Zeke and Mosher say that my analysis of their method is wrong, because I don’t use their method to analyze the output of their method.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
I’m thinking those guys are in need of a 12-step program or intervention; despite repeated, near-constant repetition, I still don’t ‘get their point’. I can read their words, but, their point or the gist of it what they are attempting to convey doesn’t stick … it’s as if it is too, ‘vaporous’, maybe with too many voices and no lead singer or concept to look to.
Simplified: “Where’s then beef”. Some hints, perhaps, for those guys.
o Bullet-point the major concepts
o Run through an example or two
o SLOW DOWN and come down to a practical level
o STOP showing graphs; at this point they are meaningless (to getting ppl to understand their concept and methodology and what their differences in methodology are compared to others.)
I say this as a technical observer.
.
I second.
Am on vacation and have time to read. Where do I find context?
BTW.
Will get to Wyoming tomorrow – where I will resume calling you ft Collin folks “Greenies”
I’m Maryland folk now.
If another method does not reach ones conclusion, you would think Zeke-Mosher might conclude something might be wrong? I am left to assume they were either day dreaming or sleeping in elementary school when there teacher told one way to prove you work is to use a different method to check to see it their original answer is truly correct. Then again maybe they are young enough that that lesson was not taught to them because it might hurt their self esteem.
What the heck would Mosher know about climate ?
I think you should require Zesher-Moke to analyze your process and theirs and show why you are wrong. of course, Mosher won’t, but, Zeke might. The results should be interesting as Zeke explains his assumptions if he takes it on.
You might find the real background of Mr. Mosher interesting:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html