They have one thing in common; they both throw citations in to the middle of a blog discussion which sends the discussion off into the weeds. But Fred’s citations usually had something to do with the topic.
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by P.E.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 6/23/12 by mike
lolwot:
Yr: “…When the popular perception…”
I’m sure, lolwot, your last comment is hive-speak for something or other. Exactly what, though, is elusive.
Perhaps, lolwot, you are warning us “deniers” that the hive, perennially hopped up on its watermelon-flavored kool-aid, will, regardless of setbacks, maintain its unremitting, come-back pursuit of the good-ol’-gulag days. And will do so until such time as “deniers” are forced to give up the pedestrian life-style option out of fear of mayhem in the streets. You know the subliminal images you’re invoking here, lolwot: Flash-mob. “Generic Pissed off Old White Guy Denier” down with kicks to the head. A carnival-like trash-talkin’ hub-bub. In other words, lolwot, good lethal, lefty fun like that, right, lolwot?
Or, lolwot, you might be simply playing one of those off-the-wall “I feel threatened!” cards you lefties always produce when you’re in a jam. If so, you might want to check out youtube for the “10:10″ video and google: “Huffington Post Tea Party Zombies Must Die Video”, if you want to see what real incitement to violence looks like. And I especially commend the Huffington Post article since it includes numerous comments by typical lefty barf-bags–your kind of people, lolowt–boastfully delighting in the giddy pleasure they derive from the virtual slaughter of Sarah Palin, New Gingrich, Rick Santorum and a “Generic Pissed-Off Old White Guy” (liked that last), among others.
And speaking of “white-guys”, lolwot, didn’t you get the memo–the hive-masters have declared white-boys, like you, lolwot to be reactionary, counter-revolutionary scum-suckers. I mean, like, lolwot, you’re a write-off, guy. I mean, like, your lefty, white-boy ass, from now on, doesn’t know jack about squat. I mean, like, anyone wants to know the score, they ask one of the empowered, pale-face phobic man-haters, thank you very much. History is on the march, lolwot, and it’s left you honky, girlie-man ice-people wannabes behind. Get used to it, lolwot. That, and quit wasting our time with your no-account, idle chit-chat–you complete neo-nobody!
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by kim
All very reminiscent, NL, of barons of yore, unsaddled(unsettled) lying in the muck helplessly stuck, armored and hampered by iron clothes of peer review, peering out from under their helmet, still bolted in place.
================
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Kent Draper
Good for you 
… Although I’m just a simple process control programmer, I really enjoy reading what you folks on this blog have to say. I’m encouraged that you will help in sharing your knowledge. Looking forward to your responses
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by pokerguy
Professor Forest,
Thanks for making an appearance. It’s hard for many of us to understand how the data for such an influential paper can just disappear. I see you made a few comments re data storage above, and perhaps you can enlarge on that a bit for those of us who don’t know much about the issue.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Cantabrigiensis
WHT, are you really trying to claim that Nic does not know what diffusivity is? I can assure you that he does (the Maths/Physics degree at Cambridge is a bit of a hint) and comments like this just make you look a fool.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by manacker
Dr. Forest
Thanks for tuning in here and great to hear that you are working on a response.
It is of critical importance that this be cleared up, so I’m sure everyone here (especially our host and Nic Lewis) is waiting with anticipation.
Max
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by climatereason
iolwot
Surely the instrumental temperature change of 1.5degrees C from 1700 to 1730 is more impressive? First graph here-from the Met office
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
tonyb
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by John Carpenter
“You’re conflating infringement and validity”
Maybe so, but I think we are parsing words now. My original statement did not talk about validity, my point in that statement was until the presumably valid patent is upheld by a court of law either through a challange defense or successful infringement litigation, the patent really is not worth the paper it is written on. (We could argue about how patents create barriers for competitors to hurdle but that would be off topic)
With respect to the subject at hand, my patent statement was meant to be analogous to someone, like Nic Lewis, auditing a published paper for accuracy and reproducability. A published scientific paper is only truely ‘validated’ (perhaps a word you don’t think appropriate) until someone else has also reproduced/varified the results. If no one can reproduce/varify the results, is the published material and its consclusions considered valid? I’m sure there is no argument between the two of us on that.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Mariana
At least the guy has answered something hes an angel compared to Mann o man LOL
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by P.E.
We’ve had “publish or perish” for decades. We’ve had the education bubble for at least 15 years. All of these solutions in search of problems. I don’t now how you expect anything else. Cynical or not, it’s the inevitable outcome of the system that’s been set up. Not every physics professor at every little liberal arts college can publish a Theory of Relativity. There’s only so much real cutting edge science to be done. Then there’s the other 99%.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by JCH
How influential was it?
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by John Carpenter
Amen to that, however it only has to be obvious to those (experts) who are skilled in the art, as you know. If it is obvious to those skilled in the art… it isn’t an invention. The IP attornies on your review board, like many others, are just looking to keep themselves busy.
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by TerryMN
@Chris E Forest – thanks very much for responding, and for your further investigation into this issue.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by WebHubTelescope
For you Latimer?
you are seriously delusional. Anywhere else but this blog a repeat offending sockpuppet would be banished. The sockpuppet would be shamed the same as a person committing voter fraud would. Not here though.
I suppose that’s OK as this place it totally disconnected from internet indexing.
This is essentially a Twitter feed with no scientific controls on what constitutes the truth and what constitutes deception. Fortunately it all goes into the void as Curry has intentionally made a playpen for inconsequential babbling. The difference is that you get more than 140 words to say nothing. What a deal.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Latimer Alder
@webbie
Thanks for another content-free rant.
It is odd that you spend so much of your time – and waste so much of ours – at a place you dislike so much.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Edim
Webby is a control freak. He wants everything indexed with “scientific controls” on what constitutes the truth and what constitutes deception, so he don’t have to think for himself. He must hate this blog (and science in general).
↧
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by WebHubTelescope
Unlike the stuff here, you can actually find it. Thanks for the plug :
http://TheOilConundrum.com
Table of contents, look up thermal. Hot stuff.
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by Latimer Alder
@edm
The real reason Webbie wants everything ‘indexed’ is because his Mum, Wilma, has told him to tidy his bedroom. Or there’ll be no supper.
Serious stuff!
↧
Comment on Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study by WebHubTelescope
Sockpuppets need to be listened to, as they treat their audience with the contempt that they apparently deserve. Why else would Latimer adopt these sockpuppet identities unless he held this readership with complete disdain?
Now it makes sense. Don’t mind me as I am just piling on.
↧
