On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:33:40 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:

"Sam wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve.

Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.

Note.

1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
physicist. (overestimation)

****-bot always likes to kick off with an ad hominem. Gets him
into the mood.

2. Whenever competent analysis is presented by knowledgeable persons
such as Marvin,

Dog ate the evidence that Marvie is knowledgeable, or that he has
ever presented a competent analysis.

Wormley says Marvin or they are ignorant of "climate
science".

If it has feathers and can fly, and also likes to swim in the
water, and waddles when it walks, and quacks a lot -- that proves
there's a conspiracy to call it a duck.

3. Wormley thinks that giving "free university" classes to geezers and
dumb-ass teens makes him on the same level as a widely published tenured
full professor. (Failure to recognize inadequacy)

More ad hom. I guess he was losing the mood, there, and needed to
get back in the groove.

4. Since Wormley cannot be trained to acquire scientific skill due to
his obstinate politics, he will NEVER acknowledge his own lack of skill.

Ah, so unsuitable politics rules out scientific skill. The
****-bot would have been right at home in the old USSR, where you
had to watch out for that "bourgeois science"; pity it's dead and
gone. I guess he could always emigrate to China or North Korea.

5. Note that all of AGW "arguments" are mostly logical fallacies usually
based on personal attacks of critics.

Better check the fuses in your irony meters, folks.

The use of politically loaded
words such as "deniers" PROVES this is not a discussion about science.
It is obviously merely a propaganda war. The constant posts by R. Kym.
suggesting that all critics are "insane" without any medical
justification certainly adumbrates political denigration.

And as for you Kym, we will get around giving you the K&D analysis later.

****-bot is on a roll!

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

Sam Wormley wrote in news:CsCdnXpK-
:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science




Which is more likely, that "bad humours" cause illness or germs, which
haven't been discovered yet?

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:33:40 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:49 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In sci.physics wrote:

"Sam wrote in message
...
Which is more likely...

Kruger and Dunning argue that for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, only if
they can be trained to substantially improve.

Thanks R. Kym. K&D is certainly relevant to your and Wormley's posts.

Note.

1. Wormley is an Astronomy technician who thinks he's a climate science
physicist. (overestimation)

****-bot always likes to kick off with an ad hominem. Gets him
into the mood.
....

The "blind sight" effect ensures he can't see his criticism is just
a ... er .. library-book case of projection.

It's what he does. And as he unconsciously knows, it's what he is.

--
[S]cience debates are done by reference to actual data and not to
one's opinion of another's intelligence. [...]
Hence we've just scientifically proved that the original statement was
correct and that you are naturally stupid. Any questions?
-- " , 21 Mar 2012 14:49 -0400

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:24?pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds

? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
? ? ? ?science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?

The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
that saw hourly nameshifting.

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100

In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science

Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you

But the dog ate the evidence of it.
....

Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?

--
[Quoting Klaus Rohrich]
As they say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
-- BONZO [denialist and daily nymshifter], 3 Mar 2008 12:46 +1100

In sci.physics Rich wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in news:CsCdnXpK-
:

Which is more likely...

[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds

[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science




Which is more likely, that "bad humours" cause illness or germs, which
haven't been discovered yet?

My pal BONZO the denier had 2 positions in that one.

Well... he had 2 positions on a lot of things. One of them had to be right!

Failing to move to the germ theory resulted in unneeded deaths of mothers
giving birth in European hospitals. Doctors did not see a need
to wash hands between patients, and some even scoffed at the idea
of little invisible things that caused disease. I guess they were denialists.

Next, BONZO says, clinging to the germ theory of disease is a bad thing
because it's like consensus science. The consensus is soooo often out of
step with reality. I guess he was harking back to his first position to close
the circle of logic.

--
The claimed consensus views of hundreds [40,000 pubs?] of climate change
"scientists" are fundamentally erroneous.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 19 Jan 2011 15:29 +1100

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:09:57, matt_sykes wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:24ÿpm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

ÿ ÿ[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿscientifically illiterate frauds

ÿ ÿ[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿresearch papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿand that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿscience

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

The Reverend James E. Hansen is very unhappy with you!
Keep up the good work!

On 4/24/2012 8:35 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In sci.physics Bill wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:24?pm, Sam wrote:
Which is more likely...

? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds

? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
? ? ? ?science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?

The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
that saw hourly nameshifting.

I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
decided he wasn't worth the money.

In sci.physics Unum wrote:
On 4/24/2012 8:35 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
In sci.physics Bill wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes
wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:24?pm, Sam wrote:
Which is more likely...

? ?[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
? ? ? ?scientifically illiterate frauds

? ?[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
? ? ? ?research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
? ? ? ?and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
? ? ? ?science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?

The news seems to have been slow to filter through denial HQ
that climate change is a "dead issue". It was declared such by
our pal BONZO a couple of months ago during a week of activity
that saw hourly nameshifting.

I am thinking that bonzo lost his funding. Someone in Australia
decided he wasn't worth the money.

Well there was certainly that aspect of competence as seen from
parts of the coal industry.

He frequently dropped clangers that indicated he "really" ack
various consensus points, in fact used them to attempt to
contradict some of the same points :-) .

And apart from that there was the undisgested regurgitation of
his "info packets". Sometimes with the email addr of those who had
sent him the information. And, of course, sometimes there were other
posters around that made "original" contributions that were word-for-word
the same. So the "invisible network" was being revealed.

And then there was the periodic, daily, and eventually hourly nameshifting.
It tended to **** people off rather than get past their kill files.

Towards the end (although I'm expecting a resurgence) of what seems to
be a 10-year career in denialist posting, BONZO (or various other people
working at the same office) apparently had to boost the ratings
by replying to his own posting a number of times using the same
private IP addr to make it look like a "discussion" was underway.

A couple of people I know in the inner W Syd area say they saw a
couple of people, one of them ID-ed as BONZO, in some bar or pub --
I think it was in Victoria Road -- and the "big one" was planning
some campaign or other. But that was some time back.

From the boasting going on it seems BONZO & whatever pals worked
at his location --allegedly some kind of web-related consultancy
like keyword optimisation or some such -- were receiving the grand
sum of around $300/m for the (assumed) outside work.

But, as you say, it seems to be the contract has finished or been
terminated on some basis -- cost/benefit?

--
Scientist Judith Curry gets bashed by the RC and Climate Progress for
exercising the method of science: scepticism.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 8 Dec 2010 15:42 +1100

[Apparently Curry was "bashed" for things like:]
Liu, J P and Curry, J A, 2010: Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean
and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice.
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 107, 34, 14987-14992.

On Apr 24, 8:21*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT), matt_sykes









wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

* *[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
* * * *scientifically illiterate frauds

* *[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
* * * *research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
* * * *and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
* * * *science

It isnt compelling, hasnt happened, and many other scientists disagree
with them.

What is compelling is the desperation of you lot as AGW enters its
final death spiral.

You dropped way too much acid back in the 60's, didn't you?

--
Bill Snyder *[This space unintentionally left blank]

Makes you wonder what all those scientists who are imagining massive
temperature rises and planetary chaos took.....