More on the NOAA satelite temperature data errors.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
And it always ends in name calling
By the likes of you and other AGWers.
Josh Gray wrote:
My personal feeling is that I am not capable of the study or knowledge required to state an opinion that I can back up
Your underestimation of yourself is entirely founded.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
What should they have done?
They could have said something like 'Hang on a second: a lot of our data appears to be unusable, corrupt or wrong for a variety of reasons therefore we need to start again and reevaluate since all the numbers from the last 5 years may be sending us down the wrong path' or something like that. Don't expect they will. Personally I am happy to accept that the climate is changing: I'd be surprised if it wasn't given the environmental history of our shiny orb. What I'm not ready to accept is that a) it's all our fault and b) even if it was all our fault that we can do anything about it. Most of the thrust of GW appears to be about tax and control and I wouldn't mind the tax part if I thought it would do anything but you and I both know that the taxes will never get used to help the environment: they'll get eaten up by a politicians pet interests or corruption. And whilst I accept that fat_git is a little irritating when it comes to GW I'd rather he were that than silent so that we all simply accept what we are told without question. Surely that is religion, not science.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
Personally I am happy to accept that the climate is changing: I'd be surprised if it wasn't given the environmental history of our shiny orb. What I'm not ready to accept is that a) it's all our fault and b) even if it was all our fault that we can do anything about it.
Fair enough... Though I don't think (b) necessarily depends on (a)... Even if it wasn't our fault, there might be ways to counteract the changes, or at least reduce them to levels that we, as a species, can better tolerate. Of course, unless we know what the changes are, we can't know whether we can do anything about it.
digital man wrote:
Most of the thrust of GW appears to be about tax and control and I wouldn't mind the tax part if I thought it would do anything but you and I both know that the taxes will never get used to help the environment: they'll get eaten up by a politicians pet interests or corruption.
Sad, but true...
digital man wrote:
And whilst I accept that fat_git is a little irritating when it comes to GW I'd rather he were that than silent so that we all simply accept what we are told without question. Surely that is religion, not science.
The problem isn't that he's discussing the issue. The problem is that he's getting his data the same way CSS does. In this particular case, that climatechangefraud article doesn't even cite its sources for the latest quotes. In fact, it actually cites its own semi-anonymous commenters, but as far as I can see, doesn't provide any source for the most important quotations, particularly the ones fat_boy is talking about... So we're just supposed to trust that climatechangefraud is reporting accurately? We've debunked several of its claims before... It tends to quote out of context, misinterpret statements, and severely overstate the effect of the most insignificant errors, just like good ol' Alex "I don't know a damn thing but I'll scream it at the top of my lungs anyway" Jones. All of this leads people like fat_boy to believe that anyone who's against him is incompetent, and anyone on his side is brilliant. It further polarizes and politicizes the issue... And of course fat_boy has given up, so he's just responding to my posts with " :zzz: " now. No surprise there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Items 1 - 5 dont relate in any way to the topic of this thread
Thats a response to yuor questuin "all science related to climate change". I see you utter stupidity even extends to failing to recognise a response to one of your quesitons.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
blah blah You're stupid blah blah. So you got two people willing to discuss this topic, you dismissed me called me names and you gave the other guy the sleeping man icon as a display of your maturity. Why do you post here? When was the last time you felt you had an enjoyable discussion as the result of one of these posts? Depends on your definition of enjoyable I guess. Is this an enjoyable exchange to you? Do you like to abuse people and call them names? I suspect you do. What a shame. Do you berate your wife for no reason till she cries so you can feel like a Man? How about your daughter?
-
digital man wrote:
They could have said something like 'Hang on a second: a lot of our data appears to be unusable, corrupt or wrong for a variety of reasons therefore we need to start again and reevaluate since all the numbers from the last 5 years may be sending us down the wrong path' or something like that. Don't expect they will.
Is it fair to say a lot of data? My understanding was that the erroneous outliers we're easy to spot once they were aware of the problem. Fatso said something about 600+ degree measurements. An error of 600+ degrees is easy to deal with once you know about it. Errors of 5 degrees would render entire data sets useless.
digital man wrote:
Personally I am happy to accept that the climate is changing: I'd be surprised if it wasn't given the environmental history of our shiny orb. What I'm not ready to accept is that a) it's all our fault and b) even if it was all our fault that we can do anything about it.
I agree. My personal feeling is that I am not capable of the study or knowledge required to state an opinion that I can back up and I suspect very few are. Almost certainly no one here. Given that I have to pick a selection of people that for whatever reason I'm willing to accept what they say and form my own opinion based on that or ignore the issue all together.
digital man wrote:
And whilst I accept that fat_git is a little irritating when it comes to GW I'd rather he were that than silent so that we all simply accept what we are told without question. Surely that is religion, not science.
I'd rather he were not. Imagine a fatso here for every possible topic that people think is serious. You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think. His treatment of GW over the past however many years is the closest thing I've seen to a religious nut case in any of the CP forums. And it always ends in name calling, just like religion. Actually this time it started with name calling.
Josh Gray wrote:
And it always ends in name calling, just like religion. Actually this time it started with name calling.
:laugh:
Josh Gray wrote:
Imagine a fatso here for every possible topic that people think is serious. You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think.
Perhaps, but then I'd rather know what a nutter is saying rather than guess what he is thinking! :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Josh Gray wrote:
And it always ends in name calling, just like religion. Actually this time it started with name calling.
:laugh:
Josh Gray wrote:
Imagine a fatso here for every possible topic that people think is serious. You wouldn't be able to hear yourself think.
