I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Temp Refusing To Follow AGW Predictions [Pic+]

Hits: 7199 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: Science | Added by: 5Cats
Page: 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:59:23 PM
So you don't dispute that one side cherry picked data and the other side did the same?

Just checking that you are still paying attention.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:35:51 PM
@An-egg: I'll respectfully note that skepticism regarding the models is sensible. It only makes sense to ask, "Hey, if they've been publishing predictions over the past 20 years, just how accurate have those predictions been?"

There are several thousand scientists working internationally on the IPCC reports. So it won't surprise you, I don't think, to know that there is a team of scientists that address exactly that question: "How good have the predictions been? How have our published predictions based on the models compared to reality?" That's a standard part of every one of the IPCC conferences.

If you're interested, I can show you a chart that compares the four model-based predictions of the IPCC against actual temperatures. Interested? (This is not a trick question; I'm trying to invite discussion.)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:30:11 PM
@An-egg: Also, this isn't about the *Mail* cherry picking data. It's about the *Mail*'s article's author either not understanding what the chart is showing or choosing to misrepresent it (I won't presume to know which).

Also, you seem to be very skeptical of the models and still don't quite understand how they work (on a high-level). The fact of the matter (you probably won't believe me, but on the off chance you will) is the the models that have been produced in the past 20 years have been exceedingly accurate. In fact, the main problem with the models of the IPCC is that they *underestimated* the rate of warming. In other words, the main problem with the models to date is that they have been *too* conservative: global warming has been occurring *faster* than most climatologists were predicting in the 1990s.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:12:53 PM
An-egg: You know, I'm not trying to trap you here. It isn't a trick question. I thought you wanted to discuss the topic. Apparently not.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Wednesday, March 27, 2013 6:40:01 PM
Obviously I will not answer your question as you misrepresent anything I or anyone else that you disagree with says.

I understand the confidence band;

I understand that the Mail cherry picked data;

I understand that the article that you posted also cherry picked data;

So, one side used a subset of the data and the other used a different subset for theirs.

What problem do you have? I know that I can prove almost anything with manipulated data, can't you?


Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:23:29 PM
@An-egg: confidence *band: forgive the typo.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 7:22:14 PM
@AnEgg: I've been trying, very hard, to have an intelligent conversation with you and that pretty much seems impossible. Let's try a new tactic: I'll ask you a very focused question and see if I can get a germane response.

So, you finally read the analysis of the *Mail* article. That's encouraging. So, here's a focused question for starters:

Don't you find it the least bit odd that the *Mail* article's author proclaims "The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated"--when, in fact, the graph is showing just the opposite: that global land temperatures (ignoring ocean temperature's for the time being) are tracking in accordance with the model?

The trend line hasn't left the 90% confidence banc (the *Mail* author mistakenly calls it a 95% band): something that the model predicts will happen 10% of the time, or one year in 10.

Response?


An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 6:25:52 PM
So I read your tawdry little column.

What you're trying to suggest is that one party is cherry picking data because you don't like his results and that the cherry picked data that you present is the real answer.

Really?

Is this not lies, damned lies and statistics?

Also he cites quotations out of context, how does this compare to slandering journalists for stating facts, proven in court, as lies?

You lie and present falsehoods as your argument.

Go away troll.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 2:15:04 PM
@An-egg: All the questions you've raised have been addressed by this link. For whatever reason, you refuse to take the time to read the information I provided, insisting I reproduce, in my own words, the information here in 1,000 character snippets.

Rather than do that, I have *twice* provided you with a telephone number so that we could discuss the information; you refuse to call.

So, I've provided answers to your questions, but you refuse to read the answers. I've offered to discuss the material with you, but you refuse to call. Were I even to accede to this sense of entitlement you seem to have, and spend an hour of my time responding to your questions, you've already stated that you will believe nothing I state because I am "a credentialed liar" (your words).

I don't know how to help you, friend.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:38:13 PM
@Squrlz4Sale
Just as you tried to discredit the Telegraph article as lies, only to have to take it back when you, yourself then proved it was true and that you just didn't like the way it was written, you now try to discredit me as a liar, without a shred of proof.

I didn't really expect any answers, I did expect more insults.

I am not calling you as I am sure you will misrepresent anything that is discussed as you did the article and me.

Were you an evangelical bible thumper, I wouldn't call you either for the same reason.

You have no argument; you say things without a shred of evidence, and things which are demonstrably untrue; and you hold dogmatic views unswayed by evidence to the contrary. What would I possibly have to talk to you about?

jkfld
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 138 Posts
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 11:34:56 AM
@CrakrJak: "Your supposed 'connections', come from the radical left group Think Progress"

No, they come from the public record.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 8:16:51 PM
(Cont'd)

In terms of me helping you understand the material, we could either type our little fingers off here in 1,000 character snippets--OR you could give me a call at 610-616-5821. That's a special burner number that I've created just for you tonight and it's good for 90 minutes of talk time.

Same deal as the deal I offered last night (which you refused to accept): Call with an unblocked number, I'll answer, and we'll have a collegial discussion.

What do you say?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 8:14:22 PM
@An-egg: Now, my eccentric friend sans-college degree, let me make something perfectly clear. I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who doesn't have a degree. Plenty of smart people don't and they go on and do great things. But I don't have a lot of patience with someone pretending to be something they're not. And I don't have a lot of patience with someone who refuses to look at things with a curious mind and who is unwilling to learn.

I've been resistant to spoon-feeding you on remedial science and AGW 101 because it is time-consuming, really, and it's not clear you'd either appreciate it or benefit from it.

That said, if you'll stop pretending you're something you're not and lose the nasty attitude, I'd be willing to spend an hour of my time helping you understand the serious flaws in this *Mail* article.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 8:05:20 PM
@An-egg: Well, you're back! This is exciting. And I see you're back to being a physicist again. Physicist, high school teacher with an unnamed degree from a "faraway" place, physicist again. So hard to keep up with you there.

Yes, you did indeed call me a "charlatan"--as well as "liar," "shill," and "maniac". But I think calling me a "charlatan" was the boldest of them all, since you said it shortly after it came out that you were misrepresenting yourself as a physicist to attack the work of actual scientists.

Oh, but wait. Your a physicist again tonight. I forgot. =^.^=

Kidding aside, An-egg, I'll tell you why you're so worked up over all this. You aren't a physicist. You aren't a high school teacher. And you don't have a college degree. This is as plain as the nose on your face, and that fact is eating at you. Sorry about that.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:55:54 PM
)

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:45:43 PM
't. You lied about the Telegraph article being false, you lied about me not being a physicist (you have no, absolutely none, evidence, you lie about whatever suits your cause.

I hope that your church of the global-warmongers accepts liars.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:41:27 PM
@Squrlz4Sale
I challenge you to refute the original post;
I challenge you to deny that the UN is using a flawed model (based on 20 models);
I challenge you to dispute that policy is being made on spurious information by governments;
I challenge you to defend the model of "Anthropogenic Global Warming" that is being used by politicians, Al Gore just called for a carbon tax, (hint, it is probably the UN model)to increase our taxes.

Do these things and I will apologize for calling you a shill. (I don't believe I ever said charlatan, it's just not a word I like to use.)

Liar: proven liar, yes. Charlatan: unlikely, of course, you can do a search and it might be there but that won't get you off the questions.

PS I don't expect an answer to my questions, I expect some kind of smoke screen regarding my qualifications to ask them.

I expect no answers from you. When challenged, you say that the source is a lie, even if it isn

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:19:19 PM
Squrlz4Sale
I think you need a new name that reflects the drugs that you take so that your view of the world is aligned with what actually happened.

An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 830 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:14:55 PM
@ Squrlz4Sale do you have some kind of learning disorder?
I am a physicist, I have a friend who is a TV weatherman;
You did lie and didn't apologize;
If anyone reads the thread they will see that you just make things up;
your MO seems to be to lie to discredit anyone who disagrees with you: The OP (I defy you to dispute anything that article said), the Telegraph (the best selling broadsheet in the UK, and you admitted that lie);
your summary of our conversation. The record speaks for itself.


Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 10:04:38 AM
(Cont'd)

* * *

So, CrakrJak, there you have it. "Nice try at slander," you wrote, "but you fail once again."

Hardly. For charges to constitute slander, they have to be untrue. As I've demonstrated, Spencer IS "the darling of Fox News" and IS "the Official Climatologist of 'The Rush Limbaugh Show.'"

You're right about one thing, though, CJ: Someone failed--but it wasn't me. =^.^=

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 9:56:28 AM
(Cont'd)

In his author bio for the piece (see below), Spencer describes himself as--or at the very least, was satisfied with the editor's description of him as--the "official climatologist for The Rush Limbaugh Show."



Above: Spencer's author bio for his glowing tribute to Rush.

This billing is something Limbaugh himself uses whenever referring to Spencer, as shown in this clip.

VERDICT: True. While you might expect an ostensibly objective scientist to shy away from any connection with the highly-partisan Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Spencer has embraced that connection and appears to be proud of the title bestowed upon him by Limbaugh as the show's "official climatologist."

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 9:54:28 AM
(Cont'd)

#2. "The Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show"
Since there are so few climatologists who disagree with AGW, Spencer is in high demand--not just from Fox, but from every "skeptic" organization airing anti-AGW stories. Chief among them is "The Rush Limbaugh Show," on which Spencer frequently appears. It's a very cozy relationship. Four years ago, on the 20th anniversary of Limbaugh's radio show, Spencer wrote this encomium for *The National Review Online*. In it, Spencer gets misty-eyed: "Many of us remember the first time we heard Rush as the moment when we finally found someone who was able to express the things that we were thinking."

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 9:53:21 AM
(Cont'd)



Above: The Google search on "Roy Spencer and Fox News" returns hit after hit.

VERDICT: True. It's fair, if a little dismissive, to call Spencer "the darling of Fox News." Without him, the network wouldn't be able to air many of their "skeptic" stories in a convincing manner. You need a scientist (even a bad one) to question other scientists, and Dr. Spencer fills the bill.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 9:52:23 AM
(Cont'd)

Enter Roy Spencer. Driven by his creationist and Evangelical views, he believes the world could not possibly have been created by God in a way that would leave it vulnerable to the activities of man--ergo, he finds all AGW research flawed. Never camera shy, he is happy to appear on Fox again and again to say so, basing his critiques on questionable or even mistaken interpretations of the data.

A quick Google search on "Roy Spencer Fox News" for just the past 12 months returns page upon page of hits (see below), each linking to an appearance of Spencer on the network where he served as the expert arguing that virtually everyone else in the field is mistaken. As one might expect, the foundation of his scientific outlook--his creationist and Evangelical beliefs--is not brought up in these interviews since it might undercut his appearance of scientific impartiality.

(Cont'd next post)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, March 25, 2013 9:52:03 AM
@CrakrJak: Well, CJ, it looks like you get my time today since An-egg has withdrawn his questions.

Regarding my post, you wrote: "Dr. Spencer doesn't work for Limbaugh or Fox News, nice try at the slander, but you fail once again."

Perhaps you misread my post, but I didn't say he "works for" Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. Rather, I said he was "the darling of Fox News, and 'the Official Climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show.'"

Let's see if those charges are true.

#1. "The darling of Fox News"
As we both know, Fox is a major source of climate change "skeptic" information, rarely missing a chance to mock the work of the vast majority of climatologists. The problem is, it's hard to attack AGW science without an outlier scientist who's willing to argue that 97% of the field's other scientists are mistaken. Such outlier scientists are, of course, few and far between.

(Cont'd next post)

Page: 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.