You figure out that power to weight thing yet, you vacuous fraud?sparks wrote:Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?
Twat.
A phony engi-nerd strikes me as beyond pathetic.
None of whom are doing climate research.xouper wrote: Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?
You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.
None of whom are doing climate research.You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.
You think you are not retarded.OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?
Other than that the scientists happen to be doing their research on a planet where AGW is happening, they do not have a vested interest in AGW. You are simply too incompetent to comprehend what I'm writing.Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.
We all have a vested interest in AGW assuming its going to affect us within our lifetimes. I'm not sure this is the case so I have no idea whether its relevant or not.Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.
None of whom are doing climate research.So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?
Show me a climate scientist that has a vested financial interest in *favor* of AGW. I.e., that their grant money in dependent on them showing a certain result or their funding doesn't get renewed. Or that they would lose their job if AGW was invalidated.Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.
You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one. This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that there is some sort of incentive in 'promoting' AGW. The money simply isn't there.If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.
All evasions noted. :lol:EvilYeti wrote:None of whom are doing climate research.xouper wrote: Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?
You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.None of whom are doing climate research.You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.You think you are not retarded.OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?Other than that the scientists happen to be doing their research on a planet where AGW is happening, they do not have a vested interest in AGW. You are simply too incompetent to comprehend what I'm writing.Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.
Beyond that, no scientist has a vested *financial* incentive re: AGW. Most of them have salaried/tenured positions and get paid regardless of whether the earth is warming or cooling. Their job is study that warming and cooling, amongst other things, you know.We all have a vested interest in AGW assuming its going to affect us within our lifetimes. I'm not sure this is the case so I have no idea whether its relevant or not.Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.
For me personally I'm hedging my bets; plus I'm a conservationist at heart. But I can say for certain I don't have a vested interest in the AGW hypothesis. If its destroyed tomorrow it wouldn't cost me a dime (and I would be very relieved!).None of whom are doing climate research.So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?
The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.
Show me a climate scientist that has a vested financial interest in *favor* of AGW. I.e., that their grant money in dependent on them showing a certain result or their funding doesn't get renewed. Or that they would lose their job if AGW was invalidated.Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.
I'll save you the trouble and let you know you will never, ever find any evidence of that. That is simply not how science funding works.
You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one. This is why I'm so skeptical of the claim that there is some sort of incentive in 'promoting' AGW. The money simply isn't there.If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.
You are welcome to contribute.sparks wrote:
All evasions noted. :lol:
I did some phoney engineering before. Unfortunately, the transmitter kept feeding back too much into the receiver, so you really couldn't hear the other person on the line that well.sparks wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :PEvilYeti wrote:You figure out that power to weight thing yet, you vacuous fraud?sparks wrote:Yeti: How are those thrust to horsepower calculations coming along there buddy?
Twat.
A phony engi-nerd strikes me as beyond pathetic.
OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you modify your claim from the way you originally worded it.EvilYeti wrote:The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.
BZZZT!! Sorry, but I wasn't comparing anything. Don't be putting words in my mouth like that. I was refuting your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. You have since modified your claim to say that no climate scientist has a vested financial interest in AGW. OK, fine, whatever. I don't believe you, but I already know you don't care what I think. Just as no one cares what you think.You are comparing a trillion dollar industry to a million dollar one.If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.
Hell I'll even go way out into space and make the claim everyone on the planet has a vested interest in AGW.xouper wrote:OK, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you modify your claim from the way you originally worded it.EvilYeti wrote:The only mistake I made was not being clear that my intention was that climate science researchers do not have a vested financial interest in the AGW hypothesis.
You said 'I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies.' I'm just pointing out that their vested interest is pretty expensive if you want to put a dollar amount on it. They are the fox in the henhouse, not the communists (who went broke years ago).BZZZT!! Sorry, but I wasn't comparing anything. Don't be putting words in my mouth like that. I was refuting your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. You have since modified your claim to say that no climate scientist has a vested financial interest in AGW. OK, fine, whatever. I don't believe you, but I already know you don't care what I think. Just as no one cares what you think.
Career on the line? Really? Do you think anyone's career is over because of the recent "mistake" about the "Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035", published by the IPCC?EvilYeti wrote: What I'm confused about is why anyone would have a vested interest in *fraudulently* promoting AGW. Whether its fabricating data, fudging the models ... whatever. Especially if their career is on the line.
That's the real kicker.
Why, indeed. But it has happened.EvilYeti wrote:So, I guess my question for the peanut gallery is, why commit fraud when its both not necessary and the risks far outweigh the benefits?
Fine. Just don't accuse me of saying things I didn't say while you're expressing your opinion.You said 'I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies.' I'm just pointing out that their vested interest is pretty expensive if you want to put a dollar amount on it.
These were clearly speculative claims from a 'grey' source.robinson wrote:
Career on the line? Really? Do you think anyone's career is over because of the recent "mistake" about the "Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035", published by the IPCC?
Was it even science to begin with? No, it was clearly speculation and wasn't even published in a peer reviewed journal.That was in 2005. Did a bunch of experts on glaciers question the report? Yes. Was it bullshit? Yes. Bad science, yes.
You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.
Uh, it was redacted you know. I'm not sure what else you want.Did the really smart people who questioned the report and who pointed out how impossible it was to be true, did they get equal time? Of course not.
Quite the active little fantasy mind you have there!Were they called deniers and accused of having a vested interest for pointing out bad science? Of course, but again, not because of any scientist or anybody being fraudulent or anything, it was just a mistake. And just because other smart scientist pointed it out (almost five years ago) and asked them to provide the data for the statement, and they refused to produce it, and then attacked the people questioning them as deniers and crackpots, well, just another mistake you see.
Paranoia is a form of mental illness, you know.No problem here, nothing to see, move along now.
And right on schedule comes an example of such an opinion:EvilYeti wrote:When I have I ever expressed an opinion on this topic, ...xouper wrote:Your opinion has no weight period. You are not a climatologist and your opinion on the topic has no relevance to anyone but you.
Nice spin, by the way.EvilYeti wrote:You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.robinson wrote:But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.
In the case of Schon its fairly obvious his drive to succeed eclipsed his actual ability. He was also claiming to do some really groundbreaking new stuff, ergo the opportunity to commit fraud was higher than normal. Very few, if any, people could reproduce his work.xouper wrote: Maybe you can ask these guys why they did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
Aren't you a little old to just be figuring out you can't prove a negative?So if you're going to claim misconduct has never happened in climate science, I don't think you can support that claim. In any case, I have not claimed there is fraud by any climatologist, but some of Phil Jone's behavior appears to be highly questionable and is at least an embarrassment.
You need to have everything explained to you, don't you?xouper wrote:Earlier today in another thread Yeti asked this question:
And right on schedule comes an example of such an opinion:EvilYeti wrote:When I have I ever expressed an opinion on this topic, ...xouper wrote:Your opinion has no weight period. You are not a climatologist and your opinion on the topic has no relevance to anyone but you.
Nice spin, by the way.EvilYeti wrote:You could make the case the IGCC snuck that in deliberately, but I have tend to blame incompetence before malice.robinson wrote:But was there anyone with a vested interest *fraudulently* promoting AGW? of course not. Nobody would do that. It was just a mistake you see. These things happen.
See, you answered your own question. Well done.EvilYeti wrote:In the case of Schon its fairly obvious his drive to succeed eclipsed his actual ability. He was also claiming to do some really groundbreaking new stuff, ergo the opportunity to commit fraud was higher than normal. Very few, if any, people could reproduce his work.xouper wrote:Maybe you can ask these guys why they did it:EvilYeti wrote:So, I guess my question for the peanut gallery is, why commit fraud when its both not necessary and the risks far outweigh the benefits?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk
I was just pointing out the obvious, in case you were about to claim there is no misconduct in climate science.Aren't you a little old to just be figuring out you can't prove a negative?
:lmao: Riiigghhtt.EvilYeti wrote:I don't have an opinion re: the AGW hypothesis.
I don't have an opinion on evolution either. It, like AGW, is a simple truth of the natural world and I accept it as such.xouper wrote::lmao: Riiigghhtt.EvilYeti wrote:I don't have an opinion re: the AGW hypothesis.
I suppose you also have a bridge you want to sell me.
In your dreams, pin head.xouper wrote:Eat some more crow, Yeti:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 999975.ece
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. . . .
Exactly. No surprise Xouper the nobody doesn't know the difference between public policy and science grants.The Carnegie money was specifically given to aid research into "the potential security and humanitarian impact on the region" as the glaciers began to disappear. Pachauri has since acknowledged that this threat, if it exists, will take centuries to have any serious effect.
The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.EvilYeti wrote:Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.
It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; which is unlikely and probably impossible to prove even if true. Beyond that he didn't change the wording of the original report so obviously the provider of the grant monies didn't take issue with the fact that it was speculative in nature. It was, after all, a public policy, not a science grant.xouper wrote:The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.EvilYeti wrote:Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.
But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.
Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.EvilYeti wrote:It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; ...xouper wrote:The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.EvilYeti wrote:Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.
But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.
You obviously have no idea how grants work.xouper wrote:Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.EvilYeti wrote:It's only misconduct if you can prove he did it deliberately; ...xouper wrote:The fact remains Pachauri used bogus science to get grant money. Of all people, he should know better. I would say this counts as a clear example of misconduct by a top AGW advocate.EvilYeti wrote:Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist and the IPCC isn't a scientific organization.
But then according to you, his opinion, and the IPCC, don't count for anything anyway. Glad to see you admit that.
Grow up.EvilYeti wrote:You obviously have no idea how grants work.xouper wrote:Did he give the money back? If not then he is also a thief.
No surprise, as you have not and will never get one. More jealousy from the over-the-hill hater.
I'm not defending it. It clearly was a mistake, it was redacted, what more do you want? In doesn't change the scientific consensus on AGW one iota, including the consensus that they Himalayan glaciers probably won't melt by 2035.xouper wrote: Grow up.
Anyone who keeps grant money even after it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the grant money was gotten on false pretenses, is a thief. But I am not surprised that you -- a sycophant for AGW -- defend him even in his misdeeds.
Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.EvilYeti wrote:It clearly was a mistake, it was redacted, what more do you want?
Not even close. Why do you do this to yourself, make yourself look uninformed, childish, and petty?EvilYeti wrote:Btw, I hope you realize that student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. You are going to have to flip alot of burgers to pay off your useless degree, assuming you ever finish it.
Except it was my 'AGW' pals that caught the mistake in the first place and had it fixed. Not you and your retard buddies.xouper wrote: Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.
Why do you persist in attacking those that are demonstrably more accomplished than you *ever* will be?Not even close. Why do you do this to yourself, make yourself look uninformed, childish, and petty?
Jeebus, you can't even get simple facts right. Tim at Deltoid did NOT discover the error. Tim simply reported on what others had already found.EvilYeti wrote:Except it was my 'AGW' pals that caught the mistake in the first place and had it fixed. Not you and your retard buddies.xouper wrote:Your prejuduice and hypocrisy are showing again. When your AGW pals make a mistake, it's a forgivable mistake in your eyes, but when McKitrick makes a mistake he is forever damned. Nice double standard. You reveal yourself as a hypocrite.
Did McKitirick or any of his 'peers' catch his errors? No, it was good ole' Tim @Deltoid, whom is actually a computer scientist by career.
Oops. So much for incompetent amateurs and their reviews, eh? Our amateurs are competent, at least!
Revisiting my first entries into the total shitshow that is discussing anything about climate.robinson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:27 pmExcept when it leaves out the words about the picture.EvilYeti wrote: A picture is worth a thousand words....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL
"For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost. "
"Muir Glacier has undergone very rapid, well-documented retreat since its Little Ice Age maximum position at the mouth of Glacier Bay around 1780."
So before the 1941 photo, it had already retreated like over 15 miles. Showing only the retreat in the two photos from 1941 to 2004, with out mentioning that this was a constant retreat that had been going on, is deception.
Which is why pictures alone don't always tell the whole story.