tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post4361313654407345034..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: The Great Climate-Gate Debate at MITUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85698071251415308792010-10-21T11:52:24.185-04:002010-10-21T11:52:24.185-04:00This is called projection.
No, actually it's ...<i>This is called projection.</i><br /><br />No, actually it's not. You need to look up "projection" to understand. If anything, it might be "hypocrisy", but it's not "projection".<br /><br />I am completely uninterested in arguing about whether or not I should have called a moron a moron, so if that's all you have to say, feel free to leave.<br /><br />Your argument about anonymity is silly. You're welcome to come to my office and see my driver's license to verify my name; I can't do the same for you because you are using a phony name.<br /><br />Arguing with Anthony Watts is a waste of time because it's already been established that he's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/tamino_calls_out_anthony_watts.php" rel="nofollow">routinely wrong on facts but doesn't admit it</a>.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51956285816106464992010-10-21T11:13:38.262-04:002010-10-21T11:13:38.262-04:00If you had an argument, it is not apparent to me.
...<i>If you had an argument, it is not apparent to me.</i><br /><br />You can't possibly be this stupid. I'm going to assume, therefore, that you are being deliberately obtuse.<br /><br />You whinged about name-calling, then proceeded to do <b>exactly the same thing</b> in the same comment. This is called <b>projection</b>. When called on it, you ignored the critcism and instead chose to trot out a rancid old red herring about my "real name".<br /><br /><i>Why do you refuse to sign your real name?</i><br /><br />Why don't you prove that <b>your</b> real name is "Jeffrey Shallit"?<br /><br />If I told you that my real name is Mariano J Hasenfeffer, how would that strengthen or weaken my arguments? What if I was Jeremy Smith? Or Wayne Gretzky? Or George W. Bush?<br /><br />Why the obsession with other people's names?<br /><br /><i>If you're really Anthony Watts, then it's a complete waste of time.</i><br /><br />What is? Signing my real name? Then why obsess over it?Jeremiah Sasparillahttp://www.wattsupwiththat.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49235149139174822992010-10-21T08:42:09.452-04:002010-10-21T08:42:09.452-04:00Yup most likely you will be drooling and in need o...Yup most likely you will be drooling and in need of a diaper change too...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27456301296753947292010-10-20T23:44:35.137-04:002010-10-20T23:44:35.137-04:00Joe -
If we ever met in person, I suspect I'd...Joe -<br /><br />If we ever met in person, I suspect I'd be laughing so hard at you that I couldn't get a word out.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39693964513630314202010-10-20T19:40:50.483-04:002010-10-20T19:40:50.483-04:00Wow I just had some comments from this nonsense sh...Wow I just had some comments from this nonsense show up in my inbox-<br /><br />No Jeff, I have nothing to hide from the likes of you.<br /><br />I'm the kind of person that would say things right to your face in the hope you would take a swing.<br /><br />Am I clear?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61937757180060538082010-10-20T16:05:04.355-04:002010-10-20T16:05:04.355-04:00"completely fail to address my argument"..."completely fail to address my argument"<br /><br />- If you had an argument, it is not apparent to me.<br /><br />Why do you refuse to sign your real name?<br /><br />If you're really Anthony Watts, then it's a complete waste of time.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18297172740448131302010-10-20T15:02:27.254-04:002010-10-20T15:02:27.254-04:00Joe, why are you hiding behind multiple phony alia...<i>Joe, why are you hiding behind multiple phony aliases?</i><br /><br />I'm not Joe, and I'm not hiding behind anything. And why did you completely fail to address my argument about you wailing about name-calling before and after engaging in it yourself? Projection on your part?AGW Skeptichttp://www.wattsupwiththat.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42303671846866620282010-10-20T14:36:24.286-04:002010-10-20T14:36:24.286-04:00Joe, why are you hiding behind multiple phony alia...Joe, why are you hiding behind multiple phony aliases?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-72102973584158344472010-10-20T13:26:56.868-04:002010-10-20T13:26:56.868-04:00Jeffrey bleated:
Just name calling on your part, ...Jeffrey bleated:<br /><br /><i>Just name calling on your part, no facts.</i><br /><br />Then wailed:<br /><br /><i>Nice try, anonymous coward. </i><br /><br /><i>If I lose my patience from time to time dealing with morons, that doesn't give people who say "it is IPCC-inspired propaganda posted by a Warmista True Believer" a free pass.</i><br /><br />Thus demonstrating his obliviousness to irony!<br /><br />Not to mention giving a splendid demonstration of Dunning Kruger!AGW Skeptichttp://www.wattsupwiththat.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80893153808991922642010-01-13T04:50:03.006-05:002010-01-13T04:50:03.006-05:00Nice try, anonymous coward.
If I lose my patien...Nice try, anonymous coward. <br /><br />If I lose my patience from time to time dealing with morons, that doesn't give people who say "it is IPCC-inspired propaganda posted by a Warmista True Believer" a free pass.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30565678805178906542010-01-12T22:28:39.384-05:002010-01-12T22:28:39.384-05:00Just name calling on your part, no facts.
Spoken ...<i>Just name calling on your part, no facts.</i><br /><br />Spoken without any apparent irony by someone who also said:<br /><br /><i>Classic Dunning-Kruger</i><br /><br /><i>Time to take your meds.</i><br /><br /><i>Moron. </i><br /><br /><i>you've repeatedly proved you are incapable of understanding</i><br /><br /><i>he's both arrogant and ignorant, and too stupid to know what he doesn't know</i><br /><br /><i>Doubtful - it's not written in crayon.</i><br /><br />Project much?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30813511173075960312010-01-03T17:28:05.225-05:002010-01-03T17:28:05.225-05:00it is IPCC-inspired propaganda posted by a Warmist...<i>it is IPCC-inspired propaganda posted by a Warmista True Believer.</i><br /><br />Just name calling on your part, no facts.<br /><br /><i> Might some of them have to go get real jobs?</i><br /><br />Why do you think being a climate scientist is not a real job? It's more of a real job than being a theoretical computer scientist.<br /><br /><i>Strawman, and you know it.</i><br /><br />Not a strawman at all - you are claiming that climate scientists issue warnings about global warming because they are motivated by research funds. Of course you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support this claim. You could just as well say "Theoretical computer scientists dramatically overstate the importance of their work to get research funds."Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43671381061877256232010-01-03T14:59:23.169-05:002010-01-03T14:59:23.169-05:00Go read this and come back when you've underst...<i>Go read this and come back when you've understood it.</i><br /><br />I read it, and understand perfectly well that it is IPCC-inspired propaganda posted by a Warmista True Believer.<br /><br /><i>Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax to generate research funds is clearly so far gone as to be unreachable by actual facts.</i><br /><br />Riiiiiiight. <br /><br />So tell me Jeffrey, what happens to all of that "research" funding if (when) we find global warming is not happening? What are all of these climate "scientists" going to "study"? Might some of them have to go get <b>real jobs</b>?<br /><br /><i>What's next, P != NP is a hoax by theoretical computer scientists?</i><br /><br />Strawman, and you know it. Theoretical computer scientists aren't running around hysterically shrieking that the sky is falling and global warming will be the death of us all unless we all stop using the internal combustion engine yesterday.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21847491639620331472009-12-31T06:49:46.081-05:002009-12-31T06:49:46.081-05:00Never mind that the planet has been cooling for mo...<i>Never mind that the planet has been cooling for more than a decade. </i><br /><br />Go read <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/embarrassing-questions/" rel="nofollow">this</a> and come back when you've understood it.<br /><br /><i>"Global warming" is a hoax contrived as an attempt to generate "research" funding.</i><br /><br />On second thought, don't bother coming back. Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax to generate research funds is clearly so far gone as to be unreachable by actual facts.<br /><br />What's next, P != NP is a hoax by theoretical computer scientists?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-65263652517809872162009-12-30T23:10:12.392-05:002009-12-30T23:10:12.392-05:00"Global warming" is a hoax contrived as ..."Global warming" is a hoax contrived as an attempt to generate "research" funding. Their devotion to the cause is of a religious nature. Never mind that the planet has been cooling for more than a decade. Gotta scare the populace into supporting our agenda.<br /><br />By the way, what is the "optimal" temperature of the planet anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48903266758258455002009-12-17T13:20:17.351-05:002009-12-17T13:20:17.351-05:00Mr. Gallien's last name can be discerned withi...Mr. Gallien's last name can be discerned within a Google search for<br /> <br />"IOW", "Ya", and "opposable"D. Swartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25970087344515935082009-12-16T21:46:52.807-05:002009-12-16T21:46:52.807-05:00Joe:
Any idiot can produce links to websites argu...Joe:<br /><br />Any idiot can produce links to websites arguing against global warming. But the <i>honest</i> idiot won't proffer links to bogus<br /> claims, like those of Fred Singer - which is exactly what you did.<br /><br />Singer's bogus claims about cosmic rays were <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm" rel="nofollow">debunked</a> long ago. <br /><br />Why is it that all you have to offer is lies, lies, and more lies?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-71326220870716998702009-12-16T21:27:25.041-05:002009-12-16T21:27:25.041-05:00Science is not a democracy.
A stupid comment, whi...<i>Science is not a democracy.</i><br /><br />A stupid comment, which is doesn't begin to address the complexities of the debate.<br /><br />When the vast majority of the world's climate scientists come down on one side, and a tiny minority dispute their claims, the smart money is on the majority side - especially when the stakes are so high.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83813086805120914032009-12-16T21:00:57.756-05:002009-12-16T21:00:57.756-05:00Jeffrey:
And yes, there are climate scientists who...Jeffrey:<br /><i>And yes, there are climate scientists who doubt AGW, but they are in the minority.</i><br /><br />Science is not a democracy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Nature, Not Human Activity,<br />Rules the Climate</b></a><br /><br />Prediction- attack the authors not the evidence.<br /><br /><a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Rick%20Yanda.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>REality Check CO2</b></a><br /><br />Again attack the author not the evidence.<br /><br />And if the article you linked to wasn't written in crayon how the hell did you understand it?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51867616692248236902009-12-16T19:16:27.852-05:002009-12-16T19:16:27.852-05:00Well anonymous coward
Spoken without any apparent...<i>Well anonymous coward</i><br /><br />Spoken without any apparent irony - despite the fact that "Joe G" doesn't post under his full name.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37476377063481532622009-12-16T18:49:41.147-05:002009-12-16T18:49:41.147-05:00I will finish the article you linked to later...
...<i>I will finish the article you linked to later...</i><br /><br />Doubtful - it's not written in crayon.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34488852864204872092009-12-16T18:49:08.516-05:002009-12-16T18:49:08.516-05:00You act as if there aren't any scientists who ...<i>You act as if there aren't any scientists who doubt AGW.<br /></i><br /><br />The opinions of scientists who aren't climate scientists are worth about as much as your opinion and mine.<br /><br />And yes, there are climate scientists who doubt AGW, but they are in the minority.<br /><br />To claim otherwise is to be a liar - something Joe is expert at.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49718657649112753702009-12-16T18:25:24.075-05:002009-12-16T18:25:24.075-05:00Jeffrey,
You act as if there aren't any scien...Jeffrey,<br /><br />You act as if there aren't any scientists who doubt AGW.<br /><br />In fact there are many- one I linked to in the first comment.<br /><br />There are meteorologists and climatologists who also disagree with AGW.<br /><br />I will finish the article you linked to later...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-81858382035347160852009-12-16T17:34:54.802-05:002009-12-16T17:34:54.802-05:00This article:
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Shoul...This article:<br /><br />Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?<br />pp.217-231 (15) Authors: James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, James C. Zachos <br />doi: 10.2174/1874282300802010217<br /><br />published in the Open Atmospheric Journal, answers Joe's question. But just watch him dismiss it without reading it.<br /><br />Anonymous: it's a total waste of time arguing with Joe: he's both arrogant and ignorant, and too stupid to know what he doesn't know.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-90722767478893675852009-12-16T16:26:14.887-05:002009-12-16T16:26:14.887-05:00Well anonymous coward, you could provide the scien...Well anonymous coward, you <i>could</i> provide the scientific data that demonstrates 385 parts per million is enough to tip the climate.<br /><br />That is you could if such data existed.<br /><br /><b>What is the scientific data that demonstrates 385 part per million is enough CO2 to tip the climate?</b><br /><br /><b>How much CO2 should be in the atmosphere anonymous coward and what is the scientific data that supports your number?</b><br /><br />My prediction- more personal attacks and no scientific data.<br /><br />Sweet...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com