Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> I don’t care if people call it fraud.

Brandon’s point is a bit stronger than that:

We don’t have to call what Michael Mann did fraud if we don’t feel like focusing on the word, but if we are going to focus on the word, what Mann did was fraud.

https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/michael-mann-committed-fraud/

Counterfactuals don’t always help not to say something.

***

> My stated issue is with people saying Mann is innocent of fraud.

An issue is not a point.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Fanny fears picking any because he knows he’s talking rubbish.
That’s what fear and bad conscience do to a soul, eh, honest brokers, churchfolks, the Vatican, and Climate Etc. Readers?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Rud Istvan

0
0

cwon14, I agree the EPA CO2 endangerment finding is ridiculous. And the deeper flaw is how CCA defines tests for a ‘pollutant’.
But the court ruling is actually on whether the CCA enables them to make such a finding, and whether they followed the rules in doing so. Unfortunately, it does and they did. Whichnis why the court upheld it.
There are two solutions. One, change Congress sufficiently that CCA can be appropriately amended and override an Obama veto. Unlikely in 2015 IMO.
Two, sweep the Dems out of the White House in 2016. Then amend the CCA. Plus a new EPA administrator re reviews the endangerment finding and nullifies it, the process showing how politically corrupted the original one was. Meanwhile, it appears evough states are filing suit on the proposed CO2 regulations that it is unlikely they will bite before the 2016 election.
So, the answer is in the political rather than the legal arena.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Steven Mosher

0
0

Brandon. You are wrong.

I wrote.

“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”

you wrote:

“I don’t think this is true. I don’t think Steve McIntyre would necessarily state his belief on this issue. I think he, like many people, might believe things about a person he isn’t comfortable saying out loud. I don’t expect people to always state their views on an issue.

First, You will Know that I believe mann committed fraud when I say that.
Before that you might speculate. There might be other ways you will know, but when I say it, you will know I believe it.

For Mcintyre The issue ISNT whether he would state his belief.
The fact is that IF he says it, then you know he believes it.
Yes, he might believe it without saying it. Yes, you might guess it from other other evidence, But Im say this. When he says it, you will know.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Mosher wrote:

“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”

Sometimes one might not wish to enter the court arena even though believing a certain truth of the matter.
Does Mosher talk for McIntyre now?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by omanuel

0
0
Sometimes you must <i>"leap into the briar patch"</i> in order to get factual information, even if you suspect that you will not like the information you receive.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

John Smith confesses “The ‘denialist’ thing really turns me off”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, everyday experience and scientific research jointly affirm that denialist cognition commonly denies its own denial.

Conclusion  Denialists intensely dislike talking about, or reading about, or even thinking about, the cognitive mechanisms of denial.

s\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by rls

0
0

Willard: “Now that was an interesting way to cloud the issue.”. Back to the issue of clouds?


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Mosher changed his spiel.

“How will you know when McIntyre or I believe Mann committed fraud?
Simple. When we say that.”
Now he’s saying
“When he says it, you will know.”

Which is different.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by omanuel

0
0

From this court case I will get answers to a question I asked the Congressional Space Science & Technology last year

“WHY did our government deceive us ?”

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/WHY.pdf

I do not think I will like the answer, but I still want the information anyway.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Fanny uses a scurrilous technique.

Like when one accuses someone of being overly argumentative, and they question that assertion.

Fanny needs to offer a dose of honesty in his postings if he wishes to get traction.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by willard (@nevaudit)

0
0

> The fact is that IF he says it, then you know he believes it.

The inverse of the point discussed.

But which point, about which issue, again?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

ok fan – good answer (ignored my question)
“one goes to heaven for the weather, hell for the company”
count me deranged …
Jeez

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by AK

0
0
<blockquote>Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures</blockquote>Short enough to miss the Medieval Warming Period. Oops! All you've <strike>got </strike>offered is theory, no temperatures. Oh yes, boreholes. Your link is paywalled, but I found a <a href="http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/teachingclimate/climate_change_present_past_and_future.pptx" rel="nofollow">.PPT that appears to have it.</a> The curve there is quite consistent with a much deeper LIA than <i>"consensus Climate Science"</i> recognizes, along with a much higher Medieval Warming. Here's what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28climate%29#Boreholes" rel="nofollow">Wiki</a> says about borehole temperatures:<blockquote>Borehole temperatures are used as temperature proxies. Since heat transfer through the ground is slow, temperature measurements at a series of different depths down the borehole, adjusted for the effect of rising heat from inside the Earth, can be "inverted" (a mathematical formula to solve matrix equations) to produce a non-unique series of surface temperature values. The solution is "non-unique" because there are multiple possible surface temperature reconstructions that can produce the same borehole temperature profile. In addition, due to physical limitations, the reconstructions are inevitably "smeared", and become more smeared further back in time. When reconstructing temperatures around 1,500 AD, <b>boreholes have a temporal resolution of a few centuries.</b> [my bold]</blockquote>More time-wasting non-answers from FOMBS

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Mark Steyn claims [utterly wrongly] “If you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career”

LoL … as every scientist knows, the historical truth is precisely the opposite: Young scientists make room at the top by pulling down senior folks from the top!

This keeps everyone on their toes … the senior scientists understand perfectly that the young scientists are always watching for signs of weakness, vulnerability, and flagging imagination.

`Cuz there’s nothing that young scientific lions like better than pulling down aging scientific water-buffaloes.

And needless to say, buffaloes fight back!

“It is difficult for people to imagine the wounds and scars that attend the rise of an acclaimed scientist.”
  — Red Jost

So it always has been in science; so it always will be.

s\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by thisisnotgoodtogo

0
0

Fanny changes the subject again

Steyn talked about generally common goal of getting a position and tenure. Do not cross the line in the sand.

Fanny talked about the relatively rare event of an exceptional person making a name by taking down a senior

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

So why did the five-century borehole “hockey-stick” suddenly develop such pronounced “blade” in the late 20th century?

The world wonders … but climate-scientists, not so much!

s\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

oh … and I absolutely deny that I’m in denial of my own denial … how dare you sir? :)

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0

Question  What fraction of young scientific “lions” are ambitious to pull-down a senior “water-buffalo”?

Answer  100% of the good ones. Plus, 100% of the ones who think they’re good. Together, that’s an overwhelming majority!

s\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images