That's deep.
Looking in the mirror again?
That's deep.
And accurate to boot.
.
Last edited by DarrinS; 10-31-2011 at 05:01 PM.
Care to explain?You are the new boutons. Congrats.
I can point to a cultural phenomenon that religion causes. i have no tin foil hat claiming the illuminati are waiting to take over the world or the like.
Sorry but societal groups tend to think alike. Thats just how it is especially in this country. You obviously do not think for yourself as you cannot even keep up with the that you are fed. I may be wrong as to your particular source but your denial of christian right groupthink does not mitigate that it is clear to see in GOP political circles.
OK, he forgot to say that you are the "New and Improved Boutons."
How surprising that you would come up with something not original, creative, thought out or in any way remotely intelligent. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself but that would assume you were worth pity.
You are not.
You are just stupid wandering around blundering where you go. Please douse yourself with kerosene and light a match.
You are just as petty and vile as boutons, but you need to sprinkle in a few "repugs", "bubbas", "magic negros", and "VRWC".
"petty and vile"
.... treatment is too good for you stupid right-wing dumb s here, and Repugs, tea baggers everywhere.
I'll have to up my game and get really nasty.
You bully ers don't know what to do with any pushback, do you?
Ignore it, mainly. Your game is lame.
Oh noes the corporate mouthpiece calls me petty. I really dislike everything about you, Darrin. Thats why i treat you as such. You should note that i do not treat everyone as i treat WildDumbass, boutons and yourself. i treat you as such because I hold nothing but contempt for you, your thoughts and your methods.
Its been outlined quite extensively by myself and others the reasoning as to why i hold such views of indivduals such as yourselves. What youa re too stupid to distinguish is that my vitriol is not focused on imaginary en ies or the boogeyman but rather specific persons like yourself.
I do not expect that you would be able to discern such differences, after all you do not think for yourself and require quite a bit of dumbing down to grasp things but your parallel is about as well thought out as most of what you post.
I do find it entertaining that you have now resorted to whining about my positions but when you have no leg to stand with your other contentions i suppose pity is the best you can hope for. I will not back off and ignoring me won't stop the responses as my intended audience is not you. You are beyond any notion of redemption. Go read your emails and hopefully they will send you something that makes sense. In the meantime go in with a can of kerosene with WC.
Thank you please drive through.
condensed version
This type of response is exactly why I treat you as i do. You do not merit the respect of attempting to have an intelligent conversation. Its a waste of time to do such with fools.
You can continue dissembling and crying to your hearts content but the next stupid email you decide to share i will still be here ready to hammer you once again you ing dishrag.
Yep, that's why he's the new and improved version. He is less bigoted.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1cYc2O486
Scientist who claimed 'end of scepticism' on climate change under fire from colleague over 'huge mistake'
* Professor claims project director has oversold the results of a study in favour of global warming
* Expert says average world temperatures have 'paused' since the late 1990s (Gee, where have I heard this before?)
One of the authors of a scientific study billed as the ‘end of scepticism’ about climate change yesterday threatened to quit after she said the project leader underplayed the fact there has been no global warming for 13 years.
Professor Judith Curry was one of ten experts attempting to compile definitive temperature data going back more than 200 years.
But she claimed it had been ‘tarnished’ by the project’s director ‘overselling’ the results in favour of global warming.
Funded by a number of donors, including sceptics of climate change, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project concluded global temperatures had risen by around 1c since the 1950s, in line with official estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.
The project’s director, Professor Richard Muller, told the media it showed ‘you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
He also told the BBC’s Today programme the temperature rise was ongoing, saying: ‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down.’
But Professor Curry, of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Ins ute of Technology, in the U.S., said Professor Muller’s comments were a ‘huge mistake’ and that she planned to discuss her future on the project with him.
She said their data actually showed average world temperatures had ‘paused’ since the late 1990s and a graph published on the project’s website depicting temperatures from 1850 to 2006 appeared to ‘hide the decline'.
She said: ‘There is no scientific basis for saying global warming hasn’t stopped. Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism. To say that is the biggest mistake he has made. When I saw he was saying that I thought, “Oh my God”.’
The researchers analysed 1.6billion records from nearly 40,000 weather stations in a bid to counter criticisms that scientists use inaccurate or selective records.
Professor Muller said: ‘I was saying you can no longer be sceptical about the fact global temperatures have risen over the past 50 years. There are other aspects of climate change which are still uncertain as I have made clear.’
Maybe RG should read this:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/...ing_trust.html
An exerpt
The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed. In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.
In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.
In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.
Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere
Steve McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.
So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.
So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required.
So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.
So how did this group of bloggers succeed in bringing the climate establishment to its knees (whether or not the climate establishment realizes yet that this has happened)? Again, trust plays a big role; it was pretty easy to follow the money trail associated with the “denial machine”. On the other hand, the climate auditors have no apparent political agenda,
are doing this work for free, and have been playing a watchdog role, which has engendered the trust of a large segment of the population.
Maybe RG and FuzzyLumpTurd should write her a strongly-worded letter about her lack of "critical thinking skills".
Temps have actually fallen in my area since yesterday. Global Warming is over!
/Darrin
What makes Dr. Curry's position more valid than the 9 others on the panel who don't agree with her position, Darrin? I mean other than Dr. Curry said what you wanted to hear and the others didn't.
How do you know the position of the 9 others?
Any why would it matter?
How do I know? They just published a paper and haven't said they disagree with it. Typically if you put your name on something you agree with it. Curry didn't, and spoke out.How do you know the position of the 9 others?
Any why would it matter?
Why does it matter? Really? If you have 10 experts int he field and 9 say one thing and 1 says another, what are the odds the 9 are wrong and the 1 is right?
Her view is fine and she's allowed her opinion (aside from looking at things from the late 90s. She should really know better than to take stock in that), but I know that until the opinions start to swing I'm going to go ahead and go with the overwhelming majority of experts.
BTW, the day you put as much effort into your posts as she put into one paragraph of her essay then you can compare yourself to her. You are not the same as Dr. Curry. RG, Fuzzy, and anyone else has the right to critique you for your lack of critical thinking (you just put it on display, again) because of your history. That essay is NOTHING like what you do.
Actually, they haven't published anything, but they have submitted their papers for peer review. Her name is on all of them.
When all else fails, rely on the "consensus". There used to be a consensus that stress caused peptic ulcers, but now we know they are caused by bacteria.
Yes Darrin, consensus is better than outliers. For every anecdote of where consensus has failed I can provide hundreds where it has held up. A track record doesn't need to be perfect. It merely needs to be good (and in this case, its great).
Hey Darrin do you have an actual link to scientific analysis or did your critical thinking skills cause you to conclude that her characterization of various sources -and she definitely trashed the ones you've used over the years- brought anything substantive to the discussion?
Oh and are you actually going to go with the 'the readings are worthless' position or are you now switching full time to the 'the readings say there hasn't been any warming' position? The two contradict. You should realize that if you werent so dumb.
its things like being able to read and understand what you just read as well as having consistency in your positions that lead me to comment on your critical thinking skills. its why I always point out how ing stupid you are. You do it over and over again and once again your stupidity is on full display.
Bravo, dimwit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
