1 someone is drinking the sauce

2 This one I want to believe.  California sinking into the ocean, mmmhmmm.

3 Linky no worky.

4 Linky no worky.

Posted by: PA Cat at December 03, 2009 05:32 PM (l3v1U)

works for me, just took forever to load

5 So, the Wall Street Journal has joined the kook denialists? Figures, since they're owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same Murdoch who employs the racist denialist creationist Glen Beck

Hence, the Wall Street Journal is just a nutty fringe publication not up to the high standards here at Little Green Proletariat

6 Fake but accurate.

7 Pajamas Media has a lot of climate-gate stories at their site.

8 So what's wrong with that?  We all peer-review each post on this blog, and most of the comments.  AND they're published first.

Right?

9 The Grammy Awards are peer reviewed, yet Britney Spears has more Grammy awards than Brian Wilson

10 The story is at Verum Serum.

11 Screw it, I'm banning everyone. I KNOW! THE TRUTH!

12 Kratos says that in the end there will be chaos but I never heard him mention AGW

13 Yawn. Even if it was all made up you wingnuts can screech all you want this "story" will be blog fodder nothing more. You guys can't even get Acorn defunded, what's this going to do?

14 Linky no worky.


Ace-a-lanche!

15 At least they're going down fighting.  I had an e-discussion with a lefty friend today who assured me that AGW is "as settled as evolution."

16 You guys can't even get Acorn defunded, what's this going to do?

Word.  On the upside, enough of this crap and I won't even feel guilty when I feast on my liberal neighbors during the coming Obamaclypse.

17

Know what else has been lied about all along? The economy according to this guy: http://tinyurl.com/ytn8ru

Warning reading that will make you pucker up.

18 Dear Ed Begley,

Which peers do the reviewing?  I believe its one small clique doing all this incestuous 'review.'

_{(And your dad was 10 times the actor you ever were.)}

19 /sock

20 Frisco drowning under an extra 4 feet of sea water?

Feature, not a bug.

21 You mean Bushaclypse.

22 Frisco drowning under an extra 4 feet of sea water?  Feature, not a bug.

I find your lack of compassion for the midget tranny community disturbing.

23 by the way, my take on manbearpig stiffing the crowd at Copenhagen

24 You mean Bushaclypse.

Well truthfully, its the Pelosi-Reid-aclypse.

January 4th 2007:  The day Pelosi became Speaker of the Democratically controlled 110th Congress

DJIA end of session:  12,800.18
National unemployment rate for December 2006:  4.5%
2006 Federal Budget Deficit:  $247.7 billion
Average GDP growth for 2006:   3.4%
Median Home Value in December 2006: $244,700   August 2009 $177,500
Average price for Regular Unleaded Gasoline December 2006:  $2.30
Federal Debt as % of GDP  2006:  64.55  2008:  70.00  2009(projected):  90.36
Nonfarm employment in thousands   Dec 2006:  137,000   September 2009:  130,947

25 I'm peer reviewed all the time

26 Somebody tell that douchewad Begley that it's not peer review is not the be-all and end-all of science, rather, it is reproducible results.that gives science validity.

Reproducible results. Accept no substitutes.

27 Bush signed all those budgets.

28 25 I'm peer reviewed all the time

Posted by: Charles Johnson's Toilet at December 03, 2009 05:54 PM

Yeh right, the last time he hit you, he was still playing with code on Window 3.1

If it weren't for KT, I'd always be left up when Sharmuta comes in

29 BTW, Charles Johnson has inadvertently helped we sceptics by noting that the CRU data hasn't been destroyed by American sources like the National Climatic Data Center and that Jones implied that the CRU had only deleted 5% of their material. Also, they must still have it because they've produced charts post-supposed-deletion that they only could have made if they still had the data. (If I've read the Strata-Sphere post correctly.)

30 You know, when I see poor Ed's eyes rolling around wildly, shrieking "PEER REVIEW!!!!  PEER REVIEEEEEEW!!!!", it definitely reassures me.  Dude has got a complete handle on this situation.  Nothing panicky about this at all.

I'm sure he convinced millions of viewers that the science is settled, because nothing says SCIENCE! like frothy spittle.

31

How about I do yours and you do mine, baby?

32

I tried to listen to the discussion, really I did.  But Begley's lisp just ruined it for me.  He used to be so...manly and, well, desirable.  I wanted him so much back then and he wanted me, too.  It was beautiful.  Forbidden.

But then the acting bug left him and the whole "we're gonna die" thing happened.  Uranium in his fillings.  Lead in his water.  Then it was distractions from "those spaceships".  I just let it die. 

Sad.  So very, very sad.

 

 

33 Bush signed all those budgets.

??? 

34 Bush signed all those budgets.  ???

And by that I mean, what the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs?

35 Okay I'm going to stick up for "peer review" here. 

There are actually two parts to peer review.  The first part is the closed-door peer review: communication between authors and reviewers, mediated by a journal editor, to get a paper published that consists of, hopefully, sound science.  The second part is what we are observing here, the public part.  A paper that passes the confidential peer review gets published, yet is still flawed, and critics publish objections.  The authors then publish a rebuttal, and the whole controversy inspires subsequent studies which then result in more papers submitted for publication.  Repeat ad nauseum.  That is how scientific knowledge is created.

You need both parts of the peer review, because if it were solely a confidential process, the clique of reviewers in any given subdiscipline would soon become a bunch of inbred backslapper gatekeepers, which is precisely what happened with ClimateGate.  The fact that Rahmstorf's work is being criticized in public, and rebuttals published, and subsequent studies created, is exactly what is supposed to happen.  What people envision as "peer review" is just the first part, and if that is all there was to it, then we would not get quality science done, all we would get is an endless repetition of papers parrotting the opinions of the reviewers.

The stupid part is not the peer review, but the state of California deciding to throw away millions of dollars based on flawed science.

36

I have long wondered if we aren't being deceived by both sides, I suspected the Cult of the Virgin Gaia, but as I see the pile-on my contrarian instincts say don't jump on the bandwagon. 

-Truthful Agnostic

37 And by that I mean, what the hell does that have to do with the price of eggs?

And by that I mean, he also signed the budgets when the Republicans ran the Congress and the deficit was declining, the stock market was rising, employment was the highest ever, and my 401k was larger than the GDP of some third-world countries.

38 Ace-a-lanche!

I think you're right. I kept getting server error notices when I tried the link. Finally got through about 5 minutes ago. Don't you morons have bacon to cook or other insults to Gaia to carry out?

39 Wow, ed baglady is one slobbery contentious jackass, isn't he?

Funny how eejits like eddie screech louder the closer the truth gets to their fantasy lands.

40

Haters! You are all haters haters haters haters haters ha.........

Wow. Am I ever boring................................

41 Hilarious!!  Was he actually foaming at the mouth there? 

42

 

 

Saw on another site that the Global Warmers are being called "warmers" as in Truthers and Birthers.

43 You say Rathergate, I say Marty McFly traveled back in time and planted false documents to entrap Mary Mapes.

44 They busted on him on one Simpsons episode: he was driving a car "powered by my own sense of self-satisfaction". How true. Hey Ed: as a scientist? I can tell you that a physicist is perfectly able to determine whether the scientific process was followed. Lost your source data? Fail. Measured 14 or so trees? Fail. Statistical F A I L.

45 Is it real, or is it sockpuppet?

Was I pink'd?  Dammit.

46 I know it's old. It's still good.

None of this is "old".  Keep repeating and repeating. I was at a meeting today with people from various business disciplines, and a casual "news of the day" discussion came up, starting with Tigerbeat (of course).  I mentioned climate gate and not a one understood what I was talking about.  They were blown away. No clue.

State run media is doing an outstanding job keeping the lid on this.

47

Was I pink'd?  Dammit.

Maybe not. When the real lefty trolls really do act like our own funny sockpuppets, it gets surreal....

48 A theme song for Ed: They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa. To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!! To the happy home, with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes and they're coming to take me away, ha-haa!!!

49

When the real lefty trolls really do act like our own funny sockpuppets, it gets surreal....

When the real lefty trolls really do act like our own funny sockpuppets, it gets surreal, boy... is what I heard.

50

Boy, I didn't see that coming.....are "man" "golly gee", and "wow", and "shucks", next on the forbidden code word list?

 

51 51

When the real lefty trolls really do act like our own funny sockpuppets, it gets surreal....

When the real lefty trolls really do act like our own funny sockpuppets, it gets surreal, boy... is what I heard.

Posted by: lefty troll... or not at December 03, 2009 06:26 PM

I knew the biggest lefty troll ever on AoSHQ, and you sir are no lefty troll

52 The really sad part of all this is how much real, good, solid science will be harmed by the warmist conspiracy.  It will take decades for people to trust scientists again -- and that requires decades during which they don't pull any more bullshit like this.

53 That Peer Review just doesn't have the Demon Be Gone power it once had.

54

Ed Begley's wild eyes and escalating screeching is exactly the look of  religious fanatacism  gone embarrassingly wrong. The world is flat, the world is flat! Face it, left-tards: You worship. Oh, how you worship. Now bow down - Obama has shown you how.

55 54 The really sad part of all this is how much real, good, solid science will be harmed by the warmist conspiracy.  It will take decades for people to trust scientists again -- and that requires decades during which they don't pull any more bullshit like this.

Posted by: Trimegistus at December 03, 2009 06:48 PM (GbmcL)

Is that necessarily a bad thing? If they have no accountability, refuse to share their data, or explain their methods, they should never be trusted. Trusting them in the first place is what caused this mess to begin with; just because some academic puts the word "scientist" on their business card doesn't mean they have any more credibility than any salesman. They are just selling a different product.

56 AGW people did discover the Philosopher's Stone. The can turn shit into golden grants.

57 Not watching that worthless cocksucker Begley; it's bad enough I have to endure that douchetool on Gary Unmarried where he plays *surprise surprise* a clueless shitstain that's lapping up Jay Mohr's sloppy seconds.

58 Wow. Yet another crazy liberal who doesn't actually want to debate the issue--just browbeat anyone who disagrees with him.

And what the hell did insurance have to do with anything?

59 If "peer reviewed" is good enough for that lisping lunatic, what else do we need?

60

I'd have told Begley 2 minutes into this interview to get out of the chair and off the stage; I was done listening to his ridiculous nonsense. If he hadn't left, I'd have thrown him off.

Useless wanker.

61 And here's Ed Begley from last week telling us we can trust the science because it's peer-reviewed.

Only an idiot would give a rat's ass what Ed Begley thinks.

62 Honestly, even though I think he is wrong, I have to give some props to Ed Begley for coming on TV and mixing it up with people he disagrees with. I could watch more of this TV rather than milquetoast talking head robot pussies who stick to safe shows.

63

Is that necessarily a bad thing? If they have no accountability, refuse to share their data, or explain their methods, they should never be trusted.

Indeed. After all the "scientific" nutritional quackery of the 1970's and 1980's (remember when polyunsaturated oils were allegedly better for us? or the endless arguments on the merits of oat bran), and the 21st century snake oil of stem cells, perhaps we ought to start doubting "science".

64 He responds like any religious zealot would if you  questioned the core foundations of his beliefs

65 WOW, way too defensive. Obvious sign he has zero substance.

66 Fear review studies are the only ones you can trust. Fear review, fear review, ... if it doesn't haven't fear, its useless.

67 This is a Nontroversy!  Why just the other day Sharmy was blowing me whilst I polished my new Dura-Ace brake and I commented on how much hotter things were.  See?

68

And yet Govahnah Shortbus of California is still using it to push his "green" nonsense anyhow. As someone said about California's own multibillion climate studies program -- perhaps California decided it wasn't bankrupt enough.

LMAO

69

Back when The Won picked Van Jones as his green jobs czar, I wondered why he didn't (if one is going to have something as stupid and unconstitutional as a green jobs czar) pick Ed Begley, Jr. Everybody knows him, nice, affable, he walks the walk, probably not a communist, and he sort of works for a living.

Then I saw this. Poor man is nuts.

70

Yes, a Nontroversy!

Just the other day a posted about a journalist convert from skepticsm (which should impress you, 'cause he's not just somebody with an actual background in the subject).  He explained how a number of quacks scientists (including a museum director, so you know they were real experts) told him that mankind had to be at fault, because all the other possible reasons had been ruled out.  After all, they know exactly how much all the various factors figure into it - that's why climate models work so well!  OK, well, maybe they've pretty much sucked for half my adult life, there could be other effects that they just haven't figured out yet, and it's the height of arrogance (and supremely unscientific) to assume there aren't undiscovered effects, but these were "very thoughtful, intelligent people" and he was so "brave" to "expose" himself to them!

Anyway, I'm a convert, myself, so I must be right! If you don't agree, then you're just a oil company shill, or worse -- an anti-science creationist! - The worst kind of extremist!

Now I have to get back to lecturing the newbies on behaving themselves. Unless they're alarmists Saving the World, of course, in which case they can be verbally abusive, throw the "f-bomb" around, and make all kinds of outrageuos claims (like Antarctic ice freezing from 5 deg of warming, even though it's 20 below) to their 'lil ass-kissing heart's content!

PS - Burning coal is racist, 'cause coal is black.

[Optimizer]

71 Peer reviewed doesn't mean crap.....all it says is that they found a few of your peers to agree with the methodology that you used.  It says NOTHING about the results of a study.  A study has no validity until it can be REPLICATED by several different researchers using the same methodology.  NOT ONCE has this happened with climate research. 

72

Cold fusion was published in a peer-reviewed journal. As was the Korean "cloning" work by Hwang Woo-suk, published in Science.