[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yes I get it. You would dearly like to convince us that two completely different things are the same thing.

You're wrong though.

It isn't just that drought and temperature are different. The siberian bristlecones Michael Mann used produce different results depending on things like whether the trees are grown on the North or South side of the mountain.

Therefore trees on one side of the mountain might produce data that would help Mann show the results he wanted. Trees grown on the other side would show the opposite.

Once all the data was finally produced guess which trees Michael used and which ones he pretended did not exist.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/1 ... -used.html

Exactly--and you're doing exactly what Mann is doing. Just using whatever data happens to fit your preconceived notions. That's what science is to you guys--just another tool in the rhetorical toolbox.

Show me how the climate skeptic critique on Michael Mann of "hide the decline" for temperatures would even be used against a graph of tree ring proxies graph illustrating drought. Why would a climate skeptic even want to do that? They wouldn't, and I didn't.

The data is not the same, what's shown is not the same, and temperature is not drought. You're telling me what applies for temperature must apply for drought in all cases. You're telling me an apple is an orange. It's not.

You seem to be saying if somebody criticizes mismanagement of proxies in one case then that means he can never consider any proxies again in any case, ever. That's nonsense. It doesn't make any kind of sense. Not even rhetorical.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yes I get it. You would dearly like to convince us that two completely different things are the same thing.

You're wrong though.

It isn't just that drought and temperature are different. The siberian bristlecones Michael Mann used produce different results depending on things like whether the trees are grown on the North or South side of the mountain.

Therefore trees on one side of the mountain might produce data that would help Mann show the results he wanted. Trees grown on the other side would show the opposite.

Once all the data was finally produced guess which trees Michael used and which ones he pretended did not exist.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/1 ... -used.html

Exactly--and you're doing exactly what Mann is doing. Just using whatever data happens to fit your preconceived notions. That's what science is to you guys--just another tool in the rhetorical toolbox.

Show me how the climate skeptic critique on Michael Mann of "hide the decline" for temperatures would even be used against a graph of tree ring proxies graph illustrating drought. Why would a climate skeptic even want to do that? They wouldn't, and I didn't.

The data is not the same, what's shown is not the same, and temperature is not drought. You're telling me what applies for temperature must apply for drought in all cases. You're telling me an apple is an orange. It's not.

You seem to be saying if somebody criticizes mismanagement of proxies in one case then that means he can never consider any proxies again in any case, ever. That's nonsense. It doesn't make any kind of sense. Not even rhetorical.

No what I'm saying is that you criticized use of proxies, and now that they suit your viewpoint, you don't. You're asking people to accept those proxies, even though you certainly didn't. It's getting fucking boring to be honest. Such a nexus of evil and stupidity.

[Jabberwalker]

I'd like to see a counter-article showing helicopter shots of celebrity properties planted with desert foliage. There must be some that can put that little equation together ... desert plants in the ... desert.

[andyt]

You'd think it would be a fad for them to xeriscape, same as driving a prius. When you're not in the limo or the private jet.

[Jabberwalker]

When you're not in ... the private jet ...

... flying around the globe, protesting about carbon emissions ...

[BRAH]

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

[andyt]

BRAH BRAH:

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

Almost on the level of 911 happened because of gays in NYC.

[Lemmy]

BRAH BRAH:

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

Wow.

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There's a simpler photo layout at the Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html

This is nothing more than a sad attempt at a smear job, but it fails because none of these celebrities are into water conservation.

There are plenty of rich wastrels in California that waste water like crazy - the golf course industry is a notable one. But why bother bitching about Republican businessmen playing $300 rounds of golf when we can bitch about whatever stupid ass thing the Kardashians are doing now?

All this article really shows to me is that the market system works the way capitalists want it to. The rich, regardless of political stripe, can afford to use as much water as they want - while average people are forced to conserve because they can't afford it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No what I'm saying is that you criticized use of proxies,

You're wrong again then. I and others did not criticize use of proxies. We criticized "Misuse" of proxies.

[N_Fiddledog]

You can't just say doing bad science is the same thing as doing science correctly cause both activities use the word "science" to describe themselves.

Well you could say that, but doing so would be you know...stupid.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

BRAH BRAH:

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

Almost on the level of 911 happened because of gays in NYC.

That's not why, 9/11 happened becausew the hijackers were gay and had to hide their gayness so they crashed a few planes because they were gay, it's true I Googled it.

[BRAH]

Lemmy Lemmy:

BRAH BRAH:

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

Wow.

Yeah keep laughing, you're not the one who can't give their pet dog water because Kim Kardashian has to water her lawn.

[OnTheIce]

BRAH BRAH:

Lemmy Lemmy:

BRAH BRAH:

Leftist Entitlement and Privilege. California Drought

Wow.

Yeah keep laughing, you're not the one who can't give their pet dog water because Kim Kardashian has to water her lawn.

Than you don't understand the water restriction rules.

You are allowed to water your lawn and give your dog water.

[Lemmy]

BRAH BRAH:

Yeah keep laughing, you're not the one who can't give their pet dog water because Kim Kardashian has to water her lawn.

Yeah, lawn and dog watering are the cause of California's water problems. And you have some proof of this horrible dehydrated dogs crisis, right?