981 replies to this topic

[SCYUKON]

strategy, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 8:44 AM, said:

I know I've said this before, but I'm still baffled that so many of you would rather armchair it with Internet research than listen to LLY on this one.

I would love to listen to LLY explain this one. It appears to be a math problem. Not the usual kind though, kind of a man-made math problem. Hell I will even send him food.http://nzclimatescie...warming_nz2.pdf

[timwakefield]

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 9:30 AM, said:

http://www.canadafre...p/article/17183Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal

It would help if your source wasn't the Canada Free Press. I mean really. Judi McLeod is their Editor (in chief). This is the very opening of her own Thanksgiving article from yesterday. "As Americans sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, President Barack Obama and his band of malcontent hippy czars are out there fomenting for revolution. Progressives they are not, given that some of those same czars were fomenting for revolution back in the 60s when a kid named Barry was still in red diapers, having come into this world in 1961, in Country Unknown."Really.Oooooooooooooh yeah, that is some sweet sweet journalism.

[85suited]

timwakefield, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 9:38 PM, said:

It would help if your source wasn't the Canada Free Press. I mean really. Judi McLeod is their Editor (in chief). This is the very opening of her own Thanksgiving article from yesterday. "As Americans sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, President Barack Obama and his band of malcontent hippy czars are out there fomenting for revolution. Progressives they are not, given that some of those same czars were fomenting for revolution back in the 60s when a kid named Barry was still in red diapers, having come into this world in 1961, in Country Unknown."Really.Oooooooooooooh yeah, that is some sweet sweet journalism.

Tim - is Holdren involved? because if he is... it is news - no matter who writes it

[strategy's_touch]

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 9:40 PM, said:

Reasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...seems very reasonable doesnt it

one of the world's many absurditiespaying that much attention to a completely irrelevant woman

[SCYUKON]

As I sit here enjoying myself reading all of the climategate e-mails, I just recalled an earlier thought that these book cooking scientists really need to be put in jail for crimes against humanity. I wonder if a prisoner's dilemna approach was taken with a bunch of these whitecoats, just how quickly they would start ratting each other out, if the end punishment for those not capitulating was going to be extremely harsh. Dare to dream...........

[timwakefield]

Zealous Donkey, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion????

You missed my point. The parallel was with the eagerness of people to jump on the "you're wrong!" boat, as opposed to taking the "hey let's deal with this scientifically rationally" boat. The other point was that The Media (aka the megaphone) has a job to do, and that is to make headlines. Any mainstream media probably isn't a terribly good source on science. The same way I wouldn't go to CNN to read about the nuances of Terry Francona's defensive alignment against left-handed power-hitters, I'd be more likely to find accurate, rational ideas about global warming in a science magazine, or at least somewhere better than MSNBC or whatever.

[85suited]

timwakefield, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 9:52 PM, said:

You missed my point. The parallel was with the eagerness of people to jump on the "you're wrong!" boat, as opposed to taking the "hey let's deal with this scientifically rationally" boat. The other point was that The Media (aka the megaphone) has a job to do, and that is to make headlines. Any mainstream media probably isn't a terribly good source on science. The same way I wouldn't go to CNN to read about the nuances of Terry Francona's defensive alignment against left-handed power-hitters, I'd be more likely to find accurate, rational ideas about global warming in a science magazine, or at least somewhere better than MSNBC or whatever.

So which network or paper besides FOX has covered this story with their megaphone?

[timwakefield]

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

Tim - is Holdren involved? because if he is... it is news - no matter who writes it

I don't know what you mean. I gave an example of some arrogant and childish writing from their main editor, in her most recent article. How is what you just said related to that at all?

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 10:55 PM, said:

So which network or paper besides FOX has covered this story with their megaphone?

Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you. I again don't understand why you're asking. If you're trying to imply that only fox news is covering it, I mean, there are links to like a half dozen articles in this thread, none of them fox news.

[strategy's_touch]

the world would be much better off if this garbage weren't politicized

[85suited]

timwakefield, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 9:58 PM, said:

I don't know what you mean. I gave an example of some arrogant and childish writing from their main editor, in her most recent article. How is what you just said related to that at all?Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you.

I see you have edited your post - If NBS,CBS,ABC,NY Times,WAPO,AP,CNN,MSNBC ignore this story -The only news organization with any substantial reach in the US is covering the story is FOX newsLOL - you may not like her writing, but if Holdren is involved - it will be a big story I actually do follow how well they report it...http://newsbusters.o...enu-sea-lions-phttp://newsbusters.o...ng-stories-readhttp://newsbusters.o...uch-climategatehttp://newsbusters.o...ues-ostrich-acthttp://newsbusters.o...climategate-cnn

[timwakefield]

85suited, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 11:08 PM, said:

LOL - you may not like her writing, but if Holdren is involved - it will be a big story

I mean, I didn't read past that initial paragraph. Why would I, or any rational person, unless they wanted to be entertained? I'm pretty sure it was just her Thanksgiving Gripe About Nonsense article, but like I said, I only read far enough to make sure she wasn't being sarcastic.

