Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Time)   Jon Huntsman: "I'm not a meteorologist. All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer we'd listen to them"   (swampland.time.com) divider line 788
    More: Obvious, Jon Huntsman, Vietnam Era, financial instruments, commencement speakers, University of South Carolina, Rose Garden  
•       •       •

3638 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2011 at 8:29 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



788 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-05-19 12:48:08 PM  

lennavan: Crunch Time: 3). By implementing greener technologies and taking steps to reduce pollution, we nip both the existence-debated anthropogenic climate change and drastic planetary-scale pollution in the bud, thus making the world a better place no matter which side (#1 or #2) is factually correct.

Can we at least agree on #3, and then agree to disagree on #1 vs. #2?

Honestly, I think you would be more likely to find common ground if you pointed to addressing skyrocketing gas prices and long term energy needs in #3, rather than pollution and global warming. If someone doesn't believe in global warming, odds are they don't give a shiat about pollution/the environment either.


Hee hee. Number two.

There's also a sizable overlap in the Venn diagram of "hates science", "hates anything environmental", and "hates foreign countries, especially those with lots of non-white people", however. Framing climate change in terms of replacing oil (but not replacing coal/NG) is a foothold there, but it just kicks the can down the road.

Let's say you sell someone on that angle-- we're trying to eliminate dependence on foreign oil. Then you end up with technologies like compressed natural gas (better than coal/oil, but not by a huge margin), corn ethanol (somewhat horrid), coal liquification (horrid), Fisher-Tropsch from coal (horrid), etc. Shale oil in particular is like replacing petroleum with the Springfield Tire Fire.

You have to start with an honest representation of the problem, so that your solutions address root causes. Internet trolls aside, most people "get" my general case regarding climate change if I discuss it with them face to face. The media tends to present not only a misleading assessment (i.e., they fall victim to the "both sides" fallacy, similar to how they present evolution vs. Creationism), but a confusing one. There's nothing beyond basic high school science required to understand greenhouse forcings, and if you're willing to gloss over some of the nuances, you can frame it in even plainer language as required. Sadly, the media (outside of PBS, etc.) usually can't even do that right.

CNN: The topic is greenhouse gases. Let's see what folks on Twitter have to say!
@Limbaugh69: Methane coming out.
 
2011-05-19 12:59:45 PM  

chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.


chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is
 
2011-05-19 01:09:11 PM  
Jesus Christ this one world government shiat is irritating in its utter retardation and complete lack of foundation.
 
2011-05-19 01:10:39 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is


Hrm. If we evil scientists succeed in our plan to eliminate industry, where will we get our tents to live in? My doctorate isn't in weaving.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: Creationists read the bible and Jon Snow reads scientific magazines, what is the difference?

And where will we get our magazines? Are we going to write and deliver them by hand once we destroy industry? I don't know how babby pencil is formed.
 
2011-05-19 01:16:34 PM  

chimp_ninja: There's also a sizable overlap in the Venn diagram of "hates science", "hates anything environmental", and "hates foreign countries, especially those with lots of non-white people", however. Framing climate change in terms of replacing oil (but not replacing coal/NG) is a foothold there, but it just kicks the can down the road.



It kicks a part of the can down the road not the entire thing and that's worth pursuing. I just don't think you're going to see the change you want happen all at once. I think you're more likely to see it in phases. Like so many things politically, I think the audience you are trying to convince thinks if we do X then DOOMSDAY. If we get off oil consumption, then WE WILL ALL BE FORCED TO WALK 32 MILES TO WORK AND DRINK OUR RECYCLED URINE.

So it all depends on how you frame the argument and you have to keep in mind what your opposition cares about. What you are trying to do is make people care about science, greenhouse gases, the environment and so on. You'll never succeed. What they do care about, very clearly, is money. Because there is a financial case, that is where you should make it.

chimp_ninja: Then you end up with technologies like compressed natural gas (better than coal/oil, but not by a huge margin), corn ethanol (somewhat horrid), coal liquification (horrid), Fisher-Tropsch from coal (horrid), etc. Shale oil in particular is like replacing petroleum with the Springfield Tire Fire.


The way I see the opposition set up, it's financed, backed and supported by the oil companies. Seriously, I'm sure you've seen the anti-global warming studies and who funds them. I think if you can get the country off of its dependence on oil specifically, you will find very little opposition left. And if the solution to less oil is part renewable energy part natural gas, it's a step forward and that's when you start making the case for longer term solutions on resources that are not limited.

You and I agree on the destination and I agree (what I assume) your method to be would be best case scenario. But I'm saying in reality the direction I'm pointing is more likely to happen and the one actually worth pursuing. =)
 
2011-05-19 01:26:11 PM  

chimp_ninja: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is

Hrm. If we evil scientists succeed in our plan to eliminate industry, where will we get our tents to live in? My doctorate isn't in weaving.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: Creationists read the bible and Jon Snow reads scientific magazines, what is the difference?

And where will we get our magazines? Are we going to write and deliver them by hand once we destroy industry? I don't know how babby pencil is formed.



Doctorate?????? No freaking way
 
2011-05-19 01:45:53 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is


Wow Chucky it really does look like you've been brushing up on your conspiracy theories truths. Nice compilation Ctrl-Alt-Del, I'll have to put that to use in future threads when Chuck here pops up if you don't mind... just in case he needs help spreading the truth.
 
2011-05-19 01:51:16 PM  

Crunch Time: Chuckufarlie, you do realize the reason you're being picked on is because you claim all opposing evidence is false or unreliable without providing evidence to support the claim, right? You seem to love to argue, but arguing without factual proof isn't going to convince anyone.

Those against chuckufarlie, you do realize that as hard as you're trying to make sense of the situation, chuckufarlie is equally trying to make nonsense of it, right? He's determined to have the last word, and this could very well continue until the thread has 10,000 posts in it.

What one can take from this thread in the neutral stance could be summarized with the following list:

1). A TON of climatologists claim anthropogenic climate change is a real problem, and have published a myriad of results to back up their findings.

2). A TON of skeptics and deniers (classify yourself however you wish) believe otherwise and -- based on this thread -- seem to get offended and vehemently defensive when the evidence stacks against them.

3). By implementing greener technologies and taking steps to reduce pollution, we nip both the existence-debated anthropogenic climate change and drastic planetary-scale pollution in the bud, thus making the world a better place no matter which side (#1 or #2) is factually correct.

Can we at least agree on #3, and then agree to disagree on #1 vs. #2?

/I guess my take on #1 vs. #2 didn't turn out so neutral, did it?
// I heartily enjoyed reading this entire thread.


You need to look at the proposal on the table from the UN. It will not reduce pollution. It will not even reduce CO2.

Of course you are not going to believe me and you are not even going to go find out for yourself if what I have said is true. That is because, you like so many others, have no real idea what is going on.

What it will do is destroy industry in the USA while at the same time providing funding to places like China and India - two of the world's biggest polluters, but off the hook with the UN because they are "developing nations".

That is what you are supporting. And the whole thing is based on poor data and even poorer practices. I hope that you descendants thank you for your actions, you idiot.
 
2011-05-19 02:01:28 PM  

chuckufarlie: You need to look at the proposal on the table from the UN. It will not reduce pollution. It will not even reduce CO2.

Of course you are not going to believe me and you are not even going to go find out for yourself if what I have said is true. That is because, you like so many others, have no real idea what is going on.

What it will do is destroy industry in the USA while at the same time providing funding to places like China and India - two of the world's biggest polluters, but off the hook with the UN because they are "developing nations".

That is what you are supporting. And the whole thing is based on poor data and even poorer practices. I hope that you descendants thank you for your actions, you idiot.


Our descendants won't survive. They will all be eaten by the lizardmen. We have to expose Climate Fraud (new window) for the scam that it is before they destroy us all!!1!

/am i doing it right?
 
2011-05-19 02:07:08 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: You need to look at the proposal on the table from the UN. It will not reduce pollution. It will not even reduce CO2.

Of course you are not going to believe me and you are not even going to go find out for yourself if what I have said is true. That is because, you like so many others, have no real idea what is going on.

What it will do is destroy industry in the USA while at the same time providing funding to places like China and India - two of the world's biggest polluters, but off the hook with the UN because they are "developing nations".

That is what you are supporting. And the whole thing is based on poor data and even poorer practices. I hope that you descendants thank you for your actions, you idiot.

Our descendants won't survive. They will all be eaten by the lizardmen. We have to expose Climate Fraud (new window) for the scam that it is before they destroy us all!!1!

/am i doing it right?


No, you need to look at the IPCC proposals. They are running this show and even they admit that this is a political movement and nothing else. It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth. And it does call for giving money to both China AND India - two massive polluters. It does not require either of them to cut back on the pollution emissions.

The UN IPCC proposal will not change the amount of pollution being spewed into the air, it is just changing the location that the pollution will originate.
 
2011-05-19 02:08:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.


You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?
 
2011-05-19 02:14:18 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is

Wow Chucky it really does look like you've been brushing up on your conspiracy theories truths. Nice compilation Ctrl-Alt-Del, I'll have to put that to use in future threads when Chuck here pops up if you don't mind... just in case he needs help spreading the truth.


You don't seem to have a problem supporting an admitted political movement by the UN to redistribute the world's wealth. Good for you.
 
2011-05-19 02:27:48 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is


Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?


It's also copypasta from the David Icke conspiracy theory website I linked above, which is a website I ran into following clickthroughs of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out is that lizardmen- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with plants, amoung them the entire UN, British Royal Family and and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC to redistribute the wealth of the world to a secret, centralized location, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat's too good to make up! (new window)
 
2011-05-19 02:32:14 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is

Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

It's also copypasta from the David Icke conspiracy theory website I linked above, which is a website I ran into following clickthroughs of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out is that lizardmen- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with plants, amoung them the entire UN, British Royal Family and and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC to redistribute the wealth of the world to a secret, centralized location, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat's too good to make up! (new window)


Is that why they're claiming that CO2 is a good thing, because it helps plants grow?

/not serious, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised....
 
2011-05-19 02:47:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: You need to look at the proposal on the table from the UN. It will not reduce pollution. It will not even reduce CO2.

Of course you are not going to believe me and you are not even going to go find out for yourself if what I have said is true. That is because, you like so many others, have no real idea what is going on.

What it will do is destroy industry in the USA while at the same time providing funding to places like China and India - two of the world's biggest polluters, but off the hook with the UN because they are "developing nations".

That is what you are supporting. And the whole thing is based on poor data and even poorer practices. I hope that you descendants thank you for your actions, you idiot.


Wow, what acidity. Sorry if you feel I was trying to provoke you. I wasn't invalidating your point of view, only your means of expressing it.

For someone harping on other people about making assumptions, you make a fair amount against me considering that was the very first time I've ever posted on this website and thus you couldn't possibly know anything about me what-so-ever.

I'll research them when I get home. I'm at work right now and I barely have time to throw these posts together much less spend time digging through the internet to look for information.

For now, however, I understand your argument as "There's no need to reduce pollution. We should never research greener technologies because burning off fossil fuels is just fine and dandy because they have absolutely no impact on the environment." Am I correct in my understanding of the basis of your argument?

What I don't understand is why a fully matured industry based on renewable energy resources that don't cause large amounts of pollution can't fulfill the role in industry that fossil fuel companies currently play. What's your opinion on that?

In the end, you can call me an idiot all day long. I will not extend that acidity to you, and I would appreciate it if you could maintain a civil attitude when conveying your views. Being a dick just makes people discredit your argument even more. In case you haven't noticed, no one still posting in this thread is on your side or even feels there's the slightest credibility to your argument because you're not citing any references, period.

/A shame I'm basically ignoring my original post in this thread.
 
2011-05-19 02:52:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: You need to look at the proposal on the table from the UN. It will not reduce pollution. It will not even reduce CO2.

Of course you are not going to believe me and you are not even going to go find out for yourself if what I have said is true. That is because, you like so many others, have no real idea what is going on.

What it will do is destroy industry in the USA while at the same time providing funding to places like China and India - two of the world's biggest polluters, but off the hook with the UN because they are "developing nations".

That is what you are supporting. And the whole thing is based on poor data and even poorer practices. I hope that you descendants thank you for your actions, you idiot.


But you clearly know so much better than all the scientists and other experts whose work we all base our opinions on! All those experts, the years of research, the mountains of data, the thousands of papers, the careful peer review, the endless and ongoing critical analysis, and yet none of that holds up against the insight of chuckufarlie/nicksteel, because... um... he said so! It's not that he doesn't understand what he is talking about and feels threatened by his incomprehension, it really is a vast librul conspiracy that only he can see!

Really. And if you buy all that, I have a bridge to sell you, cheap. It's an awesome deal, trust me...
 
2011-05-19 03:10:57 PM  
Link (new window)
 
2011-05-19 03:54:49 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is

Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

It's also copypasta from the David Icke conspiracy theory website I linked above, which is a website I ran into following clickthroughs of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out is that lizardmen- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with plants, amoung them the entire UN, British Royal Family and and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC to redistribute the wealth of the world to a secret, centralized location, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat's too good to make up! (new window)


Of course I want to reduce pollution but the IPCC proposal will not reduce pollution at all. All you have to do is read their proposal from their Denmark (I believe) meeting to see that.

The chairman has admitted that their motives are political and nothing else.

They want to take money from the "offending countries" and give the money to the developing countries, including China and India.
 
2011-05-19 04:05:14 PM  

chuckufarlie: Of course I want to reduce pollution but the IPCC proposal will not reduce pollution at all. All you have to do is read their proposal from their Denmark (I believe) meeting to see that.

The chairman has admitted that their motives are political and nothing else.

They want to take money from the "offending countries" and give the money to the developing countries, including China and India.


Let's assume, for the moment, that your claim is 100% accurate and true. I am not saying it actually is, mind you. I am engaging in a thought experiment.

Even if that is true, your argument is basically saying, "Scientists who are political leftists are using the science as an excuse to attack the countries they hold responsible for the problems they have discovered" and that you think that is wrong.

Well, fine. That's a political statement.

It does not follow from that statement that the underlying science is also wrong. The most you can say is that they are taking inappropriate/useless political action and legitimizing it using the science. You might even have a good argument if that is all you were saying. The problem is that you are then turning around and saying the science is wrong. You are mistaking the effect for the cause.

This is why I keep saying you do not understand the topic you are discussing. You are conflating a political statement made by a group of scientists with the scientific statements made by the entire body of scientists in the discipline of climatology. This tells me you do not understand the science, or why it is not the same as the politics.

And again, I reiterate that I do not accept your claim that the IPCC is engaged in political conspiracy. I am just saying that even if it is true, it does not in any way support your rejection of the underlying science.
 
2011-05-19 04:08:18 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: Ctrl-Alt-Del: chuckufarlie: There is my version of the truth and then there is yours.

chuckufarlie's version of the truth:

chuckufarlie: "the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States. And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy."

chuckufarlie: "They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world."

chuckufarlie: "The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it."

chuckufarlie: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government."

chuckufarlie: "Most people who believe in global warming will not be happy about this. Those idiots want to dismantle the industrial world so we can all live in tents."

Just thought I'd help out a little since spreading the truth is so important to him, but he is so reluctant to actually tell us what it is

Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

It's also copypasta from the David Icke conspiracy theory website I linked above, which is a website I ran into following clickthroughs of General Jim's conspiracy blog links. The part they're leaving out is that lizardmen- it appears to be an antisemitic reference- are behind it all, and have replaced various world leaders with plants, amoung them the entire UN, British Royal Family and and the Bushes. They're using the IPCC to redistribute the wealth of the world to a secret, centralized location, which they will then leave the world with and return to their home planet.

This shiat's too good to make up! (new window)


I have not copy pasted from any website. I had not heard of your website until you mentioned it.

They are not centralizing the money, they are giving it to the un-developed countries. All you need do is read the IPCC proposals.
 
2011-05-19 04:25:33 PM  

Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?


Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.
 
2011-05-19 04:35:32 PM  

chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.


True, except for the part where it's certifiably insane. Ok then.

"Maybe the Men in Black are all in my head. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY AREN'T AFTER ME!"

Yes, yes it does actually.
 
2011-05-19 04:35:33 PM  

chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.


I have looked. It is false.
 
2011-05-19 04:43:34 PM  

chuckufarlie: I have not copy pasted from any website. I had not heard of your website until you mentioned it.


Neither had I, so I took a look. And you know what? your claims of "never heard of it" ring false, because you sound EXACTLY like David Icke.

Whether this means you are lying, and using his arguments to troll Fark, or you are actually as cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs as he is remains unsettled.

Personally, I'm leaning towards schizophrenic.
 
2011-05-19 04:55:21 PM  

Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.

I have looked. It is false.


No, you did not look because the proposal from their 2009 meeting contained everything that I mentioned.
 
2011-05-19 05:00:25 PM  

chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.

I have looked. It is false.

No, you did not look because the proposal from their 2009 meeting contained everything that I mentioned.



nicksteel: It is easy to answer a question by pointing somebody to a lengthy article. The hope that somewhere in that article is the answer. I merely ask them to provide those one or two sentences that actually ARE the answer. They can't.
 
2011-05-19 05:11:55 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Whether this means [chuckufarlie is] lying, and using his arguments to troll Fark, or [he is] actually as cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs as he is remains unsettled.


I don't think he's a troll. There are several trolls in the thread, but not him. I think he's a person who is diagnosed (or would be, if examined) with a mental disorder.

In addition to all the rage, conspiratorial paranoia, delusions of intellectual grandeur, pleas for attention, etc., note how he often can't even grasp why other people are talking about topics. He strikes me as lacking the ability to perceive things from another's perspective, consider hypotheticals, grasp nuance, etc. He's certainly not an effective liar-- he'll contradict himself within minutes, deny saying things even after others post direct quotes with back links, bring up topics that hurt his own argument, etc. Anyone with reasonable empathy would say "Oh. From their perspective there's no reason anyone would believe this. I'd better back that up.", but he just doubles down and makes even crazier claims.

Psychology isn't my field, so I'm not sure if that's consistent with schizophrenia. But you could browse a few random posts of his and sense something is 'off', and that's difficult to convincingly fake, especially since he's been keeping this up for years under a variety of alts, despite heaps of ridicule, a couple bans, and his only backing coming from the occasional white-knighting by trolls like bookman.
 
2011-05-19 05:25:23 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.

I have looked. It is false.

No, you did not look because the proposal from their 2009 meeting contained everything that I mentioned.


nicksteel: It is easy to answer a question by pointing somebody to a lengthy article. The hope that somewhere in that article is the answer. I merely ask them to provide those one or two sentences that actually ARE the answer. They can't.



You know, I tried really hard to get at the truth of this guy. He is always in global warming threads but only global warming threads. He clearly has a motive for spouting the opposition standpoint. He doesn't point to any credible evidence showing global warming does not exist, he doesn't even try. He only tries to cast doubt.

Honestly, the only thing that makes sense to me is he works for an oil company. Seriously too. Why else would it make sense that someone shows up so consistently in a thread about global warming and derps as hard and as long as he does? It's not trolling for attention or anything, he only does it global warming threads.

It's not exactly beyond the realm of possibility he's paid to create doubt. It completely fits the M.O. of the oil companies too, who again, do not care to prove global warming wrong but instead merely need to cast doubt. I'd really like to know the truth though because the follow-up question I have is "does he think it is working?"

Seriously, just looking at your post alone Damnhippy, anyone popping in the thread would get the idea that chuckufarlie is an idiot and would be swayed to the other side. "I don't know what's true but that dude is an idiot and I don't want to be lumped in with him."
 
2011-05-19 06:05:59 PM  

chimp_ninja: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Whether this means [chuckufarlie is] lying, and using his arguments to troll Fark, or [he is] actually as cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs as he is remains unsettled.

I don't think he's a troll. There are several trolls in the thread, but not him. I think he's a person who is diagnosed (or would be, if examined) with a mental disorder.

In addition to all the rage, conspiratorial paranoia, delusions of intellectual grandeur, pleas for attention, etc., note how he often can't even grasp why other people are talking about topics. He strikes me as lacking the ability to perceive things from another's perspective, consider hypotheticals, grasp nuance, etc. He's certainly not an effective liar-- he'll contradict himself within minutes, deny saying things even after others post direct quotes with back links, bring up topics that hurt his own argument, etc. Anyone with reasonable empathy would say "Oh. From their perspective there's no reason anyone would believe this. I'd better back that up.", but he just doubles down and makes even crazier claims.

Psychology isn't my field, so I'm not sure if that's consistent with schizophrenia. But you could browse a few random posts of his and sense something is 'off', and that's difficult to convincingly fake, especially since he's been keeping this up for years under a variety of alts, despite heaps of ridicule, a couple bans, and his only backing coming from the occasional white-knighting by trolls like bookman.


Oh look, the little boy has had his feelings hurt and is lashing out.
 
2011-05-19 06:17:39 PM  

lennavan: Damnhippyfreak: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: Snot Monster from Outer Space: chuckufarlie: It is their attempt to socialize the planet by redistributing the wealth.

You do realize that that argument is certifiably insane, don't you?

Maybeit is, but all you need to do is look at the IPCC to see that it is true.

I have looked. It is false.

No, you did not look because the proposal from their 2009 meeting contained everything that I mentioned.


nicksteel: It is easy to answer a question by pointing somebody to a lengthy article. The hope that somewhere in that article is the answer. I merely ask them to provide those one or two sentences that actually ARE the answer. They can't.

You know, I tried really hard to get at the truth of this guy. He is always in global warming threads but only global warming threads. He clearly has a motive for spouting the opposition standpoint. He doesn't point to any credible evidence showing global warming does not exist, he doesn't even try. He only tries to cast doubt.

Honestly, the only thing that makes sense to me is he works for an oil company. Seriously too. Why else would it make sense that someone shows up so consistently in a thread about global warming and derps as hard and as long as he does? It's not trolling for attention or anything, he only does it global warming threads.

It's not exactly beyond the realm of possibility he's paid to create doubt. It completely fits the M.O. of the oil companies too, who again, do not care to prove global warming wrong but instead merely need to cast doubt. I'd really like to know the truth though because the follow-up question I have is "does he think it is working?"

Seriously, just looking at your post alone Damnhippy, anyone popping in the thread would get the idea that chuckufarlie is an idiot and would be swayed to the other side. "I don't know what's true but that dude is an idiot and I don't want to be lumped in with him."



I think I would agree more with what chimp_ninja just said. The kind of blatant self-contradiction, non-rationality, lack of emotional intelligence (even by FARK standards), and more importantly the lack of basic self-awareness that these would seem to indicate suggests the possibility of a very different way of thinking. Not to mention the near-paranoia of his fear of the one-world-government conspiracy and his belief that people here have widely posted under his name in order to discredit him.

I too get the the strong perception that something is 'off'. In recent memory I've had to explain more than once (to considerable resistance) that those quotes I post are indeed his and he can click on the blue hyperlink to verify them. That sort of basic thing that one would think wouldn't need to be argued over. Something in him isn't quite in sync.

The implication of this in regards to what you're saying is that there is another possibility - there might not be a rational reason why he's doing this. If he were some sort of shill, his outbursts and lack of information are not only ineffective, but outright harmful to the case he's making (such as it is). I don't think he's representing anything but himself here, and for his own motivations.
 
2011-05-19 06:23:18 PM  

lennavan: It's not trolling for attention or anything, he only does it global warming threads.


Well, he has been spotted elsewhere, but his comments aren't much better in other topics:


nicksteel: My mistake was not knowing where Islamisbad is located. Actually, it is more that I don't give a shiat where it is located. But they are both worthless oountries full of people that practice a "toy" religion. I don't see much of a difference, one rag head is pretty much the same as another. The point remains, your country has added nothing to the world that is worthwhile.
 
2011-05-19 06:25:52 PM  

lennavan: It's not exactly beyond the realm of possibility he's paid to create doubt. It completely fits the M.O. of the oil companies too, who again, do not care to prove global warming wrong but instead merely need to cast doubt. I'd really like to know the truth though because the follow-up question I have is "does he think it is working?"


Right. But wouldn't the oil company hire someone competent? I agree there's a financial opportunity there, and that cases like this have surfaced for various political causes. But I'd assume they would interview the person, probably request writing samples, and monitor posts every so often.

Why would they keep paying someone who is laughably incompetent and has the social graces of an enraged badger?

If anything, it would point to a false flag operation (bring in someone so obnoxious and dim that it drives people away from the cause they are pretending to espouse), except it's hard for me to believe someone could sustain that peculiar, mentally-unhinged style for years.

But a true crazy person? There's where you'd get large quantities of unhinged nonsense about lizard people and new world orders.

lennavan: Why else would it make sense that someone shows up so consistently in a thread about global warming and derps as hard and as long as he does?


It's not unusual for people with mental disorders to obsess about particular topics.
 
2011-05-19 06:30:56 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Whether this means [chuckufarlie is] lying, and using his arguments to troll Fark, or [he is] actually as cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs as he is remains unsettled.

I don't think he's a troll. There are several trolls in the thread, but not him. I think he's a person who is diagnosed (or would be, if examined) with a mental disorder.

In addition to all the rage, conspiratorial paranoia, delusions of intellectual grandeur, pleas for attention, etc., note how he often can't even grasp why other people are talking about topics. He strikes me as lacking the ability to perceive things from another's perspective, consider hypotheticals, grasp nuance, etc. He's certainly not an effective liar-- he'll contradict himself within minutes, deny saying things even after others post direct quotes with back links, bring up topics that hurt his own argument, etc. Anyone with reasonable empathy would say "Oh. From their perspective there's no reason anyone would believe this. I'd better back that up.", but he just doubles down and makes even crazier claims.

Psychology isn't my field, so I'm not sure if that's consistent with schizophrenia. But you could browse a few random posts of his and sense something is 'off', and that's difficult to convincingly fake, especially since he's been keeping this up for years under a variety of alts, despite heaps of ridicule, a couple bans, and his only backing coming from the occasional white-knighting by trolls like bookman.

Oh look, the little boy has had his feelings hurt and is lashing out.



It brings up an important and serious point, regardless of if you agree with it or not. Have you been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder? If you have, I for one am more than willing to not be as judgemental and give you much more leeway in these sort of arguments, and I suspect that others would as well. You gotta be honest and come clean about it though (if that's the case).
 
2011-05-19 06:34:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: I don't think he's a troll. There are several trolls in the thread, but not him. I think he's a person who is diagnosed (or would be, if examined) with a mental disorder.

In addition to all the rage, conspiratorial paranoia, delusions of intellectual grandeur, pleas for attention, etc., note how he often can't even grasp why other people are talking about topics. He strikes me as lacking the ability to perceive things from another's perspective, consider hypotheticals, grasp nuance, etc. He's certainly not an effective liar-- he'll contradict himself within minutes, deny saying things even after others post direct quotes with back links, bring up topics that hurt his own argument, etc. Anyone with reasonable empathy would say "Oh. From their perspective there's no reason anyone would believe this. I'd better back that up.", but he just doubles down and makes even crazier claims.

Psychology isn't my field, so I'm not sure if that's consistent with schizophrenia. But you could browse a few random posts of his and sense something is 'off', and that's difficult to convincingly fake, especially since he's been keeping this up for years under a variety of alts, despite heaps of ridicule, a couple bans, and his only backing coming from the occasional white-knighting by trolls like bookman.

Oh look, the little boy has had his feelings hurt and is lashing out.


Exhibit A on the emotional intelligence sub-discussion. I get that my post is something he'd want to refute-- it's not kind to him. But if you read what I wrote, and wanted to reply in a hostile fashion, would you take an angle that I'm 'hurt' or 'lashing out'?

I mean, if I had to counter my own post, I'd attack it for being subjective guesswork. Seize on all the language cues about being uncertain, speculative, out of my field, etc. Those are the opposite of the qualities I'd expect from an aggressive, 'lashing out' post, though. It's much more distant than emotionally loaded.
 
2011-05-19 06:38:00 PM  

chimp_ninja: lennavan: It's not exactly beyond the realm of possibility he's paid to create doubt. It completely fits the M.O. of the oil companies too, who again, do not care to prove global warming wrong but instead merely need to cast doubt. I'd really like to know the truth though because the follow-up question I have is "does he think it is working?"

Right. But wouldn't the oil company hire someone competent? I agree there's a financial opportunity there, and that cases like this have surfaced for various political causes. But I'd assume they would interview the person, probably request writing samples, and monitor posts every so often.

Why would they keep paying someone who is laughably incompetent and has the social graces of an enraged badger?

If anything, it would point to a false flag operation (bring in someone so obnoxious and dim that it drives people away from the cause they are pretending to espouse), except it's hard for me to believe someone could sustain that peculiar, mentally-unhinged style for years.

But a true crazy person? There's where you'd get large quantities of unhinged nonsense about lizard people and new world orders.

lennavan: Why else would it make sense that someone shows up so consistently in a thread about global warming and derps as hard and as long as he does?

It's not unusual for people with mental disorders to obsess about particular topics.


You are really cute, monkey boy. No, I do not have a mental disorder. Do you???

I show up in these threads just as often as you do. Why is it okay for you to be here but not me? Maybe you DO have a mental disorder and that is why you always show up on these threads. But as long as it is acceptable for you to be here, then I should have that right as well.


I know that you are incredibly stupid, but maybe you are also criminally dishonest. You go around spreading lies about a situation that is not real. The data is bogus, the process was flawed and corrupted and even the IPCC admits that this is a political movement NOT an environmental one.

That really is amazing. The people that you trust and believe in (the IPCC) have admitted in public that this is political and you seem to ignore that statement. Or, as I have pointed out, it could be because you are incredibly ignorant.
 
2011-05-19 06:46:07 PM  
It could very well be a mix of both your (chimp_ninja & lennavan) ideas.

It's not a far fetched proposition that someone in the oil industry with a bit of pull and a family member that has a handicap that prevents him from holding down a 'regular' wage job would be given a bit of work online without too much oversight. At worst most people would brush off the connection, and that individual would have one more thing to occupy their days and communication with others.
 
2011-05-19 06:51:34 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: I think I would agree more with what chimp_ninja just said. The kind of blatant self-contradiction, non-rationality, lack of emotional intelligence (even by FARK standards), and more importantly the lack of basic self-awareness that these would seem to indicate suggests the possibility of a very different way of thinking. Not to mention the near-paranoia of his fear of the one-world-government conspiracy and his belief that people here have widely posted under his name in order to discredit him.


On top of that, nicksteel/chuckufarlie:

- Demonstrates an inability to confront negative stimuli. His responses to negative stimuli consist of delusional projection (he'll suggest he wants to share "the truth" and when asked to, says that nobody will "understand it". Then why does he want to share what he has? To what audience does he believe he's speaking? He accuses others of not providing technical responses, then refuses to back up any of his own claims with hard science. Etc.)

- Persistent disorganized thought. This isn't the occasional mental lapse, there is a noticeable inability in him to follow or organize conversations in a natural, organic way. Abrupt shifts in topic, wild tangents, inability or unwillingness to recall prior statements (essentially contextomy), etc.

- Idiosyncratic personality. We all have our idiosyncrasies, whether they're nervous tics or tunes we repeatedly hum to ourselves. His seem to be exaggerated and dominate his personality, more as if they're a crutch for him to fall back on for reassurance and negative stimuli avoidance then any sort of ingrained trait. His obsession on One World Government and socialization of the nations, his common fallback position when confronted for any sort of evidence on his positions, is a strong example. As a counter-example of a normal idiosyncrasy, I have a mouth like a sewer. I have an awful cursing problem and in casual conversation with people I'm comfortable with, I swear like a sailor without noticing. "Fark" comes out of my mouth more frequently than any given minute of GoodFellas. On the other hand, if nicksteel were to have this problem of mine, I can't help but think that it would extend beyond comfortable acquaintances in casual conversation. Whereas I can turn it off in formal settings or with strangers, if he were in my situation I can't help but feel that when pressed he would burst into a string of expletives as an emotional crutch or fallback position.

Not to say that he's insane or pathological or there's anything wrong with him in the clinical sense of the word, but that he seems to be emotionally, mentally, or both emotionally and mentally stunted.
 
2011-05-19 07:06:39 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Damnhippyfreak: I think I would agree more with what chimp_ninja just said. The kind of blatant self-contradiction, non-rationality, lack of emotional intelligence (even by FARK standards), and more importantly the lack of basic self-awareness that these would seem to indicate suggests the possibility of a very different way of thinking. Not to mention the near-paranoia of his fear of the one-world-government conspiracy and his belief that people here have widely posted under his name in order to discredit him.

On top of that, nicksteel/chuckufarlie:

- Demonstrates an inability to confront negative stimuli. His responses to negative stimuli consist of delusional projection (he'll suggest he wants to share "the truth" and when asked to, says that nobody will "understand it". Then why does he want to share what he has? To what audience does he believe he's speaking? He accuses others of not providing technical responses, then refuses to back up any of his own claims with hard science. Etc.)

- Persistent disorganized thought. This isn't the occasional mental lapse, there is a noticeable inability in him to follow or organize conversations in a natural, organic way. Abrupt shifts in topic, wild tangents, inability or unwillingness to recall prior statements (essentially contextomy), etc.

- Idiosyncratic personality. We all have our idiosyncrasies, whether they're nervous tics or tunes we repeatedly hum to ourselves. His seem to be exaggerated and dominate his personality, more as if they're a crutch for him to fall back on for reassurance and negative stimuli avoidance then any sort of ingrained trait. His obsession on One World Government and socialization of the nations, his common fallback position when confronted for any sort of evidence on his positions, is a strong example. As a counter-example of a normal idiosyncrasy, I have a mouth like a sewer. I have an awful cursing problem and in casual conversation with people I'm comfortable with, I swear like a sailor without noticing. "Fark" comes out of my mouth more frequently than any given minute of GoodFellas. On the other hand, if nicksteel were to have this problem of mine, I can't help but think that it would extend beyond comfortable acquaintances in casual conversation. Whereas I can turn it off in formal settings or with strangers, if he were in my situation I can't help but feel that when pressed he would burst into a string of expletives as an emotional crutch or fallback position.

Not to say that he's insane or pathological or there's anything wrong with him in the clinical sense of the word, but that he seems to be emotionally, mentally, or both emotionally and mentally stunted.



Interesting stuff. From what I remember, you do have have sort of professional experience with people with mental disorders, right?

But your last sentence is worth noting (along with the rest). What I take away from that is that we should be careful not to medicalize this whole thing. Maybe he's just being a dick.
 
2011-05-19 07:44:07 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Interesting stuff. From what I remember, you do have have sort of professional experience with people with mental disorders, right?


Mmmhmm. Psychology out of university and then followed up with a stint doing mental care in the healthcare department of an assisted living facility for people with disabilities. Everything from people with traumatic head injuries to senile dementia to a man who murdered his wife during a psychotic episode (and had zero recollection of it) to your garden variety paranoid schizophrenics.

Then I realized, man, that's depressing stuff and I hate it. So I left.

Damnhippyfreak: But your last sentence is worth noting (along with the rest). What I take away from that is that we should be careful not to medicalize this whole thing. Maybe he's just being a dick.


I think he's probably just being a dick, but unintentionally so. I think he's one of those social retards that has a mind behind him no better or worse than your average person but far too much immature baggage to be the kind of man you could communicate with in any meaningful way. A love of "evidence", a dislike of actual evidence, and a handwave to explain away anything that conflicts with his mental crutch.

He's a store clerk with half an imagination, a public school education, a copy of Das Kapital he lifted from the library a decade ago, a few pages missing, and a complete mistrust of anybody outside his immediate locus of control, suffering from the problem of supposedly revelatory knowledge with no way to express it and an ingrained belief that those revelations can't be wrong.

He's no baby-eating monster.
 
2011-05-19 07:50:52 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: He's a store clerk with half an imagination, a public school education, a copy of Das Kapital he lifted from the library a decade ago, a few pages missing, and a complete mistrust of anybody outside his immediate locus of control, suffering from the problem of supposedly revelatory knowledge with no way to express it and an ingrained belief that those revelations can't be wrong.


Actually, this might be a better summary of that sort of character:

Charles Freck, becoming progressively more and more depressed by what was happening around him, decided, finally, to off himself. There was no problem in the circles where he hung out in putting an end to yourself. You just bought a large quantity of downers and took them with some cheap wine. The planning part had to do with the artifacts he wanted found on him by later archeologists. He had spent several days deciding, much longer than he had spent deciding to kill himself. He would be found lying on his back, on his bed, with a copy of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and an unfinished letter to Exxon, protesting the cancellation of his gas credit card. That way, he would indict the system, and achieve something by his death, over and above what the death itself achieved. At the last moment, he changed his mind on a decisive issue and decided to drink the pills with a connoisseur wine, instead of Ripple or Thunderbird.
 
2011-05-19 08:42:53 PM  

hypnoticus ceratophrys: It could very well be a mix of both your (chimp_ninja & lennavan) ideas.

It's not a far fetched proposition that someone in the oil industry with a bit of pull and a family member that has a handicap that prevents him from holding down a 'regular' wage job would be given a bit of work online without too much oversight. At worst most people would brush off the connection, and that individual would have one more thing to occupy their days and communication with others.


I love the way that you morons think that anybody would pay somebody to visit this site in order to debunk your ideas. Do you really think that fark is worth that effort? Do you really think that YOU are worth that effort? If somebody WAS paying me, I am sure that they would insist that I spend my time dealing with more important people at a more important website.

I guess that your over inflated and misguided egos have driven you to that conclusion. Nobody pays me to come here and nobody would be willing to. I visit here for the absolute joy that it brings me to debunk your sad little ideas.

Reign in your over inflated estimate of your own importance and just learn to understand that I am just here on my own.
 
2011-05-19 08:59:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: I love the way that you morons think that anybody would pay somebody to visit this site in order to debunk your ideas. Do you really think that fark is worth that effort?


Site Information for fark.com
Get Details

Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,445
Traffic Rank in US: 993

Fark founder accuses Fox newsman of hacking


It's a popular website, it's a popular aggregator, and it's popular with news services. So, yes.
 
2011-05-20 01:39:58 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: I don't think he's representing anything but himself here, and for his own motivations.


Right, lets not pretend my argument is about nicksteel, it's not. There is zero chance you will ever change his mind. He is clearly paid more than you will ever offer.

I was attempting to talk about people, with similar views to him, who are not paid shills.
 
2011-05-20 01:45:30 AM  

lennavan: Damnhippyfreak: I don't think he's representing anything but himself here, and for his own motivations.

Right, lets not pretend my argument is about nicksteel, it's not. There is zero chance you will ever change his mind. He is clearly paid more than you will ever offer.

I was attempting to talk about people, with similar views to him, who are not paid shills.


Thinking about the consistent anti-AGW posters (and persistent creationists and the like) I'm honestly starting to wonder if the only two options there are crazy and shill. And then maybe take shill off the table.
 
2011-05-20 01:46:40 AM  

chimp_ninja: Right. But wouldn't the oil company hire someone competent?



Hey, I'm just asking questions. For all I know, they think what nick is dong here is grade A stuff.

chimp_ninja: But I'd assume they would interview the person, probably request writing samples, and monitor posts every so often.



I think you assume too much. Seriously.

chimp_ninja: Why would they keep paying someone who is laughably incompetent and has the social graces of an enraged badger?


Because they do not understand how incompetent he is. Seriously. You and I giggle at how retarded he is, he and his bosses might look at the thread and say "great job at conflating the matter."

He doesn't even need to succeed as a relevant opposition. All he needs to do is make people question what you say. Its a low bar indeed.

chimp_ninja: It's not unusual for people with mental disorders to obsess about particular topics.



I understand and get, you clearly have a major interest in this topic. This must be close to your actual scientific area. But you must be familiar with occam's razor. I think it is much simpler to explain nicksteel as someone who is paid to call whatever anyone says into question. It is not necessary to prove the alternative, simply question what you say.

People with disorders do not watch Fark.com for threads about global warming, hoping to post dissent about global warming. Those are people with motives.

I have no doubt, when you step back, you'll admit I'm right. :-)
 
2011-05-20 01:49:00 AM  

chuckufarlie: You are really cute, monkey boy. No, I do not have a mental disorder. Do you???


Hi Chuck. We have heard from you many times that you are hear to spread the truth. We have also heard from you that you have not yet spread the truth. We feel as though you have a mental disorder because you say things that you believe, and then you say other things that contradict the first, yet you also believe these. We worry about you Chuck.

Are you okay, Chuck?
 
2011-05-20 04:23:10 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Oh, and for anybody else playing at home, our favourite green-text threadshiatter AGW denialist had a full-on mental breakdown and claimed I was trying to murder him over the Internet:

GeneralJim: So, are you now admitting that you are trying to kill me? Sure sounds like you are. Gee, I hate to disappoint you, but "my rage" is all in your head. I'm actually enjoying kicking the shiat out of you in this... The global warming got dozens of side issues and bullshiat mixed into it before it got serious. This one is all here, and it is graphic proof of either your total mental incompetence, or of your attempt to murder me -- one or the other. Handy either way.

Mojo has a desperate need to "prove" any opponent is of unsound mind. If someone actually THINKS about what Mojo is saying... well, let's just say he's toast.

In this case, let's look at what Mojo left out, probably because his narcissism wouldn't let him paste it in... He starts with my SECOND sentence. The first sentence was "Oh, I get it. NOBODY could be as stupid as you are pretending to be and still find the power switch on their computer more often than once a week." This was a two-stage joke -- NOBODY is Mojo-stupid... unless they are trying to kill someone with their stupidity. And, like goddam near every point ever brought up -- Mojo hasn't gotten it yet. It doesn't seem to matter HOW many times it's brought up, as the next selection will illustrate...


(Incidentally it's the same thread where he made a claim that would literally either require psychic powers or time travel to make possible.)

Sorry, but this little "cry for help" from Mojo will take some explanation. Bear with me.

images2.fanpop.com

In the thread "Canada gets it Right, eh" about huge gains by the Conservatives, a thread epically called, by craig328, "the all-you-can-enjoy Mojo Butthurt Special." Mojo announced that, whiny little biatch that he is, he wouldn't support anyone in the election, and had spoiled his ballot by putting a big "X" on it, from corner to corner. I said he should have written in another candidate, either one he actually liked, or a joke candidate like "Mickey Mouse," the candidate who has received at least one vote in the largest number of Presidential elections. Naturally, Mr. Super-Genius didn't get the point of having a count, and said "So I shouldn't spoil my ballot, I should just spoil my ballot?" and then insulted me. Later, he said:
I even detailed the method by which I spoiled it -- a big X across the entire thing -- which is the only way I can think of to mark "NONE OF THE ABOVE" on a ballot that looks like that. But, again, things like facts don't get in the way of narcissistic rage.

He put up a picture of the ballot. Having seen it, I replied with:
You have no imagination. I deny responsibility for that, though. Look at your picture of the ballot. You could have selected EACH of the candidates, you could have put the slashed-"O" "no" sign over each of them. You could have turned the card on it's side, and written "None of these jackholes!" or "No freaking way" or "Waring Blender" or "Coup d'état" or literally billions of different phrases or pictures of varying amounts of amusement. But all you could think of was to put a giant "X" over the whole ballot? Boring. Or, perhaps, is that the only way you know how to SIGN your ballot? That would make more sense. Because, you know, if you really CAN'T think of more than one way to "spoil" a ballot, maybe that icepick sticking out of your forehead ISN'T just for decoration...

I also noted that the ballot ITSELF tells another way to spoil it... by selecting more than one candidate for office. Mojo replied with more crap, obviously of a confused nature.

I replied, after looking it up, that he could file a "special ballot application" and get a special ballot, and, if he got it early enough, it would be all fill-ins. Mojo berserked, saying there's no way he could have done that on election day, as the special ballots are counted the week before election day. I looked it up at Elections Canada, and he was lying -- you can turn in a special ballot at the polls on election day. You need to order it early, though, if you want a BLANK one.

So now the "Jim requires me to use time travel" brain-fart has become a Mojo-meme. But, here's the kicker. I didn't notice this until AFTER the thread had closed, but this moron, in the SAME THREAD, in dealing with another, had BRAGGED about claiming he was going to spoil his ballot TWO MONTHS EARLIER. He even included a link to his two-month-old post saying he was going to spoil his ballot. So, in reality, he had PLENTY of time to get a blank special ballot; he was just too ignorant to know about it. One more lie in a very long series, and a bit important in this thread, because it means EVERY SINGLE TOPIC he brought up, he got wrong. He's normally not THAT "good."


This is what we're dealing with here, people.

Yeah. Either a blockhead with a skull denser than osmium, or the world's greatest troll. Or, perhaps, he is being utterly stupid and annoying in order to attempt to kill people over the Internets. Always an option. [Grin]

But, whatever the underlying reason, expect him to make stupid statements, to add his peurile conclusions into what you've said, long, drawn-out paranoid rants involving the minute-by-minute timing of posts, and accusations that anyone disagreeing with his stupid ass is suffering "narcissistic rage," a subject upon which he has no doubt pondered while injuring small animals.

So, now you have all been formally introduced to my cyber-stalker. Please keep your hands and feet inside the car at all times. If you want to feed this pitiful creature, his favorite food is apparently humble pie... at least, that's what he BEGS for the most often. Feel free to serve it up.
 
2011-05-20 04:31:30 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
bookman: Go back to your hand lotion, kid.

Ooh, more veiled references to my dead mother. You never cease to amaze with your creepy psychosis.

Egad! A reference to hand lotion is a veiled reference to your dead mother? What in the farking hell did you do to your dead mother that involved hand lotion?
 
2011-05-20 04:44:50 AM  
joethebastard:
So when you say something dumb, get explanations as to why it's dumb, and then say it again- would you rather us think that you're stupid, or just a troll?

If I might interrupt...

This comes up often enough. I'm guessing you just think you're magic, or something like that, at the base of it.

YOU have had it explained to you, many times, that the idea that the kind of atmospheric carbon dioxide level change mankind has caused could cause a noticeable shift in planetary temperature is absurd. This has been explained to you, with simple logic, such as "Large amounts of carbon dioxide have been released in the past, in a short period of time, without noticeable effect, so why would now be any different?" and "Yes, carbon dioxide levels track with planetary temperature, but the carbon dioxide FOLLOWS the temperature, so cannot be causing it." and also "Assuming planetary temperature is the result of a positive feedback system is erroneous, because a positive feedback system is inherently unstable."

Additionally, it has been pointed out that models are not proof of theories, they ARE theories, and ample peer-reviewed research has been given to show exactly HOW the models are failing to model the real world in some major ways: Considering water vapor feedback as a HUGE positive (x2) feedback, when it is a negative feedback, and by ignoring the warming caused by cosmic ray density, and assigning that warming to carbon dioxide.

Given all that, YOU return to your busted, falsified hypothesis. Why do you do that?
 
2011-05-20 05:17:10 AM  

GeneralJim: In this case, let's look at what Mojo left out, probably because his narcissism


Oh look, another opportunity for you to pick up words you see other people use and regurgitate them.

GeneralJim: The first sentence was "Oh, I get it. NOBODY could be as stupid as you are pretending to be and still find the power switch on their computer more often than once a week." This was a two-stage joke -- NOBODY is Mojo-stupid... unless they are trying to kill someone with their stupidity.


Uh, that makes no sense. There's no follow-up, no link to that. That only exists in your own head. It's a nice try for a save, if you're sort of an idiot, but really, it makes no sense.

GeneralJim: Sorry, but this little "cry for help" from Mojo will take some explanation. Bear with me.


"HELP HELP THIS MAN ON THE INTERNET IS TRYING TO MURDER ME!"
"LOL ok there Jim"
"THAT THING YOU JUST SAID THERE WAS A CRY FOR HELP!"

GeneralJim: I also noted that the ballot ITSELF tells another way to spoil it.


Mmm, yes. In fact, I noted that point to you. When I said, and I quote: "So I shouldn't spoil my ballot [by marking a big X], I should just spoil my ballot [by scribbling none of the above on it]?" You always seem to leave that point out. Probably because you're crazy or a narcissist or a liar. Or all three. I'm guessing it's all three.

You know, the part you admit I said?.

You will note here, not that this is apropos of anything in the thread, a part of Jim's narcissistic thoughts and evasion mechanisms.

Note, if you will, how he meanders over from writing 'none of the above' to spoiling the ballot, which are, in fact, two very different things. All none of the aboves will spoil the ballots, not all ballots will be spoiled by marking none of the above.

Of course, basic logic teaches us that if all Foo are Bar, that doesn't imply that all Bar are Foo. Jim, however, doesn't know this. That's also an interesting note.

This all pertains to a particularly amusing lie Jim told in the thread and tried to cover up. Why would you try to cover up something recorded on the Internet? I don't know, I'm not Jim.

GeneralJim: I replied, after looking it up, that he could file a "special ballot application" and get a special ballot, and, if he got it early enough, it would be all fill-ins. Mojo berserked, saying there's no way he could have done that on election day


For anybody still following this greentext threadshiatter, what actually happened was that I pointed out to Jim that context precluded the possibility of us discussing a special ballot, and had to explain to him how context precludes possibility.

When he correctly reported that, indeed, you could file your special ballot (that, everybody but Jim will remember, we couldn't be talking about) on election day, far from going berserk (that's one of Jim's colourful lies), I pointed out he was right, you could file on election day, but you had to file for the ballot a week earlier:

Dr. Mojo PhD: You're right, I mistyped. I meant you had to register to vote by special ballot the week before polls closed. And since I hadn't, I couldn't vote by one.

^^^ This is what Jim calls "going berserk", in case you needed any more reference that he lives in a delusional world.

GeneralJim: So now the "Jim requires me to use time travel" brain-fart has become a Mojo-meme. But, here's the kicker. I didn't notice this until AFTER the thread had closed, but this moron, in the SAME THREAD, in dealing with another, had BRAGGED about claiming he was going to spoil his ballot TWO MONTHS EARLIER.


And, again, we see Jim's meandering thoughts.

First, it's kinda funny that Jim can't separate the difference between one month and two months.

Second, apparently in his delusional world, people are incapable of changing their minds. Let's take a look at his insane narrative, shall we?

I tell somebody in the thread (Blairr) that I spoiled my ballot, as I figured I would a month earlier (the Canadian federal election was honestly an embarrassment). Today, Jim shares with the world that I could have gotten a special blank ballot so I could write "none of the above" on it for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that he says that's what I should do, since my ballot would be equally spoiled whatever method I chose to spoil it (I put a big X across it). Keep in mind that filing for a special ballot accomplishes nothing. I would still be able to spoil my ballot, or vote for any candidate I please using it. The only difference is it would require far more effort to do that than anything else.

So, knowing that I would expend extra effort to accomplish an identical task, Jim claims that I am "ignorant" because I didn't file for this early special ballot for the sole reason that I spoiled my ballot in a way he didn't "like", and should have expended extra effort to write "none of the above" on a blank ballot that has no candidates listed (makes you wonder above what). Also, if I didn't file for a special ballot, I am "lying". No, that doesn't make any sense either.

But! This actually makes sense to him. Again, I really don't know why.

Projection, I'm guessing.
 
Displayed 50 of 788 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report