Good Bye Lois!

[BAR]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
scandal-retires

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
retires/?1

I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Why? Good report from a conservative outlet. I especially liked
this, and didn't expect it from Breitbart.com regarding the IRS probe.

"However, investigators have released no evidence showing that anyone
outside the IRS ordered the targeting or knew it was happening".

[BAR]

In article <7vg149tjbpmjaah85...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

They got to her and told her she was going to take the fall for everyone. What I would like
to see is a 1st amendment case against her violation of civil rights.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Mr. know-it-all gives his inside information again. LOL

>What I would like >to see is a 1st amendment case against her violation of civil rights.

As if.

[BAR]

In article <g4r14918jfo4nmmqc...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

If you know how things work it isn't hard to figure out how the discussion went.

>
> >What I would like >to see is a 1st amendment case against her violation of civil rights.
>
> As if.

It will happen.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

What a joke. Only you know how things work, right? Pitiful you
think you know everything.

[Don Kirkman]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

>
>

You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
"Thinking is hard work, which is why you don't see
a lot of people doing it."
--Kinsey Milhone

[Moderate]

bkn...@conramp.net Wrote in message:

And you call me a whiner?


--

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Monday, September 23, 2013 9:16:25 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
>
> They got to her and told her she was going to take the fall for everyone.

That never was really possible, because the law was known to have ambiguous guidance.

In any event, you've also forgotten that she was a career, not a political appointee, so there wasn't much of a reason to stay.

And the irony is that because of the current right-wing politics which are trying to reduce the size of government, she may have gotten a $25,000 VERA/VSIP departure bonus.

FWIW, I've also done a rough calculation on what her retirement pension probably is...but probably shouldn't mention it because it will just invoke ... well, let's be clear: JEALOUSY. However, this emotion will actually be disguised as "Outrage" for what appears to be an overly generous package with screams for reform. Well guess what buddy? That system already was reformed, back in 1984 - its just that there still are a few left in the old system that were grandfathered. In addition, let's also look around at private industry for what the going rate is for an equivalent position - - you'll find that the pre-retirement pay was roughly 1/2 of the Market ...but that can't be raised because there's a petty little rule that says that no regular career employee can be paid more than the base rate of a Freshman Congressman.


-hh

[BAR]

In article <6ov149lvjdhhthqdj...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Obviouslly you don't know how things work.

[BAR]

In article <p8a249pprqdbj65nk...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...

>
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
> >scandal-retires
> >
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
> >retires/?1
> >
> >I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.
>
> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.

With so many issues I have been proved correct and you lefties/liberals/progressives have
been proved wrong.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:27:35 -0500 (CDT), Moderate <nom...@nospam.com>
wrote:

And an idiot. Where's a whine? Your vocabulary is about the third
grade level.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 8:29:55 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
> >
> > You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
>
> With so many issues I have been proved correct and you
> lefties/liberals/progressives have been proved wrong.

Do you know what summertime skydivers and trolls have in common?


-hh

[bkn...@conramp.net]

To begin with I know how a spell check works, then unlike you I admit
that I don't know how everything works.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Only you think that.

[MNMikeW]

The lamestream media quit reporting on the IRS scandal almost three
months ago.

[MNMikeW]

And here you are, WHINING, about his vocabulary.

[MNMikeW]

Don Kirkman wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
>> scandal-retires
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
>> retires/?1
>>
>> I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.
>
> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
>

They usually do when dealing with liberals.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Both of you are ignorant. Look up the word. There's no complaint,
only an observation or a critique.

I expect this from Bert and Mod, but you Mike?
You're smarter than that.

[MNMikeW]

: to complain in an annoying way

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Here's what I said to Bert, which you obviously don't understand.

>>>>>> What a joke. Only you know how things work, right? Pitiful you
>>>>>> think you know everything.

A question and a comment.
There's no complaint there
You need a refresher course in the English language.

[John B.]

Because there was nothing new to to report.

[MNMikeW]

There were several things actually. Like this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/18/irs-continued-to-target-tea-party-groups-after-granting-them-tax-status/

[MNMikeW]

You need to stop whining.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LOL. I'd have to start first.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Lamestring media at it's zenith.

