Nate Silver, the statistician who attained national fame for his accurate projections about the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, is parting ways with The New York Times and moving his FiveThirtyEight franchise to ESPN, the sports empire controlled by the Walt Disney Company…

At ESPN, Mr. Silver is expected to have a wide-ranging portfolio. Along with his writing and number-crunching, he will most likely be a regular contributor to “Olbermann,” the late-night ESPN2 talk show hosted by Keith Olbermann that will have its debut at the end of August. In political years, he will also have a role at ABC News, which is owned by Disney…

Before creating statistical models for elections, Mr. Silver was a baseball sabermetrician who built a highly effective system for projecting how players would perform in the future. For a time he was a managing partner of Baseball Prospectus.

At public events recently, he has expressed interest in covering sports more frequently, so the ESPN deal is a logical next step.

Mr. Silver’s three-year contract with The Times is set to expire in late August and his departure will most likely be interpreted as a blow to the company, which has promoted Mr. Silver and his brand of poll-based projections…

Speculation about the future of Mr. Silver and FiveThirtyEight heated up shortly after last November’s election, and he was wooed by no small number of other news organizations. Jill Abramson, the newspaper’s executive editor, and Mark Thompson, the chief executive of The New York Times Company, said earlier this year that they would try hard to sign Mr. Silver to a new contract…

He occasionally hinted in interviews and public appearances that his relationship with The Times had moments of tension. But it was mutually beneficial. The news organization gained Web traffic and prestige by hosting his work, and he received a salary, a wider audience and editorial support.

The same will most likely be true at ESPN.

Given that ESPN had the smarts to hire Nate Silver away from the TIMES, I also imagine the last couple of sentences will be true at ESPN. In another few weeks the new Fox Sports channel will debut and NBC’s first season of carrying sports from around the whole world will kick off with start of the English Premier League season.



  1. MikeN says:

    According to the Public Editor, his style of writing was too disruptive. Journalists didn’t like that he was being promoted and given additional staff. He thought political punditry was a waste of time. He just didn’t fit in to the culture there. There’s also the possibility that he didn’t want to be writing columns that are pressured by the culture to say the Democrats will do well in the next elections. He has already moved Republicans to a 50-51 Senate seat guess.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Dumb Ass Mikey==making everything political including this time: math.

    Yes Math.

    Silverthemanandthemoney is just an example of what ANYONE can do if they understand math. IE==people NOT like Mikey. Figures silly hoomans are trying to make him a cult figure as if he possessed some magic==or a target of political stupidity.

    Silly Hoomans. What did I just see?==only 25% of humans “believe” in “pure evolutionary theory.” The idea that evolution happened naturally without the direction of god??? Yes, my friends, evidently 75% of your fellow homo saps still think science is magic known only to limited shamans. The same 75% who think AGW is a fraud to get grant money.

    Stupid People. What ya gonna do??? Can’t really shoot them on their way home.

    • MikeN says:

      ConFused again.

    • MikeN says:

      To make it clear, Nate Silver’s analysis is leading him towards predicting Republican gains, indeed his last article gave Republicans a better result than the one before it and majority control of the Senate, but not based on a model yet. Also, Silver is a liberal who would not like to report such a result. On top of that, unlike two years ago, his fellow reporters and most of his readers would not like to read such a thing and some number would be mad at him for reporting it. I surmise that he would not want to be in such a situation.

    • Bobbo, Do you think you are fooling anyone with fake correlations? Don’t answer.

      • Guyver says:

        Bobbo, Do you think you are fooling anyone with fake correlations? Don’t answer.

        Hitler has been noted as saying: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

        Bobbo is hoping that the same will happen for correlation is causation (fake or otherwise). He’s been doing it for some time now. 🙂

  3. MikeN says:

    So what happens to the 538 blog without Silver? Are they going to give it to Krugman?

    • Tim says:

      ESPN is buying, not licensing, it.

      “”Three high-level political writers at the paper had criticized him to her, apparently unhappy with his data-based style of prognostication (which embarrassed so many gut-based prognosticators).

      “”if you were saying (and many prominent folks were), that “I can feel that this election is a lot closer than Silver’s percentages,” Nate Silver made you look ridiculous.

      http://entertainment.time.com/2013/07/22/there-is-a-99-45-chance-that-nate-silver-is-changing-journalism/

      Also, I don’t know what his politics are but who would want to remain at a has-been rag behind a paywall?

  4. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Mikey–so much the paid retard he can’t even imagine someone devoted to and making his rep based on “being right” regardless of the herd.

    I assume Silver, like all other good scientists which is most of them, does have private preferences he would like to see…. BUT… that transient notion is totally trumped by wanting to know the ….. …… WAIT FOR IT….. (you paid whore!)====the truth.

    Unlike politics…. in science…. the truth has a way of becoming ultimately known. Reputations are made and kept by being correct==not by whose money you accept to toady along with.

    Science. Predictions based on Evidence—not preferences.

    Imagine that?

    • Hmmm, apparently there is no such thing as bad science. Imagine that.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        You didn’t tell me not to respond this time……

        Giving especially contradictory challenges an honest consideration…… huh?

        Only “religion” claims not to make mistakes. Only science, and honest human beings, recognize that mistakes cannot be avoided and therefore are to be looked for, admitted to, and corrected. This being the case, I don’t know what your comment is meant to highlight. You’ll have to narrow it down a bit. iow–your comment may or may not apply except as a generality of no interest. WHAT SPECIFIC bad science do you think is, or might be going on here?

        I thought Silver simply developed some algorithms that more accurately predict sports teams and political races. Not perfectly. By memory, while he predicted all outcomes in the Senate races, he got 2-3 wrong in the House?

        So…. where is the “bad” science????

        Mickey on the other hand, is a sterling example of made up BS without substance. Merely claim someone is biased without proof, evidence, or analysis. All in the great effort to keep the sheep grazing. Don’t believe proven independent experts—believe what I am paid to put out there.

        Same as it always is.

        • Tim says:

          I could have read it wrong because I smell my corn burning but it did seem to me that any bias MikeN was pointing out was not directed at any ‘who’ but a ‘what’ , The New York Times, and that a statistician would feel uncomfortable there.

          Silver sounds like an interesting guy — lots of interests of which The Times were apparently trying to carrot him with. His style of true journalism, although unconventional, because of punditate-by-numbers, seems to be coveted by news organizations these days. Is this not a good thing?

          “”Numbers aren’t the be all and end all of news or understanding the world we live in. But the way that Nate has used them in sports and politics is a super important check on commentators’ innumeracy, groupthink, nonsense and subjectivity. It is, to use that overused word, highly disruptive in a very positive way.

          http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/whyd_nate_silver_leave_the_times.php

          For me, it’s too bad he likes sports {Well, Jim; I got the ball and kicked it into the net. I’m opening a boutique.} because he may more belong in weather just as the first guy to coin the term ‘computer’ and fill rooms with people who crunch numbers was.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Fry_Richardson

          • MikeN says:

            Hey what happened to the pointless troll?

            You are mostly right. Silver is liberal, but may be unbiased in his conclusions. Would have to recheck 2010 reports, as well as his algorithms, and would only know for sure upon seeing 2014 reporting. But yes, I am referring to conflicts with the liberals at the Times vs an unbiased Silver who is already positing Republican Senate for 2014.

        • Captain Beyond, famously dancing madly backwards says:

          snip//I thought Silver simply developed some algorithms that more accurately predict sports teams and political races. Not perfectly. By memory, while he predicted all outcomes in the Senate races, he got 2-3 wrong in the House?

          So…. where is the “bad” science????//snip

          Have his algorithms been made public? How do we know that his algorithms predicted what he said? What if he change one of the senate outcomes because of a gut feeling and it happened to be right? Would that be bias? How do you prove bias? Can you read his mind?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            McGuyver—be specific. Not general and free floating as you constantly are.

            You are one of the few here with the acuity to parse. I can only guess that you choose not to parse when you can’t?

            Just a correlation. Amusing how a phrase that can be put on a bumper sticker blinds the bobble heads to what that means……. and doesn’t mean.

            Stupid Hoomans.

          • MikeN says:

            I think his algorithms are public. You wold have to go back through what he’s written and try to reproduce things to see if he introduced any bias. Things like ‘this poll is being thrown out because’ and see if the because is really neutral and a priori.

          • Hyph3n says:

            His algorithms was largely averaging out all the polls. He did weigh certain polls based on whether they were Internet, phone, etc.

            The interesting thing is that while the media and the Romney campaign wanted to make it look like a horse race, Nate had right. But he pissed off many reporters, pundits (what is Karl doing these days) and polling companies who didn’t like there data aggregated.

          • MikeN says:

            That reminds me. In 2008, he was given special access to Obama campaign polls, which was not known at the time. This gave him an advantage. It is not known if he was given this access again.

            His algorithm was more than just averaging polls, as that has been done before. More, he was averaging state polls rather than national polls to get a look at the race, and had an assignment of quality to various pollsters.

        • Guyver says:

          Only science, and honest human beings, recognize that mistakes cannot be avoided and therefore are to be looked for, admitted to, and corrected.

          WHAT SPECIFIC bad science do you think is, or might be going on here?

          Promoting correlation as causation is bad science.

          Appealing to authority is bad science.

          Appealing to popularity is bad science.

          Not being able to make accurate near-term predictions in the absence of empirical evidence is bad science.

          Promoting a theory as law based off of assumptions of a causal chain / casuality is bad science.

          Labeling anyone questioning your points as a denier of a superset when you’re promoting a very specific subset is bad science (and intellectually dishonest).

          Acting like you don’t know you do these things and try to present the illusion of objectivity like the liberal mainstream media does isn’t bad science, but it’s certainly intellectually dishonest.

          An HONEST person would simply try to find answers to the weaknesses in their argument rather than resort to logical fallacies.

          I suppose that’s a good start (not that you’d concede your arguments are logically weak). 😀

          • Guyver says:

            You mean global warming?

            Something like that… but with an obsessive-compulsive Bobbo twist. 🙂

    • Guyver says:

      Unlike politics…. in science…. the truth has a way of becoming ultimately known. Reputations are made and kept by being correct==not by whose money you accept to toady along with.

      Science. Predictions based on Evidence—not preferences.

      ROFLMAO. Doesn’t sound like you at all.

  5. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    TiMMay==really?…..OK. I went back and read it again… you could be right. Let’s parse:

    MikeN says:
    7/23/2013 at 8:49 am

    According to the Public Editor, his style of writing was too disruptive. /// This is directed at Silver to discredit him -or- at the Public Editor (who dat?) for Silver not following company preferences? Can’t tell which, or both??

    Journalists didn’t like that he was being promoted and given additional staff. /// Yep. A generic against anyone successful….

    He thought political punditry was a waste of time. /// Directly against Silverman, no quote, no link. Where does this info come from?

    He just didn’t fit in to the culture there. /// Log rolling.

    There’s also the possibility /// ohhh? So the above is just possibilities guessed at or made up by Mickey?? what other meaning could there be?

    that he didn’t want to be writing columns that are pressured by the culture to say the Democrats will do well in the next elections. /// Pure Mickey presumption that contradicts the very success Silver had and that was recognized by management at the times.

    He has already moved Republicans to a 50-51 Senate seat guess. /// Yes, that would be DISASTEROUS what with their lead in the House. I don’t understand how the FERP could gain seats with all the negative press they have. Makes me feel like a lib: “I don’t know anyone who would vote FERP!!” // Ha, ha. So many people being dupes, so many others being disenchanted. Thin line between resignation and revolution???

    OK Timmy–its a closer question than I made it look. I can see my History with Mickey is tainting my best work. I could rewrite the comment per the above reflection, but that would be but an exercise….. as the alternative is to wait 30 minutes and let Mickey grow into the shilling response he correlates to.

    Correlation. I don’t know who would be against this truth finding clue. Just a clue. Still have to prove.

    carrot………. or ………….. garote? //// Seems to me if the bias is with the Times, they would use a garote? Perhaps our business acumen is differently motivated, informed, profited??

    The quoted paragraph from talkingpointsmemo is irksome to me. Calling being “accurate” when making predictions “disruptive” is just too cute.

    So……. CONCLUSIONS?????? “Nate Silver’s analysis is leading him towards predicting Republican gains, …….Also, Silver is a liberal who would not like to report such a result.” //// In other words, Mickey couldn’t have his head farther up his own ass.

    • Tim says:

      ‘Public Editor’ ??

      You mean, this?

      http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

      Well, if I could sew Marissa Mayer’s face onto her bottom torso as a procreative stump and then give it like seventeen hours for the sutre to cure then I’ll let you know how I think it felt.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Thanks for the link Tim. Shows, err–correlates, to me not reading the Times?

        I don’t know what Marissa Myers has to do with the Times, or Silver, or what “it” is that you want to feel.

        Must be my poor reading comprehension raising its ugly head?===>or is that just Mickey in the Mirror?

        • Tim says:

          I want to feel a tight little tadger that reaffirms what I already believe as I fuck it’s brainless stump out.

    • Tim says:

      How thoroughly delicious. You know, the only difference between pussy and parsley is that noname doesn’t eat parsley.

  6. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Oh McGuyver—you so silly. Just like Mikey though. Making up BS because the facts go against you.

    I CHALLENGE YOU Guyver—find one time, ONE TIME, I have ever done anything except EXPRESSLY reject correlation as causation?

    If you could—-it would be a typo…..so…. I guess it would be a waste of your time, n’est pas?

    So, I’ll just save you some lying time: YES==CORRELATION is the “best evidence” ((SEE I didn’t use the word/idea of proof there?)) science can provide when formal proof is not possible.

    In our long running diarrhea contest on AGW, we can never prove co2 loading in the atmosphere causes warming BECAUSE there is no control earth to compare results. I have posted this 4-5 times, you have ignored it 35-40 times as you continue to not formulate any theory at all. Having strong positive correlations is more likely “the truth” than is the mindless nattering negativity of magical thinking such as you use.

    You even go so far as admitting that co2 is a green house gas, that we have been pumping co2 into the atmosphere for 200 years===but magically then the co2 doesn’t heat the atmosphere. Almost like you are playing checkers with Mickey up his Ass.

    Whats your best guess?===1,256 correlations agree, 5 disagree and half of those are lies.

    Your choice.

    • Tim says:

      But you have a ‘control Earth’. Venus.

      I can’t see a thing because it is cloudy. It follows that there must be lush vegetation. It follows from that that there must still be dinosaurs.

      Observation: I can’t see a thing.
      Conclusion: Dinosaurs. — Carl Sagan

      p.s. Did humans fuck up venus? The world may never know…

  7. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Captain Beyond, famously dancing madly backwards with two left feet, or are those peg legs, says:
    7/23/2013 at 11:21 am

    snip//I thought Silver simply developed some algorithms that more accurately predict sports teams and political races. Not perfectly. By memory, while he predicted all outcomes in the Senate races, he got 2-3 wrong in the House?

    So…. where is the “bad” science????//snip

    Have his algorithms been made public? /// I can only guess not. Why give away his approach?

    How do we know that his algorithms predicted what he said? /// Jeeze–this is so stupid I wonder if you confuse dancing with turd sucking.

    What if he change one of the senate outcomes because of a gut feeling and it happened to be right? Would that be bias? How do you prove bias? Can you read his mind? /// Which is worse–sucking your own turd, or just any turd found in the street?

    There you go McGuyer. My ranking of your perfidy: Ranking in Least Stupid of the FERPs here:

    1. McGuyver
    2. Mickey
    3. Turd Sucker.

    It is however, only correlation.

  8. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Speaking of the Power of Correlations—in that they are not proof but cause and effect outside the quantum area have a 100% correlation making those weak in math and easy sucker where math correlates well with reality—

    I read a week ago the big data bases being amassed and indeed the growing performance of AI as represented by Watson are all based on correlations rather than logic. Computers can do simple addition (ie–correlation statistics) but not the kind of logic that applies to even the simplest of problems. Fascinating stuff.

    Correlations and logic, math and deduction===none of them are proof. Still all variously present and used in the stumbling progress towards truth. Einstein was incredibly good at visualizing thought experiments. Nice imagery even there as “thoughts” are NOT experiments.

    Flexibility of Mind. Openness to new/contradictory ideas.

    Its all very apparent.

    • Guyver says:

      I read a week ago the big data bases being amassed and indeed the growing performance of AI as represented by Watson are all based on correlations rather than logic. Computers can do simple addition (ie–correlation statistics) but not the kind of logic that applies to even the simplest of problems. Fascinating stuff.

      And if you actually understood some of the stuff you tried learning in A.I., then you know a “casual chain” in A.I. does not mean causation / causality.

      Read up more on Bayes Nets if that sort of stuff interests you.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Again, as below===THATS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

        So stupid, I don’t even think that gets listed as a logic error anywhere. Just claim the other side didn’t say exactly what they did say.

        I SAID–AI was based on correlation algorithms NOT on logic. Left or right, sliced BS is still BS.

  9. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Hey TIMMMAY!!—Put me down for 4 >> No, 5 in a row. ((6 depending on how you slice it.))

    I hate it when that happens.

    • Timmay says:

      2+2==5. Yet, it is sometimes convenient to let the value approach 4 for the concise aming of missiles.

  10. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Yep, appears to be just the length: Second Verse, same as the First:

    ………………………………

    Never mind that we’re probably just fine up to 2050 as per other scientists: http://tinyurl.com/bbqa5yb //// So–a qualified group saying the effects of co2 loading “may not” be as bad as predicted. Only an idiot or a shill would take comfort in such a dismissive attitude. Fact is, the co2 loading is INCREASING–not level or decreasing so any prediction of necessity is going to get worse than current trends. I know you know, but for those who don’t===global warming/ocean rise is only ONE of many deliterious effects of carbon loading. Ocean Acidification is another big one. Disrrupting ocean currents is another. Releasing Methane then Hydogen Sulfide is another…… and on and on. Its like things are connected together in a delicate balance of many, many, factors. But as you say—if its not happening 5-10-15 years from now…. who cares. Indeed. Screw Humanity—you got yours.

    What have I proven? Absolutely nothing. Was I trying to? Nope. Just pointing out that the science isn’t settled. I see no real reason to follow Chicken Little around if the science isn’t setteled. //// Parts of the science are settled. Settled enough that Non Luddites are urging action. Settled enough that Insurance Companies are pulling out of affected markets. Its settled that co2 is a green house gas and we are pumping it into our atmosphere faster than in can cycle out with all its many and various injurious affects.

    I have posted this 4-5 times, you have ignored it 35-40 times as you continue to not formulate any theory at all.

    Just realize that I’m doing the same old bit Socrates would use on others who claimed to know something. He eventually would reveal how little people who claimed to know something really knew. Fortunately for me, you can’t make me drink hemlock. /// I think you already drank the Hemlock. …. etc.

    Silly bobbo. You CLAIM to know something. I CLAIM nothing. /// Lying, stupid, rhetoric, debate point? You claim that the model is no good if it can’t make predictions in 5-10-15 years hence. Just about everything you say more than claims but rather actually proves what a SCIENCE DENIER you are. Haw, HAW!!!!! What a dope.

    The burden of the sky is falling lies on your shoulders not mine. I don’t need to formulate anything if I have nothing to claim or prove. I have it easy. //// In your sense, I agree. I meet the burden by relying on the IPCC reports. Said report agreed to by EVERY ORGANIZED BODY OF RELATED SCIENTISTS. I don’t know if that includes the newer links above or not. Does a quibble or a maybe revoke prior agreement?

    If I repeat myself (which I don’t deny), I suppose it’s a direct response to your intellectually dishonest broken record malady. // It does take two.

    Having strong positive correlations is more likely “the truth” than is the mindless nattering negativity of magical thinking such as you use.

    You obviously don’t know the truth and your “strong positive correlations” apparently haven’t gotten you any closer. /// Meaningless non-responsive diversion.

    Hey during the Middle Ages, people knew cats were the cause of the Black Plague due to a similar mindset. We know now (hundreds of years later) that their thinking was flawed. /// Stupid.

    Pointing out your continued and shameless use of logical fallacies is hardly magic. Believing in computer simulations based off of assumptions of causality is much closer to magic than anything else you’re accusing me of. /// Not true. Just the opposite. Computer simulations/predictions are all we have. What do you have that is any better??? You sound like the same kind of accepted wisdom that is so against the CORRELATION STUDIES/PREDICTIONS OF SILVER. Silver is proven an accurate predicter because his events are predictable within a year or two. Climate don’t play that game.

    You even go so far as admitting that co2 is a green house gas, that we have been pumping co2 into the atmosphere for 200 years===but magically then the co2 doesn’t heat the atmosphere.

    This is a misunderstanding or reading comprehension on your part which surprises me for such a “learned” man as yourself. I have NEVER denied CO2 is a green house gas. /// THAT is what I just said.

    This is almost as bad as your little spat with a chemist from the food industry who tried explaining a ways back to you and others that high fructose corn syrup is simply a sugar and you went on some rant that they were some plant for the food industry by spreading lies or something to that effect (there are limits to the capacity of my rectal data bank). /// Hey!!! Another good topic! No consensus of the scientific community on that one though. Is a calorie a calorie if the molecule provides its energy packet directly through the blood stream or rather is stored as fat first???? Qualified scientists disagree. Thanks for showing the difference.

    The disconnect it seems is that you CLAIM that the increased CO2 output specifically from humans is so significant that you have somehow “logically” eliminated all other possibilities and have “scientifically” concluded causality with respect to global warming that we are OBSERVING. Your best response has revolved around a laundry list of logical fallacies as your best science. /// BS—the sea level keeps rising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise … So OBVIOUS==any thinking man would be embarassed.

    I have no problems with anyone who believes this to be true. But before you go off and try to use government to force everyone else to live in caves while you maintain your bourgeoisie lifestyle, I would say you should probably try to PROVE what you BELIEVE to be true if you want to convince others who are open-minded but scientifically skeptical. /// Having shit for brains is not being skeptical. Its being suicidally insensate to changing realities.

    What EXACTLY have I denied? What am I claiming? What have I said is insufficient to make your case? Have I already suggested REASONABLE ways to PROVE your case? /// No.

    Have I EVER said you are wrong in your claim or are you just getting confused over my asking you to provide proof? Does my skepticism automatically make me a “denier” in your “scientific” mind? /// Yes. All ideas including skepticism are worth only the ideas/facts/best science that backs them up.

    Enlighten me oh logically-fallacious “scientific” one. 😀 /// Like the stupidity of religion ((that you also engage in))==if you could be reasoned with, you wouldn’t be so ….. “skeptical.”

    Now====ANSWER THE QUESTION: How would you prove anything regarding climate without a control earth? IE==how can you use anything except computer models/the best science/correlations???

    Silly Hooman.

  11. Guyver says:

    Only an idiot or a shill would take comfort in such a dismissive attitude.

    Is the science settled? Just illustrating your panic / sense of urgency is not justified. Science and technology should have an answer by then.

    But as you say—if its not happening 5-10-15 years from now…. who cares

    No I didn’t say that. And you’re also assuming my source is correct. I merely said make a prediction for 5, 10, or 15 years out if your science is correct. Sounds like you’re doubting your sources. 🙂

    Parts of the science are settled. Settled enough that Non Luddites are urging action. Settled enough that Insurance Companies are pulling out of affected markets. Its settled that co2 is a green house gas and we are pumping it into our atmosphere faster than in can cycle out with all its many and various injurious affects.

    So you say.

    BS—the sea level keeps rising … So OBVIOUS==any thinking man would be embarassed.

    So what? What does this observation PROVE in support of your theory?

    Having shit for brains is not being skeptical. Its being suicidally insensate to changing realities.

    LOL. You’re falling apart. What’s the matter? Can’t find anything witty to say so you resort to ad hominem logical fallacies? 😀

    No

    Yes I did. I suggested those “Scientific experts” you worship should make 5, 10, and 15 year predictions. But instead you resort to promoting magic and want others to believe what you’re promoting is real while skeptics are the ones chasing magic. Ha!

    Yes. All ideas including skepticism are worth only the ideas/facts/best science that backs them up.

    You’re blind to your own green obsession. Just because I don’t agree with the path you’ve taken to reach a conclusion does not mean I’m denying your theory is true.

    I’m utterly shocked your logic is this bad. You SOUND like you SHOULD be more intelligent than what you’re demonstrating right now.

    Like the stupidity of religion ((that you also engage in))==if you could be reasoned with, you wouldn’t be so ….. “skeptical.”

    Pity that when an atheist’s faith is challenged that he resorts to calling agnosticism a “religion”. ROFLMAO. Just because I don’t buy into your abundant use of fallacies, doesn’t mean you can’t persuade me.

    How would you prove anything regarding climate without a control earth? IE==how can you use anything except computer models/the best science/correlations???

    Troubling. Your line of questioning implies that I must accept your man-made crisis is a reality.

    Just because you should NEVER conclude anything strictly off of correlation does not mean your hypothesis is wrong Grasshopper. I also never said you couldn’t use computer models. I criticized that the current ones are based off of assumptions that have not been established to be scientific fact. Furthermore, how much testing has been done to determine how accurate the computer simulations are?

    If you are left to using a computer simulation to tell the world what is going to happen to us, don’t you think it should be frequently tested to determine if it’s accurate (i.e. predictions … aka testing your hypothesis / theory)? How else will you know it is accurately modeling all processes correctly in the absence of a control Earth? My suggestion is more than reasonable. Why the push back over testing the model all these years?

    Should I just assume that your model is accurate because you tell me so? Or because some guy who got a science degree is telling me so even though his work is not based off the scientific method?

    At some point, you must test your model. Just like how you should do in A.I. … but you knew that right? Or am I just supposed to accept your word when you tell me the A.I. you’ve installed on a drone would never drop a nuke on a civilian town / city because you believe the heuristics and rules covered all the bases?

  12. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver–I keep saying “only” that the consensus of qualified scientists’ best prediction is as often reported. You come back with there is no proof.

    Proof has a specific meaning/procedure in science requiring double blind tests where two groups are compared against one another after the introduction of a variable in one of them. That and only that provides “proof” that you demand.

    There is NO PROOF that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Or that syphillus causes blindness. Or that vitamin deficiencies cause still birth. No one is willing/wanting to divide humans up into groups and experiment on them in such ways. So—all we have is the best evidence==very positive correlations, but not proof.

    Same with co2 pollution and AGW. Proof requires having two earths. Both as we are now and to one of them we add more co2. Then see what happens over time. Heck, as long as we are demanding the impossible, lets have 3 earths and remove co2 from the third? That is the ONLY WAY to prove AGW.

    Positive correlations regarding the increase of green house gas doesn’t do it for you. Your so called skepticism is A LIE!!! A damn lie because you cloak denial and advocacy of the status quo in a cod piece of shrinking size. The oceans are constantly rising.

    Public Health advanced when we stopped shitting in our water supply. No proof shit in the water causes anything—just correlation.

    So…. yes…. I as do you rely more often than not if not exclusively ONLY on the best evidence available for so many things. Shit in YOUR drinking water….. Hemlock so to speak.

    Yes—when you deny the fruit/common sense/LACK OF A BETTER THEORY/and correlations of the data sets YOU are a SCIENCE DENIER.

    aka—a silly hooman.

    • Tim says:

      What?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        I’m clearly saying that McGuyver has a small penis.

        Get with the program.

        • Tim says:

          Well, it is too hot for exersize. I suggest he sleep on it as it’ll probably be just the right temps in the morning.

        • Guyver says:

          I’m clearly saying that McGuyver has a small penis.

          Get with the program.

          Not only am I glad that we are geographically separated so you can’t make me drink hemlock, but I’m grateful I don’t have to watch my back after your comments of a Canadian Beauty Queen who was born a man. 😀

    • Guyver says:

      I keep saying “only” that the consensus of qualified scientists’ best prediction is as often reported.

      Who chooses who is qualified? Political government agencies? The same mainstream media who likes to cherry pick things (or edit things to portray a different view from reality … i.e. the Zimmerman audio recording with a dispatcher)?

      What about all the other qualified scientists who have dissenting opinions? Why don’t they get the same coverage?

      Should I trust a political government agency or the mainstream media that they have no ulterior malicious motive?

      Proof has a specific meaning/procedure in science requiring double blind tests where two groups are compared against one another after the introduction of a variable in one of them.

      You mean the gathering and reproduction of empirical evidence based off of known causation… instead of assumed causation?

      So—all we have is the best evidence==very positive correlations, but not proof.

      Best evidence of WHAT? You dodge the question quite often. What does that best evidence provide? A root cause that you seem to dance around?

      Same with co2 pollution and AGW. Proof requires having two earths.

      That is the ONLY WAY to prove AGW.

      BS. You can make predictions with the very computer models you and other use to say the world is coming to an end due to warming that can only be attributed to man-made CO2.

      Test your model. Good AI programming requires the same.

      Positive correlations regarding the increase of green house gas doesn’t do it for you.

      I shudder to think if you an I were living in the Medieval Days and having a dialogue over the Internet equivalent and you’re trying very hard to convince me that cats are the cause of the Black Plague due to positive correlation. Have you or others ruled out that CO2 is a byproduct?

      A damn lie because you cloak denial and advocacy of the status quo in a cod piece of shrinking size.

      What am I denying? I’m saying maybe your theory is true. I ask for proof. You use logical fallacies to maintain your claim is valid.

      Yes—when you deny the fruit/common sense/LACK OF A BETTER THEORY/and correlations of the data sets YOU are a SCIENCE DENIER.

      Ad hominem logical fallacy. I don’t claim to know the truth on this matter. I merely question how you’re coming to a “scientific” conclusion. No need to defecate all over yourself as John Dvorak is “silently” laughing out loud behind his computer as he sees you lose control of yourself. 😀

  13. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Troubling. Your line of questioning implies that I must accept your man-made crisis is a reality. /// Look—the Earth is either heating up, cooling off, or not changing as a result of Billions of Tons of co2 being put into the atmosphere. Which do you think is most likely??? If its heating up to the GREAT DETRIMENT OF MANKIND, a person concerned about the future will take action now to lessen the effects. The notion that with NYC underwater you will simply move demonstrates the depth of your understanding.

    Just because you should NEVER conclude anything strictly off of correlation does not mean your hypothesis is wrong Grasshopper. I also never said you couldn’t use computer models. I criticized that the current ones are based off of assumptions that have not been established to be scientific fact. Furthermore, how much testing has been done to determine how accurate the computer simulations are? /// Thats what I said. You want proof. In most areas of scientific contribution to mankind, all we have is correlation–so we do conclude strictly all the time.

    If you are left to using a computer simulation to tell the world what is going to happen to us, don’t you think it should be frequently tested to determine if it’s accurate (i.e. predictions … aka testing your hypothesis / theory)? //// Clever word play. But define accurate in a system of almost incalculateable complexity? Like other Science Deniers, you claim evolution is not proven because there are no transitional species. When one is found, you want another one. Nothing is precise/accurate/predicting enough for you. Its not enough for the IPCC climate model to predict THE SEAL LEVEL WILL RISE from 12 to 200 feet in the next 75 to 300 years “depending” on feed back loops that are still not well enough understood and estimates/guesses on how much oil/gas will be dug up and burned. No, thats not accurate enough. You want to know if 15 years from now it will rain in your neighborhood. You raise false concerns all for the purpose of keeping the people from becoming concerned. Let the status quo rein.

    How else will you know it is accurately modeling all processes correctly in the absence of a control Earth? //// Ha, ha. Yes–“all” processes accurately predicted. I am satisfied with the accuracy already present and made that we should take action to lessen our impact—eg No tar sands development. Put all that money into Green Energy development.

    My suggestion is more than reasonable. /// You have made NO SUGGESTIONS other than do what is impossible. You demand proof when proof of the type that would satisfy you is impossible.

    Why the push back over testing the model all these years? /// The model is tested all the time and modified based on the testing. THE SEA LEVEL IS GOING UP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

    Why is this simple fact not sufficient for you?

    You say you agree that co2 is a green house gas==what makes you think sea level rise is not sufficient evidence of that fact that AGW is occuring right now? WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORY as to what all that green house gas is doing?

    You argue like a Deist. You argue with the language and not with the common sense facts and logic. You criticize but offer no solutions yourself.

    So–forget the sheer crap load of BS you do deliver about what you “don’t say” and say it right out: what do you think is most likely the case?=====>AGW, or something magical?

    Should I just assume that your model is accurate because you tell me so? Or because some guy who got a science degree is telling me so even though his work is not based off the scientific method?

    At some point, you must test your model. Just like how you should do in A.I. … but you knew that right? Or am I just supposed to accept your word when you tell me the A.I. you’ve installed on a drone would never drop a nuke on a civilian town / city because you believe the heuristics and rules covered all the bases?

  14. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    McGuyver in a spasm of continuity not previously seen says:
    7/24/2013 at 8:31 am

    “I don’t claim to know the truth on this matter. I merely question how you’re coming to a “scientific” conclusion.” /// So–do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

    Its NOT my opinion. I do rely on the IPCC conclusions and my own common sense understanding of what adding green house gases to Mother Earth must rationally cause. When you add a green house gas to the atmosphere–the atmosphere gets hotter. You offer no hypothesis from anyone otherwise. Arguing the collapse will occur slower than the IPCC has predicted is NOT a negation of the concern. Neither is moving away from NYC.

    I’d answer the question about who is qualified–but you already have two questions before you that have remained unanswered for 5 years now.

    I ain’t marching no more till you stop saying what you don’t say and start mouthing what you do say!

    ….. but somehow, I think you’ll dodge that too.

    I’m turning into a pessimist!! ((I hate it when that happens.))

    • Guyver says:

      So–do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

      I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

      I do rely on the IPCC conclusions and my own common sense understanding of what adding green house gases to Mother Earth must rationally cause.

      Correlation is the best evidence for what “must rationally cause”? Is that what you’re saying? LOL. Sounds like you’re establishing causality again in your double speak.

      When you add a green house gas to the atmosphere–the atmosphere gets hotter.

      In sufficient amounts. Can you scientifically quantify the amount needed for that to occur if in fact man-made CO2 is the root cause?

      Or is man’s contribution negligible against what nature (what you refer to as magic) already produces?

      Arguing the collapse will occur slower than the IPCC has predicted is NOT a negation of the concern.

      Merely to illustrate that the science is not “settled” as you seem to preach. It was not to negate any concern per se.

      Neither is moving away from NYC.

      I guess you’ll have about 75 years at least to change your mind.

      I’d answer the question about who is qualified–but you already have two questions before you that have remained unanswered for 5 years now.

      So you say. Or it’s reading comprehension problems like you keep insisting that I’ve somehow denied CO2 has been a greenhouse gas.

      I ain’t marching no more till you stop saying what you don’t say and start mouthing what you do say!

      You sound so…… brave?

      I’m turning into a pessimist!! ((I hate it when that happens.))

      An liberal idealist turning into a pessimist? Fancy that! Maybe you’ll eventually transition into becoming a realist someday. 😀

  15. Guyver says:

    Look—the Earth is either heating up, cooling off, or not changing as a result of Billions of Tons of co2 being put into the atmosphere. Which do you think is most likely???

    So the Earth is heating up. You have scientifically concluded that it is only possible due to the presence of CO2… more specifically it’s only due to the addition of man-made CO2.

    Why is this the ONLY possibility for the planet warming up? What caused it during the Roman times? Too many camp fires?

    In orders of magnitude mother nature puts out roughly 29 times more than all of human kind combined. All of which is less than 1% of the entire atmosphere.

    In most areas of scientific contribution to mankind, all we have is correlation–so we do conclude strictly all the time.

    In most areas of science, you don’t have other qualified scientists with dissenting opinions being ignored. Nor do you have the mainstream media playing an active role over what is worthy of being science and what is not due to political views.

    Clever word play. But define accurate in a system of almost incalculateable complexity?

    You’re using the model to prognosticate the end of the world 100 years from now. The least you can do is provide a few verifiable predictions with those of us who would like to be alive to validate your claims. Stop tap dancing.

    Like other Science Deniers, you claim evolution is not proven because there are no transitional species.

    Strawman and Ad Hominem logical fallacy. I didn’t say that. Those are your words.

    These are my words: What man-made crisis that needs to be solved yesterday is implicated with the theory of evolution?

    You don’t need to repeat your flawed logic. Problem is you painted yourself in a corner and your ego can’t accept that I called you on it. LOL. Feel free to provide me any crisis that needs to be solved “yesterday” due to the theory of evolution.

    When one is found, you want another one. Nothing is precise/accurate/predicting enough for you.

    So you say. From my perspective all you do is rehash a laundry list of logical fallacies.

    Its not enough for the IPCC climate model to predict THE SEAL LEVEL WILL RISE from 12 to 200 feet in the next 75 to 300 years “depending” on feed back loops that are still not well enough understood and estimates/guesses on how much oil/gas will be dug up and burned.

    The UNTESTED climate model? The one making predictions based off of assumptions that you are insisting that all scientific-minded people must accept in the absence of validation? LOL.

    So we have at least 75 years to leave coastal areas until the science actually becomes settled or until your climate models are actually tested to be accurate. I suppose if you live in an area with government-subsidized flood insurance you will demand that tax payers pay for your bourgeoisie damages should such things occur. The problem with the government-subsidized flood insurance is that it fosters / encourages people to live in areas they would normally not choose to live due to the risks being too high.

    Do you propose we all ditch technology and live in caves while we figure out if your theory is true? Or should I just take your word for it that the untested IPCC climate model is good enough science?

    You want to know if 15 years from now it will rain in your neighborhood.

    I was thinking more along the lines of average temperatures 5, 10, and 15 years out. 🙂

    You have made NO SUGGESTIONS other than do what is impossible. You demand proof when proof of the type that would satisfy you is impossible.

    The model is tested all the time and modified based on the testing.

    Did you go to the Barack Obama school of double speak? LOL.

    I’ve told you a number of times that if you want to have me more receptive to your theory then you guys need to make 5, 10, and 15 year predictions with the computer models you claim are tested all the time, but then say it’s impossible to test. 😀

    THE SEA LEVEL IS GOING UP:

    Why is this simple fact not sufficient for you?

    So what? Has a root cause been determined? Is it man-made or natural?

    Sounds like more alarmism.

    You argue with the language and not with the common sense facts and logic. You criticize but offer no solutions yourself

    Nah! I’m just sniffing out your logical fallacies and seeing there isn’t much left after you hyper-ventilate.

    what makes you think sea level rise is not sufficient evidence of that fact that AGW is occuring right now? WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORY as to what all that green house gas is doing?

    If I claim nothing, why do I need to provide a theory?

    But I did a Google for you since you’re too lazy to do it on your own (in the name of science): http://tinyurl.com/8xwrzhg

    what do you think is most likely the case?=====>AGW, or something magical?

    Wow! Natural causes is now referred to as “magical”. LOL.

  16. Guyver says:

    Look—the Earth is either heating up, cooling off, or not changing as a result of Billions of Tons of co2 being put into the atmosphere. Which do you think is most likely???

    So the Earth is heating up. You have scientifically concluded that it is only possible due to the presence of CO2… more specifically it’s only due to the addition of man-made CO2.

    Why is this the ONLY possibility for the planet warming up? What caused it during the Roman times? Too many camp fires?

    In orders of magnitude mother nature puts out roughly 29 times more than all of human kind combined. All of which is less than 1% of the entire atmosphere.

    In most areas of scientific contribution to mankind, all we have is correlation–so we do conclude strictly all the time.

    In most areas of science, you don’t have other qualified scientists with dissenting opinions being ignored. Nor do you have the mainstream media playing an active role over what is worthy of being science and what is not due to political views.

    Clever word play. But define accurate in a system of almost incalculateable complexity?

    You’re using the model to prognosticate the end of the world 100 years from now. The least you can do is provide a few verifiable predictions with those of us who would like to be alive to validate your claims. Stop tap dancing.

    Like other Science Deniers, you claim evolution is not proven because there are no transitional species.

    Strawman and Ad Hominem logical fallacy. I didn’t say that. Those are your words.

    These are my words: What man-made crisis that needs to be solved yesterday is implicated with the theory of evolution?

    You don’t need to repeat your flawed logic. Problem is you painted yourself in a corner and your ego can’t accept that I called you on it. LOL. Feel free to provide me any crisis that needs to be solved “yesterday” due to the theory of evolution.

    When one is found, you want another one. Nothing is precise/accurate/predicting enough for you.

    So you say. From my perspective all you do is rehash a laundry list of logical fallacies.

    Its not enough for the IPCC climate model to predict THE SEAL LEVEL WILL RISE from 12 to 200 feet in the next 75 to 300 years “depending” on feed back loops that are still not well enough understood and estimates/guesses on how much oil/gas will be dug up and burned.

    The UNTESTED climate model? The one making predictions based off of assumptions that you are insisting that all scientific-minded people must accept in the absence of validation? LOL.

    So we have at least 75 years to leave coastal areas until the science actually becomes settled or until your climate models are actually tested to be accurate. I suppose if you live in an area with government-subsidized flood insurance you will demand that tax payers pay for your bourgeoisie damages should such things occur. The problem with the government-subsidized flood insurance is that it fosters / encourages people to live in areas they would normally not choose to live due to the risks being too high.

    Do you propose we all ditch technology and live in caves while we figure out if your theory is true? Or should I just take your word for it that the untested IPCC climate model is good enough science?

    You want to know if 15 years from now it will rain in your neighborhood.

    I was thinking more along the lines of average temperatures 5, 10, and 15 years out. 🙂

    You have made NO SUGGESTIONS other than do what is impossible. You demand proof when proof of the type that would satisfy you is impossible.

    The model is tested all the time and modified based on the testing.

    Did you go to the Barack Obama school of double speak? LOL.

    I’ve told you a number of times that if you want to have me more receptive to your theory then you guys need to make 5, 10, and 15 year predictions with the computer models you claim are tested all the time, but then say it’s impossible to test. 😀

    THE SEA LEVEL IS GOING UP:

    Why is this simple fact not sufficient for you?

    So what? Has a root cause been determined? Is it man-made or natural?

    Sounds like more alarmism.

    You argue with the language and not with the common sense facts and logic. You criticize but offer no solutions yourself

    Nah! I’m just sniffing out your logical fallacies and seeing there isn’t much left after you hyper-ventilate.

    what makes you think sea level rise is not sufficient evidence of that fact that AGW is occuring right now? WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE THEORY as to what all that green house gas is doing?

    If I claim nothing, why do I need to provide a theory?

    But I did a Google for you since you’re too lazy to do it on your own (in the name of science): http://tinyurl.com/8xwrzhg

    what do you think is most likely the case?=====>AGW, or something magical?

    Wow! Natural causes is now referred to as “magical”. LOL.

  17. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver-

    Do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

  18. MikeN says:

    > Arguing the collapse will occur slower than the IPCC has predicted is NOT a negation of the concern.

    Yes it is. If you were told that the amount of warming is not 4.5C in 100 years but instead 4.5C in 10000 years, would you still be worried?

    • Guyver says:

      Yes it is. If you were told that the amount of warming is not 4.5C in 100 years but instead 4.5C in 10000 years, would you still be worried?

      Who said I was worried?

      My only point is that the science is not settled.

  19. MikeN says:

    From Dr. Judith Curry:

    They seem to obliquely admit the inadequacy of climate models by saying that they have not been falsified by the recent pause. Well, even if they have not been falsified, the climate models are not looking very useful at the moment, and climate model-derived values of climate sensitivity are seeming increasingly unconvincing.

    • Guyver says:

      Well, even if they have not been falsified, the climate models are not looking very useful at the moment, and climate model-derived values of climate sensitivity are seeming increasingly unconvincing.

      Won’t stop Bobbo from using an appeal to authority.

  20. MikeN says:

    This video gives a summary of some skeptics’ arguments. Note, climate scientists must prove all parts of their case to have a political argument that matters.

    http://vimeo.com/8865909

    • Tim says:

      “”Without energy, life is burtal and short. Also, it’s plant food, bitches… — John R. Christy (paraphrased)

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=LTb3JOVO-HI

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        “First of all, people should remember that co2 is plant food.” /// Crap so moldy and festering… I stopped listening 30 seconds in. Uric acid is plant food too and I don’t want to drink my own urine.

        I dont care what else he says—-he’s an idiot.

        • Tim says:

          bobbo, give this one an honest watch, will you please?

          There are lots of buzz words in it like “numerical”, “5”,”10″,”15″, “testing models”, “consensus”,…”scientificky”,…

          Lots of pretty graphs; ice mass, sea levels, polar bears, rifles, …, malaria, …

          http://youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Oh Timmy—that was one of the very worst videos on topic I have ever forced myself to sit thru.

            At 2:15–co2 is not a poison, we exhale it./// Most things excreted from a living being are poisonous to it. Co2 is toxic. I almost again stopped watching, but I honored your request (expecting the presentation to improve whereas it got worse).

            3:55==He agrees co2 is a green house gas warming the world up “but the consequences won’t be that much.” /// Too vague. This would have been interesting if expanded on.

            10:20–Solar Panels take up too much room./// Complete and utter BS. You can google roof top/available acreage and see we have room to spare.

            13:25–Nuclear energy is the safest and cheapest energy there is. /// WTF? This guy is a shill for Big Nuke. I hate to overuse this word/idea/rational evaluation===>but this man is an idiot.

            None of the buz words you mentioned were used, no pretty graphs; ice mass, sea levels, polar bears, rifles, …, malaria, …

            So….I gave this an honest look and found I was alone with my naivete and innocence.

            Bad Timmy!!!

          • Tim says:

            None of the buz words you mentioned were used, no pretty graphs; ice mass, sea levels, polar bears, rifles, …, malaria, …

            Then you sat through the wrong one — The talk at Auburn is 34 minutes and is more addressed to fellow scientists instead of a journalist.

            By the way, he wholeheartedly agrees that sea level is rising.

            New buzzword: Interglacial

        • Tim says:

          “Uric acid is plant food too and I don’t want to drink my own urine”

          Well then, you best get in your Prius and drive the round trip to the nearest Lowes for a box of Scott’s Miracle Grow for when your plants need a drink.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      “Nice” video–thanks for posting. I had to skip forward as he summarized basic material I have heard 20 times before, so I could easily miss material that would have made some obvious errors he makes and bias he reveals not so obvious.

      He agrees that co2 loading will raise temp by 1 Degree by end of Century (at 18 min) and then goes on to belittle this concern by saying the feedback mechanisms are not well understood. This does not draw my attention away from the fact that a 1 Degree rise itself is not good.

      I think he said, but it might have been a different linked video, that its just “an assumption” that the co2 increase is from man made sources. No–the source of the co2 can be determined and measured.

      To be fair, I’d have to give the whole video a careful listen with more attention than I can muster right now.

      He does suffer from McGuyver disease though==he criticizes the science without offering any alternative himself. I have to give that a total failure as far as recommending any political position.

      Sadly–I think too many want to negate AGW because they don’t like the politics of the responses that would come. But truly===that is a separate issue. AGW is not negated because you don’t want a carbon tax.

      • Guyver says:

        he criticizes the science without offering any alternative himself.

        Pointing out logical fallacies does not require offering alternatives. That’s logic 101.

        Here’s one OBVIOUS alternative, stop using logical fallacies to “prove” your point and thus coming to a hasty conclusion.

        Your science of correlation is the best evidence for what “must rationally cause” (another way of saying correlation is causation) isn’t recognized as a science at all.

        I think too many want to negate AGW because they don’t like the politics of the responses that would come.

        That’s just another way of saying that your ego gets in the way of conceding that your whole argument is based off of logical fallacies.

        If your logic were sound, you would have more people receptive to your points. You’re just too intellectually dishonest. 🙂

      • MikeN says:

        Note if you have negative feedback, then you don’t see the 1 degree rise.

    • Guyver says:

      Good video. I’m going to pass it on. Thanks!

  21. MikeN says:

    Guyver, climate scientists have made testable predictions at time scales of 5,10,15 years.

    March 20, 2000
    According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

    The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-cover-up/#ixzz2ZzQNTTru

    Monday, July 27, 2009
    World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns

    New estimate based on the forthcoming upturn in solar activity and El Nino Southern Oscillation cycles is expected to silence global warming skeptics.

    Duncan Clark, The Guardian.

    So really Guyver, you are going to have to shut up in one year. Bobbo will take the glory from this field.

    • Guyver says:

      Guyver, climate scientists have made testable predictions at time scales of 5,10,15 years.

      Strange how Bobbo never mentions that. Oh! I forgot how intellectually dishonest he is. 😛

      • MikeN says:

        Just 368 days to go.

        • Guyver says:

          I can only hope that people will keep Congress deadlocked the last 2 years by not handing power over to the Liberals / Progressives.

  22. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    MikeN says:
    7/24/2013 at 11:01 am

    > Arguing the collapse will occur slower than the IPCC has predicted is NOT a negation of the concern.

    Yes it is. If you were told that the amount of warming is not 4.5C in 100 years but instead 4.5C in 10000 years, would you still be worried? //// In context, the nay sayer Guyver used was quibbling regarding the timing making it an invalid contradiction. Your hypothetical amount is completely different… by about 9800 years. So that would be a huge contradiction to what is being warned against now. But even it somehow the spike (hockey stick) we are living thru now would MAGICALLY level off as you hypothecate? I’m thinking many of the scientists are already convinced we are past the tipping point for catastrophic results from the carbon loading we already have…So I would stop worrying about the increase but remain worried about the current build up. Also–the ocean acidification is wholly separate from the temperature issues. Can still worry about that as well.

  23. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver-

    Do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?
    Reply

    Guyver says:
    7/24/2013 at 10:51 am

    See above with my addressing your dodging or double speak. /// No McGuyver you DO NOT answer the question by addressing “my” responses. WHAT is your direct response to the challenge of AGW?

    Science is “settled” only with proof and there is no proof possible. You are using the non-dogmatic/religious open to new ideas/challenge nature of science to DENY the best evidence of what reality is==all for the obvious point to allow co2 pollution to continue. You aren’t hiding your position by not being truthful about it.

    Silly Hooman.

    • Guyver says:

      No McGuyver you DO NOT answer the question by addressing “my” responses. WHAT is your direct response to the challenge of AGW?

      Ummm… yes I did. Instead of quoting my response to the 2nd time you asked me, why not go and look at my response to the 1st time you asked me Brainaic. 😀

      Science is “settled” only with proof and there is no proof possible.

      Test your theory / hypothesis (aka climate models) to predict future outcomes. MikeN is either pointing out your ignorance / dishonesty that AGW alarmists have already done so and failed. But somehow your science is settled? LOL.

      You are using the non-dogmatic/religious open to new ideas/challenge nature of science to DENY the best evidence of what reality is==all for the obvious point to allow co2 pollution to continue.

      In an attempt to unobfuscate your past comments, you have specifically said between two posts that: correlation is the best evidence for what “must rationally cause” (another way of saying correlation is causation) .

      You have demonstrated that CO2 being the cause of your personal problems in life is nothing more than a fallacy of a hasty conclusion as well as the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. But somehow you’re going to say that in spite of your flawed logic in trying to persuade someone that they are in denial of your allegedly flawless logic. ROFLMAO.

      You aren’t hiding your position by not being truthful about it.

      My ONLY position (if I had one) is to have you demonstrate that your argument has been based off of logical fallacies. You have no real knowledge of what you claim to know.

      Meanwhile in an attempt to divert attention away from yourself, you will try to accuse me of denying something… something you swear I have refused to answer (even though I’ve answered every one of your questions). You will insist that in order for me to point out that you logic is flawed that I must somehow offer an alternative to your flawed logic (as if I’m claiming to know). 🙂

      If you’ve mastered anything it’s intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacies. 😛

      • MikeN says:

        >MikeN is either pointing out your ignorance / dishonesty that AGW alarmists have already done so and failed.

        You misunderstood me completely Guyver. I was pointing out that you are wrong. Scientists have made testable predictions. You now have left just one year before, as the scientist said, skeptics will have to shut up because the facts are so obvious. So enjoy making these arguments for another 364 days. Perhaps you should spend that time enjoying the snow, as you will never see it again. Or perhaps packing for your journey as a climate refugee?

        • Guyver says:

          I guess I’ll have to live every day as though it’s my last before the coming crisis. 😀

  24. msbpodcast says:

    I have 100% accurate prediction, its either going to be a Repube or a Dumb-o-crap candidate, its going to cost us plenty, and were going to need Preparation-H.

    Elections are a sucker’s game Selection is the only way to go.

  25. Guyver says:

    I have 100% accurate prediction, its either going to be a Repube or a Dumb-o-crap candidate, its going to cost us plenty, and were going to need Preparation-H.

    I can’t argue with that logic. 🙂

  26. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Tim says:
    7/24/2013 at 10:19 pm

    None of the buz words you mentioned were used, no pretty graphs; ice mass, sea levels, polar bears, rifles, …, malaria, …

    Then you sat through the wrong one — The talk at Auburn is 34 minutes and is more addressed to fellow scientists instead of a journalist.

    By the way, he wholeheartedly agrees that sea level is rising.

    New buzzword: Interglacial //// You are right. I “swear” all I did was click on the link you provided, but I did go to a different video than I did when clicking on it the second time. How does that happen?

    Anyway–the 36:23 presentation here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UcGgLoPpbBw really is quite good. I very much enjoy the statement at 20:35 that Bangladesh is actually gaining land mass due to alluvial deposits that is rising faster than the sea level. Fun facts. (((Hmmm—should be easy to confirm??? Lets google (land mass Bangladesh)==http://treehugger.com/natural-sciences/bangladeshatms-landmass-is-growing-yearly-but-gains-from-sediment-deposits-will-be-overtaken-by-sea-level-rise.html

    Ha, ha. Nobody agrees about nothing!

    ….. and that is why I enjoy the subject of AGW: NONE OF US know anything about the subject==so it is excellent for us all to reflect on “How do we know what we know, and how do we change our minds?”===aka===> good stuff.

    I do rely on the authority of the IPCC. It is “the best” science available. Small minds will quibble around the edges for a variety of motives……. and intellectual power, honesty, and flexibility.

    It does appear that most if not all experts agree the earth is warming, sea level is going up. I haven’t noticed ANY speaker say this is going to reverse or level off any time in the future==so all the criticism is about timing?

    Smart people act before the damage is undeniable. Afterall==its only our civilization that is in the balance.

    Know what I mean?

    ((McGuyver—answer the question==DIRECTLY. You have not done so already. If you have==should be easy to copy and paste.—aka===liar!===which only cracks me up. Indeed, how do we know ourselves when we are full of shit?))

    • Guyver says:

      ((McGuyver—answer the question==DIRECTLY. You have not done so already. If you have==should be easy to copy and paste.—aka===liar!===which only cracks me up. Indeed, how do we know ourselves when we are full of shit?))

      ROFLMAO. Here you go dummy (copied and pasted from my response to your asking for a direct answer the first time you asked on 24 July at 10:49 AM):

      I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

      I’ll just assume you’ll just simply say my answer wasn’t direct enough or that I’m somehow denying something. BTW, I think your Depends diapers need to be changed. 😀

      In summary, your claim is correlation is the best evidence for what “must rationally cause”. This is another way of saying correlation is causation. But I Darth Bobbo didn’t specifically say that correlation is causation… but I meant it.

    • Tim says:

      “Most things excreted from a living being are poisonous to it”

      Sounds nasty even if it is not toxic to other organisms. Perhaps we should find something else to breath besides plant shit?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        We aren’t built that way. Oxygen providing more energy for biological activity than do the anaerobes that preceded us.

        Chris does present too much of his material on idiot comments as I specifically noted above.

        I am anti-authoritarian and tend to challenge all sources regardless of current or past achievment. Just because on the issue of AGW I do find the IPCC to be the best evidence science has to offer does not mean I rely on Argument from Authority==rather its the argument that Authority makes. How many FLAT OUT WRONG statements should Chris or any other authority be allowed before they are ill regarded?

        ONLY an idiot would start a discussion on the dangers of Green House Gasses by saying co2 is non-toxic plant food.

        Only an Idiot.

        • Tim says:

          Oh yea, I see how much you paid attention there. You said of the man “This guy is a shill for Big Nuke.” even as he points out that nuclear power would like the doomsday co2 policy to be legislated because they are non-emission. In the second link, he goes on to show that if 1000 nuclear plants were built to supplant carbon-based plants that the 50 year net effect {according to the exaggerated forcing of current models} would still be just above the noise floor with the most sensitive insruments available now.

          bobbo, I don’t think you realize that it is the big oil, big energy, big insurance that have colluded to give you your belief on this matter, do you? Everyone wants to get more $$ for less product — just look how effective the drug war has been for the CIA.

        • Tim says:

          Since we know nothing about it, perhaps you would like to rehash the FLAT OUT WRONG statements with your own refutations? — Provide data and not links to theguardian, please.

  27. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Thank you Eideard for letting us go off on this AGW tangent. Its been a fair and valuable discussion.

    An obvious head fake: I do wonder what Silver thinks of AGW, or more to the point, what added insight his mathematically correlational analysis might bring to the subject? I assume AGW is “too different” from base ball teams or political races, but maybe its not a la “The wisdom of Crowds” sort of thing?

    Pragmatism!!!! If “it” works, you use it. Correlations ((what Silver does and what most of Science does)) are not proof, but often they work==>even when we don’t understand the mechanism. I wonder how much of his algorithms Silver thinks he understands or is he amused by not understanding anything except “they work?”

    Girlfriends can be like that—not to start another tangent.

  28. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver—do you honestly NOT understand what a direct reply is? So far==you have given none.

    Read the following and put a mental check mark by what you think:

    I think the idea that man digging up sequestered carbon and burning it releasing Millions of Tons of co2 gas into the atmosphere thereby raising the average global temperatures that will at some time in the near future cause catastrophic disruption to human life on this Globe is more likely than not:

    A. True
    B. False
    C. I don’t know
    D. I have no opinion.

    Did you pick one ? If so which one?????

    • Guyver says:

      do you honestly NOT understand what a direct reply is? So far==you have given none.

      Just because you’re too lazy to click the button to read older comments, doesn’t change the fact that I did in fact DIRECTLY answer your question the first time you asked me.

      But since you painted yourself into a corner concerning that you do believe correlation is causation, then I can understand why an intellectually dishonest person wishes to revise history when they don’t want to be held accountable for their own actions.

      As for your NEW question, there’s no need for me to answer it since you’ll AGAINSinsist that I didn’t answer it like the last one I did. 😛

      • Guyver says:

        I must have hit a button and submitted when I was in the middle of editing.

    • Guyver says:

      do you honestly NOT understand what a direct reply is? So far==you have given none.

      Just because you’re too lazy to click the button to read older comments, doesn’t change the fact that I did in fact DIRECTLY answer your question the first time you asked me. Why continue demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty when anyone can see by clicking the older comments link that you’re lying about the matter.

      If you’re intellectually dishonest about such a petty thing, then what else can you be intellectually dishonest on?

      But since you painted yourself into a corner concerning that you do believe correlation is causation, then I can understand why a liberal wishes to revise history when they don’t want to be held accountable for their own actions (or alternate reality).

      As for your NEW question, there’s no need for me to answer it since you’ll AGAIN insist that I didn’t answer it like the last one I directly answered. 😛

  29. Guyver says:

    In an effort to help Bobbo with his revisionist history (and probably because he’s also a victim of government-run education, I’ve made a transcript for his intellectually dishonest mind to mull over:

    Thread of Asking me a 1st Time:

    24 Jul @ 8:31AM Bobbo says: So–do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

    24 Jul @ 10:49AM Guyver says: I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

    Thread of Asking me a 2nd Time:

    24 Jul @ 10:27AM Bobbo says: Do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

    24 Jul @ 10:51AM Guyver says: See above with my addressing your dodging or double speak.

    24 Jul @ 3:34PM Bobbo says: No McGuyver you DO NOT answer the question by addressing “my” responses. WHAT is your direct response to the challenge of AGW?

    24 Jul @ 9:39PM Guyver says: Ummm… yes I did. Instead of quoting my response to the 2nd time you asked me, why not go and look at my response to the 1st time you asked me Brainaic. 😀

    24 Jul @ 10:19PM Bobbo says: McGuyver—answer the question==DIRECTLY. You have not done so already. If you have==should be easy to copy and paste.—aka===liar!===which only cracks me up. Indeed, how do we know ourselves when we are full of shit?

    25 Jul @ 8:52AM Guyver says: ROFLMAO. Here you go dummy (copied and pasted from my response to your asking for a direct answer the first time you asked on 24 July at 10:49 AM):

    I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

    25 Jul @ 10:02AM Bobbo says: Guyver—do you honestly NOT understand what a direct reply is? So far==you have given none.

    25 Jul @ 1:37PM Guyver says: Just because you’re too lazy to click the button to read older comments, doesn’t change the fact that I did in fact DIRECTLY answer your question the first time you asked me.

    Odds are Bobbo will still continue to accuse me that so far I still have not answered his question directly. 😀

    • Tim says:

      Guyver, it is stalled with him. he says “and that is why I enjoy the subject of AGW: NONE OF US know anything about the subject==so it is excellent for us all to reflect on “How do we know what we know, and how do we change our minds?”===aka===> good stuff. ”

      O.K. But when I defer to a foremost expert in the field, John R. Christy, all he can do is stay blind with his indoctrination and stand by his assertion that the dissenting scientist is an ‘idiot’.

      Hey Bobbo, did you catch that %16 surplus farming gain because of extra co2? I can attest to that because if I’m growing pot inside a clandestine space, such as a loudspeaker, then I have to supply co2 {I use vinegar and baking powder}.

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Yes I noted that “Fun Fact.” I have read elsewhere that the rising co2 level “tends to” increase the foliage on most plants but reduce their fruit. Its usually the fruit we want. Also, the warming is shifting the temperate zone to the north which is moving the growing season/water available to land that is less productive for farming crops.

        All to the point—its all very complex. An area ripe for idiots and stooges to take about any position they want to and cherry pick the conclusion they wish.

        I agree Christy seems to have the highest expertise on this subject possible. Why then does he corrupt it with BS, cherry picking, and Big Nuke? All to the point—I don’t care who says what. What I do care about is the strength and vigor of the argument, just as my nom de flame says!!!

        Yea, verily!

        • Tim says:

          “”Also, the warming is shifting the temperate zone to the north which is moving the growing season/water available to land that is less productive for farming crops.

          Oreally? Because I would have interpreted the same data as ‘expanding’ rather than shifting. A warmer earth is a milder earth. The surface is not getting hotter. What? You don’t think Novaskosians or Greenlanders should be able to grow the same Alaskan ThunderFuck as the deserts of California???

      • Guyver says:

        But when I defer to a foremost expert in the field, John R. Christy, all he can do is stay blind with his indoctrination and stand by his assertion that the dissenting scientist is an ‘idiot’.

        I believe Christy’s perspective has been that what we all know to be scientifically true right now is based off of our present collective level of ignorance.

        I suppose we can make the case the human race will be perpetually / infinitely ignorant, but each new discovery makes us less so?

  30. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Guyver—you are right, I am wrong. I apologize.

    Just where you said it was:

    Guyver says:
    7/24/2013 at 10:49 am

    So–do you agree, disagree, don’t know, or have no opinion on the notion of AGW?

    I don’t know. Do you claim to KNOW?

    /////////////////////////////////////////////////

    I even remember reading it the first time (Gak!!)….. and actually, I haven’t had a beer for two weeks now and cappuccino does not stimulate me so. I put my error down to the Gesalt of the entire thread. Reading even now, my ATTENTION is drawn to the interrogatory from you==for I too have clearly stated many times that “I Don’t Know….. etc”

    It is my general experience of you that you don’t answer direct questions but I should have recognized the clear exception.

    Again—you did answer directly, I missed it, I apologize.

    ((I still think you are a dishonest liar posing your ignorance as a spear against the best science available….but I’m tired of making this particular argument. Maybe I do need a beer???))

    • Guyver says:

      It is my general experience of you that you don’t answer direct questions but I should have recognized the clear exception.

      I like to think I usually answer questions. In all likelihood I did answer past questions but you may have not liked the way in which I answered them. If it didn’t make it to my rectal data bank, it’s probably not worth recollecting. 😀

      ((I still think you are a dishonest liar posing your ignorance as a spear against the best science available….but I’m tired of making this particular argument. Maybe I do need a beer???))

      Perhaps you should drink another beer. When you catch me in a lie, feel free to point it out. 😉

      You may find you’ll need more than one as you read this to your dismay: http://tinyurl.com/m52pwrv

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        I laugh as I note I read these “dont panic” articles with one eye closed. “Everything you know …. is wrong.”

        There sure are “a lot” of them though. Every single point that the IPCC makes is contradicted by someone, somewhere. Almost makes you wonder what being part of a qualified panel of reputable scientists is “worth?” ……… and amusingly, if 50 years from now the IPCC is proven wrong, and the warming we see today is not as bad, reverses, or whatever THEN my holographic response will be: “so what is the best science available now telling us.”

        Nothing changes.

        • Guyver says:

          if 50 years from now the IPCC is proven wrong, and the warming we see today is not as bad, reverses, or whatever THEN my holographic response will be: “so what is the best science available now telling us.”

          Keep that thought, but let’s change the work load? I’ll start panicking when Science proves the IPCC right. 😉

          • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

            by then it will be too late. Thats the whole point.

            I can see I’m too harsh in my judgment of you. You aren’t lying here ((you might be but its not obvious)), you more likely are just behing dishonest ((more likely but again not overly obvious)), but what really comes across is how stupid you are.

            Lying, dishonest, stupid. YES–when you aren’t being one of these, I’ll let you know.

          • Guyver says:

            by then it will be too late. Thats the whole point.

            So you say. And how do you KNOW this to be true?

            Lying, dishonest, stupid. YES–when you aren’t being one of these, I’ll let you know.

            Skepticism == Lying, dishonest, stupid?!?!?! 😀

            Fascinating. You sound frustrated that your best logical fallacies have not yet been convincing enough.

            😛

      • bobbo, the iconoclastic non-conflating non-dogmatic existential Idol defiling cynosure says:

        Perhaps you should drink another beer. When you catch me in a lie, feel free to point it out. 😉 /// Keep that thought, but lets change the work load? I’ll let you know when I think you are telling the truth.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 5357 access attempts in the last 7 days.