tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2342853340275124666..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Incidence of Solipsism Among PhysicistsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12352095525917608282012-08-06T13:33:20.500-04:002012-08-06T13:33:20.500-04:00Not quite sure. Mostly Eli's go through, but ...Not quite sure. Mostly Eli's go through, but there may be majic words.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29426573882349708822012-08-06T08:41:04.296-04:002012-08-06T08:41:04.296-04:00Just curious...
I've posted a few times at Mc...Just curious...<br /><br />I've posted a few times at McIntyre's and I'm sure that the first two went straight through. Now I'm in moderation - have I been promoted, or did I just miss the fact that all posts are moderated?<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49767964509712824802012-08-04T16:03:38.069-04:002012-08-04T16:03:38.069-04:00Poptech = Nigel.
Taylor BPoptech = <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY" rel="nofollow">Nigel</a>.<br /><br />Taylor BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86557088514049217022012-08-03T23:03:18.792-04:002012-08-03T23:03:18.792-04:00Anon... (I mean Bernard) learn how to fill you nam...Anon... (I mean Bernard) learn how to fill you name in properly using Blogger's comment system. I will be happy to give you an education on how it works as you seem to need it.<br /><br />My point about him never posting on ANY skeptic site was just further evidence he was never a skeptic. He is only ever referred to in relation to his support of M&M in demolishing Mann but that did not change his position on climate change.<br /><br />His quotes from the Huffington Post are irrefutable proof he never considered himself a "skeptic" as in an AGW skeptic yet this is exactly what he misleadingly implies in his NYT op-ed and has been falsely repeated by the media.<br /><br />Sorry if I ruined this story line for you guys of, "a converted skeptic".Poptechhttp://www.populartechnology.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10521073629076364502012-08-03T22:39:52.689-04:002012-08-03T22:39:52.689-04:00J Bowers, Steve Milloy let me down? What are you t...J Bowers, Steve Milloy let me down? What are you talking about? Please try to remain coherent.Poptechhttp://www.populartechology.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86208593914870472092012-08-02T14:59:28.115-04:002012-08-02T14:59:28.115-04:00I cannot think about Muller without being reminded...I cannot think about Muller without being reminded that he was perhaps the last to collaborate with the late Gordon MacDonald, and with that a whole and somewhat odd past is recalled.<br /><br />A time when people realy believed one could change the world, its environment, its weather, its climate.<br /><br />A time when we took things desperately seriously and often to extremes.<br /><br />When well improvement (frakking) was done with high explosives and if a few hundred pounds of high explosives was good, perhaps a few hundred tons equivalent would be better even if the fuel was a little radioactive, but that was nothing to do with MacDonald.<br /><br />MacDonald gave us many other things including a JASON climate report, which gives special thanks for the assistance of Freeman Dyson, a man much concerned about the effects of CO2.<br /><br />This preceeded the Charney Report but may have been published, or made public later. That was perhaps the end of the time when thinking that CO2 was likely to warm the planet was in anyway radical thinking.<br /><br />He gave us "How to wreck the Environment", how to meddle with the weather and how to make Russians depressed using the electromagnetic field, both of which proved to be unnecessary.<br /><br />The likes of he, Dyson, Munk, Revelle, etc., were I suppose amongst those that helped us to think that CO2 would warm the planet. A belief that survived when there was little or any evidence of warming, as was the case 40 and more years ago.<br /><br />As evidence has mounted, belief that anything could be done about it has waned. The solution was a bit more complicated than living in geodesic houses and eating lots of starch, doing very little work and paying no taxes.<br /><br />I never knew any of these people, never read their work but somehow we did appreciate that there were hard issues facing us about which we did so little except at the margins. Of the thinking that was done half went out of fashion and half prospered in the great libertarian divide and we let that happen. Such is freedom.<br /><br />AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90451283419889619442012-07-31T20:49:41.094-04:002012-07-31T20:49:41.094-04:00> Tuesday (the deadline)
Wham!> Tuesday (the deadline)<br /><br />Wham!Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63810263464853777052012-07-30T18:25:42.155-04:002012-07-30T18:25:42.155-04:00So, which one of these four stooges is 'poptec...So, which one of these four stooges is 'poptech'? <br /><br />Editor:<br />Andrew (Computer Analyst)<br /><br />Contributing Authors<br />Doug (Computer Engineer)<br />Karl (Computer Scientist)<br />Mike (Electrical Engineer)<br /><br /><br />And to repeat caenarbannog's pithy question up there:<br /><br /><br />"Now the question is, why, in all <br />the years that poptech and his <br />fellow travellers have been going <br />on and on about supposed problems <br />with the temperature data, didn’t <br />they ever roll up their sleeves and<br /> do the few days of coding/data-<br />crunching work needed to test their<br /> claims?"Steven Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10817216219313650852012-07-30T13:29:40.589-04:002012-07-30T13:29:40.589-04:00Apparently poptech missed a major point of Eli'...Apparently poptech missed a major point of Eli's post. If Muller wanted to post something on a real skeptic site, he would have to create one himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49538390232057035402012-07-30T09:37:23.196-04:002012-07-30T09:37:23.196-04:00Well Color me stoopid, that is why they call me &q...Well Color me stoopid, that is why they call me "Hey Stoopid".<br /><br />So, Anthony Watts grand announcement, is to literally spruce up the pitiful Matthew Menne, carpet bombed remains of "Watts Urban Myth 1.0", 2010 and repackage it as, the even sadder bigger loser "Watts Urban Myth 2.0", 2012. <br /><br />With Anthony Watts, garbage in, always equals gish gallop horse hockey out.<br /><br />Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, has published an interesting new joint research paper on the subject of why denialati cannot and will not, move pass there own level of head in the sand cognitive dissonance "Peter Principle" incompetence on the subject of science. "MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE"<br /><br />Pdf Link: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf<br /><br />Since Anthony Watts "Watts Urban Myth 2.0", horse of no legs died at the starting gate in 1859. That particular dead horse, ain't going to run very far away, from the next scheduled carpet bombing run, one could say. <br /><br />As for mononeuron popfool, before you even consider any future "Peter Principle" denialati arguments of complete incompetence. Skeptical Science, has an excellent complete list of debunked ones here : http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php<br /><br /> Abraham Lincoln would say; "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.".<br /><br />Such is life. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52747009341345632952012-07-30T00:23:03.703-04:002012-07-30T00:23:03.703-04:00"So it looks like the 4 papers were rejected,..."So it looks like the 4 papers were rejected, but with an invitation to rewrite and resubmit. No surprise..."<br /><br />But, apparently, not regarding metholodgy or results.<br /><br />Perhaps the reviewers insisted on them down playing the "revotionarhy result" that simply confirmed what we already know?dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79540214708926885152012-07-29T23:33:10.926-04:002012-07-29T23:33:10.926-04:00It is probably worth noting that Popped-tic's ...It is probably worth noting that <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-incidence-of-solipsism-among.html?showComment=1343540570015#c646489519116749454" rel="nofollow">Popped-tic's first comment about Muller, on 28/7/12 10:42 PM</a> had <b>nothing</b> to do with Muller's posting on sceptic sites:<br /><br />"<i>That is pure nonsense, Muller was never a skeptic...</i>"<br /><br />that's all, followed by a link to a discussion which <i><b>isn't</b></i> predicated on Muller posting his official sceptic status on official sceptic sites.<br /><br />After a few aimless comments <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-incidence-of-solipsism-among.html?showComment=1343544027194#c594106089267089226" rel="nofollow">he repeats his basic premise on 28/7/12 11:40 PM</a>:<br /><br />"<i>Muller has never been a skeptic.</i>"<br /><br />again without reference to the arbitrary necessity that Muller should have posted on sceptic sites.<br /><br />It wasn't until <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-incidence-of-solipsism-among.html?showComment=1343566693026#c5056157687625777959" rel="nofollow">29/7/12 5:58 AM </a> that Popped-tic moved the goal-posts:<br /><br />"<i>How can you kick someone out that was never "in"? Can you point me to the skeptic site that Muller ever wrote an article on or even commented? Surely you can find even a single "skeptical" comment from him on a skeptic site somewhere. This could not all be a big pathetic PR ploy.</i>"<br /><br />PT is not only a goal-post shifter, but a liar as well. His initial argument had nothing to do with whether Muller had posted on sceptic sites; just whether Muller was a sceptic.<br /><br />And Muller was most certainly a 'sceptic', even if it was less sceptic and more denier.<br /><br />Popped-tic is simply trying to pretend that his inital stance didn't fall like a house of cards, by shuffling the pea as furiously as he is able.<br /><br />Silly Popped-tic.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7366450979457281242012-07-29T23:08:24.354-04:002012-07-29T23:08:24.354-04:00Thanks must go to poptech for his/her continual de...Thanks must go to poptech for his/her continual demonstration of the intellectual bankruptcy of Denial.<br /><br />There's an old Australian expression 'dead, but won't lie down.' Referring to purblind, idiot persistence when clearly already defeated. That's you, that is. <br /><br />Mike Roddy, on the other hand, <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/the-incidence-of-solipsism-among.html?showComment=1343573039216#c3523718467404148156" rel="nofollow">has this exactly right</a>. As does <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/" rel="nofollow">Joe Romm</a>, as usual. <br /><br />Who cares if Muller's arrogant, persistently uninformed, or we knew it all already? The much-heralded, Koch-funded would-be 'definitive' and Denialist-friendly temperature series has blown up in their faces! <br /><br />Please desist from trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here, people! This means beating up the opposition, not your allies...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44991015073309816912012-07-29T21:26:27.072-04:002012-07-29T21:26:27.072-04:00Re: The new Muller paper...
So it looks like the ...Re: The new Muller paper...<br /><br />So it looks like the 4 papers were rejected, but with an invitation to rewrite and resubmit. No surprise...<br /><br />a_ray...<br /><br />Yes a human can be that stupid. Mitt Romney appears to be an example (although there is some suspicion that he is an android, it may explain a lot).Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88319066459984831372012-07-29T21:23:53.565-04:002012-07-29T21:23:53.565-04:00In a lame attempt to get back on topic ... Steven ...In a lame attempt to get back on topic ... Steven Mosher Zeke Hausfather have a great piece up on the latest BEST output over at Curry's.<br /><br />They were both part of the team, they say, apparently Mosher did a bunch of R work. Zeke's a smart guy.<br /><br />So I guess Mosher's officially out of the "lukewarmer" category, unless "IPCC sensitivity is probably about right after all" makes one a lukewarmer ...<br /><br />He's still an asshole ...dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31912973276201903472012-07-29T21:21:48.843-04:002012-07-29T21:21:48.843-04:00I really hope Poptart is a bot. I'd hate to t...I really hope Poptart is a bot. I'd hate to think an actual human could be that stupid.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66542108725237530582012-07-29T18:43:47.932-04:002012-07-29T18:43:47.932-04:00"Thanks, Danger Mouse, I though [sic]..."..."Thanks, Danger Mouse, I though [sic]..."<br /><br />Poptart has already admitted his mistake, so I'd suggest we just move on and DNFTT.<br /><br />Taylor BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13859441518601132912012-07-29T18:14:49.267-04:002012-07-29T18:14:49.267-04:00"I though it was because they completely fail..."I though it was because they completely failed at a simple task"<br /><br />No, it's because you're a boring troll with the craziest qualifying test for scepticism. Steven Milloy let you down and proved you wrong, and you'll be telling us Dr Bas van Geel ain't no sceptic because he hasn't published on a blog. Weird.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53370202324018519932012-07-29T17:17:36.068-04:002012-07-29T17:17:36.068-04:00Muller's paper is up:
http://berkeleyearth.or...Muller's paper is up:<br /><br />http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37960343054573057642012-07-29T16:45:50.004-04:002012-07-29T16:45:50.004-04:00ligne, I remember all those lies and strawman arg...ligne, I remember all those lies and strawman arguments made by those hacks who got so easily refuted. That was funny stuff watching them fail to make valid arguments over and over. Despite all that nonsense I heard the list is even bigger and more robust than before - imagine that.<br /><br />How is the failure going boys? Muller still a legendary skeptic? Oh, so much fail it hurts, make it stop.Poptechhttp://www.populartechnology.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58654125139633031112012-07-29T16:32:56.943-04:002012-07-29T16:32:56.943-04:00Taylor B:
"Correlation does not prove causati...Taylor B:<br />"Correlation does not prove causation, but neither are they mutually exclusive."<br /><br />By a miracle, that almost brings us back on topic about Muller's article in the NYT.<br /><br />Danger MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40169407383136466212012-07-29T16:16:59.423-04:002012-07-29T16:16:59.423-04:00izen said: "So either he was a skeptic, or s...izen said: "So either he was a skeptic, or skeptic sites have in the past been very keen to quote any statement, even if by someone who rejects the skeptic position, if it could be construed as an attack on AGW theory."<br /><br />that wouldn't be the first time:<br /><br />i remember a year or two back there was some moron blogger who was compiling a great big long list of papers that supposedly backed up any of the myriad "sceptic" positions. many of these were mainstream middle-of-the-IPCC jobs, but were included regardless of their actual conclusions or whether the authors agreed with the (somewhat fanciful) interpretation required to shoehorn them in. the selection criteria seemed to mostly revolve around said blogger's wild quote-mining and monumental craz——<br /><br />oh hi, poptech! good to see you again :-)lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73178340814274110032012-07-29T16:13:01.627-04:002012-07-29T16:13:01.627-04:00Go chase your own tail, pop, people here are too i...Go chase your own tail, pop, people here are too intelligent to let your dog wistle trick them into doing so.<br /><br />Of course that's a pretty low bar, but then that's as high a bar as you can muster.<br /><br />Once a looser always a looser.exusiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34719445818116684712012-07-29T16:08:55.340-04:002012-07-29T16:08:55.340-04:00"Poptech, people aren't responding becaus..."Poptech, people aren't responding because you're either a boring troll or a complete moron."<br /><br />Correlation does not prove causation, but neither are they mutually exclusive.<br /><br />Taylor BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56695472568735117582012-07-29T16:02:18.311-04:002012-07-29T16:02:18.311-04:00Thanks Danger Mouse, I though it was because they ...Thanks Danger Mouse, I though it was because they completely failed at a simple task and were so embarrassed by this failure they rolled up in a ball and started crying.Poptechhttp://www.populartechnology.netnoreply@blogger.com