Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux

This is a discussion on Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista - Linux ; On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:00:53 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote: > Actually, it is. That's the point. Climate scientists are *not* all in > agreement about AGW. Indeed, not *all* of them are. There are a few who disagree. But ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 121 to 138 of 138

Thread: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

  1. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:00:53 -0800, Jim Richardson
    wrote:

    > Actually, it is. That's the point. Climate scientists are *not* all in
    > agreement about AGW.


    Indeed, not *all* of them are. There are a few who disagree. But they
    don't seem to agree among themselves on an alternative theory, and there
    are in fact very few of them relative to the number of people working in
    the field.

    Then again, not *all* palentologists support evolution. There are a few
    who are creationists. That does not mean that there is any real dispute
    within palentology over whether evolution best explains the data. There
    just isn't.

    Despite that, lots of people seem to think there is actually a dispute,
    and that we ought to "teach the controversy" to our kids. They think
    this because there are vested interests making hay out of those few
    dissenters.

    I'm sure that the creationists out there are just as sure as you are
    that they made their own decison based on the evidence. It just isn't
    "common sense" that we could have evolved from the same ancestor as an
    ape. There must be some cabal out there pushing "darwinism" on us to
    undermine our moral fiber for their own nefarious purposes.

    Of course, nothing like that could ever happen with an issue like AGW
    where we're talking about a major change in the structure of our
    economy. Where there are players with hundreds of billions of dollars
    on the line. It just isn't plausible.

    At this point I am going to walk away. I'm not going to respond to your
    assertions about the hockey stick and whatnot for the reasons I gave
    earlier. Basically, I'm not competent to evaluate it and neither are
    you. There are plenty of resources out there that explain those alleged
    flaws in the AGW theory if you care to look.

    Have a nice day.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  2. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:55:34 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:00:53 -0800, Jim Richardson
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Actually, it is. That's the point. Climate scientists are *not* all in
    >> agreement about AGW.

    >





    > At this point I am going to walk away. I'm not going to respond to your
    > assertions about the hockey stick and whatnot for the reasons I gave
    > earlier. Basically, I'm not competent to evaluate it and neither are
    > you. There are plenty of resources out there that explain those alleged
    > flaws in the AGW theory if you care to look.
    >
    >


    I do look, and I found some, for some reason, you wish to ignore them.
    That's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
    Or waste my time, or hope that we can cripple the world economy "just in
    case" we can fix something which we don't even know is broken yet.

    Mann's hockey stick graph has been so discredited on the numbers alone,
    that even climatologists of the AGW persuasion are embarrassed by it.
    Just one example? Mann totally ignored the medieval warm period! he said
    it simply didn't happen! We have hundreds of data sets, in different
    disciplines that show it, but it's inconvenient to the "truth" so it
    gets ignored, and some folks lap it up!


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHTS1Jd90bcYOAWPYRAtaqAKCBqVrBrYIeMs5s8o5E7i Rkl/AZmACeKjNn
    nefxZzlWrE5f2Pzl8rm1Dvs=
    =GU1o
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    My friends tell me that I refuse to grow up, but I know they're just
    jealous because they don't have pajamas with feet.

  3. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * amicus_curious fired off this turdly reply:

    >>> More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?

    >>
    >> No, from past experience, I've found you aren't worth the effort.
    >>

    > "No" says it all, of course. You don't need to go on and on with any
    > excuse. If you have nothing just say it.


    I do. And I will. When that time comes.

    --
    Tux rox!

  4. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:56:41 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:55:34 -0500,
    > Bob Hauck wrote:


    >> At this point I am going to walk away.


    Alright, one last post so I can put up some links for the lurkers.


    > I do look, and I found some, for some reason, you wish to ignore them.


    Just as the palentologists are aware of the arguments about the
    bacterial flagellum and the eyeball, mainstream climate scientists are
    well aware of the points you raised and have responses to them.

    Like creationists, what climate denialists have is a series of point
    criticisms of the mainstream view. Also like creationists, what they
    don't have is a coherent, testable, alternative theory.


    > Mann's hockey stick graph has been so discredited on the numbers
    > alone, that even climatologists of the AGW persuasion are embarrassed
    > by it.


    The graph in question is ten years old. Yes, it has been modified since
    it was originally published, and errors have been found, but I don't
    think anyone is "embarrassed" by it.

