How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?

As the sordid details of Tiger Woods’ personal life continue to unfold in the national media the question arises: will Electronic Arts stick by their videogame cover boy?

While EA issued a statement a week ago saying that it wouldn’t dump Woods, the media frenzy surrounding Tiger’s transgressions continues to grow and more information is revealed seemingly everyday, all of which could influence EA’s stance.

A Forbes column contains the opinion that Tiger’s days are numbered as an EA spokesman, going so far as to say that “Tiger is done as a corporate pitchman” overall, regardless of what companies sticking by him are currently saying now.

The columnist also believes that the Tiger scandal will force companies to do full diligence on a spokesperson before choosing them:

…companies that throw big money at athletes are going to do a lot of research on them to make sure they are not phony (or make risk-adverse decisions based on information they do have) and funnel their endorsement dough at popular athletes whose image will not blow up.

Some of these athletes may not even be among the best in their field, but they will typically be in global sports and not be ticking time bombs.

Forbes writes that no other golfers carry enough buzz among consumers to fill Tiger’s shoes. Certainly however, EA could find a new PGA pro to build its game around if events warranted. Phil Mickelson might be the perfect choice, though he may need to work on his fist pump to take it to Tiger’s level.

What do you think? Should EA keep Tiger on board?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    SpiralGray says:

    > It all comes down to this: Will people choose to NOT buy the game because Tiger’s on the

    > cover? Fair or not, I’d say yes.

    You hit the nail right on the head. In this country violence is okay, but sex is dirty and evil and disgusting. Generally the public will react to that and villify the person. Have an affair, you’re a pervert. Start a war over manufactured evidence that kills thousands and you’re a patriot.

    Show a boob and it’s dirty, cut off a boob and that’s some fine entertainment.

  2. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    I heard Nike is sticking w/him all the way & I also heard they are hoping he can get his life in that area changed. Lol Nike’s new logo should be: "Just do me."



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  3. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    Extramarital affairs put a black eye to any significant other Reguardless of Gender, Race or Creed

    EA Should start to pull tiger woods’s Name from the cover and his playable character(Not that he’s retired, yet) as a result of this stupid situation

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  4. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    He disrespected her too by doing it. Makes me wonder if he’s doing this to get more publicity.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  5. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    True. But wouldn’t that be public affairs meaning people would find out about those affairs w/men or women & then give that person a bad rep.? Where I live, I call some girls there Mud sharks. If you know what it means, I wouldn’t say it to a black man w/a white woman or a black woman w/a white man. It’s very offensive. & if I knew there were people around & found out they were cheating on their wives, gf’s or fiance’s I would stop talking to them. But to some other females, it is an opportunity.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  6. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    I think EA should ditch him. He is a dog & a man whore. Ewwww……makes me question if he even used condoms w/the other women. But makes me wonder if some of the females that are coming out of the woodwork are being serious or are just faking? But why would any woman get w/him? Other than money…..other than power & of course of than fantasizing about him. But why? I don’t like golf. It is a very boring game to me anyways……to others it’s not. & damn he HAD a hot blonde as a wife from Sweden or something like that…..? Of course I would move to Sweden too. But he just went from being Tiger to Cheetah. LMAO! 😀 I know Gatorade got rid of him b/c Gatorade’s motto is "Is it in you?" LMAO! Oh boy……& since he has an array of vehicles to his name, his Escalade has a hole-in-one. & what’s the diff between Tiger Woods & Santa Clause? Santa stops at three ho’s.

    I think if EA keeps him, it will be a bad idea & may lose money b/c of keeping him.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  7. 0
    Thomas says:

    Great, now even GP is reporting this garbage.

    If true, does it make him the kind of scum I would step on if they were in the street dying? Probably.

    Is it my, or anyone elses, business outside his family.. no.

    "We never paid any heed to the ancient prophecies… Like fools we clung to the old hatreds, and fought as we had for generations"

  8. 0
    SpaceGhost2K says:

    This is why it’s smarter to use the name of the sport and not a celebrity so you don’t have to backtrack later koff mike tyson’s punch out koff. Madden’s a hundred years old so he’s probably "safe."


    It all comes down to this: Will people choose to NOT buy the game because Tiger’s on the cover? Fair or not, I’d say yes. Which means they need to drop him, call the game "PGA Tour 2011" and feature a random golfer on the cover each year just like Madden, NBA Live, NHL, NASCAR, FIFA, etc.


    The biggesr question is, can he get his WIFE to not drop him? He’s humiliated her by basically saying to the world "she’s not enough for me." If he tripled her prenup agreement, agreed to some counseling and agreed to some sort of accountability arrangement, he might convince her he’s serious about not doing it again, and he might also keep some of his endorsements on top of that.


    He just announced he’s taking a break from golf. If I assumed I’d get booed, I’d take a break, too.

  9. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Why not do a comedy golf game you get points for hitting other players, pissing in a hole,pissing on otehr players stuff without them notceing, normal golf stuff how much you can drink and still get near a hole and fighting/sword play with golf sticks, it’d be a riot do it in a cartoonist chibi style to!

    Call it Tigers bad golf day!!

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  10. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I didn’t get it from Fox.  I read the emails myself.  I read the source code for the CRU’s programs myself.  I merely pointed out that liberal news agencies are neglecting to report on something newsworthy because it would put a black eye on the liberal agenda.  Instead, they’re gossiping about Tiger Woods, because the average American cares more about whether or not a great golfer cheated on his wife than whether or not something that will actually affect their lives is based on bogus science.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  11. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You claim that a lot of liberal governments support man-made global warming.  How come there are a lot of SCIENTISTS that don’t belive in man-made global warmng?  You know, since it’s scientifically proven and all…oh, wait, it isn’t.  It is theorized, but now, most of the scientific data supporting it is called into question.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  12. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    It’s not that ALL of the emails are damning, it’s that a vast majority of emails aren’t really about anything at all.  Most of them are about personal stuff, or responses to other emails, you know, the average email.  The "cherry picked" ones are the ones that actually discuss scientific and legal wrongdoing.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  13. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I noticed how you don’t mention the source code for East Anglia’s programming.  If you did, you’d shut the fuck up, because the programmer left comments in specifically stating that the numbers since 1970 are artificially higher than mean temperatures recorded.  What’s your argument against that?  You don’t have one, because you can’t argue with source code.

    This program taints all of the CRU data and, by extension, all data and programs using CRU data.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  14. 0
    sqlrob says:

    They were also the only one reporting on the huge numbers of people at various protests.

    Using footage from another event. And they’ve done it several times.

    Yeah, I’m going to trust anything they say. I don’t remember whether it was you or Austin, but upthread claiming to not trust anything when the data is suspect? Why do you trust it from Fox when they’ve been shown to be suspect?



  15. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    Iv’e never heard of cherry-picking. What does that mean?



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  16. 0
    Lou says:

    Ummm besides Fox news nobody is talking about this because the stuff Fox has come out with has ben hand-picked. They are the only ones making a big deal out of this and do you know why? Fox is filled with right wing nutjobs who have brought similar arguments about the global warming being a myth.

    To spare you some time the AP and several scientists have combed through the 1,037 e-mails that have been "exposed" and apparently there is no evidence that these scientists are fabricating any data. Yes there are points in wich they have casted doubts on their research, something ALL scientists have done at certain point in their researches but there is no climate-gate pseudo conspiracy.

    Now I bet you’re gonna come with the "sweeping under the rug" argument but let me ask you something, what prove do YOU have about this? I don’t fully blelieve in the global warming argument and yet you don’t see me yelling conspiracy to any argument brought against it.

  17. 0
    Ambiguous says:

    Contrary to what you’re thinking, the basis for global warming info is not based on a single source, even assuming that the source is fraudulent as you say.  There are inquiries going on to determine that as we speak, but so far the explanations provided by officials seem satisfactory (to myself anyway, and to the scientific community seeing as they aren’t doing much about it). 

    Even if there is evidence of fraudulent activity, it would  not discount anything with regards to global warming.  You metnion in a post above that what is unsure is whether or not humans are influencing the climate change.  Fact: not a single national/international scientific entity known explicitly rejects global warming, that is, human infulenced climate change, and in fact most support it.  Whats "unsure" about it are politics and businesses that would suffer from policies implemented in its favor.  Science is not. The closest out there to a dissenting opinion anymore are a couple groups, such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (small wonder why they don’t want to support it), that basically say "well okay, the planet is getting warmer and probably will continue to do so, but it could still be caused by something else".  In fact, that particular group was essentially forced to change its views on the topic about 2 years ago by its own member base, when it was the only dissenting force amongst scientific entities on the topic.


    As for doging FOIA requests, I have seen nothing (as of yet, if someone’s got something by all means link it) that says this actually occurred.  Maybe he wrote of his intention to do so, but to be honest I’d be more inclinced to think its just a guy getting overly defensive and putting up a front during a conversation with a trusted peer, that was never meant to be seen by others.  Tell me you haven’t spouted BS to your friends about someone/something that you would never actually do/support.

    You’re making a mistake comparing the validity of a scientific model to your own personal experience.  In any case I dunno about you, but the weather forecasters around here aren’t bad.  If they’re wrong, its more like the rain didn’t fall when they thought it would, its just the next town over that got hit instead, as opposed to forecasting rain and there not being a cloud in the sky all day. 

    Individual weather instances are difficult to predict, as they require an absolute understanding of how changes in various variables affect the system as a whole.  We are still studying that, and our knowledge is by no means complete.  But just because we don’t understand everything down to the fine details, does not mean that we can’t get the big picture, science and theories are not an all-or-nothing affair. 

    The fact that you make a categorical statement alone is enough for me to want to dismiss you entirely on this subject, honestly.  If you’re going to go that far, post something to prove it.  Otherwise, claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (note that I did not say proven wrong).  Furthermore, correcting models constantly shows that the scientific process is working as it should.  If it didn’t change at all, despite all the new informaiton, thats when I would be worried.

    Whether its your intention or not, particularly in light of my previous point above, after reading your various responses in this article, you really come across as someone who is biased against global warming to begin with, and are using this as an opportunity to chip at it, as if it were somehow damning of the entire process/theory.  I mean, you did read the guy’s "house of cards" part in that article right?  You do at least have a basic understanding of how the scientific process works and theories are formed right?  If you’re going to talk about credibility on a particular subject, and then turn around and talk like that, its game over man.

  18. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Ahm, they never dodged a FOIA request, their country does not have them.

    Politically motivated FOIA requests are annoying in the scientific community.  Data is time consuming and expensive to gather.  Being asked to give it up though non-scientific channels is like asking companies to give up thier patents.  Makes sense from the outside, but really frustrates those who actually put the work in.

  19. 0
    Neeneko says:

    The fact the emails are getting any attention at all is kinda sad.

    It is a non-event for anyone who has actually worked in scientfic research.  This whole thing reminds me of those people who take some random wording from any old NASA person as proof that they are hiding aliens, or keep picking apart quotes to prove the moon landing was faked.

  20. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    That doesn’t change the fact that Fox, as biased as they are, are the only news organization reporting on this.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  21. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Umm, the skeptics aren’t trying to keep the alarmists from publishing.  The skeptics aren’t violating the law by ignoring FOI requests.  The skeptics aren’t LYING ABOUT THIER RESEARCH.  Your pot/kettle reference holds no water here.

    As to your second point, that’s the whole reason why this is news-worthy but nobody is reporting it besides Fox.  The East Anglia researchers are OBVIOUSLY influenced by left-wing alarmism, as all of the emails blatantly suggest.  Therefore, the data they’ve collected, and all models using that data, need to be scrapped.  As long as there are scientists who are okay with what has happened, science will have a black eye.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  22. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Umm that’s not the way it’ll turn out.  If the people who are incensed by global warming get their way, this will all be swept under the rug, and the hacker will be arrested.  And don’t tell me that isn’t the way it’ll turn out, considering Copenhagen is still going on, and NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THIS.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  23. 0
    Bigman-K says:

    FOX News is biased, CNN is biased, MSNBC is biased, hell even The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are biased but at least they will call out the Bullshit on the Right and the Left when they see it. All in All the major news networks just plain out suck, equally.

     "No law means no law" – Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

  24. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    They wouldn’t mention something that basically says their theories are wrong without first saying that the current cooling trend is nothing but a total fluke of nature.

  25. 0
    Lou says:

    You’re right one thing.. It’s the LAW. The heckers BROKE the law US and eurpoe have laws against it. Or you thought that this was done in conjection law enforcement. If things pann out like the fringe wants the hackers and the scientists will be sharing jail cells. I can see it now, geeks trying to shank each other during lunch or at the yard.

  26. 0
    Lou says:

    Guess what, the Skeptics tend to dismiss data as well so it’s like the kettle saying to the pot "you are black".

    Yes you have a very valid point, scientists are supposed to collect their data no matter what. But to assume that all scientists on both sides of the fence do this it is simply an irresponsible thought. Both sides bring solid and valid points but as long as Ubber liberals and neo-cons keep duking it out trying to sway the opinions of the scientific community we may never know for sure who’s right and who’s wrong.

  27. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Well, that’s the problem.  The only people anyone’s even considering arresting are whomever hacked East Anglia.  However, when you take it into context, they aren’t the bad guys in any way.  In America, we have laws ALLOWING hacking of this nature to expose a crime or coverup, both of which happened by the hands of "scientists" at East Anglia.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  28. 0
    Lou says:

    Don’t put word in my mouth son, if you think I am condoning any illegal act you’re dumber than I thought. I am talking about someone who commited a crime base on a hunch or a belief. These people stole this data and published it and even if the other side also commited a crime (wich I do not condone) is at fault it doesn’t mean that this guys is a hero. Well maybe for lunatic fringe but not on the eyes of the law. If both go to jail.. So be it.

  29. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    What’s funny, though, is none of the East Anglia data for the past couple of years mentions the cooling.  That’s what some of those emails are talking about.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  30. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    Climate Change is bad?

    Last I checked the climate was constantly changing anyway, long before humans were kicking dirt hard it was changing and long after the last of our kind draws breath it will still be chaning. The climate is far from static. Need proof? Just look at the massive, truly massive climate changes that have occured over the planet in the past. Most scientists will state that it takes millions of years to have such a dynamic swing in temperature, even if that is true, the past couple of years have thrown an odd pitch to the face of climatologists because it has been cooler than usual. It is a fluke or a snap of cold whether, right? It may be, or it might be the start of the planet going through a quick cooling spell for about 5 years. Who knows? You can’t really tell.

    On the topic of the Global Warming being caused by Humans thing though, that is pure trash. A much more serious issue is how to properly recycle materials other than metals effectively (metals are actually pretty simple to recycle) in an attempt to try and stop pollution.

  31. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I’m not saying that climate change isn’t a big deal.  Look at my post a couple posts above.  I’m saying that we need to make sure our data is accurate BEFORE investing billions – if not trillions – of dollars to overhaul things with methods that will produce LESS power per dollar during an energy crisis and world-wide recession.  I’m also saying that this story is MUCH more important – therefore should have more news coverage – than Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, especially considering Copenhagen is already going on, and data will be cited there that was either created by East Anglia, or by studies that use data from East Anglia. 

    He was dead when I got here.

  32. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Well, there you go again, proving the point about us "skeptics."  There’s pertinent data, just being cast aside because it doesn’t give the scientists the end they’re trying to get.  Which, by the way, isn’t science.  Scientists are supposed to put their hangups at the door to the lab, and get what they get.  If they don’t like their results, they need to make sure their results are accurate, and if they are, that hypothesis needs to change.  The emails and the computer source code from East Anglia prove that they intentionally changed the data to make their hypothesis look good.

    He was dead when I got here.

  33. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The problem is that the studies have tainted information.  Therefore, all conclusions from those studies are suspect.  Are you really that dense?

    He was dead when I got here.

  34. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Well, you’re implying that East Anglia’s illegal methods are fine and the hacker’s isn’t.  You’re basically ding the same thing you’re accusing AL of.

    He was dead when I got here.

  35. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re right, in that science isn’t a house of cards.  The problem is, so many studies and laws have been passed based on nothing more than East Anglia data.  It is now out that they have manipulated the data to achieve a result they wanted, and tried to prevent people with alternate theories from being published, and to have peer-review boards stacked in their favor, effectively making the peer-review process invalid.  They also VIOLATED THE LAW by trying to prevent people from getting access to their source data through the Freedom of Information Acts of both Britain and America.

    So, the data is tainted and they didn’t submit to independent review and testing, but those of us who are actually concerned with those facts are in the wrong.  Okay, just wanted to clear that up.

    He was dead when I got here.

  36. 0
    Lou says:

    Whe studies like those are made I am sure they are not putting Volcanic eruptions into account because this is planet earth at it’s finest. Good point but this is a natural occurance. I don’t think there is someone on lab coat looking to create a volcanic eruption anytime soon.

  37. 0
    Yuuri says:

    If one volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 and other ‘greenhouse’ gases than mankind has ever made, and there have been several in the last 30 years or so, one could think either nature has a way of dealing with it, or we haven’t been making as much of an impact as previously/commonly thought.

  38. 0
    Lou says:

    What makes you think that? Dude, you are very close to suggest that crminal acts are "ok" as long as it serves that person’s purpose. That language is very close to eco-terrorism. You are starting to walk on thin ice my friend.

  39. 0
    Yuuri says:

    And a single large volcanic eruption can emit more CO2 than what mankind as made since they/we’ve discovered fire. Gee whiz… there have been how many of those in the last couple of decades?

  40. 0
    Lou says:

    Weather models have never been accurate, in fact no self respectomg weatherman will tell you that the computers models are accurate. Data is collected based if historical information and sometimes they nail it and sometimes they don’t. That’s why you see all these meteorologists risking life and limb to help humanity predict the weather.

    But we are not talking about this, we are talking about global warming and their data they have used. I’m sure both sides of the fence have asked themselves at some point "what if i’m wrong" but they still work to achieve a conclusion.

    By the way most scientists do not use weather events as a platform to proclaim global warming. Only poeple I’ve seen using the weather as an excusse are tree hugging liberals like Al Gore.

  41. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    It was obtained by illegal methods after the scientists refused to reveal it by legal methods, and it has become fairly obvious that we would never have gotten it through any legal means.

  42. 0
    vellocet says:

    And you as a member of the right would also refute it because one set of tainted research doesn’t mean the whole terrorism threat isn’t big.

    Just as I’m saying (I’m not american, I’m not partaking in your partisanship) that one set of tainted research doesn’t mean the whole climate change threat isn’t big.  Especially in the realm of science.

  43. 0
    Lou says:

    Read my post again. Even if the information is legit it was obtained by illegal methods. Is this how you want global warming to be debuunked? Next thing you’re gonna tell me is that you want the crooks to be exonerated of the crimes they commited.

  44. 0
    vellocet says:

    You know… sometimes your arguments seem like they’re going somewhere… but you really hurt your chances when you start childish name calling. You’ve called me "jackass", you’ve called other people "dumbass".  How old are you?  Or is name calling what you do when you can’t assemble a coherent argument.  I guess you’ve just accidentally stumbled into saying somewhat intelligent… too bad, I was hoping you were getting smarter.

    Anyways… ACORN is a US matter.  I was saying the WORLD knows better than to take the emails as more than they are – some fraudulent scientists.  Science is not a house of cards, you don’t pull one out and everything falls.  Principles of science are independently reviewed and tested.

    It’s no wonder you’re completely misinformed about everything since all your news comes from FOX, CNN, MSNBC (yes, I’m including the extreme left in there as well)…


  45. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m saying that East Anglia already confirmed the emails to be genuine, and the real question is why someone had to hack into their server when these researchers are bound by the FOIA.

  46. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Yes, these theories are so accurate, they’re just like gravity, more a law than a theory.  Which is why those theories have successfully predicted the weather… oh wait.  They haven’t.  They routinely fail to do so.

    When the theories are faulty, the computer models are going to produce faulty results.  Just like the ‘global cooling’ models were faulty, so too were the ‘global warming’ models faulty, because they were both based on the same theories.  That’s why they’re calling it climate change now, because they realize that the climate is constantly changing, and they can hide behind that and no matter what happens, say ‘See?  We knew it would change!’  Does the planet warm and cool?  Yes.  Do we have any idea why, what affects the temperature of the planet, what affects the movement of humidity around the planet, etc.?  No.

    We don’t really know how all these variables come together and change the temperature on a day to day basis, what the hell makes you think our computer models will give reliable data on the world’s state in 50 years?

  47. 0
    Lou says:

    Well we are partially to blame for it. Here is a hint on how to reduce CO2 gases. Control our cattle population. Cattles emmit more CO2 gases than anything else on the planet. No wait I like BBQ ribs.

  48. 0
    Lou says:

    When a thoery is checked multiple times and the results are the same it cannot be considered a theory anymore (Like gravity for example). This can be applied to global warming as well but at the same time there are also be applied to several studies where samples of soil have been collected and on those samples there is evidence of similar weather events that happened several thousand years ago.

    By the way just because you don’t believe and/or understand these theories it doesn’t mean they’re not valid. You can’t just dismiss information because don’t have an understanding of the subject.

  49. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    And you’re right, it does reinforce my point, because had this model been on something that liberals were rallying against, like "Emails linked to think tank about world terrorism reveal tainted research, suggesting that terrorism may not have been as big as anyone thought," you’d be damned sure it’d be all over the place.

    He was dead when I got here.

  50. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Exactly the point.  This isn’t even about whether or not it exists.  It’s that all data on global warming, at least since 2000, is tainted, and needs to be redone.  Nations are considering spending billions of dollars to try to reverse damage, based on information that is questionable at best.  Some nations will most likely go bankrupt, like the US.

    I have no doubt that we need to figure out a way to lower carbon emissions.  Let’s just make sure that, when we invest a shit-ton of money to do it, we aren’t doing it because somebody lied to us.

    He was dead when I got here.

  51. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Did you read that article?  It wasn’t balanced at all.  He said right away that he believes we should lower CO2, no matter the cost.  A person with that kind of belief isn’t going to make an unbiased opinion.

    He was dead when I got here.

  52. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re wrong about the internal combustion engine not getting innovative.  GM’s direct-injection technology and LS engine architecture are both major innovations.  The first injects fuel directly into the cylinder, versus mixing it with air in the intake runner, thereby cooling the fuel, allowing for the use of less fuel while making more power.  LS architecture, on the other hand, uses lighter materials to make the engine, as well as creating every conceivable concession to computer controls, allowing a computer to manage every aspect of the engine’s operation.  Ford’s Eco-Boost line, while not necessarily "innovative," is helping them get on the right track as far as fuel economy is concerned.  Combine that with Ford (not Toyota) making the best hybrid car on the market, and you got yourself some innovation right there.

    He was dead when I got here.

  53. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Don’t forget the source code for their computer models.  I read it, and the programming notes in it specifically state that all data after 1970 is manipulated to look higher than it should.

    He was dead when I got here.

  54. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Models are based on theories, and when the theories aren’t right, the models aren’t right.  For example, a bit more than half a century ago, models concerning how crime would rise or fall were based on various theories that described why crime occurred and what caused individuals to commit crime.  One of the theories used was biological positivism, which basically said that crime was due to one’s features.  The model based on this theory suggested that people who looked a certain way (having some characteristics of the Neanderthal) would commit crime, and suggested that crime would rise as more people with these features emerged.  Obviously, that model was wrong, because the theory behind it was wrong, and the model failed to predict rises in crime or drops in crime.

    The understanding that when a model is based on a theory that isn’t correct, the model isn’t correct, isn’t skepticism.  It’s common sense. When that theory is only supported by already faulty science, the model is, in its creation, faulty, and whatever the model says is worthless.  I could create a model, again, that says that those Neanderthal characteristics are responsible for rises in crime, but it’d be wrong because the theory was wrong, even though at the time of its creation, it was believed to be correct.

    And as I said, these models are based on a number of variables that we [humanity] really know next to nothing about, and the models are based on theories that we [humanity] are unsure of.  These models assume that all those theories concerning how those variables interact and change temperatures are correct, and produces results based on that assumption. 

  55. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    The person stole emails, many of which are very damning whether they’re cherry picked or not.  You know, like the ones talking about dodging FOIA requests, the ones talking about how they cherry picked data to support their already drawn conclusion, how they blackmailed journals, etc.

  56. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    He lost all credibility when he began talking about the models they were running for the next 50 to 100 years.  Consider many things here: what the model was programmed to do, how it’s run, how the history that generated the model was gotten (here’s a hint; a lot of these models are based on fraudulent numbers from, you guessed it, EAST ANGLIA), and the fact that in order for these models to be correct, the same group of people who can’t predict with greater than 50% accuracy the weather tomorrow would have to be right on every single theory.  In other words, the models aren’t all that accurate either, which can be seen by the constant need for them to ‘correct’ their models after their models prove untrue, constant need to ‘correct’ the data put into the models, and the fact that these models haven’t been right ONCE in the last twenty years.  Oh man, those are models I’ll trust.

    Surely you’ve read those documents.  I mean, as a scientist, I’m sure you can relate to people dodging Freedom of Information Act requests.  Oh wait; legitimate scientists aren’t afraid to show their data, how it was gathered, how it was filtered, etc.

  57. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Global warming and cooling is a sure thing; the world does warm and cool.  The unsure part is whether or not people have as much an affect as people like Al Gore would like you to believe so that he can continue getting rich selling carbon credits. 

    Do I think we need to move off of fossil fuels?  In many cases, hell yes.  But using phony and fraudulent science to support that movement is wrong, and it brings all of science down with it.  It’s as bad as what the church did all those years ago, denying people who disagreed the right to speak their mind.  Now, you have these leading climatologists blackmailing academic journals to not run the research of those who disagree.  That’s wrong.

    We need to go to more nuclear power (which is something, at least, that Obama has right).  I believe that wholeheartedly, and it’s a great power source with a lot of benefits.  Better battery technology would also be great. 

    My point is that lying to the people to support those things is wrong, a waste of the billions of tax dollars spent on it, and it makes all sciences look bad.

  58. 0
    Lou says:

    Oh I have read about it and that is not the first time scientists have been caught red handed cherry picking information. Problem is that the people who stole this data is also cherry-picking so there is not much ground to stand on and choose a side to believe in. One side is trying to convince the other side that the other guy is lying to us.

    Come on Lewis you can do better than this, Global warming is a conspiracy just because some hackers and Fox news said so, say it.. SAY IT!

  59. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Except when the next group that does research uses the same, now manipulated dataset.

    And yes, Fox is the only news channel that’s reporting this at all.  Just like they were the only one that reported on ACORN for the first few weeks.  Isn’t that a coincidence. 

    Meanwhile, every other channel ignores the whole story, or only reports on the hope that the ‘hacker’ will be brought to justice.  That’s some reporting, let me tell you.

    But come back when you’ve read the emails, eh jackass?

  60. 0
    vellocet says:

    Although I do have to agree with you on one thing.  Global warming is not a sure thing.  But it’s something that’s we’re better off playing it safe with.

    Using less carbon is a good idea all around and the advent of cleaner energy and technologies will create new businesses and jobs.  Moving away from fossil fuels will have a lot of benefits.  For instance, better battery technology (in which innovation has stagnated for decades – especially compared to other technologies).

    The internal combustion engine has not seen true innovation in over 60 years.  There’s a reason for that.  Oil companies have far too much interest in NOT innovating. 

  61. 0
    vellocet says:

     "when one portion of an experiment is manipulated fraudulently, IT FUCKS UP THE RESULT"

    For THAT experiment.  Other independent researchers have actual results.  Science is not dependent on a single source.

    Seriously though.  The only "news" source in the WORLD that is taking this to mean anything big is FOX.  There’s a reason for that.  REAL scientists (i.e. ones that know the world is more than 6000 years old) analyze multiple data from multiple sources before making claims.

  62. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Maybe you should go read the link I posted.  You know, where these ‘scientists’ talk about dodging FOIA requests, cherry-picking data, and blackmailing scientific and academic journals to keep dissenting articles from being posted.

    And I love how you’ve retreated from one argument you lost to another that you’re going to lose, and go back to your ‘plagarism’ defense.  Apparently, if you don’t know about it, no one else can, so, as a species, we must be pretty damn stupid if you’re the most knowledgeable amongst us.

    Just go sit in the corner, dumbass.

  63. 0
    Lou says:

    Oh yeah speaking about a bunch of e-mails massaged to sound like there is a "conspiracy".

    Please, I am one of the people who doesn’t fully believe in global warming and I find the "climate-gate" thing beyond retarded, just like you. I do not believe in some scientific research about global warming because it is tainted with tree hugging liberals but I do not believe most of the crap from the global warming deniers because their research is also poltically tainted.

    I am expecting your response filled with plagarism just like everything else you type here. You can’t think on your own so you resort to steal someone else’s work and massage it a bit to make it look like your own. Come on son bring something original to the table.

  64. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Are you here to talk about something else you’re uninformed about?

    In a way, you should be thankful.  When so many have hardships in their lives you have plenty. Your cup runneth over with stupid. 

  65. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Basically, East Anglia’s emails show a history of manipulating the data to prove their theories.  Because that [manipulated] data was used as the basis of a lot of ‘global warming science’, a lot of it is wrong.

    For a good comparison, imagine this.  I’m comparing violence before the advent of video games vs. violence after.  After looking at the data year by year, I realize that murders have declined, especially among the youth of the USA.  However, that doesn’t meet the end that Jack Thompson or whichever dumbass you choose wants me to reach, so I begin to gently manipulate the data.  Maybe I’ll begin by using only murders by ‘children and teenagers’, which can be defined as anywhere from 0-18 year olds, 0-20 year olds, or, using a New York Law’s definition, those between 0 and 26 years of age.  Obviously, I want the smallest number in the past, so I choose to use 0-18 up till pong and then increase the age range throughout, until in the last decade I’m using the data for murders committed by people 0 to 26 years old.  I have manipulated the dataset.  Then, I get rid of the original dataset.

    Now, other people do the same experiment with my dataset, because it’s quicker than redoing all that research and forming their own dataset, and all the sudden, it looks like the murder rate is on the rise, and I have proved my point through clever manipulation of the data.

    Normally, at the peer review process, this would be caught onto, people would call bullshit on me, and I’d either have to claim to make a mistake or I’d be called out as a fraud.  Either way, I’d be done with my career.  But when those people who should be peer reviewing are all making money by pushing the same line as I am, they have an interest in NOT disagreeing with me.

    The only difference is that at least the data concerning murders in the US is publicly available in original form, while the data used by ‘climate scientists’ is not.

  66. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    It’s more like a few fraudulent reports, repeatedly manipulating the numbers, and resorting to basically blackmailing scientific and academic journals to suppress dissenting opinions.

    It’s a fun read.

    By the way, when one portion of an experiment is manipulated fraudulently, IT FUCKS UP THE RESULT.  So, you know, when they manipulated, repeatedly, the data concerning the temperature in the past, then got rid of the original, non-‘corrected’ data, they basically made every result and every conclusion drawn thereafter fraudulent.

    It boggles my mind that the same people who can’t tell you the weather tomorrow think they know what climate is going to do for the next hundred years.  Especially when those people are continuously wrong, and the sources of their data are either frauds (like the East Anglia crew and co.) or have to continuously ‘correct’ their data (NASA).  Oh, and especially when you consider that these people have a huge interest in continuing the charade.


    You also forgot how they repeatedly talk about dodging Freedom of Information Act requests, even saying they’ll go so far as DELETING the data and emails rather than let it be reviewed.  Yeah, that’s some good science right there.

  67. 0
    vellocet says:

    The reference to east anglia is about the scientific papers that were stolen by hackers that appears to indicate falsified reports in the Climate Change debate.

