Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you have anything to support this? Do you have conclusive evidence that the world is warmer today than it was in 1977? Or actually, compellig evidence that the world has increased in tempature every year since 1977. I have seen conjectures, guesses and estimates, but nothing solid. Have you seen something that I have not?

You can google as well as I can, but start here: World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
One side point, Spanky -- did you actually tell your ex-girlfriend that you expected her dissertation to get laughed out of the room because she knew nothing about math?

S_A_M

P.S. Maybe you should have hired her a tutor for your anniversary present.

No but her thesis was based on statistical sampling; her samples were not random, she did not use enough samples so her conclusions made sense, she did not increase her statistical base to account for multiple variables and multiple references etc. etc... A large swath of research is based on statistics and statistical sampling. If you can't do basic math or understand statistics, you have no business doing such research. Or at least drawing conclusions from such research. Either the multiple professors that reviewed her dissertation got lazy and did not check her statistical analysis, or none of them know how to do it. Her paper should not have passed an undergrad statistic class, let alone pass as a legitimate piece of research justifying a doctorate from the University of California.

She told me that such unscientific and misguided methods were acceptable at UC Berkeley, I did not believe her. She proved me wrong. And now she is teaching a whole new generation of students that as long as your paper is well written, your method of collecting data, and how you process that data is not important. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Whoa, tiger. Aren't you supposed to be running? Or was that another Chinaski lie?


3.5 - 7

posting from my handheld- solar batteries!!!!!

edit: fixed typo caused by dodging a puddle.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ironweed
Vercingetorix runs his dishwasher half empty.

Easy there fella. Asterix in Switzerland is one of the greatest pieces of literature in world history. Pure genius. Don't even think about even coming close to possibly dissing such a masterpiece of literary genre.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
Easy there fella. Asterix in Switzerland is one of the greatest pieces of literature in world history. Pure genius. Don't even think about even coming close to possibly dissing such a masterpiece of literary genre.

"Into the sky, Alice!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
posting from my handheld- solar batteries!!!!!

edit: fixed typo caused by dodging a puddle.

Another lie. IT'S CLOUDY IN DETROIT!!!!!! The solar batteries wouldn't work.



http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/USMI0229.html

4.5 - 3.14etc.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
This means (as was clear from the context) that I am amazed that you are certain that all sociologists are mere ideologues with no academic standards based on your personal observation (not academic audit, mind you) of the handful that you have merely met.

I did not say all (I made the clear) but a vast majority. As I said, I have met quite a few (As they seem to be more of political animals than most professors) and I have sat with many on a bunch of panels.

And it is not like I am the lone voice in the wilderness on this. When speaking at colleges, when someone comes to the mike and mentions they are a sociology professor often a large swath of the other attendees do the equivalent of rolling their eyes.

Clearly sociology professors are considered the black sheep of many academic communities. Do you think I am wrong about this?

On the last panel I was on with that idiot ivy league sociologist on my side, when he talked about research he had done the supposedly neutral moderator asked the professor if a non-sociologist had "checked his work". When I talked about the high death rates of young girls from botched abortions in third world countries that had made abortion illegal, a questioner asked if a sociologist had "collected the data" and the whole room laughed. After I was on the panel I told the team at NARAL that I work with (who puts me on these panels) to check the research and to see what sort of professors collected the data on the stats we use on the effects of making abortion illegal in third world countries. I also told them I would never sit on the same side of the panel again with a sociology professor unless I got to meet with him or her first.

Why did I have to do that? Because sociologists are so well regarded?

Was this a phenomenon you weren't aware of until I brought it up?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
You guys see this? If true, this is rather disturbing:



Fox News says the Feds can eavesdrop on your using your cell phone

I feel sorry for the Feds that listen to my calls.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Gore is paying more to buy his electricity from a green source, then it doesn't matter how much he's using, because he's not making global warming worse, right?

That is true, but it seems that he is getting his power from the same company as everyone else in that area. Unless the utility that is sending these huge bills is a special utility that only derives its energy from green sources, I don't think that is the case. If the utility he uses only gets it energy from "green" sources, then he is not being hypocritical. Unless of course the energy he is using power stuff that adds to global warming.

However I really doubt he is using such a special utility. If he was why would he have to buy carbon credits?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I did not say all (I made the clear) but a vast majority. As I said, I have met quite a few (As they seem to be more of political animals than most professors) and I have sat with many on a bunch of panels.

And it is not like I am the lone voice in the wilderness on this. When speaking at colleges, when someone comes to the mike and mentions they are a sociology professor often a large swath of the other attendees do the equivalent of rolling their eyes.

Clearly sociology professors are considered the black sheep of many academic communities. Do you think I am wrong about this?

On the last panel I was on with that idiot ivy league sociologist on my side, when he talked about research he had done the supposedly neutral moderator asked the professor if a non-sociologist had "checked his work". When I talked about the high death rates of young girls from botched abortions in third world countries that had made abortion illegal, a questioner asked if a sociologist had "collected the data" and the whole room laughed. After I was on the panel I told the team at NARAL that I work with (who puts me on these panels) to check the research and to see what sort of professors collected the data on the stats we use on the effects of making abortion illegal in third world countries. I also told them I would never sit on the same side of the panel again with a sociology professor unless I got to meet with him or her first.

Why did I have to do that? Because sociologists are so well regarded?

Was this a phenomenon you weren't aware of until I brought it up?

Also, I've heard that sociologists have been raping Israeli Jews.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
When did you last have the opportunity to vote for a national candidate who was not a pompous, hypocritical blowhard?

I actually like Gore reasonably well. But I'll concede he fits the definition. As does pretty much everyone else on the national stage.

For a democrat he is pretty good. He is a DLC guy, so he is infinitely preferrable to Edwards, Obama or God forbid, Kerry. A Bush loss in 2000 wouldn't have been so bad, a Bush loss in 2004 would have been a disaster.

This doesn't factor in who I support for political office, but as far as pompous, blowhard and hypocritical go, it is hard to find someone who can beat him in any of thosedepartments. Maybe Donald Trump, but I cant think of anyone else who comes close.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It also kills the view off the Cape.

This is why the Kennedys and other rich NE Democrat friends-of-Al have been steadfastly blocking the building of a new windfarm off the coast of Taxachusetts.

Similar thinking that goes into Patrick Kennedy protecting tax breaks for yacht sales (his excuse being of course that yacht sales are critical to the Rhode Island economy).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What you call snark, is just rambling histrionics not backed by any evidence.

It certainly wasn't backed by as much evidence once you edited out the hypertext link to the annotated bibliography.

Since you are all about the substance, here's the abstract of one the papers I found through that (snarky, histrionic) post:

• Using a unique data set on teachers' union election certications I hand-collected from Public Employment Relations Boards in Iowa, Indiana, and Minnesota, I estimate the effect of teachers' unions on the level and allocation of school district resources and on the returns to those resources in the education production function. Employing an event study methodology, I find teachers' unions have no impact on teacher pay, per-student district expenditures or per-student revenues, but they increase teacher employment by between 5 and 10 percent. This employment increase is offset by enrollment increases in unionized districts, causing unions to have little effect on class sizes. Further, I estimate education production functions using high school dropout rates. While there is little evidence of a net union effect on dropout rates, my results are consistent with unions causing an increase in the returns to lower class sizes and higher teacher pay. These findings are in conflict with much of the past literature on teachers' union impacts. I argue a major cause of this discrepancy is due to measurement error in the union measure constructed from survey responses in the Census of Governments. These results highlight the importance of correctly measuring unionization status in union impact studies.

Sounds from this like maybe the teachers unions aren't such a pernicious influence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From the Economist

• ...Some of [Gore's handlers'] response seems flatly silly. The electricity usage is what Mr Gore consumes after things like solar panels and CFLs are taken into account; it's hardly comforting that he could be emitting even more carbon, since that is true of almost all of us, yet has not stopped Mr Gore from hectoring us to reduce our carbon output still further.

That's nice, Slave, but if he's buying his electricity from a 100% green source, then it doesn't matter whether he's got a fully lit 1:8 diorama of the Las Vegas strip going in his yard -- it's not adding to the carbon problem. And if that's what he's doing, he's surely paying more than his neighbors for power, which would be putting his money where his mouth is.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you have anything to support this? Do you have conclusive evidence that the world is warmer today than it was in 1977? Or actually, compellig evidence that the world has increased in tempature every year since 1977. I have seen conjectures, guesses and estimates, but nothing solid. Have you seen something that I have not?

Fish, barrel:

chart

It's not worth fighting the facts, only the connection between this and human activity. And even that's worth fighting only if your corporate name as more than one X in it.