14 thoughts on “CotW: Offered Without Comment #1”

  1. David K.

    From my cursory perusal of the internet, the primary technical difference between the two seems to be the ratio of fats, sugar and egss to flour. Cupcakes have a much higher ratio of those to the flour. A cupcake is essentially a cake in a cup, a muffin is a bread, although it can be very sweet. Without knowing the texture and ingredients I can neither confirm nor deny that the Dunkin Donuts Triple Chocolate Muffin is indeed a cupcake or muffin. However I can say with a high degree of certainty that it was NOT born in Hawaii.

  2. gahrie

    Hey David…ready to pay up yet?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

    Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

    The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

  4. pthread

    gahrie: are you sure you aren’t referring to me? Or did you have another bet with David?

    If you are referring to me, I will count this as the second time I am aware of that you’ve acted as if you’ve somehow found something that relates to what I ask for, when it does not at all.

    I cant’ decide if you actually don’t remember/don’t know what the terms were, or if, as David says, you are just trolling.

  6. gahrie

    Tim:

    Sorry. But Brendan doesn’t create posts about climate change or AGW anymore, and I couldn’t locate a previous thread about them. So I picked the first time I saw David K. (who I thought I needed to address) My apology.

    David K:

    You are right and I am wrong…I picked the wrong leftwinger. My apology. However you calling me a troll is yet again another personal attack and the height of irony.

    pthread:

    If Jones, Mann, Hansen, Pachuri and Gore all went out on the capitol steps and said, “we were wrong” that still wouldn’t be enough for you.

    This was a paper submitted to a peer reviewed journal (top in it’s field) about climate change that had to be pulled because they were wrong. What else do you need?

  7. David K.

    gahrie, you were being a troll, its not a personal attack when i’m accuratly describing your behavior. You also don’t seem to understand what the word “irony” means.

  9. Jazz

    Gahrie, when you read the article you linked, did you notice that it was inconclusive in which direction the Nature Geoscience estimate of 2100 sea levels erred? Did you notice that the Nature Geoscience conclusions of 2100 sea levels were roughly similar to the IPCC report from 2007, which had been roundly criticized as too conservative, and further that the Helsinki conclusions in December 2009 showed much higher sea levels in 2100 than Nature Geoscience?

    I confess I don’t read enough to know in which direction those guys erred. But it sure looks like, based on the rest of that article, that they underestimated the extent global seas will rise by 2100. How in the world is that a “win” for the anti-AGW side?

  11. pthread

    Gahrie:

    I can’t remember which thread that I originally made the offer in, but it was reiterated here:

    http://tinyurl.com/yz7ybmp (which oddly enough is the google cache version. Did Brendan delete that entry?)

    “And of course my offer of monetary reimbursement remains open if you are willing to produce a scientific work that now must change its findings as a result of this issue.”

    The issue being the East Anglia scandal, and “scientific work” as it was originally defined was a peer reviewed paper.

    This does not meet those requirements, not even close. And as Jazz pointed out, it’s incredible you even post this, because the article points out other subsequent papers have not had to be pulled, and if I am remembering from when I read it at work today (it won’t load now) I believe the subsequent papers may have actually had higher estimates.

    This is literally the definition of a troll.

  12. gahrie

    OK..again sorry for thread jacking..last time

    What would you accept as evidence that the climate change and AGW is wrong?

    Seriously….

    Because if it can’t be falsified, it’s not science, it’s religion.

  13. Alasdair

    And, talking of religion, the very VERY *VERY* best cupcakes are made with a batter that has sugar, flour, and eggs … no butter, no oil … then you can add all sorts of delicious things to that batter and bake in a very hot oven …

    (It’s a basic Angel Food Cake Batter – basis is 3 ounces of flour, 3 ounces of *very* fine sugar, and 2 eggs)

    {Brendan – can you start an AGW thread, please, so we can wallow and fling mud in there without messing the COTW area ?}

  14. Keri

    Mmm….chocolate. I think most muffins sold nowadays really are, in texture, more cupcakes than real muffins. At least they’re definitely muffins with a cupcake-like texture, due the increase of sugar and fat. A far cry from the Betty Crocker recipe I grew up eating lots of. You really can make a good chocolate muffin that’s a good muffin, just substitute out some flour for cocoa powder and add semisweet chips. Personally, I prefer a good banana muffin where you throw the chips in with or instead of the nuts. I think I’ll go make some of those now. Mmm…

    Oh, and yes. I think the confusion between muffins and cupcakes is tiny part of why Americans are getting so fat (as part of the larger problem of mistaking unhealthy for healthy). Not that I’m anti-cupcake either, mind you. I think chocolate and coconut sounds mighty fine right about now. But since the other adults in my household will be sneaking large amounts of whichever I make in my 14-month old behind my back, I’m sticking with the banana chocolate.

Comments are closed.