USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[mobes23]

Incorrect.

But you can hear in his voice that Dr. Carlin, who got his undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and his PhD in economics from MIT, is not easily silenced.

A regular crackpot. I'm sure "barfo" and "mobes23" know more than a 38 year veteran of the EPA.

Demonize the opponent. Straight from the playbook. Nice job, fellas.

Mobes/barfo? Did you go to CalTech or MIT? Have you worked for the EPA for 38 years?

Nope. But I also don't claim to be more of an expert than anyone but you, econ boy. That said, I've got a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry and have forgotten more about science than you'll ever know. Put me up against the general population and I can easily hold my own.

 

[barfo]

Here's a chance for global cooling believers to make (or lose) some money:

$25/day whenever the temperature is more than 1 degree lower than average

barfo

 

[barfo]

In the 1970's, Newsweek magazine published a cover story asking if the world was about to enter another ice age? That's how much the so-called "experts" know about global climate. For God's sake, the weathermen can't even predict the weather accurately two days from now. How can anyone tell what is going to happen 5, 10, or 20 years down the road?

And while I'm linking to Nate Silver, here's his rebuttal to Shooter's Newsweek thing. It's a fun read. And it has graphs! Oh boy!

There's just one little problem with this story, which reappears every so often in conservative discourse on the environment. Specifically, it's a crock of shit.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Nope. But I also don't claim to be more of an expert than anyone but you, econ boy. That said, I've got a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry and have forgotten more about science than you'll ever know.

Well, that settles it. I'm "econ boy", and you can't refute the data I've presented, nor the data that Carlin has presented. As I said earlier, if you are a "scientist", then science means nothing at this point in terms of finding answeres.

[/QUIOTE]Put me up against the general population and I can easily hold my own.[/QUOTE]

Really? You keep calling me "econ boy" without knowing a thing about me or my degrees. You seem to be struggling with "econ boy", however. Does an Ph. D. in analytical chemistry mean much these days? I thought chemists like controlled settings instead of random data.

 

[PapaG]

And while I'm linking to Nate Silver, here's his rebuttal to Shooter's Newsweek thing. It's a fun read. And it has graphs! Oh boy!




barfo

While you're at it, why not continue to smear Dr. Alan Carlin? Since you're on the Google and all. Or you could just continue to ignore his (along with others') report that was shelved by Obama's EPA.

This isn't political though, right?

 

[Minstrel]

While you're at it, why not continue to smear Dr. Alan Carlin? Since you're on the Google and all. Or you could just continue to ignore his (along with others') report that was shelved by Obama's EPA.

This isn't political though, right?

Carlin isn't a climate scientist. Why would his report have weight?

 

[PapaG]

Carlin isn't a climate scientist. Why would his report have weight?

Carlin is a 38 year analyst for the EPA with a BS in Physics from Cal Tech and a Ph. D. in economics from MIT.

Why not let his report out into the public, since he's paid by the public?

 

[barfo]

While you're at it, why not continue to smear Dr. Alan Carlin?

Why not, indeed? He seems to be asking for it. If you make an idiot of yourself in public, you shouldn't be surprised if someone takes note. If you wanted to spare his sensitive feelings, you shouldn't have brought him into this discussion.

Since you're on the Google and all. Or you could just continue to ignore his (along with others') report that was shelved by Obama's EPA.

As has been mentioned several times, the EPA didn't ask for his report, so shelving it isn't particularly unusual. Do you think if I send them a 98-page rant they should publish that too?

This isn't political though, right?

Are you claiming that your interest in the subject is purely scientific?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Why not, indeed? He seems to be asking for it. If you make an idiot of yourself in public, you shouldn't be surprised if someone takes note. If you wanted to spare his sensitive feelings, you shouldn't have brought him into this discussion.

That's an opinion. Have you read his report that he co-authored with EPA scientists? How is he "asking for it" by merely interpreting available data?

As has been mentioned several times, the EPA didn't ask for his report, so shelving it isn't particularly unusual. Do you think if I send them a 98-page rant they should publish that too?

If you were an EPA analyst for 38 years, I'd expect to at least give you the courtesy of a public airing. Have you been an EPA analyst for 38 years, barfo? Has this guy been a waste of money for 38 years, barfo?

Are you claiming that your interest in the subject is purely scientific?

Yes, it is. I've seen nobody refute the data that has been presented the past 10 years. Even the analytical chemist has to resort to cheap shots and ad hominem attacks.

barfo

Was this post really worth you tagging it?

 

[barfo]

Carlin is a 38 year analyst for the EPA with a BS in Physics from Cal Tech and a Ph. D. in economics from MIT.

Why not let his report out into the public, since he's paid by the public?

Why doesn't he just put it on the web, if he wants the public to see it?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Why doesn't he just put it on the web, if he wants the public to see it?

barfo

Because he was paid by the EPA, and he had to have his manager approve it. The manager subsequently suppressed it. Why are you smearing this man, barfo?

barfo

 

[barfo]

That's an opinion. Have you read his report that he co-authored with EPA scientists?

Nope. I thought you said it wasn't publicly available. I mean, isn't that what you've been complaining about?

If you were an EPA analyst for 38, I'd expect to at least give you the courtesy of a public airing. Have you been an EPA analyst for 38 years, barfo?

I already told you I've never worked for the EPA. So, in your mind, any 38-year employee at the EPA deserves to have the government publish, at taxpayer expense, whatever he wants?

Yes, it is. I've seen nobody refute the data that has been presented the past 10 years. Even the analytical chemist has to resort to cheap shots and ad hominem attacks.

Because you don't respond to actual scientific arguments. For example, I pointed out that you were confusing US temperatures with global temperatures. You changed the subject.

Was this post really worth you tagging it?

Huh? If I tagged it it was an accident, because I don't actually know how to tag a post.
Edit: Oh, I see. You meant tag in the sense of signing my name. Whatever.

barfo

 

[mobes23]

Well, that settles it. I'm "econ boy", and you can't refute the data I've presented, nor the data that Carlin has presented. As I said earlier, if you are a "scientist", then science means nothing at this point in terms of finding answeres.

[/QUIOTE]Put me up against the general population and I can easily hold my own.

Really? You keep calling me "econ boy" without knowing a thing about me or my degrees. You seem to be struggling with "econ boy", however. Does an Ph. D. in analytical chemistry mean much these days? I thought chemists like controlled settings instead of random data. [/QUOTE]

Oh, I've refuted plenty -- you're just too ignorant to know it. You've had plenty of chances to give your background, but you've only hid behind your B.S. (which sometimes loosely translates to "I was too lazy to learn a language, so I took basic stats and calc for idiots and got my B.S. instead of a B.A.) Really, I dont' need to know your actual major because your understanding of science is clearly lacking. And anyway, econ would be too hard for you if you had to take econometrics. Sociology or P.E. are probably closer to the truth.

Analytical chemists have a need for controlled settings? A laugher how far you are off on that. Although, it is true we don't like random data -- we generally prefer to have at least some signal. Good boy! You got one right.

 

[PapaG]

Nope. I thought you said it wasn't publicly available. I mean, isn't that what you've been complaining about?

Why are you smearing the man?

I already told you I've never worked for the EPA. So, in your mind, any 38-year employee at the EPA deserves to have the government publish, at taxpayer expense, whatever he wants?

Moreso than your opinion, and at least with a review. Has Carlin been fired yet?

Because you don't respond to actual scientific arguments. For example, I pointed out that you were confusing US temperatures with global temperatures. You changed the subject.

That was a red herring. My argument is about the CO2 man-made emissions versus temperatures rising.

Huh? If I tagged it it was an accident, because I don't actually know how to tag a post.

barfo

barfo likes to smear men who merely gave their entire life to the EPA because they filed a 98 page report that questioned the "science" behing the global warming bulls**t.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

Really? You keep calling me "econ boy" without knowing a thing about me or my degrees. You seem to be struggling with "econ boy", however. Does an Ph. D. in analytical chemistry mean much these days? I thought chemists like controlled settings instead of random data.

Oh, I've refuted plenty -- you're just too ignorant to know it. You've had plenty of chances to give your background, but you've only hid behind your B.S. (which sometimes loosely translates to "I was too lazy to learn a language, so I took basic stats and calc for idiots and got my B.S. instead of a B.A.) Really, I dont' need to know your actual major because your understanding of science is clearly lacking. And anyway, econ would be too hard for you if you had to take econometrics. Sociology or P.E. are probably closer to the truth.

Analytical chemists have a need for controlled settings? A laugher how far you are off on that. Although, it is true we don't like random data -- we generally prefer to have at least some signal. Good boy! You got one right.[/QUOTE]

Do analytical chemists know how to format a post prior to posting it? The rest is gobbledy gook. Refute Carlin's work, or don't. Stop making me the object of your derision.

I bolded this because your quote formatted this way.

 

[Minstrel]

Carlin is a 38 year analyst for the EPA with a BS in Physics from Cal Tech and a Ph. D. in economics from MIT.

That's a fine education. It still doesn't make him a climate scientist.

Why not let his report out into the public, since he's paid by the public?

As long as it's labeled as an outsider's look at climate science, sure. It shouldn't be marketed as serious climate science, since that would be misleading.

 

[PapaG]

That's a fine education. It still doesn't make him a climate scientist.



As long as it's labeled as an outsider's look at climate science, sure. It shouldn't be marketed as serious climate science, since that would be misleading.

Al Gore's movie is shown in many classrooms as an educational fact. That's not misleading though, right?

barfo

 

[mobes23]

Yes, it is. I've seen nobody refute the data that has been presented the past 10 years. Even the analytical chemist has to resort to cheap shots and ad hominem attacks.

Lol. You can keep saying nobody refutes your data over and over again. Doesn't make it any more true the 15th time.

Cheap shot or calling it like I see it. You know (and we know) you're playing Mr. Science in this thread and that you're in over your head. Call it a day or actually take the time to understand this stuff instead of spouting off like an idiot.

 

[barfo]

Why are you smearing the man?

I just answered that question. Don't you read my posts? If not, you are really missing out, I tell you.

Moreso than your opinion, and at least with a review. Has Carlin been fired yet?

Moreso than my opinion? Sure... but I'm not asking the EPA to publish my opinion, so that's a pretty silly point to make.

I have no idea whether he's been fired.

That was a red herring. My argument is about the CO2 man-made emissions versus temperatures rising.

Your own point was a red herring? Do you even know what red herring means?

barfo likes to smear men who merely gave their entire life to the EPA because they filed a 98 page report that questioned the "science" behing the global warming bulls**t.

I don't know that I like it, but I certainly don't mind it.

If it was any other government employee, you'd be saying something like "sucked off the teat of the taxpayers for 38 years".

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I just answered that question. Don't you read my posts? If not, you are really missing out, I tell you.



Moreso than my opinion? Sure... but I'm not asking the EPA to publish my opinion, so that's a pretty silly point to make.

I have no idea whether he's been fired.



Your own point was a red herring? Do you even know what red herring means?



I don't know that I like it, but I certainly don't mind it.

If it was any other government employee, you'd be saying something like "sucked off the teat of the taxpayers for 38 years".

barfo

You have to make up my position. Good night.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Al Gore's movie is shown in many classrooms as an educational fact. That's not misleading though, right?

Classrooms show "Gandhi" despite it not being exactly right, historically. It's part of the current educational philosophy to mix education and entertainment. Edutainment, it's called. It's certainly something you can criticize, if you're so inclined.

But, no, Gore's film is not climate science, either.

minstrel

 

[mobes23]

Refute Carlin's work or don't? Does that mean we've moved past your flippin' plot? Praise Jesus.

But here we go again.

Step 1. PapaG posts link or plot to something he doesn't understand and demands that it be refuted
Step 2. It is refuted.
Step 3. PapaG says it is not refuted.
Step 4. It is refuted again with additional reasons.
Step 5. PapaG says it is not refuted.
Step 6. PapaG repeats step 5 in perpetuity in the hope that someone, anyone (including himself) might believe it.

 

[PapaG]

Lol. You can keep saying nobody refutes your data over and over again. Doesn't make it any more true the 15th time.

You haven't refuted the data. Saying it 15 times doesn't make it any less true.

Cheap shot or calling it like I see it. You know (and we know) you're playing Mr. Science in this thread and that you're in over your head. Call it a day or actually take the time to understand this stuff instead of spouting off like an idiot.

I'm not spouting off "like an idiot". I am offering data sets and reports that question anthropogenic global warming. You give me "maybes" and "perhaps" as an answer, without any proof.

This is hilarious. You may want to reevaluate your level of education, "Mr. Scientist".

 

[PapaG]

Refute Carlin's work or don't? Does that mean we've moved past your flippin' plot? Praise Jesus.

But here we go again.

Step 1. PapaG posts link or plot to something he doesn't understand and demands that it be refuted
Step 2. It is refuted.
Step 3. PapaG says it is not refuted.
Step 4. It is refuted again with additional reasons.
Step 5. Papag G says it is not refuted.
Step 6. Papag repeats step 5 in perpetuity in the hope that someone, anyone (including himself) might believe it.

Six steps, just like the Scientific Method which you ignore in this thread.

Make it about me, mobes23. Don't take on Carlin's work, or the CO2 versus temp data from the last ten years.

 

[barfo]

You have to make up my position. Good night.

I don't have to make up your position. I've seen your posts. Nighty-night.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I don't have to make up your position. I've seen your posts. Nighty-night.

barfo

You're a smear merchant. Good night.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You're a smear merchant. Good night.

That is absolutely untrue. I provide smears free of charge to all who qualify.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

I don't have to make up your position. I've seen your posts. Nighty-night.

barfo

You're a smear merchant. Good night.

barfo

wtf? Which of you is barfo?

One of you is awfully confused.

 

[barfo]

wtf? Which of you is barfo?

I'm not sure anymore. Why are you refusing to refute my graph?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

wtf? Which of you is barfo?

One of you is awfully confused.

I am barfo. Or is he barfo? I can't tell by the actual post.

barfo