Avdave Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 how many freaking times is the word "irrelevant" going to be misspelled in this thread? This is irreevelant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I may make it look bad, but posts like this make it look worse. That's a thin reed to grasp. I was content to take my drive-by shot and depart. You foul the nest and never leave. Have no fear: I'm done mixing metaphors in your honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 That's a thin reed to grasp. I was content to take my drive-by shot and depart. You foul the nest and never leave. Have no fear: I'm done mixing metaphors in your honor. well you took a shot at me I have to return the favor dude, or I'm a coward. "bethesda makes everything look bad"... I guess that means you think I'm awesome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 I evaluate stuff like this regularly as part of my job. it's pretty easy at this point to tell the kooks from the scientists. Ok, so lets say Jim Hansen wasn't a climate scientist, but instead was a biologist... but yet he still ran all of his "projects" for AGW with all the same data... is he then a "kook"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 you do realize that his academic training/degrees are in astronomy and astrophysics (under James Van Allen at the University of Iowa) and not climatology? yes, thats why he's with NASA....but his work revolves around predominately climate science nowadays. He is also a well known political activist who's been arrested countless times. So answer my question. A person who may not work in the field in mention, but yet may still be knowledgable enough on the subject to have a basic understanding. So qualifications are not reason to discriminate... actually you cannot discriminate based on qualifications, to an extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 accept the fact you really ****ed up with this thead, quit posting in it, and let it die out. I'm not sure Bethesda is entirely to blame for screwing up this thread...he just posted an article, crackpot or not, and then people went off at him. He was just presenting a piece of skeptic literature. Was it inaccurate and full of bias? Sure...but I think the responses should have focused more on taking apart the paper's theory regarding emissivity rather than ranting at Bethesda personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 qualifications are a reason to discriminate--the guy you cited in the first post isn't at an academic institution, it's unclear what degrees he actually holds, he has I think one peer-reviewed article, and he's essentially a crackpot. I know you think you are cutting edge and I am a fuddy duddy, but the truth is you know nothing about how to evaluate sources, and you have already said in this thread that I'm against new science. the fact is that isn't the truth at all and I'm working with some scientists on some truly ground-breaking and controversial science. but it's from scientists who have documented degrees and publishing histories, and it will be completely peer-reviewed. accept the fact you really ****ed up with this thead, quit posting in it, and let it die out. Any scientist can submit a paper to Peer Review if he/she wants to, whether its accepted or not is another story. But you judge the Paper based on the Science within, not where someone went to School, who he/she works for, etc. If you throw a paper out because he "went to this university", that is discrimination. If that is what the peer review system does (I doubt it), then its a Pathetic Load of crackass sh*t that doesn't deserve to even be mentioned. Thats the end of it really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm not sure Bethesda is entirely to blame for screwing up this thread...he just posted an article, crackpot or not, and then people went off at him. He was just presenting a piece of skeptic literature. Was it inaccurate and full of bias? Sure...but I think the responses should have focused more on taking apart the paper's theory regarding emissivity rather than ranting at Bethesda personally. The problem is Bethesda consistently posts garbage sources all over this forum when as nearly every poster in this thread has pointed out a basic understanding of what differentiates a source worthy of consideration from crackpot ramblings would spare us all of this nonsense. I could fill this forum with the rantings of pseudo-scientist crackpots if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean it is deserving of being posted or that I wouldn't be deserving of the scorn I would receive. After posting this, defending it despite the glaringly obvious errors and the crackpot author, and instead of backing down accusing people of being "high" "unable to read" etc. etc. etc. I'd say he was deserving of every ounce of condescension coming his way. When you're obviously in the wrong, back down shut up and think about why you are posting these sort of crackpot articles. Instead of some long overdue self examination, Bethesda throws back boatloads of irrational semi-comprehensible jiberish interspersed with his usual peppering of high-school insults. And as it turns out, trixie and the dozen other posts who pointed out he is obviously a crackpot were correct. A basic familiarity with climate science is enough to know that the guy's calculations are garbage. He thinks that the IPCC is wrong and that the top of the atmosphere receives energy at an average rate of 1368W/m2 instead of the actual 341W/m2 due to the spherical surface of the earth. He's literally a flat-earther and trixie et al. quickly were able to ascertain this through a bit of examination of the source. Anybody that can't recognize this within 5 seconds of beginning to read this crap needs to sit down shut up and think about why they are continually falling for and posting the rantings of crackpot old men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 The problem is Bethesda consistently posts garbage sources all over this forum Bethesda throws back boatloads of irrational semi-comprehensible jiberish interspersed with his usual peppering of high-school insults. BULLSHIIT, I've always used peer reviewed sources when backing up My Argument of AGW.....I dare you to find one non-peer reviewed article that I've ever posted to support my argument, DO IT! Its amazing how you feel you can freely LIE and not get called on it. I have so much I could say about you right now, and damn I'm ready to do it, but I have at least a small shred of decency. I've always posted peer reviewed sources when Backing up My arguments....this IS NOT something I ever agreed with! I posted it and got tangled in an argument on how the Peer review system works. What you've just said is a LIE, a blatant LIE. Don't make sh*t up about me, you hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The problem is Bethesda consistently posts garbage sources all over this forum when as nearly every poster in this thread has pointed out a basic understanding of what differentiates a source worthy of consideration from crackpot ramblings would spare us all of this nonsense. Right, but you aren't forced to read every thread/rebutt every skeptic paper that's posted. If you don't like or aren't interested in the message of a thread, then just leave it alone. And I don't think Bethesda claims to agree 100% with everything in this paper...he was just posting it as a point of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stellarfun Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Anybody who knows even a teeny bit of science would have immediately spotted flaws in the basic methodology. On July 3, 2010, at 10:00 hr (UT), the proportion of water vapor in the atmosphere at the location situated at 25º 48´ N lat. and 100 º 19’ W long., at an altitude of 513 m ASL, in San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, was 5%. The temperature of the air at an altitude of 1 m was 310.95 K and the temperature of the soil was 330 K. I chose this location, near my office, because it is an open field, far enough from the city and its urban effects. A.) Be suspicious of rounded values in a scientific paper; e.g., 5 percent. B.) The methodology used to determine the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere is not indicated. There are different methods, with different levels of measurement error. C. ) The air temperature and soil temperature are given precisely. 310.95K = 37.95C 330K = 57C D.) The time is given precisely. 10:00 UT which probably translates to about 3 AM in Mexico. The sun has long been down, and presumably any radiative absorption of solar rays has dissipated. E.) 57C = 134.6F 37.95C = 100.31F F.) A five percent saturation fraction of water at 38C would be life-threatening. G.) The man deserves a medal for taking measurements under such conditions. (Oh, San Nicolas de los Garza Mexico is about 200 miles west of Brownsville TX) ________________________________________________________________ No medals for parrots though. --Unless they are in kindergarten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 yes, thats why he's with NASA....but his work revolves around predominately climate science nowadays. He is also a well known political activist who's been arrested countless times. So answer my question. A person who may not work in the field in mention, but yet may still be knowledgable enough on the subject to have a basic understanding. So qualifications are not reason to discriminate... actually you cannot discriminate based on qualifications, to an extent. I have a basic understanding on how nuclear power plants operate, does that mean I can go work in one? Even though I have no degree in the field. BULLSHIIT, I've always used peer reviewed sources when backing up My Argument of AGW.....I dare you to find one non-peer reviewed article that I've ever posted to support my argument, DO IT! Its amazing how you feel you can freely LIE and not get called on it. I have so much I could say about you right now, and damn I'm ready to do it, but I have at least a small shred of decency. I've always posted peer reviewed sources when Backing up My arguments....this IS NOT something I ever agreed with! I posted it and got tangled in an argument on how the Peer review system works. What you've just said is a LIE, a blatant LIE. Don't make sh*t up about me, you hear? Angry BethesdaBoy is Angry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 BULLSHIIT Your posts are full of copy and pasting from skeptic blogs. I don't know if you think people don't notice this or what, but it's quite obvious that when you make these super-long posts and then I come across the same exact images and texts on blogs. So you are the one lying and I can quote hundreds of your posts to prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Your posts are full of copy and pasting from skeptic blogs. I don't know if you think people don't notice this or what, but it's quite obvious that when you make these super-long posts and then I come across the same exact images and texts on blogs. So you are the one lying and I can quote hundreds of your posts to prove it. Not only that, but I thought the peer-review process wasn't important because it is biased by the scientists doing the reviewing? So why the outrage??!!!11!!1!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Your posts are full of copy and pasting from skeptic blogs. I don't know if you think people don't notice this or what, but it's quite obvious that when you make these super-long posts and then I come across the same exact images and texts on blogs. So you are the one lying and I can quote hundreds of your posts to prove it. yeah, skeptic blogs with peer reviewed data and direct quotes like CO2 science...yeah! If that is "crap" to you, then you're a dipsh*t. Just like how you post Blogs from RealClimate and SkepticalScience. I suppose an alarmist blog is more trusting?!? Are you friggin kidding me? I don't go around posting crap articles from WUWT (and agree/support them) unless they're linked to a peer reviewed datasource. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 it's kind of sad how BB has ignored all of your posts debunking the "science" in this paper. This isn't even about the paper for me, and I never supported the paper, but I do support a logical argument. The science had already been put into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 This isn't even about the paper for me, and I never supported the paper, but I do support a logical argument. The science had already been put into question. If you don't support it and knew the paper was full of crap and incorrect science, then why did you clog up the Climate Change forum with it? Its just a waste of space and it does a disservice to real topics being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Not only that, but I thought the peer-review process wasn't important because it is biased by the scientists doing the reviewing? So why the outrage??!!!11!!1!!? I never said that either, quote where I said it. Just being a f**king liar with your head stuck up your a** doesn't do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 If you don't support it and know the paper was full of crap and incorrect science, then why did you clog up the Climate Change forum with it? Its just a waste of space and it does a disservice to real topics being discussed. I posted the paper out of mild interest at 230AM in the morning. Skiers Idea that I post "skaptic blog articles" it botched, he should say I post "peer reviewed skeptical articles". He is notorious for bending the facts. I garuntee you if you read back in the CC forum, you'll see all the sources I use to support my argument are peer reviewed, not some scientists paper that was published april 10th that I had no idea about until 2 nights ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I never said that either, quote where I said it. Just being a f**king liar with his head stuck up your a** doesn't do anything. GRRR ANGRY BETHESDA !!11!!!!1!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I never said that either, quote where I said it. Just being a f**king liar with your head stuck up your a** doesn't do anything. Okay... only the entire board saw that you did, so I won't push it further. Do you want a paper towel to wipe the spit off your keyboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 I have a basic understanding on how nuclear power plants operate, does that mean I can go work in one? Even though I have no degree in the field. Angry BethesdaBoy is Angry! 1) No its not the same as refusing to read a paper "because he went to this university", or "he's a Biologist", etc etc etc. 2) Yes I'm Angry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Okay... only the entire board saw that you did, so I won't push it further. Do you want a paper towel to wipe the spit off your keyboard? where did I say I agreed with this source, if thats what you're talking about? If its not, then yeah, quote something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 backtrack! backtrack! the fact is you have zero ability to discern the difference between real science and kookery. just stop making dumb threads. I posted it at 2AM and didn't even read it until the next day, how was I supposed to tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 where did I say I agreed with this source, if thats what you're talking about? If its not, then yeah, quote something You never explicitly said "I agree with this source." but that isn't what I said you said. You randomly brought Hansen into this and bashed the peer review process as unreliable since you claimed that scientists who are risking tenure will be biased in their reviewing - yet you then scream about how you use peer-reviewed science in order to try to gain credibility. So which is it - do you respect the process, or not? (Nevermind that you don't seem to know how it works, but that isn't important, I suppose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Sad when people need to make things up to pose an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I posted it at 2AM and didn't even read it until the next day, how was I supposed to tell? Maybe next time you will read it before posting it!! Makes you look even more foolish than you already are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 You never explicitly said "I agree with this source." but that isn't what I said you said. You randomly brought Hansen into this and bashed the peer review process as unreliable since you claimed that scientists who are risking tenure will be biased in their reviewing - yet you then scream about how you use peer-reviewed science in order to try to gain credibility. So which is it - do you respect the process, or not? (Nevermind that you don't seem to know how it works, but that isn't important, I suppose). I didn't do any of that, I used the word IF, giving a circumstance in which a biased report would be published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocoAko Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I posted it at 2AM and didn't even read it until the next day, how was I supposed to tell? Good idea. I think in the future I'll start lots of threads about articles I haven't even examined. That's a way to get healthy discussion on a messageboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 Maybe next time you will read it before posting it!! Makes you look even more foolish than you already are. Oh that makes me "foolish"? You have high standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.