As the fallout continues from the unauthorized release of thousands of documents pertaining to the “climate change” debate, another round of scientists is confirming that temperatures on the planet earth are at a “standstill.”
“The warming is taking a break,” meteorologist Mojib Latif – one of Germany’s best-known climatologists – tells Spiegel Online. “There can be no argument about that. We have to face that fact.”
Of course, numerous other globally-renowned climatologists chose not to “face that fact,” but manipulate data instead.
Or just delete the data altogether.
Anyway, the revelations have sparked a firestorm in advance of two pivotal “climate change” showdowns, the UN’s get-together in Copenhagen next month and the ongoing battle in the U.S. Congress over “Cap & Tax,” a government-run “emissions marketplace” which the U.S. Treasury indicates could cost American families as much as $4,000 a year in additional energy costs.
You know, we’ve always considered ourselves “Greenies” here at FITS – consistently arguing in favor of additional funding for land conservation, for example, and supporting all sorts of environmentally-sound practices (like recycling, energy-efficient appliances, those nifty new lightbulbs, etc.).
What we do not support, however, is a massive new energy tax that won’t do a damn thing to reduce CO2 emissions globally.
Oh, and hypocrisy. We can’t stand hypocrisy, either, which has pretty much become coin of the realm among “real” Greenies these days.
The sad truth is that the environmental movement – both nationally and here in South Carolina – has been hijacked by a bunch of big government backers whose only objective is cozying up to people in power.
And as for those people in power? Their concern for the environment extends only insofar as they can use it as an issue to suck more money out of the economy and blow it on wasteful, inefficient government.
By Liberty For Me November 24, 2009 at 11:27 am
The truth will eventually come through….Only the Obamatrons and the people that don’t have independent minds drink this silly kool-aid…”Pat..”
Why is it we cant get Al Gore to debate anybody.??..Oh yeah, we know why
By Elmer November 24, 2009 at 2:43 pm
There should be a criminal investigation. After all, these power drunk, biased scientists were taking taxpayer money to make up and contort this data as well as keep the raw data withheld from other scientists with opposing views.
This really stinks and hooray for the hackers who brought this to light.
By countryboy November 24, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Wonder if Al Gore knew the BS he has been spouting about global warming is just that? He’s the ultimate greenie hypocrite, flying to global warming conferences and such in private jets.
By Lundasoid November 24, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Hey Liberty for Me, Elmer, wanna come debate me on the topic on global warming? I think its time the academic community gets to hear your points. I can give you one hour at Clemson University to tell your side of “truth”.
In case you want to know what you’re up against, you have ruffled the feathers of a mathematical statistician who studies climate change for a living….one who has made a name for himself establishing that the Southeastern US is actually cooling (unlike the other 95% of the globe).
http://people.clemson.edu/~lund/
Be pre-advised: my brethren prefer facts to rhetoric.
By sid November 24, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“Be pre-advised:”?
So, that would be before you offer advice? Clearly you haven’t made a name as a writer.
By Rick November 24, 2009 at 4:46 pm
And has your brethren been around for hundreds of years with todays scientific instrumentation to determine all the earths heating and cooling cycles? Tell ya what, come back in 500 years and let me know if your calculations were correct. Otherwise, while your guess is mathematical extrapolation, doesn’t mean your initial thesis is correct. Still have an issue with chicken little squawking about the bears dying while flying in a private plane all over the world, inhabiting an energy hog of a home, and then crying because I call him a hypocrite. When ya convince the Chinese and Indians….call me
By Liberty For Me November 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Does then invite go to anyone?? Can we videotape it???
I would do anything to help get the “facts” out…..Let me know.
By Lundasoid November 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Yes you can tape it “Liberty for Me”. Put up now, or shut the F up. Let me know when and wherever. I get lots of publicity for eating clowns like you. Maybe Sid can proof your slides?
And if FITS will be there, I can arrange an audience.
By John Steinberger November 24, 2009 at 11:52 pm
CO2 isn’t a pollutant – it’s plant food (remember photosynthesis from biology class?)!
CO2 makes up less than 2% of all greenhouse gases – 96% is water vapor. Let’s get off this fairy tail and admit that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes!
By Liberty For Me November 25, 2009 at 12:48 am
I will see what I can do…seriously.I am sad to see our “higher” education uses such vial language and hatred.I think I should be able to rile some “rednecks” to entertain Y’all smart fellers..
By sid November 25, 2009 at 9:09 am
Liberty, don’t be so surprised. I’ve dealt with “academics” for many years, and they are some of the most thin-skinned people you will ever meet. They promote theories as facts on a regular basis, and if you dare disagree, you are clearly an intellectual inferior. They tend to be no different than your average school-yard bully, so just “punch” ‘soid in the nose, and he’ll back down. Get someone better in the actual field, and he’ll either run and hide, or just get a good beat-down in the debate. The idea that a so-called expert in a particular field would challenge someone who is not an expert in said field to a debate on that field is really pretty silly. If he couldn’t beat you, and by a wide margin, then he should lose his job. Let’s see how he does against someone who is supposed to be his “equal.”
