[opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince

  • From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:43:05 -0800

I remember when the delta was 617 or so.  I note that you have only
addressed the part that favors your party.

What a fool you are, Bob.  You must work at it.  Trying to suppress somebody
doesn't make them credible.  The person could actually be wrong, but that
would make you believe they are right.  Indeed, this may be you raison d
etre (with apolgies to anyone literate in French.)

John Willkie, who is not a member of any party these days, and who has never
been a Republican (they're too liberal for my taste)

-----Mensaje original-----
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Bob Miller
Enviado el: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:36 PM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince

In line comment...

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM, John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> ALL of the NASA errors discovered and reported so far are in the direction
> of "reporting" hotter temperatures.  In other words, these cannot be
called
> "errors" since errors would tend to be in both directions, and would be
> somewhat evenly distributed in both directions.
>
How many errors are we talking about? I can throw five tails in a row
and it would be totally normal and expected in any significant sample.
More likely we have dedicated bloggers looking for ONLY one kind of
error, that which supports their position, that NASA is "lying" about
hotter temperatures. If we had equally dedicated bloggers looking for
NASA errors showing colder temperatures maybe they would find even
more and balance things out.

October was still significantly warmer relative to the historical
record even after the error was corrected.

> (See also the "found ballots" and other "errors" that before the recount,
> have added votes to Al Franken, with no errors accruing to the benefit of
> Norm Coleman.)
>
This in the Star Tribune today.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/34701314.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4
O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

"The board confirmed that, with all the state's 87 counties reporting,
Coleman leads Franken by 215 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes
cast. After county canvasses showed a margin of 206, Coleman gained an
additional 25 votes, and Franken 16, from a post-election audit of
voting machines in 205 randomly-selected precincts."

Where did you find that only Franken had "found" more ballots? Seems
Coleman is doing better so far in the "found" department. Maybe you
are only looking for reports you like.

> NASA/Hansen have ZERO credibility on this.  They should instead be
> repurposed to trying to lower the "kill rate" of Space Shuttle missions,
> something where they tend to kill employees and others.
>
> A 3.8% (or so) catastrophic failure rate is significant, and not just to
the
> families of the dead.
>
> NASA/Hansen are, simply, lying.  At least, unlike Al Gore, they haven't
> failed every science course they ever took, so they should know better.
>
You may suggest that Hansen has zero credibility on your meter, I give
him about 98% just because the Bush Administration tried to muzzle
him. In this Scientific American article your friend quoted below,
Christopher Booker, is called the "patron saint of charlatans". I will
take their take over yours. Booker likes asbestos also, thinks its
healthy.

So you give Hansen "ZERO" credibility I give him 98%. I give
Scientific American 100% credibility and Booker ZERO. What credibility
rating would you give Booker and why do you like breathing in
asbestos?

Lets see, Hansen works for NASA as a climatologist and speaks out
about what he believes despite pressure from his superiors. NASA has
has accidents because because various members did not speak out about
doubts as to O rings and foam break away issues so Hansen has no
credibility. Twisted logic and/or guilt by association? Lots of that
going around.

> Which is worse, apathy or ignorance?  Lying to the ignorant would be
worse.
>
Apathetic lazy lying to the informed would be worse. It makes one look
pathetic.

Bob Miller


> John Willkie
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
> nombre de John Shutt
> Enviado el: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:12 PM
> Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610
> .xml
>
> The world has never seen such freezing heat
> By Christopher Booker
>
> A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about
the
>
> temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming.
> On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run
> by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four
> bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last
> month was the hottest October on record.
>
> This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow
> and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to
> China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency
> reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US,
the
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local
snowfall
>
> records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as
> only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
>
> So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed
> to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees
> higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading
> warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began
detailed
> analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason
for
>
> the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and
> elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the
> previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months
running.
>
> The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run
by
>
> the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian
computer
>
> analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey
> stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the
> confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in
> Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in
a
>
> month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast
> from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more
extensive
> than at the same time last year.
>
> A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the
> Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that
GISS
>
> did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it
> was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published
> by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the
> UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote
> its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since
they
>
> consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
>
> If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm
over
>
> global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in
> 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again
> and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over
the
> dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for
supporting
> the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired
power
>
> station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new
> power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
>
> Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's
> methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts
> and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface
temperatures,
>
> to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as
he
>
> had claimed, but the 1930s.
>
> Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC,
> who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that
> global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than
ever,
> in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In
fact,
>
> as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent
> years and since 2007 have dropped.
>
> Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate
> science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis
of
> such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of
> the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which
> may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for
> thought.
>
>
>
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.


 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: