If you *truly* were interested in independent thought and independent politics/ideology, you would at least stop and consider that maybe those whom you oppose have arguments with at least some merit (if not in delivery, then at least in concept).
Haha, you really missed the point of this:
in the sense of learning about exactly what makes your ears burns and leaves a pit in your stomach
And who said I'm self-educated. You have no idea, right? right!
Haha, I think it was a joke =0. All my politics steams from a scientific epistemology, which means I have little sympathy for what the GOP has become in recent years. If you are interested in understand the world, you'd put down your favorite media, and educate yourself, in the sense of learning about exactly what makes your ears burns and leaves a pit in your stomach, most smart people cannot do that, and the ability to do that is was separates a person to actually know something.
I assume you understand why someone might want to mandate (1), (2), and (3), and you also realize the impact to everyone. Not saying that I agree with these issues, but am saying that I think you really don't understand them, but are sure you know who the bad guys are.
Wow, that makes you sound far better than the average sheeple out there. I mean, you couldn't possibly be being lead around by the nose. Said every ideologue in all of history.
Deference to authority *and* paranoia have strong biological bases. So is thinking we're better than others. It's amazing how much of ourselves we reveal in just a few words.
In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone.
That's not really true. There will be big changes for the coal/oil industry, but most people wouldn't notice the difference of a transition to a low carbon economy. The notion that there will be huge changes and destructive regulations is just a tired little canard that gets pulled out by every industry that is facing down government interference. Remember, regulating CFCs and SO2 was also supposed to *ruin* the economy. The US government could not build one aircraft carrier to pay for the needed infrastructure.
"Skeptics" talking science is like listening to New Agers go on about the quantum theory of consciousness. They both think the science is on their side. Both have a few crank scientists who support their cause. The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work.
Lambdas are syntactic sugar, but a well flavored one.
Lambda are the one feature that keeps me using C++. Once you grok functional programming, you'll never do with out. Writing whole functor classes is a huge amount of work, and error prone, for the type of things I need them for. There's a reason why old C++ code didn't make heavy use of them -- yet if you go into the world of functional programming, they are everywhere, and your code is much shorter and more predictable.
My old supervisor was convinced that a certain portion of people simply don't ever make the cognitive leap.
And the one that frantically pleaded with the respondent to "delete all emails" was perfectly innocent, too.
(1) What are you talking about?
(2) Did you ever bother to get both sides?
(3) Smear campaigns are the fall back for those who cannot make an academic argument.
Regarding Sullivan's assertions about the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Mann's lawyer basically said the guy is serially wrong, and doesn't know what he is talking about, and I quote:
Response from my lawyer in response to latest claims by #TimBall (more info on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/timo...) & #JohnOSullivan (more inf on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/affi... ):
The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief.
Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true.
Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process.
February 22, 2014
Roger D. McConchie
Barrister and Solicitor
Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann
You live in a world of made-up "facts". Presumably you *think* you are if your beliefs are wrong or right. Presumably.
I'm not going to watch your 17 minute propaganda piece.
aka, protecting one's ignorance. Everyone does it.
The fact remains, scientists should not be trying to hide anything
Nothing was hidden in the sense that publications, data, methods, or computer programs were hidden. What was "hidden" was a signal that was already demonstrated to be false. The "hide the decline" incident is a perfect example of brohaha over precisely *nothing*. There is a lot of shame there, if you are a believer, which makes a huge obstacle for actually discovering the truth of the situation. But if you actually care if your beliefs are right or wrong, then that will be stronger still.
Mann has better things to do than being beaten over the head by the kindergarten level thinking behind the "Hide the decline" incident. If there was an honest debate, then that would be fine. But this is really the case of the absurdly stupid wasting everyone's time and money.
I find it bizarre that under all of this motivated reasoning is the notion that AGW must be wrong because it would be immoral for the government to regulate carbon. So of course Mann has to hand over his emails. It's really a distraction from the core issue. If you can make a scientific argument against Mann's science, then do it. Cooch is obviously engaged in a fishing expedition to shit-coat Mann with kindergarten level attacks, and the judge was savvy to it. Cry me a river.
The cooch was looking for some email saying something like "I can't explain this result", so that he can shit-coat Mann's career a little bit more. You can bet your bottom dollar -- as the history of the "debate" clearly shows -- skeptics will not bother to understand what Mann couldn't explain at that particular point of time. That's why we don't allow fishing expeditions, and the judge was savvy to it.
Everything the tax payer paid for is available. Mann is under no obligation to hand over proprietary documents, and the judge agreed. Think you know better than the judge? Of course you do.
But the kicker is that you don't seem to understand that this is just a fishing expedition, to find something, *anything*, to take out of context and shit-coat Mann's career. It is the recourse of people who cannot make an intellectual argument against AGW, but think they are correct anyway. The cognitive dissonance is resolved by asserting the Mann et al. are really corrupt, and then set out to prove it.
Historical correspondence between scientists is more often harolded for its benefits to the scientific community than for any fear of political backlash.
When someone is ready to write the memoirs of Michael Mann, then I'm sure his emails will be of interest. But that is not what is going on here. There is a lot of motivated reasoning bent on a smear campaign. This isn't about what is good for posterity at all. If "skeptics" are so sure of themselves, then they should publish their arguments. But that hasn't worked out so well for them, and hence this court case.
As someone who does research for a living, I can say we already do outline exactly the thought process behind the research. It is called a publication. That is what it is. You try hundreds of things, and when you get something working, you go back through your work, and try to explain it in the clearest possible way.
Haha, and I think we should see all emails and have recorded communications for all agreements and deals made *everywhere* in the government and between governments!
Yes it would be great to be a fly on the wall for some conversations.
Yes it would be impossible to negotiate anything if everything was made public 100% of the time. Sure they'd just do what BushW did, which is use unofficial email addresses to conduct the business of government.
The publicly funded research *is* available, including all non-proprietary data-sets, and some proprietary data sets. It is very easy to prove me wrong. Just find a single instance of publicly funded research by Mann, where said was not made available. What is at issue in the court case is the notion of a fishing expedition, which is *not* legal, and the judge agreed.
Slashdot Mirror
If you *truly* were interested in independent thought and independent politics/ideology, you would at least stop and consider that maybe those whom you oppose have arguments with at least some merit (if not in delivery, then at least in concept).
Haha, you really missed the point of this:
in the sense of learning about exactly what makes your ears burns and leaves a pit in your stomach
And who said I'm self-educated. You have no idea, right? right!
Haha, I think it was a joke =0. All my politics steams from a scientific epistemology, which means I have little sympathy for what the GOP has become in recent years. If you are interested in understand the world, you'd put down your favorite media, and educate yourself, in the sense of learning about exactly what makes your ears burns and leaves a pit in your stomach, most smart people cannot do that, and the ability to do that is was separates a person to actually know something.
I assume you understand why someone might want to mandate (1), (2), and (3), and you also realize the impact to everyone. Not saying that I agree with these issues, but am saying that I think you really don't understand them, but are sure you know who the bad guys are.
Not with a revenue neutral carbon tax.
The "public" is conditioned
Wow, that makes you sound far better than the average sheeple out there. I mean, you couldn't possibly be being lead around by the nose. Said every ideologue in all of history.
Deference to authority *and* paranoia have strong biological bases. So is thinking we're better than others. It's amazing how much of ourselves we reveal in just a few words.
Well I believe in pixies, and I'm right and you are not. Now, what does science have to say on the pixie issue? WHO CARES!!!!
A revenue neutral carbon tax would have none of these effects. Your number (5) is just catastrophiying.
In order to enact meaningful carbon reduction legislation things have to change for everyone.
That's not really true. There will be big changes for the coal/oil industry, but most people wouldn't notice the difference of a transition to a low carbon economy. The notion that there will be huge changes and destructive regulations is just a tired little canard that gets pulled out by every industry that is facing down government interference. Remember, regulating CFCs and SO2 was also supposed to *ruin* the economy. The US government could not build one aircraft carrier to pay for the needed infrastructure.
"Skeptics" talking science is like listening to New Agers go on about the quantum theory of consciousness. They both think the science is on their side. Both have a few crank scientists who support their cause. The vast majority of scientists just shake their heads and get back to work.
Methane's time course is about 2 years. CO2 lasts for 1000s of years. That makes is a much worse problem.
Lambdas are syntactic sugar, but a well flavored one.
Lambda are the one feature that keeps me using C++. Once you grok functional programming, you'll never do with out. Writing whole functor classes is a huge amount of work, and error prone, for the type of things I need them for. There's a reason why old C++ code didn't make heavy use of them -- yet if you go into the world of functional programming, they are everywhere, and your code is much shorter and more predictable.
My old supervisor was convinced that a certain portion of people simply don't ever make the cognitive leap.
(1) Where any emails deleted?
(2) Did you ever get the other side of the story
(3) Smears the the fallback for not being able to make an academic argument.
And the one that frantically pleaded with the respondent to "delete all emails" was perfectly innocent, too.
(1) What are you talking about?
(2) Did you ever bother to get both sides?
(3) Smear campaigns are the fall back for those who cannot make an academic argument.
no one can actually use that data to reproduce the results he originally presented.
At this link you can find references to about 10 different independent reconstructions that find the same result as Mann.
Regarding Sullivan's assertions about the ongoing lawsuit, Michael Mann's lawyer basically said the guy is serially wrong, and doesn't know what he is talking about, and I quote:
Response from my lawyer in response to latest claims by #TimBall (more info on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/timo...) & #JohnOSullivan (more inf on him here: http://www.desmogblog.com/affi... ): The review of Tim Ball’s new book by Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan makes preposterous statements concerning Dr. Michael Mann’s lawsuit in the British Columbia Supreme Court against Tim Ball and other defendants. The Mann lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase, with further examinations for discovery (depositions) of the defendants to be scheduled shortly, following which I will either set the action for trial by jury in the usual manner, or bring a summary trial application on behalf of Dr. Mann for damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Ball has not set the matter for trial and there is no motion by Ball currently before the Court. The allegation by Schreuder and O’Sullivan that Dr. Mann has refused to show his metadata and calculations in open court is not true. Their assertion that Dr. Mann faces possible bankruptcy is nonsense. Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball and other defendants is proceeding through the normal stages prescribed by the BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and Dr. Mann looks forward to judicial vindication at the conclusion of this process. February 22, 2014 Roger D. McConchie Barrister and Solicitor Legal Counsel to Dr. Michael Mann
You live in a world of made-up "facts". Presumably you *think* you are if your beliefs are wrong or right. Presumably.
I'm not going to watch your 17 minute propaganda piece.
aka, protecting one's ignorance. Everyone does it.
The fact remains, scientists should not be trying to hide anything
Nothing was hidden in the sense that publications, data, methods, or computer programs were hidden. What was "hidden" was a signal that was already demonstrated to be false. The "hide the decline" incident is a perfect example of brohaha over precisely *nothing*. There is a lot of shame there, if you are a believer, which makes a huge obstacle for actually discovering the truth of the situation. But if you actually care if your beliefs are right or wrong, then that will be stronger still.
Hide what decline, precisely
Mann has better things to do than being beaten over the head by the kindergarten level thinking behind the "Hide the decline" incident. If there was an honest debate, then that would be fine. But this is really the case of the absurdly stupid wasting everyone's time and money.
I find it bizarre that under all of this motivated reasoning is the notion that AGW must be wrong because it would be immoral for the government to regulate carbon. So of course Mann has to hand over his emails. It's really a distraction from the core issue. If you can make a scientific argument against Mann's science, then do it. Cooch is obviously engaged in a fishing expedition to shit-coat Mann with kindergarten level attacks, and the judge was savvy to it. Cry me a river.
The cooch was looking for some email saying something like "I can't explain this result", so that he can shit-coat Mann's career a little bit more. You can bet your bottom dollar -- as the history of the "debate" clearly shows -- skeptics will not bother to understand what Mann couldn't explain at that particular point of time. That's why we don't allow fishing expeditions, and the judge was savvy to it.
Everything the tax payer paid for is available. Mann is under no obligation to hand over proprietary documents, and the judge agreed. Think you know better than the judge? Of course you do.
But the kicker is that you don't seem to understand that this is just a fishing expedition, to find something, *anything*, to take out of context and shit-coat Mann's career. It is the recourse of people who cannot make an intellectual argument against AGW, but think they are correct anyway. The cognitive dissonance is resolved by asserting the Mann et al. are really corrupt, and then set out to prove it.
Historical correspondence between scientists is more often harolded for its benefits to the scientific community than for any fear of political backlash.
When someone is ready to write the memoirs of Michael Mann, then I'm sure his emails will be of interest. But that is not what is going on here. There is a lot of motivated reasoning bent on a smear campaign. This isn't about what is good for posterity at all. If "skeptics" are so sure of themselves, then they should publish their arguments. But that hasn't worked out so well for them, and hence this court case.
As someone who does research for a living, I can say we already do outline exactly the thought process behind the research. It is called a publication. That is what it is. You try hundreds of things, and when you get something working, you go back through your work, and try to explain it in the clearest possible way.
Haha, and I think we should see all emails and have recorded communications for all agreements and deals made *everywhere* in the government and between governments!
Yes it would be great to be a fly on the wall for some conversations.
Yes it would be impossible to negotiate anything if everything was made public 100% of the time. Sure they'd just do what BushW did, which is use unofficial email addresses to conduct the business of government.
The publicly funded research *is* available, including all non-proprietary data-sets, and some proprietary data sets. It is very easy to prove me wrong. Just find a single instance of publicly funded research by Mann, where said was not made available. What is at issue in the court case is the notion of a fishing expedition, which is *not* legal, and the judge agreed.
Lakoff is an ideologue, but that the authoritarian personality is also a conservative in these modern times.