Uhhh....Ray!...calling Ray
annoying
Sorry to bother you?
Someone is spreading vicious lies:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
Its good to be back.
sparksfly
> Ray,
>
> Sorry to bother you?
> Someone is spreading vicious lies:
>
>
> Its good to be back.
Watch out, Ray might call you "dood."
Mike
annoying
Has anyone seen ray?
Is he busy shredding emails?
Ray
> On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, annoying <jackstraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ray,
>
> > Sorry to bother you?
> > Someone is spreading vicious lies:
>
> >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
For those not aware of the latest global warming "skeptic" brouhaha,
someone has hacked into the private email records of a climate
research facility in England and have posted on the internets some of
what they claim to be un-doctored emails from said facility. I have
no more idea whether said posted emails have been doctored or not, but
to the extent that I've read said posted emails (which isn't much)
proper context could change what is meant in them. As I don't know
the full context either I can't yet say with certainty that they were
taken out of context either, but global warming deniers, not
surprisingly, have jumped to the conclusion that said emails
demonstrate intentionally deceptive collusion - a conclusion that I
personally very highly doubt for many reasons but again cannot be
certain of at this time.
More info here for anyone interested:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409195&c=1
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
> Watch out, Ray might call you "dood."
I'm not sure why apparently bothers you so much that I treated someone
with disrespect here in response to someone who treated me with
disrespect here first, but hey to each their own.
sparksfly
> On Nov 21, 5:38 pm, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, annoying <jackstraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ray,
>
> > > Sorry to bother you?
> > > Someone is spreading vicious lies:
>
> > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> For those not aware of the latest global warming "skeptic" brouhaha,
> someone has hacked into the private email records of a climate
> research facility in England and have posted on the internets some of
> what they claim to be un-doctored emails from said facility. I have
> no more idea whether said posted emails have been doctored or not, but
> to the extent that I've read said posted emails (which isn't much)
> proper context could change what is meant in them. As I don't know
> the full context either I can't yet say with certainty that they were
> taken out of context either, but global warming deniers, not
> surprisingly, have jumped to the conclusion that said emails
> demonstrate intentionally deceptive collusion - a conclusion that I
> personally very highly doubt for many reasons but again cannot be
> certain of at this time.
>
> More info here for anyone interested:
>
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-co...
>
> > Watch out, Ray might call you "dood."
>
> I'm not sure why apparently bothers you so much that I treated someone
> with disrespect here in response to someone who treated me with
> disrespect here first, but hey to each their own.
I just hate the"dood" thing. Believe me it doesn't advance your
argument one little bit, especially when you happen to be wrong. But
yeah to me when someone pulls the"dood" out it means the discussion is
over and any rebuttal will be almost purposely misunderstood. I mean
if you want to disrespect someone why try to be sly about it, just
come out and say how you feel?
Mike
Ray
Demonstrate where I was "wrong" with respect to rebutting devilphish's
multiple accusations against me. Good luck with that because those
accusations were wrong, and repeatedly, not my responses to them.
> But
> yeah to me when someone pulls the"dood" out it means the discussion is
> over and any rebuttal will be almost purposely misunderstood. I mean
> if you want to disrespect someone why try to be sly about it, just
> come out and say how you feel?
There was no intent of being "sly" about it - when responding to
disrespect with disrespect in kind I just tend to not favor the vulgar
language that devilphish does - words like "dipshit."
Lfh
> I just hate the"dood" thing. Believe me it doesn't advance your
> argument one little bit, especially when you happen to be wrong. But
> yeah to me when someone pulls the"dood" out it means the discussion is
> over and any rebuttal will be almost purposely misunderstood. I mean
> if you want to disrespect someone why try to be sly about it, just
> come out and say how you feel?
d00d, you are way too sensitive on this "d00d" thing.
Fred
devilphish
Now I'm getting it more, you're offended by *vulgar* words like
dipshit. And you're saying I'm the one wearing panties? Grow a pair,
dOOd.
deviphish
Lfh
> > There was no intent of being "sly" about it - when responding to
> > disrespect with disrespect in kind I just tend to not favor the vulgar
> > language that devilphish does - words like "dipshit."
>
> Now I'm getting it more, you're offended by *vulgar* words like
> dipshit. And you're saying I'm the one wearing panties? Grow a pair,
> dOOd.
>
> deviphish
HARRY HOOD!!!
Ok, that doesn't have the same ring as SAINT STEPHEN!!! Guess I
shouldn't be surprised, huh?
Fred
Ray
No, but sometimes get annoyed by people who are being vulgarly hostile
while projecting their psychological issues on to me.
Speaking of:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Once again you provide nothing but "you're wrong" without *any*
> explanation of how, or clarification of what you really meant.
Here's what I wrote that you misread the latest time - maybe you'll
understand it better this time around:
---------------------------------------------------------
What I'm saying is that under those conditions booie would have in my
view definitely been stealing *from the private network owner*. Booie
is still and nonetheless, however, stealing from the internet
provider.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, what part of that statement do you still not understand,
devilphish?
It's strange to watch you accuse me of not being able to "stand" being
wrong without providing proof of such while at the same time you have
been repeatedly unable to own up to the fact that you were wrong yet
again when you misinterpreted "would have in my view definitely been
stealing" from the above as "definitely been stealing."
Again: got projection much?
sparksfly
Believe me I didn't read that entire thread but at one point you seem
to take the position that Booie might have the authorization key to
someones private wifi despite the fact that he had no clue what wifi
connection he was hooked into, so apparently you believed that his
friend had magically revealed the authorization key to the private
wifi of an unknown person. That was illogical for such a logical
dood. Anyway, rapples.
Mike
sparksfly
d00d? What the fuck do you mean by that? Is that suppose to be
funny?
The d00d
Ray
dOOd, everyone knows it's "Fluffhead."
DGDevin
> For those not aware of the latest global warming "skeptic" brouhaha,
> someone has hacked into the private email records of a climate
> research facility in England and have posted on the internets some of
> what they claim to be un-doctored emails from said facility. I have
> no more idea whether said posted emails have been doctored or not, but
> to the extent that I've read said posted emails (which isn't much)
> proper context could change what is meant in them. As I don't know
> the full context either I can't yet say with certainty that they were
> taken out of context either, but global warming deniers, not
> surprisingly, have jumped to the conclusion that said emails
> demonstrate intentionally deceptive collusion - a conclusion that I
> personally very highly doubt for many reasons but again cannot be
> certain of at this time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: November 20, 2009
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer
server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming
skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate
the case for a human influence on climate change.