    These links contain responses to most of your other points in
    non-technical terms:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html

    This one has all the technical detail you can stand and then some, plus
    links to all sorts of other resources:

    http;//www.realclimate.org/

    In particular, RealClimate has this to say regarding McIntyre and
    McKitrick's claims about Mann's "hockey stick":

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98


    > Just one example? Mann totally ignored the medieval warm period!


    That was probably not a world-wide phenomenon. From the BBC web link
    above (snipped for brevity, visit the link for full details):

    Sceptic

    The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Mediaeval Warm
    Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than
    they are now.

    Sceptic

    Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best,
    and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US
    National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it:
    "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was
    warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect".


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  5. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:Byd3j.21457$L%6.2592@bignews3.bellsouth.net.. .
    >* amicus_curious fired off this turdly reply:
    >
    >>>> More hand-waving, obviously. Any case on point?
    >>>
    >>> No, from past experience, I've found you aren't worth the effort.
    >>>

    >> "No" says it all, of course. You don't need to go on and on with any
    >> excuse. If you have nothing just say it.

    >
    > I do. And I will. When that time comes.
    >

    This is ambiguous. Do you mean that you "do" need to go on with making
    excuses and will continue to make them? Or does it mean that you "do" have
    nothing to say and will admit it some day "when the time comes"?


  6. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:26:12 -0500, Bob Hauck
    wrote:

    > http;//www.realclimate.org/


    This should of course be with a colon
    rather than a semicolon.


    > In particular, RealClimate has this to say regarding McIntyre and
    > McKitrick's claims about Mann's "hockey stick":
    >
    > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
    > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98


    This one is less technical and easier to follow:




    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  7. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:26:12 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:56:41 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:55:34 -0500,
    >> Bob Hauck wrote:

    >
    >>> At this point I am going to walk away.

    >
    > Alright, one last post so I can put up some links for the lurkers.
    >
    >
    >> I do look, and I found some, for some reason, you wish to ignore them.

    >
    > Just as the palentologists are aware of the arguments about the
    > bacterial flagellum and the eyeball, mainstream climate scientists are
    > well aware of the points you raised and have responses to them.
    >
    > Like creationists, what climate denialists have is a series of point
    > criticisms of the mainstream view. Also like creationists, what they
    > don't have is a coherent, testable, alternative theory.
    >
    >
    >> Mann's hockey stick graph has been so discredited on the numbers
    >> alone, that even climatologists of the AGW persuasion are embarrassed
    >> by it.

    >
    > The graph in question is ten years old. Yes, it has been modified since
    > it was originally published, and errors have been found, but I don't
    > think anyone is "embarrassed" by it.
    >
    > These links contain responses to most of your other points in
    > non-technical terms:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
    > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...ths/index.html
    >
    > This one has all the technical detail you can stand and then some, plus
    > links to all sorts of other resources:
    >
    > http;//www.realclimate.org/
    >
    > In particular, RealClimate has this to say regarding McIntyre and
    > McKitrick's claims about Mann's "hockey stick":
    >
    > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8


    This link is to a refutation of the criticism of some of Mann's work,
    written by Mann, in which he repeats the same assertions he originally
    made. When he doesn't alloww his dataset to be examined, it's difficult for
    others to validate/check his work.

    > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
    >






    >
    >> Just one example? Mann totally ignored the medieval warm period!

    >
    > That was probably not a world-wide phenomenon. From the BBC web link
    > above (snipped for brevity, visit the link for full details):


    Considering that Mann based his whole graph on *one tree* for the stuff
    older than 450 years, he must have ignored the warming that occured in
    Europe, Greenland, Iceland, Northern tier of north america. Yeah, I can
    really follow using one single dataset to itgnore all of that.


    So we should ignore a continent wide warming, and focus on one tree for
    the period?

    >
    > Sceptic
    >
    > The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Mediaeval Warm
    > Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than
    > they are now.
    >
    > Sceptic
    >
    > Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best,
    > and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US
    > National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it:
    > "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was
    > warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect".
    >
    >



    and so we should ignore continent wide (and larger) changes that don't
    fit the theory. Sounds like science to me.

    This just reinforces the point that the climate models aren't good
    enough to predict things we know happened.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHTa5Od90bcYOAWPYRAgM3AJ0T30+gxAh1i5r0wfMAqF 4Xv5ZYDgCgk7gB
    5rge0scUAPkAxySzu+VGsNE=
    =/SCU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.


  8. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>> If you have nothing just say it.

    >>
    >> I do. And I will. When that time comes.
    >>

    > This is ambiguous. Do you mean that you "do" need to go on with making
    > excuses and will continue to make them? Or does it mean that you "do" have
    > nothing to say and will admit it some day "when the time comes"?


    Sorry, Tholen troll, the jig is up.

    --
    Tux rox!

  9. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:11 -0500, Linonut
    wrote:


    >Sorry, Tholen troll, the jig is up.


    Racist.


  10. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Linonut wrote:

    >* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >>>> If you have nothing just say it.
    >>>
    >>> I do. And I will. When that time comes.
    >>>

    >> This is ambiguous. Do you mean that you "do" need to go on with making
    >> excuses and will continue to make them? Or does it mean that you "do" have
    >> nothing to say and will admit it some day "when the time comes"?

    >
    >Sorry, Tholen troll, the jig is up.


    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

    8)


  11. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:26:07 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:26:12 -0500, Bob Hauck
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http;//www.realclimate.org/

    >
    > This should of course be with a colon
    > rather than a semicolon.
    >
    >
    >> In particular, RealClimate has this to say regarding McIntyre and
    >> McKitrick's claims about Mann's "hockey stick":
    >>
    >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
    >> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98

    >
    > This one is less technical and easier to follow:
    >
    >
    >
    >



    So rather than covering the points you'd instead play link volleyball?
    Why?


    Additionally, you *do* know that Dr Mann is the founder of
    RealClimate.org? Just wanted to make sure.

    OK, I'll bite. The link above to the "refutation" of the Mann work being
    torn apart misses several rather important issues with Mann's work.

    Not surprising I suppose, given the source, but it's instructive.


    First, while the data set is availabe from the Nature link in the early
    part of the post, the fortran prog Mann originally used to prep the data
    is, well, not there.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/r.../Climate_L.pdf for some
    interesting details.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHTheMd90bcYOAWPYRApfiAJ9Drh0V996a0hEdx3YWn6 qiczi8KgCeK2DE
    QwCZWRKPnB0kFix9+2c303I=
    =LO5V
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I came; I saw; I ****ed up

  12. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:36:12 -0800, Jim Richardson
    wrote:

    > Additionally, you *do* know that Dr Mann is the founder of
    > RealClimate.org? Just wanted to make sure.


    Yeah, since his name is so hidden right there on the sidebar and all.
    The secret sidebar that appears next to every single page on the site.

    See, one of your points was that "they" are ignoring this tremendously
    important criticism that has been broght forth by the finest political
    hacks, mining engineers, economists, and Cato Fellows (but I repeat
    myself).

    And here is Mann explaining in some detail why he thinks his critics are
    wrong, In 2004 and again in 2005, i.e. starting three years ago.

    So instead of admitting that he _did_ address the criticism, you
    insinuate that it is somehow wrong of him to have done so, or wrong to
    have put it on the web, or wrong, somehow.

    Then you go on to claim he failed to address the points when we both
    know you don't have the faintest clue whether he did or not because you
    haven't read either paper and don't know dick about statistics.

    IOW, I call bull****.


    > First, while the data set is availabe from the Nature link in the
    > early part of the post, the fortran prog Mann originally used to prep
    > the data is, well, not there.


    So now you know that contrary to your claims he did make his data
    available, but rather than admitting that you were mistaken you just
    move the goalposts. You tell me, is this science or junior high debate?

    Maybe next you can tell us how you "studied the evidence" and came to
    your own conclusions about General Relativity.

    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  13. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:50 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:36:12 -0800, Jim Richardson
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Additionally, you *do* know that Dr Mann is the founder of
    >> RealClimate.org? Just wanted to make sure.

    >
    > Yeah, since his name is so hidden right there on the sidebar and all.
    > The secret sidebar that appears next to every single page on the site.
    >
    > See, one of your points was that "they" are ignoring this tremendously
    > important criticism that has been broght forth by the finest political
    > hacks, mining engineers, economists, and Cato Fellows (but I repeat
    > myself).
    >
    > And here is Mann explaining in some detail why he thinks his critics are
    > wrong, In 2004 and again in 2005, i.e. starting three years ago.
    >
    > So instead of admitting that he _did_ address the criticism, you
    > insinuate that it is somehow wrong of him to have done so, or wrong to
    > have put it on the web, or wrong, somehow.
    >


    He did address some of them, and corrected some of his data as a result.

    He also ignored other criticisms, like why he used the same data twice,
    with different methodologies. Why the fortran prog he used to "prep" the
    data threw hockey sticks when fed noise. He kinda glossed over that
    stuff.


    > Then you go on to claim he failed to address the points when we both
    > know you don't have the faintest clue whether he did or not because you
    > haven't read either paper and don't know dick about statistics.
    >


    Actually, I did read. A nice coverage on why PCA is relevant and valid,
    but not covering many of the questions others have raised. Like you, I
    am no climate scientist, like you, I read their work, the criticisms of
    Mann, and wonder why it is their questions largely go unanswered?

    > IOW, I call bull****.
    >
    >


    from this I take it you didn't read the links I posted. Figures.


    >> First, while the data set is availabe from the Nature link in the
    >> early part of the post, the fortran prog Mann originally used to prep
    >> the data is, well, not there.

    >
    > So now you know that contrary to your claims he did make his data
    > available, but rather than admitting that you were mistaken you just
    > move the goalposts. You tell me, is this science or junior high debate?


    No, he didn't at first, it took quite some time for him to do so. Or do
    you believe that what is, always was? That's a pretty foolish view.

    >
    > Maybe next you can tell us how you "studied the evidence" and came to
    > your own conclusions about General Relativity.
    >


    No, we are talking about AGW, are you having difficulty following the
    thread? shall I use smaller words?


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHTppEd90bcYOAWPYRAnFsAKCUfanjs9aga2XgsNcZNs 6FOJGiWwCeMn4B
    nhCmfA6jqHJKWOlcxM0wkYg=
    =iywY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I'd explain it all to you, but your brain would explode.

  14. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:53:56 -0800, Jim Richardson
    wrote:

    > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:50 -0500,
    > Bob Hauck wrote:


    >> So instead of admitting that he _did_ address the criticism, you
    >> insinuate that it is somehow wrong of him to have done so, or wrong
    >> to have put it on the web, or wrong, somehow.


    > He did address some of them, and corrected some of his data as a result.


    So he's acting like an actual scientist then. Nice of you to admit
    that.


    > He also ignored other criticisms, like why he used the same data twice,
    > with different methodologies. Why the fortran prog he used to "prep" the
    > data threw hockey sticks when fed noise. He kinda glossed over that
    > stuff.


    I disagree. At least one of the linked articles said it was not as
    large an effect as claimed. He used the same data twice with different
    methods because M&M's claim was that a different methodology would give
    different results. Mann says they made a math error that lead them to
    that conclusion. He outlined the correct method using the same data.

    But the thing is, it doesn't matter. You're obsessing about one study
    done ten years ago. Lots of things have happened since then. Even if
    Mann just totally made it all up and he's a complete jerk and hates all
    humanity, that doesn't matter in the least because the AGW hypothesis is
    based on all sorts of other evidence from many other people.

    And that's the problem with the critics. All they have is criticism of
    a few specific things. They don't have an alternative hypothesis that
    explains the data as well or better than AGW. I keep saying that and
    you keep responding by tossing out more specific criticisms without
    grasping the meaning of what I am saying.

    Which of the alternatives are better than AGW? Solar forcing? Cosmic
    rays? Some mysterious natural cycle? That it isn't happening and is
    all just a math mistake? They can't all be true, and according to the
    experts none of them explain the data as well as AGW does.


    >> Then you go on to claim he failed to address the points when we both
    >> know you don't have the faintest clue whether he did or not because you
    >> haven't read either paper and don't know dick about statistics.


    > Actually, I did read. A nice coverage on why PCA is relevant and valid,
    > but not covering many of the questions others have raised.


    I wasn't talking about the links. I meant you haven't read either
    actual paper, and even if you had you have no knowledge base upon which
    to decide who is right.

    Who is right can't be decided by a sophomoric debate where we tote up
    how many points each side has scored. That only tells you who is the
    best debater, not whose theory best explains the evidence.

    But hey, at least you now agree that Mann's basic method is valid. I
    guess that's progress.


    > Like you, I am no climate scientist, like you, I read their work, the
    > criticisms of Mann, and wonder why it is their questions largely go
    > unanswered?


    Becasue the questions are about a ten-year-old paper that's been
    critiqued to death already. Mann published his response three years ago
    and again two years ago and they're still asking the same questions.

    Further, you don't actually read the work of climate scientists. What
    you do is what I do, you read summaries by other people.

    What I've been trying to convey to you is that you aren't qualified to
    make judgements about the science. You have to rely on others. So who
    those others are, what their expertise is, and what their agenda is are
    very important if you care about the truth.

    You seem to know this. You tried to invoke some vague conspiracy among
    the NSF, IPCC, NOAA, and other science groups to steal our bodily fluids
    to justify your not believing their reports. But that just doesn't pass
    the laugh test. The NSF for example certainly has relevant expertise
    and they have no history of deliberate deception. Why would they enter
    into some conspiracy?

    Cato, on the other hand, is not about science. They write white papers
    arguing for supply-side tax cuts and less regulation of business. Yeah,
    they put a guy on staff, but science isn't their focus. So why believe
    them over the NSF?


    >> Maybe next you can tell us how you "studied the evidence" and came to
    >> your own conclusions about General Relativity.


    > No, we are talking about AGW, are you having difficulty following the
    > thread? shall I use smaller words?


    I was just wondering whether you apply the same ridiculous judging-for-
    yourself standard to all of science, or only to the parts of it that
    impact on your ideology.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  15. Re: [OT] Global Warming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:56:56 -0500,
    Bob Hauck wrote:
    > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:53:56 -0800, Jim Richardson
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:50 -0500,
    >> Bob Hauck wrote:

    >
    >>> So instead of admitting that he _did_ address the criticism, you
    >>> insinuate that it is somehow wrong of him to have done so, or wrong
    >>> to have put it on the web, or wrong, somehow.

    >
    >> He did address some of them, and corrected some of his data as a result.

    >
    > So he's acting like an actual scientist then. Nice of you to admit
    > that.
    >


    He is a scientist, he just made some errors, and had to be taken to task
    for them, more remain, and hopefully, he will correct/explain those in
    the future. He also has an agenda, which isn't necessarily bad, but is
    important to take into account.

    >
    >> He also ignored other criticisms, like why he used the same data twice,
    >> with different methodologies. Why the fortran prog he used to "prep" the
    >> data threw hockey sticks when fed noise. He kinda glossed over that
    >> stuff.

    >
    > I disagree. At least one of the linked articles said it was not as
    > large an effect as claimed. He used the same data twice with different
    > methods because M&M's claim was that a different methodology would give
    > different results. Mann says they made a math error that lead them to
    > that conclusion. He outlined the correct method using the same data.
    >


    No, he use the same data twice in the 1998 paper that M&M criticized.

    see http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/r.../Climate_L.pdf

    ”More strangely, the series appears twice in Mann’s data
    set, as an individual proxy, and in the North American netw-
    ork. But it is only extrapolated in the first case, where its influ-
    ence is very strong.” McIntyre and McKitrick went back to the
    source of the Gaspé series and then to the archived data at the
    World Data Center for Paleoclimatology.“We found that alt-
    hough the Gaspé series begins in 1404, up until 1421, it is ba-
    sed on only one tree. Dendrochronologists (tree ring resear-
    chers) generally do not use data based on one or two trees.The
    original authors only used this series from 1600 onwards in
    their own temperature reconstructions.This series should never
    have been used in the 15th century, let alone counted twice and
    extrapolated.”




    > But the thing is, it doesn't matter. You're obsessing about one study
    > done ten years ago. Lots of things have happened since then. Even if
    > Mann just totally made it all up and he's a complete jerk and hates all
    > humanity, that doesn't matter in the least because the AGW hypothesis is
    > based on all sorts of other evidence from many other people.
    >


    Yes, and there's plenty of other evidence to counter that.

    > And that's the problem with the critics. All they have is criticism of
    > a few specific things. They don't have an alternative hypothesis that
    > explains the data as well or better than AGW. I keep saying that and
    > you keep responding by tossing out more specific criticisms without
    > grasping the meaning of what I am saying.
    >


    No, that's not all they have. They have evidence that suggests AGW is
    bull****. Not one or two minor niggles, but big things, like solar
    luminance matching observed temps, far more accurately than C02 does.


    Consider. Overwhelming evidence supports the medieval warming period
    (and no, it's not just in Europe) the little ice age, and the mild
    warming in the early to mid 1800s. During that time, C02 (measured by
    the same proxies as elsewhere) was stable. Durintg the 1900-1945 period,
    global temps are thought to have increased by 0.5DegC, with a slight
    increase in C02. From 1945-2000, global temps climbed barely 0.2Dec,
    despite a 60% or so increase in atmospheric C02.

    AGW doesn't make a whole lot of sense if C02 is supposed to be the main
    driver.

    > Which of the alternatives are better than AGW? Solar forcing? Cosmic
    > rays? Some mysterious natural cycle? That it isn't happening and is
    > all just a math mistake? They can't all be true, and according to the
    > experts none of them explain the data as well as AGW does.
    >
    >


    AGW doesn't explain the data, that's the problem. They ignore things to
    fit the data to the theory, but then the Himalayan glaciers expand when
    the models said they should shrink, and suddenly, *that's* due to global
    warming, when before, global warming was going to cause them to shrink.

    >>> Then you go on to claim he failed to address the points when we both
    >>> know you don't have the faintest clue whether he did or not because you
    >>> haven't read either paper and don't know dick about statistics.

    >
    >> Actually, I did read. A nice coverage on why PCA is relevant and valid,
    >> but not covering many of the questions others have raised.

    >
    > I wasn't talking about the links. I meant you haven't read either
    > actual paper, and even if you had you have no knowledge base upon which
    > to decide who is right.
    >
    > Who is right can't be decided by a sophomoric debate where we tote up
    > how many points each side has scored. That only tells you who is the
    > best debater, not whose theory best explains the evidence.
    >


    agreed.

    > But hey, at least you now agree that Mann's basic method is valid. I
    > guess that's progress.
    >
    >


    No, I said that the description of the PCA system was pretty good (as
    far as I understand it) I also noted that he skipped over many of the
    questions people had raised with Manns work.

    >> Like you, I am no climate scientist, like you, I read their work, the
    >> criticisms of Mann, and wonder why it is their questions largely go
    >> unanswered?

    >
    > Becasue the questions are about a ten-year-old paper that's been
    > critiqued to death already. Mann published his response three years ago
    > and again two years ago and they're still asking the same questions.
    >


    Because he didn't answer many of those questions.

    > Further, you don't actually read the work of climate scientists. What
    > you do is what I do, you read summaries by other people.
    >


    and?

    > What I've been trying to convey to you is that you aren't qualified to
    > make judgements about the science. You have to rely on others. So who
    > those others are, what their expertise is, and what their agenda is are
    > very important if you care about the truth.
    >



    Additionally, I can also follow their logic, and see where it leads. AGW
    leads into lala land with bull**** claims like "23 ft sea level rises"
    and crap like that.

    > You seem to know this. You tried to invoke some vague conspiracy among
    > the NSF, IPCC, NOAA, and other science groups to steal our bodily fluids
    > to justify your not believing their reports. But that just doesn't pass
    > the laugh test. The NSF for example certainly has relevant expertise
    > and they have no history of deliberate deception. Why would they enter
    > into some conspiracy?
    >
    > Cato, on the other hand, is not about science. They write white papers
    > arguing for supply-side tax cuts and less regulation of business. Yeah,
    > they put a guy on staff, but science isn't their focus. So why believe
    > them over the NSF?
    >
    >
    >>> Maybe next you can tell us how you "studied the evidence" and came to
    >>> your own conclusions about General Relativity.

    >
    >> No, we are talking about AGW, are you having difficulty following the
    >> thread? shall I use smaller words?

    >
    > I was just wondering whether you apply the same ridiculous judging-for-
    > yourself standard to all of science, or only to the parts of it that
    > impact on your ideology.
    >
    >


    I hope you are happy with the straw man your attacking. Perhaps you
    could address my words and claims, rather than the stuff you make up for
    me to have said.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHTy78d90bcYOAWPYRAnj/AJwPV2tTgVDtWLjNc8gk6uhE8RF/4wCeMlqs
    sP9v+4SEX7pktT6zjVkdgqI=
    =1qI6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Don't get mad, get Linux

  16. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    flatfish wrote:

    > Racist.



    Where's the proof?


  17. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ...the best build themselves up not owing to Microsoft 'technologies'.


    So you won't mind removing all MS "technologies" from your resume.








  18. Re: Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

    On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 00:10:37 -0500, "DFS" wrote:

    >Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ...the best build themselves up not owing to Microsoft 'technologies'.

    >
    >So you won't mind removing all MS "technologies" from your resume.


    What's the difference?
    Schestowitz with a resume' is like a nun with a dowry.
    Chances are very good neither will ever be used.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7