Comments for I Think I Need a Shoehorn http://www.kevland.com/blog Ten pounds of blog in a five-pound sack Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:48:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on Whatever Happened to Facts? by Kevin http://www.kevland.com/blog/2012/02/facts/#comment-10481 Kevin Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:48:23 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=601#comment-10481 I do all my writing in my head these days. I do all my writing in my head these days.

]]> Comment on Whatever Happened to Facts? by ycycle http://www.kevland.com/blog/2012/02/facts/#comment-10480 ycycle Sun, 19 Feb 2012 04:19:45 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=601#comment-10480 I was wondering whatever happened to Kevland. I was wondering whatever happened to Kevland.

]]> Comment on Not Just Wrong by Kevin http://www.kevland.com/blog/2011/07/not-just-wrong/#comment-10392 Kevin Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:58:57 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=587#comment-10392 Well there's all that talk about a glass ceiling; maybe it's a glass bottom. So we can see all the pretty fishes. Like that one there, swimming right at us. Uh-oh. We're gonna need a bigger boat. Well there’s all that talk about a glass ceiling; maybe it’s a glass bottom. So we can see all the pretty fishes. Like that one there, swimming right at us.

Uh-oh.

We’re gonna need a bigger boat.

]]> Comment on Not Just Wrong by Ycycle http://www.kevland.com/blog/2011/07/not-just-wrong/#comment-10391 Ycycle Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:40:15 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=587#comment-10391 How can the country be doing so poorly when all the companies are doing so well? Oh right, it's all the lost jobs and cuts in salary that show corporate 'profit'. So the rich get a bonus for increasing the bottom line and the rest join the bottom line by increasing unemployment. Got it. If we are all focused on the bottom why do we keep talking about a ceiling? How can the country be doing so poorly when all the companies are doing so well? Oh right, it’s all the lost jobs and cuts in salary that show corporate ‘profit’.
So the rich get a bonus for increasing the bottom line and the rest join the bottom line by increasing unemployment. Got it. If we are all focused on the bottom why do we keep talking about a ceiling?

]]> Comment on The Facts We Hate by ycycle http://www.kevland.com/blog/2011/03/the-facts-we-hate/#comment-9906 ycycle Sat, 12 Mar 2011 21:39:43 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=546#comment-9906 Besides....I'm fairly certainly I destroyed the sanctity of marriage when I tried it 'their' way the first time around. Besides….I’m fairly certainly I destroyed the sanctity of marriage when I tried it ‘their’ way the first time around.

]]> Comment on Crap * 500 Still Equals Crap by Kevin http://www.kevland.com/blog/2010/04/crap-500-still-equals-crap/#comment-2504 Kevin Mon, 03 May 2010 12:09:40 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=469#comment-2504 Oh look, you're spamming me. "The list has two purposes, 1. To demonstrate these papers exist contrary to claims that no peer-reviewed papers exist. 2. To be a reference for these papers." Just as I thought. Making an actual logical argument based on data would be too much work. Well, and it would require you have some data on your side. Oh, and "It is not isolated to just “climatology” journals as various science journals such as Nature are not “climatology” journals." Yeah, cause The Electricity Journal is <i>just like</i> Nature. In case anyone reading is unfamiliar with <i>Nature</i> and <i>Science</i>, they are top-level general science publications, for which almost anything is on-topic. Publishing a paper in one of them means their editors think it is better than a typical paper in the top field-specific journals. Publishing a climatology paper in "The Electricity Journal" means it was so bad you couldn't get it accepted at any actual climatology journal. Keep on digging. Oh look, you’re spamming me.

“The list has two purposes, 1. To demonstrate these papers exist contrary to claims that no peer-reviewed papers exist. 2. To be a reference for these papers.” Just as I thought. Making an actual logical argument based on data would be too much work. Well, and it would require you have some data on your side.

Oh, and “It is not isolated to just “climatology” journals as various science journals such as Nature are not “climatology” journals.” Yeah, cause The Electricity Journal is just like Nature.

In case anyone reading is unfamiliar with Nature and Science, they are top-level general science publications, for which almost anything is on-topic. Publishing a paper in one of them means their editors think it is better than a typical paper in the top field-specific journals. Publishing a climatology paper in “The Electricity Journal” means it was so bad you couldn’t get it accepted at any actual climatology journal.

Keep on digging.

]]> Comment on Crap * 500 Still Equals Crap by Kevin http://www.kevland.com/blog/2010/04/crap-500-still-equals-crap/#comment-2503 Kevin Mon, 03 May 2010 12:01:34 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=469#comment-2503 Alphabetical order? By <i>title</i>? And again I ask, do you really expect people to read any of these things, or do you just like to whip it out and wave it around, hoping someone will be impressed? Lots of words about how relevant Energy & Environment is, but nothing about the fact that the proxies were never shown to be valid. And if the publisher doesn't list references, I have no easy way to see what other people have said about it. Okay, I Googled it, and found out it's <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/#more-506" rel="nofollow">much much worse than I thought</a>. "A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming is explicitly skeptical of AGW." Well jolly good for it. Is that supposed to be a serious scientific argument? "Douglas et al 2007 has been defended and Santer et al 2008 has been completely refuted" in unpublished papers by McI. and McK., who have a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm" rel="nofollow">long and storied record</a>. Yeah, that's convincing. Alphabetical order? By title? And again I ask, do you really expect people to read any of these things, or do you just like to whip it out and wave it around, hoping someone will be impressed?

Lots of words about how relevant Energy & Environment is, but nothing about the fact that the proxies were never shown to be valid. And if the publisher doesn’t list references, I have no easy way to see what other people have said about it. Okay, I Googled it, and found out it’s much much worse than I thought.

“A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming is explicitly skeptical of AGW.” Well jolly good for it. Is that supposed to be a serious scientific argument?

“Douglas et al 2007 has been defended and Santer et al 2008 has been completely refuted” in unpublished papers by McI. and McK., who have a long and storied record. Yeah, that’s convincing.

]]> Comment on Crap * 500 Still Equals Crap by Poptech http://www.kevland.com/blog/2010/04/crap-500-still-equals-crap/#comment-2502 Poptech Mon, 03 May 2010 11:48:23 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=469#comment-2502 The list has two purposes, 1. To demonstrate these papers exist contrary to claims that no peer-reviewed papers exist. 2. To be a reference for these papers. The list has two purposes, 1. To demonstrate these papers exist contrary to claims that no peer-reviewed papers exist. 2. To be a reference for these papers.

]]> Comment on Crap * 500 Still Equals Crap by Poptech http://www.kevland.com/blog/2010/04/crap-500-still-equals-crap/#comment-2501 Poptech Mon, 03 May 2010 11:43:29 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=469#comment-2501 Question, if you did not want someone to read the papers why would you include the full paper in PDF format where available for free on the Internet? Question, if you did not want someone to read the papers why would you include the full paper in PDF format where available for free on the Internet?

]]> Comment on Crap * 500 Still Equals Crap by Poptech http://www.kevland.com/blog/2010/04/crap-500-still-equals-crap/#comment-2500 Poptech Mon, 03 May 2010 11:41:24 +0000 http://www.kevland.com/blog/?p=469#comment-2500 New Zealand Geographer is an peer-reviewed academic journal. "The journal publishes academic papers on aspects of the physical, human and environmental geographies" "A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide" is a peer-reviewed paper and a review of the science. The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1040-6190) "A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" presents and alternate hypothesis other than AGW as the cause of the climate shift in the '70s. Irrigation and Drainage is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1531-0353) Again the list is of peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. It is not isolated to just "climatology" journals as various science journals such as Nature are not "climatology" journals. Your analysis is wrong. New Zealand Geographer is an peer-reviewed academic journal. “The journal publishes academic papers on aspects of the physical, human and environmental geographies”

“A critical review of the hypothesis that climate change is caused by carbon dioxide” is a peer-reviewed paper and a review of the science.

The Electricity Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1040-6190)

“A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts” presents and alternate hypothesis other than AGW as the cause of the climate shift in the ’70s.

Irrigation and Drainage is a peer-reviewed academic journal (ISSN: 1531-0353)

Again the list is of peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. It is not isolated to just “climatology” journals as various science journals such as Nature are not “climatology” journals.

Your analysis is wrong.

]]>