Students are dodging the intellectual human waste being hurled at them by their professors. Here is one at U Mass.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Greg in NZ on “falsely labeling”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
Some of the comments in the link are written by simpletons.Who apparently forgot the part about making a real counterpoint.
One gave the usual overwrought tripe that we are heading for DOOM.Another spewed out ad homonyms and irrelevant babble.He never tried to make a counterpoint.
Thus the opinion piece was left unchallenged.
lol, yeh, I left a lengthy note congratulating Shane, and some points to ponder for the alarmists. Funny people.
I left a comment myself disputing what the 3 AGW commentors said. And also, not just to take my word for it, but do their own research, and see what they come up with.
Just quickly.
“31,000 scientists” – Unverifiable crap.
“5 ice ages” – not too bright.
“snow falling” – wow, so what?
“31,000 scientists” – Unverifiable crap.
Wrong.
“31,000 scientists” – verifiable crap
HA .. yeah I didn’t think of it that way.
He sounds to be politically motivated rather than scientfically.
Andy
He sounds to be politically motivated rather than scientfically
Ya think? 🙂
“liberal Koolade [sic]”
“leftist media”
“sycophant Democrats”
“According to the Heritage Foundation”
““31,000 scientists” – Unverifiable crap.”
““31,000 scientists” – verifiable crap”
Typical unproved statements.
Typical “skeptic” comment. The evidence is there, in plain sight. You’re just blind to it.
The ridiculousness of this petition has been demonstrated time after time after time. Few of the people on that list are climate scientists. Many aren’t scientists at all. Virtually none can be verified. It is a PR stunt and nothing more.
You want to put your name on the list? No worries. Print out the card. Fill in whatever you want and mail it in. They won’t check anything.
And this is supposed to show that lots of scientists disagree on AGW? Please.
I have degrees in science and engineering.
Most of the geologists and engineers that I work with think that climate science is both inbred and confused. Their refusal to engage serious scientists from other disciplines is exactly the problem.
Why are you bragging about it?
First, I don’t get advice on cardiac health from a dermatologist, and I don’t get climate science from TV weathermen, mining engineers, nurses, dentists, pediatricians, family practitioners, or veterinarians. Not even veterinary surgeons specializing in large equines. (Yes, they’re all in the list of so-called “scientists”).
A scientist outside his specialty is little more than a well-informed amateur.
Second, there’s absolutely no way to verify the vast majority of names. No affiliations are shown. Is “R. Payne” qualified to provide an informed opinion on climate science? Who the hell knows?
Why anyone takes this sham seriously is beyond me.
I completely agree. Climate scientists who do politics on the job should be fired immediately.
Yet another nonresponse response. You’re very good at this.
ChrisD has some good points, but remember that it works both ways.
When Mann totally blew the statistics on the hockey stick (assuming the actual method/data was done fairly and in an unbiased manner, which even that is questionable) and people much more versed in stats called him on it, why didn’t the warmists concede to them instead of saying their work was crap?
And considering that climate science is such a mishmash of other disciplines anyway, what keeps a knowledgable physicist, chemist, mathematician, biologist, or engineer for making a valid evaluation of some aspect of climate science? Each of these areas are the core foundation of climate science.
-Scott
ChrisD says:
October 19, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Yet another nonresponse response. You’re very good at this.
So are you. But since you brought up a point, let me ask you about it. What exactly is “Climate Science”? Is it animal vegetable or mineral? How many of your “Heros” have PhDs in CS? And where were they obtained? Indeed, how many PhDs are there in the world with CS?
Just answer THOSE questions before you start attacking others for their “non-responsiveness”.
The question isn’t a degree in climate science, it’s “What is your primary field of research?” Is it climate-related, or is it mine safety?
They’re not my heroes, so you can stick that little dig.
Scott writes,
“When Mann totally blew the statistics on the hockey stick (assuming the actual method/data was done fairly and in an unbiased manner, which even that is questionable) and people much more versed in stats called him on it, why didn’t the warmists concede to them instead of saying their work was crap?”
Scientists and statisticians have not repudiated Mann’s research. That’s a claim made by bloggers, but it’s false. Mann et al. did not “totally blow the statistics,” either — not even the shoddy Wegman report claimed that, and Wegman does not speak for all statisticians (quite the contrary). What Wegman correctly pointed out is that Mann’s 1998 paper used a sub-optimal method of centering with their principal components analysis. Wegman deliberately avoided the question of whether that changed the conclusions, probably because he already knew it did not. In his own report, Wegman shows himself as ignorant of climate science as he claimed the climate scientists were of statistics.
The sub-optimal centering method was abandoned for better methods, far more data, and many other improvements, but the changes led to roughly similar results — not just by Mann, and not just with his data, but by other researchers using a wide range of different methods and data, with or without tree rings or principal components.
Contrary to what you read on the blogs, reality has a hockey stick bias. For example, see the Chapman & Davis paper in EOS, September 2010, for a survey of current research.
The hockey stick is not broken; it’s a feature of many different datasets, even some that claim to be refuting it (McShane & Wyner for instance). It’s also false that there are no statisticians doing climate science. Many statisticians, better informed and more honorable than Wegman, are involved with climate research — you just don’t read about them on the blogs. They’re much in evidence at meetings of the American Statistical Association, for example, which like all other major US science organizations with relevant expertise, has issued a statement expressing concern, and support for the science, on anthropogenic climate change.
Thanks. I wanted to get into this, but I had a long day and just didn’t have the stomach for it tonight.
Your argument is a straw man, as (a) I never said that the hockey stick was broken and (b) I never said that “there are no statisticians doing climate science”. I simply stated that Mann blew the hockey stick, people better at stats called him on it, and warmists defended him.
Is the past record really a hockey stick in shape? Quite possibly. But that’s not what I was arguing (here). Did Mann botch his analysis? Yes he did, and the reason I brought it up was to note that warmists are biased in their actions just like skeptics.
-Scott
Scott writes,
“Your argument is a straw man, as (a) I never said that the hockey stick was broken and (b) I never said that “there are no statisticians doing climate science”.
That’s true, your post did not say these things, but my argument is no straw man. The exact phrase “the hockey stick is broken” gets 13,000 hits on Google, for instance.
“I simply stated that Mann blew the hockey stick, people better at stats called him on it, and warmists defended him.”
Your premise is false. Mann did not blow the hockey stick, “better people” did not call him on it, and statisticians more honest than Wegman were among the many scientists who pointed this out.
The basic conclusions have now been replicated many times, with newer data and methods. That is no sign that Mann “blew” it, as you declare.