Posted by: graemebird | February 8, 2007

Organising The Ritual Stripping Of Steve Edneys PHD

Steve Edney must forfeit his PHD.

After relying only on computer models that don’t backtest and don’t include a solar forecast Edney will not admit that he has no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

What a lying unscientific zombie hey?

Steve. You know the punishment for being a dishonest bastard. You get the gift of having your own thread at my place to be made an example out of.

You will stand at attention and I will smash the framed certificate over your head. You will not flinch as I rip the paper all to shreds and take your pens and pencils and snap them over my knee.

http://steveedney.wordpress.com/2006/10/04/rainfall-patterns/#comment-2756

Don’t read the rest of this thread since its easier to go to the above link.

But I’m going to copy part of the thread below so he cannot hide the evidence for his unscience and stupidity.

(((((((((graemebird Says:
February 4th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
“While I accept and indeed am concerned about the prospect of global warming….”

Do you accept and are you concerned about global cooling?

“While I accept and indeed am concerned about the prospect of global warming….”

Why?

You’ve always been particularly mindless on this issue.

And the last time you stooped to answer you had nothing. Said you were putting your trust in stupid computer programs that didn’t backtest and didn’t include a solar forecast.

“While I accept and indeed am concerned about the prospect of global warming….”

Why?

Please.

Show me that you are not just a complete Zombie.

Just one of Marks useful idiots.

graemebird Says:
February 6th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
“I agree, Steve. Well, sort of. I’m probably a little bit more annoyed when some RWDB media pundit, or someone like Jennifer Marohasy at the IPA, cite an example of unusually cold weather to cast doubt on AGW.”

WELL IT DOES CAST DOUBT ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC WARMING.

And lets be very clear about this.

The alarmists put an inordinate amount of emphasis on CO2 levels.

They downplay the solar oscillations. They say that since the watts per metre squared typically vary less the 1% then the suns variations cannot be driving the process.

So they say for practical purposes, it is the CO2 level that is driving the process.

Its a ridiculous theory but nevermind its their theory.

And you bet all these cold snaps and the ocean temperatures falling away since 2003 is evidence against this theory.

There hasn’t been much evidence FOR this theory for very long time but never mind.

The fact is that the cooling oceans and cold weather is very much evidence against the alarmists.

JUST HOW!!!!!!! GULLIBLE ARE YOU FELLA???

By Allah this fraud has you all acting like zombies.

Steve Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Bird,

I’ve been busy moving, but what happened? I thought you thought warming was occuring and it was a good thing.

graemebird Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Thats right.

That would be my best guess.

But there is little doubt that we will get colder by mid-century if we include a solar forecast.

That the IPCC did not include a solar forecast shows them to be the frauds they obviously are.

But lets not get diverted Edney.

You have some explaining to do. You have a special responsibility not to lead the public astray. Since they are likely to believe you Physics degree gives you some sort of special insight.

Apparently not.

So lets go again:

Where is your evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?

Why are you buying into this fraud in the first place and given that we have mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global COOLING but none for the likelihood of catastrophic global WARMING……

……then why are you goosestepping along to the tune of the bullshit momentum rather then helping me bring it to an end and get those coal-fired plants up and running.

I could use a little help.

This is a serious crisis we have on our hands. A serious socialist-inspired energy-crisis.

graemebird Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Fantastic Edney.

You’ve got me on moderation.

Bravo.

You are now entering the Green lunatic fringe.

Steve Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Bird, I don’t have you on moderation, the spam filter caught one comment. Calm down.

Sacha Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Birdy – be unflappable!

Sacha Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Here is a link: http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/pps7u.html about the Regional Impacts of climate change in Australia.

Of course it’s suspect as it’s no doubt prepared by “dumb science workers”, but you have to work with what’s around.

graemebird Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Bird, I don’t have you on moderation, the spam filter caught one comment. Calm down.”

Yeah will stop filibustering Steve.

I’m after actual answers not content-free comebacks.

Sacha.

Don’t make links unless they have actual evidence.

Where is the evidence?

Its not there is it Sacha.

No it isn’t.

graemebird Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
So Steve.

I asked some questions. And over a period of months you have studiously avoided giving me sensible answers…

WHAT IS THIS TELLING YOU?

Sacha. You thought or pretended to think you made a link that contained some evidence…. But it doesn’t contain any such evidence…. so…

WHAT IS THIS TELLING YOU?

Its very easy to tell who would have been the “GOOD GERMANS” if they were living in Germany in the 30’s.

Its the likes of you that are so easily influenced by bulldust-momentum.

graemebird Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Come on Sasha?

Why the wild goose chase.

Just shows how interested you are in the truth.

NOT AT FUCKING ALL AND WHATS WRONG WITH YOU.

There was absolutlely nothing there. Not even any unbacked assertions.

Now Steve since Sacha and you have tried to dodge and filibuster and distract we have to go through it agains and this time attempt not to be dishonest:

“Where is your evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?

Why are you buying into this fraud in the first place and given that we have mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global COOLING but none for the likelihood of catastrophic global WARMING……

……then why are you goosestepping along to the tune of the bullshit momentum rather then helping me bring it to an end and get those coal-fired plants up and running.”

Lets have a proper comeback HEY!!!????

Is that too much to ask to get a real explanation. Or some real evidence. As opposed to a mindless distraction from Sacha or a fob-off from you???

I don’t think thats too much to ask.

Sacha Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Bird, I can’t speak for Steve but I work and so don’t have a lot of free time. Subsequently, I don’t have the time nor energy to obtain sufficient evidence and do the appropriate analyses to come to an independent view about many things – I’m in the same boat as everyone else, including yourself.

In fact, the amount of “stuff” that I am completely sure about and that I have independently verified is pretty small – and this would be true for everyone.

If you’re so convinced that you’re correct about something which almost everyone else is wrong about, publish the evidence and analysis to support your ideas. Be prepared for people to ask questions and don’t just reflexively react.

Until you do, everyone will rightly ignore.

Sacha Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Bird said:
“Sacha. You thought or pretended to think you made a link that contained some evidence…. But it doesn’t contain any such evidence…. so…

WHAT IS THIS TELLING YOU?

Its very easy to tell who would have been the “GOOD GERMANS” if they were living in Germany in the 30’s.

Its the likes of you that are so easily influenced by bulldust-momentum.”

If I recall correctly, the link is to a press release talking about the results of work done. Tell me Bird, you’d be the only one who resists the “bulldust-momentum”, wouldn’t you, while all the dumb idiots are fooled?

Do you know what a good scientist does? They say to themselves: “this could be wrong – what is actually happening here?” They are open-minded to the possibility of being wrong. I havn’t picked this idea up in anything you’ve written.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 6:47 am
“If I recall correctly, the link is to a press release talking about the results of work done.”

Right. No evidence.

Do you see a pattern here? A good scientist would look for a pattern. A good mathematician would look for pattern recognition.

Now have you got some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming or not?

IF IT WAS ACTUALLY THERE YOU WOULD HAVE IT AND COULD FIND IT.

Or are you just going to come up with some make-believe-evidence for a distraction.

Surely if there was evidence for warming reducing rainfall (the opposite of the case actually Mr Wrongway Corrigan) surely the CSIRO wouldn’t simply present it.

Your failure to link evidence results from there being no evidence.

WHAT ABOUT YOU MUNN.

YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF?

OR YOU GOING TO GO QUIET FOR A WEEK OR TWO AND FALL BACK IN LINE WITH THE GOOSTEPPING CROWD AGAIN?

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 6:49 am
IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR THE TWO OF YOU TO ATTEMPT TO ACT LIKE SCIENTISTS.

For fucksakes people this is just a disgrace. Both of you nutters have PHD’s.

You got them largely off the public tit so can I simply ask you to act like responsible adults and attempt to show the victims (the taxpayer) some sort of respect here.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Dammit Edney. I got mixed up between you and Munn.

That shows the extent of your back-sliding.

Steve Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Bird,

As Sacha says, I am busy and don’t have time to go through every detail of AGW theory or (particularly at the moment) join a lengthy argument. However I have read some on it and I find that in general the mainstream account that the release of CO2 is going to increase the average global temperatures is more convincing than the objections I have read.

While I agree that cooling would be a problem if it occurred, I am not at all convinced that at the current time that cooling is likely,

As far as I can tell my main difference of opinion with you is that:
1) the risk of cooling is unlikely in the near future.
2) warming is likely and will be bad

I will conceed that I have uncertainty about how bad it will be but feel that it will be, overall, a bad thing with a small chance it will be very bad. Human settlement is in a fair part guided by climatic conditions. Were these to change it will in the majority of cases be for the worse – settlement will be less optimal as rainfall patterns and climatic belts etc shift.

With that in mind I think that some warming is inevitable and we will cope (with some effort) with a couple of degrees warming, however we should be taking measures to curb emissions in an effort to ensure that the chance, even if its small, of worst case scenarios being reduced

Sacha Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I broadly agree with Steve’s thoughts in his last comment. The problem is about dealing with a potential catastrophic risk.

Bird, it’s a waste of my energy to respond seriously to your comments.

A very important point is Newton’s as follows: (From Wikipedia) Isaac Newton famously remarked in a letter to his rival Robert Hooke dated February 5, 1676 that:

“What Des-Cartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

Bird, everyone relies on previous work – it is not possible to a single person to construct a complete theory of mathematics, physics and chemistry as one doesn’t have enough time nor resources to do it. Thus we rely on others and have to extend some trust to previous work that we deem reliable, although we’re always aware that it could be wrong.

I doubt that you understand all pertinent aspects of atmospheric chemistry without having referred to other people’s work. I doubt that you fully understand the carbon dioxide molecule without a good grasp of quantum mechanics, which also requires a good grasp of university level mathematics. Thus you are relying on other people’s work.

This is tiresome and I won’t respond anymore.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
“As far as I can tell my main difference of opinion with you is that:
1) the risk of cooling is unlikely in the near future.
2) warming is likely and will be bad”

This is just an assertion. And its a FALSE assertion. There is no evidence for this.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE SACHA.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE.

YOU GUYS ARE JUST MINDLESS.

Is it too much to ask that you people act with a bit of intellectual honesty?

Attempt to be fucking scientists will you. Now you both have PHD’s.

This is pathetic.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
You know if this wasn’t a big fat fucking fraud it would just be a matter of you guys showing me the evidence.

They are doing such a bad job when it comes to education these days.

DO YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

Will you further admit that there is mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global COOLING.

If not why are you being dishonest.

If so what are you being dishonest and goose-stepping in line with this scientific fraud.

You guys aren’t real smart are you.

Now Sacha. No distractions or poopy-pants behaviour.

This time lets see some evidence.

Go!!!!

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Look Edney.

I don’t CARE for you pointing out where we disagree. Thats not what we need from you.

What we need is evidence for your own position.

I know you disagree. We wouldn’t be discussing this if we both agreed.

For relevance it would have been better just to tell me what you had for lunch.

Now you are helping along this guild-of-thieves fraud and there must be some reason for it.

You must have some evidence somewhere for it or you are doing the wrong thing.

So lets see the evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.

Steve Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
DO YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THE LIKELIHOOD OF CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

Will you further admit that there is mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global COOLING.

No I won’t.

The evidence is bird. CO2 traps heat (absorbs infrared). CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising as a result of buring fossil fuels and other activity. As expected global mean temperatures have been rising.