[85suited]

timwakefield, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

I mean, I didn't read past that initial paragraph. Why would I, or any rational person, unless they wanted to be entertained? I'm pretty sure it was just her Thanksgiving Gripe About Nonsense article, but like I said, I only read far enough to make sure she wasn't being sarcastic.

So you don't like the fact that she thinks Obama has hippy czars in the white house? because I am fairly certain if you read any of their bio's you would agree

[SCYUKON]

This is a great primer in climate model "calibration" for dummies:http://wattsupwithth...cline-codified/

[85suited]

SCYUKON, on Friday, November 27th, 2009, 8:36 AM, said:

This is a great primer in climate model "calibration" for dummies:http://wattsupwithth...cline-codified/

My favorite parts were honest statements like "Hide the decline", and "oh, I can make it up", and my personal favorite "these can be artificially adjusted". Nothing makes you feel more confident in scientific research when the researchers are smart enough that they can just pull numbers straight out of the air

[hblask]

timwakefield, on Thursday, November 26th, 2009, 10:13 PM, said:

I mean, I didn't read past that initial paragraph. Why would I, or any rational person, unless they wanted to be entertained? I'm pretty sure it was just her Thanksgiving Gripe About Nonsense article, but like I said, I only read far enough to make sure she wasn't being sarcastic.

This isn't the only place reporting that Obama's science czar has close ties to the apparent fraud. But even if it was the only place, saying "I don't like that source" isn't refuting anything, it's closing your eyes. The question is simple: was he involved or not. It appears he is, do you have evidence otherwise?

[85suited]

hblask, on Friday, November 27th, 2009, 4:12 PM, said:

This isn't the only place reporting that Obama's science czar has close ties to the apparent fraud. But even if it was the only place, saying "I don't like that source" isn't refuting anything, it's closing your eyes. The question is simple: was he involved or not. It appears he is, do you have evidence otherwise?

Nothing to see here... White House Czar says it doesnt matter

[akoff]

85suited, on Friday, November 27th, 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

My favorite parts were honest statements like "Hide the decline", and "oh, I can make it up", and my personal favorite "these can be artificially adjusted". Nothing makes you feel more confident in scientific research when the researchers are smart enough that they can just pull numbers straight out of the air

thay are priceless

[85suited]

http://newsbusters.o...ess-white-houseClimateGate Scientists Cited in Report to White House and Congress

[timwakefield]

hblask, on Friday, November 27th, 2009, 5:12 PM, said:

This isn't the only place reporting that Obama's science czar has close ties to the apparent fraud. But even if it was the only place, saying "I don't like that source" isn't refuting anything, it's closing your eyes.

No it's not. I stated very plainly earlier in the thread that I thought it was a revelatory story. I read like the first 2 articles linked. Obviously I'm interested in the story. So why am I not allowed to refuse an article from a crazy, sensationalized, hard core Obama-hater (their website has a clock counting down to when he "leaves office" in the top-right-corner of every page)? I read some other articles from other sources, how are my eyes closed?Honestly I feel like I'm one of the most open-minded people here, and most of the time when you guys try to attack me for seeing everything through a narrow tunnel you're kind of building a straw-man. You're right about it sometimes, but not usually.

[hblask]

timwakefield, on Friday, November 27th, 2009, 8:23 PM, said:

No it's not. I stated very plainly earlier in the thread that I thought it was a revelatory story. I read like the first 2 articles linked. Obviously I'm interested in the story. So why am I not allowed to refuse an article from a crazy, sensationalized, hard core Obama-hater (their website has a clock counting down to when he "leaves office" in the top-right-corner of every page)? I read some other articles from other sources, how are my eyes closed?Honestly I feel like I'm one of the most open-minded people here, and most of the time when you guys try to attack me for seeing everything through a narrow tunnel you're kind of building a straw-man. You're right about it sometimes, but not usually.

OK, fair enough. I was referring to that particular post, but yeah, I guess in the context of the longer thread (which I've only been skimming enough to throw in an occasional lazy comment), you are probably correct here. Kind of like when Checky comes and tries to convince us that Krugman has any credibility. We read a couple paragraphs and just know he (Krugman) is wrong yet again.