Helllp, we're drowwwning!! Glub, glub...somebody throw me a life preserver!!![quote]Heavy rain and snow were falling over California on Monday, the firs..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Heavy rain, possible flooding forecast for West Coast

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, January 21, 2010 14:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3616
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:04 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Actually the plateau since 1998 is more likely just the result of more accurate temperature measurement by NOAA and other temperature monitoring groups. As a result of the hysteria about global warming, NOAA decided that they needed an overall review of their monitoring stations so they could collect more accurate temperatures to show the progression of climate change. These reviews lead to the discovery that up to 60% of their stations didn’t meet their standards for monitoring temperature change. It wasn’t that there was anything wrong with the equipment, it was that in the years since the equipment was installed, housing and commercial development had encroached on the permissible boundaries for accurate temperature collection. The problem being that the data from a station that once sat in the middle of a vacant field can’t be used now because that same station now sits next to a 10 acre asphalt parking lot.

One thing many do not understand is the difference between accuracy and precision, the stations were precisely recording temperatures and temperature differences the entire time, but the data is worthless because monitoring conditions changed affecting the accuracy of the overall data. It would be just fine if all of the monitoring stations were exactly 50 feet South West of 10 acres of asphalt, but the fact that some were and others were not is what makes the past data questionable. The data collected after 1998 is most likely just the first accurate data we’ve collected in a long time.



Ooh. That's a good explanation. The El Nino thing is just what I heard recently.

Though, how come we're still around 0.4 degrees Celsius higher than in the 1950s, even with the plateau? If it was fixed, wouldn't we see it drop back down?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:27 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Actually the plateau since 1998 is more likely just the result of more accurate temperature measurement by NOAA and other temperature monitoring groups. As a result of the hysteria about global warming, NOAA decided that they needed an overall review of their monitoring stations so they could collect more accurate temperatures to show the progression of climate change. These reviews lead to the discovery that up to 60% of their stations didn’t meet their standards for monitoring temperature change. It wasn’t that there was anything wrong with the equipment, it was that in the years since the equipment was installed, housing and commercial development had encroached on the permissible boundaries for accurate temperature collection. The problem being that the data from a station that once sat in the middle of a vacant field can’t be used now because that same station now sits next to a 10 acre asphalt parking lot.

One thing many do not understand is the difference between accuracy and precision, the stations were precisely recording temperatures and temperature differences the entire time, but the data is worthless because monitoring conditions changed affecting the accuracy of the overall data. It would be just fine if all of the monitoring stations were exactly 50 feet South West of 10 acres of asphalt, but the fact that some were and others were not is what makes the past data questionable. The data collected after 1998 is most likely just the first accurate data we’ve collected in a long time.



Ooh. That's a good explanation. The El Nino thing is just what I heard recently.

Though, how come we're still around 0.4 degrees Celsius higher than in the 1950s, even with the plateau? If it was fixed, wouldn't we see it drop back down?


I don’t deny the existence of global warming, there is some evidence that it exists. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s primarily a result of human and bovine made CO2. California was 4 degrees hotter eighteen thousand years ago than it is today, I don’t know why exactly and anyone that says they do is a liar or a pseudo scientist. The whole global warming fiasco is a result of bad science pushed by “scientists” with a monetary motivation and a ends justifies the means mentality.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Edit. I take this one back.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:09 AM

PERFESSERGEE


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:

I don’t deny the existence of global warming, there is some evidence that it exists. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s primarily a result of human and bovine made CO2. California was 4 degrees hotter eighteen thousand years ago than it is today, I don’t know why exactly and anyone that says they do is a liar or a pseudo scientist. The whole global warming fiasco is a result of bad science pushed by “scientists” with a monetary motivation and a ends justifies the means mentality.



Kirkules,

Do you bother to do any actual learning before you opine? (and opine is all it is - you are spouting BS) If you did try to actually learn something, you might have noticed that 18,000 years ago California (along with the rest of North America), not only wasn't "4 degrees warmer" , as you absurdly argue, it was still wrapped up in the recent glacial maximum. It was on average 4 degrees (Celsius - you don't even define your units) colder. 5,000 years later the place warmed up enough that humans invaded North America from Asia. It might have happened a bit earlier by current evidence, but not 18,000 years ago.

Sir, you do not know what the hell you are talking about. And you would be well advised not to flout your ignorance, because there are plenty of people here on this board who are much better informed than you and will call you on such garbage posts. Ignorant people such as yourself really shouldn't try to argue facts that they don't understand. It really doesn't work. But education can be a lifelong process. You might want to try it.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:00 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:

I don’t deny the existence of global warming, there is some evidence that it exists. I don’t subscribe to the theory that it’s primarily a result of human and bovine made CO2. California was 4 degrees hotter eighteen thousand years ago than it is today, I don’t know why exactly and anyone that says they do is a liar or a pseudo scientist. The whole global warming fiasco is a result of bad science pushed by “scientists” with a monetary motivation and a ends justifies the means mentality.



Kirkules,

Do you bother to do any actual learning before you opine? (and opine is all it is - you are spouting BS) If you did try to actually learn something, you might have noticed that 18,000 years ago California (along with the rest of North America), not only wasn't "4 degrees warmer" , as you absurdly argue, it was still wrapped up in the recent glacial maximum. It was on average 4 degrees (Celsius - you don't even define your units) colder. 5,000 years later the place warmed up enough that humans invaded North America from Asia. It might have happened a bit earlier by current evidence, but not 18,000 years ago.

Sir, you do not know what the hell you are talking about. And you would be well advised not to flout your ignorance, because there are plenty of people here on this board who are much better informed than you and will call you on such garbage posts. Ignorant people such as yourself really shouldn't try to argue facts that they don't understand. It really doesn't work. But education can be a lifelong process. You might want to try it.

perfessergee


Thanks for the correction, I should have said eighteen hundred years ago. It really does'nt effect my point though.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:55 AM

BYTEMITE


Um. We're just talking, professor, just talk. I mean, I messed up on some facts too. Which I probably should have double checked, but for some reason I was sure it was parts per billion.

Anyway, all Kirkules said was he doesn't think global warming is man made. I don't agree with him, but throwing around words like "ignorant" is part of the reason why scientists are pushing normal people away from this issue.

Kirkules: Oh wait, you mean the medieval warming period. I think? Yeah, none of us have any idea. It might be agriculture related, there's some theories that there was a similar occurrence about 10,000 years ago where we should have had a cold period but ice cores say we didn't. Corresponds pretty well with the invention of agriculture, and in the medieval ages, agriculture was a well-oiled machine. Lots of tree felling in Europe at the time too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Kirk, what point are you unsure about? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide levels have increased? Are you in doubt that this is due to human activity? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Are you in doubt that increased carbon dioxide levels warm the atmosphere? All of these are fact... Physics 101, if you will. (There is a high school experiment in which you seal extra carbon dioxide into an aquarium with a thermometer, and compare it to an aquarium sealed with average air. The temperature difference is measurable; the physics of IR absorption - by CO2, methane and other molecules-is so well-known that it is actually used to measure the amount in the atmo.)

The earth's temperature has its own ups and downs. That is also fact. But so what? All that means is that the earth is subject to various driving forces... insolation, volcanism, biology. About 750 million years ago the earth was a snowball; the albedo was so high it was unlikely that the earth would EVER unfreeze. But the fate of life was rescued by massive volcanic events which released… you guessed it… carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Saying that the situation is complex, and using that complexity to deny basic, well-proven fact is a cop-out. Reality doesn’t conform to your ideology… or mine, for that matter… but to deny fact for ideology is folly.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:11 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Where's "down here", Perfesser? Sounds like another good person stuck in SoCa; if so, you have my sympathy, too. And you guys are getting POUNDED! It's still raining up here, too, but it sounds like you're getting the brunt of this one.

If you ARE stuck down in LaLaLand, I sure understand your wish to store this stuff and refurbish your water table! You guys face a pretty regular water shortage...but don't worry, we'll always have some you can "steal" with that bloody canal, hopefully...

Yeah, Inverness got completely cut off from the outside world that year. They had no electricity, so they got all the perishables from the two little markets and all got together to eat it all...bar-b-que in pounding rain! They were cut off for about a week I think. We were, too, but not the same way--we could at least walk out if we wanted, and had electricity off and on.

Big slide came down across 101 over Sausalito, so we were cut off from the Golden Gate and points South; since we only HAVE 101 going North-South and it flooded up Novato way, we were stuck--San Rafael/Richmond Bridge got flooded out, too, and of course we can't "go" West!

But being in the East Bay? No thank you, that MUST have been pretty horrific! Saccamenna to Berserkeley--I hope that was BEFORE the deluge...tho' as I recall, the deluge was because it had rained a week or more without stopping, so you probably had to fight the rain on that nasty freeway where everyone goes a hundred miles an hour!

Still, rural Patagonia must have been truly horrific in comparison; what's a few blocked off-ramps in comparison (tho' the car overheating wouldn't help...).

And yeah, don't let the discussion get to you--I'm as ignorant as anyone here, so I'm just skipping over most of it and letting the intellectuals discuss climate change/global warming/ozone/whatever. Let 'em have their fun showing off, doesn't mean ANY of 'em are right!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 7:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Niki... until last night, the lower end of the San Gabriel River was still not flowing water! There are a lot of impoundments and aquifer recharge basins that were being filled. This morning, the weir down at my end was actually overflowing with water... I guess they're chock-full upstream!

OTOH... I'll betcha dollars to donuts that this shrivels and dies in February. Mother Nature always wins.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:22 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


S'wenyways, Kirkules

I think I stumbled across the source of one of your facts - that somehow re-siting thermometers 'stopped' the progress of global warming.

That is not true.

"WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8, 2009, press release, the World Meterological Organization reported that "[t]he decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989)."

NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record." On December 8, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, "[t]he 2000 - 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."

Met Office data also shows 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. Bloomberg reported on December 8 that "[o]f the 10 hottest years on record, nine occurred in the 2000s, according to the Met Office, which said it expected temperatures to keep rising as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions." The article further noted that, "Global temperatures are expressed by the Met Office as an 'anomaly' from the long-term average. The 2000s were about 0.4 of a degree warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, eclipsing the record 0.23-degree temperature anomaly of the 1990s, it said.""


If I were you, next time I used that source, I would validate their facts before I used them.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, for us at least, the Pineapple Expresses are gone, this is pure, COLD Winter storm. Brrrrr. Has it gone cold down there yet?

It may disappear in February, sometimes that does happen, certainly. Nowadays I'm just grateful when ANY falls, and hope for more!

That's wild, that the San Gabriel wasn't flowing! I had no idea there were that many recharge basins. Shows you just how dry it's been...eeep!

Well, we're supposed to get a break Sat-Sun, then it starts up again. For us, as long as it fills up the lakes by about now, we're okay...not great, but okay. The water table is up, the Mountain will continue to disgorge what she's gained for a couple of months, filling the lakes. It's more for you guys I hope it continues...tho' of course personally I wants just as much as we can get!!!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:53 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Um. We're just talking, professor, just talk. Anyway, all Kirkules said was he doesn't think global warming is man made. I don't agree with him, but throwing around words like "ignorant" is part of the reason why scientists are pushing normal people away from this issue.


Thanks for the support, but I really do not care in anyone here calls me ignorant. My degree in engineering in a field that requires more math and physics than many PhDs in science gives me confidence that I am of average intelligence.

I do find the overly rabid response rather curious though, given all of the talk of sock puppets lately. You would think that this might be a result of a grudge held over from a past encounter.
Quote:


Kirkules: Oh wait, you mean the medieval warming period. I think? Yeah, none of us have any idea. It might be agriculture related, there's some theories that there was a similar occurrence about 10,000 years ago where we should have had a cold period but ice cores say we didn't. Corresponds pretty well with the invention of agriculture, and in the medieval ages, agriculture was a well-oiled machine. Lots of tree felling in Europe at the time too.


