Just checked, and my F-250 Super Duty got 24MPG coming back from the gun club.
'Course that was at 60 on farm roads. At 80 on the freeway it's around 19.
If I gotta pass a truck it will SCOOT. The turbo is nice.
In 4 low going down a steep trail you never need the brakes, just punch the tow button and ya got 11 to 1 compression.
The Ford Earth Fucker? Take that, hippies? Wow, that's really cool. So now we are going out of our way to prove that our penises are, in fact, large as well as being as much of a dong as possible about pollution. I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory they are, at least, incredible stewards of the environment. I guess I may have to rethink that line of thought.
The Ford Earth Fucker? Take that, hippies? Wow, that's really cool. So now we are going out of our way to prove that our penises are, in fact, large as well as being as much of a dong as possible about pollution.
Yes, pretty much, because the damn hippies will never understand that it's not about the pollution, it's about having fun. The goal isn't to get 14 mpg, the goal is to get the 411 HP.
Well, it's also to rebel a little against the green police state mentality in vogue these days. But it does send the wrong message to make a point of how much fuel you're burning. Pollution or no, petroleum is a valuable resource and probably ought to be husbanded (though obviously not by fiat).
The goal isn't to get 14 mpg, the goal is to get the 411 HP.
This.
I tell you what, Markaphasia - you go and develop a car that gets the same mileage as the Pious, but still manages to put the same horses on the ground, provide the same driving experience, and sounds as good as my Bullitt, and you will probably have people lining up halfway around the country to buy it.
Until then, you can respectfully go screw yourself and your cult.
Regarding the awesomeness on wheels up there, though, while her father would undoubtedly provide support fire, I somehow doubt I will be able to convince Better Half to swing for one of those to replace her aging Volvo. I wonder if the promise of a SuperCab would help any... probably not.
Speaking of high-performance, though, I need to find an empty parking lot somewhere... loosening up the back end last night was a little... exciting... and I need to learn how it really behaves in those kinds of situations.
"Ah, yes. a statement filled with facts, logic and reasoning."
Well, lessee now ...
His response was to your posting of a link to factcheck.org, right? Now, what was his response? Oh, yeah, there it is. It comprises three sentences, I see.
Sentence 1 was:
"factcheck..."
This shows what his response is about, in a manner that is concise and to the point. It's a fact.
Sentence 2 was:
"Can fuck off, teacherboy."
This is a suggestion that he directed at you, also in a manner that is direct and to the point. Perhaps you should take it.
Sentence 3 was:
"I'll do my own fact checking, fuckwit."
This is a statement of fact, also in a manner that is direct and to the point. The rather descriptive form of address to you at the end was gratuitous, but well deserved.
So, two out of the three sentences in his statement were indeed factual. His choosing to do his own fact checking is quite logical, given your track record in such matters. His statement to that effect is pithy, but direct and concise. I think his response was quite reasonable, all things considered.
As I have noted elsewhere, teacher boy, if you don't like being called a fuckwit, then don't act like a fuckwit. It would open up a whole new world for you.
Yeah. My '72 Satellite gets about 13 (though I think that can be improved with tuning) and probably only hits around 250 HP. (Just a guess, I haven't had it dyno'ed or anything.) Though, tuning seems likely to be win/win, there.
I test drove an H1 Hummer once. Don't remember the horse power, but it got around 8 MPG.
My lovely bride thought it was insane to spend that much money for something that didn't offer anything in the way of luxury. Sure was fun to drive, though.
Well, for a group of scientists who rely on facts, logic and reason I'm shocked that I still have not heard any comments on the factcheck link above. There sure was a lot of talk on here about bad science and fudged data but now there is silence. I wonder why?
I'd also like to point out a glaring omission from the original link:
"In November 2009, private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and made public. Climate change disbelievers called it "Climategate," saying that the e-mails proved collusion and conspiracies that would discredit man-made global warming."
In addition to "the e-mails" were DATA and PROGRAMS with COMMENTARY. I find it fascinating that this was omitted from that link.
"Whitewash" covers it - barely. It wasn't even a good whitewash job.
Of course, WE are the ones who are so stupid as to NOT believe what Marxy and the rest of his idiot brethren spout for the truth.
That, then, is all that he needs to know.
Doesn't matter one fucking wit if we can prove anything to the contrary, he's declared victory, you see. So, how can one convince someone who has already made up his mind, and is sticking to his story? Oh, right, we've covered that whole first principles thing before.
Kevin, you've already made up your mind about climate change. It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you. That's fine if you want to take this opinion. But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method...well...your belief and writings, regarding climate change, make this statement completely false. And quite hypocritical. Your belief is also quite transparent. "If I prove them wrong on this one," you think to yourself, "then they must be wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!" How typical...
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change. The emails from East Anglia do call into question their methods. Two of three reviews have said that their science is sound but that science is still not 100 percent valid. I also call into question how human beings can cause that much damage to the Earth which everyday proves that we are simply a nuisance. It seems more likely to me that climate change, as the result of CO2 emissions, might make it more difficult for us to live on Earth but it won't affect the Earth itself at all.
But again, I'm not certain. I'd like to see more data and research to examine the validity of this theory. Facts and logic, Kevin. Facts and logic ;)
"Kevin, you've already made up your mind about climate change. It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you. That's fine if you want to take this opinion. But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method...well...your belief and writings, regarding climate change, make this statement completely false. And quite hypocritical. Your belief is also quite transparent. "If I prove them wrong on this one," you think to yourself, "then they must be wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!" How typical..."
How typical of you, hypocrisy boy. This is, yet again, nothing more than your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.
DJ, do you actually have anything to offer regarding either report on the East Anglia research? Or are we going to continue with the obssessive behavior directed towards yours truly?
"DJ, do you actually have anything to offer regarding either report on the East Anglia research?"
I have offered such in the past. Each time, you either ignored it or mischaracterized it, in your usual and customary manner.
"Or are we going to continue with the obssessive behavior directed towards yours truly?"
What do you mean by "we", teacher boy? Still having language difficulties?
I expect that YOU will continue with your Standard Responses. I expect that I will continue to point it out when you do. If that bothers you, then try not acting like a fuckwit. It would open a whole new world for you.
The emails from East Anglia do call into question their methods.
No, the data and internal comments to the programs do that, and much more convincingly. The e-mails are merely the coup de grace.
There is no question that climate changes. The question is do humans have a meaningful effect on that or are we just noise at the edge? No one has provided real evidence that humanity has a greater effect than a bad volcano, let alone solar activity. In fact, the system is so extraordinarily complex that it isn't unreasonable to say that it exceeds our ability to understand it (and mathematically model it). For something that operates on geologic time, our "knowledge" - based on a ridiculously small amount of data, is almost certain to be wrong.
"... But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method..."
...Which HAS BEEN PROVEN, AS IN FACT, that there was data either altered or rather conveniently left out of reports. It has been PROVEN that the scientific method was tossed out, like yesterday's trash, in what is obviously a politically-driven fraud on the entire civilized world.
