tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4689677034797366810..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Waking Up Is Hard to DoEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1903636301313821832010-03-02T13:54:18.706-05:002010-03-02T13:54:18.706-05:00Dearest Uncle Eli,
if you should ever find yourse...Dearest Uncle Eli,<br /><br />if you should ever find yourself in need of an absurdly funny denialist site to bash, then maybe you would find it entertaining to have a look on this page run by two truly breathtakingly ignorant buffoons?<br /><br />http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/decline-ldquohide-the-declinerdquo-explained-150.php<br /><br />You may recall that you once quoted me for taking your name in vain when I dealt with a guy claiming how the ideal gas law proved Arrhenius 1896 work wrong? Well, this guy is named Frank Lansner and has now created the above page. He has elaborated on his claims on our Danish klimadebat.dk-site - he is seriously claiming that the drop in temperatures from 1940-70 (they insist on 1940-1978) is being hidden from the official graphs, that Jones´ wording "hide the decline" is referring to this "hiding", that the divergence problem begins in 1940 when tree proxies showed a decline in temperature together with the temperature and that tree proxies are evidence that the warming since 1940 is an artefact of UHI. Apparently, they think that tree proxies are more reliable than measurements from 1940 and onwards - even though they, of course, claim taht they are unreliable for paleo reconstructions.<br /><br /> This is honestly the silliest denier stuff I have even seen. These two fellows appear to be a perfect example of putting together two types of deniers as you wrote: <br /><br />"Especially problematical are those who want science to validate preconceived political notions, and those willing to believe they are Einstein and the professionals are fools. Put these two types together and you get a witches brew of ignorance and attitude.<br /><br /> Maybe this could be a sequel to your phenomenal "amateur night" post which I have often quoted? ;-)<br /><br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.htmlChristoffer Bugge Harderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12377708243904362263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33502781274552947222010-02-24T15:34:00.357-05:002010-02-24T15:34:00.357-05:00Just who was arranging those Tea Parties and Town ...Just who was arranging those Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings?<br /><br />Mann's comment was not against the organizers, but those in attendance.<br /><br />Tea Parties were a great idea. American citizens going out to have their voices heard. Did you go to one? I did and my daughter went to a different one and neither of us saw the crazy lunatic people Mann said attended these events.<br /><br />Socialized Medicine is not evil, just unconstitutional if done at the Federal Government Level. I have no problem with states having a "public option" nor do I oppose any effort to ammend the Constitution.<br /><br />Also, I see you like to label people, put them in a box and be dismissive as well. You will never learn. How are those latest polls going for ya to change policy in the USA, because of climate change? Good job you have done and you seem perfectly fine continuing on the same path. Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, amazing.<br /><br /><br />Your simple arguements on public relations, communications, and even US politics bore me.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18111390771984660882010-02-24T14:34:17.983-05:002010-02-24T14:34:17.983-05:00Celery probably thinks that Tea Parties are a grea...Celery probably thinks that Tea Parties are a great idea and that "social" medicine is evil. Just who was arranging those Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings? <br /><br />MapleLeafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14169260151858122612010-02-24T11:42:24.079-05:002010-02-24T11:42:24.079-05:00Cymraeg llygoden
Try reading my post again and th...Cymraeg llygoden<br /><br />Try reading my post again and this time extend your arms over your head to catch the point I was making. I really do not have time to explain such simple concepts to those that put forth little effort.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80878212068123159252010-02-24T09:51:34.198-05:002010-02-24T09:51:34.198-05:00His dismissive attitude about what the overwhelmin...<i>His dismissive attitude about</i> what the overwhelming number of climate scientists and learned institutions have had to say in recent years <i>goes directly to the points</i> we <i>have been making (on deaf ears). Sweeping, general statements, that disparage a large group of people in one fell swoop are a tactic of the weak minded or those who are driven by politacl</i> [sic] <i>and not logical forces. Is this the</i> Celery Eater <i>you know?</i><br /><br />Cymraeg llygodenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34635841479337927682010-02-22T20:12:18.309-05:002010-02-22T20:12:18.309-05:00Eli,
You forgot this gem part of an answer where ...Eli,<br /><br />You forgot this gem part of an answer where Prof. Mann takes a pure politcal stance on "skeptics". Another label maker, this man is beyond contempt.<br /><br />The debate over the reality of climate change was still alive and well. And now there is such a poisonous atmosphere being created by the climate skeptics — similar in many ways to that poisonous atmosphere we saw last summer in those healthcare town hall meetings — irrational sort of conspiracy-driven lunatics, frankly, entering into the fray — where the discourse has been so skewed to the point where those extreme voices are a substantial component in the debate. <br /><br /><br />His dismissive attitude about the townhall meetings last year goes directly to the points I have been making (on deaf ears). Sweeping, general statements, that disparage a large group of people in one fell swoop are a tactic of the weak minded or those who are driven by politacl and not logical forces. Is this the Mann you know?<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44368038343852743482010-02-22T15:26:03.775-05:002010-02-22T15:26:03.775-05:00carrot eater said...
So much ranting, so little su...carrot eater said...<br />So much ranting, so little substance.<br /><br />What kind of despicable person eats celery, anyway.<br /><br /><br />How is your public relation going? Last I checked fewer people believe you than last year and the year before that. Don't look now I see a trend. Such a pity, because with most of it I believe you.<br /><br /><br />What kinda arrogant ass eats carrots?<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45700450902808600242010-02-22T13:46:25.102-05:002010-02-22T13:46:25.102-05:00So much ranting, so little substance.
What kind o...So much ranting, so little substance.<br /><br />What kind of despicable person eats celery, anyway?carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41116737933430168702010-02-22T11:21:53.466-05:002010-02-22T11:21:53.466-05:00Anonyidiot nice assumption where is your factual e...Anonyidiot nice assumption where is your factual evidence that I am a denier? You may want to ask people their position before you assume, but I know how much weak minded people like love labels and love to use them.<br /><br />This is fun all of you work the same way, if someone offers anything counter to your beliefs you scream "Denier! Denier!". When anyone points out observed behavior you scream "Liar! Liar!". <br /><br />And yet you all are scratching your heads as to why the public does not believe you. Oh thats right its the skeptic's blogs fault that less than 1% of the population even know exist. Or its the press's fault, because they are owned by evil oil companies that just want to rape the planet. lol unstable and weak.<br /><br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56072980634013256012010-02-22T01:40:27.199-05:002010-02-22T01:40:27.199-05:00Anonyidiot said:
"Now, I'm not accusing ...<i><br />Anonyidiot said:<br /><br />"Now, I'm not accusing Mann of being a child-killer, but shouldn't people be looking into the possibility that he is?"<br /><br />Easy, NO!!!<br /><br />Celery Eater<br /></i><br /><br />As the author of the post that provoked the above response, I can say that Celery Eater is a victim of Poe's Law.<br /><br />But that's no slam on Celery Eater. It is simply an illustration of the power of Poe's Law when applied to global-warming denial. When it comes to global-warming denial ayesian inference techniques have exactly a 50/50 chance of distinguishing a parody from the genuine article. Celery Eater did nothing more here than flip a coin that came up as "tails" when he/she was expecting "heads".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80333271802162828202010-02-21T23:33:49.583-05:002010-02-21T23:33:49.583-05:00Well actually those "global freezing statisti...Well actually those "global freezing statisticians" worked for the gutter press. <a href="http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf" rel="nofollow">Peterson, et al.,</a> laid that one to rest and you can read more about it at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm" rel="nofollow"> Skeptical Science</a>. Get the ap for your iphone and you might learn something. Say Eli sent you and you might get a discount.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79313622681341463862010-02-21T23:24:06.224-05:002010-02-21T23:24:06.224-05:00luminous
