[quote]tom63 wrote:
Yes, he did make money. Lots of money. Yes he did win the Olympia, but it’s not like a Nobel prize in math. Personally, I think most of his movies were grade B. Conan sucked. Terminator was good, but playing a wooden robot was right up his alley, not really a stretch.
So he makes a fortune and gets elected Governor in the fruit loop capatal of the world. Imagine that.[/quote]
Which Conan? Barbarian was awesome. Destroyer…not so much.
Arnold caved in, that’s what happened. He campaigned on no new taxes, guess what he did, raised taxes. He said he would stand up to unions, guess what, he caved in under pressure. His cap and trade bullshit, is being pushed all around the state, while he drives his Hummer and flies his private jet all over the place. He is completely clueless on how to govern.
If you think Arnold was bad, Gubernatorial Candidate Jerry Brown is even worse. Please let me clarify… Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Ya see, good ol’ Jerry is a liberal hippy from the 70’s, who LOVES Cap and Trade. So much to the point where he will sue you if you challenge him. This guy is fanatical with regulation, like a religious cult leader.
All Politicians are the product of the society they grow up in. Hence complaining about these Politicians is pointless as they represent the population and society that they are the PRODUCT of. So then it’s funny to me to see that very society moan about their PRODUCTS. Irony at it’s finest. At lest to me.
Perhaps you will apply your philosophy to limiting your own posts, opinions, and thoughts to conform with your monolithic society, and view that various politicians are a product of yourself, for your “society” reason.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Are you sure that you have George HW and George W Bush straight?
While I don’t think your characterization is correct for the latter either, for the first it makes utterly zero sense, no offense intended, which is why I wonder if you have the two confused, which would be easy enough to do. [/quote] Yes I did! I was thinking about Junior. No offence taken - he is hard to type because I think he is too unhealthy. He was portrait here in the British media as allowing Dick Cheyne to really rule whilst he was a tool.
I just think that behind that “dumb and dumber” image he had a lot to hide.[quote]
With Gore, he strikes me as a complete narcissist, not as a “reformer.” He also has no track record as a reformer of any sort in his many years in the Senate. Just really not a basis for that except if assuming that his global warming crusade shows it, but there are other explanations for that crusade.
Anyway, my point in bringing GHW Bush into it was to use contrast to illustrate: a differing person who also lost an election for the Presidency but had no psychological need for crusading afterwards as Gore did (nor did he go into seclusion, grow a beard, and become obese or near-obese for a year after the loss)[/quote] This is not the behavior of a narcissist, they don’t let themselves go. Think about it. Besides, his motivation for doing this was self-punishment. Narcissists always punish the other.[quote] and also dealt 100 times better with the triviality of the VP job than Gore did (Gore was known to be resentful and angry about it)[/quote] This is also not the mark of a narcissist. Narcissists are hostile and maliciously vindictive.[quote] with this second point being further illustration of Gore’s nature.[/quote] His behavior above seems to be more indicative of someone who is primarily angry with themselves for not being perfect. Self-righteous anger because he is a slave of his ideal of sitting at the top seat, for what purpose? To right what is wrong with humanity. To advocate righteousness. He lost it so he now purges himself for failing to hit the mark of perfection ( to be seen as perfect for the job. Think about why he then comes back with more passion to advocate the global warming mission. He may be also vindicating himself for the previous failure ).
Why else would you punish yourself if you didn’t believe you were the judge of humanity in a mission to perfect reality?[quote]
One has to be a pretty extreme psychological case to actually feel put down and dissatisfied when Vice President of the United States.[/quote] Not if you are on a mission to change the world for the better. He didn’t feel put down, and perhaps his mission all along was to sit at the top seat and nothing else, because there is where he can affect humanity with the most impact. Not if he is a high minded idealist who would feel dissatisfied with anything less than the driving seat because that is where you can steer humanity.[quote]
Anyone who is not an extreme narcissist would consider it an honor to have the position.[/quote] An intolerant misanthrope or a judgemental perfectionist who are on a mission to reform humanity would not consider any position to be more noble than their ideal to reform reality.
It is not about the position it is about right and wrong and they are always right and will put right from wrong.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Arnold caved in, that’s what happened. He campaigned on no new taxes, guess what he did, raised taxes. He said he would stand up to unions, guess what, he caved in under pressure. His cap and trade bullshit, is being pushed all around the state, while he drives his Hummer and flies his private jet all over the place. He is completely clueless on how to govern.
