If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Al Gore helpfully explains that weather is not climate, except when it is. And climate change is not global warming, unless it's getting warmer. Otherwise, you should be very afraid of weather. Got all that?   (businessandmedia.org) divider line 378
    More: Fail, Al Gore, Northeastern United States, severe weather, alarmists, electricity grid, climate change, offshore drilling, global warming  
•       •       •

1791 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Mar 2010 at 7:53 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-18 03:52:01 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: scientists on this thread???? There are no scientists on this thread.

You've made it clear in many threads that you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science, so I'm getting a kick out of your replies.

so tell me, Einstein, how do you identify a scientist based on a bunch of posts on Fark? Are you stupid enough to take their word for it?? Well, you took somebody's word for global warming, so maybe you are that stupid.

You have no idea what my position on global warming is, you twat, so STFU. You just assume that anyone who attacks you is attacking your position. In this case (not the first), you're wrong. I just think you're a hypocritical douche who can't take what she dishes out. The fact that you ignore people who expose your hypocrisy just makes it more fun to watch you flail, oblivious to the fact that 2/3 of Farkers are laughing at you.


do you mean the 2/3 that are stupid enough to believe in AGW? They are hardly worth worrying about, now are they?

I do not ignore people with something worthwhile to add to this. Let me explain that, even though they are talking pure shiat, I still do not ignore warmers who are interested in something more than simply harassing me. You are getting real close to fitting that description.
 
2010-03-18 03:52:04 PM
Ambitwistor: And I'll point out that Hoyt's "scorecard" is total nonsense.

This should be obvious from the very first "score".


Whatever. Fact is that both meteorological and climate models are notoriously difficult to assemble.

Gunther was attempting to claim that climatologists are right and meteorologists are wrong because meteorology is less of a science, and meteorologists are less rigorous than climatologists. Which is bullshiat, and I think you know it.
 
2010-03-18 03:52:22 PM
nicksteel: BBC -Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Jones, late of the CRU - Yes

It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.


nicksteel: I will also say that when one group of people in a profession carry on like this group did, some people are going to have doubts about all of the profession. That is just human behavior. And NO, I am not one of those people either.
 
2010-03-18 03:53:34 PM
Babwa Wawa: Ambitwistor: And I'll point out that Hoyt's "scorecard" is total nonsense.

This should be obvious from the very first "score".

Whatever. Fact is that both meteorological and climate models are notoriously difficult to assemble.

Gunther was attempting to claim that climatologists are right and meteorologists are wrong because meteorology is less of a science, and meteorologists are less rigorous than climatologists. Which is bullshiat, and I think you know it.


let's be reasonable. If they can't post bullshiat, what is left?
 
2010-03-18 03:56:01 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: scientists on this thread???? There are no scientists on this thread.

You've made it clear in many threads that you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science, so I'm getting a kick out of your replies.

so tell me, Einstein, how do you identify a scientist based on a bunch of posts on Fark? Are you stupid enough to take their word for it?? Well, you took somebody's word for global warming, so maybe you are that stupid.

You have no idea what my position on global warming is, you twat, so STFU. You just assume that anyone who attacks you is attacking your position. In this case (not the first), you're wrong. I just think you're a hypocritical douche who can't take what she dishes out. The fact that you ignore people who expose your hypocrisy just makes it more fun to watch you flail, oblivious to the fact that 2/3 of Farkers are laughing at you.

do you mean the 2/3 that are stupid enough to believe in AGW? They are hardly worth worrying about, now are they?

I do not ignore people with something worthwhile to add to this. Let me explain that, even though they are talking pure shiat, I still do not ignore warmers who are interested in something more than simply harassing me. You are getting real close to fitting that description.



nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.
 
2010-03-18 03:57:33 PM
nicksteel: let's be reasonable. If they can't post bullshiat, what is left?


nicksteel: Why not address yout blind obedience to your religion and explain to me how it is possible that the people and organizations who disagree with you are ALWAYS wrong. You live in a world where the opposing viewpoint is ALWAYS wrong. They never have anything to say that is correct. Do you really think that is possible?? I have never seen a post where you conceded that somebody with an opposing viewpoint has made a valid statement.

You attack everything and anything that flies in the face of what you believe.
 
2010-03-18 03:58:47 PM
nicksteel: do you mean the 2/3 that are stupid enough to believe in AGW?

No, I mean the 2/3 that read enough of your posts to see that you use tactics that you berate others for using, the ones who read your comments that say "all warmers full of shiat" in one sentence, and "I'm open to honest debate" in the next, the ones who gape, slack-jawed at your transparency before they burst out laughing.

Put me on ignore - at least I'll have the comedy that is your posts to amuse me.
 
2010-03-18 04:20:37 PM
Weaver95: There are much better spokespeople out there to make the arguments. He needs to STFU.

personally, I hope he keeps yapping away.


Funny, I feel the same way about nicksteel.
 
2010-03-18 04:34:03 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: do you mean the 2/3 that are stupid enough to believe in AGW?

No, I mean the 2/3 that read enough of your posts to see that you use tactics that you berate others for using, the ones who read your comments that say "all warmers full of shiat" in one sentence, and "I'm open to honest debate" in the next, the ones who gape, slack-jawed at your transparency before they burst out laughing.

Put me on ignore - at least I'll have the comedy that is your posts to amuse me.


I gave up on any attempts at honest debate. Warmers are not capable of it. They are full of shiat. Their position has been completely undermined by something we call the truth.
 
2010-03-18 04:40:20 PM
nicksteel: BBC -Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Jones, late of the CRU - Yes

It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.


Hey, look! Quote mining! What Prof. Jones actually said, unedited, from the primary source:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


He mentioned in the prior question that, for example, 1975-2009 shows statistically significant warming over that longer interval. All he's saying in the (full) quote above is that the time period given in the question is too short to draw conclusions from.

It's like all the baseball goons who are currently asking "Is Player A a lot better this year? He's hitting .360!" after watching Player A go 9-for-25 during spring training.
 
2010-03-18 04:43:42 PM
nicksteel: I gave up on any attempts at honest debate. Warmers are not capable of it. They are full of shiat. Their position has been completely undermined by something we call the truth.

nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was organized and now supported by people and groups that have what I consider very sinister ideas of what our future should be. Don't take my word for any of this, use the Internet and you will see that everything I have posted here is true and accurate. ... They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry.
 
2010-03-18 04:45:19 PM
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: I gave up on any attempts at honest debate. Warmers are not capable of it. They are full of shiat. Their position has been completely undermined by something we call the truth.

nicksteel: Everyone needs to understand the history and the hidden purpose behind the global warming movement. Yes, a movement. The entire scheme was organized and now supported by people and groups that have what I consider very sinister ideas of what our future should be. Don't take my word for any of this, use the Internet and you will see that everything I have posted here is true and accurate. ... They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry.


Can you prove that I was wrong? You seem to have a problem with that statement. What do you base it on?
 
2010-03-18 04:48:13 PM
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: BBC -Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Jones, late of the CRU - Yes

It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.

Hey, look! Quote mining! What Prof. Jones actually said, unedited, from the primary source:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

He mentioned in the prior question that, for example, 1975-2009 shows statistically significant warming over that longer interval. All he's saying in the (full) quote above is that the time period given in the question is too short to draw conclusions from.

It's like all the baseball goons who are currently asking "Is Player A a lot better this year? He's hitting .360!" after watching Player A go 9-for-25 during spring training.


And yet you deny the simple fact that the warming stopped in 1995. I have even seen you post graphs that show that it is still increasing.

Gee, I wonder why I think that you lie all the time?
 
2010-03-18 04:50:59 PM
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: BBC -Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Jones, late of the CRU - Yes

It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.

Hey, look! Quote mining! What Prof. Jones actually said, unedited, from the primary source:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

He mentioned in the prior question that, for example, 1975-2009 shows statistically significant warming over that longer interval. All he's saying in the (full) quote above is that the time period given in the question is too short to draw conclusions from.

It's like all the baseball goons who are currently asking "Is Player A a lot better this year? He's hitting .360!" after watching Player A go 9-for-25 during spring training.


I noticed that you completely ignored this part of my post? Was it because you have nothing to say to counter the truth??
 
2010-03-18 04:53:14 PM
nicksteel: chimp_ninja: nicksteel: BBC -Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Professor Jones, late of the CRU - Yes

It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.

Hey, look! Quote mining! What Prof. Jones actually said, unedited, from the primary source:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

He mentioned in the prior question that, for example, 1975-2009 shows statistically significant warming over that longer interval. All he's saying in the (full) quote above is that the time period given in the question is too short to draw conclusions from.

It's like all the baseball goons who are currently asking "Is Player A a lot better this year? He's hitting .360!" after watching Player A go 9-for-25 during spring training.

I noticed that you completely ignored this part of my post? Was it because you have nothing to say to counter the truth??


