--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Folks, how would you like to be off and on a list for over two
> years,
> and each time that you post a sincere message on a topic, you have a
> reply
> coming back from the same person on the list, 99 times out of 100, in
> disagreement. I am not the only one....I wrote a message to Benjamin
> about
> global modeling, and I get a rebuttal from you know who....
>
> But look at this:
>
> Steve:
> >As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted before,
> >reconstructed data from proxy sources. It is the data that is used by
> >James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming. Thus, if John's
> >criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it means
> the
> >predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong. ROFLMAO!!"
>
> I had no idea that on November 28, 2000, that Steve would actually take
> the
> time and think about what I had pointed out regarding his data set. That
> possibly the data was 'proxy' data. That it was actually not possible to
> measure irradience outside the atmosphere in 1900. So to save face, he
> finally after 2 years of constant sniping and barbs, indicates that well
> I
> may have been correct.
Uhhh no. I pointed out that it was proxy data, you accuesed me of using
false data.
> But you know Folks, he has forgotten my little lesson and is now
> contradicting himself. It was okay to use proxy data when it proved his
> point, but then when proxy data was not useful for proving his point,
> then
> he does not like it because it is proxy data.
Uhhh John you are embarassing yourself. My point was that relying on
predictions for 100 years that rely very heavily on proxy data is very
questionable. Since I didn't make any forecast, let alone one 100 years
out your criticism is invalid.
> Here is what he said, December 18, 2000:
>
> >Given the lack of actual data and the reliance on considerable amounts
> of
> >proxy data the models that predict out for over 100 years should be
> taken
> >not only with a grain of salt, but a canister.
>
> Way too funny....anyway Folks I could not help myself. Yes way too
> funny. A
> person that only argues for argument sake never convinces anyone. And it
> was
> William James that said that in "Principles of Psychology". "Arguments
> never
> convince anyone". Honest I am not trying to 'goad him' but rather point
Yes you are. Unfortunately you are doing a bad job of it. I am sure
everyone sees this for what it is, another distortion.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
|