The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate
researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be
released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and
casual comments - in some cases derisive - about specific people known for
their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that
portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data,
some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical "trick" in
a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist
refers to climate skeptics as "idiots."
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to
withhold scientific information. "This is not a smoking gun; this is a
mushroom cloud," said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long
faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the
documents.
Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by
the skeptics' camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could
be turned against them.
The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is
so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall
argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the
quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some
scientists.
In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps
in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites
pointed out one line in particular: "The fact is that we can't account for
the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," Dr.
Trenberth wrote.
The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists,
including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles
they were reporting.
Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on
Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the
police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however,
that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the
Internet was authentic.
But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed
that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages
included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate
as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate
accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist
speculated that the timing was not coincidental.
Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail
messages.
But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate
skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed "the integrity of
scientists." Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being
interpreted as sinister.
In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the
last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East
Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a "trick" employed by another
scientist, Michael Mann, to "hide the decline" in temperatures.
Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an
interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by
his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word "trick"
to refer to a good way to solve a problem, "and not something secret."
At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set
showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer
readings for the past 100 years.
Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise
in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no
longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the
present.
Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called
into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature
fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never
something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for
more than a decade. "It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you're
talking about, there's nothing there," Dr. Mann said.
In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature
fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing
rising temperatures.
Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed.
Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for
years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in
for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations "quite
breathtaking."
But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they
merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the
body of research on global warming. "Science doesn't work because we're all
nice," said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges
with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. "Newton
may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works."
He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after
hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack
into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA
that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global
warming is true.
The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full
batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and
scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia's
Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files
appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics'
arguments.
At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the
science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the
correspondence as "just the way scientists talk."
But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some
exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent
review.
He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the
veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by
claiming he knew his research was wrong. "This shows these are people
willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very
serious ways," he said.
Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of
research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as "great
material for historians."
Lfh
It means assume the position, Francis.
>Is that suppose to be funny?
Oh, outrageously so. Of course, you need the decoder ring, but once
you are dialed into the clique, I assure you it's screamingly funny. A
real coffee/keyboard moment, as many in the clique would tell you, if
they were allowed. Which they ain't, because the clique don't exist.
> The d00d
Application pending, but it doesn't look too promising at this point.
Fred
Lfh
d00d? Geez, Ray, why you gotta be so f**king condescending all the
time. Now I feel like a real dipshit. Why don't you just punch me in
the eye and kill till I'm dead?
Fred
devilphish
Exactly, that was one of my points in Ray being wrong, among others.
You explained it nicely.
Ray, on the other hand, chooses to repost the same dumb question, cut-
and-pasted from the other thread no less, when it's obvious I'm not
going to play his game since I've already stated my case. Get a clue,
Ray, makeyourselflookbad#420.
devilphish
Ray
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1
>
> Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
>
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> Published: November 20, 2009
>
> Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of
> research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as "great
> material for historians."
That is a good overview of the brouhaha; thanks for posting.
There are many hacked email comments that have been posted; to
adequately address each one individually would take days if not much
longer. The "trick" wording alluded to here is an example - as one
scientist explains in this article 'scientists often used the word
"trick" to refer to a good way to solve a problem, "and not something
secret."'
Another email comment that was quoted but not addressed is this one:
______________________
Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: "The fact is
that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is
a travesty that we can't," Dr. Trenberth wrote.
______________________
What the scientist is saying here is what it seems to be to those not
familiar with the science. As everyone addressed that email surely
knows the earth is still warming, and it's still warming within the
parameters that climate models have predicted. The data indicate
however that atmosphere has not been not warming over past few years
or so as much as the climate models' "best guess" prediction - hence
the "lack of warming at the moment.. is a travesty" statement. Also
as those email recipients know, far importantly than atmospheric
temperatures are ocean temperatures and ice melting, which account for
about 90% and 7% of increased global warming energy, respectively. And
the oceans are still warming, and ice is melting *faster* that climate
model predictions.
More on oceans and ice melting and the roles the play in global
warming here:
Ray
Oh I believe you - because you obviously didn't see how devilphish was
repeatedly wrong - and moreover projecting - with respect to what he
was accusing me of.
> but at one point you seem
> to take the position that Booie might have the authorization key to
> someones private wifi
Correct.
> despite the fact that he had no clue what wifi
> connection he was hooked into,
booie had indicated that he had tapped into a *neighbors* network, and
when I addressed him with that interpretation he didn't correct me.
> so apparently you believed that his
> friend had magically revealed the authorization key to the private
> wifi of an unknown person. That was illogical for such a logical
> dood. Anyway, rapples.
See above, and
EXXCCUUUUUSEEEE MEEEEEEEEE!
for taking booie at his word until additional information indicated
that his wording was misleading.
In any event, none of this takes away form the fact that
***everything*** devilphish accused me of - including, for example,
holding to my initial interpretation after booie finally clarified his
wording - was wrong.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
devilphish
> On Nov 23, 10:17 am, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I hope this clarifies things for you
Highly doubtful.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
devilphish
Ray
What you initially accused of, "amonsgt others,: was:
* "belittl[ing] DG about knowing the TOS"
* Saying I said that booie was "violating bandwidth allocation and
usage restrictions"
* Ignoring a question from you about how does one "violate bandwidth
allocation and usage restrictions" - a question that I didn't "reply"
to only because you hadn't asked it yet.
* That I "continue to try to apply [my] interpretation" after it
became clear that booie's earlier wording was incorrect
* That what I was saying was "that if booie's usage doesn't impact the
other wireless user in any way then he is not stealing"
* Implying that I said that booie had "definitely been stealing" when
what I actually said was that under certain conditions booie "would
have definitely been stealing."
All of those things you accused me of and more are false, deviphish -
you do understand this now, right?
For example you do now understand the difference between:
"would have definitely been stealing"
- and -
"definitely been stealing"
Don't you?
Ray
>
> Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Got projection much?
Ray
In context it's probably obvious, but to be clear what I meant to
write there was:
"What the scientist is saying here is *not* what it seems to be to
those not familiar with the science."
> As everyone addressed that email surely
> knows the earth is still warming, and it's still warming within the
> parameters that climate models have predicted. The data indicate
> however that atmosphere has not been not warming over past few years
> or so as much as the climate models' "best guess" prediction - hence
> the "lack of warming at the moment.. is a travesty" statement. Also
> as those email recipients know, far importantly than atmospheric
> temperatures are ocean temperatures and ice melting, which account for
> about 90% and 7% of increased global warming energy, respectively. And
> the oceans are still warming, and ice is melting *faster* that climate
> model predictions.
>
> More on oceans and ice melting and the roles the play in global
> warming here:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warm...
JimK
I know it's beating a dead horse here, but you really shouldn't
comment if you didn't read the entire thread. At one point early on,
booie stated that he had tapped into "someone's" internet line using a
password and ID that a friend had given to him. So based on that
statement, why would it be illogical to think that booie had accessed
the private wifi line of an unknown person. Seems to me it would have
been illogical to think otherwise, at least until more information
became available later in the thread.
JimK
sparksfly
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:17:40 -0800 (PST), sparksfly
>
>
>
It would be illogical to assume the ID and password were actually an
authorization key to someone's private wifi because booie said he had
no clue who the wifi belonged to. How would his friend have the key
to this unknown persons wifi? It would be more logical to assume booie
meant exactly what he said, his friend gave him an ID and password.
BTW, I read the entire thread up until Ray's d00d comment. Up until
then I had no problem understanding booie's situation and neither did
devilphish. I knew it wasn't worth reading after that point, who was
right and who was wrong was quite clear to me, the fact that Ray
eventually got it right doesn't surprise me, what surprised me is it
took so long.
the d00d
Mike
Ray
That unknown person could have been a friend of booie's friend that
gave it to him, not thinking that booie's friend would then pass it
along, or a similar scenario.
> It would be more logical to assume booie
> meant exactly what he said, his friend gave him an ID and password.
If booie didn't also indicate that it was a neighbor's wifi that he
was tapping into I'd be inclined to agree.
> BTW, I read the entire thread up until Ray's d00d comment. Up until
> then I had no problem understanding booie's situation and neither did
> devilphish. I knew it wasn't worth reading after that point, who was
> right and who was wrong was quite clear to me,
Early on that was only "clear" if one discounted the fact that booie
had indicated that he was tapping into a neighbor's wifi.
> the fact that Ray
> eventually got it right doesn't surprise me, what surprised me is it
> took so long.
See above. Once enough information became available to establish that
that it wasn't a neighbor's wifi I then quit that interpretation,
devilphish's false accusation to the contrary notwithstanding.
> who was right and who was wrong was quite clear to me
devilphish repeatedly accused my of wholly false things in that thread
while at the same time being a complete dick (is that direct enough
for you?) about it , which if you'd actually taken the time to read
you too would be well aware of.
JimK
Apparently you stopped reading the thread before you got to this post
by booie:
bbb writes:
I am not sure if I was clear on this.
I am just tapped into someones modem.
My friend who happens to have an Optimun account who lives 15 miles
down the road let me try and use his acct # and password to see if it
worked. It did.
So is that still illegal? I am just using someones modem."
Do you really think this doesn't sound like booie was accessing an
individual's private wireless connection? Did you read this and
somehow figure out that he was actually accessing a public wifi
hotspot?
JimK
Ray
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:50:49 -0800 (PST), sparksfly
>
>
>
Then there's this from booie:
-----------------------------------------
On Nov 18, 10:13 am, "mr.rapidan" <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since the law hasn't quite gotten its arms around this issue, it means
> you can fuck your neighbor! Maybe the nice thing to do would be to
> bring the issue up with your neighbor, offer some trade every month
> for the use of the bandwidth, and be an up front, above board, squared
> away human being. ...
bbb writes:
"Maybe the nice thing to do would be to
bring the issue up with your neighbor, offer some trade every month
for the use of the bandwidth.
And I would find that how?
My next door neighbor (where my elec in the bathroom is comming from)
does not have internet access. I think Iit must be comming from one of
the neighboring houses. What am I supposed to knock on each door in
the neighborhood till I find out whose house has an Optimum account?
-----------------------------------------
Yeah, it was so clear that booie was tapping into a public hot spot
instead of a neighbor's wifi, isn't it. ###
Mike, don't be a dick like devilphish (again is that direct enough for
you?) and jam on me over stuff that you don't have full understanding
of, ok?
devilphish
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:50:49 -0800 (PST), sparksfly
>
>
>
>
>
Fer fuck's sake already.
It's OK that you misinterpreted at first, it wasn't hard to do. But
the fact that you went along with Ray and tried to *explain* why you
misintepreted, well, that's what I find most fascinating. You didn't
explain to the degree that Ray did, as it takes an incredible amount
of stubbornness to go to that degree, but to make it the point of the
thread, as opposed to an aside, is just kinda sad and desperate. And
it's especially sad and desperate when Ray decides to open up the
*whole* damn thing again IN ANOTHER THREAD not related to the argument
at all. Sheesh.
In the scope of misinterpretations this one is pretty small, but to
keep explaining it as if you're defending your whole persona is over
the top. It's OK to be wrong.
devilphish
devilphish
He understands it pertty darn well, and sums it up in a few lines,
whereas you go ad infinitum and instead of summing it up, you minus it
down.
devilphish
Ray
Why do you find it "fascinating" that we explained how and why we
initially believed that booie had likely tapped into a neighbor's
wifi, since Mike obviously didn't understand as much without said
explanation?
> You didn't
> explain to the degree that Ray did, as it takes an incredible amount
> of stubbornness to go to that degree
Doubly ironic from a guy who has repeatedly claimed that I don't
"explain" things.
> Ray decides to open up the
> *whole* damn thing again IN ANOTHER THREAD
dOOd, Mike brought this up again here, not me.
Speaking of false accusations from you that I don't explain things,
and speaking again of projection:
Ray
> you minus it down
Does that mean something like "syncopated deflections of perceived
depth"?
devilphish
Are you really Woof.woof? Sure seem's like it with your continuous-
loop responses to me.
devilphish
Ray
>
> > Again: got projection much?
>
> Are you really Woof.woof? Sure seem's like it with your continuous-
> loop responses to me.
I'm actually conducting an experiment to see if I can break through
your deep-seated psychological denial and related projection.
Let's try again:
devilphish
dOOd, how dare you mangle my epic statement, that's not even what I
*said*, try reading for comprehension (TM Ray) next time.
devilphish
devilphish
> On Nov 23, 1:46 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Again: got projection much?
>
> > Are you really Woof.woof? Sure seem's like it with your continuous-
> > loop responses to me.
>
> I'm actually conducting an experiment to see if I can break through
> your deep-seated psychological denial and related projection.
>
And for Ray's next experiment, he'll prove once-and-for-all that the
Earth is flat (and is actually cooling).
devilphish
Ray
Ah - it was ""syncopation and deflection of perceived depth" - so, so
sorry.
Ok, let's take that one from the top:
> you minus it down
Does that mean something like "deflections of perceived depth"?
Ray
Nope - I can't prove neither of those things because they are not
true. Your deep denial with respect to being wrong here, OTOH - there
is more than enough empirical evidence to demonstrate that assertion.
Good luck with your deep denial, sincerely.
DGDevin
> There are many hacked email comments that have been posted; to
> adequately address each one individually would take days if not much
> longer. The "trick" wording alluded to here is an example - as one
> scientist explains in this article 'scientists often used the word
> "trick" to refer to a good way to solve a problem, "and not something
> secret."'
What's troubling about that example is that the "trick" (which I accept as
science-dood jargon) is coupled in the article with the phrase "'hide the
decline" in temperatures'" -- that's pork rinds and beer to those who want
to believe man-made climate change is a hoax. The apparent personal
antipathy to critics is also disturbing though understandable. I would
think that doing better science is the appropriate way to deal with a critic
as opposed to muck-raking in hopes of questioning his education.
The lesson for everyone is that in the internet age anything you put on
digital paper needs to be written with the assumption that one day it will
become public whether you like it or not, so nothing should be left open to
misinterpretation.
annoying
religion and politics.
The state of "climate science" is laughable.
I read the other day that woman need to turn to prostitution because of
global warming. Is there anything more laughable?
I just hope this doesn't mean "scientists", like Ray, will soon be
unemployed due to a lack of govt. funds which support research.
I hope they have not put all their career eggs in the "climate" science
basket.
Its crumbling ray....crumbling.....who woulda thunk it?
Maybe the photoshopped Grizzly on the floating iceberg.?
sparksfly
I'm not being a dick but you are wrong to say I don't have full
understanding. I read every post of booie's that you and JimK
quoted. I also read several other posts that came after which cleared
things up including the posts by devilphish which gave the
explanation. Those posts by booie are so confused its clear he
doesn't know what he's talking about vis-a-vis being tapped into a
neighbors wifi which he so quaintly refers to as a modem. And the
friend knowing a friend explanation, come on, that would be
ridiculously coincidental and would mean booie could get that info
from his friend. If you read between the lines it is pretty clear it
was unlikely he was using someones private wifi. Deny if you wish.
This. however is a silly argument. I'm sorry for fanning the flames.
The d00d Dude
sparksfly
> On Nov 23, 1:23 pm, devilphish <robsfootballpi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:05 pm, JimK <jkezw...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Do you really think this doesn't sound like booie was accessing an
> > > individual's private wireless connection? Did you read this and
> > > somehow figure out that he was actually accessing a public wifi
> > > hotspot?
>
> > > JimK
>
> > Fer fuck's sake already.
>
> > It's OK that you misinterpreted at first, it wasn't hard to do. But
> > the fact that you went along with Ray and tried to *explain* why you
> > misintepreted, well, that's what I find most fascinating.
>
> Why do you find it "fascinating" that we explained how and why we
> initially believed that booie had likely tapped into a neighbor's
> wifi, since Mike obviously didn't understand as much without said
> explanation?
For the record I did understand why you thought booie had tapped into
a neighbors's wifi. I read most of the thread, I just stopped reading
after a time. What I couldn't understand is why you persisted for so
long believing that it was a viable possibility even after a more
likely explanation presented itself.
Mike d00derstein
sparksfly
> On Nov 23, 10:19 am, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 12:39 pm, Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 9:07 am, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I just hate the"dood" thing. Believe me it doesn't advance your
> > > > yeah to me when someone pulls the"dood" out it means the discussion is
> > > > over and any rebuttal will be almost purposely misunderstood. I mean
> > > > if you want to disrespect someone why try to be sly about it, just
> > > > come out and say how you feel?
>
>
> > > Fred
>
> > d00d? What the fuck do you mean by that?
>
> It means assume the position, Francis.
>
> >Is that suppose to be funny?
>
> Oh, outrageously so. Of course, you need the decoder ring, but once
> you are dialed into the clique, I assure you it's screamingly funny. A
> real coffee/keyboard moment, as many in the clique would tell you, if
> they were allowed. Which they ain't, because the clique don't exist.
>
> > The d00d
>
> Application pending, but it doesn't look too promising at this point.
>
> Fred
Oh Fuck!
the d00d abides
Ray
Indeed. Given that he referred to 'modem' here, how much of a stretch
to you really think it was that he could have referred to a wifi
network name as a "user Id' and an authentication key as a "password"
- especially since even people who know what they are talking about
often refer to authentication keys as "passwords"?
> And the
> friend knowing a friend explanation, come on, that would be
> ridiculously coincidental and would mean booie could get that info
> from his friend. If you read between the lines it is pretty clear it
> was unlikely he was using someones private wifi. Deny if you wish.
booie clearly plays loose with his ethics, and evidently so does his
friend. As such I find a scenario whereby his friend gave him some
stranger's wifi network and authentication key to be quite plausible,
especially since booie repeatedly indicated that he was tapping into
such a network. "Deny if you wish."
You also gloss over the fact that devilphish was being a total dick
(again is that direct enough for you?) towards me while repeatedly
hurling false accusations towards me, which is why I repeatedly
responded to him with 'dOOd' - the relatively minor thing that you
have taken such umbrage to here even though it wasn't directed at you.
> This. however is a silly argument. I'm sorry for fanning the flames.
I agree with you there at least. Thanks so much for bringing it up
again, and here in a completely different thread.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > There are many hacked email comments that have been posted; to
> > adequately address each one individually would take days if not much
> > longer. The "trick" wording alluded to here is an example - as one
> > scientist explains in this article 'scientists often used the word
> > "trick" to refer to a good way to solve a problem, "and not something
> > secret."'
>
> What's troubling about that example is that the "trick" (which I accept as
> science-dood jargon) is coupled in the article with the phrase "'hide the
> decline" in temperatures'" -- that's pork rinds and beer to those who want
> to believe man-made climate change is a hoax.
Yeah - absolutely. This server hacking is a public relations
nightmare, and it's going to become part of the global warming denier
canon no doubt about it.
> The apparent personal
> antipathy to critics is also disturbing though understandable.
There is definitely personal antipathy towards many critics, and in my
view that is quite understandable. Very few global warming "skeptics"
who understand the actual science are practicing good science with
respect to their "skepticism," and all of the rest of us who
understand the science - which is to say the vast majority of those
who have a deep understanding of global warming science - are well
aware of that fact. Most of those scientific "skeptics" - Steve
McIntyre was mentioned in the NYT article and is a good example - are
either being intentionally deceptive or are truly mentally deranged,
or some combination of both. But whatever's going in their heads they
are not practicing good and honest science - far from it. (Not all
scientifically-trained 'skeptics' fall into this category though -
Richard Lindzen of MIT comes to mind as a scientific 'skeptic' who
nonetheless practices good science - but those 'skeptics' are few.)
> I would
> think that doing better science is the appropriate way to deal with a critic
> as opposed to muck-raking in hopes of questioning his education.
I agree and I have little doubt that the people writing those emails
generally agree as well; these were private internal emails and were
not meant for public consumption. Specifically, with respect to
questioning the doctoral research of one skeptic as mentioned in the
article, however, I don't know any of the details beyond what is
mentioned there but it could be that his doctoral thesis demonstrated
true dishonest intent with respect to an 'skeptical' agenda, and if so
that in my view is a relevant issue with respect to evaluating what
that person says on the subject.
> The lesson for everyone is that in the internet age anything you put on
> digital paper needs to be written with the assumption that one day it will
> become public whether you like it or not, so nothing should be left open to
> misinterpretation.
True dat.
sparksfly
Hey, let's get back on topic. What the hell WAS booie taking about
anyways.
the d00ds annoyed
Ray
As more info became available I became less and less sure, until booie
finally clarified himself, at with point I embraced said
clarification. I don't know how or why you don't understand that, but
you don't really want to walk though that sequence of events in
detail, do you?
Ray
>
> Its crumbling ray....crumbling.....
Public release date: 19-Jan-2009
University of Illinois at Chicago
Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe
seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated,
a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of
climate change and its likely cause.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world
overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global
temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a
significant contributing factor in changing mean global
temperatures. ...
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared
to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor
in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and
82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists
who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the
causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest
doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human
involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing
only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to
global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the
meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the
public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually
study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by
climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess
the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate
science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and
humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity
is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and
scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now,
they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers
and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among
scientists.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
sparksfly
No more explanation required from me, thank you very much for playing.
The d00d is awl that matters
Ray
> annoying wrote:
>
> >I just hope this doesn't mean "scientists", like Ray, will soon be
> >unemployed due to a lack of govt. funds which support research.
>
> job where competence matters. He will have to make real money instead
> of leeching off taxpayers.
You are both delusional - the scientific consensus for global warming
is stronger than ever; as such global warming research money is not
going away for the foreseeable future.
Also while one of my areas of specific professional expertise is
closely related I do not get personal income from global warming
research. A significant portion of my professional career has also
been in private industry, which pays far better than government work
does.
Nice attempts at ad hominem attacks though.
> "Global warming" is this generation's nonsense akin to "hiding under
> the desk during a nuclear war" and "acid rain".
Acid rain was and is real. Also, man-made global warming as a theory
became prominent in the same era that acid rain as a theory did - the
1970s and 1980s.
-------------------------
"[By the year 2000] the much-advertised heating of the earth by the
man-made carbon-dioxide 'greenhouse' fails to occur; instead, there is
renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age."
-- Global Warming Denier Nigel Calder, 1980
Professional global warming denier Nigel Calder is still around, and
he is still a global warming denier. Cader no longer denies the
obvious reality of global warming itself - these days he's just
denying that it's significantly man-made. He's also hawking a book
that he recently co-authored on the subject, presumably pocketing a
decent amount of "private industry" money in the process.
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> >
> >the scientific consensus for global warming
> >is stronger than ever; as such global warming research money is not
> >going away for the foreseeable future.
>
> shrink quickly...
If global warming hits in a big way millions of people or more will be
"paying up for food."
x...@xxx.com
I'm not sure if you guys have gotten to the bottom of this yet, but if
you have optimum online they have wifi access points all over NY and NJ
where their customers can log on to their accounts with their laptops.
In a lot of places the optonline network is the only unsecured available
network around, (all the others are private) but when you try to connect
you get a welcome page with a username and password request. Optimum
online users will have those, people who don't have optimum online and
use their wifi network are stealing the service the same way people
steal cable by tapping into a neighbor's line.
Now, can someone explain to me how a handful of researchers with
potential professional ethics problems is evidence that we are not
polluting and causing problems (including global warming).
I've known researchers who have freaked out after being unable to prove
an hypothesis. Usually it just means they go back to the drawing board
(or write a book) but those freakouts have included everything from
drinking a lot to trying to skew experiments.
Unfortunately the global warming research is growing more political and
less scientific and some researchers fear publishing their hiccups due
to political pressure. Look at the story in question, what was the
purpose of hacking into these computers and publishing the e-mails?
Ray
> I'm not sure if you guys have gotten to the bottom of this yet, but if
> you have optimum online they have wifi access points all over NY and NJ
> where their customers can log on to their accounts with their laptops.
>
> In a lot of places the optonline network is the only unsecured available
> network around, (all the others are private) but when you try to connect
> you get a welcome page with a username and password request. Optimum
> online users will have those, people who don't have optimum online and
> use their wifi network are stealing the service the same way people
> steal cable by tapping into a neighbor's line.
Yeah we got to the bottom of that in another thread. Mike, an
evidently oh so sensitive soul who was offended by my use of the word
"dOOd" with respect to someone else, decided to bringing it up again
here for some reason.
> Now, can someone explain to me how a handful of researchers with
> potential professional ethics problems is evidence that we are not
> polluting and causing problems (including global warming).
So far I don't see any evidence of "professional ethics problems" in
this scenario. If it turns out that there is however the evidence that
global warming is real and likely in large measure man-made is still
and nonetheless overwhelming.
> Unfortunately the global warming research is growing more political and
> less scientific and some researchers fear publishing their hiccups due
> to political pressure. Look at the story in question, what was the
> purpose of hacking into these computers and publishing the e-mails?
That was politically driven, to be sure.
Lfh
> > > > d00d, you are way too sensitive on this "d00d" thing.
>
> > > > Fred
>
> > > d00d? What the fuck do you mean by that?
>
> > It means assume the position, Francis.
>
> > >Is that suppose to be funny?
>
> > Oh, outrageously so. Of course, you need the decoder ring, but once
> > you are dialed into the clique, I assure you it's screamingly funny. A
> > real coffee/keyboard moment, as many in the clique would tell you, if
> > they were allowed. Which they ain't, because the clique don't exist.
>
> > > The d00d
>
> > Application pending, but it doesn't look too promising at this point.
>
> > Fred
>
> Oh Fuck!
>
> the d00d abides
As well he should. Looking over the summation of the reports of the
process as it proceeds, the board looks to be on the fence, some ready
to jump this way, others that way. We shall keep you posted, or would
if we actually existed.
Fred
Lfh
> > > > d00d, you are way too sensitive on this "d00d" thing.
>
> > > > Fred
>
> > > d00d? What the fuck do you mean by that?
>
> > It means assume the position, Francis.
>
> > >Is that suppose to be funny?
>
> > Oh, outrageously so. Of course, you need the decoder ring, but once
> > you are dialed into the clique, I assure you it's screamingly funny. A
> > real coffee/keyboard moment, as many in the clique would tell you, if
> > they were allowed. Which they ain't, because the clique don't exist.
>
> > > The d00d
>
> > Application pending, but it doesn't look too promising at this point.
>
> > Fred
>
> Oh Fuck!
>
> the d00d abides
As well he should. Looking over the summation of the reports of the
Lfh
> No more explanation required from me, thank you very much for playing.
>
> The d00d is awl that matters
Ok, Sparky, this one has seemingly proven to be the home run needed to
get you in the game, but there's still some wondering going on. I'm
pulling for you, but you gotta help me out here. The board, while
nonexistent, is nonetheless persnickety in its way. They have thrown
up one last hoop, which, should you successfully jump through, looks
to get in the club, or would, if said club existed, which it doesn't.
Earregardless, you need to come up with the referent to the following
allusion and then you pass mustard. Or gas, but, hey, no need to get
into WWI stuff here, as it's a different military than our present
needs require.
For all the marbles, identify this allusion:
> >Is that suppose to be funny?
> It means assume the position, Francis.
Fred
DGDevin
> You are both delusional - the scientific consensus for global warming
> is stronger than ever; as such global warming research money is not
> going away for the foreseeable future.
If Donny and Annoying agree on something it's slam-dunk evidence that
whatever they believe is 180� out of phase with reality. Thus their
agreement is a useful scientific tool--just ask those two imbeciles what
they think and then go the other way. ;~)
sparksfly
Allusion? I'm not even sure what an allusion is. But it reminds of a
Bill Murray movie. Stripes. Yeah that's it, an allusion must be a
reference to something.
Proud d00d
Kelly Humphries
> Allusion? I'm not even sure what an allusion is. But it reminds of a
> Bill Murray movie. Stripes. Yeah that's it, an allusion must be a
> reference to something.
Have you ever had the Aunt Jemima treatment?
Lfh
Ok, d00d, you're in. There were last minute hedges, but I explained
that the unsure bit was a feint, and a well placed one. They saw my
point and said "yes." Well, ok, they didn't at first, but when I
explained that the last part proved the first pat, well, ok, they
still bitched, but we worked it out.
Your'e in.
But with rights come responsibilities, so let's go there, and, . . . ,
well, never mind, let's just take this moment to celebrate. Excellent
work, Sparky. But, and pay attention to this in the midst of your joy,
you are not to tell anyone. Yes, I do mean anyone. Not him, not her.
Sorry.
We all get through that wall, or most of us, that bit that let's us
connect to those we connect with. It's a Men In Black thing, as you
surely understand.
If you got Stri[pes
I'm goin' to bat for you here, Sparky. I trust that you will not let
me down.
Fred
Lfh
> If you got Stri[pes
Sorry. I meant to say, "If you got Stripes, I'm sure you'll get this."
Fred
sparksfly
Wow this is really more than I could ask for. I mean I'm sitting here
at work and people are looking at me funny because I'm getting all
misty eyed but I can't help it and I don't care what they think. This
is really an auspicious event for me and I'm truly honored. I have so
many people to thank.
First and foremost I have to thank you, Fred, for your tough love and
much needed mentoring, I couldn't have done it without you.
And Ray who was so instrumental in helping me reach such a rarefied
status, I couldn't have asked for a more perfect straight man, you
never broke character once!
And Bob I'll never be annoyed at you again, I owe you a debt of
gratitude for starting this thread.
I'm sure I'm forgetting someone so I thank you all so much.
I've wanted more than anything to have your respect. The first time I
didn't feel it, but this time I feel it, and I can't deny the fact
that you like me, right now, you like me!
the d00d ascends
annoying
> On Nov 23, 3:20 pm, annoying <jackstraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Its crumbling ray....crumbling.....
>
> Public release date: 19-Jan-2009
>
> University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
>
> While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe
> seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated,
> a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of
> climate change and its likely cause.
There's that word again...consensus...science by consensus...
I can point you to the flat Earth society if you wish..?
> A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world
> overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global
> temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a
> significant contributing factor in changing mean global
> temperatures. ...
Overwhelmingly?
Based on what?
Lies? and/or manipulation of data?
Consensus Ray....
> Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared
> to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor
> in changing mean global temperatures.
>
> About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and
> 82 percent the second.
About 90%
Why about?
why only 90%
Remember Galileo
I would bet 90% of astronomers believed we were the center of
everything...and if they didn't they were terrified to give their honest
opinion. Kinda like now...huh?
> In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists
> who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the
> causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
> Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest
> doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human
> involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing
> only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to
> global warming.
So you agree with me...those "scientists" working for the govt. thinkone
way and those working for petroleum think another...mixing politics and
science is VERY BAD Ray....very bad....
>
> He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by
> climatologists.
>
> "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess
> the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate
> science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and
> humankind's contribution to it."
The publications are flawed,,,that is the whole point....dude.
> Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the
> authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity
> is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and
> scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now,
> they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers
> and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among
> scientists.
Hey I have an idea...let's lie...they are to stupid...
PLEASE Ray...
Can you say unemployment?
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
annoying
out of phase with reality...what is the reality here?
That climate scientists make up evidence and report it in a way to
support a previously desired conclusion. Which causes the people to
believe in the "reality" of man-made global warming. I would agree that
the "reality" here is out of phase.
Excuse me if I attempt to get you to use your brain and think for
yourself...I didn't mean to.
Ray
Thank God we have disinterested, imtellligent, and informed people
with no political bias like you who understand the science better even
than people who have graduate degrees in this stuff, Annoying. It's
only people who are smart and educated and informed and politically
disintersted as you who can save Democracy from those Evil Climate
Scientists and their Evil Agenda to Take Over The World via a
Worldwide Conspiracy that has somehow eluded the entire scientific
establishment. Again thank God you are on the case, Bob - your country
needs you
Someday you'll be lauded as a visionary, I'll even estimate a prophet
Your time comin' anyday, we won't worry 'bout you no.
DGDevin
> Excuse me if I attempt to get you to use your brain and think for
> yourself...I didn't mean to.
Pot-kettle-black is so well-worn, and yet so appropriate so often.
I'm not a climate scientist therefore I don't pretend to *know* whether
man-made climate change is a certainty or not--unlike some folks who also
aren't climate scientists and yet act as if they are. But reducing
pollution from burning fossil fuels seems like a generally good idea, as
does not enriching nations that often do not have our best interests at
heart (while draining our own purse) by buying their oil, as does promoting
research into clean energy sources, as does encouraging conservation and so
on. It seems to me there are a bunch of good reasons to reduce fossil fuel
use even *if* man-made climate change isn't happening. But some folks
apparently like the idea of shipping umpteen billion dollars to hostile
regimes every year in exchange for a dirty energy source that will become
increasingly scarce as China and India demand more and more of it. Hmmmm,
what to do, what to do....
annoying
"somehow eluded the entire scientific establishment."
hahahhahaaa way too funny except that you are employing the same tactics
used by the manipulative pro man-made warming society.
Does it get any better?
annoying
As a conservative, I am for "conservation".
I am not for manipulation and the distribution of wealth.
I am for truth. As science is concerned, I would prefer the "scientific
method" as opposed to the science of consensus..which we are witnessing
is based on desired results.
Again, let me be clear.
I am all for conservation.
Throw out the manipulative liars.
DGDevin
> I agree with you...Ray does not.
I agree with Ray, not you.
BTW, the first time I posted my views on man-made climate change (as above),
Ray responded with "HRYK," so it appears he agrees with me a bunch.
> As a conservative, I am for "conservation".
Sadly many people who claim to be conservatives are for raping and pillaging
the Earth as fast as they can, either for their own self-gratification or
just for profit. Of course some liberals go through resources pretty fast
too, self-gratification isn't confined to the political right.
> I am not for manipulation and the distribution of wealth.
Human society is largely about manipulation and the distribution of wealth.
If you dislike that then move out to the desert someplace and grow your own
food and weave you own clothing and so on. You can defy the govt. all you
please on your little plot of land and odds are nobody will care--tear the
label off your mattress if you feel that wild.
> I am for truth. As science is concerned, I would prefer the
> "scientific method" as opposed to the science of consensus..which we
> are witnessing is based on desired results.
Right, 'cause it's all a huge conspiracy, those scientists are all afraid of
not getting any more grant money, or something. It's not like any of them
actually did any research on the subject, they're just anxious not to be
kicked out of the club.
> Again, let me be clear.
Oh blessed day.
> I am all for conservation.
There's one surefire way to get Americans to conserve, and we saw it in
action when gas hit five bucks a gallon recently. *Voluntary* conservation
seems to be somewhat more difficult.
> Throw out the manipulative liars.
We did, last November.
annoying
> annoying wrote:
>
>> I agree with you...Ray does not.
>
> I agree with Ray, not you.
>
> BTW, the first time I posted my views on man-made climate change (as above),
> Ray responded with "HRYK," so it appears he agrees with me a bunch.
>
>> As a conservative, I am for "conservation".
>
> Sadly many people who claim to be conservatives are for raping and pillaging
> the Earth as fast as they can, either for their own self-gratification or
> just for profit. Of course some liberals go through resources pretty fast
> too, self-gratification isn't confined to the political right.
Big deal.
>> I am not for manipulation and the distribution of wealth.
>
> Human society is largely about manipulation and the distribution of wealth.
> If you dislike that then move out to the desert someplace and grow your own
> food and weave you own clothing and so on. You can defy the govt. all you
> please on your little plot of land and odds are nobody will care--tear the
> label off your mattress if you feel that wild.
Your big mistake here is that, apparently, you believe that the govt(S)
should be the said distributor. Hippies for the govt. wow! A deadhead
talks of a communal setting and at the same time defends the govt.
Sweet!
>> I am for truth. As science is concerned, I would prefer the
>> "scientific method" as opposed to the science of consensus..which we
>> are witnessing is based on desired results.
>
> Right, 'cause it's all a huge conspiracy, those scientists are all afraid of
> not getting any more grant money, or something. It's not like any of them
> actually did any research on the subject, they're just anxious not to be
> kicked out of the club.
>
If it was a conspiracy, which are your words, there would be
evidence...right?
Insert head in the sand.
>> Again, let me be clear.
>
> Oh blessed day.
>
>> I am all for conservation.
>
> There's one surefire way to get Americans to conserve, and we saw it in
> action when gas hit five bucks a gallon recently. *Voluntary* conservation
> seems to be somewhat more difficult.
>> Throw out the manipulative liars.
>
> We did, last November.
>
Thats fair...
Obama doesnt lie...
Deficits wont go up.
Unemployment will not go above 8%.
We will close Guantanomo
Hey those wars? what about those 2 wars...?
11 months...
Next you will here we are adding troops to Afghanistan.
Because you know, the Iraq thing is over...Obama ended that.
How about his foreign policy?
Funny stuff.
>
Ray
> annoying wrote:
> > I agree with you...Ray does not.
>
> I agree with Ray, not you.
>
> BTW, the first time I posted my views on man-made climate change (as above),
> Ray responded with "HRYK," so it appears he agrees with me a bunch.
HRYK.
annoying
DGDevin
>>> I agree with you...Ray does not.
>>
>> I agree with Ray, not you.
>>
>> BTW, the first time I posted my views on man-made climate change (as
>> above), Ray responded with "HRYK," so it appears he agrees with me a
>> bunch.
>
> HRYK.
Why, Ray, why do we respond to this imbecile? What otherworldly hypnotic
power does he possess to compel otherwise sensible blokes like us to waste
time on his nonsensical pseudo-arguments?
sparksfly
That's what I was wondering, I tried my best to hijack this thread but
that didn't work out too well.
Mike
annoying
Why not add me?
annoying
Ohh I love a challenge...
It may be time to roll out the conservative army...you know those that
agree with me politically but hate the dead.
MAybe I can convince them to post here....
You know!
Maybe!
A posting at the right rwnw group will help my argument...?
I mean, if they post here in defense of my position....but wait...
Then this will turn into a group that isnt concerned mainly with GD stuff.
hmm
I have to work harder.....no...I have to work smarter.
marcman
> On Nov 21, 5:38 pm, sparksfly <mrbir...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:34 pm, annoying <jackstraw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ray,
>
> > > Sorry to bother you?
> > > Someone is spreading vicious lies:
>
> > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> For those not aware of the latest global warming "skeptic" brouhaha,
> someone has hacked into the private email records of a climate
> research facility in England and have posted on the internets some of
> what they claim to be un-doctored emails from said facility. I have
> no more idea whether said posted emails have been doctored or not, but
> to the extent that I've read said posted emails (which isn't much)
> proper context could change what is meant in them. As I don't know
> the full context either I can't yet say with certainty that they were
> taken out of context either, but global warming deniers, not
> surprisingly, have jumped to the conclusion that said emails
> demonstrate intentionally deceptive collusion - a conclusion that I
> personally very highly doubt for many reasons but again cannot be
> certain of at this time.
>
> More info here for anyone interested:
>
> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storyc...
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-co...
>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34176463/ns/us_news-environment/
Much less stable ice for polar bears, expert says
Survey by ship finds satellite data about thicker Arctic ice was wrong
Associated Press November, 27, 2009
Arctic sea ice conditions are even worse than feared after a survey
found that ice detected as older and thicker by satellites is actually
thin and fragile, a prominent Canadian researcher reported Friday.
University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said experts around the
world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed
it expanding, but the thick, multiyear frozen sheets have been
replaced by thin ice that cannot support the weight of a polar bear.
"Polar bears are being restricted to a small fringe of where this
multiyear sea ice is. As we went further and further north, we saw
less and less polar bears because this ice wasn't even strong enough
for the polar bears to stand on," said Barber, who returned from an
expedition to the Beaufort Sea in September.
Barber said permanent ice, which is normally up to 30 feet thick, was
easily pierced by the research icebreaker he and his team were on.
The deterioration has far-reaching consequences for the North and its
iconic mammal. Polar bears that rely on the permanent ice to survive
the summer have fewer and fewer places of refuge, said Barber, who has
been studying the Arctic ecosystem for 25 years.
Bears eating bears for food?
Scientists also said Friday that shrinking Arctic sea ice may be
forcing some hungry polar bears to cannibalize bear cubs.
At least seven cases of mature male polar bears eating bear cubs have
been spotted this year among the animals around Churchill, Manitoba,
said Ian Stirling, a retired Environment Canada biologist who
specializes in the Churchill bears.
Stirling said evidence suggests the cubs are being killed for food,
not just so the male can mate with the sow.
He said the Hudson Bay sea ice, which the bears use to hunt the seals
they consume to fatten up for winter, isn't appearing until weeks
later than it used to.
The sea ice findings, which are soon to be published in the peer-
reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters, come as a shock to
experts worldwide.
Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers
believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on
satellite images.
But the satellites the experts relied on were misleading because the
rotten ice looked sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial
temperature, Barber explained.
"The satellites give us only part of the story. The multiyear ice is
disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern
hemisphere."
Ice floe breaks up in 5 minutes
Barber said his team finally reached what it thought was stable ice,
only to watch a crack appear just as researchers were preparing to
descend onto the floe.
"As I watched, over the course of five minutes, the entire multiyear
ice floe broke up into pieces. This floe was 10 miles across," said
Barber, who holds the Canada research chair in Arctic science at the
University of Manitoba.
The ice is unable to withstand battering waves and storms because
global warming is rapidly melting it at a rate of 27,000 square miles
each year, he said.
Multiyear sea ice used to cover 90 percent of the Arctic basin, Barber
said. It now covers roughly 19 percent. Where it used to be up to 33
feet thick, it's now 6 feet at most.
The lack of sea ice may be good news to some who want to see the North
opened to industry. Without thick ice blocking the way, ships can more
easily gain access to the Arctic's natural resources.
"We were doing almost the same speed we'd do in open water through
what we thought was multiyear sea ice," Barber said. "Transportation
and all the issues of navigation across the pole all become very real
when you no longer have any multiyear sea ice."