It's over boys, your scam has been revealed. All of what you considered to be such well crafted lies have been exposed. Your temperature readings have been revealed to be hopelessly flawed, your models are a joke and your leading scientists are all under investigation.
 
2010-03-18 05:01:12 PM
Extreme environmentalism has become the new socialism, an excuse for dictatorial rule to limit consumption and justify highly centralized government power "to save humanity." Below is a list of quotes from leading leftists. There were brains behind it all, the old socialists looking for a new justification for government takeover of the economy, for a "planned" economy which they would plan and manage. Man-made global warming became the substitute agenda for Leftists who had been discredited by Reaganomics and the collapse of communism.

The following quotes were first circulated by Ralph Voss, editor of the Unterrified Democrat published in Linn, Mo. They well explain the agenda. They provide much hard evidence about the hoax. (The links to sources are mine.)

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country's delegation to Kyoto.

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," John Holdren (Obama's Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation." See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N.

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world." Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.
 
2010-03-18 05:03:51 PM
MentalMoment: Weaver95: There are much better spokespeople out there to make the arguments. He needs to STFU.

personally, I hope he keeps yapping away.

Funny, I feel the same way about nicksteel.


It's funny because it's true.
 
2010-03-18 05:08:41 PM
chimp_ninja: MentalMoment: Weaver95: There are much better spokespeople out there to make the arguments. He needs to STFU.

personally, I hope he keeps yapping away.

Funny, I feel the same way about nicksteel.

It's funny because it's true.


Tell me something, monkey-boy. If everything that I post is such crap, why do you respond to each and every one? Besides the fact that you have shown time and again that you are no where near the sharpest pencil in the box, why do you feel the need to address my statements?

The entire thing is crap and you know it. You just hate it when I point it out to people.

You and your buddies have never once addressed the actual science of anything that I have posted. All you do is attack the person who made the statement. That tells me a lot about what I have posted, it tells me that it is true and you have no "facts" to dispute it.
 
2010-03-18 05:10:06 PM

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country's delegation to Kyoto.
 
2010-03-18 05:15:25 PM
nicksteel: I gave up on any attempts at honest debate. Warmers are not capable of it. They are full of shiat. Their position has been completely undermined by something we call the truth.

So all you do is attack, precisely the behavior you berate in others. Great job defending your high-ground, champ.
 
2010-03-18 05:25:19 PM
chimp_ninja: MentalMoment: Weaver95: There are much better spokespeople out there to make the arguments. He needs to STFU.

personally, I hope he keeps yapping away.

Funny, I feel the same way about nicksteel.

It's funny because it's true.


Though it would be proper if he were to cite his sources. Like the opinion piece above he copy/pasted from The American Conservative. Or may be he copy/pasted from here http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1827.htm. Hard to tell. Since they just regurgitate the same undigested information over and over.
 
2010-03-18 05:27:06 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: I gave up on any attempts at honest debate. Warmers are not capable of it. They are full of shiat. Their position has been completely undermined by something we call the truth.

So all you do is attack, precisely the behavior you berate in others. Great job defending your high-ground, champ.


I do not attack. I provide the truth. I have defended myself from time to time when others have attacked me.

I post the opposing view, what many of us like to refer to as the truth.
 
2010-03-18 05:32:48 PM
nicksteel: I do not attack.

Of course not.

nicksteel: you green weenies really need to muzzle that boy. His every word and every action screams out, telling the world that the whole thing is a fake.

nicksteel: Since you are a devotee of the religion, you have a twisted outlook on reality.

nicksteel: People who are special ride the short bus. Don't you, Zamboro.
 
2010-03-18 05:35:33 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: I do not attack.

Of course not.

nicksteel: you green weenies really need to muzzle that boy. His every word and every action screams out, telling the world that the whole thing is a fake.

nicksteel: Since you are a devotee of the religion, you have a twisted outlook on reality.

nicksteel: People who are special ride the short bus. Don't you, Zamboro.


Your first quote is an attack on Algore. That money grubbing, lying whore deserves it.

The second quote is hardly an attack.

The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

Seriously, you have to do better than that.
 
2010-03-18 05:37:41 PM
nicksteel: "We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country's delegation to Kyoto.


I am still waiting for Chump-ninjas reply. It seems that every time he gets called for one of his remarks he runs off with his tail between his legs. He is probably contacting one of his protectors to come to his rescue.
 
2010-03-18 05:37:54 PM
nicksteel: The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

So calling someone a retard isn't an attack, retard? Seriously, you have to do better than that.

/douche bag
//i can hear it now - "stop attacking me!"
 
2010-03-18 05:41:26 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

So calling someone a retard isn't an attack, retard? Seriously, you have to do better than that.

/douche bag
//i can hear it now - "stop attacking me!"


Not one of the quotes you provided used the word retard, retard.

The douche bag comment was aimed at a person who spend a lot of time attacking me, douche bag.

You have yet to prove your case, Nancy.
 
2010-03-18 08:51:26 PM
Babwa Wawa: Gunther was attempting to claim that climatologists are right and meteorologists are wrong because meteorology is less of a science, and meteorologists are less rigorous than climatologists. Which is bullshiat, and I think you know it.

No I wasn't, and if you got that from my posts you need some lessens in reading comprehension. Meteorologists and climatologists are both "right" in that they both practice an evidence-based discipline, but meteorologists are less purely scientific because they're less focused on understanding underlying principles and more focused on short term cause-and-effect stuff. That doesn't mean it's bad science - physics is more of a "pure" science than biology, by my metric, but that doesn't mean that our understanding of biology is lacking.

Babwa Wawa: Meteorology is a very intense cross-disciplinary field. And I'll point out that meteorologists have been much more successful with their weather models than have the climatologists.

You'll be able to show that we can better predict short-term or localized weather patterns than we can long-term ones, then?


GeneralJim: Basic thinking skills, and universally accepted data show, beyond a doubt, that CO2 is not behind current temperature trends. The most damning is the Vostok ice cores. They show, in coherent fashion, that temperature LEADS CO2. You mental midgets have never figured that out. A trailing factor CANNOT be the cause.

The temperature changes recorded in the ice core samples weren't caused by increased levels of CO2, but changes in the Earth's orbit (which wouldn't explain this current warming period), so there's no reason temperature would trail CO2. Although, I will give you points for making an argument here, even a semi-fallacious one; it's better than the rest of your post, where you just make stupid unsupported claims like this:

GeneralJim: If CO2 were a "feedback and a forcing" then the first time a huge blast of CO2 entered the atmosphere, we would have gone into runaway global warming. The fact that we have gone the entire time that both plants and animals have been established on this planet without the temperature leaving the safe range for life PROVES that it is not a positive feedback system.

You don't even understand what scientists are predicting the effects of global warming will be. Nobody thinks it's going to turn the Earth into Venus, they just think it's going to make life very uncomfortable for a few hundred years or so.

GeneralJim: A couple of you clowns have found "how to argue with 'deniers'" sites, and will copypasta crap from them. Just so you know... an irrelevant copypasta response to valid points is not "refuting" those points, as is universally claimed by you idiots.

Yeah... no. Pointing out that you're using shiatty arguments by linking to sites set up to debunk those shiatty arguments doesn't stop your arguments from being shiatty. All of my links have links to the primary literature backing up their claims. Yours tend to be just some random blogger with no scientific training or evidence, pulling BS claims out of their asses.
 
2010-03-18 09:26:31 PM
nicksteel: I am still waiting for Chump-ninjas reply. It seems that every time he gets called for one of his remarks he runs off with his tail between his legs. He is probably contacting one of his protectors to come to his rescue.


nicksteel: I did not realize that I was somehow bound to an agreement to answer every little thing that you mention. I skipped over it because it was stupid and not worthy of a comment. It still isn't.
 
2010-03-18 09:31:57 PM
Gunther:

but meteorologists are less purely scientific because they're less focused on understanding underlying principles and more focused on short term cause-and-effect stuff.

That may be true of the meteorologists who specialize in forecasting, but that's only a fraction of what meteorologists do. Look at the research in any good Meteorology/Atmospheric Science department. They certainly do focus a great deal on underlying principles. It's like claiming that climate scientists are focused on climate prediction. That's only a fraction of what they do.
 
2010-03-18 09:32:51 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

So calling someone a retard isn't an attack, retard? Seriously, you have to do better than that.

/douche bag
//i can hear it now - "stop attacking me!"

Not one of the quotes you provided used the word retard, retard.

The douche bag comment was aimed at a person who spend a lot of time attacking me, douche bag.

You have yet to prove your case, Nancy.



nicksteel: Say what you will, at least I do not make statements and then deny them later. Score all the points you want with your web buddies, but you and I both know better.
 
2010-03-18 09:35:18 PM
nicksteel: I do not attack. I provide the truth. I have defended myself from time to time when others have attacked me.

I post the opposing view, what many of us like to refer to as the truth.



nicksteel: The doubter is a true man of science; he doubts only himself and his interpretations, but he believes in science. ~Clau
 
2010-03-18 09:37:44 PM
It's always amusing to see people who think that the paleoclimate record proves that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks, when in fact it demonstrates the opposite (e.g., here).

Such people show a deep confusion about feedbacks. Hint: positive feedback doesn't mean runaway positive feedback. A system with a net positive feedback is still fundamentally a stable system as long as the gain remains finite. (That's what a finite gain means: the system doesn't run off to infinity by itself, but stays within a bounded range for a finite forcing.)
 
2010-03-18 09:47:57 PM
nicksteel: You and your buddies have never once addressed the actual science of anything that I have posted. All you do is attack the person who made the statement. That tells me a lot about what I have posted, it tells me that it is true and you have no "facts" to dispute it.

nicksteel: He is not worth listening to becasue he lies.

chimp_ninja: [example from this very thread addressing the science]
chimp_ninja: [another example from this very thread addressing the science]
chimp_ninja: [yet another example from this very thread addressing the science]
chimp_ninja: [one more example from this very thread addressing the science]
 
2010-03-18 10:19:31 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

So calling someone a retard isn't an attack, retard? Seriously, you have to do better than that.

/douche bag
//i can hear it now - "stop attacking me!"

Not one of the quotes you provided used the word retard, retard.

The douche bag comment was aimed at a person who spend a lot of time attacking me, douche bag.

You have yet to prove your case, Nancy.


Precious snowflake can dish it out, that's for sure, but you can't take it can you?
 
2010-03-18 11:03:43 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: The third quote is a fine example of me defending myself from a douche bag.

So calling someone a retard isn't an attack, retard? Seriously, you have to do better than that.

/douche bag
//i can hear it now - "stop attacking me!"

Not one of the quotes you provided used the word retard, retard.

The douche bag comment was aimed at a person who spend a lot of time attacking me, douche bag.

You have yet to prove your case, Nancy.

Precious snowflake can dish it out, that's for sure, but you can't take it can you?


What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??
 
2010-03-19 03:29:24 AM
yakmans_dad:
GeneralJim: yakmans_dad: AeroSquid: And don't forget to purchase Big Al's Carbon Credits the next tome you jet over to Europe in the Corporate jet ! It's like shooting your dog and immediately donating to your local ASPCA !

Republicans used to endorse carbon credits. Until Democrats said, "OK."

How do you spell "LIARS"? with a "G", an "O", and a "P".
Nice, typical, brainless, partisan socialist response.

You support carbon credits?

No, nor carbon taxes. The issue is a hoax, just the latest tactic to scare the population, now that there is no USSR to use as a bete noir.

Now, if there was a plan afoot to tax the release of chemicals that are actually dangerous, I'd support that. Focusing on CO2 is only a distraction.
 
2010-03-19 05:36:45 AM
Ambitwistor: That may be true of the meteorologists who specialize in forecasting, but that's only a fraction of what meteorologists do. Look at the research in any good Meteorology/Atmospheric Science department. They certainly do focus a great deal on underlying principles. It's like claiming that climate scientists are focused on climate prediction. That's only a fraction of what they do.

You make a good point, and I concede the argument.

GeneralJim: The issue is a hoax, just the latest tactic to scare the population, now that there is no USSR to use as a bete noir.

You make a stupid point, and I laugh at you derisively.
 
2010-03-19 07:57:22 AM
nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me
 
2010-03-19 08:22:34 AM
Gunther:meteorologists are less purely scientific because they're less focused on understanding underlying principles and more focused on short term cause-and-effect stuff. That doesn't mean it's bad science - physics is more of a "pure" science than biology, by my metric, but that doesn't mean that our understanding of biology is lacking.

Ahh.... "Pure Science" I guess by your definition that means it's more "sciencey" than "kinda guessy?"

What the fark are you talking about anyway? You know, if you're going to start defining for us "levels of science" and throwing away robust sciences as "kiddie science," you have to be prepared to lose your credibility.

By your "metric," mammalian biologists should view nanobiology as a "kiddie science" because the scope of nanobiology is smaller than mammalian biology. What a farking crock.

Here's a list of universities offering degrees in meteorology. There should be one close to you. Go audit some courses and see of you still think meteorology is a "kiddie science."
 
2010-03-19 08:30:06 AM
Babwa Wawa: What the fark are you talking about anyway? You know, if you're going to start defining for us "levels of science" and throwing away robust sciences as "kiddie science," you have to be prepared to lose your credibility.

Urgh, it was a poor choice of words on my part, but some scientific disciplines really are "purer" than others - Mathematics is purer than physics which is purer than geology which is purer than psychology, and so on.
 
2010-03-19 09:20:40 AM
Gunther: some scientific disciplines really are "purer" than others

Those are unrelated fields - you claimed that climatologists think that meteorologists are either practicing less pure, or kiddie science.

You're a geologist: Would you claim to a mineralogist that seismology is a more pure science (or vice versa)? If you were a seismologist, would you confidentially claim over a beer with your fellow seismologists that those mineralogy pricks down the hall are just practicing kiddie science?

I'd be interested to know how you'd defend either statement to your colleagues - because that's exactly the relationship you've assumed climatologists and meteorologists have.

I'm an engineer by trade, but my work has brought me into contact with hundreds of scientists over the course of the years. Of all those that have done original research, I can only count two (not including you) that have been arrogant enough to make that kind of a statement about two closely related fields.
 
2010-03-19 09:33:19 AM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me


You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.
 
2010-03-19 09:50:02 AM
Babwa Wawa: You're a geologist: Would you claim to a mineralogist that seismology is a more pure science (or vice versa)? If you were a seismologist, would you confidentially claim over a beer with your fellow seismologists that those mineralogy pricks down the hall are just practicing kiddie science?

Yep, that happens all the damn time. Everyone thinks their own specialization is vastly superior to everyone else's - I've heard people in research-heavy fields like paleontology disparage former classmates who went into more economically-focused fields like petroleum geology, the volcanologists get (jokingly) mocked for their choice of a "sexy" field, some people say that pedologists aren't really geologists... A bit of inter-discipline rivalry is to be expected.

/I did actually concede this argument a while back, BTW.
 
2010-03-19 11:01:51 AM
Gunther: Babwa Wawa: You're a geologist: Would you claim to a mineralogist that seismology is a more pure science (or vice versa)? If you were a seismologist, would you confidentially claim over a beer with your fellow seismologists that those mineralogy pricks down the hall are just practicing kiddie science?

Yep, that happens all the damn time. Everyone thinks their own specialization is vastly superior to everyone else's - I've heard people in research-heavy fields like paleontology disparage former classmates who went into more economically-focused fields like petroleum geology, the volcanologists get (jokingly) mocked for their choice of a "sexy" field, some people say that pedologists aren't really geologists... A bit of inter-discipline rivalry is to be expected.

/I did actually concede this argument a while back, BTW.


I'm pretty sure you know the difference between mocking a colleague at a conference and actual disrespect for the type of science that they do.

If you conceded the argument why do you insist on defending it?
 
2010-03-19 01:34:57 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me

You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.


And no one here values yours.
 
2010-03-19 01:39:44 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me

You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.

And no one here values yours.


again, that is just your worthless opinion.
 
2010-03-19 01:40:42 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me

You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.

And no one here values yours.

again, that is just your worthless opinion.


Just as worthless as yours, precious.
 
2010-03-19 01:58:15 PM
DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me

You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.

And no one here values yours.

again, that is just your worthless opinion.

Just as worthless as yours, precious.



seriously, how farking stupid are you?? I have told you twice that your opinion means nothing to me and yet you try to foist it on me for a third time.

I seriously doubt if the third time will sink in either.

Or is "opinion" too big of a word for you?? See if this is of any help to you. Link
 
2010-03-19 02:07:56 PM
nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: DarwiOdrade: nicksteel: What makes you think that I can't take it, asshole??

Every response you make to anyone who challenges you, asshole.

/stop attacking me

You are the one who attacked me. I am defending myself.
So, based on your OPINION, I cannot take it. That is a pretty weak explanation. Why should I value your opinion. FYI - I don't value your opinion.

And no one here values yours.

again, that is just your worthless opinion.

Just as worthless as yours, precious.


seriously, how farking stupid are you?? I have told you twice that your opinion means nothing to me and yet you try to foist it on me for a third time.

I seriously doubt if the third time will sink in either.

Or is "opinion" too big of a word for you?? See if this is of any help to you. Link


Nothing you post is of any help, because it is all worthless tripe. Your stupidity is matched only by your obnoxiousness. It's a wonder you can even work a computer, much less copy and paste all those silly articles.
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report