why just you choose just 15 years?

You can relate this question to what I pointed out to you before (and that we really didn't get to the bottom of) - according to your own flawed argument, it is currently warming:

www.woodfortrees.org

Put explicitly, if you're willing to just look at 15 years, why not look at just 5 years, then?
 
2012-06-11 01:00:43 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Again, why just did you choose just 15 years?


That makes more sense.
 
2012-06-11 01:02:27 PM  
Okay, nobody picked up on the second idiocy. The first part of the thread title is "New Supercomputer will study climate change. . .". Really? It's going to do what? Take readings? Launch radiosondes?

The computer will NOT study climate change. It will run models faster. Yeah, the same models whose predictions have THREE TIMES the error allowed by the error bars. The same models whose predictions have nearly two orders of magnitude more error than the null hypothesis. Today, people tend to conflate running models with doing science. The only science involved in models is when their predictions are compared against the real world. When that is done in climatology, it is clear that the basic ideas built into the models are incorrect.

What they need to do is FIX THE MODELS, as has been PROVED (mathematically, of course) by Miskolczi HERE. If the basic hypotheses behind climate "science" are wrong -- and they are -- a faster computer won't help much. It doesn't really matter how fast one makes mistakes -- the models STILL will not predict correctly until the politics is taken out of the science.

Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling. Data are now compared to model output, and, on occasion, the data have been declared wrong because they do not match the predictions of the models. That is not science.
 
2012-06-11 01:47:35 PM  
Zafler:
I normally don't bother with the green text thread shiatter, but hey why not:

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene" or a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day... It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter.

Oh, and hey, the wikipedia article that graph is taken from notes that it is only "quasi-global".

But hey, good job, he started trying to push a new line for dismissing the theory that has literally thousands of supporting data points.

Hey, look, it's another of the anti-science crew, here to tell us that science is done by running models with the hypothesis under test built in, and the data collected are adjusted to fit the model output, and that science is done by polling scientists who make their living generating panic from the conclusions they "science up." Next up: a science Pope to stamp out heresy.

WTF does "quasi-global" even mean? Probably that when Michael Mann's fraud is averaged into the mix, it's not certain that the MWP existed. Leaving the fraud out, though, makes it clear.

If one also leaves out the tree-ring data, since tree ring data is NOT a suitable proxy for temperature, the picture is even clearer. And, here are the last two thousand years from global temperature proxy data sets:


junksciencearchive.com
Loehle, 2008



Note that this is a random selection from various global data sets. Also note that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" reconstruction fails without Keith Briffa's bristlecone pine series -- and also fails if that series is not given extra weight.

An extensive analysis of Michael Mann's fraud, or, perhaps, total incompetence, which became part of the IPCC's 2001 report, is HERE. It includes links and references to all applicable documents, hearings, etc.
 
2012-06-11 01:57:25 PM  

GeneralJim: it's another of the anti-science crew,


LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.
 
2012-06-11 02:06:34 PM  
Zafler:
These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter.

This is typical of the warmer alarmist bullshiat line. Allow me to point out some problems...

First, note the weasel words "should have been." Also note that they are "predicting the past." I could become a "medium" and predict the past... I'd have a stellar record. But, lost in all of this is that we freaking HAVE the record, shown in my previous post, of temperatures from that time. No need to predict the temperature when you have a proxy record. Yet another case where data are given less weight than hypotheses; this is bad science.

Second, note that "warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter" phrase. It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends, doesn't pick up trends which occur during periods in which a tree is not growing -- at night, and during the winter, for two examples. Other proxies don't depend upon such timing issues. Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

And, if you take your readings from a single grove of trees, a herd of animals changing migration patterns and taking more dumps in that grove, thus fertilizing it, will also drastically change the growth of trees. Ironically, the trees ALSO grow faster with more carbon dioxide, which is a seriously complicating factor if you are using the trees to measure the secondary effects of carbon dioxide, and one of the primary effects is to increase the growth. In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.
 
2012-06-11 02:40:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.


It's all in the Urantia Book, man. You just don't KNOW.
 
2012-06-11 02:50:04 PM  

deadcrickets: SevenizGud:
Not familiar with the Industrial Revolution are you? Taking a look at the graphs I can tell exactly where World War 1 and World War 2 occurred as temperatures dropped temporarily. That, alone, should tell you that human influences are there.


Right. The temperature which dropped in 1945...for 30 years. During those same 30 years, we started burning petroleum. How did burning all that petroleum cause no warming for 30 years, then cause 30 years of warming?

/waits for the aerosol magic word
 
2012-06-11 03:50:20 PM  
++ CRAWLING IN MY SKIN ++
*click click click*
++ THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL ++

/Here I was, expecting a perfectly nice emo computers thread, and instead I get some dude in my Fark deathpool yelling out "Weeaboo!"
 
2012-06-11 05:43:38 PM  

SevenizGud: What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.


I have 100 years of direct temperature measurement.

I have 5,000 years of tree rings.

I look at these two, and notice a strong correlation between tree ring thickness and temperature.

I can now use tree rings as a proxy for temperature, and with that I can estimate temperatures farther back than I have actual records for.

But I see that tree rings and temperatures only correlate well for years 1 through 80 of my direct temperature measurements. During The last 20 years - the most recent - the correlation begins to weaken.

Now I'm concerned, because if the correlation isn't valid I can't use my proxy data. So I search more data on anything that could affect tree growth other than temperature. I know the temperature is right (I have direct measurements) so I should find other factors.

Eureka! I find a whole host of things that affect tree growth! I can now show that these external factors are interfering with my data, and to what extent they interfere historically. I can now justifiably discard the data that is known to have significant, non-temperature-related influences.

I don't just delete data. I have to justify why I am not including that data.

You know, exactly how you don't justify using data from only the past 15 years.
=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 07:46:03 PM  
img.photobucket.com

I don't care about all your fancy-dancey graphs. This simple pie chart explains how if the sea level rises, we're all screwed.
 
2012-06-11 09:37:44 PM  

SevenizGud: No lies of omission there, nosireebob.


Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.
 
2012-06-11 09:50:49 PM  
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al. - you guys really make these threads fun and informative. Thanks for that.
 
2012-06-12 12:07:11 AM  

GeneralJim: Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling... That is not science.


The world according to Bevets...er, GeneralJim: Testing scientific models is not science, but consulting religious texts is good science. In fact, science is only beginning to catch up to religion.
 
2012-06-12 12:12:00 AM  
asecondhandconjecture.com
 
2012-06-12 12:17:38 AM  

GeneralJim: Allow me to point out some problems...


Then allow me to retort...

GeneralJim: First, note the weasel words "should have been."


These are not weasel words. It's a statement of what should be according to a particular model, in the same way that the average American male should be 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

Second, hilariously enough, while calling out weasel words, you crop the context to make it appear here that they're referring to anything other than "should have been warmer in the summer AND colder in the winter"

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: Also note that they are "predicting the past."


No, they are not. They are predicting results of a calculation from a given set of variables. Calculations flow from the present and the results will be generated in the future, once the calculations are completed. All scientific hypotheses work this way; when they model the Universe and extrapolate back to the Big Bang, it is not "junk science" because they're "predicting the past".

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: I could become a "medium" and predict the past... I'd have a stellar record.


You have a tenuous at best grasp on the present. You've also made statements about threads that have happened in the past that have zero relation to reality, including straight-up lying about the contents of easily quoted posts.

GeneralJim: But, lost in all of this is that we freaking HAVE the record, shown in my previous post, of temperatures from that time. No need to predict the temperature when you have a proxy record.


Demonstrating succinctly that you did not read the article that was posted, and linked to, because you are an idiot, otherwise you would have seen these words:

The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures.

And know that, of course, "the paleoclimatic data" is from the very proxy record you whine about here.

Because you don't understand how to read and vet sources and how to properly construct a reply to those sources, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: Second, note that "warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter" phrase. It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends, doesn't pick up trends which occur during periods in which a tree is not growing -- at night, and during the winter, for two examples. Other proxies don't depend upon such timing issues. Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

And, if you take your readings from a single grove of trees, a herd of animals changing migration patterns and taking more dumps in that grove, thus fertilizing it, will also drastically change the growth of trees. Ironically, the trees ALSO grow faster with more carbon dioxide, which is a seriously complicating factor if you are using the trees to measure the secondary effects of carbon dioxide, and one of the primary effects is to increase the growth. In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.


The only thing noteworthy here is that this only reinforces the fact that you are functionally illiterate. At no point was tree ring data mentioned in either the post you are responding to or the article it linked. Not once. Just more blather from you with your pathetic canned arguments, trotting out things you think you understand (but don't) as a counterpoint to things you haven't bothered reading.

It's a pure knee-jerk reaction, to post two paragraphs that address literally nothing, and it's so transparent as to be utterly hilarious.

You don't understand you're even doing this, because you're insane.
 
2012-06-12 12:32:47 AM  

GeneralJim: Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

...

In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.


Just noticed this doozy too. We'll set aside the fact that Jim spent two paragraphs rambling about trees to respond to a post that didn't mention trees that linked to an article that didn't mention trees.

DENDROCLIMATOLOGY RELIES PRIMARILY ON MAXIMUM LATEWOOD DENSITY AS ITS STRONG PROXY, NOT RING WIDTH, YOU GOD DAMNED MORON.

As for...

GeneralJim: It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends...


Briffa's method:

Tree-Ring Density Reconstructions of Summer Temperature Patterns across Western North America since 1600

Summer Temperature Patterns over Europe: A Reconstruction from 1750 A.D. Based on Maximum Latewood Density Indices of Conifers


GENERALJIM THINKS DENDROCLIMATOLOGY IS BASED SOLELY ON TREE RING WIDTH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MXD IS KNOWN AND USED AS A SUPERIOR PROXY. HE WILL SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE QUALIFIED TO SECOND GUESS SCIENCE THAT NOT ONLY DOES HE CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTAND, BUT SCIENCE BASED ON MEASURING THINGS HE ISN'T EVEN AWARE ARE BEING MEASURED.

I can just predict his follow-up now:

I clearly said tree-ring data, you big stupid, so I obviously knew about MXD, even though I gave no indication of it and bracketed my discussion of it by only blathering about tree-ring width, giving clear contextual evidence that "tree-ring data" referred to that

...before promptly incorporating this new-found information into his distorted world view and claiming that nobody understands it but him, thread shiatting rambling nonsense about it.
 
2012-06-12 05:08:47 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The above is based on false information. You know the bit in bold is completely false, and the reason why you see many graphs starting in the "1850-1880 range" is that this is when the 'global' instrumental record begins. No need to construct some sort of conspiracy.

You lying sack. You said before that the reason that charts pretty much all start in 1850-1880 is that ONLY that view gives a perspective on what AGW has wrought.

So, which is it? Do charts start then because "global" (yeah, right) records start then, or because that is the only place to start when looking for AGW effects?
 
2012-06-12 05:22:11 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Actually, what you've said here isn't that bad. The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

That is simply bullshiat. Well, let me back off on that a bit... UNLESS you are specifically looking for a way to blame ANYTHING that happens on, in this case, AGW, that is simply bullshiat.

In order to see what AGW is doing, you would ideally look at the exact same time frame, with and without AGW, so you could compare. Due to a lack of proper planning, we do not have a "control planet" to help with actual experiments. But, we make do as best we can. When some clown says "OMG! Temperatures have NEVER risen this fast before!" We can point to records from BEFORE mankind started releasing carbon dioxide and say, well, look here, at about 1694 to 1708, temperatures rose a LOT faster than they have any time since... unless, of course, the asshat only has graphs that start in 1880.

So, if the best method to see what AGW does is to compare times with our carbon dioxide to times without it, of just what benefit is looking ONLY at times where we are releasing carbon dioxide? I mean, other than it being easier to blame EVERYTHING that happens in climate on AGW?
 
2012-06-12 05:46:11 AM  
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: it's another of the anti-science crew,

LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.

You are a lying jackass. I get no pay from anyone for posting. And, you stupid git, don't you know that the oil companies SUPPORT the current proposals for draconian measures such as "cap and tax" because, well, THEIR LAWYERS WROTE THEM?

The oil companies rip the balls off the environmentalists every time they face off. The oil companies are simply smarter to start with, and they hire even smarter people to handle campaigns, and then they LISTEN to them. While the useless idiots in the environmental movement are singing Kumbaya, and organizing protests, oil company lawyers are "assisting" those writing the legislation, and making sure that it doesn't hurt the oil companies.

As always, they succeeded this time, as well. Under the plans under discussion at the U.N., oil company profits will be maximized, and carried on for a much longer time. In case you haven't noticed, you brain-dead prat, the oil companies are not fighting the U.N. in the tiniest bit. They WANT the legislation. And they got the stupid greenies, like yourself, to collect the money, and do their work for them. And, this is NOT the first time.


failblog.wordpress.com
At least THIS child isn't paying the elephant to crap on him.
The greenies are paying to do the oil companies' bidding.

 
2012-06-12 05:50:49 AM  
Smidge204:
I have 100 years of direct temperature measurement.

I have 5,000 years of tree rings.

I look at these two, and notice a strong correlation between tree ring thickness and temperature.

Conclusion: You're farking blind. Tree rings SUCK as temperature proxies. See above.
 
2012-06-12 05:56:54 AM  
Smidge204:
But I see that tree rings and temperatures only correlate well for years 1 through 80 of my direct temperature measurements. During The last 20 years - the most recent - the correlation begins to weaken.

Now I'm concerned, because if the correlation isn't valid I can't use my proxy data. So I search more data on anything that could affect tree growth other than temperature. I know the temperature is right (I have direct measurements) so I should find other factors.

Eureka! I find a whole host of things that affect tree growth! I can now show that these external factors are interfering with my data, and to what extent they interfere historically. I can now justifiably discard the data that is known to have significant, non-temperature-related influences.

I don't just delete data. I have to justify why I am not including that data.

Thanks for the intro to prissy gay science.

If you are doing a compilation piece, you are perfectly entitled to only use data sets you find useful and robust. It would be perfectly reasonable to discard tree-ring temperature proxies, because they simply suck. That's what Loehle did in 2007, updated in 2008. Non-tree ring data only. Good stuff... see it above.
 
2012-06-12 06:00:58 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
SevenizGud: No lies of omission there, nosireebob.

Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.

Yes, death to all heretics and infidels. That's how science works. Poison and daggers until your team wins by attrition.

/ Was that Einstein who said that?
 
2012-06-12 06:03:54 AM  
Repo Man:
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al. - you guys really make these threads fun and informative. Thanks for that.

scm-l3.technorati.com
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al.

 
2012-06-12 06:09:06 AM  
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
GeneralJim: Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling... That is not science.

The world according to Bevets...er, GeneralJim: Testing scientific models is not science, but consulting religious texts is good science. In fact, science is only beginning to catch up to religion.

Show me ONE time where I used anything religious as a scientific argument; I never have.

You're the only shiatstain around here doing that -- although the ad hom isn't a VALID scientific argument, you're still trying to win a scientific argument with religion. Farking loser. And you're a nasty little loser, too.

But, even with the unpleasantness and toxicity of your personality, that is NOT reason to reject your scientific arguments. The fact that your arguments SUCK is why they should be rejected.
 
2012-06-12 06:12:27 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

Really? You know what everyone else is thinking, don't you, you delusional little psychopath?
 
2012-06-12 06:16:37 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Second, hilariously enough, while calling out weasel words, you crop the context to make it appear here that they're referring to anything other than "should have been warmer in the summer AND colder in the winter"

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

Wrong again, dumbass. I didn't crop it, and I wasn't talking about that, other than as an intro into yet-more-crap-wrong-with-tree-ring-proxies. Nice multiple fail, loser.
 
2012-06-12 06:26:15 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: Also note that they are "predicting the past."

No, they are not. They are predicting results of a calculation from a given set of variables. Calculations flow from the present and the results will be generated in the future, once the calculations are completed. All scientific hypotheses work this way; when they model the Universe and extrapolate back to the Big Bang, it is not "junk science" because they're "predicting the past".

Okay, dumbass, since you, "hilariously enough" griped about me clipping text when I didn't, I guess you're tying to "make up for it" by clipping text vital to the conversation. Here's what Zaftig said: "These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter."

That is PRECISELY predicting the past. He even uses the freaking word "predict" about temperatures thousands of years ago. Are you just too farking stupid to be allowed outside without your helmet, or are you dumb enough to think you can lie about what's just up-thread, and get away with it?
 
2012-06-12 06:37:01 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Demonstrating succinctly that you did not read the article that was posted, and linked to, because you are an idiot, otherwise you would have seen these words:

The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures.

Damn. You manage to pack more fail into a single sentence than most people can collect all day.

First, dumbass, do you REALLY think that someone who doesn't read every post and article linked to is "an idiot?" Really? How about if I post a list of twenty links which link to multi-hundred page studies, and a novel or two? Will you read every one of those linked studies and novels, every word? If so, I would say that proves that YOU are the idiot in the room.

And, what you quote, assuming you are not lying in the quote (and I'm not going to bother to check it), the quote itself is a lie, or at minimum, grossly misinformed. I posted it above, the Lohele study. THAT shows precisely that temperatures were higher thousands of years ago... and in the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. Of course, if you only accept the easily proven fraud, Michael Mann's work, or the study of Keith "One Tree" Briffa, those two sources will back up your ideas -- fraudulently. But those are the only ones.

To increase the accuracy of the statement, change "there is no evidence that" to "almost all the evidence indicates that". It's that bad.
 
2012-06-12 06:41:59 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
The only thing noteworthy here is that this only reinforces the fact that you are functionally illiterate. At no point was tree ring data mentioned in either the post you are responding to or the article it linked.

It is clear that YOU are too stupid to think on your own, and must therefore deal only with what is in a reference. It is also clear that if someone mentions a topic not in the reference, that it frightens and confuses you. But the fact that YOU cannot do these things does NOT mean that other people share your (rather severe) limitations.
 
2012-06-12 06:48:52 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You don't understand you're even doing this, because you're insane.

You must have some sort of robo-fail device, because the frequency and amplitude of your fails are both so high that their like has not been seen in human history.

So, let me see if I have this right. You are reading my mind, and know what I understand, and, while you're there, you diagnose me as insane. Isn't that just a tad heavy on the irony? I mean, I only mention this because I'm reasonably certain your behavior here is listed in the DSM.

/ For bonus points, look it up, and self-diagnose!
 
2012-06-12 07:00:13 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
DENDROCLIMATOLOGY RELIES PRIMARILY ON MAXIMUM LATEWOOD DENSITY AS ITS STRONG PROXY, NOT RING WIDTH, YOU GOD DAMNED MORON.

Despite your all-caps raeg, and the near-certain spittle on your screen, NO aspect of tree-rings makes them suitable as a proxy for temperature.

i45.tinypic.com

 
2012-06-12 07:06:17 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GENERALJIM THINKS DENDROCLIMATOLOGY IS BASED SOLELY ON TREE RING WIDTH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MXD IS KNOWN AND USED AS A SUPERIOR PROXY. HE WILL SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE QUALIFIED TO SECOND GUESS SCIENCE THAT NOT ONLY DOES HE CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTAND, BUT SCIENCE BASED ON MEASURING THINGS HE ISN'T EVEN AWARE ARE BEING MEASURED.

Oh, please. You're the snotrag who said that isotope studies proved the link between temperature and carbon dioxide. Now THAT'S not understanding the basics.

And, I say again, your claims to be a mind reader are NOT mentally healthy. Your claims that you know what I think are only further reasons to go get yourself checked out, and possibly institutionalized. While you're there, would you knit me some pot-holders?
 
2012-06-12 07:12:32 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
I can just predict his follow-up now:

I clearly said tree-ring data, you big stupid, so I obviously knew about MXD, even though I gave no indication of it and bracketed my discussion of it by only blathering about tree-ring width, giving clear contextual evidence that "tree-ring data" referred to that

...before promptly incorporating this new-found information into his distorted world view and claiming that nobody understands it but him, thread shiatting rambling nonsense about it.

Well, at least you're consistent. Your clairvoyance sucks just as badly as your mind-reading.

And, let's be reasonable here... With all this crap about how you can read my mind, and only you know what I'm REALLY thinking... I'd say it is YOU who is threadshiatting here. What do your delusional fantasies have to do with climate in the first place, or supercomputers, or, well, ANYTHING other than your fragile mental health?
 
2012-06-12 11:51:29 AM  

Smidge204: I don't just delete data. I have to justify rationalize why I am not including that data.


FTFY
 
2012-06-12 11:56:30 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.


Oh, so when the climate "scientists" do it, it is fine. But if someone who has NOT drunk the kool-ade does EXACTLY what they are doing, then they deserve to die.

Nothing says 'scientific' like sponsored double-standards and affirmed bias, amirite?
 
2012-06-12 12:01:33 PM  

SevenizGud: But if someone who has NOT drunk the kool-ade does EXACTLY what they are doing, then they deserve to die.


So you admit to lying. Finally some truth out of you.
 
2012-06-12 01:51:13 PM  

SevenizGud: Dr. Mojo PhD: Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.

Oh, so when the climate "scientists" do it, it is fine. But if someone who has NOT drunk the kool-ade does EXACTLY what they are doing, then they deserve to die.


No. Liars deserve to be corrected, and by that correction be shamed. Hypocrites deserve to die.
 
2012-06-12 01:53:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The above is based on false information. You know the bit in bold is completely false, and the reason why you see many graphs starting in the "1850-1880 range" is that this is when the 'global' instrumental record begins. No need to construct some sort of conspiracy.
You lying sack. You said before that the reason that charts pretty much all start in 1850-1880 is that ONLY that view gives a perspective on what AGW has wrought.

So, which is it? Do charts start then because "global" (yeah, right) records start then, or because that is the only place to start when looking for AGW effects?



The former. Again, there's no need for you to construct some sort of conspiracy theory when the real reason behind it is so mundane. In addition,I'll repeat that you know the following not to be true, but you stated it anyway:

GeneralJim: There's a REASON that warmer alarmists only use data starting somewhere in the 1850-1880 range.


Are you going to seriously claim that reconstructions such as the 'Hockey Stick' do not exist?
 
2012-06-12 02:07:02 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Actually, what you've said here isn't that bad. The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.
That is simply bullshiat. Well, let me back off on that a bit... UNLESS you are specifically looking for a way to blame ANYTHING that happens on, in this case, AGW, that is simply bullshiat.

In order to see what AGW is doing, you would ideally look at the exact same time frame, with and without AGW, so you could compare. Due to a lack of proper planning, we do not have a "control planet" to help with actual experiments. But, we make do as best we can. When some clown says "OMG! Temperatures have NEVER risen this fast before!" We can point to records from BEFORE mankind started releasing carbon dioxide and say, well, look here, at about 1694 to 1708, temperatures rose a LOT faster than they have any time since... unless, of course, the asshat only has graphs that start in 1880.

So, if the best method to see what AGW does is to compare times with our carbon dioxide to times without it, of just what benefit is looking ONLY at times where we are releasing carbon dioxide? I mean, other than it being easier to blame EVERYTHING that happens in climate on AGW?



Calm down a second. We're actually fairly close to agreement here. First, what you're saying does not contradict what I've said:

Damnhippyfreak: The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.
[...]
It becomes much more of a problem if you attempt to make inferences solely based on scales other than which the phenomenon occurs, which is something you and the person I'm responding to have a tendency to do.



You do recognize that looking at a time frame that is comparable to the phenomenon we're interested is of primary importance ("you would ideally look at the exact same time frame"), while noting that other time frames can be informative. What I'm cautioning against is using just one of these less useful scales exclusively, which is exactly what the person I was responding was attempting to do (and something you tend to do as well).

That aside, keep in mind that characterizing study of climate change as "looking ONLY at times where we are releasing carbon dioxide" is completely misguided. Again, you're hopefully not about to claim that reconstructions pre-dating increases in anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide don'e exist. In addition, even just the instrumental record is not really problematic in this regard as atmospheric concentration of CO2 vastly increased over that period - "releasing carbon dioxide" is of course not an all-or-nothing thing.
 
2012-06-12 02:11:17 PM  

SevenizGud: Smidge204: I don't just delete data. I have to justify rationalize why I am not including that data.

FTFY


Which is something that you've failed to do, even after being asked directly about it numerous times. Again, why do you include only 15 years (and by extension not only look at five)?
 
2012-06-12 02:19:31 PM  

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: These are not weasel words. It's a statement of what should be according to a particular model, in the same way that the average American male should be 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

Second, hilariously enough, while calling out weasel words, you crop the context to make it appear here that they're referring to anything other than "should have been warmer in the summer AND colder in the winter"

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

Really? You know what everyone else is thinking, don't you, you delusional little psychopath?


I know what you're thinking, because when you restore context to the argument (which you continually seek to suppress), you make explicit statements. You think the words "should be" are weasel words. They are not.

Tell me Jim, what leads you to believe those are weasel words? Do you know what other people are thinking? Do you know that the writer for NOAA was trying to weasel out of something, you delusional little psychopath?

Jim's pathetic attempt at sleight of hand coupled with projection and reaction formation strikes again! He ascribes motives to NOAA text with "weasel word" accusations, then when somebody points out he's off the rails, claims that the person who pointed this out is trying to read his mind! Sad.

GeneralJim: Wrong again, dumbass. I didn't crop it, and I wasn't talking about that, other than as an intro into yet-more-crap-wrong-with-tree-ring-proxies. Nice multiple fail, loser.


Well actually you did crop it. It's not optional, it's a thing you did, just like you're doing in your replies to me here (10 replies to 2 posts, LMFAO, totally not psycho or anything). You were also COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT TREE RING PROXIES AND UNDERSTANDING WIDTH VS. MXD, as was demonstrated, so nice multiple fail, loser.

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD:
No, they are not. They are predicting results of a calculation from a given set of variables. Calculations flow from the present and the results will be generated in the future, once the calculations are completed. All scientific hypotheses work this way; when they model the Universe and extrapolate back to the Big Bang, it is not "junk science" because they're "predicting the past".

Okay, dumbass, since you, "hilariously enough" griped about me clipping text when I didn't, I guess you're tying to "make up for it" by clipping text vital to the conversation. Here's what Zaftig said: "These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter."

That is PRECISELY predicting the past. He even uses the freaking word "predict" about temperatures thousands of years ago. Are you just too farking stupid to be allowed outside without your helmet, or are you dumb enough to think you can lie about what's just up-thread, and get away with it?


That is not predicting the past, as the underlined portion 100% educated you about and informed you of (you just haven't reconciled that fact with your world-view yet).

As an analogy (because I know these always make you rage uncontrollably): If I say that GeneralJim is a lunatic and has been committed to Bellevue psychiatric (probably not true, but should be), and then I say if I'm telling the truth, there should be records there of it, this is not predicting that in the past, you were committed for psych evaluation. It is predicting the future that, if the past happened as I say it did, the results -- which would be found some time after I make my statement, a/k/a "the future" -- we will find those records.

Rage on.

GeneralJim: First, dumbass, do you REALLY think that someone who doesn't read every post and article linked to is "an idiot?" Really? How about if I post a list of twenty links which link to multi-hundred page studies, and a novel or two? Will you read every one of those linked studies and novels, every word? If so, I would say that proves that YOU are the idiot in the room.

And, what you quote, assuming you are not lying in the quote (and I'm not going to bother to check it)


I'll take that as an admission that no, you in fact did not read it.

Here's the difference between us, though, Jim, and it's a distinct difference.

If somebody posts twenty links to multi-hundred page studies and a novel or two, and I don't read them, I do not then subsequently make rambling replies to those posts, directly quoting them to leave no doubt what I'm replying to, and attempting to argue them, even though I have no farking clue what they said and my argument in no way relates to what I'm replying to.

I hope that helps you understand why you're a crazy lunatic and have no idea how sane people operate.

GeneralJim: So, let me see if I have this right. You are reading my mind, and know what I understand, and, while you're there, you diagnose me as insane. Isn't that just a tad heavy on the irony? I mean, I only mention this because I'm reasonably certain your behavior here is listed in the DSM.


You're the one that rambles about mind reading all the time as a very bizarre fixation. That's not sane, Jim.
You're the one who believes reading your words constitutes reading your mind. That's not sane, Jim.
You're the one who throws out conflicting evidence to suit your world view (such as the fact that I accurately called that you did not read the article Zafler linked, which you admitted to, which would lead a sane person to understand I am observing your patterns of behaviour and reading your reactions, not that I believe I have magical powers). That's not sane, Jim.
You're the one who ascribes motivations to people, Jim, such as your accusation that an article (which you admit you didn't read) was using "weasel words". How could you know what they were weaseling out of it, if you didn't read the article, Jim? That's not sane, Jim.
You mirror people's behaviour constantly, Jim. Your reliance on things like the DSM-IV (I notice you aren't familiar enough with it to designate which iteration of the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual you're referring to) is something that you picked up from me and my frequent references to it in regards to you. That's not sane, Jim.

Sane people don't do those things, Jim. You are crazy. You demonstrably have a mental disorder.

GeneralJim: Despite your all-caps raeg, and the near-certain spittle on your screen, NO aspect of tree-rings makes them suitable as a proxy for temperature.


No rage, Jim, just highlighting it and making it as large as possible to freak you out. Unsurprisingly, your response is pure evasion. You can't explain why you farked up. You can't explain why you made constant references to tree-ring width and are not aware of the fact that MXD is used as a stronger proxy. You just seek to avoid it by sniffling and declaring, well, none of it is suitable.

What none of it is suitable, Jim? The part of it that up until you replied to my post you weren't even aware was a proxy? If you knew, or now claim to know, that none of it is suitable, why didn't you make references to the unsuitability before? Why did you explicitly refer to tree-ring width multiple times, making your argument weak and error filled, when you could have made the argument you claim to be aware of now in the first place and had a stronger argument?

Why Jim? Why would a person who touts himself as rational and vested in as strong arguments as you are do something so clearly moronic as to explicit identify only the weakest tree proxy possible and ramble about that? Why would that person do that in response to a post quoting an article that had nothing to do with dendroclimatology or mentioned trees in any way?

Will you account for such an obvious error? Of course not, you're Jim! You're demonstrably insane.
 
2012-06-12 02:20:40 PM  

GeneralJim: Smidge204:
But I see that tree rings and temperatures only correlate well for years 1 through 80 of my direct temperature measurements. During The last 20 years - the most recent - the correlation begins to weaken.

Now I'm concerned, because if the correlation isn't valid I can't use my proxy data. So I search more data on anything that could affect tree growth other than temperature. I know the temperature is right (I have direct measurements) so I should find other factors.

Eureka! I find a whole host of things that affect tree growth! I can now show that these external factors are interfering with my data, and to what extent they interfere historically. I can now justifiably discard the data that is known to have significant, non-temperature-related influences.

I don't just delete data. I have to justify why I am not including that data.

Thanks for the intro to prissy gay science.

If you are doing a compilation piece, you are perfectly entitled to only use data sets you find useful and robust. It would be perfectly reasonable to discard tree-ring temperature proxies, because they simply suck. That's what Loehle did in 2007, updated in 2008. Non-tree ring data only. Good stuff... see it above.



Careful here. Contrary to your claim, Loehle did, in fact, use tree-ring data:

"China composite (Yang et al., 2002) which does use tree ring width for two out of the eight series that are averaged to get the composite"

I'm fairly certain this has been pointed out to you before. There's no need to make false claims.
 
2012-06-12 02:50:20 PM  

GeneralJim: Show me ONE time where I used anything religious as a scientific argument; I never have.


Click the link in the post you quoted.

GeneralJim: ad hom isn't a VALID scientific argument ... Farking loser ... And you're a nasty little loser, too ... with the unpleasantness and toxicity of your personality ... your arguments SUCK...


Do posts where you work in painfully obvious irony pay extra?
 
2012-06-12 02:51:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Again, there's no need for you to construct some sort of conspiracy theory when the real reason behind it is so mundane.


No need that you (or any sane person) can fathom, anyway. Did I ever share what growing up with somebody with Borderline Personality Disorder was like? It was intriguing. Here's an example situation. This actually happened.

My mother was fond of a certain musical and, back in the days of VHS, owned a copy of it. One day that tape went missing. She (a woman in her early fifties), raged and threw a fit about it for hours. She came to me and began accusing my friends of stealing her VHS movie musical. "They" "stole" nothing else. Just a VHS tape of a musical that nobody in my generation would like. She raged and demanded I "punish" them on her capricious whims. Months this went on. She even went and replaced the tape, which is fine.

Then, one day, she found it. She hadn't put it away properly, and it had fallen behind the drawers, instead of going into the drawer properly. She informed me so casually. I asked her if she was going to apologize for the false accusations and the deranged demands that I punish people for something that never happened. "No, I was right, because..."

Because nothing, of course. She wasn't right. She had said something contra-factual to reality and, had I followed through on her insane punitive demands, would have kicked somebody out of my life based on her fantasy. She refused to take responsibility or admit an error because, of course, she was crazy.

And you think "well that's pretty nuts," and it is, but it isn't the point of the story.

She was a woman in her early fifties, true, but she had the cognitive and emotional responses of a four-year-old. It leads to an adult who can't cope with the world around them the way a normal adult copes.

Even then, when the explanation was "so mundane", as you put it, the need for a conspiracy was there. Her fragile sense of self-worth depended on it. Her constant sense of victimization (this is how borderlines illicit sympathy and feel self-worth; by portraying themselves, through any means necessary, as the victims). This is what makes it easy to recognize Jim for what he is. A psych degree is useful, I'll admit, but 25 years of personal experience dealing with this exact behaviour is invaluably more so.

The childish behaviour. The fixation on certain talismans or fetishes (with Jim it's "mind reading") as a defence mechanism. The emotional spirals. The constant projection. The constant efforts to adapt new information into one's world view without a previous admission error. The constant deranged attacks on others to validate sense of self-worth and minimize the perception of ego-loss. Even the elaborate conspiracy theories he invented to explain how we're the same person, despite us bending over backwards to accommodate him. The constant mirroring behaviour of other people's personalities (borderlines are notorious for this -- think Single White Female -- but they're by no means the only ones who do this; Asperger's sufferers also engage in heavy mirroring, but Jim's other behaviour doesn't match Aspie behaviour; for example, Asperger's blow away anybody else in the "attention to detail" department, whereas Jim pays no attention to details, instead reverting to "familiar territory" for comfort, cf. the post where he blathers about tree rings in response to a NOAA article that mentions tree rings exactly zero times.)

So yes, there is a need for conspiracy theories despite a mundane explanation. It's a need that's demanded by his insanity. You can't even begin to fathom how his head works, and it's a need that only he is capable of feeling, but it demands that that need be fed nonetheless.
 
2012-06-12 02:58:58 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: ad hom isn't a VALID scientific argument ... Farking loser ... And you're a nasty little loser, too ... with the unpleasantness and toxicity of your personality ... your arguments SUCK...

Do posts where you work in painfully obvious irony pay extra?


He's insane. He doesn't realize he's doing it. To him it makes perfect sense to claim that you directly quoting him saying science needs to catch up to the Urantia Book is ad hominem fallacy (it's not, it might be ad hominem, but in this case an argument to the man is relevant as that man has explicitly stated in the past that ... well, that) and then proceeds to make multiple ad hominem fallacies (instead of refuting it with a carefully thought out reply about how you misconstrued his statement or failed to understand or parse an equally readable but stronger statement, instead just attacking you constantly).

Again, I know you know this, but I'm spelling it out very Jim so that he knows other people know this, because it is funny. He's insane, you understand. He doesn't see the contradictory nature in this that would cause a normal human being discomfiting cognitive dissonance; he deals with that anxiety the way he deals with all anxiety: MOAR RAGE.
 
2012-06-12 06:01:00 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: I'm fairly certain this has been pointed out to you before. There's no need to make false claims.


Everything has been pointed out to him before. He endlessly repeats the debunked talking points in hopes of slipping a few by the goalies.

It is this intellectual dishonesty that I find truly distasteful. I have no problem with someone having a different opinion ... especially if they have "evidence" to back it up. But when it is pointed out that this "evidence" is from blogs that completely mis-represent their primary sources, which is what he usually presents, it becomes intentional dishonesty to present them again in the very next thread.

Jim's technique of posting green walls of known lies is repugnant.
 
2012-06-13 05:07:31 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: I'll take that as an admission that no, you in fact did not read it.

Here's the difference between us, though, Jim, and it's a distinct difference.

If somebody posts twenty links to multi-hundred page studies and a novel or two, and I don't read them, I do not then subsequently make rambling replies to those posts, directly quoting them to leave no doubt what I'm replying to, and attempting to argue them, even though I have no farking clue what they said and my argument in no way relates to what I'm replying to.


On this subject, here's a link to Jim citing a certain report in support of his claims. Of course, upon reading that report and not a piss-poor precis of it I discovered that it did not actually support Jim's views and instead stated the opposite. Multi-thread discussions then took place, the end result being that Jim finally read the report, tried his own version of "weasel words" and finally did a 180 and stated that the body who wrote the report, whose credentials he had lauded previously, was actually incompetent and yet another shill and couldn't be trusted.
 
2012-06-13 04:31:20 PM  

GeneralJim: You're the snotrag who said that isotope studies proved the link between temperature and carbon dioxide. Now THAT'S not understanding the basics.


Huh. Somehow in Jim's wall of green thread shiatting, I missed this one. When did I say that, Jim? Is this real, or is it a product of your warped brain? What did I really say?
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report