If you think Arnold was bad, Gubernatorial Candidate Jerry Brown is even worse. Please let me clarify… Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Ya see, good ol’ Jerry is a liberal hippy from the 70’s, who LOVES Cap and Trade. So much to the point where he will sue you if you challenge him. This guy is fanatical with regulation, like a religious cult leader.[/quote]
Max, I’m sure you were here during the chaos that was the CA electrical restructuring/“deregulation”. That disaster (that we are STILL paying for) is peanuts compared to cap and trade. Restructuring cost about $6 billion to the taxpayers. CARB’s estimates for cap and trade (which only paint rosy scenarios and are WOEFULLY optimistic) show a cost of $22 billion PER YEAR! When you realize that restructuring doubled utility prices, imagine what that $22 billion is going to do.
Well, I don’t at all think Gore was punishing himself, and we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it’s likely that being in America I’ve been much more exposed to Gore, while quite likely your knowledge of him would mostly or nearly entirely be derived from his global-warming career. Whereas he has a long track record in the US prior to that, which has to be considered too. I also have a small amount of extra insight in that my (at that time) pastor’s son was in Gore’s Secret Service detail and shared some insights from regularly seeing the man up close personally. I also disagree that a narcissist cannot do as Gore did when having a period of psychological collapse or near-collapse. But of course that is not to say that you should not have your own opinion or that you might not even be right. 
To clarify a little:
First, I’m not expert in psychology. There are areas of psychology that interest me and that I have studied, but as for most of it, no.
Second, in general except where there is a physical abnormality in the brain or a systematic and fundamental difference in mental architecture, so to speak, I don’t really agree with the practice of saying that “has” a disorder, but rather that they display some symptoms, or a constellation of symptoms, characteristic of a given disorder.
So that said, these are the symptoms characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder, as defined in DSM-IV:
[quote]A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)[/quote]
Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet, as one example. He is also, in his mind, going to save the entire planet. I think there can be little doubt that we need score this one for Gore.
[quote]Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)[/quote]
I cannot say whether he is “preoccupied” but otherwise this seems entirely to fit. (It generally is not expected that matches must be exact in every detail.)
Yes.
Yes
I have no evidence on this one. Call it a no.
There’s no sign known to me of his having empathy. To some extent his practices such as consuming more electricity with his home than 30 ordinary homes, of having an entire fleet of his SUV’s sit idling their engines for hours while waiting for him, etc, while he demands others conserve energy suggests that he has no process going on in his mind where he can see how others feel about things.
But on the other hand that could be explained also by his sense of entitlement and specialness. So I count this as an unknown.
While I think yes to the first, I can’t establish it as a fact. Don’t know about the second.
Yes.
So, whadda we have? Tallying them up and not counting the maybes, that’s five.
Which is the number needed to be clinically diagnosed as “having” (an expression I don’t agree with) narcisstic personality disorder.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
To clarify a little:
[/quote]
Wow. You impress me.
I entered University twice to do Psychology both as a 17 year old and as a 38 year old and I rejected the course on both occasions because I didn’t agree with a lot of things and couldn’t challenge the system as a “nobody” - the system also exhibits signs of a dysfunctional nature but we are sold into the psychological lie that in order to be someone you have to go through their institutions for it.
As if achieving personhood could be realized apart from love. And it does not surprise me we get dysfunctional individuals trying to acquire self-worth by going through an equally dysfunctional system.
I don’t like psychology as a subject.
I love people. I am very, very observant and human nature fascinates me. We can all carry a whole range of “feelings” and “behaviour” and I have always found that it is motivation that makes us differ - we are driven by different fears and different desires but the spectrum of human emotion is the same.
You are correct I do not have enough exposure to Gore and have only noticed him on the Global Warming affair. I am sure you could school me on Gore ( you could school me on a lot of things actually ) and perhaps only then we could perform synthesis and analysis on his personality type.
I will try to look more into his persona and will for now graciously grant you victory.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Arnold caved in, that’s what happened. He campaigned on no new taxes, guess what he did, raised taxes. He said he would stand up to unions, guess what, he caved in under pressure. His cap and trade bullshit, is being pushed all around the state, while he drives his Hummer and flies his private jet all over the place. He is completely clueless on how to govern.
If you think Arnold was bad, Gubernatorial Candidate Jerry Brown is even worse. Please let me clarify… Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Ya see, good ol’ Jerry is a liberal hippy from the 70’s, who LOVES Cap and Trade. So much to the point where he will sue you if you challenge him. This guy is fanatical with regulation, like a religious cult leader.[/quote]
Max, I’m sure you were here during the chaos that was the CA electrical restructuring/“deregulation”. That disaster (that we are STILL paying for) is peanuts compared to cap and trade. Restructuring cost about $6 billion to the taxpayers.
CARB’s estimates for cap and trade (which only paint rosy scenarios and are WOEFULLY optimistic) show a cost of $22 billion PER YEAR! When you realize that restructuring doubled utility prices, imagine what that $22 billion is going to do.[/quote]
Big man, have you heard of the new legislation to eliminate free parking EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE? Yes, some douche bag piece of shit Democrat from Long Beach wants to make it mandatory to pay for ALL parking in the state, even outside your residence. So in other words, the only free parking would be in your own driveway. If this passes, people will leave the state in floods…
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2010/01/state-senate-looks-to-eliminate-free-parking/
Not even Hollywood could script shit this insane.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Big man, have you heard of the new legislation to eliminate free parking EVERYWHERE IN THE STATE? Yes, some douche bag piece of shit Democrat from Long Beach wants to make it mandatory to pay for ALL parking in the state, even outside your residence. So in other words, the only free parking would be in your own driveway. If this passes, people will leave the state in floods…
Not even Hollywood could script shit this insane. [/quote]
Sifu was right. He said America was in danger of becoming just like Britain.
You guys have no idea, no idea how stressful and infuriating this whole ‘paying for parking’ is.
If it does happen, I feel sorry for you.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
To clarify a little:
[/quote]
Wow. You impress me.
I entered University twice to do Psychology both as a 17 year old and as a 38 year old and I rejected the course on both occasions because I didn’t agree with a lot of things and couldn’t challenge the system as a “nobody” - the system also exhibits signs of a dysfunctional nature but we are sold into the psychological lie that in order to be someone you have to go through their institutions for it.
As if achieving personhood could be realized apart from love. And it does not surprise me we get dysfunctional individuals trying to acquire self-worth by going through an equally dysfunctional system.
I don’t like psychology as a subject.
I love people. I am very, very observant and human nature fascinates me. We can all carry a whole range of “feelings” and “behaviour” and I have always found that it is motivation that makes us differ - we are driven by different fears and different desires but the spectrum of human emotion is the same.
You are correct I do not have enough exposure to Gore and have only noticed him on the Global Warming affair. I am sure you could school me on Gore ( you could school me on a lot of things actually ) and perhaps only then we could perform synthesis and analysis on his personality type.
I will try to look more into his persona and will for now graciously grant you victory.
[/quote]
Oh, not at all, but thank you. As mentioned, I have substantial objections to characterizing people (other than where the exceptions mentioned exist) of “having” a disorder. Rather in my view they may display characteristics of a given disorder or disorders.
While I think it correct that Gore displays quite a number of characteristics of narcissistic personality disorder, and so I think it reasonable to characterize him as a narcissist for purposes of ordinary conversation, that doesn’t mean that he cannot display other characteristics as well.
I am not familiar with what established views there may be on Reformer personality types: actually I know nothing of that. It could be that he has some traits here as well.
But just taking the term in the common vernacular sense, other than his spotlight-grabbing, personal-enrichment global warming crusade, there seems to be nothing in his track record that would suggest any particular degree of being a reformer type at all.
In general, people who really believe we need reform in our use of CO2-producing fuels due to climate crisis make some effort themselves in their own lives to not be wasteful in this regard, even when their use is only a fraction of Gore’s incredible carbon usage. It seems to me that if he really were a reformer type, he’d start with himself.
(Using the term in only the common vernacular sense.)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The only things to do are:
Alleged “global” changes of a fraction of a degree – and amounts that small are all the temperature change that the AGW advocates have to buttress their arguments – shouldn’t depend on urban changes of a fraction of a degree. Urban temperatures could have such changes for reasons having nothing to do with global effects.
Furthermore, it seems to me that total urban area must be a very tiny percentage of the total surface area of the Earth. So why should should urban values contribute even 1% to an alleged “global average temperature,” let alone the far greater percentage that they have made them to contribute? And,
Use the satellite data.
[/quote]
Urban heat island effect is accounted for in the data, as are altitude effects. When the UEA-CRU says that they no longer have their copies of the raw data, but that they will provide the “quality-controlled and homogenized” data, it is correction for these effects that they are referring to.
Homogenization, in this context, is a process by which anomalous readings are detected and accounted for, anomalies which, yes, tend to be the result of urbanization and changes in microclimate.
Also, when the data are processed, the readings are area-weighted; this seems to be an error that Dâ??Aleo and Smith (from the article you posted) are making. I’m willing to give them some benefit of the doubt, however, that this is the reporter taking liberties.
The argument that we should “have other parties completely start again from the raw data” is great, and I’m sure that the community would welcome it. Take the data, apply their own methods to account for urban, altitude and other effects, process it, and publish the results and methods in a peer-reviewed journal so that there can be honest debate about it.
That would be way better than just having people who haven’t looked closely at your methods tell you that you fucked up.
As for your concept that this handling of data is acceptable, how many scientific articles do you have published in peer-reviewed journals? If none, then what experience do you have in handling of scientific data?
I do have experience in it.
What they have would not remotely be accepted elsewhere.
You always have to analyze whether your being-considered substitutions could introduce error, could introduce systematic bias, or whether you are discarding direct comparisons for indirect ones, and if the latter you need to make this clear. You also need to see why you must make the substitution or omission if it is not necessary to do so, and must make sure that there is no bias introduced or unnecessary arbitrariness. There is no doubt that these principles were not followed. Very obviously these eliminations of vast amounts of data sources that had been included in prior years are unnecessary eliminations which can introduce bias and have unnecessary arbitrariness.
As for your claim that urban effects are compensated for: it is not credible that the best way, when having a very large number of stations that you could use and in fact used to use in a multiplicity of points much better representing the Earth as a whole, is to instead use a far smaller number of urban stations and perform a manipulation on that data. Particularly when comparing to a timepoint when you did NOT do that but did use these other stations, and claiming a difference between the timepoints.
On the satellite data: You don’t seem to have read my meaning as written. I was stating what we are left with at this point. It is not the case that results from the satellite data match the hopelessly-mishandled surface station data. The latter, however, is what has been given more weight.
It is already a known fact that these “scientists” are not only utterly cavalier about whether what they say is true (Glaciergate) but in fact have worked hard to massage out of the data the result they wanted. In the comments field of computer code for their models, notations have been found explaining that a given thing, for example bandpass parameters for a given filtering, have to be done exactly this way to get the desired result. Which is to say, a dramatic finding of warming.
Others, in the illegally deleted e-mails, boasted of clever tricks they had found to bolster the amount of warming that could be claimed. (Yes, I know, they now say that that just meant that the math was great, and supposedly not that they had to try many possible methods to get the result they wanted, and then – of course – went with that method.)
You credit people like this when unnecessarily throwing out all these weather stations in naturally colder places of being certain to exactly compensate for this, if that were even possible to do with certainty? I don’t. Even if they did try honestly, it would be horrible science. Given what we have learned lately, it’s unreasonable to assume with confidence they worked to avoid introducing bias in favor of their desired outcome.
But even if we granted that they did, it would be horribly and unnecessarily bad science – just downright stupid actually – compared to using the data that they are choosing not to use, but which used to be included.
If we’re talking about one individual, downright stupid things can happen without fraudulent intent. This could even be the case with a small group. Stupidity can be contagious sometimes, or a group may have coalesced around each other precisely because they all are stupid, and better scientists avoided them for that reason.
But when it’s this many? No. Something like this cannot have been done simply out of not knowing better.
Only two, with another in submission, and several in preparation. I have done data processing work for others in my group which has led to others, but my name is not on that work.
Re: the unacceptable handling of data, the CRU no longer have their copies of the raw data, but the raw data are out there, just not all in one place. The set they retained is one which they have attempted to improve the quality of through methods which they document in the literature. If skeptics believe that this was done in a way which introduces bias, their claim is also testable.
Well, I surely hope you don’t arbitrarily exclude data, when doing so has the potential for skewing results in a direction in which you have an interest, in your own papers. I have a suspicion you would immediately see the problems in throwing out, really for no reason, vast amounts of data that if included could well tip results away from your published theories and away the direction that will help you get grants.
I am not sure you read the article that was cited or my post on it in its entirety.
What I am talking about is not the CRU no longer having some data, but very very many stations that to this day are producing and have been producing all this time surface temperature data that now is being ignored, yet comparisons for so-called global average temperature are being made relative to timepoints that did include that data. That is a totally different matter than what you are referring to.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
it’s not like a Nobel prize in math. [/quote]
(giggles)
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You always have to analyze whether your being-considered substitutions could introduce error, could introduce systematic bias, or whether you are discarding direct comparisons for indirect ones, and if the latter you need to make this clear. You also need to see why you must make the substitution or omission if it is not necessary to do so, and must make sure that there is no bias introduced or unnecessary arbitrariness. There is no doubt that these principles were not followed. Very obviously these eliminations of vast amounts of data sources that had been included in prior years are unnecessary eliminations which can introduce bias and have unnecessary arbitrariness.