Given a collection of time series that ...luminous<br /><br /><i><br />Given a collection of time series that are diminishing in both instrumental accuracy and spacial homogeneity; is it preferable to run a PCA centered on the entire data set, or to do a short segmented PCA dividing the best and most complete data into calibration and verification data sets in order to <b>better approximate the expectation of error</b>, and for the sake of thoroughness continue the process (<b>weighted</b> for their limited spacial homogeneity) for earlier segments?<br /></i><br /><br />Me claiming expertise in year 2 college algebra? Never, where did you get that?<br /><br />Re: your question. Given a few series which correlate to the intended output of the hockey stick, and given a crafted mean which ‘enhances’ their variability vs. the rest of data, the only question which remains is how to find justification for this. But that’s why there’s always gonna be jobs for statisticians, don’t we agree on this? There’s always some “solid” theoretical basis for manual data fitting especially if you can enhance or discard available series at ease. Or did I get it wrong? I’d better ask an expert in PCA :)) As I said there are even more correct means out there, you just need to find them.<br /><br />Remind me, “the anthropogenic global freezing” statisticians of the 70s, didn’t they also have some concept of <b>the better approximation of expectation</b> which gave them a blank card to <b>weight</b> their data as they wished? Imagine a number of hurt egos who probably still think science was sold off to politics! Welcome to the club! LOL.<br /><br />But brave, really brave of you to defend Mann. I thought we moved on from there.HowFunnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51720249939391247692010-02-21T23:21:30.245-05:002010-02-21T23:21:30.245-05:00Anonyidiot said:
"Now, I'm not accusing ...Anonyidiot said:<br /><br />"Now, I'm not accusing Mann of being a child-killer, but shouldn't people be looking into the possibility that he is?"<br /><br />Easy, NO!!!<br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8907493226717245062010-02-21T22:33:11.182-05:002010-02-21T22:33:11.182-05:00HT toe Derecho64 at DC:
http://www.abc.net.au/un...HT toe Derecho64 at DC:<br /><br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm<br /><br />Quite the eye opener. The abuse discussed in the above article is probably the kind of stuff that "HowFunny" and his/her friends send to Mann et al.<br /><br />Kudos to Clive Hamilton. <br /><br />MapleLeafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8968928209870381352010-02-21T21:32:09.784-05:002010-02-21T21:32:09.784-05:00OK Mr. Jim, Please help us the unwashed, once agai...OK Mr. Jim, Please help us the unwashed, once again... Tell us what science has as its definition of, "a shred"? At what point will enough, be enough for science? Is this to be more, or less than a trace?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32626916157801405612010-02-21T21:25:33.387-05:002010-02-21T21:25:33.387-05:00How Funny,
Since you seem to claim expertise on P...How Funny,<br /><br />Since you seem to claim expertise on PCA (though certainly not history, as Lenin cannot be found to have ever written or uttered the phrase "useful idiots"), can you answer this question for me:<br /><br />Given a collection of time series that are diminishing in both instrumental accuracy and spacial homogeneity; is it preferable to run a PCA centered on the entire data set, or to do a short segmented PCA dividing the best and most complete data into calibration and verification data sets in order to better approximate the expectation of error, and for the sake of thoroughness continue the process (weighted for their limited spacial homogeneity) for earlier segments?<br /><br />Inquiring minds want to know.luminous beautynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88676188716212152322010-02-21T20:48:32.600-05:002010-02-21T20:48:32.600-05:00"At what point will you call it for what it i..."<i>At what point will you call it for what it is; a hoax for money & power?"</i><br /><br />Oh I don't know, when there's a shred of evidence for it, maybe?Jim Bouldinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16959520629819223922010-02-21T20:40:35.994-05:002010-02-21T20:40:35.994-05:00Anonymous @5:13PM.
Are you really this much of a ...Anonymous @5:13PM.<br /><br />Are you really this much of a moron? Is it possible that you really don't understand that the paper being retracted supported the <em>low-ball</em> IPCC sea level rise estimates, over the <em>higher</em> estimates of Rahmstorf? Here's another clue: Rahmstorf and Vermeer are the scientists credited in the article for forcing the retraction. I seriously question your capacity to learn, but just on the off chance, try:<br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-sea-level-projections/" rel="nofollow">this realclimate article</a>.<br /><br />Please get some sort of clue before you come in here and waste our time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30555427852249156182010-02-21T20:28:41.195-05:002010-02-21T20:28:41.195-05:00MapleLeaf
HowFunny = Clssic Dunning-Kruger
Haha,...MapleLeaf<br /><br /><i>HowFunny = Clssic Dunning-Kruger</i><br /><br />Haha, LOL, you should give this creed a credit. They are great at coming up with deregotory epithets, like climate change denier, sceptic, flat-earther, D-K (whatever it is).<br /><br />You dont need to spend time reading the Climategate emails, all you find here, can be found in the emails of their prophets. As Feyerabend was saying "everything goes", including ad-hominem, fraud, and bullying.HowFunnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54615633374057645022010-02-21T20:13:02.610-05:002010-02-21T20:13:02.610-05:00Mann oh Mann... How can you folks keep defending t...Mann oh Mann... How can you folks keep defending this junk science? I am now actually feeling sorry for you all. At what point will you call it for what it is; a hoax for money & power? Close enough for government work? You tell us what this means please...<br /><br />"Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.<br /><br />Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.<br /><br />"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."<br /><br />I for one; am sick of the games. Let us see now: 20 scientist @ 50K = a warm million. Right? Good game. His own words. Wow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21033819766819363112010-02-21T20:11:30.094-05:002010-02-21T20:11:30.094-05:00HowFunny = Clssic Dunning-Kruger
Don't feed t...HowFunny = Clssic Dunning-Kruger<br /><br />Don't feed the D-K trolls.<br /><br />MapleLeafAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40741452815109802952010-02-21T19:51:26.642-05:002010-02-21T19:51:26.642-05:00carroteater
Dig up any paper from 1998, and subje...carroteater<br /><i><br />Dig up any paper from 1998, and subject it to the same level of scrutiny. It's highly likely that you'd suggest to change something in there - some wording, some math, some discussion. It's called <b>progress in understanding</b>.<br /></i><br /><br />You mean other <b>similar</b> papers with the same <b>minor</b> problems of truncated series of hand-picked proxies, thrown out subsets of temperature data, ``adjusted'' temperature readings, shifted station locations, and circular self-referencing? <br /><br />It's a classic example of <b>progress</b> in fraudulent data mining not in understanding. <br /><br />I looked at those too. And was as impressed as after looking at that eye-opening MANN:98 standard-setting exercise in AGW-vested climate research. Did I miss your holy grail, people? Give me a reference to the best paper you can do, enlighten me!HowFunnynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15811727344768250422010-02-21T19:46:42.706-05:002010-02-21T19:46:42.706-05:00Starling to: Silly Rabbits
Oh my; the sky must be ...Starling to: Silly Rabbits<br />Oh my; the sky must be falling... Here is some more easy reading, for you tricky bucks & Maplesyrup.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall<br /><br />bye-byeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44039914116979558732010-02-21T17:49:56.701-05:002010-02-21T17:49:56.701-05:00He is not looking at the book, the book appears to...<i><br />He is not looking at the book, the book appears to be open to a picture on both pages, and fairly obvious it is a staged or posed for picture.<br /></i><br /><br />Furthermore, he is bald and sports a goatee.<br /><br />Convicted child-killer David Westerfield is also bald and sports a goatee.<br /><br />Now, I'm not accusing Mann of being a child-killer, but shouldn't people be looking into the possibility that he is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85876241225969001302010-02-21T16:40:53.737-05:002010-02-21T16:40:53.737-05:00carrot eater said...
Hey, there's a picture of...carrot eater said...<br />Hey, there's a picture of Mike Mann. He's 'reading' a book.<br /><br /><br />No he is not. He is not looking at the book, the book appears to be open to a picture on both pages, and fairly obvious it is a staged or posed for picture. You certainly are ignorant to the science behind assessing personality traits from observation. Perhaps you should go read up on the science, rather than making yourself look silly.<br /><br />Keep proceeding the way you have in the past, you certainly have convinced the public with your message, not.<br /><br />Celery EaterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com