The exact link is of course complicated due to positive and negative feedbacks. We have models to help us with this. While not perfect, due to their complexity, they are our best estimates incorporating all the known evidence and indicate significant amounts of warming.

On the other hand global cooling theory is based on what?

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Not only are they not perfect.

THEY DON’T BACKTEST YOU MORON.

They don’t backtest so they are not evidence.

You have not evidence.

Now that you have failed again to come up with any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming will you now admit that you have no evidence.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global cooling is mountainous. And it consists of the last 39 million years of earth history imbedded in the geological and fossil record.

But its really the last 3 and a half million year record from the time when the Isthmus of Panama fused with North America.

Since then we have spend 80-90% of that intervening time under ice.

WE ARE IN A FUCKING ICE AGE STEVE.

THE WORST FUCKING ICE AGE IN MORE THEN HALF A BILLION YEARS.

Now can you attempt not to be an idiot and admit you have no evidence.

Show me one of your models for example that includes a solar forecast.

Its a sick joke Steve and you are acting like an idiot.

graemebird Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
SO YOU WERE BASING YOUR EVIDENCE ON COMPUTER MODELS THAT DON’T BACKTEST AND DON’T HAVE A SOLAR FORECAST.

Now will you admit that you have no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

Fucking admit it you dishonest bastard.

Whats the fuking matter with you?)))))))))

Advertisements

Responses

  1. dude you just have to accept that most people aren’t going to go along with your theory, certainly not publicly. I don’t and Steve isn’t going to and as a scientist he has more to lose.

    Why are you hassling the poor guy? he even links to you.

  2. Because he’s not acting like a scientist.

    He’s got to go where the chips fall despite the caterwauling of unrisen apes.

    “I don’t…”

    Well this is a personal character fault of yours. Not going with the science. Using the epistemology of…… IF BOTH SIDES OF POLITICS AGREE IT MUST BE THE TRUTH.

    But the truth is entirely independent of your feeble homo-sapien political interactions.

    I’m not happy with Sacha either. Even a mathematician ought to attempt to hold scientific values.

    Cares rather more about his cat then the true traditional values of science.

    Here is one place I have made my displeasure known.

    http://blumensacha.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-opinion-piece-by-mirko-bagaric-warming-isnt-our-biggest-worry/#comment-1733

    Hey listen that dude might be onto something with this localised policy development for infrastructural goods.

    Can you link to his material so I can see what he’s on about.

    I rather think that he’s got me thinking more deeply about it then probably he has. But the idea of local government calling the shots, perhaps within the broad guidelines of national policy…

    Well there could be something to it.

  3. “…..as a scientist he has more to lose.”

    Stop right there. Any scientist who has fallen that far….. Well he’s no longer a scientist. He is a SCIENCE WORKER.

    And that goes for economic scientists as well.

    We have to name the good guys and ignore the palms-up screeching of the others who are little more then raucous tax-eating Baboons.

  4. Well those two were among your few supporters before you started getting up their noses. And Sacha is probably a tad put off by all those anti-gay insults you like to lob around.

  5. Yeah he might be at that.

    But his first duty is to act like a scientist. Same as everyone else.

    Thats may be why people don’t tell the truth.

    Too worried about what their supporters will think.

    All of you have got to speak the tuth about these matters though the sky might fall and the horses take to eating eachother.

  6. By the way.

    Edney knows that he can get this thread removed.

    All he’s got to do is to consider the evidence and show that he’s risen above the protestations of the tax-eaters.

    He’s got to show that he’s attempting not to be a useful idiot. And then he can get this thread removed.

  7. Who says I want the thread removed?

  8. Not me.

  9. I’m curious though as to why my PhD is an issue. Have I ever claimed authority regarding climate science on the basis of my PhD in space plasmas?

  10. Your unwillingness to be a scientist is the issue.

    Your lack of evidence is the issue.

  11. “unwillingness to be a scientist ” = don’t agree with Graeme’s a priori musings versus the near consensus of highly qualified researchers in climatology

  12. “don’t agree with Graeme’s a priori musings versus the near consensus of highly qualified researchers in climatology”

    You are mixing up consensus-of-generalist-SENTIMENT!!!!!!! as opposed to consensus-of-SPECIALIST-SCIENCE.

    I take everything I do from specialist-science-consensus. What the fuck else can I do?

    When things get complicated only OLD-MAN-APRIORI can get the slightest thing done.

    Later on when the community has a handle on it the methods get more sophisticated to refine the broad outine that OLD-MAN-APRIORI has given thee.

    But when everyone admits that things are too complicated, there is one man and one man only that you can turn towards……… to ferry you to the PLACE-OF-FIRST-BEST-ANSWERS………

    ………. and that man is OLD-MAN-APRIORI

    Complexity is my friend. And the freind of OLD-MAN-APRIORI
    who guides the ferry to a very different OTHERWORLD then Cheops.

    The UTOPIAN ESCHATOLOGISTS knew they were done for if OLD-MAN-APRIORI
    was ‘the man who walks BEHIND THE MAN…. The man who whispers in HIS ear.’

    So the UTOPIAN ESCHATOLOGISTS put OLD-MAN-APRIORI
    away. They kidnapped OLD-MAN-APRIORI. Actually they did better. They got his friend and duped the friend into putting him away.

    They got the friend to banish OLD-MAN-APRIORI
    from sophisticated mixed company in the twentieth century.

    But lookie here?

    WHOSE THAT JASON?

    DON’T YOU SEE HIM JASON?

    WHY?????????

    I’M SURE I KNOW WHO IT BE?

    Perhaps thine eyes are lacking.

    Verily comes Mises uphill from the banks with a slashing broad-sword.

    See there he comes yonder, bursting out from the raft. There he be and always moving hither. Slashing at Goblins and other vile leftists.

    And the WISE men say that he is claiming the 21st century when it was the 20th that should have been his.

    But who is that behind him smoting an ork or two, and an evil blonde dwarf here or there, in protection of the Misean onslaught?

    Why it be the ferryman.

    It be old man A PRIORI.

    It be old man A PRIORI.

    And he be one ferryman that we should have paid but didn’t.

    THIS TIME WE MUST PAY THE FERRYMAN.

    Because without OLD-MAN-APRIORI
    we would have never even gotten to the mathematics OTHERWORLD and then where would we have been?

    We would have been savages. Savages in some place. Savages in some place where savages are covered in shit.

    We would have been savages covered in shit in some savage place.

    That is where we would have been.

    THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT OLD-MAN-APRIORI

  13. A priori is a starting point Graeme. In some ways I agree with you as a priori, even in a mathematical context is useful. We know something is rotten in economics if it makes the production function false for example.

    Don’t you think it is a bit harsh to say someone who is genuine, debates in good spirit and is inquisitive should be stripped of their PhD?

    There are some eminent economists who believe some absolute corkers, but this is because of ideological blindness and not incompetence. Their views would not get published in a top notch journal because they are not statistically valid. The Card and Krueger studies on the minimum wage per se are seen as a case study as to why minimum wage proposition is flawed.

    “Mark Hill should not be granted a Doctorate because he believes in fractional reserve banking”

    I can imagine it now. Define fraud and tell me how M3 can be continuously created without productive activity, and how the supply of credit affects prices.

  14. GMB is a McCarthyite.

  15. Well of course I don’t have the ability to strop Steve of his PHD.

    Yeah it would be a bit harsh.

    But if you had a taxeater getting these things wrong it would be not to much to fire them because we have to get used to taxeaters not having a right to their job in the first place so that the presumption is always against them.

    But thats the thing. Steve is not debating in good faith in this matter. He’s being a bigot. As is Sacha.

    If I’ve got to admit it when I get things wrong I certainly expect others to do so.

    But they never seem to.

    Though they get things wrong the whole time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: