Reply With Quote
It's not very dfficult to find this fool cherry picks his data....
fyi I googled the fool..
Don't try to be RG. You're not nearly smart enough to pull it off.
It's not very dfficult to find this fool cherry picks his data....
fyi I googled the fool..
The original article I posted has updated their story.
Update: A Spanish correspondent is following this story for us in the Spanish media; there are some reports that the underlying issue was a courier error , compounded by the less tangible threats and attacks Calzada has suffered. We continue to follow the story and will keep readers informed. — Editors.
Further update: There have been some developments since this was published. The short version is that a series of coincidences led Gabriel Calzada to believe a package was a bomb threat. Let’s just review what Calzada was responding to: he received an unsolicited package addressed as from a “green” company. Thermotechnic. When he called to ask about it, he was told: “It’s our response to your study [on green jobs].”
It didn’t look like, or feel like, a letter or report, so at that point Calzada got a security guard to scan it — and what was inside was a cylindrical object with wires attached. At that point, the security guard got an expert to examine it, with others in attendance. The contents were a container for diesel of some sort, and some other parts. The expert saw this as a bomb threat, based on a pattern used by, eg., ETA: “This one is a hoax bomb. The next one might not be.”
So Calzada took this as a threat based on the experts’ opinions. Remember that Calzada has been viciously attacked for having had the temerity to publish a study that questioned the economic effectiveness of “green jobs” in Spain, including having been threatened personally and professionally. It was at that point Horner wrote this piece.
Since then, especially following the controversy becoming public in the Spanish press, the company contacted Calzada; what appears to have happened is this:
•A package containing car parts was swapped for a package containing a report intended for Calzada.
•The Thermotechnic person Calzada contacted said something that was ambiguous.
•Calzada, already the subject of threats and intimidation, relied on expert opinion that it was a bomb threat.
As further information became available, it became clear it was a misunderstanding based on several coincidences. Calzada has written an open letter explaining this in detail, and now agrees there was no threat from Thermotechnic.
he called a terrorism expert.....when he shoulda called a mechanic.
he ed up all around. he could have made a few bucks selling this story to darrin. lol
What's the first link you get if you put these words in a google search?
green energy company bomb
Google search is an algorithm and has nothing to do with the quality of content.
LOL...
You have such funny fantasies.
viciously attacked. lol
keep it coming darrin.
another lemming that bought the story. lol
coming from the guy who just said that supporting activist judges is un american... what a fantasy world you live in..
Apparently is not just Google Search providing weak content...
This site is heavily cross-linked, especially this forum. So, we give Kori a kickass Google search score, even if a particular story turns out to be bogus, like the one in the OP.
That's the thing about the blogosphere. You may get information WAY before the MSM, but it hasn't necessarily been verified, etc.
I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong, based on developing information, new data, etc. This is more than I can say for my opponents in the AGW camp. Hopefully, some of them will jump off that sinking ship after global temps continue to remain flat and/or decline for the next 20 years.
Except when someone pays to be at or near the top of the search list.
nope. took you several days to wake up. butt hurting.
Yeah, that is a wrinkle. Google turns out to be an "evil" corp, just like all the others. Somewhere, boutons is bummed.
Actually, I've been in west Texas for four days, you monosyllabic ass whipe.
no. you bailed because of your thread, birther.
The problem is such garbage produce more garbage like this stuff:
or
Is that a statistically significant sample in geographical time? Honest question. What would be a statistically significant sample, timewise?
(I can't do the calculation. I probably couldn't ever do it. Little help, anyone?)
This spelling is wino-approved and may soon be wino -tested.
Lately, I've been more of a sh!t-stain user.
You posted this because it fits in with a personal narrative/belief that environmentalists are often extremist whackos.
It is at the top of the google search because it got passed from one blogger to another without any real critical thinking or modi of fact-checking. I have accused a lot of conservatives, as well as no few liberals, of this exact same thing.
This is nothing more than a good example of the human tendency towards confirmation bias, no offense, Darrin. It is something we all do to some degree or other.
Hopefully something we can all take from this is the lesson that we really should exercise a bit more critical thinking when it comes to something we might be predisposed to agree with.
... leading into a point I was going to refrain from making, but since you brought it up:
During the course of our discussions on AGW/ACC/whatever, I took a good look into a lot of the minutae provided by Wild Cobra that forms the basis for the "denier" movement's claims.
I was less than impressed at the quality of a good chunk of the data and claims. I don't think that you or WC have really applied any honest skepticism to any of it, especially from what I have seen.
Not that the denier movement doesn't make some valid points. It does.
On the same token, some of the data that I have found to support AGW/ACC has some flaws and drawbacks that I can see.
The thing that really stands out in my mind is the fact that the reports and studies on the part of the AGW/ACC camp are all rather good faith attempts at finding the truth, but I found no few number of instances of intellectual dishonesty or sloppieness in the denier data.
Ultimately it boils down to two piles of data and sound risk management. I have weighed enough data to make a reasonable conclusion as to possibilities and probabilities, and who is more credible, even though I remain less than qualified or interested to write any formal scientific papers on the subject.
For me, the final nail in your arguments' coffin is that your denier claims have consistantly ignored the principles of risk management, and do so in a generally intellectually dishonest way.
That is not how you win converts to your arguments. You may convince yourself that AGW/ACC is a "sinking ship", but for people who don't share your confirmation bias regarding that theory, it is rather obvious.
Lastly: I will point out one thing that a lot of AGW/ACC people seem to miss is that carbon intensive fossil fuels are facing a real cliff in emissions within my lifetime, due to simple depletion factors.
Peak oil/gas/coal will enforce, though market means and in a very unpleasant way, the same kinds of penalties you are ing about imposing now, but will make those penalties MUCH more severe down the road than they would be with a modest effort now.
You will realize, too late, that you were wrong in not pushing for an early switchover, and when you do, remember:
I told you so.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-29-2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason: removed snark. again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