    FOX is the only place reporting is (it made small news snippet here in Canada) because it’s one apparently fraudulent report among hundreds (if not thousands) of other scientific evidence.

    FOX likes to present it as a huge conspiracy that takes down the entire climate science community.

  68. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    Gatorade already dropped him b/c of their motto: "Is it in you?" :)



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  69. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Not a chance.  They carried him for a reason; because he projected a positive and invincible figure.  He seemed like a person who was both a good role-model and an undefeatable golfer.  He is now looking like neither of those things.

    If Gatorade will drop him and the ‘Focus’ line that they built up around him, I don’t doubt EA can drop him.

  70. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    I heard now he is retiring from his career now…… 😕



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  71. 0
    Lou says:

    Sales won’t suffer. besides other sports have gambling addicts, rapists cleared by shady lawyers (Kobe Bryant is no the only one fellows), convicted felons, steroid powered athletes and wife beaters. Those sports haven’t suffered so golf is not any different.

  72. 0
    robbway says:

    I think I know way too much about Tiger Woods’ personal life.  Other than that, I see no reason to drop him from a brand unless the brand is already sinking in sales.   As I see it, he’s a formidable force in Pro Golf, and that’s how he’s marketed.  EA should keep him unless sales suffer.

  73. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    I remember that. lol. Of course their angry depends on the black community if they are racist about it or not racist. I’m not going to say why either…….i have heard alot of talk w/other females about this kind of situation……



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  74. 0
    sharpshooterbabe says:

    Lol all you have to do nowadays is just get your hand burned by a cup of coffee at McDonald’s & you win the court & you are a celeb for a limited time.




    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  75. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    This is why I never ever, Ever, EVER, EVER, EVER want to be a celebrity. Do one thing wrong, ONE THING and the media will NEVER let you move on with your life, they’ll ruin it.

  76. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    What caused the scandal is he did it with women that weren’t his wife, and he got caught.  But you’re right, the media is going way overboard on this.  I mean, East Anglia is a much more important story, especially considering what’s going on in Copenhagen, but nobody outside of Fox News pretty much is talking about it.

    He was dead when I got here.

  77. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    man, i’m confused by all this, didn’t he just have an affair? I mean, yeah, shame on him, and i know the media likes to have a field day by all this.

    But it just seems like everyone is going WAY overboard on this.  maybe i’m missing something on account of the fact that all the articles i notice are more about what’s happening to him, rather than what caused the whole scandal.

  78. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Sponser companies want people to advertise their products that will reflect a positive image of said product. When that person’s image becomes tainted in the public eye, that person loses the ability to reflect that positive image of the product they advertise. So the sponser drops the person.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  79. 0
    vellocet says:

    Right.  So it’s not the cheating that’s affecting his golfing.  It’s that the media went full blown after him that’s going to affect his golfing.

  80. 0
    DeusPayne says:

    Should they keep him? Yes. Will they keep him? Probably not. In the end, it won’t matter. He’ll still be rich. He’ll still play golf. He will just be making a ridiculous amount of money instead of an insanely ridiculous amount.

  81. 0
    insanejedi says:

    I seriously don’t know what the big deal is about this. He had an affair, so what? So do a hell of a lot other people. This one just happens to be a famous golfer, go figure.

  82. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Someone was telling me that they saw on TV a story about how the black community was angry about Tiger cheating on his white wife with more white women.  I shit you not.

  83. 0
    Zerodash says:

    I’m waiting for someone in the media (or Jimmy Carter) to play the race card on this.  My liberal friends (who are nice people, BTW) already are crying that this is part of the "vast right wing consp1racy".   It’s only a matter of time.

  84. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m pretty sure that the fact that he’s in the public spotlight for a negative reason, his wife is going to leave him, and that he’s losing endorsement deals will have some affect on his golfing.

  85. 0
    vellocet says:

    I didn’t know that cheating on your wife  affected your golfing skill.  Isn’t that what the game is about?

    I mean, I could totally understand dropping him if it were Tiger Woods 2009 Fidelity Simulator but it’s Tiger Woods 2009 golf.

  86. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    As someone from Minnesota, and has seen what absolutely stupid shit some high-paid athletes can do (I’m looking at you, Randy Moss, and you guys, Love Boat Incident guys, and you, Dante Culpepper), cheating isn’t that big a deal.  EA had Moss on the cover of Madden AFTER he ran over a cop while smoking dope and playing PS2 in the front seat of his Mercedes, so, if they can let that go, I say keep Tiger on.  Hell, Bill Clinton was re-elected after it came out what a perv he is, so Tiger should have nothing to worry about.

    He was dead when I got here.

Leave a Reply