Marxy, this is ALL out there, in the open, now, and there is no use in YOU thumping YOUR chest about how stupid WE are. WE know what's happened, and YOU are the one sticking your head in the sand, performing your standard response #1, with a good dose of #3, for measure.
Pointing to the obvious on this one, like saying, "The sky is blue," just isn't working with Marxy, 'cuz he's too caught up in his ideology to be objective.
Well, for a group of scientists who rely on facts, logic and reason I'm shocked that I still have not heard any comments on the factcheck link above. There sure was a lot of talk on here about bad science and fudged data but now there is silence. I wonder why?
Ya know, somehow the fact that you're shocked doesn't surprise me in the least.
It doesn't matter that I personally showed youwithin the bibliography of the IPCC report itself, where they referenced an article written by a political activist/freelance journalist who'd written articles for the IUCN, and a forest fire expert, as "peer reviewed climate science".
Because a body investigating itself found no evidence of wrongdoing, that entry in the bibliography isn't actually there.
Or it's a totally different Andy Rowell who is actually a respected climatologist, yeah, that's it... who, um, happened to write a report by the same name, published in the same year.... um, with the same ISBN number...
Or I was lying and photoshopped all that and put it up at those links.
Thank you for today's lesson in Critical Thinking 131.
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
Either you were lying then, or you're lying now. Actually, you're doing both.
Let me remind you what you said just a few sentences above:It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you.
Right there you staked a position counter to Kevin's. You made up your mind.
That's how staggeringly incompetent you are at this. You can't make a whole 'nother paragraph without contradicting yourself.
And that's even leaving aside that within a short time, you posted that after claiming we couldn't comment on the Constitution without years of study (and completely missing that you might be dealing with people who already met your requirements.)
That's right. You ridiculed us and said that you didn't understand engineering, thus you didn't opine on such.
And here you are, opining away like an evergreen.
It's just hard to believe that someone can be this obtuse, and still think they're the smartest person they know.
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
Nor have I. Nor, I suspect, have most of us here. That's not where the difference between us lies.
On the other hand, you quite obviously have made up your mind about the "evidence" presented in various IPCC reports. You accept it as accurate, and no amount of showing you that it accepts as "peer reviewed science" articles by activists and speculation by students can convince you otherwise.
We have likewise made up our mind about said "evidence". We have decided that the documented, blatant attempts to deceive for the sake of advancing a political agenda contained in the current crop of "evidence" renders it invalid. Moreover, it likewise renders the credibility of those who attempted the deception completely worthless.
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
I don't see how you can have failed to, since you accept as genuine the propaganda that claims it as valid and factual. For myself, now that the debate is no longer "over" and the science is no longer "settled" by the dominance of that propaganda campaign, I'm hoping people will be able to go to work and come up with an actually useful climate model. You know, one that doesn't depend on making the Roman and Viking expansions ridiculous by claiming the climate that allowed such expansion didn't actually ever exist. You know, one that can accurately model the climate. Maybe even one that doesn't try to claim that entropy can be bypassed and perpetual motion is not only possible, but about to run us down.
It's a pity they didn't look for that the first time around, we might have gotten somewhere by now.
It'd be nice to find out the facts. And who knows, the earth may be warming. The only thing I'm certain of is that if it is, we won't find out the truth about it from Phil Jones, or Howard Mann, or Al Gore.
We have decided that the documented, blatant attempts to deceive for the sake of advancing a political agenda contained in the current crop of "evidence" renders it invalid.
First of all, you think that all of you AREN'T deceiving in a blatant attempt of advancing a political agenda?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!
Whew...that was funny :-D
Your assertion above will be your conclusion to ALL evidence no matter what is discovered in the future, GOF. For any of you, to admit that you are wrong about climate change is anathema to your ideology. It's simply incoceivable (Wallaces) that error would dwell in such a pristine utopia.
God help us all if you were wrong and someone who was (gasp!) a liberal or a Democrat was right. Cue the water slide into the boiling pit of sewage!
The only thing I'm certain of is that if it is, we won't find out the truth about it from Phil Jones, or Howard Mann, or Al Gore.
Well, Al Gore is more of a spokesmodel for climate change. And Howard Mann is a lawyer so I'll give you those two guys.
But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences? And this knoweldge is based on the fact (ROTFLMFAO) that you have reviewed all of the same data AND been a part of the same research in which he has been a part?
So let me see if I have this straight...this group here at TSM, in addition to being highly competent and qualified engineers (of which I have no doubt), all of you are also the SUPREME AUTHORITY on the following:
-Constitutional Law
-US History
-World History
-Education
-The Bible (for those believers)
-Environmental Sciences and Climatology (recentlly added to the list)
Wow, I really am in the presence of greatness. If you guys say it, than it must be true given your vast knowledge on...well...everything.
What we see here is a response that we've seen enough to list as his Standard Response #12, the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.
Have you ever pulled a label off something where the adhesive can't decide whether to stick to the label and the object? As you get further along, the strands of adhesive between the label and object get longer and eventually begin to break in fits and spurts. As you near the end of the label, the breakage accelerates until the label is fully disconnected from the object it was stuck to.
What glues us to reality is evidence and logic. Word meanings also come into play because words are the handles we give to concepts which allow us to understand and examine those concepts and our understanding of reality.
Is it just me, or has the snapping of the strands of adhesive connecting Marxaphasia to reality been accelerating recently? It seems like his neologisms have been increasing, his "logic" has been becoming even more tattered and erratic, his positions on "facts" have been changing from occasionally grounded in reality to ever more counter-factual, and even his arguments have become ever more amorphous and self-contradictory. I'm starting to wonder if Marxy will soon find himself in a padded room protected by the nice young men in white coats while he begs for crayons to write out the The Answer To Life, The Universe, And Everything as explained to him by Mikey Moore in a vision.
Or could it be that I'm just getting increasingly tired of his bullshit?
has the snapping of the strands of adhesive connecting Marxaphasia to reality been accelerating recently?
... could it be that I'm just getting increasingly tired of his bullshit?
That I'm getting increasingly tired of his bullshit is a given. That's a bias which could cause me to think that he's coming unglued when he's simply as poorly connected to reality as usual. Thus, the scientific method demands that I present my theory for outside testing.
I've noticed that the weaker his argument - to himself - the more shrill he gets. But yes, he's seemed to be much, much, much worse recently.
Which might be due to a number of other factors, but my guess is that he's having to justify to himself more and more and it's getting harder and harder his Magic Messiah who would Hope And Change And Be Different.
Mark's all about putting all his eggs in one faith basket, and as DJ has repeatedly proven and harped on, Mark cannot admit error.
And there's no way he can say, "You guys were all wrong about Obama! See!" At best he can point to half truths and spins and ... Even he knows it.
So he's trying to prove one point, just one, where he was "right" about Obama, or about most other things here, so in his mind, he can declare victory. Nevermind that the current score is north of a few thousand to 0... If he can score one, it wipes out all the other inane things he's said and stood for!
Like the defense of Phil Jones after the CRU release - Mark's said, unequivocally that there is Global Warming, he can't even admit that he'd been lied to, that what he'd been citing was in error. He just can't do it. He puts his faith, and his reputation (such as it is) on the line, because he doesn't know any other way to do it.
He lives in a movie script in his own head, and "wait, wait wait, who rewrote this last night, this wasn't here, wait, that's not the dialogue I was expecting! Wait, my character has WHAT as a motivation? THIS ISN'T RIGHT?!?!?!" (HT to LabRat who first saw/described this years ago. Took me a while to realize how dead on she was.)
Obama was the Messiah. He was going to FIX EVERYTHING. Mark _really believed_. He really did. So for his hero, his messiah to fall on his face, to turn out to be not just an ordinary man, but one that we've been describing to him, something's wrong. But it can't be HIS belief, it can't be HIS script which isn't in sync with the ones we've got.
That's what, oddly enough, makes me think that there's hope for him versus some internet trolls like UBU52 and mikeb that infest Robb Allen and other places. He knows he's wrong. He just can't admit it.
There's hope there. We all went through that stage. Everyone does. Granted, usually you're transitioning out of it at least by High School or College. But he's never been in our fields, our backgrounds. He's been in fields where feelings were more important. What you want matters, not what you did.
But it's something he could learn, and he could get out.
But he's unwilling to deal with the enormities of the real world, and the loss of so many of his friends. We're bad examples to try and get him out of it. Neo-neocon would be good, she was where he was. But that's why he spits on her so hard - she was where he was, and she changed. It might mean... he's wrong.
He knows it, IMO, and it unhinges him. Better to cling to the fantasy, where his "years" of "experience" trump ours, where his efforts that we (to his mind) deride, are meaningful.
It's less work. It's less scary. It's safer.
He claims "not to be an engineer" in some threads, and then lectures us on engineering in others.
Because he knows, deep down, that he could learn how to argue with us. But it would mean that he'd have to leave his entire defined being behind.
Not a one of us - to speak for many here - would ignore him if he came into an argument with NUMBERS and (real) THEORY. IF he was to do engineering analysis, we'd not begrudge him that (unless he made a mistake). But then it would be defineable. It would be real. Quantifiable. His degrees and his experience wouldn't matter if he could lay out the math, and the equations and say see, here, this is the number I'm using.
And he'd end up with.... the exact same figures (for the most part) that we'd be using.... Which would mean, which group of us is _really_ in "reality"?
IMO. I'm not a therapist, psychologist, or mental health professional. So Mark can ignore what I said, I've got no "experience". :)
and my link to retcon.. didn't go in. (I LOVE JS-KIT AND ECHO! THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST, MOST SUCKIEST COMMENTING SYSTEM EVAH! Echo sucks more than a $5 streetwalker in Bankock!)
Ah well.
Mark! Watch! See how easy it is to define a word so everybody's on the same page!
than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?
And this is why you cannot convince us.
You cannot, willnot, no matter how many times we point out to you that actions and results are meaninful, stop and examine any worldview other than your own.
He has a PhD. He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent. But you cannot stop and evaluate. You can only quote and point to others.
(And I'll note that you totally ignore us when we point you to _experts_ debunking your favorite college dropouts that you cite unquestioning.)
Just as you ignore me when I tell you of my (misusing the phrase as you do) experience as a "primary source") and continue to cite people who don't know what they're talking about.
(You've yet to ever comment back to me about your "citgroup" documents that you're waving as a holy grail.)
all of you are also the SUPREME AUTHORITY on the following:
Just in comparison to you.
We've _explained_ to you _how to critically think_. Many, many times. All you've done is insist that you've studied it - you've never, not once demonstrated competence.
Mark, the other day we posted someone with more experience, more academic credentials than Obama, who mocked him as his job as a lecturer (not even adjunct faculty).
Yet that meant nothing to you. This is where your hypocrisy is so obvious. When you sneer at us, ignoring all the reasons and rationales that have been laid out and explained for you over 2 years, and all you can say is Phil Jones has a PhD and he's studied for a number of years! Nevermind that fraud. Or the coverup. Or the fact that the _only_ reason you support him is you decided that your political goals would be fulfilled through his now known beyond a reasonable doubtdeceptions.
....
So what was Madoff's educational level, and how long did he study? Does that change anything about anything else he did?
Yes or no?
And speaking of expertise... Which is more, 22 or 15?
"You cannot, willnot, no matter how many times we point out to you that actions and results are meaninful, stop and examine any worldview other than your own.
He has a PhD. He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent. But you cannot stop and evaluate. You can only quote and point to others."
Marxy does not possess to the tools to evaluate anything. He doesn't know how. He doesn't understand basic logic, and therefore, can't make meaningful progression of thought toward any sort of analysis.
He's unaware of this, but that's not stopping him from acting like the fuckwit he is.
He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent.
According to whom? You? Others here? Unix, I linked to a factcheck article that showed the exact opposite. Someone who follows this philosophy:
What glues us to reality is evidence and logic. Word meanings also come into play because words are the handles we give to concepts which allow us to understand and examine those concepts and our understanding of reality.
would have taken this information into account. None of you have given it any consideration, even though factcheck has been sited many times on here as being a reputable source, because it doesn't fit the story you want to believe. Nothing ever will. Thus, you do not live in a reality of facts and logic..only opinion...which you are certainly entitled to have.
Unless, of course...are you saying that you were part of the teams that have reviewed Jones' data at East Anglia? If so, then by all means share with us your evidence and logic regarding this review. Remember, each team's review of Jones' data, not the "review" conducted by hotair or townhall.
You are right about one thing. I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work. Neither do any of you. But the two teams that have done it certainly have the tools. And so does the third team.
Unix, I linked to a factcheck article that showed the exact opposite.
Claimed. And as we've demonstrated to you before, not accurately.
As it did there, leaving out that there were programs and data in the release - proving fraud.
None of you have given it any consideration, even though factcheck has been sited many times on here as being a reputable source,
ONLY BY YOU.
And it's "cited", anyway. You're the only one who cites FactCheck approvingly. It's been used to prove to you, even WITH the spin, that you were still wrong. But you're wrong that it's a "reputable source".
Take you citation there. Why does it not address the data and programs that were released?
How do you "factcheck" when you leave relevant facts out?
I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work.
BUT YOU DID. And are doing it right now.
So, which global warming theory are you proposing is correct, Mark?
Name it, and give us some predictions. Nothing vague. Specifics. Name the theory.
"This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It’s a metaphor."
Yup, that it is. I wonder if they understand that?
- Every archaeologist who ever made a claim based on the idea that the Little Climactic Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age actually occurred is wrong.
- Everyone who ever studied physical science, from Aristotle forward including Archimedes, Newton, Einstein and Freeman Dyson, who claimed that entropy works all the time, is wrong. Unless he's a liberal Democrat who believes in AGW, because entropy gets out of the way for Democrat party politics.
- "My dog ate my data/methodology" is an acceptable excuse.
Yet another wonderful lesson in Critical Thinking 131. Okay, I think I've had my intelligence and integrity insulted enough for now.
Pfft, we're only in the mid 40's in comments, we've got at least another 40 to go wherein our intelligence and integrity will be insulted before Marxy gets bored and wanders off.
But Javier is crying!!!!!!!!!! Life!!!! Javier!!! Crying!!! You heartless bastard!!!! He's crying, don't you care?!?!?!?! Of course you don't! You're just like Al Queda! Worshipping only Money and Power and MAKING PEOPLE CRY!!
"But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?"
Is being cited, holding a PhD and working in the field years all that makes him right?
Notice you ran away from a very critical question. (Critical to understanding, that is.)
Mark: I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory
Me: WHAT "Climate Change Theory?"
Which one? Show your work. 4 days ago, 10:45:18 PM EDT
Which one, Mark?
Explain. Be clear. Show your work. State what you mean. Clarify ambiguity.
If you understand what you're accusing us of, you shouldn't have a problem. Even if you don't, you should understand that you have to be clear what you're accusing us of.
Which theory are you supporting? And THEN you can tell us WHY.
You are right about one thing. I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work. Neither do any of you.
You don't know that.
It's just your making it up as you go along.
But yes, Mark, we do have some tools. We've been telling you about them for years now. It's why we were all "skeptics". I know you've been told about the problems with the tree ring analysis, and the fact that they utterly ignored 3 warming periods that didn't fit their curve...
Because the CRU info wasn't right. It didn't work for a lot of issues, and we told you of them. You sneered and ignored us then.
But we were right. Luckily, we got the data to prove it, despite people like you trying to hide it.
Now, some of that was luck. But the biggest question is:
Had the CRU leaker not revealed how big of a fraud their data cooking was, how much authority would they have?
See, we now know that Jones was a fraud, and making it up as he went along. He's got no credibility. Pay attention. This is why you have none, you've been dishonest, refused to address when you were wrong, argued dishonestly on many occasions, and as a result, you have no credibility.
Lost. Once it's lost it takes a VERY long time to recover - and you recover it by hard work and honestly reporting. Jones might can recover his. Maybe. Unlikely.
But insisting that he didn't do anything wrong and we should listen to him ANYWAY is just utterly deranged, Mark.
But U-J, a disinterested third party reviewed the situation and proclaimed that no fraud occurred! You're just a Denier! AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN! END OF DISCUSSION!
"Imagine a worldview that licenses the student to claim to be "different" while hanging on every pronouncement by self-important gurus. The student (and the teacher) get to espouse "critical thinking" while succumbing to emotion. Neither can resist calling attention to contrived virtuousness and proclaiming, "I love new ideas. See how the echo-chamber embraces me?"
Picture yourself radiating intellectual and moral superiority. You burst with inspiration on how to run government and society -- or more accurately, how you should run society. Feel how easily you brush aside reality and seize moral high ground on issues about which you know nothing."
Chatting with someone today, I was talking about the critical pedagogy theories (Which Mark said was crazy whacko conspiracy theories, but, oh, he's had those classes..) and it turns out that it's a requirement for a teaching cert here.
He taught HS for 3 years.
He's a astrophysics guy.
And he had to take a critical pedagogy class where he was told to tell kids there is no objective reality, that their "Diversity" changes reality.
I woulda paid MONEY to see THOSE classes. Apparently, the class syllabus was changed after a week and a half to eliminate class discussions.
I've been thinking that it's time to recognized that Brave Sir Marxy has once again run away, leaving two very important questions unanswered:
Mark: I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory
Unix-Jedi: WHAT "Climate Change Theory?" Which one? Show your work. [Now 6] days ago, 10:45:18 PM EDT Which one, Mark? Explain. Be clear. Show your work. State what you mean. Clarify ambiguity.
And this one (restated slightly for clarity and to fix a typo):
Marxy:"But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?"
Me:Is being cited, holding a PhD and working in the field for years the only thing that makes him "right"?
Both questions are CRITICAL to establishing that the arguments are connected to reality.
I remember when "everybody" was upset that Cheney was chairing the energy discussions. Even though he'd sold off all of his relevant stock when picked to Veep. (Unfair! Some yelled. He sold at the top!)
Now it turns out that the people Mark is sycophanting with didn't even do *that*.
This is the problem, Mark, when you have this much "regulation", when you have this much *control*. Suddenly, the free market doesn't really exist - and amazingly, the people in charge always seem to "know" which stocks to pick.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-celebration-of-earth-day.html (74 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Dammit, I get about the same mileage and I'm well under 400HP. (Chevy Silverado 2500HD)
Same here. My Land Rover is a big ol' tank, same mileage, but nowhere near that horsepower.
These things are bloody expensive...
And the Phoenix area dealers can't keep them in stock.
Just checked, and my F-250 Super Duty got 24MPG coming back from the gun club.
'Course that was at 60 on farm roads. At 80 on the freeway it's around 19.
If I gotta pass a truck it will SCOOT. The turbo is nice.
In 4 low going down a steep trail you never need the brakes, just punch the tow button and ya got 11 to 1 compression.
prolly about 20:1.
The Ford Earth Fucker? Take that, hippies? Wow, that's really cool. So now we are going out of our way to prove that our penises are, in fact, large as well as being as much of a dong as possible about pollution. I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory they are, at least, incredible stewards of the environment. I guess I may have to rethink that line of thought.
Meanwhile, no comment on this?
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook
Facts? Logic? Critical thought? Or will it be more of the same "highly scientific" reasoning?
The Ford Earth Fucker? Take that, hippies? Wow, that's really cool. So now we are going out of our way to prove that our penises are, in fact, large as well as being as much of a dong as possible about pollution.
Yes, pretty much, because the damn hippies will never understand that it's not about the pollution, it's about having fun. The goal isn't to get 14 mpg, the goal is to get the 411 HP.
Well, it's also to rebel a little against the green police state mentality in vogue these days. But it does send the wrong message to make a point of how much fuel you're burning. Pollution or no, petroleum is a valuable resource and probably ought to be husbanded (though obviously not by fiat).
You're on the wrong blog. Borepatch does a pretty excellent dissection of that drivel.
The goal isn't to get 14 mpg, the goal is to get the 411 HP.
This.
I tell you what, Markaphasia - you go and develop a car that gets the same mileage as the Pious, but still manages to put the same horses on the ground, provide the same driving experience, and sounds as good as my Bullitt, and you will probably have people lining up halfway around the country to buy it.
Until then, you can respectfully go screw yourself and your cult.
Regarding the awesomeness on wheels up there, though, while her father would undoubtedly provide support fire, I somehow doubt I will be able to convince Better Half to swing for one of those to replace her aging Volvo. I wonder if the promise of a SuperCab would help any... probably not.
Speaking of high-performance, though, I need to find an empty parking lot somewhere... loosening up the back end last night was a little... exciting... and I need to learn how it really behaves in those kinds of situations.
I deeply envy your purchase of that Bullitt. Damn, what a nice ride.
I seem to recall that you have a soon-to-be-rather-nice set of hooves in your own stable as well ;) .
Wow, that's some truck. Made piñata's butt hurt all the way up there in Minnesota.
Didn't it, though? ;)
factcheck...
Can fuck off, teacherboy.
I'll do my own fact checking, fuckwit.
Ah, yes. a statement filled with facts, logic and reasoning.
"Ah, yes. a statement filled with facts, logic and reasoning."
Well, lessee now ...
His response was to your posting of a link to factcheck.org, right? Now, what was his response? Oh, yeah, there it is. It comprises three sentences, I see.
Sentence 1 was:
"factcheck..."
This shows what his response is about, in a manner that is concise and to the point. It's a fact.
Sentence 2 was:
"Can fuck off, teacherboy."
This is a suggestion that he directed at you, also in a manner that is direct and to the point. Perhaps you should take it.
Sentence 3 was:
"I'll do my own fact checking, fuckwit."
This is a statement of fact, also in a manner that is direct and to the point. The rather descriptive form of address to you at the end was gratuitous, but well deserved.
So, two out of the three sentences in his statement were indeed factual. His choosing to do his own fact checking is quite logical, given your track record in such matters. His statement to that effect is pithy, but direct and concise. I think his response was quite reasonable, all things considered.
As I have noted elsewhere, teacher boy, if you don't like being called a fuckwit, then don't act like a fuckwit. It would open up a whole new world for you.
Yeah. My '72 Satellite gets about 13 (though I think that can be improved with tuning) and probably only hits around 250 HP. (Just a guess, I haven't had it dyno'ed or anything.) Though, tuning seems likely to be win/win, there.
I test drove an H1 Hummer once. Don't remember the horse power, but it got around 8 MPG.
My lovely bride thought it was insane to spend that much money for something that didn't offer anything in the way of luxury. Sure was fun to drive, though.
Sure was fun to drive, though.
And that good citizen is reason enough to keep you from doing it.
Gawd how I hate fucking puritans.
I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory
WHAT "Climate Change Theory?"
Which one? Show your work.
"Theory" is anything his side thinks is true.
"Delusion" is anything our side thinks is true.
Well, for a group of scientists who rely on facts, logic and reason I'm shocked that I still have not heard any comments on the factcheck link above. There sure was a lot of talk on here about bad science and fudged data but now there is silence. I wonder why?
Standard Response Three, check. (Look! Someone shares my opinion!)
This is the Earth Day version of your mating call, innit? Usually it's some third-hand feminist cant.
Oooh! Look! Some people whose opinion aligns with mine!
I'd also like to point out a glaring omission from the original link:
"In November 2009, private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and made public. Climate change disbelievers called it "Climategate," saying that the e-mails proved collusion and conspiracies that would discredit man-made global warming."
In addition to "the e-mails" were DATA and PROGRAMS with COMMENTARY. I find it fascinating that this was omitted from that link.
"Whitewash" covers it - barely. It wasn't even a good whitewash job.
Of course, WE are the ones who are so stupid as to NOT believe what Marxy and the rest of his idiot brethren spout for the truth.
That, then, is all that he needs to know.
Doesn't matter one fucking wit if we can prove anything to the contrary, he's declared victory, you see. So, how can one convince someone who has already made up his mind, and is sticking to his story? Oh, right, we've covered that whole first principles thing before.
Move along, right?
Kevin, you've already made up your mind about climate change. It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you. That's fine if you want to take this opinion. But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method...well...your belief and writings, regarding climate change, make this statement completely false. And quite hypocritical. Your belief is also quite transparent. "If I prove them wrong on this one," you think to yourself, "then they must be wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!" How typical...
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change. The emails from East Anglia do call into question their methods. Two of three reviews have said that their science is sound but that science is still not 100 percent valid. I also call into question how human beings can cause that much damage to the Earth which everyday proves that we are simply a nuisance. It seems more likely to me that climate change, as the result of CO2 emissions, might make it more difficult for us to live on Earth but it won't affect the Earth itself at all.
But again, I'm not certain. I'd like to see more data and research to examine the validity of this theory. Facts and logic, Kevin. Facts and logic ;)
"Kevin, you've already made up your mind about climate change. It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you. That's fine if you want to take this opinion. But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method...well...your belief and writings, regarding climate change, make this statement completely false. And quite hypocritical. Your belief is also quite transparent. "If I prove them wrong on this one," you think to yourself, "then they must be wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!" How typical..."
How typical of you, hypocrisy boy. This is, yet again, nothing more than your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.
Golly. How surprising.
DJ, do you actually have anything to offer regarding either report on the East Anglia research? Or are we going to continue with the obssessive behavior directed towards yours truly?
"DJ, do you actually have anything to offer regarding either report on the East Anglia research?"
I have offered such in the past. Each time, you either ignored it or mischaracterized it, in your usual and customary manner.
"Or are we going to continue with the obssessive behavior directed towards yours truly?"
What do you mean by "we", teacher boy? Still having language difficulties?
I expect that YOU will continue with your Standard Responses. I expect that I will continue to point it out when you do. If that bothers you, then try not acting like a fuckwit. It would open a whole new world for you.
The emails from East Anglia do call into question their methods.
No, the data and internal comments to the programs do that, and much more convincingly. The e-mails are merely the coup de grace.
There is no question that climate changes. The question is do humans have a meaningful effect on that or are we just noise at the edge? No one has provided real evidence that humanity has a greater effect than a bad volcano, let alone solar activity. In fact, the system is so extraordinarily complex that it isn't unreasonable to say that it exceeds our ability to understand it (and mathematically model it). For something that operates on geologic time, our "knowledge" - based on a ridiculously small amount of data, is almost certain to be wrong.
"... But when you thump your chest and declare that you rely on facts, logic, and the scientific method..."
...Which HAS BEEN PROVEN, AS IN FACT, that there was data either altered or rather conveniently left out of reports. It has been PROVEN that the scientific method was tossed out, like yesterday's trash, in what is obviously a politically-driven fraud on the entire civilized world.
Marxy, this is ALL out there, in the open, now, and there is no use in YOU thumping YOUR chest about how stupid WE are. WE know what's happened, and YOU are the one sticking your head in the sand, performing your standard response #1, with a good dose of #3, for measure.
Pointing to the obvious on this one, like saying, "The sky is blue," just isn't working with Marxy, 'cuz he's too caught up in his ideology to be objective.
Again, what a fuckwit?
Well, for a group of scientists who rely on facts, logic and reason I'm shocked that I still have not heard any comments on the factcheck link above. There sure was a lot of talk on here about bad science and fudged data but now there is silence. I wonder why?
Ya know, somehow the fact that you're shocked doesn't surprise me in the least.
It doesn't matter that I personally showed you within the bibliography of the IPCC report itself, where they referenced an article written by a political activist/freelance journalist who'd written articles for the IUCN, and a forest fire expert, as "peer reviewed climate science".
Because a body investigating itself found no evidence of wrongdoing, that entry in the bibliography isn't actually there.
Or it's a totally different Andy Rowell who is actually a respected climatologist, yeah, that's it... who, um, happened to write a report by the same name, published in the same year.... um, with the same ISBN number...
Or I was lying and photoshopped all that and put it up at those links.
Thank you for today's lesson in Critical Thinking 131.
"We got the same bulgy arms."
"No resemblinks."
"We got the same squinky eye."
"What squinky eye?"
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702304510004575186243922694492-lMyQjAxMTAwMDEwNjExNDYyWj.html
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
Either you were lying then, or you're lying now. Actually, you're doing both.
Let me remind you what you said just a few sentences above: It's quite clear that no amount of data or further review will convince you.
Right there you staked a position counter to Kevin's. You made up your mind.
That's how staggeringly incompetent you are at this. You can't make a whole 'nother paragraph without contradicting yourself.
And that's even leaving aside that within a short time, you posted that after claiming we couldn't comment on the Constitution without years of study (and completely missing that you might be dealing with people who already met your requirements.)
That's right. You ridiculed us and said that you didn't understand engineering, thus you didn't opine on such.
And here you are, opining away like an evergreen.
It's just hard to believe that someone can be this obtuse, and still think they're the smartest person they know.
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
Nor have I. Nor, I suspect, have most of us here. That's not where the difference between us lies.
On the other hand, you quite obviously have made up your mind about the "evidence" presented in various IPCC reports. You accept it as accurate, and no amount of showing you that it accepts as "peer reviewed science" articles by activists and speculation by students can convince you otherwise.
We have likewise made up our mind about said "evidence". We have decided that the documented, blatant attempts to deceive for the sake of advancing a political agenda contained in the current crop of "evidence" renders it invalid. Moreover, it likewise renders the credibility of those who attempted the deception completely worthless.
I, on the other hand, haven't really made up my mind yet regarding climate change.
I don't see how you can have failed to, since you accept as genuine the propaganda that claims it as valid and factual. For myself, now that the debate is no longer "over" and the science is no longer "settled" by the dominance of that propaganda campaign, I'm hoping people will be able to go to work and come up with an actually useful climate model. You know, one that doesn't depend on making the Roman and Viking expansions ridiculous by claiming the climate that allowed such expansion didn't actually ever exist. You know, one that can accurately model the climate. Maybe even one that doesn't try to claim that entropy can be bypassed and perpetual motion is not only possible, but about to run us down.
It's a pity they didn't look for that the first time around, we might have gotten somewhere by now.
It'd be nice to find out the facts. And who knows, the earth may be warming. The only thing I'm certain of is that if it is, we won't find out the truth about it from Phil Jones, or Howard Mann, or Al Gore.
We have decided that the documented, blatant attempts to deceive for the sake of advancing a political agenda contained in the current crop of "evidence" renders it invalid.
First of all, you think that all of you AREN'T deceiving in a blatant attempt of advancing a political agenda?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!
Whew...that was funny :-D
Your assertion above will be your conclusion to ALL evidence no matter what is discovered in the future, GOF. For any of you, to admit that you are wrong about climate change is anathema to your ideology. It's simply incoceivable (Wallaces) that error would dwell in such a pristine utopia.
God help us all if you were wrong and someone who was (gasp!) a liberal or a Democrat was right. Cue the water slide into the boiling pit of sewage!
The only thing I'm certain of is that if it is, we won't find out the truth about it from Phil Jones, or Howard Mann, or Al Gore.
Well, Al Gore is more of a spokesmodel for climate change. And Howard Mann is a lawyer so I'll give you those two guys.
But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences? And this knoweldge is based on the fact (ROTFLMFAO) that you have reviewed all of the same data AND been a part of the same research in which he has been a part?
So let me see if I have this straight...this group here at TSM, in addition to being highly competent and qualified engineers (of which I have no doubt), all of you are also the SUPREME AUTHORITY on the following:
-Constitutional Law
-US History
-World History
-Education
-The Bible (for those believers)
-Environmental Sciences and Climatology (recentlly added to the list)
Wow, I really am in the presence of greatness. If you guys say it, than it must be true given your vast knowledge on...well...everything.
Beats what you got: The Standard Responses of Markadelphia
But wait! There's more!
What we see here is a response that we've seen enough to list as his Standard Response #12, the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response. When he discovers, yet again, that he cannot counter his opponent's argument, he intentionally mischaracterizes his opponent's argument, reasoning, meaning, and even the plain language of his statements, and then argues against his own mischaracterization as if it shows his opponent to be wrong. He does not care that this shows him to be fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to understand what his opponent actually wrote, but it gives him yet another opportunity to avoid admitting that he is wrong and/or that his opponent is correct. While this response often embodies one or more of his other Standard Responses, overall it is a distinct form that is easily recognized.
Have you ever pulled a label off something where the adhesive can't decide whether to stick to the label and the object? As you get further along, the strands of adhesive between the label and object get longer and eventually begin to break in fits and spurts. As you near the end of the label, the breakage accelerates until the label is fully disconnected from the object it was stuck to.
What glues us to reality is evidence and logic. Word meanings also come into play because words are the handles we give to concepts which allow us to understand and examine those concepts and our understanding of reality.
Is it just me, or has the snapping of the strands of adhesive connecting Marxaphasia to reality been accelerating recently? It seems like his neologisms have been increasing, his "logic" has been becoming even more tattered and erratic, his positions on "facts" have been changing from occasionally grounded in reality to ever more counter-factual, and even his arguments have become ever more amorphous and self-contradictory. I'm starting to wonder if Marxy will soon find himself in a padded room protected by the nice young men in white coats while he begs for crayons to write out the The Answer To Life, The Universe, And Everything as explained to him by Mikey Moore in a vision.
Or could it be that I'm just getting increasingly tired of his bullshit?
has the snapping of the strands of adhesive connecting Marxaphasia to reality been accelerating recently?
...
could it be that I'm just getting increasingly tired of his bullshit?
Why must it be one or the other?
Man, Ed, talk about a false dichotomy :)
That I'm getting increasingly tired of his bullshit is a given. That's a bias which could cause me to think that he's coming unglued when he's simply as poorly connected to reality as usual. Thus, the scientific method demands that I present my theory for outside testing.
I've noticed that the weaker his argument - to himself - the more shrill he gets. But yes, he's seemed to be much, much, much worse recently.
Which might be due to a number of other factors, but my guess is that he's having to justify to himself more and more and it's getting harder and harder his Magic Messiah who would Hope And Change And Be Different.
Mark's all about putting all his eggs in one faith basket, and as DJ has repeatedly proven and harped on, Mark cannot admit error.
And there's no way he can say, "You guys were all wrong about Obama! See!" At best he can point to half truths and spins and ... Even he knows it.
So he's trying to prove one point, just one, where he was "right" about Obama, or about most other things here, so in his mind, he can declare victory. Nevermind that the current score is north of a few thousand to 0... If he can score one, it wipes out all the other inane things he's said and stood for!
Like the defense of Phil Jones after the CRU release - Mark's said, unequivocally that there is Global Warming, he can't even admit that he'd been lied to, that what he'd been citing was in error. He just can't do it. He puts his faith, and his reputation (such as it is) on the line, because he doesn't know any other way to do it.
He lives in a movie script in his own head, and "wait, wait wait, who rewrote this last night, this wasn't here, wait, that's not the dialogue I was expecting! Wait, my character has WHAT as a motivation? THIS ISN'T RIGHT?!?!?!" (HT to LabRat who first saw/described this years ago. Took me a while to realize how dead on she was.)
Obama was the Messiah. He was going to FIX EVERYTHING. Mark _really believed_. He really did. So for his hero, his messiah to fall on his face, to turn out to be not just an ordinary man, but one that we've been describing to him, something's wrong. But it can't be HIS belief, it can't be HIS script which isn't in sync with the ones we've got.
That's what, oddly enough, makes me think that there's hope for him versus some internet trolls like UBU52 and mikeb that infest Robb Allen and other places. He knows he's wrong. He just can't admit it.
There's hope there. We all went through that stage. Everyone does. Granted, usually you're transitioning out of it at least by High School or College. But he's never been in our fields, our backgrounds. He's been in fields where feelings were more important. What you want matters, not what you did.
But it's something he could learn, and he could get out.
But he's unwilling to deal with the enormities of the real world, and the loss of so many of his friends. We're bad examples to try and get him out of it. Neo-neocon would be good, she was where he was. But that's why he spits on her so hard - she was where he was, and she changed. It might mean... he's wrong.
He knows it, IMO, and it unhinges him. Better to cling to the fantasy, where his "years" of "experience" trump ours, where his efforts that we (to his mind) deride, are meaningful.
It's less work. It's less scary. It's safer.
He claims "not to be an engineer" in some threads, and then lectures us on engineering in others.
Because he knows, deep down, that he could learn how to argue with us. But it would mean that he'd have to leave his entire defined being behind.
Not a one of us - to speak for many here - would ignore him if he came into an argument with NUMBERS and (real) THEORY. IF he was to do engineering analysis, we'd not begrudge him that (unless he made a mistake). But then it would be defineable. It would be real. Quantifiable. His degrees and his experience wouldn't matter if he could lay out the math, and the equations and say see, here, this is the number I'm using.
And he'd end up with.... the exact same figures (for the most part) that we'd be using.... Which would mean, which group of us is _really_ in "reality"?
IMO. I'm not a therapist, psychologist, or mental health professional. So Mark can ignore what I said, I've got no "experience". :)
He lives in a movie script in his own head,
(that's not to say ,by the way, that Mark can't retcon - he often does. More than a convention of Trek writers.)
and my link to retcon.. didn't go in. (I LOVE JS-KIT AND ECHO! THE MAKERS OF THE FINEST, MOST SUCKIEST COMMENTING SYSTEM EVAH! Echo sucks more than a $5 streetwalker in Bankock!)
Ah well.
Mark! Watch! See how easy it is to define a word so everybody's on the same page!
RRRRRRRR-RETCON!
than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?
And this is why you cannot convince us.
You cannot, willnot, no matter how many times we point out to you that actions and results are meaninful, stop and examine any worldview other than your own.
He has a PhD. He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent. But you cannot stop and evaluate. You can only quote and point to others.
(And I'll note that you totally ignore us when we point you to _experts_ debunking your favorite college dropouts that you cite unquestioning.)
Just as you ignore me when I tell you of my (misusing the phrase as you do) experience as a "primary source") and continue to cite people who don't know what they're talking about.
(You've yet to ever comment back to me about your "citgroup" documents that you're waving as a holy grail.)
all of you are also the SUPREME AUTHORITY on the following:
Just in comparison to you.
We've _explained_ to you _how to critically think_. Many, many times. All you've done is insist that you've studied it - you've never, not once demonstrated competence.
Mark, the other day we posted someone with more experience, more academic credentials than Obama, who mocked him as his job as a lecturer (not even adjunct faculty).
Yet that meant nothing to you. This is where your hypocrisy is so obvious. When you sneer at us, ignoring all the reasons and rationales that have been laid out and explained for you over 2 years, and all you can say is Phil Jones has a PhD and he's studied for a number of years! Nevermind that fraud. Or the coverup. Or the fact that the _only_ reason you support him is you decided that your political goals would be fulfilled through his now known beyond a reasonable doubt deceptions.
....
So what was Madoff's educational level, and how long did he study? Does that change anything about anything else he did?
Yes or no?
And speaking of expertise... Which is more, 22 or 15?
Unix,
Here's the problem;
"You cannot, willnot, no matter how many times we point out to you that actions and results are meaninful, stop and examine any worldview other than your own.
He has a PhD. He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent. But you cannot stop and evaluate. You can only quote and point to others."
Marxy does not possess to the tools to evaluate anything. He doesn't know how. He doesn't understand basic logic, and therefore, can't make meaningful progression of thought toward any sort of analysis.
He's unaware of this, but that's not stopping him from acting like the fuckwit he is.
(shrug)
He's has years of "research" - much of which has been proven to be utterly fraudulent.
According to whom? You? Others here? Unix, I linked to a factcheck article that showed the exact opposite. Someone who follows this philosophy:
What glues us to reality is evidence and logic. Word meanings also come into play because words are the handles we give to concepts which allow us to understand and examine those concepts and our understanding of reality.
would have taken this information into account. None of you have given it any consideration, even though factcheck has been sited many times on here as being a reputable source, because it doesn't fit the story you want to believe. Nothing ever will. Thus, you do not live in a reality of facts and logic..only opinion...which you are certainly entitled to have.
Unless, of course...are you saying that you were part of the teams that have reviewed Jones' data at East Anglia? If so, then by all means share with us your evidence and logic regarding this review. Remember, each team's review of Jones' data, not the "review" conducted by hotair or townhall.
You are right about one thing. I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work. Neither do any of you. But the two teams that have done it certainly have the tools. And so does the third team.
Unix, I linked to a factcheck article that showed the exact opposite.
Claimed. And as we've demonstrated to you before, not accurately.
As it did there, leaving out that there were programs and data in the release - proving fraud.
None of you have given it any consideration, even though factcheck has been sited many times on here as being a reputable source,
ONLY BY YOU.
And it's "cited", anyway. You're the only one who cites FactCheck approvingly. It's been used to prove to you, even WITH the spin, that you were still wrong. But you're wrong that it's a "reputable source".
Take you citation there. Why does it not address the data and programs that were released?
How do you "factcheck" when you leave relevant facts out?
I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work.
BUT YOU DID. And are doing it right now.
So, which global warming theory are you proposing is correct, Mark?
Name it, and give us some predictions. Nothing vague. Specifics. Name the theory.
I find the following story quite amusing:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/another-frost-bitten-junk-scientist-rescued-before-freezing-to-death/
The punch line:
"This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It’s a metaphor."
Yup, that it is. I wonder if they understand that?
Speaking of people who have the tools....
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5583
Seems Jones, who you think is, despite proven fraud and other issues, still a "leading light in the field"... has been using... a model..
Of a flat earth.
Gee. Is it 1492 all over again? *
*Yes, I know, but I bet Mark doesn't.
But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher.
Ah. Got it. And therefore...
- I'm not competent to read a graph.
- Every archaeologist who ever made a claim based on the idea that the Little Climactic Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age actually occurred is wrong.
- Everyone who ever studied physical science, from Aristotle forward including Archimedes, Newton, Einstein and Freeman Dyson, who claimed that entropy works all the time, is wrong. Unless he's a liberal Democrat who believes in AGW, because entropy gets out of the way for Democrat party politics.
- "My dog ate my data/methodology" is an acceptable excuse.
Yet another wonderful lesson in Critical Thinking 131. Okay, I think I've had my intelligence and integrity insulted enough for now.
Pfft, we're only in the mid 40's in comments, we've got at least another 40 to go wherein our intelligence and integrity will be insulted before Marxy gets bored and wanders off.
before Marxy gets bored and wanders off.
But Javier is crying!!!!!!!!!! Life!!!! Javier!!! Crying!!! You heartless bastard!!!! He's crying, don't you care?!?!?!?! Of course you don't! You're just like Al Queda! Worshipping only Money and Power and MAKING PEOPLE CRY!!
"But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?"
Is being cited, holding a PhD and working in the field years all that makes him right?
"Is being cited, holding a PhD and working in the field years all that makes him right?"
Why, certainly it does, Ed, provided Marxaphasia agrees with him!
Notice you ran away from a very critical question. (Critical to understanding, that is.)
Mark: I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory
Me: WHAT "Climate Change Theory?"
Which one? Show your work.
4 days ago, 10:45:18 PM EDT
Which one, Mark?
Explain. Be clear. Show your work. State what you mean. Clarify ambiguity.
If you understand what you're accusing us of, you shouldn't have a problem. Even if you don't, you should understand that you have to be clear what you're accusing us of.
Which theory are you supporting? And THEN you can tell us WHY.
You are right about one thing. I don't have the tools to evaluate Jones' work. Neither do any of you.
You don't know that.
It's just your making it up as you go along.
But yes, Mark, we do have some tools. We've been telling you about them for years now. It's why we were all "skeptics". I know you've been told about the problems with the tree ring analysis, and the fact that they utterly ignored 3 warming periods that didn't fit their curve...
Because the CRU info wasn't right. It didn't work for a lot of issues, and we told you of them. You sneered and ignored us then.
But we were right. Luckily, we got the data to prove it, despite people like you trying to hide it.
Now, some of that was luck. But the biggest question is:
Had the CRU leaker not revealed how big of a fraud their data cooking was, how much authority would they have?
See, we now know that Jones was a fraud, and making it up as he went along. He's got no credibility. Pay attention. This is why you have none, you've been dishonest, refused to address when you were wrong, argued dishonestly on many occasions, and as a result, you have no credibility.
Lost. Once it's lost it takes a VERY long time to recover - and you recover it by hard work and honestly reporting. Jones might can recover his. Maybe. Unlikely.
But insisting that he didn't do anything wrong and we should listen to him ANYWAY is just utterly deranged, Mark.
But U-J, a disinterested third party reviewed the situation and proclaimed that no fraud occurred! You're just a Denier! AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN! END OF DISCUSSION!
Talk about timely! Check out this opinion piece:
Leaving Liberalism
"Imagine a worldview that licenses the student to claim to be "different" while hanging on every pronouncement by self-important gurus. The student (and the teacher) get to espouse "critical thinking" while succumbing to emotion. Neither can resist calling attention to contrived virtuousness and proclaiming, "I love new ideas. See how the echo-chamber embraces me?"
Picture yourself radiating intellectual and moral superiority. You burst with inspiration on how to run government and society -- or more accurately, how you should run society. Feel how easily you brush aside reality and seize moral high ground on issues about which you know nothing."
It gets even better.
It does, Ed. It does. That's a helluva article.
Chatting with someone today, I was talking about the critical pedagogy theories (Which Mark said was crazy whacko conspiracy theories, but, oh, he's had those classes..) and it turns out that it's a requirement for a teaching cert here.
He taught HS for 3 years.
He's a astrophysics guy.
And he had to take a critical pedagogy class where he was told to tell kids there is no objective reality, that their "Diversity" changes reality.
I woulda paid MONEY to see THOSE classes. Apparently, the class syllabus was changed after a week and a half to eliminate class discussions.
Was it because the teacher was tired of having his lunch eaten by the hard science guys every single day? It sounds like it.
What's that I hear?
Crickets?
Move along.
Have I mentioned before what a fuckwit Marxy is?
I've been thinking that it's time to recognized that Brave Sir Marxy has once again run away, leaving two very important questions unanswered:
Mark: I'm always the first one to admit that while some conservatives may not buy the climate change theory
Unix-Jedi: WHAT "Climate Change Theory?"
Which one? Show your work.
[Now 6] days ago, 10:45:18 PM EDT
Which one, Mark?
Explain. Be clear. Show your work. State what you mean. Clarify ambiguity.
And this one (restated slightly for clarity and to fix a typo):
Marxy: "But Phil Jones is an ISI highly cited researcher. Basically, what you are telling me is that all of you know more than Phil Jones who is, in fact, a climatologist holding a PhD after years of research in Environmental Sciences?"
Me: Is being cited, holding a PhD and working in the field for years the only thing that makes him "right"?
Both questions are CRITICAL to establishing that the arguments are connected to reality.
Standard Response #10
"Have I mentioned before what a fuckwit Marxy is?"
You're baiting him. It's stinkbait, but bottom feeders take it.
Most likely the server running the Marxy script needs to be rebooted.
"Most likely the server running the Marxy script needs to be rebooted."
Or rewritten. It's stuck in a stupid loop.
Nah, he's stupid enough to believe he's actually WON this argument.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/
My, my, my.
I remember when "everybody" was upset that Cheney was chairing the energy discussions. Even though he'd sold off all of his relevant stock when picked to Veep. (Unfair! Some yelled. He sold at the top!)
Now it turns out that the people Mark is sycophanting with didn't even do *that*.
This is the problem, Mark, when you have this much "regulation", when you have this much *control*. Suddenly, the free market doesn't really exist - and amazingly, the people in charge always seem to "know" which stocks to pick.
Seriously. Anyone know a good defreezer?
I guess we can call it official:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLumBa5Ja7g
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>