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

(National Review)   PSU's other scandal: "He was the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation"   (nationalreview.com) divider line 429
    More: Interesting, PSU, Jerry Sandusky, Rand Simberg, climatologies, Michael Mann, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Graham Spanier, Unabomber  
•       •       •

3554 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-18 12:11:52 PM
Kome:
I would have gladly linked to a different set of a dozen or so scientific publications that you either won't read anything but the abstract of, won't read at all, or will just pretend I never posted.

Oh, please do.
 
2012-07-18 12:19:46 PM

GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it. Sometimes, when there is a lot of time, I will read it, but that doesn't have the same amusement value. Not only does he put lipstick on his pig, nobody dances with her at the cotillion. *SNERK*


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-18 12:21:36 PM
Kome:
So now you're saying that global warming is a good thing? And yet earlier you were saying that the evidence that the predictions made by global warming theory are inaccurate and never come true anyway. Which basically means you are now saying something that is directly contradicting your own words earlier in this thread.

No, this is failure to understand on your part. All true: Predictions made using AGW hypothesis have essentially all failed, most especially the alarmist ones. We are as cold now as we have EVER been, since the dawn of diversified land and ocean life. It got about this cold roughly 450 MYA, and around 300 MYA, and has been nowhere near this cold since then. Life is very flexible, but several K warmer would be better, historically. Not good for beachfront property, though.

And, no, dumbass, that is NOT contradictory. The planet is warming, most of it is not us, and that's a good thing. Don't believe your own bullshiat. That I think alarmists have WAY exaggerated the effects of carbon dioxide does NOT mean that temperatures never change. They always have and always will.
 
2012-07-18 12:29:58 PM
Kome:
Wait, so now the change is real but it's insignificant. Another contradiction in your position, this time in the very same post as what you're now contradicting.

Are you REALLY that stupid? I've been saying the same thing for literally years. I've used Miscolzi's mathematical calculation of 0.24 K to 1.10 K for carbon dixoxide doubling sensitivity. Now we have a measurement based strictly on observational data, with no model predictions being taken as reality, and the measurement shows 0.48 K to 1.10 K with 95% certainty. Miscolzi was pretty close, apparently. Your claiming inconsistency on my part is either monumental stupidity, or a bald-faced lie. Which is it?
 
2012-07-18 12:33:22 PM
Kome:
So, impress me. Show me something that actually links OBSERVED temperature data to carbon dioxide levels, and still looks scary. Note that this means that the output of models does NOT count. I'll wait.

I'd be impressed if you could maintain a logically coherent argument within a single post. You show me that, I'll post links to articles showing what it means to be opaque to solar radiation.

Oh, I get it. This making up crap about me "changing" a position I've held for years is your way of weaseling out of producing data. It didn't work, however. But, if you can't produce them, you can't.
 
2012-07-18 12:45:10 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: "Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith."
Most of the warming we have seen is of natural causes. Blaming it all on mankind is bullshiat.


Nope, sorry chief, "CO2 is not causing global warming" directly contradicts this statement:

GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.

If you're going to lie, at least pick one and stick with it. They're mutually contradictory statements. CO2 either is or is not causing global warming.

First, some time ago, you claimed CO2 wasn't causing warming. In this thread, you're saying that claiming you think CO2 doesn't cause global warming is a straw man, because you don't believe that. Except you're on record stating that that's your belief.

Again, seriously, that's pathological lying. It's pathological, Jim. No person looks at two mutually contradictory statements they made, and then tells the person who sees them as mutually contradictory that they are that they're stupid. It's pathological. You're a pathological liar.

Again, your stupidity and inability to grasp moderately complex topics is not proof that I am lying. Ironically, your statements here are closer to lies than mine.

1. "Dangerous warming" is simply not happening.
2. An incredibly tiny bit of warming is from man-made carbon dioxide -- little enough that it can be ignored.
3. Most of the warming since 1850 would have happened even if man had never evolved.
4. AGW is incorrect, especially that bit about needing to do something about it.
5. And greenhouses don't "insulate" the heat in -- and neither do GHGs, BTW.
6. Dumbass.
 
2012-07-18 12:54:56 PM
Kome:
Are you seriously just getting around to posting responses to things that happened almost 22 hours ago? Are you just taking that long to browse the web to find the appropriate talking point rebuttals or do the nice folks in white coats only let you use the computer at certain times and you just have to respond to things when you can?

Oh, this retard line again... No, I don't sit at the computer all day, waiting to respond to you. Dumbass. I actually have things I have to do -- better things, some of them. Yes, I have been a bit busy. Some days I don't go to Fark at all. Do you have some dumbass thing you think this proves, or are you just going to ask dumbass questions about it? Dumbass.

Oh, and fark your control-freak obsessive behavior. You know, if I don't want to sign on to Fark for a week, I won't. And then, if I want to stay on for 24 hours at a time, posting furiously, I'll do that, too. You don't, and WON'T, control my posting behavior on Fark, or anywhere else. In addition to it being none of your damned business, it really does not seem mentally healthy that you are so nitpickingly concerned with the timing of my posting. Is your life REALLY that pathetic that you not only sit on Fark 24/7, but expect others to do the same, and monitor their posting to see if it fits in your guidelines?
 
2012-07-18 01:01:00 PM
Kome:
Anyway, dude, you posted 6 times in the span of 1 hour and you were the only one talking. From 2012-07-17 03:15:54 AM, 2012-07-17 03:50:51 AM, 2012-07-17 03:54:11 AM, 2012-07-17 04:01:03 AM, 2012-07-17 04:10:14 AM, and 2012-07-17 04:17:48 AM you were the only one talking.

Seriously... does this seem healthy to you?

And, what is so goddam hard to understand? If I haven't been on a thread that interests me for a while, I start where I left off, and move forward, commenting when I feel like it. I do NOT check to see if others are posting -- it doesn't matter, as far as I can see. So, what is your obsession with it? Are you trying to get the last word? Do you see a benefit to posting immediately after someone else? WTF is wrong with you, anyway?
 
2012-07-18 01:08:15 PM
Kome:
Anyway, how do you account for a Koch brothers funded study, led by a global warming skeptic concluding that global warming is really happening that human activity is one cause of it? Like I said in way earlier in the thread: Research group put together by climate change skeptic publishes a study funded by the Koch brothers and concluded climate change is real.

How do YOU account for it? I mean, it certainly UTTERLY blows away the tin-hat contingent's claim that the Koch brothers are corrupting the process, doesn't it? I know you guys all LOVE the Koch...

And, what happened is clear. He makes claims that are not justified by the data. Simply put, he lies about it, and is called out on it by his co-researcher, as well as by the his own data. So, SOMEBODY corrupted him, and it certainly wasn't the Koch brothers.

Be less of a dumbass, and READ THIS.
 
2012-07-18 01:09:00 PM

GeneralJim: Oh, I get it. This making up crap about me "changing" a position I've held for years is your way of weaseling out of producing data. It didn't work, however. But, if you can't produce them, you can't.


You do know you're still responding to the exact same post of mine, right? I didn't post what you're quoting me there AFTER you had responded to the fraction of the exact same post you responded to where you invited me to post citations showing a more direct cause-effect relationship.

Anyway, what making crap up about you? You have said you hold mutually exclusive positions throughout this thread.

You said:

GeneralJim: You are arguing against someone who believes the planet hasn't been warming for the last couple hundred years. I don't see that person. The planet has been warming. Who has said it hasn't?

You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.

All that I am arguing is that early estimates gave WAY too much weight to the warming from increased carbon dioxide, and grotesquely underestimate the effect of the Sun.


So, according to your own words, you're saying that you accept that the planet is warming up, carbon dioxide increases do warm up the planet, but that the Sun plays a big role too that is underestimated.

But you also said:

GeneralJim: What they DON'T show is the link between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and planetary temperature. They show us lab bottles with varying levels, and say that's what counts. They show us model outputs which automate their hypothesis. But, they don't show us real world effects... because they are too small to notice: 0.24 K to 0.50 K, and that is assuming that ALL of the changes in carbon dioxide levels since the dawn of the industrial age are due to mankind.


So here you're saying, in the first sentence, is that there is no demonstrated link between carbon dioxide levels and global climate, contra one of your earlier positions. In your third sentence you say that the effects are insignificantly small, which contradicts your earlier assertion that you acknowledge the planet is warming up and that the Sun plays a big role in it. Because if the effects are so insignificantly small, what precisely is the underestimated role of the Sun?

So which is it? Is there a link between level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global climate or isn't there? Is the global climate warming up or not? What is the role of the Sun if the effects are so small that you describe the Sun's role in this as being "underestimated"?
 
2012-07-18 01:20:10 PM

GeneralJim: There is no link to between the release of carbon dioxide and the warming.


GeneralJim: 2. An incredibly tiny bit of warming is from man-made carbon dioxide -- little enough that it can be ignored.


GeneralJim, butchering science and the English language since, well, forever.
 
2012-07-18 01:25:23 PM

GeneralJim: Seriously... does this seem healthy to you?


Wow, 7 posts in a row, when 3 of them are responding to the exact same post, a 4th one responding to a different post, and the last 3 responding to the exact same post. All of which were originally posted HOURS before your response, allowing you the opportunity to combine your responses to all of them into one more condensed post that is easier to follow, and yet you chose instead to respond to individual sentences and/or paragraphs with their own separate post. No, that's not a sign of mental cohesion and stability so I would say your behavior does not seem healthy to me.

Are you trying to get the last word?

I don't drown out the end of threads with rapid fire successions of postings, most of which are in response to the same comment, so even if I was trying to get the last word in you appear to be so much more expert than I am on the matter of having to get the last word in that I will concede the last word to you if it means that much to you.

GeneralJim: How do YOU account for it? I mean, it certainly UTTERLY blows away the tin-hat contingent's claim that the Koch brothers are corrupting the process, doesn't it? I know you guys all LOVE the Koch...


My stance on the issue already takes it into account - a Koch brothers funded study led by a global warming denier found evidence that is in line with consensus views because that's the most convincing conclusion based on the data. I'm not the one who has to reconcile top opponents of the global warming discussion coming out and saying they have evidence that changed their minds and now contradicts my stance on the issue. So, I ask you again, how do you reconcile the fact that some of the most ardent opponents of the AGW theory - from both an economic and scientific perspective - have no published reports and data that matches up with what thousands of other independent investigators have found?

And, what happened is clear. He makes claims that are not justified by the data. Simply put, he lies about it, and is called out on it by his co-researcher, as well as by the his own data. So, SOMEBODY corrupted him, and it certainly wasn't the Koch brothers.

Oh, so up until he stopped agreeing with you they were being honest about the data, but the moment they concluded that global warming is real they're both lying about it and are now corrupt. So according to you someone who says things you agree with is completely on your side until they disagree and then they're sinful monsters who lie and were tempted by the dark side. Yea, I've heard sentiments expressed like that by 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust deniers before. So, tell me, how are you different from a Truther and a Holocaust denier?
 
2012-07-18 01:57:05 PM
chimp_ninja:
4) According to whatever the hell temperatures you're plotting, it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Again, let's go to a primary source and check that claim:

Let's go to a "primary source" that has been altered by James Hansen... How about we go to that source BEFORE he farked with it?

National Geographic: Matthews, 1976
 
2012-07-18 03:13:01 PM
chimp_ninja:
chimp_ninja: The ACC denier movement isn't skeptical in the slightest. They're contrarians who lap up random blog claims that agree with their political ideologies, but ignore hard data and professional studies from actual scientists. At best, it's hard-headed tribalism and cherry picking intended to confirm one's biases. At worst, it's blatant deception intended to push an agenda.

Of course, this has all been pointed out to you before, so it's more appropriate to ascribe your repeated attempts to push this nonsense as deliberate deception coupled to your mental illness.

I can never tell if you're deluded, or lying. "Random blog posts," eh? Like all the peer-reviewed and published information I put in upthread? And, note that where there IS a blog reference, it is usually a blog post about a peer-reviewed paper, which is referenced. You're so incredibly misinformed....

Seriously, what do you make of the fact that the historical temperatures in the NASA and NOAA data sets are seriously different, depending on when you collected them? They have changed drastically over time. How do you explain that? Also, how do you explain that both the NASA GISS and Hadley CRU data sets are manufactured, as confirmed by an auditor, using the same software that nailed Bernie Madoff?

I mean, seriously, these clowns make it look like one of those Fark drug-seizing articles. You know What I mean: 50 pounds of marijuana seized in morning raid. But, when the police got back to the station with the 30 pounds of marijuana, they were in for a surprise. Because, unbeknownst to them, stashed within the 10 pounds of marijuana was a chihuahua puppy... I suppose that would get past you, too...

The data is altered, and one has to go back to hard copy to see what it USED to look like, before it was altered. And you're so oblivious that you don't see this? Hey, hayseed, I've got some good bottom land in Florida I'll sell you very cheaply. But, that's the way YOUR side of this has played it. Dozens of times it is discovered that environmental activist literature has found its way into IPCC reports. Editors removed parts of documents not friendly to AGW AFTER the "peer review" process. And oblivious jackasses -- like you -- just totally miss this, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Somehow, I just don't buy it. I honestly don't think ANYONE can be that clueless.

It's the same in peer-review. Peer-review panels have all the diversity of the kid on the porch in Deliverance -- it's a circle-jerk of people who are, from all indications, HONEST, but who pass research that agrees with them, and reject anything that throws doubts on their beliefs. And folks like Michael Mann and Phil Jones get anything they do rubber-stamped. Even a survey with conclusions the opposite of what ALL the data say. Phil Jones said that in his more-than-twenty-year career, with many papers submitted with undisclosed methodologies, and using programs to alter the data which were secret, and changing the data and throwing out the original data... with all of that shady behavior, he was NEVER asked for additional information or for clarification. Then, with peer-review firmly in hand, peer-review was made the be-all and end-all of everything in climatology. It is NOT that way in other fields.
 
2012-07-18 04:02:02 PM
chimp_ninja: 4) According to whatever the hell temperatures you're plotting, it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Again, let's go to a primary source and check that claim

GeneralJim: Let's go to a "primary source" that has been altered by James Hansen... How about we go to that source BEFORE he farked with it?


Back in reality, James Hansen of NASA GISS has literally zero influence over or association with the surface instrumental temperature record produced by NOAA.

National Geographic: Matthews, 1976

Back in reality, it's not possible to compare the 1930s to "today" using a temperature data set that ends in the 1970s.

Back in reality, comparing measured temperatures (per National Geographic) to temperature anomalies (per your own initial graph of "Arctic" temperatures, or NOAA's) is an apples to oranges failure.

Back in reality, comparing a temperature curve created for National Geographic magazine by its art department to official surface instrumental records is an apples to oranges failure.

A more competent "skeptic" than GeneralJim realized that using the actual data that inspired the National Geographic art department might be more useful.Back in reality, he found that the GISS data covering the same period generally are warmer than those data that informed the National Geographic illustration:

i.imgur.com

Needless to say, back in reality, today's temps are warmer.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2012-07-18 04:27:20 PM

GeneralJim: Like all the peer-reviewed and published information I put in upthread?


You mean the list you're regurgiating that shows you don't even understand the papers you're citing that directly refute the claims you're making on their behalf?

GeneralJim: Seriously, what do you make of the fact that the historical temperatures in the NASA and NOAA data sets are seriously different, depending on when you collected them? They have changed drastically over time. How do you explain that?


They use increasingly sophisticated statistical analyses to check for bias and spurious trends, slowly accumulate additional data from earlier in the record (many older records exist only in written form, the process of digitizing them and making them available to GHCN is slow and ongoing), and use periodically updated SST data sets which are also undergoing continual revision.

Were you under the impression that we're not accumulating any additional climatic records from years past?

How do you explain the fact the ZOMFGWTFBBQFAKE surface instrumental records and the UAH satellite record show the same general patterns of warming, and are almost identical when plotted on a common baseline and the effects of ENSO, solar, volcanism, etc. (which have different influence on the surface vs. lower troposphere) are removed? Is Roy Spencer part of the conspiracy? Are the surface instrumental records fake but just coincidentally faked to show the same warming as the satellites? Or might there be a more plausible explanation?

GeneralJim: Also, how do you explain that both the NASA GISS and Hadley CRU data sets are manufactured, as confirmed by an auditor, using the same software that nailed Bernie Madoff?


If I was less polite, I'd explain that by observing that you're a gullible mark who believes literally almost anything as long as it supports your preexisting beliefs, no matter who farking retarded it is. Instead, I'll just request [citation needed].
 
2012-07-18 04:33:41 PM

GeneralJim: You can examine Mann's work yourself -- I did.


There's a distinct probability that you didn't. As I succinctly proved, you certainly didn't analyze Briffa's work. Even if you did analyze and examine it, the above-demonstrated proof that you're clueless certainly leads one to believe that you aren't capable of understanding what you're examining; you did, after all, confuse tree-ring width with latewood density, two very, very different things.

GeneralJim: And, while you might not be able to evaluate it, perhaps you can find child in grade six to help you out.


The fact that this is once again mirroring behaviour aside:

HighZoolander: Be honest GeneralJim, did you write this yourself, or pay a 5th grader to write it for you?


Given the fact that you're a lackwit that can't tell the difference between ring width and maximum density, your pomposity is certainly rich. Expected, given your over-inflated sense of self, but rich.
 
2012-07-18 04:34:47 PM

GeneralJim: Fark off. I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it. Sometimes, when there is a lot of time, I will read it, but that doesn't have the same amusement value. Not only does he put lipstick on his pig, nobody dances with her at the cotillion. *SNERK*


You think he does it for your benefit? He does it for ours.
 
2012-07-18 04:42:06 PM

GeneralJim: pulling your leg...


Ah, the typical GeneralJim response. "Nothing I said makes sense, I can't refute it... I WAS JUST JOKING!"

You also tried the "I was just joking" routine when you began making insane death threats and talking about how you wanted to kill people on Fark:

GeneralJim: I could gut your asses if we met, and call it even.

GeneralJim: Gunther: You think murdering us would "balance the scales" for us arguing with you on Fark. All this time, I thought you just had a couple of nutty beliefs, but no: you are genuinely not sane.

Well, mostly. If I were the nit-picky type, I'd have to urinate on your corpses afterward, but what's a quart or two of urine between Fark buddies?


When that turned out to be kinda cray-cray, little buddy, why, you were only joking!
 
2012-07-18 04:48:30 PM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: the sun's rays are allowed to pass through the glass, but the insulation of the greenhouse keeps the heat from escaping

You really ARE amusing. That's not how greenhouses work, you moron. But, yes, do insult me, and point out how a child can understand it, when YOU farking don't.


Um, that's exactly how greenhouses work. Glass is transparent to the visible spectrum light but reflective to IR, and the warmed air cannot rise out and phase through the solid matter of the glass, trapping ever-progressively warmer air at surface level. It's an incredibly simple process and yes, that's how it works. Your knee-jerk obsession over your "enemies" who you want to murder and whatnot is nakedly obvious, but really a greenhouse is one of the simplest principles in existence. Allow energy to enter, insulate against heat loss. You somehow managed to fark it up.
 
2012-07-18 05:01:42 PM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD:

You (you being the undecided third party audience) can also conceptualize it thus: CO2 in the form of dry ice is a solid which rapidly sublimates to gaseous form if exposed to normal, ambient air. (In fact it sublimates at around -78.5 C). If you keep it at, say, -150 C at normal atmospheric pressure, the CO2 will stay solid (as happens on the crust forming the surface of the Martian ice caps, which have polar temperatures as low as -140 C, though with a considerably thinner atmosphere).

Now, the only way to release this sequestered CO2 and have it enter the atmosphere is to heat it up. Otherwise it will just stay as a solid deposit of carbon dioxide, not doing anything other than just sitting there. It won't enter the atmosphere at all.

Wow, the list of subjects about which you know fark all is long and distinguished. This is what I'm talking about. You talk about this stuff, and you have NO freaking idea how any of it works, and then you start pontificating about it, and insulting others. Why this is wrong? One word: SUBLIMATION.


Oh look, GeneralJim once again tries to explain to me something I already know. Here's a phase diagram of CO2:
i.imgur.com

Notice how CO2 at -140C stays solid?

Notice the number I used to illustrate this?

Dr. Mojo PhD: If you keep it at, say, -150 C at normal atmospheric pressure, the CO2 will stay solid (as happens on the crust forming the surface of the Martian ice caps, which have polar temperatures as low as -140 C, though with a considerably thinner atmosphere).


Both of those, you will note, are temperatures at which CO2 does not sublimate to anything.

So what does Jim do? Why, he simply changes the number I used:

GeneralJim: A block of solid carbon dioxide at -100oC will eventually disappear.


Yes, he simply alters the number from -140 C and below (which will not sublimate) to -100, which will, and then declares himself right. Except that he's wrong, because we aren't talking about minus 100 celsius, we're talking about minus 140 celsius, which requires it to be heated up about five degrees to begin sublimating at all, which Jim knows.

Jim just likes to lie pathologically.
 
2012-07-18 05:06:04 PM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim has been informed on multiple occasions that dendroclimatology prefers maximum latewood density over ring width as a proxy. However, even though GeneralJim insists (and attempts to act like) he is very informed on the subject of AGW, he doesn't grasp the basics of one of the fundamental properties dendroclimatology proxies (I would hazard a guess and say it's because he doesn't understand MXD and has a basic understanding of what ring width is, and therefore relies on ring width to argue against MXD studies).

[three paragraphs composed of 160 words that at no point address why GeneralJim demonstrably confused a maximum latewood density study for a ring width study, instead bloviating and deflecting into how all tree data is unreliable, which of course in no way explains why Jim confused MXD for ring-width]


Dr. Mojo PhD: I expect bloviating, rage, and deflection.


Can I call 'em or what?
 
2012-07-18 05:10:41 PM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: If tree-ring width distorts the data, why does Jim never give discussions about MXD? It's because he doesn't understand what MXD is, hasn't yet incorporated it into his world view, etc.

This is interesting, from the bunghole that just proved he doesn't know how a greenhouse works.

[images.sodahead.com image 350x279]


Not really. Even if I was wrong about how greenhouses work (I'm not, glass is transparent to visible spectrum light, glass is reflective to IR light, and the roof and walls are an insulator against warmer air rising above ceiling level or escaping through the walls), even assuming all that was wrong (it's not), it still does absolutely nothing to explain why you confused maximum latewood density for ring-width (unless you're engaged in some serious magical thinking, which at this stage wouldn't surprise me).
 
2012-07-18 05:19:17 PM

GeneralJim: Again, your stupidity and inability to grasp moderately complex topics is not proof that I am lying.


No, but your two mutually contradictory statements are proof that one of them must have been spoken falsely and perforce you are a liar:

GeneralJim: Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith.

GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.


Tell us, Jim, how come whenever things like this are brought to your attention, instead of explaining yourself, you just insist the other person is stupid? Why not show that they're stupid? Why not tell us what you meant when you said putting more CO2 in the air will not warm the planet, and why you later said putting more CO2 in the air will warm the planet.

If we're so stupid, as you insist, it should be a simple matter of easily investing the amount of time you invest in going on paragraphs long rants about how you want to "gut us", instead investing it in showing us how stupid we are. It should be simple, right? I was able to make the effort when I showed you confused maximum latewood studies for ring-width studies, so why not invest the same effort?
 
2012-07-18 05:25:35 PM

GeneralJim: Like all the peer-reviewed and published information I put in upthread?


You mean "the peer-reviewed and published information you have known to be false for at least a year and a half that you have spammed countless threads with since, despite knowing that some of the claims in it are completely made up, without once editing down your sources to show a semblance of something that resembles an ability to vet your sources":

Dr. Mojo PhD: Not an honest man, anyway, since I already debunked that thoroughly here, as you well know, not that it's stopped you posting it in the intervening year and a quarter, as this Google search clearly shows at least 14 unique links despite knowing it's false, to wit, copying my first two responses to you from well over a year ago:


[Click for completely thorough debunking that conclusively demonstrates a 'peer-reviewed and published' source Jim cites falsified their findings, falsified their methodology, falsified the sample size of respondents, and falsified the numbers, and does so not by convoluted argument but by showing screenshots of the actual survey they cite in no way jiving with what Jim claims, proving they simply blatantly lied, and GeneralJim has been told this repeatedly without once removing the link from his wall o' spam]
 
2012-07-18 05:59:44 PM

GeneralJim: Be less of a dumbass, and READ THIS.


Hey, look! An opinion piece in the Daily Mail! That proves everything! Didn't someone say something about this?

chimp_ninja: The ACC denier movement isn't skeptical in the slightest. They're contrarians who lap up random blog claims that agree with their political ideologies, but ignore hard data and professional studies from actual scientists. At best, it's hard-headed tribalism and cherry picking intended to confirm one's biases. At worst, it's blatant deception intended to push an agenda.


Huh. Funny how you keep doing it.

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: 4) According to whatever the hell temperatures you're plotting, it was warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. Again, let's go to a primary source and check that claim:
Let's go to a "primary source" that has been altered by James Hansen... How about we go to that source BEFORE he farked with it?


1) I know you think that James Hansen is the boogeyman, but he doesn't even work for NOAA. How would he change NOAA's data set?

2) Your blog sucks.

3) Yay, a poorly-labeled graph from National Geographic. Was Time too busy? Above, you overlaid a graph of global temperature with arctic temperature and acted shocked when they showed different trendlines. I'm sure some blog owner would never do that, because you need some serious credentials to put up something as meaningful as a blog.

But let's humor you and compare NOAA's data set with various other measurements:

eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov


Comparison sourced directly from NASA.


If you'd like, I can paste it into a blog, and then you'd believe it instantly.
 
2012-07-18 06:06:06 PM

chimp_ninja: 1) I know you think that James Hansen is the boogeyman, but he doesn't even work for NOAA. How would he change NOAA's data set?


Why, the same way Keith Briffa changed ring width data to maximum latewood density data: MAGIC.

chimp_ninja: If you'd like, I can paste it into a blog, and then you'd believe it instantly.


That's unfair and you know it. He'd only believe it if the blog was run by a conspiracy theorist with a PhD in health sciences. A primary source repository run by PhDs with degrees in physics or atmospheric sciences would be wrong.
 
2012-07-18 07:01:19 PM
chimp_ninja:
You continue to lie. Climate science is practiced by thousands of scientists, not five. Phil Jones alone has 42 people working for him, and a conspiracy to commit massive data fraud over a decade or two would require them all.

You really are a chump, aren't you. To alter the GISS database, it only takes James Hansen, and possibly Gavin Schmidt. To alter the Hadley CRU's database, it only takes Phil Jones and Keith Briffa. The data isn't under armed guard or anything. You really don't get this, do you?

Scientists send in perfectly legit data, and it is put into the database. Some one of the above then alters it to fit the AGW hypothesis. Upthread, you can SEE the data changing over time (James Hansen's work, there). From then on, any chump (like you with your 'let's go back to the data') who collects the data gets someone's fantasy of what the data SHOULD look like. People expect scientists to be honest, so they don't implement security with audit trails on the files and so on... at least, until now. This whole climate mess is the largest scientific fraud in history.

i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-18 07:18:22 PM
HighZoolander:
Well, if several Nobel prize winners have signed on, it must be true! Or did that appeal to authority slip past you?

Seriously, do you have any critical thinking/reading comprehension abilities at all?

You warmtards sure are a cluster fark. No, it's only an appeal to authority if I were to say something on the order of "AGW is false because these Nobel Prize winners say it is." The appeal to authority is "This must be true because there is a consensus," or "You cannot be right because you are ignoring the consensus."

As another example, "He's wrong because he's a butt-munch" is an an ad hominem argument. "He's a butt-munch" is merely an insult. I mean, look it up, Mr. Reading Comprehension.
 
2012-07-18 07:33:28 PM
HighZoolander:
(from here the same post that you didn't understand the last time I posted it)
"These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes. "

Nice move, dumbass. Do you even know what I'm asking? You are providing something which, if correctly labeled, shows that the carbon dioxide in the air comes from biological sources -- not even necessarily from people. I stipulated that. Do you know what "stipulate" means? It means I accept that and am not arguing against it.

What I am looking for is observational data showing how much extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet. It's not rocket science... close, but not.

Now, more information I DO NOT NEED is information that the planet has warmed up since 1700 on. That has been stipulated. It's the freaking LINK between the two that counts.

( They gave me the choice... I should have picked the garden slugs. )
 
2012-07-18 07:35:57 PM

GeneralJim: Upthread, you can SEE the data changing over time (James Hansen's work, there).


What GeneralJim isn't telling you, because GeneralJim is a pathological liar, is that James Hansen didn't "change the data". What James Hansen did do was conduct an entirely new study, with new controls. Why did James Hansen do this? Because he wanted to account for the urban heat island effect. You know, the thing that AGW contrarians constantly claim Hansen didn't account for.

Want to know what's interesting utterly predictable? GeneralJim has been aware of this fact for well over a year now:

Dr. Mojo PhD
: Yep, that's what I was asking Jim for. Let's see what the PDF says.

JAMES HANSEN: Abstract. We compare the United States and global surface air temperature changes of the past century using the current Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis and the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) record [Karl et al., 1990]. Changes in the GISS analysis subsequent to the documentation by Hansen et al. [1999] are as follows: (1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a], (2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and (3) a more flexible urban adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends. We find evidence of local human effects ("urban warming") even in suburban and small-town surface air temperature records, but the effect is modest in magnitude and conceivably could be an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. We suggest further studies, including more complete satellite night light analyses, which may clarify the potential urban effect.

Yep, that's about what I thought and precisely why I asked Jim for that citation. They used more data and different analysis to create the second graph then the first, for the purposes of making the science better. Predictably, this changed what the graph looked like.


Jim provided this citation himself, which we then (naturally) followed up on. In other words, Jim knows that the two different sets of data were constructed by Hansen using different data and different methodologies, as well as different controls. Jim has known this for over a year. This isn't simply the second time we've confronted Jim on this, it's the fourth or fifth time.

In other words, Jim knows something is false and, even though he knows that this is a lie, chooses to repeat it anyway. This is because Jim is a pathological liar.

If anybody wonders why GeneralJim absolutely melts down and freaks and rages when people link to earlier posts of his, this is why. It makes it impossible to lie, it proves that Jim is willingly lying anyway, and it provokes Jim into a violent, uncontrollable rage that he's being exposed.

i.imgur.com


Boys and girls, the word of the day is "pathological".
 
2012-07-18 07:45:33 PM

GeneralJim: You warmtards sure are a cluster fark. No, it's only an appeal to authority if I were to say something on the order of "AGW is false because these Nobel Prize winners say it is." The appeal to authority is "This must be true because there is a consensus," or "You cannot be right because you are ignoring the consensus."

As another example, "He's wrong because he's a butt-munch" is an an ad hominem argument. "He's a butt-munch" is merely an insult. I mean, look it up, Mr. Reading Comprehension.


I'm going to set aside the fact that this is mirroring behaviour (I've actually explained this difference to Jim in the past, and unsurprisingly Jim has adopted it into his worldview as if it was his all along), and I'm going to set aside that this is some sort of vain and bizarre attempt to look smart (what does ad hominem have to do with appeal to authority? Nothing. Jim's just repeating something I told him to seem smart).

Instead, I'm going to focus on the fact that this is simply wrong, and Jim has yet again screwed up (it's unsurprising, though, since he's merely mirroring me, and mirroring cannot give understanding).

What Jim is trying to demonstrate before screwing up even this simple thing spectacularly is the difference between argument ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy.

Let's take his own example: "He is wrong because he is a butt-munch."

This *IS* argument ad hominem fallacy if the subject in question's ass eating habits have nothing to do with the argument being presented.
This *IS NOT* argument ad hominem fallacy if the subject in question's ass eating habits have everything to do with the argument (sometimes the argument is about the man, and therefore all arguments will be ad hominem, but not fallacies, for example if "he" had just claimed that he didn't munch butts, it would be perfectly valid to point out that he is wrong because he does munch butts).

Because Jim is merely repeating something I had to explain to him on multiple occasions, he doesn't actually understand the distinction, and is just engaging in mirroring.
 
2012-07-18 08:06:08 PM

GeneralJim: Do you know what "stipulate" means? It means I accept that and am not arguing against it.


The problem people tend to have with what you "stipulate" is that what you stipulate often changes with ... God knows what:

GeneralJim: It's way past time to put this debunked religion to bed. Men are not causing global warming, and neither is CO2. Abandon your faith.

GeneralJim: You are also arguing against someone who believes that putting more carbon dioxide in the air won't warm the planet. That, again, is someone I don't see - and it's certainly not me.


That's not to say when others stipulate things you display any more knowledge of what stipulations are:

Dr. Mojo PhD: What GeneralJim isn't telling you here, because he lacks intellectual curiosity and doesn't bother to vet his sources (he mirrored the image from Dr. Roy Spencer), is that this was from Dr. Craig Loehle. Ooh, what's he a doctor in? If anybody guessed "NOT climate-related fields", you'd be right!

GeneralJim: The fail is so simply exquisite in this. First off, the graph I posted is from Craig Loehle's peer-reviewed study of global NON-tree-ring temperature proxies. Apparently you believe that...

[Bonus fun fact: Included the "Apparently you believe that..." line due to Jim's constant screaming about people attempting mind-reading]

So, in other words, stipulation works however Jim wants it to work.

If Jim says CO2 doesn't cause the planet to warm, and then later says CO2 does cause the planet to warm, well, you're just a moron for not being able to figure out which is which. After all, he stipulated them. Both. Stipulated both mutually contradictory arguments.

And, uh, if you stipulate that you know Dr. Craig Loehle wrote a study, he'll just reply to you as if he had to "educate" you on the subject you've already demonstrated you know.

Later in the thread, he'll scream and have a famous Jim meltdown at another poster because he already said he's in agreement with a certain position (which, as we've seen, is mercurial as fark). He'll do this, while he continues to insist that if you knew a study was by Dr. Loehle, you "fail", because the study is by Dr. Loehle.

Just more totally organized, totally coherent normal people thoughts for a normal kind of guy!
 
2012-07-18 08:08:07 PM

GeneralJim: You really are a chump, aren't you. To alter the GISS database, it only takes James Hansen, and possibly Gavin Schmidt.


Well, gee. That sounds plausible.

In a world where Gavin Schmidt wasn't a climate modeler who doesn't work on the instrumental record.

In a world where Reto Ruedy didn't exist.

In a world where Kenneth Lo didn't exist.

In a world where the source data for GISTEMP weren't widely available.

In a world where the source code for GISTEMP was not public.

In a world where a completely independent group hadn't gone through the GISTEMP FORTRAN code and reproduced it in Python and got the same results as GISTEMP.

i.imgur.com

In a world where GISTEMP was demonstrably different from the other surface temperature records produced by completely unrelated agencies (HadCRUT, NOAA, BEST) and reanalyses by yet more completely unrelated agencies (JMA) once differences in baselines, coverage, etc. were taken into consideration.

i.imgur.com

In a world where GISTEMP didn't match satellite data when plotted on a common baseline and the effects of ENSO, solar, volcanism, etc. (which have different influence on the surface vs. lower troposphere) are removed.

i.imgur.com

But, back in reality, none of those things are true.

Because, back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2012-07-18 08:21:48 PM

Jon Snow: Well, gee. That sounds plausible.


I provided a link above to what Jim claims was Hansen's data alteration. It really is the seed of these claims. And it really does boil down to the fact that Hansen conducted a different study, using different data, different methods, and different controls. Hansen did this to put the "B-B-BUT URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT" to rest, and then Hansen discovered why he shouldn't have even bothered. Pathological liars don't care about the truth, so even when you bend over backwards to accommodate them, they'll just call you a fraud that alters data because you deigned to conduct the study they asked you to do.

That's it. I'm pretty sure you were in that thread, but I know Jim lies so egregiously and with such frequency that it's hard to keep straight, but that right there is the verifiable historical record; the seed of his lie that Hansen altered GISS Temp records.

The worst part is he knows this. He knows Hansen conducted a second study. By the time he finally got around to acknowledging it (I had to post it three times or so), he had one of his epic meltdown tantrums, started throwing a fit, and then claimed that obviously since Hansen used different data, etc., the study would turn out differently (he'd known it all along, of course). Still, he insists, it's evidence of fraud. It just somehow is. Hansen's desire to clarify and better understand the world is scientific fraud in Jim's mind, because anything else would involve Jim admitting he's wrong.
 
2012-07-18 11:33:51 PM

GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.


I've only got a minute here, but this is really damning in terms of you demonstrating that you approach this topic as an irrational zealot. Ignoring argumentation backed up by scientific literature is simply not defensible.
 
2012-07-18 11:34:54 PM

GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.


Oh, and this:

GeneralJim: If you ask a series of questions requiring a detailed response, the LEAST you should be willing to do if someone takes the time to answer you is to skim it, and pretend to have read it. For bonus points, thank the person for taking the time to address your concerns.

 
2012-07-18 11:44:26 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.

Oh, and this:

GeneralJim: If you ask a series of questions requiring a detailed response, the LEAST you should be willing to do if someone takes the time to answer you is to skim it, and pretend to have read it. For bonus points, thank the person for taking the time to address your concerns.


You know, me, you, Zafler, Jon Snow, chimp_ninja, HighZoolander, Kome, et. al. should hold a competition to see which one of use can find the most examples of GeneralJim directly contradicting his own stated positions and moral values. Everybody chips in a couple of bucks to send the winner a case of his favourite beer.
 
2012-07-19 12:55:05 AM
Heh, here's another one:

GeneralJim: The Envoy: "Them"? "Their"? Surely, if talking about the report, you'd have said "it"? Never mind, your fundamental problem with the english language is renowned and about to be displayed again.

You have GOT to be Monkey Boy. Nobody else I have EVER seen is so focused on (or, rather, obsessed with) minutiae, and has that same bizarre cognitive disorder that suggests that one slipped fact on the part of the other side invalidates their position. At least, I think that's what your cognitive disorder is -- I only had one term of abnormal psychology.


GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: Putting aside the fact that PSU wasn't the only person who cleared Michael Mann of any wrong-doing for a moment (because the facts have never bothered you before, so why should the whole six other investigations also found no wrongdoing aspect dissuade you? And, to riff off your question for a moment, if you can overlook that aspect, how can you be trusted not to overlook other aspects that are inconvenient to you?)

PSU is a person? Interesting.


And, this hi-larious contradiction/snit-fit about minutiae before caving and focusing on minutiae himself aside, his suggestion of the following:

GeneralJim: The reason I can tell

[we're all alts of each other]? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way. That is rather amazingly unlikely. Occam's razor suggests...

What does Jim define as a "cognitive disorder"?

GeneralJim: You have GOT to be Monkey Boy. Nobody else I have EVER seen is so focused on (or, rather, obsessed with) minutiae, and has that same bizarre cognitive disorder

What does Jim do in this thread?

GeneralJim: PSU is a person? Interesting.


So, according to Jim, what does he believe Occam's Razor suggests about that? That not only are myself, Zafler, chimp_ninja, The Envoy, Jon Snow, Damnhippyfreak, etc. all alts of each other, but we're also alts of Jim himself!

Haha, oh my. We're through the looking glass here, people!
 
2012-07-19 01:12:11 AM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.

I've only got a minute here, but this is really damning in terms of you demonstrating that you approach this topic as an irrational zealot. Ignoring argumentation backed up by scientific literature is simply not defensible.


Then you'll love this one from GeneralJim -

"Well, it only goes to show that a scientist's life is a lot easier if one keeps one's methods secret, and refuse to release one's data. Lindzen and Choi should have taken a lesson from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. If they had refused to release their data and methodologies, then nobody could have found a problem for them to fix."

Link
 
2012-07-19 01:12:38 AM
HighZoolander:
Here are a few of the primary sources:
Revell-Suess_1957

Dr. Suess -- really? And a paper submitted in 1956? And it's about ocean uptake of carbon dioxide and the effects on atmospheric levels. Other than that, perfect. Jesus.


Levin_Hesshaimer_2000

And this one is on using radiocarbon to track the carbon cycle.


and a big list of more of them

Your 'big list' tells you what it is: "This is a list of papers on carbon dioxide sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration." How nice of them. Of course, that has bugger all to do with atmospheric sensitivity, but, pat on the head time, the words "carbon dioxide" do appear in all of them, AND they are all observationally based -- not a model prediction in the batch. Have a banana as a reward. But next time, how about just sending some pictures of kittens? Less reading, and cuter, both, although including the papers by Dr. Suess was a nice touch.


You should maybe learn to read, so that you understand what you're criticizing and why you're criticizing it. Or you could just keep us all rolling on the floor, laughing at you.

Says the moron who doesn't even understand what matters, or what was asked for... I LOVES me some irony!

Okay... from this comment, I take it you are asserting that you CAN read. Well, then, what the FARK is your excuse?
 
2012-07-19 01:19:04 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: I really enjoy seeing a big-assed post from Snowjob with the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20 ][21][22] crap... and then not even reading it.

Oh, and this:

GeneralJim: If you ask a series of questions requiring a detailed response, the LEAST you should be willing to do if someone takes the time to answer you is to skim it, and pretend to have read it. For bonus points, thank the person for taking the time to address your concerns.

You know, me, you, Zafler, Jon Snow, chimp_ninja, HighZoolander, Kome, et. al. should hold a competition to see which one of use can find the most examples of GeneralJim directly contradicting his own stated positions and moral values. Everybody chips in a couple of bucks to send the winner a case of his favourite beer.


We'd probably have to put an upper limit on the number of examples though, or we'd be mining the archives for years - I don't think there'd be any end to the material.
 
2012-07-19 01:46:42 AM
I might have misunderstood what you were asking for....

GeneralJim: And, in reference to the "hockey stick" program which ALTERED the data before printing it, and made almost any ascending input look exactly the same, graphing programs are not supposed to massage data to produce the graph shape you want -- they are supposed to graph the data as they are.


GeneralJim: Seriously, what do you make of the fact that the historical temperatures in the NASA and NOAA data sets are seriously different, depending on when you collected them? They have changed drastically over time. How do you explain that? Also, how do you explain that both the NASA GISS and Hadley CRU data sets are manufactured, as confirmed by an auditor, using the same software that nailed Bernie Madoff?


GeneralJim: What I am looking for is observational data showing how much extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms the planet. It's not rocket science... close, but not.


So you can't find this data you keep referring to?

Or maybe you're failing to grasp the basic physics of greenhouse gases, which have been understood for more than 150 years? Or maybe you can't find the easily available observational data of how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (hint: Link)

Oh wait, no, you seem to be aware of that too -

GeneralJim: Warmtards keep showing what the results of warming would be, should it happen -- but, only the bad effects; significantly larger amounts of arable land generally doesn't make an appearance. And, they keep showing that the temperature has gone up -- as long as you start in 1850 to 1880. And, they show that carbon dioxide levels have gone up, and that the increased levels are due to human activity (Yay, us!)



Oh wait, maybe this is what you're looking for? Did you lose one of your earlier posts?

GeneralJim: All that I am arguing is that early estimates gave WAY too much weight to the warming from increased carbon dioxide, and grotesquely underestimate the effect of the Sun. And now, we have measurements (as opposed to model predictions) of what the carbon dioxide sensitivity of the atmosphere is -- and it's WAY lower than the alarmists predict, 0.48 K to 1.10 K, with a confidence of 95%.


So really what you're saying is that you believe that humans are emitting CO2, that CO2 causes warming, but your point of disagreement is that you found an estimate of how much warming there will be that is lower than currently accepted values.

Are you that Timecube guy? Nah, he made a lot more sense. But, you do give an exactly precise definition to one of your favorite words:

GeneralJim: warmtard


/you believe in warming, and you're clearly retarded
 
2012-07-19 01:49:29 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander:

Here are a few of the primary sources:
Revell-Suess_1957


Dr. Suess -- really?


Theodor Seuss Geisel. Dr. Hans Eduard Suess. What's the difference, amirite? By the way, what was it a wise man once said about focusing on minutiae?

GeneralJim: You have GOT to be Monkey Boy. Nobody else I have EVER seen is so focused on (or, rather, obsessed with) minutiae

Oh, right, that. Well Jim, better ignore his information. After all, Dr. Suess has a name that sounds suspiciously similar to a writer of children's books. Clearly this can't be valid science. That's orderly and coherent thinking; just more normal thoughts for a normal guy!

God forbid anybody needs to cite Theo Geisel the physicist.

GeneralJim: And a paper submitted in 1956?

The Annus Mirabilis papers were published in 1905, 51 years before what we know the bare minimum of Jim's "bad science" cut-off date must be. So Einstein's work must be worthless, right? And if you aren't convinced by the fact that they were published in 1905 (LOL!), then annus is suspiciously similar to anus, just like Suess is suspiciously similar to Seuss. Beat that, Warmer Alarmists!

GeneralJim: Your 'big list' tells you what it is: "This is a list of papers on carbon dioxide sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration." How nice of them. ... I LOVES me some irony!


Oh, well then have you heard the one about the guy who made at least 14 separate references with a 'big list' after repeatedly having massive portions of that 'big list' debunked, not caring, and simply thread-spamming it over and over again like the projecting attention whore threadshiatting pathological liar that he is?

Surprise! That's you!

For my next trick, I will solve who phone was.
 
2012-07-19 02:10:28 AM

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Seriously, what do you make of the fact that the historical temperatures in the NASA and NOAA data sets are seriously different, depending on when you collected them? They have changed drastically over time. How do you explain that? Also, how do you explain that both the NASA GISS and Hadley CRU data sets are manufactured, as confirmed by an auditor, using the same software that nailed Bernie Madoff?


Oh wow, he's still going off about forensic auditing software and Bernie Madoff? Madoff's own sons reported him to the authorities. That's what nailed Madoff. Well that and after the authorities confronted him he straight-up confessed to the FBI agents.

He is at best talking about Harry Markopolos, one of the first people to raise red flags about Madoff (which is in no way "nailing" him, not that that matters to a liar). Go over to Google books and search through No One Would Listen, Markopolos' book about his frustration trying and failing to nail Madoff (contrary to Jim's claims), and you'll find exactly one instance of the word software in the book. That single little instance? Explaining that software could not have busted Madoff:

i.imgur.com

Him getting "nailed" by auditing software is entirely a fiction in Jim's head that Jim clings to unhealthily, even if we stretch credulity beyond all reason just to be extra-charitable to Jim and assume "nailed him" is a retard's way of saying "made some guy suspcious"; just another one of his weird, creepy totem/talismans that he returns to to comfort himself. Jesus, he's actually farking special.

Just out of curiosity, given the fact that the facts in no way support Jim's delusions, this is clearly something that comforts his anxiety and therefore was adopted from another source. Does anybody know the source that originated this ridiculous claim? I have a feeling its Watts Up With That?, they're incredibly paranoid over there.
 
2012-07-19 02:16:45 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: I have a feeling its Watts Up With That?, they're incredibly paranoid over there.


Addendum: For a site that purports to be, and I quote their own description here, "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change", they do indeed have 12 full pages of Google results mentioning Bernie Madoff, who has fark-all to do with climate science.

I'm loath to slog through all that shiat, however, so if anybody cares to take a go at it so we can bust yet another one of Jim's hugboxes, knock yourself out.
 
2012-07-19 03:06:20 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander:
Here are a few of the primary sources:
Revell-Suess_1957

Dr. Suess -- really? And a paper submitted in 1956? And it's about ocean uptake of carbon dioxide and the effects on atmospheric levels. Other than that, perfect. Jesus.


Horton hears a dumbass: S-E-U-S-S is the children's author; learn to spell

And was there some magical event that happened between 1956 and 1957? You choose to complain about when it was submitted, but not when it was published? I gave you the publication date in the link text, and it's right at the top and bottom of the first page of the article. Are you actually delusional?

As for whether it's what you were asking for or not - if you can't even keep track of your own bullshiat (see numerous examples in this thread and post), how do you expect anyone else to know what the hell you're arguing about?
 
2012-07-19 04:43:11 AM
Jon Snow:
The Arctic is of course not the globe, as even GeneralJim would probably concede (after seven or eight posts filled with deflection and invective, no doubt).

I like watching the artificial veneer of civilization crack and shatter when someone doesn't treat you with the respect you feel you deserve. It's good to know that if you swapped your desk and chair for a tire swing and a banana, you would BE Mojo.

Oh, Jon Boy, maybe YOU could explain how greenhouses work to Mojo. He's a little confused. I'm sure he'll look it up, and try to pretend he knew all along, poser waffle that he is.

So, what's YOUR take on Sandusky? Since the same group that cleared Michael Mann cleared Sandusky, I imagine you will stand behind him... Lord knows, you don't want to stand in FRONT of him.
 
2012-07-19 05:08:30 AM

GeneralJim: I like watching the artificial veneer of civilization crack and shatter when someone doesn't treat you with the respect you feel you deserve.


Oh look, more projection statements from Jim, what a surprise.

GeneralJim: I'm sure he'll look it up, and try to pretend he knew all along


Oh look, more mirroring statements from Jim, what a surprise.

GeneralJim: So, what's YOUR take on Sandusky? Since the same group that cleared Michael Mann cleared Sandusky, I imagine you will stand behind him...


Two problems with this statement -- which isn't surprising because, as a pathological liar, it's a given that Jim will lie as much as possible.

First problem: "Since the same group that cleared Michael Mann cleared Sandusky..." is a false statement. At PSU alone, Michael Mann was investigated by Sarah M. Assmann, Waller Professor, Department of Biology, Welford Castleman, Evan Pugh Professor and Eberly Distinguished Chair in Science, Department of Chemistry and Depmtment of Physics, Mary Jane Irwin, Evan Pugh Professor, Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Nina G. Jablonski, Department Head and Professor, Department of Anthropology, Fred W. Vondracek, Professor, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Candice Yekel, Director of the Office for Research Protections, Henry C. Foley, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School and Alan W. Scaroni, Ph.D. Associate Dean for Graduate Education and Research, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE was involved in the Sandusky affair, cover-up or otherwise, at all. Therefore, it is not "the same group" by any stretch of the word.

Second problem: Even if we decide to be charitable to GeneralJim because he is mentally retarded and we feel it best to be kind to the mentally retarded, so interpret "being at PSU" as enough to make a person in the same "group" as completely separate, distinct people, his statement still isn't true.

Why? Because, unlike Sandusky, Mann was also cleared of any wrongdoing by the National Science Foundation's Office of the Inspector General's Office of Investigations, for one.

Of course, GeneralJim knows this, but because he is a pathological liar with disorganized, incoherent thought patterns, it doesn't matter. He'll still pretend like it's a valid line of questioning!
 
2012-07-19 06:01:02 AM
Jon Snow:
The attribution of warming to increases in GHGs is of course not based on a naive correlation, but rather on the well understood physics of greenhouse gases on planetary energy balance (understood by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, and others who were no doubt part of the UN conspiracy. Presumably they borrowed Obama's time machine).

Losing it, Jon Boy? Nothing but good can come of it. You're all the way down the scale to crude attempts to marginalize opponents. Can "FARK YOU!" be far behind?

And "naive correlation?" Really? I didn't see any correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature on the larger scale. Temperature has shifted up and down around 10 K in the major oscillation, and as temperature stays rather impressively stable in one of the two states, or transitions between them, carbon dioxide has dropped from twenty times current levels in a couple of big swoops -- with no apparent effect upon temperature. Temperature is not affected by swings of carbon dioxide -- that is, carbon dioxide has fluctuated more than FIFTY TIMES as much as we have done so far, with no noticeable effect on planetary temperature. Hey, take a look at a very good correlation -- one so good that one is tempted to use it as "proof" of the relationship between the two quantities. And, while people got the relationship backwards between carbon dioxide and temperature (temperature has more effect on changes in carbon dioxide levels than the other way around) it is only the rarest of idiots -- say, Mojo, for instance -- who could be clueless enough to think that Earth's planetary temperature could have any measurable effect on sunspots. Take a look, and maybe let reality guide you, instead of trying to bully reality:

tucsoncitizen.com


As I mentioned before, the "well understood physics of greenhouse gasses" is a LOT less well understood than you seem to think. Most specifically, the effects of clouds on the process is close to unknown as we speak. That's why I said that laboratory gas experiments and observations don't count -- because trying to understand the atmosphere by studying greenhouse gasses in a laboratory is essentially identical to trying to get a grasp of human psychology by studying how oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, iodine, potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, sulfur, iron, and hydrogen interact in the lab. Both are invalid for the same reason. You are trying to determine the behavior of an immensely complex and chaotic organization by looking at the simple components.

This grade-school approach is WHY the arrogant farks trying to push this crap on the public fail, and resoundingly so. "We know it all" is almost always a bad approach, but in science it is guaranteed failure to progress -- and you have a vicious and virulent strain of it. Work on that.
 
Displayed 50 of 429 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report