Your post I responded to compared SS and global warming, thus my apples to oranges. I do not care about the economic effect of fighting climate change. It means absolutely nothing to me.
Last time I looked no one cared at all how much it cost to fight the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire. And for good reason. The costs were meaningless compared to the costs of not fighting.
I believe John Galkowski was able to totally explain your fact deprived status.
Since you have proven that you can read, and still make such comments, that, imho, makes you an ideologue.
BTW, in terms of rankexploits. Any climate science blog that has a link to roy spencer should be ignored. Pielke is close to that level, but Spencer is a total ah who knows less than me and has embarrassed himself countless times over the years with his “science”.
Geez, you might as well link to wattsupwiththat or Joe Bastardi.
EMichael, that’s what I expected. No actual knowledge of the science just ideology. Also, I’m detecting a pattern when challenged by some one with alternative views you attack them and not the view. Kinda shallow.
I’m glad you explained you apples and oranges comment with your own”…cost to fight the Third Reich or the Japanese.” The sheer depth of your thinking is also amazing FOR AN ECONOMICS BLOG: “I do not care about the economic effect of fighting climate change. It means absolutely nothing to me.”
Your lack of understanding of the science and deep ideological bent is evidenced with your belittling of authors of many, many peer reviewed papers, Spencer, Pielke Sr, and even Watts.
List the peer reviewed papers of Watts, Pielke and Spencer on climate science that have not been thoroughly debunked as sheer garbage that make any point at all.
I have no intention of reading any and all papers you throw up here.
Please include with any list you decide to put up a short synopsis of what “point it makes” and then I will take a look at a couple. Please feel free to point out the most earth shaking paper you can find from these giants of climate science.
Be aware that I am a long way from being a scientist of any kind, but I can read. And I have spent a lot of time reading the drek from those people. Mainly for the humor, but often to ponder the sheer commercialism which is clearly the purpose of their writings.
EMichael, as I thought you have no knowledge from which to draw and are continuing the pattern of attacking. You appear unaccustomed to being challenged when making unsupported claims. Or just out shouting anyone who tries.
I have no intention of assigning you reading for which you will just shuck and jive making more meaningless and unsupported claims.
Either you know something or you don’t, and so far you not showing any skill/knowledge at all.
And jeez CoRev can you find a single instance of “shuck and jive” that doesn’t have some sort of racial connotation? Apart from the desparate attempts of former half term governor ‘Barracuda’ Palin to rescue it?
Here is a hint. If you are going to use a dog whistle don’t hook it up to a frequency shifter and an amplifier. Because it isn’t only the dogs ears that hurt.
Of course maybe making ‘libtards’ ears hurt is the point.
Bruce, I can actually find many non-racial uses for shuck and jive. Can you? Or is calling someone racist the last resort fro liberals? Wait, I’ll bet we can find see lower, I’ll just wait here for them.
EMichael, still in the shallows, I see. When you find some depth in your thinking/commenting come on back.
“”I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world…”
“”I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”
EMichael, you continue to reinforce the original impression of having nothing to discuss about the science. I like you do not agree with Spencer’s views re: evolution, but how does it impact his climate science work?
Care to discus the background of the Watt’s comment? BTW, to which Pielke do you refer? You do know they each are luke warmers?
Can you guys come to EV and take Hans back?
I mean, other than being a foul mouthed, fact deprived ideologue he isn’t that bad.
My sincere apologies EMichael…
EMichael, your comment to me on the Global Warming thread was also: ” fact deprived ideologue”. Do you intend to answer my question re: your point?
CoRev,
Your post I responded to compared SS and global warming, thus my apples to oranges. I do not care about the economic effect of fighting climate change. It means absolutely nothing to me.
Last time I looked no one cared at all how much it cost to fight the Third Reich or the Japanese Empire. And for good reason. The costs were meaningless compared to the costs of not fighting.
I believe John Galkowski was able to totally explain your fact deprived status.
Since you have proven that you can read, and still make such comments, that, imho, makes you an ideologue.
BTW, in terms of rankexploits. Any climate science blog that has a link to roy spencer should be ignored. Pielke is close to that level, but Spencer is a total ah who knows less than me and has embarrassed himself countless times over the years with his “science”.
Geez, you might as well link to wattsupwiththat or Joe Bastardi.
Oh…….wait…..
EMichael, that’s what I expected. No actual knowledge of the science just ideology. Also, I’m detecting a pattern when challenged by some one with alternative views you attack them and not the view. Kinda shallow.
I’m glad you explained you apples and oranges comment with your own”…cost to fight the Third Reich or the Japanese.” The sheer depth of your thinking is also amazing FOR AN ECONOMICS BLOG: “I do not care about the economic effect of fighting climate change. It means absolutely nothing to me.”
Your lack of understanding of the science and deep ideological bent is evidenced with your belittling of authors of many, many peer reviewed papers, Spencer, Pielke Sr, and even Watts.
hehehehhehe
List the peer reviewed papers of Watts, Pielke and Spencer on climate science that have not been thoroughly debunked as sheer garbage that make any point at all.
I’ll take a look.
BTW,
I have no intention of reading any and all papers you throw up here.
Please include with any list you decide to put up a short synopsis of what “point it makes” and then I will take a look at a couple. Please feel free to point out the most earth shaking paper you can find from these giants of climate science.
Be aware that I am a long way from being a scientist of any kind, but I can read. And I have spent a lot of time reading the drek from those people. Mainly for the humor, but often to ponder the sheer commercialism which is clearly the purpose of their writings.
EMichael:
Usually CoRev comes with homework assignments and not interpretations. When are you going to write something for us?
EMichael, as I thought you have no knowledge from which to draw and are continuing the pattern of attacking. You appear unaccustomed to being challenged when making unsupported claims. Or just out shouting anyone who tries.
I have no intention of assigning you reading for which you will just shuck and jive making more meaningless and unsupported claims.
Either you know something or you don’t, and so far you not showing any skill/knowledge at all.
Shorter CoRev:
“Wah, wah, tuquoque”
And jeez CoRev can you find a single instance of “shuck and jive” that doesn’t have some sort of racial connotation? Apart from the desparate attempts of former half term governor ‘Barracuda’ Palin to rescue it?
Here is a hint. If you are going to use a dog whistle don’t hook it up to a frequency shifter and an amplifier. Because it isn’t only the dogs ears that hurt.
Of course maybe making ‘libtards’ ears hurt is the point.
All in all, that worked out great!
Bruce, I can actually find many non-racial uses for shuck and jive. Can you? Or is calling someone racist the last resort fro liberals? Wait, I’ll bet we can find see lower, I’ll just wait here for them.
EMichael, still in the shallows, I see. When you find some depth in your thinking/commenting come on back.
“”I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world…”
Dr. Roy Spencer
“”I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”
Anthony Watts
Hard to come up with a short description of Pielke’s word games, which is basically what his science(political) comes down to.
One straw man created after another which he knocks down and claims victory and some knowledge of the subject.
He may be the worse of all of them.
EMichael, you continue to reinforce the original impression of having nothing to discuss about the science. I like you do not agree with Spencer’s views re: evolution, but how does it impact his climate science work?
Care to discus the background of the Watt’s comment? BTW, to which Pielke do you refer? You do know they each are luke warmers?
EMichael,
You and your arrogance are stuck in the 80’s: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee9f9c395970d-300wi
CoRev,
You know exactly the background of Watts comment.
Pielke, jr. And luke warmers by any other name still smell the same.
Sammy,
Silly, totally inaccurate graph. Try to do better.