On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

I realize you're new here, but there are proponents and skeptics.
Proponents are supposed to, well, propose, a specific theory, then those
that have questions about the theory (skeptics) ask them to explain the
aspects that they think don't fit.

At this point in the process, proponents have proposed a theory that says
anthropogenic CO2 will raise surface temperatures enough to cause severe
problems in the future.

Unfortunately for the theory, but fortunately for humanity, the theory
predicts only 0.6K of warming per century from CO2 at the present rate.

Proponents contend that some unknown but dangerous amount of additional
warming will hypothetically come from postulated positive feedbacks which
cannot as yet be found (measured) in the climate system. They seem
unusually sure of this. The most common reason is that they believe
climate models, but don't understand them.

Skeptics (I, at least) ask to see the data and mechanisms showing the
existence and operation of these assumed positive feedbacks. As
proponents, it is up to them to show evidence (measured, not modeled)
that supports their hypothesis. It's not up to us to provide support for
their hypothesis, or any other.

The present situation is that proponents insist that the data supporting
their positive feedback theory is out there somewhere, but none of them
are willing or able to explain it specifically.

If proponents can't explain specifically and defend what they propose,
there is no proposition of which to be skeptical. It loses by default,
regardless of the blundering, bluster and bluff accompanying it.

That's why I'm encouraging those who want to be proponents to explain
specifically what they are proposing. Rob and perhaps TomP are, I
believe, trying to make an honest effort.

Most of the rest of the proponents are simply ignorant trolls, full of
themselves and little else.

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:56:58 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:09:32 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:


"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message


snip Mr. Dekker's claim that he is utterly ignorant of recent events,
much less science.

That's what your spin-masters they teach you to do in denial-school ?
Accuse others of what you commit yourself ?


I believe your claims that you're utterly and completely ignorant, Mr.
Dekker. I feel sorry for you. That was... pathetic.

Even more sadly for you, appeal to ignorance is still a fallacy. ;-D

idiot. where is your theory, where is your data. adhomin attacks are
not either data , evidece or theory.

First of all, the accusation I made was that Mr. Dekker was utterly
ignorant of recent events. Unlike you, who told a bald faced laughably
stupid idiotic lie about it.

Secondly, the subject has turned to "head up the ass denial" in the CRU e-
mails. You're and your ilk pray on the stupidity of ignorant people;
anyone who has read the e-mails know how boldly you lie.

Lastly, I was pointing out how stupid Mr. Dekker's argument in support of
the bad arguments (ad hom, post hoc, straw men and so on) being made.

It is not for me to produce a theory, evidence or data, (though Svensmark
has done so) to disprove AGW. It is up to the AGW advocates to prove it;
even the shill frauds at the IPCC don't claim they can prove it, so
listing to the "true believers" who think it is a scientific fact just
shows that they have their heads up Al Gore's ass.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published.
2) How they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline".
3) How they fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't believe
you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If you can't
address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who repeats whatever
he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that. they show a non proffesional
programmer dealing with dirty and insane data. it happens to everybody
that deals with raw data. most raw data is noisy and has artifacts in
it. it is a pain to program. to my mind, the fact that the programs
are innocent and the critics are using code that is not part of the main
work. the code that I looked at was processing the PROXIES. and that
confounds the idea that they were faking the science. I have
temperature data and I dont see any data like that in the set.

so the statement that they were cooking the data is just not borne out.
the data was dirty and required extensive processing.

what I want is somebody to point me to the algorithim for the
TREERING PROXIES.

josephus




--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:01 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published. 2) How
they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline". 3) How they
fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't
believe you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If
you can't address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who
repeats whatever he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that.

snip excuse for lying and outright fraud

A bald faced lie. It is pretty stupid of you to try and pass it off as
"dealing with the data". Idiot. How damned stupid ARE you anyway that you
thought someone would be so stupid as to believe you?

Best I can figure, you're an Anti-AGW crusader pretending to be an AGWer
in order to make them appear to be shameless, bald faced liars and
idiots. No one could be so stupid as to lie like you did and still be
able to work a keyboard.

It said right there in the code "fudge factor" and the numbers were
thrown in for NO REASON other than to produce a false increase in the
temperature.

If you're for real, then damn, there is something wrong with you and
people like you. Just wacko.

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:51:01 -0500, josephus wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:

"Marvin the wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:52:54 -0500, josephus wrote:


so peer review is fake and justifys your mudslinging.

Actually, we know from the CRU e-mails that peer review in "climate
science" was outright intentional fraud committed by many
conspirators.

Really ? international fraud was committed ? I must have missed the
memo.

Having your head up your ass must be really encumber your mobility.

The e-mails shows how:
1) The "Climate Scientist" conspired and used "peer review" to prevent
opposing views that exposed their lies from being published. 2) How
they conspired to use "tricks" to "hide the decline". 3) How they
fudged the data.
4) The list goes on.

Really, flat out telling bald faced lies is really ugly. I can't
believe you're so damned stupid as to really believe your own lies. If
you can't address the facts, don't act like a mindless idiot who
repeats whatever he is told by his masters.


except the programs dont show that. they show a non proffesional
programmer dealing with dirty and insane data. it happens to everybody
that deals with raw data. most raw data is noisy and has artifacts in
it. it is a pain to program. to my mind, the fact that the programs
are innocent and the critics are using code that is not part of the main
work. the code that I looked at was processing the PROXIES. and that
confounds the idea that they were faking the science. I have
temperature data and I dont see any data like that in the set.

so the statement that they were cooking the data is just not borne
out.
the data was dirty and required extensive processing.

what I want is somebody to point me to the algorithim for the
TREERING PROXIES.

Don't we all. Join the club.

Maybe you could file a FOIA request. I understand they may be taking
those a bit more seriously nowadays.