I was thinking of the 300 year drought that caused the Anastasi to become cannibals and the tree line fossils from California that show temp 4 degrees hotter in the past. I just pulled a time period out of my bad memory to illustrate that temperature changes occurring in the past are not completely understood and it is arrogant to claim a full understanding of what is happening with the climate today given imperfect understanding of what caused climate change in the past. While there are many good theories to explain past climate change, they are just that, theories. Human created CO2 related climate change is also just a theory at this point and despite what many would have you believe there are many brilliant scientists that still question its validity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:05 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
S'wenyways, Kirkules

I think I stumbled across the source of one of your facts - that somehow re-siting thermometers 'stopped' the progress of global warming.

That is not true.

"WMO: "2000-2009, The Warmest Decade." In a December 8, 2009, press release, the World Meterological Organization reported that "[t]he decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990-1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980-1989)."

NOAA: "The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record." On December 8, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, "[t]he 2000 - 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F."

Met Office data also shows 2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. Bloomberg reported on December 8 that "[o]f the 10 hottest years on record, nine occurred in the 2000s, according to the Met Office, which said it expected temperatures to keep rising as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions." The article further noted that, "Global temperatures are expressed by the Met Office as an 'anomaly' from the long-term average. The 2000s were about 0.4 of a degree warmer than the 1961 to 1990 average, eclipsing the record 0.23-degree temperature anomaly of the 1990s, it said.""


If I were you, next time I used that source, I would validate their facts before I used them.



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.


My source is a close relative that works for NOAA. The information you present in no way contradicts anything I have said. Doesn’t matter what the data tells you if the data itself is potentially flawed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Kirkules

What you posted was this: "Actually the plateau since 1998 ..."

There is no plateau. Globally, temperatures have gone up. Therefore, you are wrong.

FURTHERMORE - you are mistaking GLOBAL temperature measurements for US measurements, and implying that the only temperature measurements that go into GLOBAL temperature calculations come from US sites. Therefore, you are once again wrong to conclude that GLOBAL measurements are faulty.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:40 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Kirk, what point are you unsure about? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide levels have increased? Are you in doubt that this is due to human activity? Are you in doubt that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? Are you in doubt that increased carbon dioxide levels warm the atmosphere? All of these are fact... Physics 101, if you will. (There is a high school experiment in which you seal extra carbon dioxide into an aquarium with a thermometer, and compare it to an aquarium sealed with average air. The temperature difference is measurable; the physics of IR absorption - by CO2, methane and other molecules-is so well-known that it is actually used to measure the amount in the atmo.)

The earth's temperature has its own ups and downs. That is also fact. But so what? All that means is that the earth is subject to various driving forces... insolation, volcanism, biology. About 750 million years ago the earth was a snowball; the albedo was so high it was unlikely that the earth would EVER unfreeze. But the fate of life was rescued by massive volcanic events which released… you guessed it… carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

Saying that the situation is complex, and using that complexity to deny basic, well-proven fact is a cop-out. Reality doesn’t conform to your ideology… or mine, for that matter… but to deny fact for ideology is folly.


When you take things out of the classroom into the real world things get a lot more complicated. You are to quick to assume the identical effect in the atmosphere as in a test tube. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but if human created CO2 is the primary cause of climate change now, why didn’t the change correspond with the beginning of the modern industrial era. I just don’t buy that the tipping point just happed to occur during my lifetime. Your own examples help to illustrate how complex it becomes. It may be just my inherent skepticism, but why is the discussion always CO2 related, when we know Methane is a 20 times more potent greenhouse gas. The reason it isn’t discussed as much is because many of the primary sources of methane are not human related.

I obviously don’t have a full understanding of man made climate change theory, but I will continue to question it as long as there are people out their calling any one who questions it a heretic, because that not what real scientists do to support their theory.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:52 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules

What you posted was this: "Actually the plateau since 1998 ..."

There is no plateau. Globally, temperatures have gone up. Therefore, you are wrong.

FURTHERMORE - you are mistaking GLOBAL temperature measurements for US measurements, and implying that the only temperature measurements that go into GLOBAL temperature calculations come from US sites. Therefore, you are once again wrong to conclude that GLOBAL measurements are faulty.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.


Instead of plateau I should have said the decrease in the rate of temperature increase. The problem is that because the numbers come from comparing past data with current data we can’t' be sure the comparison is valid over some time periods due to the differences in the standards for collection. If the US data is questionable we can be sure that data from everywhere needs to be viewed with skepticism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"If the US data is questionable we can be sure that data from everywhere needs to be viewed with skepticism."

Data comes from many sources besides land-based thermometers: satellites, buoys, ships at sea, weather balloons etc. And I see no reason to look at ALL global thermometer readings skeptically, that is an unwarranted conclusion based on a particular instance and is a logical fallacy (and of which I have no particular verification, just your say so).

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:32 PM

KIRKULES


More sloppy work for global warming scientists.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/20/tech/main6121986.shtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


A typo ??????

A FUCKING TYPO ?????????!!! Something that the COPY EDITOR (you know, those people whose JOB it is to check for those things) should have caught ?

It's not that their calculations were wrong. It's not that their science was wrong. It's not that their conclusions were wrong.
OOOhhhh NNNNnnnooooo. YOU have to pick on a FUCKING TYPO to say their SCIENCE is bad !!!


I have nothing further to say to you ...

***************************************************************

... except this: You have been wrong about everything you've posted.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:51 PM

BYTEMITE


Um... Actually, Rue, did that address the resetting the temps thing Kirkules brought up?

Because I'M the one who brought up the platform we've seen, and, if you think about it, "platform" doesn't mean that this decade has had declining temperatures. Yes, it's been hotter than 1990-1999, but what I've heard is that for some reason the average global temperatures this decade haven't really increased.

Hmm, Where's a graph from NOAA? They're good about this sort of thing. I'll go see if I can find a current one. I'm only going by what I've heard. Could be wrong.

EDIT: Aha. The platforming temperatures are in the SOUTHERN hemisphere. Where there are less people, and exchange across the equatorial doldrums isn't easy.

Here we go:



...El Nino maybe? I mean, the effect originates off the west coast of South America, right?

Jeez, fallin' back on old theories...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Um... Actually, Rue, did that address the resetting the temps thing Kirkules brought up? "

NO - NOT IN THE LEAST ! It was a typo where two numbers were transposed in a date given for the total disappearance of glaciers in the Himalayas.


BTW - El Nino originates in the southern Pacific.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/tropics/enso.htm

"Further research found that El Niño is actually part of a much larger global variation in the atmosphere called ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation). The Southern Oscillation refers to changes in sea level air pressure patterns in the Southern Pacific Ocean between Tahiti and Darwin, Australia."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:17 PM

BYTEMITE


Hmm. Maybe the southern hemisphere temperatures HAVE been effected by something like El Nino then.

It's nice to know I'm not talking completely out my ass. ^_^' Eventually I'll get everything I say right, you'll see. There will be a day, where I will say something scientific, and everyone will be like, OMG! You didn't mess up your units or use an inappropriate term or misapply anything! LET'S OPEN SOME CHAMPAGNE!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I will bring the Single Malt Scotch if you would like some !

But in general, (and I can only speak for myself) I like your posts.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:26 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
A typo ??????

A FUCKING TYPO ?????????!!! Something that the COPY EDITOR (you know, those people whose JOB it is to check for those things) should have caught ?

It's not that their calculations were wrong. It's not that their science was wrong. It's not that their conclusions were wrong.
OOOhhhh NNNNnnnooooo. YOU have to pick on a FUCKING TYPO to say their SCIENCE is bad !!!


I would be looking for "TYPOs" too if I was starting to get serious peer review for the first time.

Quote:


I have nothing further to say to you ...



I'm done too, at least for another six months or so.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 21, 2010 2:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Here's some well earned snark:

How the HELL do you think the scientists even KNEW what the correct number was when the date was pointed out to them. Do you think they did anything BUT go back to their original work to check it ? Do you think anything happened EXCEPT they looked and said - OH ! look here ! Two digits were transposed !

And if you THINK that a scientist is responsible for finding typos in a final publication, you know NOTHING about scientific publication. If you even THINK that a typo means bad science, you are worse that a fool. You are a fool who thinks he knows something.

No wonder people give you a rash of shit when you post your garbage.

You deserve it. And more.

So yeah - go slink away with your tail between your legs, you pathetic loser.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:56 - 2076 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:20 - 6156 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 06:18 - 57 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL