The surge



Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>
> Kind of a low bar for sesquipedalianism (yeah, I looked it up first).
>
> There may be a pun there, but I'll leave it lie.
>
> And, BTW, you're wrong. I've tried it and it doesn't work. Lie there
> long enough and you can get a lot of free beer, though.


How easy it is to squash another man's dreams. Next you're going to call
me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet. Damn this is a tough
crowd.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.

>
> Where was that again?


Follows on from this comment:

I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
Asher
and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
particularly intelligent.


Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
childish **** , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
agree with you.
Bill C
 
"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?

>
> Listen you two chuckleheads, the 1500 isn't pulled out of someone's ass.
> I


You mean that you believe that the LIST YOU CITED was incorrect? That there
were FAR more authors to that report than are cited by you?

> can't find the breakdown for the 4th report, but for the 3rd IPCC report
> that came out in 2001, the breakdown for the scientific assessment was:
>
> 123 lead authors
> 516 contributing authors
> 21 review editors
> 300 expert reviewers
> 4 calling birds
> 3 french toast
> 2 Canadians
> 1 and a partridge in a pair tree
>
> This information is from:
>
> http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ipcc.html


So you think that 960 is the same as 1,500? No wonder you're so gung ho
about the great results these scientific studies are producing. Oh. wait. It
ISN'T a scientific study - it's a review of available papers. And - oh
wait - ONLY those papers that were written by people being funded by - you
got it - the group proclaiming man-made global warming.

Those papers written by those awful corrupt ANTI-global warming groups who
obviously are corrupt because they couldn't get funded by anyone but the
energy companies - well, they're opinions weren't worth printing.

Lies, damned lies and Liberalism declaring a world emergency.

Today Nancy Pelosi demanded a law that will cut EMISSIONS OF CO2 TO HALF OF
TODAY'S AMOUNT BY 2050.

Essentially if that were to occur that would make the USA a second or even
third world nation by 2050. On the plus side, people would be leaving the
USA for one of the bastions of capitalism - China, India and Russia.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> You mean that you believe that the LIST YOU CITED was incorrect? That
> there were FAR more authors to that report than are cited by you?
>


If we could bottle your anger, there would be no energy shortage.

http://tinyurl.com/23hnbg

--
Bill Asher
 
William Asher wrote:
> except most people don't wash their
> hands after taking a handful of nuts.


LANCE hasn't had to do that for years.
 
On Feb 9, 12:45 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> >> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
> >> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
> >> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.

>
> >http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf

>
> >So if you're wrong about the authors ....

>
> >--
> >Bill Asher

>
> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
> either.



This is pointless and meaningless. Modern science is
collaborative and frequently requires large groups of
people to do any ambitious project. Most people
who contribute to a high profile international summary
like an IPCC report have been the lead author or group
leader on some paper or many papers relevant to the
subject. Each of those papers had some mix of co-authors:
professors, research scientists, postdocs, grad students,
technicians (I don't imagine any grad students are primary
authors on the IPCC report, though many of them surely
contributed to the research). So it reflects the work of
hundreds or a few thousands of people.

It's rare that you get such a huge collaborative summary
of the state of the field in any science. The reason
it is happening here is that it is a global phenomenon,
people think it is important, and to attempt to pre-empt
the criticism that it's "just one view." The problem
is that in an argument between scientists and wingnuts,
the wingnuts always come off looking more certain.
That's because scientists (whatever their flaws) have a
professional obligation to admit incomplete knowledge,
while wingnuts have a professional obligation to be
rock solid as supported by their complete lack of
knowledge.

But the good thing is that if we hadn't had this
conversation, I would never have learned that Marco
Polo sailed through the Northwest Passage with the
Chinese and that Venus is hot because of opaque
clouds of sulfuric acid that block the sunlight.

Ben
 
Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> except most people don't wash their
>> hands after taking a handful of nuts.

>
> LANCE hasn't had to do that for years.


If LANCE were French, you wouldn't make fun of him. Of course, if he were
French, cancer would have killed him, except everyone knows the French have
no balls to begin with so maybe he would have been just fine, except he
would never have won the TdF. And frankly, if Hinault had won 5 tours with
two balls instead of none, think how many he would have won had he gotten
cancer and had one removed if he had had two to being with. He would
probably be in double digits by now, especially given the French genetic
disposition to suck at math (Poincare, Cauchy, Descartes, Pascal, Fermat,
Legendre, Poincare, Galois et al. aside) and pathologically exaggerate.
I'm confused now, am I insulting Lance or you at this point?

--
Bill Asher
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.

>>
>> Where was that again?

>
> Follows on from this comment:
>
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> look particularly intelligent.
>
> Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> childish **** , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> agree with you.
> Bill C


So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
anthropomorphic global warming.
 
[email protected] wrote:

<snip>
>
> This is pointless and meaningless. Modern science is
> collaborative and frequently requires large groups of
> people to do any ambitious project. Most people
> who contribute to a high profile international summary
> like an IPCC report have been the lead author or group
> leader on some paper or many papers relevant to the
> subject. Each of those papers had some mix of co-authors:
> professors, research scientists, postdocs, grad students,
> technicians (I don't imagine any grad students are primary
> authors on the IPCC report, though many of them surely
> contributed to the research). So it reflects the work of
> hundreds or a few thousands of people.


But the IPCC is not a research project. They only collect what is known,
figure out the unknowns, come up with an estimate of the state of
knowledge, and then release a consensus opinion on that estimate. In that
sense, the number of people involved is somewhat important because it cuts
to the issue Jack has problems with, that the report is biased somehow, or
that it doesn't reflect a true scientific consensus opinion since it's only
a few people contributing and dissenting voices were excluded, or that a
consensus opinion can never be reached because nobody knows anything.
Tom's problems are probably related to all the shrapnel that got lodged in
his head during grenade practice when he was a boy at Camp Kill-a-Kill-a.
The point is that the IPCC report represents a consensus scientific opinion
of a number of scientists, the more the better for what I am claiming the
report represents, the fewer it is, the worse for me. That is why this
line of debate is relevant. Plus, you may yet get another interesting
factoid or two out of Tom.

In my defense, I think there is plenty of evidence that a higher number, at
least 1,000, is a reasonable estimate of the number of people who had a
hand in the report, either as a lead author for a section, a contributing
author for a section, or as a reviewer. The number of scientists involved
in collecting the data and running the models that went into the synthesis
is probably in the low tens of thousands range, but that is a complete WAG.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.

>
> >> Where was that again?

>
> > Follows on from this comment:

>
> > I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> > Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> > look particularly intelligent.

>
> > Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> > you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> > childish **** , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> > agree with you.
> > Bill C

>
> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> anthropomorphic global warming.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.
Bill C
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>> anthropomorphic global warming.

>
> Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.


My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.
 
On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.

>
> >> Where was that again?

>
> > Follows on from this comment:

>
> > I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> > Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> > look particularly intelligent.

>
> > Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> > you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> > childish **** , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> > agree with you.
> > Bill C

>
> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> anthropomorphic global warming.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You are big on taking responsibility.
Do you claim your own actions here? Have you been bruatally offensive
to just about everybody? Have you claimed to be right while claiming
they are all idiots?
You treat everyone like ****, then deny it. Either you are totally
out of touch with reality, have a dictators definition of decent
treatment, or are a lying sack of ****. You tell us.

How about you step up and say "I'm Tom Kunich, and I'm an arrogant
******* with no respect for anyone except those who agree with me! I
treat everyone like **** while lashing out in all dorections, because
only the people I agree with have any validity!" Then you could fall
down in a spasm and chew on the rug as several former, would be "
world conquerers" are reported to have done when challenged and
overwrought.
Bill C
 
On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> >> anthropomorphic global warming.

>
> > Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> > global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.

>
> My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.


Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
America.
I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
the past. Maybe you can do it here.
Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
Bill C
 
[email protected] wrote:
> But the good thing is that if we hadn't had this
> conversation, I would never have learned that Marco
> Polo sailed through the Northwest Passage with the
> Chinese


You know, when I was a kid I was always being told that Italian pasta was a
derivative of the noodles Marco Polo brought back with him from his trip to
China. The thing that I always wondered was whether they were still hot.
 
On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:


> > If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> > see that the temperature peaked in 2004

>
> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick through a
> bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial average" that shows
> what you want.


If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.

I have mine. For me, I think the time scale of such a filter is too
short to give me condidence, and I would not make the flattened
conclusion at this time. However, since there is a basic tradeoff
between time and frequency, the filter that would satisfy my
confidence would also be incapable of spotting an actual compression
in as short of time as one more opened up (it could also pass through
"misleading" noise). Life is about tradeoffs. I don't know what your
reason is. Why?

I might run some FFT's to see if the "energy" can be spotted very
well. That might give some clues as to where the corner frequency
would be well placed, among other things.

> However, that isn't what Lindzen did. Notice that in his
> graph the raw temps were flat from 2003 onward.


I'm not ready to accuse him of intentionally corrupting data -- it is
a more serious accusation than calling someone kooky, stupid, both,
etc. I did get an email back from him. He said he didn't know why
off-hand (the response was very prompt). He did write "Incidentally,
the differences between the compilations from the USCDC, GISS and the
UKMO-CRU are about as large even though they essentially use the same
data -- though with somewhat different quality control." I have a
couple more questions for him. Hopefully he'll oblige.

How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that in
the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center. Did
you ever ask him? Your posts to that blog are more than a 1/2 year
old -- plenty of time to get an answer.

Also, you never answered why/how you happened upon this particular
discrepancy. How did you? I think it is very obscure.

He could make that particular claim without doctoring -- all he'd have
to do is defend the subjective choice of filter. It wouldn't seem like
a very smart thing to do: to doctor data when you don't need to.
 
On Feb 9, 7:31 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:

> How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that in
> the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center.


Never mind that. As I can tell now, it looks like the Hadley Centre is
the only v-adj data.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are big on taking responsibility.
> Do you claim your own actions here? Have you been bruatally offensive
> to just about everybody? Have you claimed to be right while claiming
> they are all idiots?


Hmm, and all this time I figured that those who are smart enough to read
would be smart enough to be able to detect the facts - I'm not the one
claiming to be smart. I'm not the one claiming that I can predict the
future. I'm not the one claiming that after reading a newspaper article or
two that I'm one of the world's experts. I'm not the one telling everyone
that the world is about to explode and kill them all if they aren't willing
to turn their pockets inside out.

That is the territory of you pus-filled Liberal jackasses.

> You treat everyone like ****, then deny it.


Really hurts when the mirror is held up to you eh? The light of day is known
to injure vampires. And earthworms.

Que the claims that someone else whom you've never met nor know the
slightest thing about is doping.
 
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:

>
>> > If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
>> > see that the temperature peaked in 2004

>>
>> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
>> through a
>> bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial average" that shows
>> what you want.

>
> If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.


What is interesting is that if you look closely at the data and try several
different filters what becomes apparent is that there is obviously a cyclic
activity there and there is probably less than 1/2 of a cycle or so. Imagine
someone trying to make any estimates based on that limited a data set!
However, if you look at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ you can
see that they appear to be using the same filter only with a different null
point.
 
William Asher wrote:
> If we could bottle your anger, there would be no energy shortage.


But Pound would ban it. Bottled anger must surely be against sporting
ethics.