All Scientists Throw Out the Raw Data, Right?

The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter

Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower.

Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.

Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time

On Dec 3, 12:16*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter

Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower.

Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.

Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time

By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!

Words do have meanings, regardless of your ignorance:


Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological
variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It
is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which
correlate together:[1][2]

1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to
the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
the society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed
against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be
targets according to established authorities.
3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions
and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its
established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society
should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].

Sorry about enigmatic title of the first version. I was editing it
when my son called upstairs to say the central heating boiler kicked
out again. It happens every time we get kerosine delivered and the
silt in the bottom of the tank gets stirred up. A bloody irritation.
Anyway, I rose in the middle of a sentence, spoke politely to the
boiler until it resumed normal service, returned to my rowing machine
computer -- and sent the same sort of gobbledygook I'm complaining
about. Tsch! Tsch! Ah, well, nobody is perfect, not even me.

Bring back the global warming those IPCC bullies and their attendant
brownnosers aka "climatologists" promised us, and we'll all benefit,
and the central heating salesmen can go bankrupt for all I care.

Andre Jute
....who shoulda had the brains to be in Adelaide (Australia) roundabout
wintertime in the Northern Hemisphere.

PS And up Michael Press for disillusioning me about Ireland having a
mediterranean climate! Yo, young Master Press, you'll forever be the
most unpopular person in the tearoom until you realize that people
treasure their illusions.

On Dec 3, 6:16*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter

Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower.

Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.

Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time

Maxine Hermaphrodite von Ott zu Bott aka landotter
wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:16*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter

Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower.

Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.

Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time

By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!

You're behind the times, Maxine. I stopped using that killfile many
moons ago. Looks like you're the last person on RBT to discover it.

Words do have meanings, regardless of your ignorance:

Yes, I know. I do words for a living. http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological
variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. It
is defined by three attitudinal and behavioral clusters which
correlate together:[1][2]

* *1. Authoritarian submission — a high degree of submissiveness to
the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in
the society in which one lives.

I can see why this truism rings a bell with you, Maxine. You're
describing the scientism of the global warmies.

* *2. Authoritarian aggression — a general aggressiveness directed
against deviants, outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be
targets according to established authorities.

Once more, I see now where you're coming from. This is the treatment
of dissenters ("deniers") by the global warmies.

* *3. Conventionalism — a high degree of adherence to the traditions
and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its
established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society
should also be required to adhere to these norms[3].

How apt! This is the impressionables of society jumping onto the
global warming bandwagon.

Hey, Maxine, maybe you're not such a thicko as everyone thinks!

Andre Jute
Wordsmith

On Dec 3, 12:31 pm, landotter wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:16 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

The hermaphrodite Maxine von Ott zu Bott aka landotter

Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower.

Do you ever read over the gobbledygook you send to RBT, Maxine? An
authoritarian is particularly not a follower: he is a person who
demands that others submit to his authority. The sort of gobbledygook
that you spew may sound good in the kind of sociology department that
characterizes tenth-rate community colleges, but it won't wash with
people who know how to put their minds in gear.

Andre Jute
This is a waste of my time

By responding to me you prove that you lied about plonking me!

Gambling in Casablanca?? I'm shocked! Shocked!!

[...]

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
[...]
Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.

Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
"nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?


You have a point. 'Nutbar' is too mild.

'Criminally deranged' is more apt.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Dec 3, 3:16 pm, AMuzi wrote:
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
[...]
Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.

Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
"nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?

You have a point. 'Nutbar' is too mild.

'Criminally deranged' is more apt.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

You're just ****ed cuz he disrespected your man (the dubber).

I laughed my ass off every time he insulted that idjit.

'Murica's teetering in its position at the top of the heap and you
feel it and people like Chavez who feel it too scare and anger you.

Just lay back and think of England. Otherwise this is gonna hurt
(people who think like you).

D'ohBoy

landotter wrote:
On Dec 3, 2:42 am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
Ben C wrote:
[...]
It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.
Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
"CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the bristlecone
pines.
Which hockey stick graph?
The one used on page 29 of the IPCC Technical Summary.

The temperature graphs are not and have not been hockey sticks.
They kick up sharply at the end and make the MWP and LIA look like they
didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.

That's the idea? How do you know? You a mind reader? If it's so
obviously glaringly ****ed up--name all of the international
scientific organizations that have also seen this--if it's so obvious,
then peer review would have caught it.

The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this is a
bit "right wing").

And here we have the admission that you filter reality through
dogmatism. Thanks for playing. You're cynical about the effectiveness
of big government because of a feudalistic faith with no evidence.
Such beliefs are trendy, as is the worship of Reagan's manly ranchers'
hands which tore down the Berlin wall in your dreams--but not reality
based.


'hockey stick peer review' gets 78,000 hits in a search:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14664

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

landotter wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:04 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 3, 3:50 am, Tom Sherman °_°

wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
[...]
Chavez is arguably a left winger. And clearly a nutbar.
Did you start watching the corporate USian media? First of all, Chavez
has been ELECTED by the majority of the people of Venezuela, in
elections internationally recognized as fair. Secondly, how is he a
"nutbar" - for putting the interests of the people of Venezuela over
foreign corporations and the fascist upper class?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Stalin and Hitler were both repeatedly elected by their respective
franchises.

That would be a lie.

They, and Mao and Pol Pot, were all leftwing
authoritarians.

Another lie.

A whole lot of South American leaders labelled
dictators by the NYT and even by the State Deparment were repeatedly
elected by large majorities, including, one from each side of the
fence, Stroessner and Peron. I don't think these rightwing-leftwing
labels are in the least helpful; they are the knee-jerk well-
poisonings of the thoughtless and the ill-educated.

The problem is simply your own ignorance. Right wing authoritarian is
a personality type that's eager to be a follower. Right wing
authoritarian followers enable social dominants. Sometimes social
dominants will also be right wing authoritarians. For example, "we
need a powerful leader to unite our people, and I can be that leader!"

The poisonous combination of the two personality types lead to
totalitarianism, regardless of economic theory. Fascism and communism
in practice are two sides of the same coin. They are both enemies of
liberalism and democracy.


Hitler's election 19 April, 1932:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp

Stalin's April 1922:
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/.../timeline.html

Whether Mao and PolPot are "leftwing authoritarians" may be
ambiguous to you. But not to everyone.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In article ,
Ben C wrote:

On 2009-12-03, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Ben C wrote:
[...]
It's pretty clear the hockey stick was fraud. Read McIntyre and
McKitrick's paper and make up your own mind.

Interesting in that paper is that they found a directory called
"CENSORED" in which it was revealed that Mann knew that even his
bogus algorithm didn't produce a hockey stick without the
bristlecone pines.

Which hockey stick graph?

The one used on page 29 of the IPCC Technical Summary.

The temperature graphs are not and have not been hockey sticks.

They kick up sharply at the end and make the MWP and LIA look like
they didn't happen. The idea is to make 20th century warming look
unprecedented, anomalous, scary, and like it must be all our fault.

[...]
It's true that much of what they've been up to has been suspected
fairly accurately by quite a few people already. But the emails
are confirming it.

At this point I am not convinced, sorry. This is three researchers
out of thousands.

I'm not convinced there are thousands of _independent_ researchers.
How many thousands of non-independent ones counts for nothing.

Define "independent" versus "non-independent." Is someone financed by
an oil company independent while someone who works for a university
non-independent? Or is "independent" only a researcher who is
self-employed, has no income from anyone in the university world or
energy companies or government or politicians... in short is a hermit
who lives 100 miles from the nearest person?

Could you even ever possibly be satisfied that the facts show what they
show if it happens to not be what you want them to show?

I've heard the flypaper argument made for Christianity too-- all
those millions of believers can't be wrong!

Oh good grief. So not what was said or intended. Try some honesty, eh?

[...]
Banning CO2 is not without its problems: inexperienced people
doing nuclear fission, biofuels for the rich instead of food for
the poor, developing countries not being allowed to develop by
burning their coal.

There are few people experienced in nuclear fission nowadays and
until the security and disposal issues can be addressed it is a
non-starter.

That's not going to stop people doing it as soon as it becomes
economical.

Possibly. But then see your caveats below.

Beside the dangers of poorly-maintained reactors that fall apart like
Chernobyl the other problem is proliferation of nuclear weapons,
increasing the probability that one day someone stupid enough to
actually use them will have them.

Yup.

A shame, too, because nuclear power is in many ways a very
promising technology. The biofuels issue is a major one and I
suspect our opinions on that might be quite similar. And on the
last point, there may be other ways to pursue economic development.
Economies are not required to go through the heavy industry route
to prosperity.

The problem is how do you get there. I am very cynical about the
effectiveness of big government or UN meddling (I freely admit this
is a bit "right wing").

Ya think?