Perhaps, but then I'd rather know what a nutter is saying rather than guess what he is thinking! :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
Perhaps, but then I'd rather know what a nutter is saying rather than guess what he is thinking! Smile
Knowing is one thing. When he's outside your bedroom window at 3am yelling it over and over again then you're entitled to shoot.
:laugh: Yeah, very good.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
digital man wrote:
Personally I am happy to accept that the climate is changing: I'd be surprised if it wasn't given the environmental history of our shiny orb. What I'm not ready to accept is that a) it's all our fault and b) even if it was all our fault that we can do anything about it.
Fair enough... Though I don't think (b) necessarily depends on (a)... Even if it wasn't our fault, there might be ways to counteract the changes, or at least reduce them to levels that we, as a species, can better tolerate. Of course, unless we know what the changes are, we can't know whether we can do anything about it.
digital man wrote:
Most of the thrust of GW appears to be about tax and control and I wouldn't mind the tax part if I thought it would do anything but you and I both know that the taxes will never get used to help the environment: they'll get eaten up by a politicians pet interests or corruption.
Sad, but true...
digital man wrote:
And whilst I accept that fat_git is a little irritating when it comes to GW I'd rather he were that than silent so that we all simply accept what we are told without question. Surely that is religion, not science.
The problem isn't that he's discussing the issue. The problem is that he's getting his data the same way CSS does. In this particular case, that climatechangefraud article doesn't even cite its sources for the latest quotes. In fact, it actually cites its own semi-anonymous commenters, but as far as I can see, doesn't provide any source for the most important quotations, particularly the ones fat_boy is talking about... So we're just supposed to trust that climatechangefraud is reporting accurately? We've debunked several of its claims before... It tends to quote out of context, misinterpret statements, and severely overstate the effect of the most insignificant errors, just like good ol' Alex "I don't know a damn thing but I'll scream it at the top of my lungs anyway" Jones. All of this leads people like fat_boy to believe that anyone who's against him is incompetent, and anyone on his side is brilliant. It further polarizes and politicizes the issue... And of course fat_boy has given up, so he's just responding to my posts with " :zzz: " now. No surprise there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
doesn't provide any source for the most important quotations
Just seen that: went form his link through to the others and it's all a bit circular. There is, of course, nothing on the NOAA site. One of the really annoying things about this is getting numbers and quotes that are attributable and believable. Feint hope, I suppose. I do admire his tenacity even if he does tend to witter on but, yes, does appear to be bordering on religious fanaticism (both sides).
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Come on, you can do better than that: just because you don't see eye-to-eye doesn't mean you should not attempt to answer him properly otherwise the whole thing becomes a one-sided diatribe.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Come on, you can do better than that: just because you don't see eye-to-eye doesn't mean you should not attempt to answer him properly otherwise the whole thing becomes a one-sided diatribe.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
digital man wrote:
doesn't mean you should not attempt to answer him properly
I dont bother answer I an when he posts a pointless response like that, whihc he is want to do. If anyone comes back at me with a serious discussiojn, I'll gladly take them up. But fending off peurile argumentativeness is a waste of time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
blah blah You're stupid blah blah. So you got two people willing to discuss this topic, you dismissed me called me names and you gave the other guy the sleeping man icon as a display of your maturity. Why do you post here? When was the last time you felt you had an enjoyable discussion as the result of one of these posts? Depends on your definition of enjoyable I guess. Is this an enjoyable exchange to you? Do you like to abuse people and call them names? I suspect you do. What a shame. Do you berate your wife for no reason till she cries so you can feel like a Man? How about your daughter?
Josh Gray wrote:
When was the last time you felt you had an enjoyable discussion as the result of one of these posts?
When was the last time you shut up?
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you like to abuse people and call them names?
If, like you, they are entirely deserving, then with pleasure.
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you berate your wife for no reason till she cries so you can feel like a Man? How about your daughter?
Carefull. You are getting close to libel.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Josh Gray wrote:
When was the last time you felt you had an enjoyable discussion as the result of one of these posts?
When was the last time you shut up?
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you like to abuse people and call them names?
If, like you, they are entirely deserving, then with pleasure.
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you berate your wife for no reason till she cries so you can feel like a Man? How about your daughter?
Carefull. You are getting close to libel.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/[^] "NOAA, which generates the primary temperature records in the U.S. and supplies its raw data to NASA and the CRU at the University of East Anglia in the UK. NOAA has not been very forthright with what is going on, but it has admitted that the NOAA-16 satellite has severe sensor problems. Then they also admitted that other satellites have suffered degradation of their sensors. Finally, Charles Pistis, Program Coordinator of the Michigan Sea Grant Extension admits that satellite data going back to 2005 may have been corrupted by bad data" Fuck you you "its only one sensor" people! :) ;P "The satellite data is fed automatically into records" fuck me. Call this science? What a surprise, one more completely unscientific fuck up after another. Tell me, where is the automatic freak data alert? The sensor calibration? Science? This is mockery. And what really pisses me off is the damage these cunts are doing to the name of science. They have fucked it up, the same way cunts of old fucked up originally decent religions. Greed, power lust, and self importance. The failings of man have finally corrupted the one truly great thing mankind ever created. Science. Well fucking done! :mad:
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Yeah, well, 3435 = 33 + 44 + 33 + 55 Holy shit.
-
You must be old. My parents talked of 70`F. To me its 20, 25, celcius.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Not particularly: just that generation that used both measures.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me