By west_rhino November 25, 2009 at 9:23 am
Climategate. East Anglia’s claims of “having to delete” the original raw data, because the half Gig of storage was needed to store hot Brit lingerie model pron, “preventing” peer review, is a bigger F’ing scandal that Watergate, Whitewater, Teapot Dome, Sanford’s Ethics and Bernie Madolff combined. Alas a Republican isn’t responsible, ergo no Woodward or Bernstine stands to air the story, only the bitter racist Obama haters, like straight white Anglo males.
L’Emperor ist NEKKID! STARK RAVING NAKEY and he has a pimple on his butt.
By Georgia Bulldozer November 25, 2009 at 10:12 am
LOL. Some fourth-rate hack from Clempsun really has his panties in a wad!
By Lundasoid November 25, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I am still waiting for some scientific reasoning from “you clowns” on the topic of global warming supporting your positions. Whereas I do not agree with all aspects of the global warming conjecture, I find the amount of misinformation you guys are spewing to be troublesome.
Maybe, Sid, you should do some research on finding my equal. Then you won’t have to keep beating yourself.
By Liberty For Me November 25, 2009 at 11:34 pm
The climate may warm..then it may cool..its what happens in nature.
There have been times in past centuries when its very cold and the co2 level high and vise versa…so where is the proof of any connection..??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
By sid November 26, 2009 at 1:35 am
Not my battle, ‘soid. I’m just calling a spade a spade. But if I cared, finding your equal would likely be pretty easy. Hell, finding those superior to you would likely be pretty easy. I know your type cery well. You’re just a little too cocky to be as good as you think you are. Especially considering you’re supposed to be some hot-shot (in your mind) expert in the field, and you decide to wander into a political blog to challenge political bloggers to a debate in the field in which you seem to think you are not to be questioned. Why don’t you find the experts who don’t support your theories, get them together for a debate, then invite everyone to attend? You’re the expert, so you must know the right people.
By Lundasoid November 26, 2009 at 10:22 am
Liberty: funny video.
Sid: You seem to know a lot about everything, including me, my types, and academics (we are all evil satanic worshiping democrats). Smart people know what they don’t know. You truly scare me. However, you are right about one thing: I shouldn’t argue climate with political bloggers. I couldn’t be more disappointed here.
By sid November 26, 2009 at 11:36 am
Yeah, that’s the easy out, and typical of your type. I figured you’d back down. Thanks for not disappointing. I guess it somewhat proves my point about knowing you and your type. I’m not sure I ever even remotely implied your type worships satan or how you vote, but thanks for the intel. I’m sure it confirms what others were thinking.
As for you being scared, please explain. Do differing viewpoints frighten you? Being exposed as a bully? Wandering into a forum where you don’t control the discussion and having your hat handed to you? I’m really interested in what scares you, and why. Call it my scientific curiosity.
By Lundasoid November 26, 2009 at 11:58 am
One last nugget here Sid….when it comes to setting climate change policies in the future, whether its the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), testifying to Congress on hurrricane counts, or handing out National Science Foundation grant money for research on climate, I will be involved and you will not. Phrased another way, nobody in the know cares what you think.
By sid November 27, 2009 at 11:17 am
You seem to have missed a rather important point, ‘soid. I’m not involved in the debate over climate. I’m involved in the debate regarding you. I have my opinions on the former subject, but have not shared them. I have shared my opinions regarding you, however, and have apparently struck a rather sensitive nerve. It must suck to be you, and to be so predictable and easy to figure out.
As I said, and as you have confirmed, you are little more than a schoolyard bully who thought he’d wander into a new circle of kids and try throwing his weight around. Trouble is, these kids hit back, you don’t like getting your nose a little bloodied, so you skulk away talking about how important you are. You are nothing to me, but it’s nice to know I can get a little rise out of nothing.
So, keep avoiding the real subject I raised, which is you. You’re apparently too afraid to debate experts in your field who disgree with your views, so you tried your hand at some folks you thought would be easy to handle. I guess you were wrong, but that’s likely something you are used to. Now take your ball and go home, and come back when you’re ready to address the actual issues I raised.
By Lundasoid November 27, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Duh Sid,
The article was on global warming, not on me. Get a clue, shitstain.
I do have one use for you and your character assinations: can you help me insult my mother-in-law for the holidays? You don’t know her but that should be of no matter to you. It will help you release you societal anger over your failings in life.
Happy Holidays Dildo!
By sid November 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm
You are clearly out of your element, ‘soid. Stick to your ivory tower, where the kids you instruct may actually be impressed with whatever it is you do. If you can’t follow a simple discussion, how in the world are you going to handle an actual debate? Then again, the way you resort to profanity and schoolyard taunts when you start losing control (as if you ever had any) could make for a lot of fun in an actual debate where you get your hat handed to you.
Just for your edification though, some people started posting about the climate piece, you came in thinking you were some BSD, tried to intimidate folks, got slapped around a little, and that’s when I stepped in to explain what type of person you were. Apparently, I was so on the nose that you were too confused to realize I wasn’t involved in the actual climate debate.
Ultimately, I may agree with you on climate, or I may not. You don’t know, because I haven’t said. But what I do object to is how much of a tool you come across as. That’s what I’ve been talking about, and all you have done is support every one of my characterizations of you.
BTW, you don’t have any character for me to assassinate.
By Lundasoid November 27, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Hey Psycho Sid,
Just a thought here. How bout we open a phone line where people call in and you psychoanalyze them for shits and giggles? Make predictions and such. You know, like Mistress Cleo used to do. We could charge 2 bucks a call and rake in the dough.
By Lundasoid November 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Sorry Psycho Sid,
I thought you might actually know something about the topic.
i=1;
do while i <= 10000;
print "Psycho's Sid's a poser";
i=i+1;
endo;
By sid November 28, 2009 at 2:01 am
I don’t use my powers for profit, just for exposing hacks. Consider yourself exposed, ‘soid. An “academic” who can’t fathom the thought of anyone holding a viewpoint that differs from his own theories. Quite the scientific mind you’ve got there.
Let me know when you’ll be testifying before Congress. I can probably give you some pointers, so you don’t make an ass of yourself. It’s not that hard, when you come prepared. First rule is to not lose your cool. They don’t take too kindly to that, and they can bring more heat than what you’ve faced here. I think you’ll need to work on the whole anger thing.
By Carol November 28, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sid,
I think you are a little psycho
By Lundasoid November 28, 2009 at 3:37 pm
You disappoint me Psycho Sid. The variety/creativity in your posts is nill. Let me guess — a straight missionary position man.
By Woody November 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Sid, yur house smells like broken dreams and your deflowered 8 yer old cusins.
By Woody November 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
In algbra book, the definition of a straght line is Sid’s family tree. No forks.
By Lundasoid November 28, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Hi Psycho Sid,
Already testified to congress…One month ago on hurricane counts. I did list you as a rebutal witness. Sorry they didn’t call ya.
By Lundasoid November 28, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Thanx for your support Woody (I’ll buy you a beer should we ever meet), but perhaps its not needed…..I think Psycho Sid rests……lack of game (scientific fact).
I wish we all could have debated the climate issue seriously…..tis’ a pressing matter for our kids.
I’m out.
By sid November 29, 2009 at 2:38 am
I was wondering when you’d recruit folks to come to your defense, ‘soid. Again, very predictable. I guess the best “higher education” has to offer is a hack who can’t fight his own battles, can’t understand the battle he is in, and resorts to attempting scatalogical and sexual insults when nothing else works. Oh, and I’ve learned you apparently hate your mother-in-law. I’m sure your wife will be pleased to know that.
Do let me know when you get that debate put together. I know a man of your towering intellect will invite only the best and the brightest, so you can show the world how you make short work of the opposition’s shining jewels. And be sure to let me know where I can find your testimony. I’m sure it was riveting.
BTW, what’s with the “poser” post? What, exactly, an I “posing” as? I’m sure geeks get the format, but if you’re going to try to insult me, you may want to try something I might understand. I’m a words kind of guy, so code or equations or whatever that was is lost on me. Besides, “poser” is a rather dated term. Maybe check with your students to see what the cool kids are saying these days. I’m gonna guess you’re one of those guys who tries to be oh-so-tragically-hip to your students. The ones that don’t question you, that is.
By Lundasoid November 29, 2009 at 10:54 am
Well Sid,
You know where to find me. If you can seriously debate the issue, then I will see about arranging something formal. I’ll also quit being a punk-ass if you can stick to topic — drop the psychoanalysis. Your mantra so far has been to attack the person rather than their argument. Its amusing, but it hardly advances science. As for reading background, search my name and hurricanes on google. Do let me know if and when you can formalize your argument in a scientific context.
By sid November 30, 2009 at 12:01 pm
You still don’t get it, ‘soid. But considering you read the Woody posts as support for you, and that you want to associate yourself with them, that’s not surprising. Her/his posts were certainly down to your level, so I guess I can understand you wanting to buy Woody a beer should you ever meet (wink, wink).
Again, I’m not debating the climate, no matter how badly you wish I would. It’s not my field, so why would I debate someone who is such a legend in his own mind in this arena? I’m talking about you and the way you present yourself. The fact that you are so desperate to switch our discussion over to the climate tells me I’ve not just painted an accurate picture of you, but taken a digital photograph. 1080p, baby!
I encourage you, if you wish to defend your positions, to put together a debate featuring real experts in the field (not bloggers), and from all sides of the debate. It really is far more complicated than simply those who claim global warming, and those who claim none. I’m certain you understand that, even if you insist on taking a rather one-dementional approach here.
So, next time you feel like coming in like some BSD, and trying to talk down to people and bully them, I’ll slap you around a little more. If you just want to present your theories in a calm, rational manner, then I won’t have a problem with you.
Finally, I guess you’re not so proud of your experience with Congress. If you want to get the word out on your views, guide people to them. Don’t make them do the work finding it. Unless, of course, there’s a problem with said work. Oh, and drop the “for our kids” crap. This isn’t the Simpsons.
By Lundasoid November 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm
LOL Psycho-Sid,
Oh, are we annoyed?
I see you didn’t do your homework. Again, search my name and hurricanes. You will find 100 plus pages. Can’t write em’ all down for ya — would take too long. And need I remind you that I’m associated with popularizing Southeast cooling. Let me repeat….cooling. So you can keep dissin’ on me or investigate my claims of being in the know. One of those choices is logical; the other will lead your to the same non-informed rhetoric you’ve been writing.
Yeah, I know we’re not debating climate — annoying you is way too fun.
Problem is, you insulted me first. So I’m giving you a good old ass whopping.
You picked the wrong guy to fuck with Sid…someone versed in the topic, and someone who can and has exposed you.
BTW, should we carry on, I do wish you would upgrade your prose. For a “words man”,
it’s embarrassingly plain/stale.
By sid November 30, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I’m only as annoyed as I would be of a gnat, incessantly buzzing in my ear. That’s really all you are to me.
As for who fired the first shots, that would be you. Repeatedly. In this thread, you challenged bloggers to come into your isolated little world, which I think is fairly bush-league, and insulting. As I have said, I would hope you can outdebate folks who are not “experts” in your field. I made fun of your poor wording (“be pre-advised”) in what was clearly a little joke, not an insult. You took it rather personally, I guess.
In previous threads, you have made such choice comments as “I know the asshole (Trenberth) quite well,” and “redneck fucks like ‘Liberty for Me.’” Again, you are a great example of a scientific mind, filled with reason and decorum. You like to try to bully people and throw around the insults, but you seem to have an exceptionally thin skin when anyone turns a little light of scrutiny onto you. As I’ve already said in my accurate analysis of you, that’s not surprising among your “brethren.” If you consider my letting folks know exactly what you are to be an “insult,” then you must not have a very high opinion of yourself.
Of course, I’ll be happy to keep “dissin’” on you until I get tired of the game, as that’s the point of my posts. I don’t respect you or your type. I don’t really question your credentials, but do question your method of trying to win friends and influence people. It is poor.
Ultimately, I leave you with two simple requests. First, put together the debate you offered. As I said before, you are the “expert,” so you know who to contact. Unless, of course, all you want to do is try to embarrass some folks who don’t subscribe to your theories, but are not experts. I’m sure they’ve read material by real experts, and have formed their own opinions based on those readings. They believe one group of scientists, while you believe yourself and likeminded scientists. Again, I have not offerd my opinions on this aspect of the discussion, so you can keep trying to drag me into it, but you’re just not good enough to get me to do something I don’t wish to do. Hell, I may even agree with some of your theories, but my whole point of posting has been to expose you as the elitist bully that you are. You may not like that, but the beauty of blogs is you can take conversations in whatever direction you wish.
The second request is for you to offer a link to your Congressional testimony. I really don’t see how that can be such a difficult request to fulfill. I know quite a few people on the Hill, so I can track it down, if it’s out there. But I really don’t feel like bothering anyone about it, when the source is right here. If you don’t want to point me to it, I’ll simply presume there is something you are hiding. It really doesn’t bother me. I do find hurricanes interesting, though. It must be a daunting task to count them. Do you use your fingers AND toes?
By Lundasoid November 30, 2009 at 8:22 pm
You disappoint me psycho-Sid. Think about it this way, I cannot write down my name again on this board. That was not very wise once, and I do not wish to repeat past mistakes. But **you** know who I am and where I am from. You can easily surf into my page and see what I do for a living….and my vita is right there for everyone to see, including all the climate work that I do (sorry, it hasn’t been updated for several months). You’ll also learn that I was the editor for The Journal of the American Statistical Association for three years. Yes, this “hack” as you say. Or am I making that up too?
Sorry, but I can bite you on several levels including knowledge and irate verbiage.
And since you insulted me, I take great pleasure in annoying you.
Point is Sid, you pissed me off. I don’t care if you don’t respect my line of work. What do you think I think about you, besides humorless.
If you’re man enough to drop me an e-mail, I will cordially send you copies of hurricane work, replete with URLs to what you want (I’m really surprised you haven’t found it, but to be honest, I’ve never looked for it).
As for the debate, I am happy to give whomever University time. But I do think the onus is upon you to arrange who I’m supposed to be debating. Also, we usually don’t debate, but rather present research findings. But that’s ok — any layman can make such a mistake and I understand that you’re not very scientifically inclined.
Finally, yep, Trenberth is an asshole. Certifiable. And your last e-mail was much better constructed. Thank you.
By sid November 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm
“Hey Liberty for Me, Elmer, wanna come debate me on the topic on global warming?”
So, you can “debate” those who you think are intellectually below you, but not those you consider your equals? I wouldn’t be interested in a bunch of “academics” sitting around shooting the shit about what neat fellows they all think they are, and how swell their latest research is. I, as well as the unwashed masses you seem to despise, want to see you duke it out in an honest to goodness debate. I’ve actually witnessed many debates among “academics.” It’s not a mistake to label a debate as a debate. What you are talking about is not a debate, but I can see why you would want to present the impression that I made some sort of mistake, when in reality, I did not. Really, though, if you’re afraid of debating your “equals,” just say so. I will understand if you choose to back down. It’s exactly what I predicted you would do, you might recall.
“Point is Sid, you pissed me off.”
That was my goal. I figured it would be easy, and it was. You were just so full of yourself that you were one of the easiest marks I’ve seen. Had you been even slightly interesting, I might have taken a different approach, or not said a thing. But you had to come in with that swagger, like yours was the only voice worth being heard. BTW, you may want to work on that anger thing. You seem to get pissed off pretty easily (“you have ruffled the feathers…”).
“I don’t care if you don’t respect my line of work.”
Again, you don’t get it. I’ve got nothing against your line of work. I don’t respect you, or the “academic” blowhards that infest “higher education.” I think education is a laudable profession. People like you just make it seem more about you than about actual education. You’re a classic narcissist.
“I cannot write down my name again on this board.”
I didn’t ask you to. I asked you to provide a link to your testimony. There’s absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t be able to do that. As for not being able to write down your name, what gives? You can post using a pseudonym everyone knows to belong to you. What’s the difference? Somebody telling you you’re gonna get in trouble if you keep insulting random strangers on the ‘net and having outbursts of profanity while representing your current school? What are you afraid of?
“If you’re man enough to drop me an e-mail…”
Cute try at provocation, but really kind of weak. How you equate direct communication with some antiquated concept of manliness is beyond me. Just post a link to your testimony, unless you’re not man enough.;-)
“Sorry, but I can bite you on several levels…”
Don’t try to include me in any of your twisted fantasies. I don’t swing that way, not that there’s anything wrong with that. If you’re into biting guys, more power to ya, but that ain’t my thing.
So, what this all seems to boil down to is a few basic truths. First, you like to throw around insults, and try to bully people into accepting your theories. Now, for some reason, you are afraid of writing your own name, even though it takes virtually nothing for anyone with at least a room-temperasture IQ to figure out who you are. In addition, you are afraid of organizing a debate of your “equals,” but would be happy to set up a debate with those you feel are your inferiors, intellectually. You claim to have offered some testimony to Congress recently, but refuse to let me know where to find it. Must be part of your need to feel in control. You are a very interesting subject, that’s for sure. Not very impressive, but definitely interesting.
By Lundasoid December 1, 2009 at 9:46 am
Uh Sidney, you are not following directions. I have thrown you some bread crumbs to lead you to what you want and you have replied with insults.
By sid December 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Sure, ‘soid, when you start lobbing insults, I’ll respond with the same. It seems to be the only method of communication you understand. It’s clearly your favorite.
I understand your need to feel in control. It gives you the the illusion of superiority, which is something you clearly crave. It just doesn’t really work here. Virtually every simple request I have made of you is ignored, as are some pretty basic questions. You may think it makes you look like you are in control, but it really just looks like you are hiding things.
If you are afraid of providing a link to your testimony, and are afraid of setting up a real debate with actual peers, you can just admit it. Since that is unlikely, I guess I’ll just have to accept your failure to follow my rather simple instructions as an admission. I like how you seem to adopt my strategies in this little back-and-forth, though. If imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess I should feel honored?
By Lundasoid December 2, 2009 at 11:17 am
Sir-Sid,
You need to follow directions to get what you want. It would also help to change decorum if you want to interact **professionally**.
On a debate: if you can get someone local, I have the afternoon of December 16th free and Clemson will be past finals. If you cannot find someone local, then the onus is upon you to pay travel. I get only about $2000 a year of travel expenses and I have already committed it out this year. Do you have any candidates?
Something bugs me. Are you one of those people paid to troll websites and direct public opinion? Why do you care about this so much?
By sid December 2, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Then I accept your admission.
Unfortunately, for you, you don’t get to dictate how the interaction goes after you set the tone. If you want to apologize for coming into the forum all hot-and-bothered and hurling insults, while also attempting to bully people with your pedigree, then that’s one thing. Until you accept responsibility for setting the tone, though, you don’t get to lecture on said tone.
Just so we’re straight, you seem to want to challenge people who don’t have your background to a debate on a subject you (one hopes) are fairly familiar with. You’ll even be so gracious as to offer to coordinate it. But if it is suggested the debate be with your actual peers, well, you just don’t have the time or interest. Coincidentally, I don’t have the time or interest in doing your work for you. You know who all the major players are. I’ll freely admit one area where you would do better than I is in organizing a debate of climate experts, simply because you run in those circles (I presume).
Honestly, I would have expected an “expert” to want to show off his skills against other “experts.” But that doesn’t appear to be the case. Kind of like if Reggie Miller challenged Spike Lee to a game of one-on-one because he got tired of hearing him shoot his mouth off every time he visited MSG. Of course, Miller had some class, so he probably would not have backed down if Lee suggested a better competition would be if Miller played another actual NBA player.
As for following directions, you really need to take a look at your fascination with trying to exert control over others. Again, I don’t have the time or interest in tracking down the testimony you claim exists. You’ve got it, or know where to get it, so just share it. Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I accept your admission.
Finally, it would seem there is a great deal the “bugs” you. Mostly, people who disagree with your theories, or people who disagree with your tactics for promoting those theories. I guess I fall into the latter catagory. I’ve been posting to this site for a couple years, though, and do so simply because I enjoy it. You, on the other hand, seem to be a newbie, and admit that you are one who “studies climate change for a living.” I presume your goal, in part, is to “direct public opinion.” It would appear you are projecting, to a certain extent.
In the end, I really don’t care as much as you may like to think. Not about you, at least. I don’t like the type of person you are (which I’ve explained ad nauseum), so when I saw your postings, I just happened to feel like calling you out. I freely admit to having been caustic and insulting, but only after you set that as your preferred tone. I’m just a guy who likes to post, and you’ll find that I tend to set my tone based on the folks who post before me. You, on the other hand, are a professor, and a man of science. You’re supposed to set the standards a little higher. In that regard, you have failed.
By Lundasoid December 3, 2009 at 10:24 am
Sidney,
We are not following directions! And I do wish for a changepoint in your decorum and psychoanalytic prose.
I don’t really know who to get for a debate, nor what said debate would focus on as the issue of climate change is vast. If you want to somone who works in the same area as I — someone to kick my ass — then you need a mathematical analyst. Maybe Droegemeier at Oklahoma since my testimony on hurricane counts and strom strengths directly contradicted his? But he is really not a math guy. I Dunno. Didn’t you say finding my superior would be easy?
By sid December 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm
You are half-correct when you say “We.” That would mark, by my count, the first time you have been in the vicinity of being correct. You, being the correct half, have failed (a recurring theme for you, but one you may be used to) to provide the alleged testimony, and have failed to organize a debate of your peers.
Not to beat a dead horse, but you should be able to successfully debate blog posters on a subject in which you have (apparently) years of training and self-proclaimed expertise. Debating your peers, on the other hand, would likely be much more of a challenge to you. A challenge, I’ll add, that a true scientist should look forward to facing. Again, you raised the idea of a debate, so it’s your task to organize it. I merely suggested a playing field that would be more level. I really had no idea you were so terrified of not having a distinct advantage in your suggested debate, and that such a suggestion would anger and incense you so.
As for subject matter, since you raised the original idea of a debate, what did you originally have in mind? See, I’m helping you sort out your thought process. Don’t say I never tried to be helpful. Perhaps your initial problem was you didn’t give enough reasoned thought to what you were going to say when you first decided to post? That may be why you chose to go with insults and intimidation. That’s your emotions dictating your actions. Get that in check, and you may improve when posting in the future.
(You will note that I plan to continue to analyze you, in spite of your protestations. You may not like what you see in the mirror I continue to provide you, but it may prove to enhance you as both a person and a seeker of knowledge. As for a change in decorum, just admit the errors of your ways, apologize, and maybe I’ll be less harsh with you. Maybe.)
As for me finding your superior, I am convinced more now than before that it would be quite easy, per the post to which you alluded. That said, please refer to my previous qualifier from that particular post. As a clue, the important word in my statement was “if.”
BTW, I notice you keep changing the way by which you refer to me. I understand it is just your way of trying to get under my skin, but you may want to just stick with “sid.” It actually has nothing to do with my real name, so it is not short for “Sidney.” For that matter, I have not been knighted (but if I ever am, “Sid” will not be a part of the title), and “psycho-” seems a curious prefix coming from a guy who keeps complaining of my analysis. Ironically hypocritical, perhaps?
If you don’t like “sid,” though, maybe you could go back to “shitstain” or “Dildo.” Those at least made me laugh. Of course, I was laughing at you for, yet again, letting your emotions get the better of you. But laughter is healthy, so I appreciate the gesture. Anyway, in case you were spending time trying to come up with a new way to address me, I thought I’d save you some effort. But if it makes you happy, have at it. Far be it from me to try to deprive you of a little happiness.
By Lundasoid December 3, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Well Sid,
Knock yourself up. Maybe I should apologize to Liberty and/or Elmer — you may have a case there — but as I recall, you fired the first shot across my bow with the pre-advice comment (which also, BTW, was literally incorrect). You do realize I am an editor? Problem was that I know what I’m talking about and you resented my authoritian position. Fine…won’t be the first time someone has called unity zero. You and 9 out of 10 other Republicans. Science, alas, seems to be orthogonal to your vocabulary.
As for the Senate testimony, you have a nasty habit of not following simple directions. There are reasons why I can’t simply post direct testimony on the web, nor forward a .pdf, but I guess if “you could easily track such stuff down”, you should also know the rules about posting. That said, I think the original July 28, 2009 predecessor testimony is now public record. Look it up. Some commerce subdivision of the senate or something. Ouch. You just keep getting burned here. My, house, my house, my house is on fire.
On the debate……Look, dude, I get 2K per year for speakers and travel. I pledge 1K from my NSF grant if you will match. You have repeatedly told me how bad I am….not sure who you are going to get, but I wish you would put your money where your mouth is. Ultimately, I await your response on this issue. The ball is in your court.
Lastly, and I say “lastly” because I am going ice climbing in the back-country of Canada on Saturday, far away from the internet, I offer some advice: I recommend that you keep your mouth shut on issues you don’t know about: journalism is in general, not viewed as a surrogate for scientific knowledge.
See ya’ in a week. BTW, I’ll be back on Dec 12 and I, again, have Dec. 16 open for your cronies.
By sid December 4, 2009 at 12:35 am
I’ve had a case with every one of my posts. You are just too proud to admit it. Now to make you look even more silly.
“as I recall, you fired the first shot across my bow with the pre-advice comment (which also, BTW, was literally incorrect). You do realize I am an editor?”
First, that was clearly a joke, but you’re too thin-skinned to take it as anything other than an insult, or at least as an excuse to start insulting me. But you must be one hell of a scientist, because you’re a lousy editor if you think my comment was somehow wrong. The phrase is, always has been, and always will be, “Be advised.” You then follow with the advice. Why some people feel the need to add “pre” to everything is beyond me, but you, apparently, think it makes what you write sound more important. If you take half a moment to break down the word, I think you will understand how wrong (again) you are.
Of course, if you can’t understand that, then that explains why you can’t seem to understand most of what I’ve explained to you. Stick to numbers, if you are actually any good at them.
“Problem was that I know what I’m talking about and you resented my authoritian position.”
No, I resented you being a pompous, blowhard bully. At no point in any of this discussion have you shown you know what you are talking about. You say you do, but have been too afraid to offer any proof. But the idea that you feel you have an “authoritarian position” clearly confirms my analysis of you.
“You and 9 out of 10 other Republicans.”
You may have the worst batting average in the history of confrontational blogging, as you just swing and miss every single time. I have never had a party affiliation. But it looks like we’ve got you confirming you are a Democrat. Thanks for being part of the stereotype I thought you were.
“There are reasons why I can’t simply post direct testimony on the web, nor forward a .pdf, but I guess if ‘you could easily track such stuff down’, you should also know the rules about posting.”
No, there aren’t reasons. Testimony before Congress is a matter of public record, as far as I know. Explain, in detail, what prohibits you from posting your testimony. Besides, you’ve already said it’s out there, and I just had to look. If it’s out there, there’s nothing stopping you from giving me the link. Absolutely nothing. Or were you lying? You do realize everything you post here stays up for further review, right? So, were you telling me to look for something that isn’t posted? Or is it posted and you are ashamed of it, for some reason? It’s got to be one or the other, as far as I’m concerned.
“That said, I think the original July 28, 2009 predecessor testimony is now public record. Look it up. Some commerce subdivision of the senate or something.”
Such an important event, you’d think you’d know where. Or is that just the way you look at Congress? So beneath you that you don’t need to remember where you were. I’m sure my frinds on the Hill will appreciate your attention to detail. But if it’s out there, post a link to it. I don’t want to have to do all your work for you. After all, I’ve asked so little of you, you’d think you could produce something of actual substance.
“Ouch. You just keep getting burned here. My, house, my house, my house is on fire.”
Really? I’m starting to think you’re not even a college graduate. Maybe somebody stole a real mathemeticians identity, as this is the type of stuff I see from kids in their parents basements. Surely “higher education” can do better.
“On the debate……”
Again, you started the talk of a debate, but were too afraid to challenge one of your peers, so you took a swing at some bloggers. It’s your baby, so don’t go trying to get me to adopt it. And please don’t try that poverty crap. I’m sure such an important man as you pulls down plenty of change. This is really what I expect from a confirmed Democrat, though. Have someone else pay your way, even when you can afford it. What happened to your concern for the kids? Or is your concern for dollars just a little higher? Oh, and the ball’s been in your court this whole time. You just seem too afraid to pick it up.
“I recommend that you keep your mouth shut on issues you don’t know about: journalism is in general, not viewed as a surrogate for scientific knowledge.”
I actually always do. There’s just so little that falls under that umbrella, though, that I find my mouth open all the time. Of course, one issue I do know is you. Your reactions have been so textbook that I don’t think I could have been more accurate with my analysis if I had been studying you from birth. It’s kind of funny that I won’t take any of your bait on debating climate, and you won’t take any of my bait on debating you. Then again, I’m gonna guess you know more about climate issues than I, so why would I? And it seems I know more about you than you do, so I can understand you not wanting to engage. Hell, you’re probably thanking me for the valuable (and free!) insights on your own psyche.
Oh, and “cronies”? I want to see you debate your peers, so are you saying all of your peers are “cronies,” or just the ones that don’t agree with your theories?
By Lundasoid December 4, 2009 at 9:52 am
LOL Sidney,
Your extrapolations amuse me…..those rambling random walk retorts shooting everything that moves.
But if you want something from me, you’re going to have to follow directions.
See ya in a week chump.
By sid December 4, 2009 at 10:36 am
Oooh, now I’m “chump”! Once again, avoiding all the points, and resorting solely to insults. There may be nothing sadder than an “academic” who is so dedicated to hiding behind his thin facade of self-perceived control. Afraid…unwilling…unable…who knows? Whatever the case, when you claim something exists, it is your job to prove it. Otherwise, it doesn’t. Isn’t that part of the “scientific method”? In other words, your “theory” (or is it a hypothesis?), as it relates to here, is that you testified before Congress. Now you must “prove” your “theory” by providing “evidence.” Or did you miss that class at number-crunching school? Ultimately, you’re a glorified accountant, as far as I can tell, but perhaps you can elevate that status by actually providing proof of your statement.
Similarly, when you lay down a challenge, it is your job to see it through, and at the level one expects of such an acclaimed “scientist.” Otherwise, you just sound like some 6th grade punk laying down a challenge to all the 3rd graders to meet him after school for a good woopin’.
So, you still have two tasks unfulfilled. Here, that is, as I imagine you probably fail to deliver in other areas. I can only prove your failures here, though.
Provide the link to the testimony you claim is out there, and put together the debate. Pretty simple, I would think, but perhaps they are beyond your abilities. If so, you probably shouldn’t have brought them up. I know you’re learning from our little exchange, even if you are too proud to admit it. For that, you are welcome.
BTW, I’ve already got plenty from you. You just don’t seem to realize that fact, or choose to ignore it.
By Lundasoid December 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Sidney,
I’m back. I really missed your extrapolating wild-assed inferences and in-depth psycho-analysis. Sorry about your week…I mean Sarah Palin and her climate views. Wow, and I thought Al Gore was dumb.
I also see that 2009 is fifth hottest year ever. The bad news continues.
By sid January 6, 2010 at 11:47 am
Hemorrhoid,
My weeks have been great while you were gone, as well as since you returned, but thanks for the concern. I’m not sure what Palin has to do with our discussion, nor would I agree with your assertion that Al Gore is “dumb.” I think he’s manipulative and dishonest, but if you think he’s “dumb,” perhaps you can defend your position? I’d love to see you defend anything, really, since you have yet to do so.
As for global temperatures, once again, I have not stated anything regarding my position on them. Neither whether I agree or disagree that they are climbing, or agree or disagree with any of the various theories as to what may be the cause of climate changes. Seriously, it’s like I’m debating a full-blown retard, the way you can’t seem to grasp what I’ve been saying.
Oh, and regarding my new name for you, it’s a cute play on your “name,” and your comment that you were “back.” Get it? It’s because you have “oid” in your name, you think you are being a pain in the ass, and you came back. All of these, I believe, can be associated with hemorrhoids. It’s funny because it makes fun of you.