[Don Kirkman]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:29:55 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

Name a few of those issues.

[la...@pivotforpower.com]

On Monday, September 23, 2013 3:36:49 PM UTC-7, BAR wrote:
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
>
> scandal-retires
>
>
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
>
> retires/?1
>
>
>
> I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.

Issa has already said she will be back testifying to his committee. And she will be held (and jailed) for contempt of Congress if she clams up. She really screwed up when she made that opening statement.

This bitch implemented Obama's highly partisan use of government power to win the election-- by slowing contributions to Republican candidates. She did IMMENSE harm to this country. She belongs in jail.

Larry

[Alan Baker]

In article <e4de9879-99d2-4920...@googlegroups.com>,

But Watergate was just a little hotel break-in....

...riiiiiiiiiight.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Carbon]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:51:29 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:29:55 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>> In article <p8a249pprqdbj65nk...@4ax.com>,
>> don...@charter.net says...
>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-
heart-of-tea-party-scandal-retires
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-

official-tea-party-scandal-retires/?1

>>>>
>>>> I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill
>>>> the messengar.
>>>
>>> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
>>
>> With so many issues I have been proved correct and you
>> lefties/liberals/progressives have been proved wrong.
>
> Name a few of those issues.

Hell, name one of those issues.

[BAR]

In article <cmj3491jebkfuevk9...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...

>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:29:55 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <p8a249pprqdbj65nk...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
> >> >scandal-retires
> >> >
> >> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
> >> >retires/?1
> >> >
> >> >I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.
> >>
> >> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
> >
> >With so many issues I have been proved correct and you lefties/liberals/progressives have
> >been proved wrong.
>
> Name a few of those issues.

You keep score on what I say, why don't you rattle off a couple of dozen.

[BAR]

In article <ffeecb2d-7b26-4385...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

Because they didn't like where the evidence was taking the investigation. The IRS concluded
that Lois was not performing her job properly and pushed her out. They, the Obama admin,
would like Lois to be the sacrifical lamb and not have the tentacles reach further.

[Alan Baker]

In article <MPG.2cabffbdd...@news.giganews.com>,

BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:

> In article <cmj3491jebkfuevk9...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net
> says...
> >
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:29:55 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <p8a249pprqdbj65nk...@4ax.com>,
> > >don...@charter.net says...
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart
> > >> >-of-tea-party-
> > >> >scandal-retires
> > >> >
> > >> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official
> > >> >-tea-party-scandal-
> > >> >retires/?1
> > >> >
> > >> >I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the
> > >> >messengar.
> > >>
> > >> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
> > >
> > >With so many issues I have been proved correct and you
> > >lefties/liberals/progressives have
> > >been proved wrong.
> >
> > Name a few of those issues.
>
> You keep score on what I say, why don't you rattle off a couple of dozen.

Your ducking is noted.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

LMAO. You can't even think of one. Lame dodge.

[Don Kirkman]

No, it's time you fish or cut bait. Your boast, your job to prove it.

[BAR]

In article <54u449l08m7rpq3em...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...

>
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 21:00:32 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <cmj3491jebkfuevk9...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 08:29:55 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <p8a249pprqdbj65nk...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 18:36:49 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/23/IRS-official-at-heart-of-tea-party-
> >> >> >scandal-retires
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/23/lois-lerner-irs-official-tea-party-scandal-
> >> >> >retires/?1
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I expect you lefties, liberals, progressives and Democrats to kill the messengar.
> >> >>
> >> >> You expect a lot of irrational things to happen.
> >> >
> >> >With so many issues I have been proved correct and you lefties/liberals/progressives have
> >> >been proved wrong.
> >>
> >> Name a few of those issues.
> >
> >You keep score on what I say, why don't you rattle off a couple of dozen.
>
> No, it's time you fish or cut bait. Your boast, your job to prove it.

I am sure that you and your alleged superior research skills and ability can figure it out.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Ha! It doesn't take a lot of figuring to observe your absolute
blindness to truth. You dodge issues like the above because you have
nothing. You being correct on many issues? That's the amusement I
look for from you.

[John B.]

After you.

[John B.]

Oh, is that it? Well, I guess you would know.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

More of Bert the Simple's faulty ESP.

[Don Kirkman]

It ain't in my job description.

[BAR]

In article <o3i649dn1bdrlotca...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...

It isn't in my job description either.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Actually, per USENET traditions it is:

He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.


-hh

[bkn...@conramp.net]

I find that to be the case in any area.

[Moderate]

recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:

> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
>> In article
>>

>> It isn't in my job description either.
>
> Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
>
> He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
>
>
> -hh
>

How about global warming?


http://tinyurl.com/pyomunr

Seriously you leftists rarely get it right and never admit you
were wrong.

AB and Carbon's analysis of the battle in Benghazi was epic
stupidity. Hand to hand combat in a single compound? Try doing
some research. Read.
--

[Alan Baker]

In article <l1vour$m16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

So you've just decided to tacitly capitulate and start deflecting...

[Don Kirkman]

Ergo, no proof of another inane boast.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:10:27 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>> >>
>> >> No, it's time you fish or cut bait. Your boast, your job to prove it.
>> >
>> >I am sure that you and your alleged superior research skills and ability can figure it out.
>>
>> It ain't in my job description.
>
>It isn't in my job description either.

What's a job?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:01:15 -0700, Don Kirkman <don...@charter.net>
wrote:

But there were so many of those issues not to remember at least one.
:-)

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> In article <l1vour$m16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Moderate <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
>> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >>
>> >> It isn't in my job description either.
>> >
>> > Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
>> >
>> > He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
>> >
>> >
>> > -hh
>> >
>>
>> How about global warming?
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/pyomunr
>>
>> Seriously you leftists rarely get it right and never admit you
>> were wrong.
>>
>> AB and Carbon's analysis of the battle in Benghazi was epic
>> stupidity. Hand to hand combat in a single compound? Try doing
>> some research. Read.
>> --
>
> So you've just decided to tacitly capitulate and start deflecting...

I told the truth like I always do. I knew you would provide a
response to confirm my post.

--

[Alan Baker]

In article <l1vraq$rki$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

You lied by omission.

The subject under discussion was BAR's claim that:

"With so many issues I have been proved correct and you
lefties/liberals/progressives have been proved wrong."

No surprise that you snipped that out.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:43:36 PM UTC-4, Moderate wrote:
> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
> >>
> >> It isn't in my job description either.
> >
> > Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
> >
> > He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
>

> How about global warming?

Perhaps .. but to be relevant, you will need to provide the relevant citation where I've made a claim on the topic of global warming. Better yet, it needs to have been in <rec.sport.golf> and the icing on the cake is if it is temporally contemporary and associated.

Otherwise, you're just attempting a lame change of subject with a "Goal Post Move".

The ball is in your court. This offer expires in 24 hours.


-hh

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

> In article <l1vour$m16$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> Moderate <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
>> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >>
>> >> It isn't in my job description either.
>> >
>> > Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
>> >
>> > He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
>> >
>> >
>> > -hh
>> >
>>
>> How about global warming?
>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/pyomunr
>>
>> Seriously you leftists rarely get it right and never admit you
>> were wrong.
>>
>> AB and Carbon's analysis of the battle in Benghazi was epic
>> stupidity. Hand to hand combat in a single compound? Try doing
>> some research. Read.
>> --
>
> So you've just decided to tacitly capitulate and start deflecting...

What? How about you admit you were dead wrong about the battle of
Benghazi?

You can't be honest. It is somehow absent from your DNA.

--

[Moderate]

I won't time to find a citation from you so if you are the only
liberal on this newsgroup who didn't buy into the global warming
conspiracy I apologize.

The rest of them can suck it. Hahaha.


--

[Alan Baker]

In article <l1vv03$3tf$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Ignoring that you are busy deflecting from the subject at hand, nothing
you've claimed that I said is true.

>
> You can't be honest. It is somehow absent from your DNA.

Where did I say "hand to hand" or say that the fighting was "in a single
compound"?

Quote me and let's see the references.

[Alan Baker]

In article <l1vvdd$4os$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

Again, ignoring your initial deflection, I'd like you to produce a
relevant quote of my thoughts on global warming...

[Carbon]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:39:48 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <l1vvdd$4os$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Moderate
> <nom...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:43:36 PM UTC-4, Moderate wrote:
>>>> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't in my job description either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
>>>>
>>>> How about global warming?
>>>
>>> Perhaps .. but to be relevant, you will need to provide the relevant
>>> citation where I've made a claim on the topic of global warming.
>>> Better yet, it needs to have been in <rec.sport.golf> and the icing on
>>> the cake is if it is temporally contemporary and associated.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, you're just attempting a lame change of subject with a
>>> "Goal Post Move".
>>>
>>> The ball is in your court. This offer expires in 24 hours.
>>

>> I won't time to find a citation from you so if you are the only liberal
>> on this newsgroup who didn't buy into the global warming conspiracy I
>> apologize.
>>
>> The rest of them can suck it. Hahaha.
>

> Again, ignoring your initial deflection, I'd like you to produce a
> relevant quote of my thoughts on global warming...

Or mine.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:33:49 PM UTC-4, Moderate wrote:
> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:43:36 PM UTC-4, Moderate wrote:
> >> recscub...@huntzinger.com Wrote in message:
> >> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >> It isn't in my job description either.
> >> >
> >> > Actually, per USENET traditions it is:
> >> >
> >> > He who makes the claim is expected to substantiate it.
> >>
> >> How about global warming?
> >
> > Perhaps .. but to be relevant, you will need to provide
> > the relevant citation where I've made a claim on the
> > topic of global warming. Better yet, it needs to have
> > been in <rec.sport.golf> and the icing on the cake
> > is if it is temporally contemporary and associated.
> >
> > Otherwise, you're just attempting a lame change of subject with a "Goal Post Move".
> >
> > The ball is in your court. This offer expires in 24 hours.
>

> I won't time to find a citation from you ...

A bit garbled there ... do you mean that you won't _bother_ to find the time to substantiate your claim?

Or are you trying to claim that you don't 'have the time' to do so, despite all of the posts that you've made which is evidence to the contrary?

> ...so if you are the only liberal on this newsgroup who didn't buy

> into the global warming conspiracy I apologize.

Goodness, did you _just_ now also try to call me a 'liberal'? You're now going to need Yet Another citation...

...BTW, perhaps if you kept your mouth closed a bit more, you would "have the time" ;-)

> The rest of them can suck it. Hahaha.

Unfortunately, you're not disrespecting the other participants of this newsgroup: by illustrating how you're unwilling to substantiate your own claims, what you're showing is that you disrespect yourself.


Oh, and BTW, this just was in the press yesterday (& dated this past Tuesday). I've only read the headline, so I reserve opinion on its scientific validity:

<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/95-certainty-warming-means-scientists-20357334>

How much do you know about the statistical science of 'Confidence Intervals'?


-hh

[MNMikeW]

You continually use the term "deniers". Your thoughts are well known.

[Alan Baker]

In article <baiuon...@mid.individual.net>,

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/author$3Acarbo
n$20deniers>

"No results found"

[MNMikeW]

No, Bert. You're a charter member of the global warming deniers club,
even though you have no idea if the theory is valid or not.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.sport.golf/fkv0tV7E3eg%5B226-250-false%5D


I did not make any claims about AGW one way or the other. But Horvath did.
Like so many global warming deniers, he knows next to nothing about the
subject and yet is awash in certainty. It's funny.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/global$20warming$20deniers/rec.sport.golf/Yhi1HAvKcQ8/xLUPZ6xRODMJ


You're a global warming denier too. Figures.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/rec.sport.golf/XwSOX11l7cg%5B1-25-false%5D

[Alan Baker]

In article <bajcte...@mid.individual.net>,

Hey... ...at least it got you to support a claim...

...for a change.

[MNMikeW]

And you get to look like an ass as usual. Back to the shitbucket.

[Carbon]

Do you have a better term for people who deny the existence of global
warming?

[Carbon]

Is there something wrong with the term global warming denier when applied
to people who deny the existence of global warming?

[Horva...@net.net]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:32:14 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:

>I did not make any claims about AGW one way or the other. But Horvath did.
>Like so many global warming deniers, he knows next to nothing about the
>subject and yet is awash in certainty. It's funny.
>

>You're a global warming denier too. Figures.

You are a liar. I never denied global warming. In fact I stated that
the Earth has been warming for 12,000 years and at one time my
property was covered in hundreds of feet of ice.

[MNMikeW]

Realists.

[MNMikeW]

No worse that global warming alarmist I guess.

[MNMikeW]

Thats Carbons quote, take it up with him. And yes the earth has been
warming for thousands of years. Except for the last couple decades.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

This is a topic that in which I haven't been involved because unlike
many I know what I don't know about it. But there are some pretty
smart people that do know a lot about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-climate-ipcc-idUSBRE98L0KD20130927

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Similarly, it isn't my field, but my own includes depth in Statistics, so when I read that these specialists are confident enough in their conclusions to state a 95% Confidence Interval, that's pretty much a lock: it means that they have large statistical samples with no significantly meaningful unresolved anomalies.

To provide a relevant reference point, I'm presently running a project where our objectives include obtaining the mean & variance of an interaction with an 80% confidence, and this confidence requirement means that our sample size requirement of just under n=500, as we're able to employ a technique by which we're able to transform the Go/NoGo output into variable data. If we couldn't transform, this would have to be done as an attribute test, and the sample size for 80% would grow to n=1600000 (yes, I said 1.6 million).

So...back to the question of "Do you have a better term for...?", my humorous suggestion would be:

'People who are bad at math'.

A bit more seriously, the level of Statistics required is college undergraduate level in a scientific field ... ie, its a tad above the often-watered-down-and-split-into-two-Semesters Stats class that's offered to business majors.


-hh

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT),
recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote this crap:

>
>A bit more seriously, the level of Statistics required is college
> undergraduate level in a scientific field ... ie, its a tad above
> the often-watered-down-and-split-into-two-Semesters
> Stats class that's offered to business majors.

How true you are. I was a math major in college. I took types of
math that you don't even know exist.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:22:38 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT),
>recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote this crap:
>
>>
>>A bit more seriously, the level of Statistics required is college
>> undergraduate level in a scientific field ... ie, its a tad above
>> the often-watered-down-and-split-into-two-Semesters
>> Stats class that's offered to business majors.
>
>How true you are. I was a math major in college. I took types of
>math that you don't even know exist.

Too bad you didn't learn enough to get a degree.
>

[Don Kirkman]

Part of the error in all the analysis is that short term ("couple of
decades") observations are immaterial to the long term trend.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
"Thinking is hard work, which is why you don't see
a lot of people doing it."
--Kinsey Milhone

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.09...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...

Global warming/climate change has proved to be nothing more that an attempt to fund research.
Back in the 70's the Earth was heading towards the next Ice Age within about 25 years. It
didn't happen. What makes you think the "scientists" are correct this time?

[BAR]

In article <baldl0...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...

I want to know where the category 5 hurricanes are this year. Wait a minute, we haven't had
any Huricanes in the Atlantic this year but two category 1 hurricanes. One didn't make
landfall and the other was centered on the East Coast of Mexico. Al Gore is always wrong.

[Alan Baker]

In article <MPG.2cafd2c6c...@news.giganews.com>,

His reply doesn't make that claim.

[BAR]

In article <e9db491i0e0q21k5s...@4ax.com>, don...@charter.net says...

>
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:58:14 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Horva...@net.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:32:14 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
> >> this crap:
> >>
> >>> I did not make any claims about AGW one way or the other. But Horvath did.
> >>> Like so many global warming deniers, he knows next to nothing about the
> >>> subject and yet is awash in certainty. It's funny.
> >>>
> >>> You're a global warming denier too. Figures.
> >>
> >> You are a liar. I never denied global warming. In fact I stated that
> >> the Earth has been warming for 12,000 years and at one time my
> >> property was covered in hundreds of feet of ice.
> >>
> >>
> >> This signature is now the ultimate
> >> power in the universe
> >>
> >Thats Carbons quote, take it up with him. And yes the earth has been
> >warming for thousands of years. Except for the last couple decades.
>
> Part of the error in all the analysis is that short term ("couple of
> decades") observations are immaterial to the long term trend.

What is your definition of long term? In geological time 1,000,000 years may be considered
significant.

[BAR]

In article <pan.2013.09...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>, nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com
says...
>

Smart and intelligent.

[BAR]

In article <d52b49hnmh21ibhs3...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

When you have to manipulate the data to match your preconceived conclusion everything becomes
suspect.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

And just how would your little mind know that this was done? These
people actually went past high school Bert.

[Carbon]

Most of you anti-AGW types have no more clue than I do whether it's valid
or not. But you're absolutely positive that it's wrong. I don't see how
realist could possibly apply. Dreamer? Ideologue? Oh wait, I have one:
denier.

[Carbon]

I've had people insist that all the climatologists who believe AGW is real
(yes, all of them) are participants in a vast conspiracy designed to
extract grant money from gullible governments and businesses. They never
explained how they arrived at this conclusion, instead claiming it was so
obvious that no proof was required.

[Carbon]

Are you hoping you're making a point about something?

[bkn...@conramp.net]

In every post. Odds are it just may happen some day :-)

[John B.]

Proved? Proved by whom?

[BAR]

In article <8c3c491ro72t88ec8...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

Because their results have not been duplicated by anyone. Many have looked at the pretty
graphs and taken them at face value.

[Horva...@net.net]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:43:19 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote this
crap:

>
>I want to know where the category 5 hurricanes are this year.
>Wait a minute, we haven't had
>any Huricanes in the Atlantic this year but two category
> 1 hurricanes. One didn't make
>landfall and the other was centered on the East Coast of
> Mexico. Al Gore is always wrong.

I'd like to have the money he's making from the dumbasses who pay to
listen to his bizarro fairy tales.

Scientists are making big bucks for their research on GW. Don't
expect them to start telling the truth.


There's no need to fear if Trunky is near.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

How would you know? Shit, you can't even spell.

[BAR]

In article <omdc49l99aqpd5vqk...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

If their results had been duplicated you and your alamrist friends would be parroting the
results.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

This report WAS the duplication you moron. If you had taken your head
out of your ass and read it you'd know that. That's if you could
understand the big two and three syllable words.

[BAR]

In article <lbpd495p15vrv67l3...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

The IPCC report? You have got to be kidding.

[bkn...@conramp.net]

Yes, the IPCC. The internationally recognized, Nobel Prize winning,
authority on climate change. They have been challenged since 2008 and
this is the latest report with their findings. Get used to it. Humans
are definitely adding to global warming.

[Alan Baker]

In article <reqd49h4em9p2hgiu...@4ax.com>,

You should take a look at this:

<http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/
over%20estimate.pdf>

[John B.]

What is your point? That these contrarian scientists are correct all the others
are wrong?

[Alan Baker]

In article <89ea187c-b9cc-46b4...@googlegroups.com>,

What "contrarian" scientists.

That's a comparison of the temperature change predicted by the
"consensus" with the ACTUAL temperature change...

...and 114 of 117 models got it wrong.

But moreover, they all got it wrong in the same way: hotter.

[John B.]

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for people like you, who summarily
reject all the evidence of anthropogenic global warming and stick to
some pitiful fantasy about a vast conspiracy all the world's climate
scientists to falsify their research in order to get research money.
It's hard to believe that such thinking exists in 2013. You are truly
pathetic.

[Alan Baker]

In article <222d0692-ade5-4660...@googlegroups.com>,

There doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy for there to be a bias, John.

[BAR]

In article <reqd49h4em9p2hgiu...@4ax.com>, bkn...@conramp.net says...

The report is more political than scientific.

[BAR]

In article <222d0692-ade5-4660...@googlegroups.com>, john...@gmail.com
says...

It appears that the number of poeple on my side of the issue is growning while those on your
side of the issue are seeing that all of your, the royal your, predicitons have failed to
materialize.

Just recently, about an hour ago my brother-in-law and his leftie friends where whining about
unchecked progressive power. These leftie/liberal/progressive/democrats were whining about
their taxes going up too quickly and without contest and they are wanitng the Republican
party to become stronger and more forceful. Interesting turn of events when the
libera/leftie/progressive/Democrats crying about their own policies.