As for your claim that urban effects are compensated for: it is not credible that the best way, when having a very large number of stations that you could use and in fact used to use in a multiplicity of points much better representing the Earth as a whole, is to instead use a far smaller number of urban stations and perform a manipulation on that data. Particularly when comparing to a timepoint when you did NOT do that but did use these other stations, and claiming a difference between the timepoints.
[/quote]
Agreed, after a fashion. Obviously, the more data the better, assuming that it is all robust. However, while some rural stations have been gotten rid of, it’s not like they’re using NYC data to model North Dakota. Probably the best thing to do to check the model is to apply it to old data sets, and see whether
Also, for what it’s worth:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
[quote]From that site:
In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
[\quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On the satellite data: You don’t seem to have read my meaning as written. I was stating what we are left with at this point. It is not the case that results from the satellite data match the hopelessly-mishandled surface station data. The latter, however, is what has been given more weight.
[/quote]
Fair enough, bad on me. There was a study (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1) which noticed orbital drift, which meant that tropical satellites were actually taking readings at night, rather than during the day.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It is already a known fact that these “scientists” are not only utterly cavalier about whether what they say is true (Glaciergate) but in fact have worked hard to massage out of the data the result they wanted. In the comments field of computer code for their models, notations have been found explaining that a given thing, for example bandpass parameters for a given filtering, have to be done exactly this way to get the desired result. Which is to say, a dramatic finding of warming.
Others, in the illegally deleted e-mails, boasted of clever tricks they had found to bolster the amount of warming that could be claimed. (Yes, I know, they now say that that just meant that the math was great, and supposedly not that they had to try many possible methods to get the result they wanted, and then – of course – went with that method.)
[/quote]
Glaciergate was horseshit, I’m not going to lie. If you are quoting pop-science magazines (New Scientist) at a UN hearing, you deserve to get burned. However, claiming that CRU tried many methods and went with the one that gave the result they wanted is unfounded.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You credit people like this when unnecessarily throwing out all these weather stations in naturally colder places of being certain to exactly compensate for this, if that were even possible to do with certainty? I don’t. Even if they did try honestly, it would be horrible science. Given what we have learned lately, it’s unreasonable to assume with confidence they worked to avoid introducing bias in favor of their desired outcome.
But even if we granted that they did, it would be horribly and unnecessarily bad science – just downright stupid actually – compared to using the data that they are choosing not to use, but which used to be included.
If we’re talking about one individual, downright stupid things can happen without fraudulent intent. This could even be the case with a small group. Stupidity can be contagious sometimes, or a group may have coalesced around each other precisely because they all are stupid, and better scientists avoided them for that reason.
But when it’s this many? No. Something like this cannot have been done simply out of not knowing better.[/quote]
So it is more plausible that virtually every climatologist got together and agreed that they were going to commit mass scientific fraud and dupe the entire world? Maybe, but it seems unlikely.
Edit: Something’s messed up. My reply didn’t go through. Perhaps its on my end.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You always have to analyze whether your being-considered substitutions could introduce error, could introduce systematic bias, or whether you are discarding direct comparisons for indirect ones, and if the latter you need to make this clear. You also need to see why you must make the substitution or omission if it is not necessary to do so, and must make sure that there is no bias introduced or unnecessary arbitrariness. There is no doubt that these principles were not followed. Very obviously these eliminations of vast amounts of data sources that had been included in prior years are unnecessary eliminations which can introduce bias and have unnecessary arbitrariness.
As for your claim that urban effects are compensated for: it is not credible that the best way, when having a very large number of stations that you could use and in fact used to use in a multiplicity of points much better representing the Earth as a whole, is to instead use a far smaller number of urban stations and perform a manipulation on that data. Particularly when comparing to a timepoint when you did NOT do that but did use these other stations, and claiming a difference between the timepoints.
[/quote]
Agreed, after a fashion. Obviously, the more data the better, assuming that it is all robust. However, while some rural stations have been gotten rid of, it’s not like they’re using NYC data to model North Dakota. Probably the best thing to do to check the model is to apply it to old data sets, and see whether
Edit: Must have been length. Splitting…