rushmc 23 #1 January 18, 2009 Before the Real Science Shows Them to Be the Quacks they Really Are. Now my predictions are coming true so I must be right, right? That is how it works right? That is what I was told http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama Yep, we got 4 years or we all gonna die What a crock of deep deep shit this Hansen idiot is."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 January 18, 2009 QuoteNow my predictions are coming true Carefull, the Prophecy business can be very hazardous when your followers turn on you.... oh look something shiney Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 January 18, 2009 Quote Quote Now my predictions are coming true Carefull, the Prophecy business can be very hazardous when your followers turn on you.... oh look something shiney sarcasm is something you dont recognise I seeAs for the Hansen comment, I will stick to that..... But to your point, billvon is the one that replied that to me, does your comment goe to him as well?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymiles 3 #4 January 18, 2009 Quote Before the Science I Cherry Pick Shows Them to Be the Quacks they Really Are. Now my predictions are coming true so I must be right, right? That is how it works right? That is what I was told http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama Yep, we got 4 years or we all gonna dieWhat a crock of deep deep shit this Hansen idiot is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #5 January 18, 2009 Do you get this stuff from a weekly company newsletter down at the coal power plant you work at???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #6 January 18, 2009 Quote Do you get this stuff from a weekly company newsletter down at the coal power plant you work at???? And you tell me I make silly postsOh, and I dont work at a coal plant nor does IPL, the company I work for, own one The coal plant located where I work is owned by GENCO. GENCO and IPL are owned by the same company however."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #7 January 18, 2009 Just trying to get the facts Marc. Having a financial self interest does skew how ones world view can be set by those you work for. I take ANYTHING that comes from corporate.... with a very skeptical eye. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #8 January 18, 2009 QuoteJust trying to get the facts Marc. Having a financial self interest does skew how ones world view can be set by those you work for. I take ANYTHING that comes from corporate.... with a very skeptical eye. Fair enough. Understand the opinion is mine. The company does not put anything out about it one way or another. They just try and survive under the current political crap that is AGW."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #9 January 19, 2009 ================ Climate warming 'highly unusual' says new study Findings counter argument that melt is part of climate cycle By Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service January 18, 2009 A major U.S. government report on Arctic climate, prepared with information from eight Canadian scientists, has concluded that the recent rapid warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice are "highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years." The findings, released Friday, counter suggestions from skeptics that such recent events as the opening of the Northwest Passage and collapse of ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic are predictable phenomena that can be explained as part of a natural climate cycle rather than being driven by elevated carbon emissions from human activity. ================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 January 19, 2009 It continues to boggle my mind that people can't even agree on what's being measured, much less what is means. Something is wrong here.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #11 January 19, 2009 QuoteIt continues to boggle my mind that people can't even agree on what's being measured, much less what is means. Something is wrong here. It sure does.. but whatever the outcome we are all going to have to live with the climate that is certainly going to be different. I wonder how many will claim... "Geee.. we didnt know" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #12 January 19, 2009 Quote What a crock of deep deep shit this Hansen idiot is. And yet you were only too happy to cherry pick him when you thought he agreed with you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #13 January 19, 2009 >It continues to boggle my mind that people can't even agree on what's >being measured, much less what is means. It doesn't boggle my mind. People disagree on lots of things, from evolution to climate change to how airplanes fly. But a large number of people who think (for example) that 747's are too big to fly doesn't change how aerodynamics work. Science isn't a democracy, and even if you spend enough money to convince people that 747's really can't fly, they won't fall out of the sky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #14 January 19, 2009 QuoteBut a large number of people who think (for example) that 747's are too big to fly doesn't change how aerodynamics work. Science isn't a democracy, and even if you spend enough money to convince people that 747's really can't fly, they won't fall out of the sky. I have seen a LOT of 747's fly.. even those doing their very first flights out of Paine Field. To me they look like they are flying.. UNLIKE the C-5 (same defense competition).. that damn thing does NOT look like its flying when it rolls for a takeoff.. same goes for the AN-225 I saw take off from Moffat once. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #15 January 19, 2009 >I have seen a LOT of 747's fly . .. That doesn't mean anything! They could be held aloft by natural cycles. Just because it SEEMS like they take off when you fire up the engines, point the nose down the runway and get enough airspeed over the wings doesn't mean it's really happening. They don't really fly. Just read the papers; you can get a dozen reports of broken 747's sitting in fields. But maybe loser liberal idiots think that having a field of broken airplane parts means that lift really exists. Oh, well, maybe they do fly. But it has nothing to do with lift! Anyone who has seen a volcano erupt or a rocket take off knows that you don't need the so-called "lift" of a wing to get something in the air. "Consensus science" my ass. It's all the rich aerodynamicists and physicists who just want you to believe that lift exists so they can continue their agenda of mind control and brainwashing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #16 January 19, 2009 Quote Just read the papers; you can get a dozen reports of broken 747's sitting in fields. That sounds like Pinal Airpark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #17 January 19, 2009 >That sounds like Pinal Airpark See? PROOF! PROOF! PROOF that the "lift conspiracists" are running out of time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #18 January 19, 2009 Quote Science isn't a democracy Agreed!We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #19 January 19, 2009 Quote Quote Just read the papers; you can get a dozen reports of broken 747's sitting in fields. That sounds like Pinal Airpark What an odd place you mention - I've flown in and out the place numerous times and it's still very odd. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #20 January 19, 2009 The Evergreen spooks like it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #21 January 19, 2009 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 January 19, 2009 Quoteconcluded that the recent rapid warming of polar temperatures and shrinking of multi-year Arctic sea ice are "highly unusual compared to events from previous thousands of years." This is why I don't trust it. "Highly unusual" is a subjective interpretation that can neither be proven nor disproven. For example, large volcanic eruptions in the continental United States are unusual (of course, "large" is similarly subjective.) The Cascade Range has had, to the best of our present knowledge, 11 eruptions in the last 4k years about one in 350 years. But 7 of those have been in the last 220 year - about a tenfold increase in activity to one every 30 years or so. This means that there were 4 eruptions in about 3800 years and then 7 in 220. Is that number "unusual?" In some ways, yes. In other respects, no. I do not find it unusual. Others may disagree. Calling the warming "unusual" is different from calling it "unprecedented," which is a step up from some other objective statements that could not be proven or disproven. But "unusual" is a highly subjective thing. Quotecounter suggestions from skeptics that such recent events as the opening of the Northwest Passage and collapse of ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic are predictable phenomena that can be explained as part of a natural climate cycle rather than being driven by elevated carbon emissions from human activity How does calling it "unusual" counter suggestions. Let us look another way. "Damn, she's hot. "I disagree." "What do you mean? She's smokin'!" "I mean I don't think she's hot." "I've collected the data and reduced hotness to a mathematical formula, plugging in a bunch of factors and giving each a weighted value. My results have been peer reviewed - a consensus says she's hot." "Who determines the weighted value?" "Science does. My weighting methodology is highly scientific. You wouldn't understand it." "Well, may I see your formula?" "You wouldn't understand it. But the computer says she's hot. In fact, we've plugged in 10,000 images of women from photos and art over the last 5,000 years. Her hotness has been determined to be "highly unusual" over the last several thousand years." "Oh! I see your rankings. Lilian Russell? She came out horribly! She was renowned for her beauty!" "Yeah. We don't gauge hotness on popular opinion at the time. Science is not a democracy, and we choose not to base our data on that of people who were forming opinions before quantum mechanics was even posited." "This one you say is hot looks anorexic! Don't you think that counts as a negative?" "We factor any increase in weight as a bad thing. It is well established that a heavy chick isn't hot and the heavier she gets the less hot she gets. Working backwards on that concept does not flaw the logic." "But she's got blue eyes. I like green eyes." "Well, you're in denial. Here are a bunch of eminent people who think she's hot. They've reviewed my results. Their validity cannot be questioned." "Wait just a second here. Where does Sarah Palin fit in?" "Palin? She came out pretty lousily. She got some reasonably high marks. But her pesonality and beliefs caused her to plummet in our highly scientific, peer reviewed results. She ranked dead even with Ann Coulter." "They don't even look alike at all!" "Yeah, but they both ranked as 'Cure for Viagra Priapism.'" "This study is a joke." "Be a denier all you want. The study is promising, though, since hotness levels of women are increasing all the time. Man - women before 1975 were just butt ugly!" Sorry - no study that has a core result and even inputs in the subjective realm won't be trusted. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #23 January 19, 2009 > "Highly unusual" is a subjective interpretation that can neither be proven > nor disproven. I agree. However, summaries are written in language that casual readers can understand; as usual, the details in the report are more interesting. (In other words, you could say that "the increase in temperatures in the past 100 years is greater than the increase in any century going back 400,000 years" but that's longer than most people will read.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #24 January 19, 2009 Quotesummaries are written in language that casual readers can understand I know this well. But the summary is not anything that can be proven or disproven. It is puffing! QuoteIn other words, you could say that "the increase in temperatures in the past 100 years is greater than the increase in any century going back 400,000 years" but that's longer than most people will read. So it's not about putting out accurate info? It's about putting out stuff that people want to read? Quoteas usual, the details in the report are more interesting No they aren't. You just wrote that people won't read it. Since the target audience is the casual reader, I can get an effect by appealing to another thing. Bush used this well in going to Iraq. There's evidence out there, and we think this is what's happening. We cannot afford not to do this. Quotethe increase in temperatures in the past 100 years is greater than the increase in any century going back 400,000 years" but that's longer than most people will read. And that's where people like me come in. People like me need to be cut off at the pass! "What the the average temperature between 367,774 BCE and 367,675 BCE? how does it compare to 367,674-367575 BCE?" The absence of an immediate answer would mean that they don't know, and have no basis on which to make the statement. How to prevent guys like me from saying, "Prove you're right?" Easy. Make a vague subjective determination presented in a way so as to sway the hearer to your perspective in the guise of scientifically verificable conclusion. The art of persuasion. Who needs proof when persuasion is easier? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #25 January 20, 2009 >So it's not about putting out accurate info? ?? When I write up a report on how a new design for a reverse signaling receiver works (for example) it usually starts with a summary, like "the complex impedance signaling scheme has shown promise, and early tests show that performance will be fairly robust." Now, you could claim that's inaccurate, misleading, puffery etc but it is important in a summary, because many people read _only_ the summary to get information like "so what should we work on next?" or "are they done with the receiver yet?" or "so how are things going?" Then, if they want to read further, the data, schematics, results etc are further on in the report. I would be absolutely amazed if you did not do something similar. >Bush used this well in going to Iraq. There's evidence out there, and >we think this is what's happening. We cannot afford not to do this. Of course you could say that, and of course you could be wrong. To use the above example, I could say "we made no progress, and have to hire another 5 engineers to have any hope of making any progress." If someone were to read the report, they would discover that that statement was inaccurate, since we had in fact made progress. The idea that a summary can be wrong does not equate to "therefore, all summaries are wrong." >And that's where people like me come in. People like me need to >be cut off at the pass! "What the the average temperature between >367,774 BCE and 367,675 BCE? how does it compare to >367,674-367575 BCE?" That's fine. Some other examples might be: -pilots who don't care that "hey, the fuel tanks carry 24 gallons each, but exactly 1.8 gallons are unusable, and another 1.1 gallons are unusable during steep climbs!" I mean, who really cares? -oncologists that don't care that a defect in codon 133,478 on chromosome 17 predisposes a woman to breast cancer. Boring. -processor designers who don't care that when the ALU in their new processor tries to multiply 0x12A30400 by 0x0FF012EE you get an incorrect answer sometimes. I mean, after all, that means you get the right answer 99.9999% of the time! What's the problem? What, you got nothing better to do than gripe that the processor in an A340's control system gets the wrong answer once in a great while? And I am sure there are pilots, oncologists and designers out there who think such things. I happen to think that makes them bad pilots, oncologists and designers, though. >The art of persuasion. Who needs proof when persuasion is easier? Scientists do. You have every right, of course, to not give a rat's ass about proof, and make jokes about how what happened 367,774 years ago doesn't matter. But once you reject such data, you don't really have any moral basis to express disdain for people who reject data in favor of rhetoric. You have explained why they shouldn't care about the data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites