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.

(Abc.net.au)   Mid 2000s: Climate change scientists predicted water near Australian dam would dry up. 2012: The area around that same dam is being evacuated due to flood risk   (abc.net.au) divider line 504
    More: Obvious, Australia, evacuations, Heavy Rain, rural areas, climate change, Bureau of Meteorology, dams, floods  
•       •       •

4359 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Mar 2012 at 12:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



504 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-04 08:12:56 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Yes, water vapor by itself is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, the amount of water vapor in the air is not constant and can in fact vary by a factor of several hundred (new window). The bottom line is that water vapor is more of an amplifier than a driver (new window) of the greenhouse effect.

You got it right... except that water vapor, especially low clouds, are a large NEGATIVE feedback. And that kind of blows the whole deal. The planet corrects for imbalances in vital compounds. What a freaking shock. Who would have thought? I mean, life has only stabilized the planet for about a half-billion years, after all.

Clouds =/= water vapor.

Close enough... water hanging in the air. It's part of the process.

Besides, I thought you were the one who believed that cosmic-ray flux was responsible for changes in cloud cover. Remember Svensmark?

You're THAT stupid? Really? Please show me where I said that cosmic rays are the ONLY thing that cause clouds. Dipshiat. Cosmic rays, CERN has found, provide nuclei for the formation of the water droplets just a tad easier than without them. You really are a moron, you know... If someone says that when the Sun's activity increases, it warms up, and you hear "the sun is the only factor in temperature." You should just STFU until you're less stupid.

I also can't let this one slide: The planet corrects for imbalances in vital compounds.

What does this even mean? It's convenient to assume that the planet will correct for any imbalances, but it's not logical. If evil aliens were to seed the earth with CO2 adsorbents and CO2 levels dropped to zero as a result, would the planet "correct" itself, or would mean temperatures plunge far below freezing as science predicts?

The planet has a few things covered -- water and carbon dioxide among them. Too much of either, and the get taken care of.

We pretty much ARE out of carbon dioxide. Less than 400 PPM. So far, the planet's response has been to evolve creatures who take carbon dioxide out of sequestration. Let's hope nothing more drastic is needed.

And "science predicts" a plunge below freezing if carbon dioxide goes away? Oh, I get it. You're another jackass who thinks that the only greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Well, no.
 
2012-03-04 08:18:34 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Nice try at deflection. However, this is NOT being done at the behest of "scientists," whomever you imagine them to be. This was ordered up special by the U.N. The goal is to enact draconian carbon legislation, through which they can redistribute the first world's wealth.

Wow. A whole bunch of nuttery there, but this stands out.

Where do you guys list your talking points? You really need to get out a memo, and get this one corrected. When the U.N. ADMITS that its goal with climate legislation is to re-distribute wealth, and calls it "economic justice," it really isn't "nuttery" to believe them, ESPECIALLY if the legislation proposed does just that. Where does this even come from?
 
2012-03-04 08:21:59 AM  

GeneralJim: Heartland Institute, did you notice how their budget is about a million dollars a year?


Just quickly, a couple of things: stop stalking me you irascible ponce!

Secondly, we've discussed your passing acquaintance with the truth (for giggles, look up "truth" in the Big Book of Words. You can do it while informing yourself of the meanings of the words "elaborate", "continue" and "context") so I'm simply going to point out yet another egregious lie. The Heartland Institute has an annual budget of $6million. Honestly, can you not be honest about anything?! Or is it ignorance cowering behind a facade of rhetoric and insults?

Either way, you're a special little trooper!

Ta ta buttercup!
 
2012-03-04 08:22:59 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: lokisbong:
No there are people right here on Fark claiming climate scientists get rich from "pushing the AGW scam" by way of the grants they receive. I won't go search out these comments but I have read them in the last month.

You are probably remembering some warmer "pretending" to be a skeptic, and actually BECOMING the straw man.


Ahem.

GeneralJim: And, no, despite the efforts of douchebags like you to portray MY position, there are only a few scientists getting rich. (Doesn't $10 million seem like a large lab fund? What has happened is that the amount of research money has increased 20-fold

Why do you warmer 'tards all share cognitive disorders? It looks like Phil Jones got an extra ten million... but, one guy is not "all the scientists getting rich." I can tell you, I can repeat it for you, but I simply cannot understand it for you.
 
2012-03-04 08:27:49 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The problems with your claim that these posts point out remain, even though you've ignored them.

This paper has the magic peer-review juju. You want this to be removed? Tough shiat. You start complaining when people use Oreskes' paper, and maybe I'll listen. At least I'm interpreting this one correctly -- Oreskes as the "97% of climatologists agree" is simply bad reading, by ALL of you.
 
2012-03-04 08:28:16 AM  

GeneralJim: Do you really think your fixation and raging bile is a healthy thing?


You know what I want to know, seriously? Why is it that you so often end up parroting the positions of others? For example, earlier Damnhippyfreak said this to you:

Damnhippyfreak: Okay, I thought the U.N. conspiracy stuff was a bit nutty, but this bit of personal paranoia edges it out. Come on now. Think about this for a minute before you go off the edge here.


And this isn't the first time you've been confronted about thinking "unhealthy things". A while later, we find you adopting the same tone towards your opponents. Why is it that you so often end up repeating what's been said to you at your opponents? "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!" isn't a normal kind of thought for a grown man.

What's worse, and very telling, is that you aren't even certain when you should be repeating these types of things. For example, when we identify unhealthy, paranoid thoughts in you (UN conspiracies, UFO cults), these are things that are, in fact, very unhealthy ways of looking at the world around you.

So what do you identify as "bile" and "rage"? A list of symptoms. It's just a list of symptoms, Jim, and you think that's "bile" and "rage". Even when you're projecting -- and if you're wondering what I was getting at with the "I know you are but what am I!" line, it's called projection -- you demonstrate that you don't understand what you're projecting about.

You perceive a list of symptoms which I suggest you correlate strongly to -- and which all of us in conversation with you have seen evidence of -- and you're so thin-skinned that you can only interpret a dry, boring list of symptoms as bilious rage. That thin-skinned nature, Jim? It's a strong indicator of BPD. So is the projection.

You know what else is a strong indicator? Your NEED to respond. You had me on ignore, Jim, and had to keep replying to me and addressing me anyway. I didn't have you on ignore, I'm free to pursue your ideas, and never claimed I wouldn't. But you made a big show -- dramatics are a hallmark of BPD, by the way -- of putting your "enemy"/enemies on ignore, and then responding to them anyway, while complaining loudly that Fark was somehow "broken" because you couldn't stop responding. You attempted to use the ignore feature to insulate you from negative stimulus, while compulsively being forced to respond to that negative stimulus anyway. That's extremely abnormal.

Sorry, kid. You aren't right in the head. I really thought you were the garden-variety narcissist at first. But narcissists are capable of a modicum of introspection. Narcissists are, to an extent, malleable and cooperative, willing to adapt. Seeing your abnormal behaviour more and more, I just keep seeing BPD.
 
2012-03-04 08:32:25 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Seriously, tell someone you know in real life about all these alts you think are trying to smear you and see what kind of reaction you get and what they think about it. While you're at it, tell them about the U.N. conspiracy stuff too. A reality check from a friend can be useful sometimes.

You know, Mojo is a stalker jackass, but you really are the least honest, most condescending, and generally just UGLY-spirited of all the warmer alarmist gang.

Oh, and nobody has an alt. Right. Believing published mission statements, and policy statements from the freaking vice-chair of the IPCC is crazy. Yeah, right. Dumbass. Get some new material; this shiat is WAY stale.
 
2012-03-04 08:38:06 AM  
lokisbong:
GeneralJim is coming across as quite the delusional paranoid imbecile tonight. Wow! Between the UN stuff and his "alt" delusions and his UFO CULT following admissions I would be afraid to meet him in real life. GeneralJim has to resort to delusions and insults to make himself feel better about his sad existence I am guessing. Dude needs a shrink and some heavy meds not just friends. Hell if his friends even exist outside his mind. I wouldn't be friends with someone who shows this many signs of insanity.

Well, you're a moron, and you are buying your own character assassinations. Good for you! And, yeah, you WOULD be afraid, I imagine. You ARE a pants-wetting alarmist, after all. What's one more phobia? I bet you have quite the collection.

And, just FYFI, as part of the disability evaluation program, I was fully evaluated, including a shrink visit, and found dead-cold, boringly sane. Lots of people don't manage to get through the physical stuff without mental issues, and I can't blame them -- but I didn't have the luxury of that particular escape. But, thanks for asking, you lowlife. Have YOU been evaluated?
 
2012-03-04 08:44:49 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Somebody remembers some story from the 1970s about global cooling, so global warming MUST be a hoax. That's some fine logic you have there, Jim.

(n.b.: The cover Jim linked to goes to Time magazine's "The Cooling of America" -- it's a story on rising fuel prices. He couldn't even get that right!)

By the way, I'll take them supersized, fry jockey. And don't get any pimple grease in them or I'm calling your manager over.

Poor Mojo. You haven't gotten a single thing about me right so far in this thread. A less dedicated (or less retarded) individual would have quit by now -- but not Mojo. I do feel for you, though. Too bad for you that "Fail in Human Form" was already taken... and by someone using it ironically, to boot. Now THAT'S a cruel joke on you.
 
2012-03-04 08:49:35 AM  

GeneralJim: You know, Mojo is a stalker jackass


This is another big hallmark of borderline personality disorder, the constant belief in victimization while attempting to denigrate others (it's called the distortion campaign). You've yet to point to a single example of stalking on my or anybody else's part. "Stalking" you seems to involve participating in a conversation with you on a public message board.

Is it because we frequently participate in AGW threads? YOU frequently participate in AGW threads. Why are we not afforded the same courtesy to participate in topics that interest us? The belief in two different sets of rules for people is another hallmark of borderline personality disorder.

Is it because we frequently compare your previous statements to new statements you make? Inability to take responsibility or acknowledge past actions is a hallmark of BPD. Borderlines will often make contradictory statements and attempt to "hide" past statements which conflict with this new information, a sort of "excuse shifting" if you will:

"I didn't rob that bank!"
"You're on surveillance robbing the bank..."
"I robbed it to feed my family! They're starving!"


Your accusations of stalking -- which is why we all roundly mock you on them -- appear to be more based on the idea that your thoughts and ideas are "special" and deserve to be protected, and anybody who criticizes you must in some way possess severe negative qualities. Guess what mental disorder thinking like that is a hallmark of?

GeneralJim: but you really are the least honest, most condescending, and generally just UGLY-spirited of all the warmer alarmist gang.


Actually, Damnhippyfreak is the most courteous and polite of us. (I also notice that we're now back to a "gang" instead of being multiple alts of a single person.) I can point to several threads where Damnhippyfreak has remained courteous and polite to you in spite of an overwhelming attitude problem on your part, even when the rest of us are heaping abuse on you.

Why do you think it is that the person you can attack the least is the person who frustrates you the most? The answer, in the context of a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, is simple: With Zafler, or me, or chimp_ninja, or The Envoy, or even Jon Snow, you get a massive amount of negative narcissistic supply. We'll post the same evidence debunking the same tired point you're repeating (for example, an American Thinker article) and link to the multiple other threads where we've done the same and you've chosen to ignore it, and then repeatedly call you a farking idiot.

If you need to insulate your fragile ego, it's easy to "ignore" us or not respond to us or couch your response in evasive rage, and just claim you're giving us what we deserve, and in some cases rightly so. Running up to a borderline and punching them in the face is going to get them to punch you back -- it would get anybody to punch you back, after all.

But with Damnhippyfreak, you can't do that, can you? He's remained polite in the face of overwhelming peer pressure to join in the assault on you, he's continued to engage you as a person, and thereby made it all the harder for you to use your regular litany of ego-protecting excuses against him.

Consequently, you hate him the most and believe him to be the "least honest, most condescending, and generally just UGLY-spirited" of us.

So, so telling.
 
2012-03-04 08:55:38 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Damnhippyfreak: Okay, I thought the U.N. conspiracy stuff was a bit nutty, but this bit of personal paranoia edges it out. Come on now. Think about this for a minute before you go off the edge here.

Like I said, non-delusional paranoia. We can kick this straight into delusional paranoia if we felt like it. You have a digital camera and a local licence plate you can partially obscure? I'm going to write a snippet from Jim's posts today and hold it up in front of my Ontario plates when I take my dog out. If you have a little free time, I suggest you do the same.

You know, quote something Jim wrote very recently, hold it up in front of the licence plate (obscure the whole plate, of course, what matters is the province/state), with a little personal message on it to Jim.

I'd love to see how his mental defence mechanisms attempt to analyze this new information. I imagine it'll go something like this:

1. There are seven billion people in the world.
2. Of those seven billion people, a certain amount I interact with calls me an asshole.
3. Therefore, it's not possible that out of seven billion people, any given subset will dislike me.
4. Therefore, it must be that all the people that dislike me are a single individual, conspiring against me, and hiding behind the anonymity of message boards.
5. That one person artlessly shifts posting styles, writing, and grammar. For example, this person's "Canadian" character, Mojo, will, without fail, use Canadian English, and then effortlessly switch back to American English when writing as chimp_ninja again.
5. A select amount of those individuals posted licence plate snaps putting them in multiple provinces/states in a short duration of time, far shorter than it would be possible to catch a single flight, let alone multiple flights to all these locations. Each of these contains a personal message also containing different handwriting and different biometrics for the hands/arms holding them.

???

6a. Therefore, my enemy has his ow ...

... And, Fark mercifully cuts off your blather here. Okay, how about you authorize me to research your alt status? Okay? Get your little buddies to sign on, too. I keep trying to make you pay some money for your idiocy... so far, no takers.

I do like when I mentioned that Envoy was probably one of Monkey Boy's alts -- He blubblered something to the effect of "How could you say that? We use different syntax and word choices." Yeah, that is EXACTLY what someone would say if falsely accused... "How could you tell? I used different syntax and word choices" is more like it.

The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way. That is rather amazingly unlikely. Occam's razor suggests that someone with the self-loathing "you all" share would try to puff themselves up in some way. ITG, and all. Or, become a one-man crowd, and get a giant circle-suck going, all agreeing on the bad man who actually presents real science, and points out the LACK of it on your side, despite all the organizations of scientists who support you.
 
2012-03-04 08:56:10 AM  

GeneralJim: Poor Mojo. You haven't gotten a single thing about me right so far in this thread.


So you deny posting a link to a cover of Time magazine about an article titled "The Cooling of America", (an article which is, in fact, about fuel prices) in a global warming thread, in response to a person busting a photoshopped cover of Time touting a global ice age in the 70s which was never published, in an attempt to defend your and your ally's position that there was some "cooling hysteria" (which never existed) in the 1970s?

I seem to see a screenshot of that exact thing happening. Are you suggesting I forged the screenshot? And if I find the thread and link to it, will you somehow claim I hacked Fark?

Loo. Nah. Tick.
 
2012-03-04 08:58:33 AM  

GeneralJim: And, just FYFI, as part of the disability evaluation program, I was fully evaluated, including a shrink visit, and found dead-cold, boringly sane.


Masks of Sanity: Detecting Disguised Personality Disorders

Cause golly, that's hard to pull of.
 
2012-03-04 09:07:01 AM  
Wow, is the green text thread shiatter going to have a full on melt down? I though this thread was dead. Wonderful thing to find on this hung over morning.
 
2012-03-04 09:14:12 AM  

GeneralJim: Okay, how about you authorize me to research your alt status? Okay? Get your little buddies to sign on, too. I keep trying to make you pay some money for your idiocy... so far, no takers.


Yes Jim, we're going to pay you to make accusations.

I do love the mental imbalance on display here, again. I'm going to accuse you of something, accept no evidence that it's not true, and the only evidence I'll accept is an all-expenses paid junket by you. And if you don't take me up on it, YOU'RE stupid. YOU'RE an idiot.

Here's a better idea, Jim. Why not structure your offer so that if it turns out you're wrong -- which you are -- you pay us. And then it won't be a heads I win, tails you lose scenario (another hallmark of BPD).

GeneralJim: I do like when I mentioned that Envoy was probably one of Monkey Boy's alts -- He blubblered something to the effect of "How could you say that? We use different syntax and word choices." Yeah, that is EXACTLY what someone would say if falsely accused... "How could you tell? I used different syntax and word choices" is more like it.


Damnhippyfreak is right. You're flying increasingly off the rails. Putting aside your hilariously colourful language (I'm sure he "blubbered" it, Jim.)

Syntax and word choice is fossilized psycholinguistic behaviour. Primary language acquisition is completed early in life (hence why only those gifted in language can easily pick up a non-native language, and even in bilingual cultures such as my own, children raised around both English and French will require immersion learning in one or the other to become fluent in both).

In short, maintaining language choice, dialect, syntax, grammar, formatting, writing style, and discrete knowledge across even one alter-ego is virtually impossible. Doing it with multiple discrete characters is impossible.

What you're alleging is a massive investment of a single individual's time and effort to conspire against you (and you personally) by pulling off the impossible. A person that invests virtually 24 hours a day to attack you constantly, who has established habits and entire personalities just to do this.

They want to do this to "hide" the great global warming conspiracy that you and only you can expose (after all, they could be investing their considerable resources plugging the leak anywhere else, yet choose to target you exclusively) and instead of simply investing those massive resources into just finding and killing you and silencing you permanently, they discredit you on an anonymous internet message board -- which does nothing to actually silence you in real life.

And your evidence for all of this? When you accused one person of being another person, they did the equivalent of saying "He's obviously not me, you've seen both our faces and he's standing right over there" -- pointed to the aspects of their unique personality only visible on a message board that distinguish them. Well, obviously that's sane thinking for normal people.

GeneralJim: The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders.


See? You're projecting again. This is you picking up on something I do -- I'm a filmmaker by trade, but a psychologist by training -- which is attack your psychological make-up. You adopt this idea that you're equally capable of this, and repeat it.

It's worth noting that you often attempt to adopt the tones and mannerisms of your opponents after you've been exposed to them sufficiently. You only began to point out quirks in psychology after I did it to you multiple times.

It's a symptom called "mirroring", Jim. It, too, is the hallmark of a personality disorder.
 
2012-03-04 09:20:08 AM  
Now, I can't speak for anybody else, Jim, but here's a little photo I took this morning while walking my dog to show you how crazy you are:

i.imgur.com
Notice the "Mojo
The "YOURS TO DISCOVER" legend at the bottom of that plate and the font on the plate makes that an Ontario plate taken some time after 6:50 AM (a direct quote from your post timestamped at that time) and before 9:20 AM (the time of this post). Now, if any of my many other alts start throwing up personally signed, dated photos showing landmarks from multiple provinces, states, and countries, either we're capable of teleportation -- since even a supersonic jet couldn't get us around to all those places that fast, let alone with the airport gropings included -- or your lunatic theory is based on crazy thoughts in your head.

Take your pick, you crazy farking diamond.
 
2012-03-04 09:20:35 AM  
The Envoy:
GeneralJim: Heartland Institute, did you notice how their budget is about a million dollars a year?

Just quickly, a couple of things: stop stalking me you irascible ponce!

Secondly, we've discussed your passing acquaintance with the truth (for giggles, look up "truth" in the Big Book of Words. You can do it while informing yourself of the meanings of the words "elaborate", "continue" and "context") so I'm simply going to point out yet another egregious lie. The Heartland Institute has an annual budget of $6million. Honestly, can you not be honest about anything?! Or is it ignorance cowering behind a facade of rhetoric and insults?

Either way, you're a special little trooper!

Ta ta buttercup!

Wow. You used British-sounding slang. There's no way anyone not British could possibly do that. You seem legit. Just put your bollocks on the table, and I'll go get my hammer, ya bleedin' axe wound.

Oh, and words.... how about you go look up "lie"? I went back to TFA from THIS THREAD. (new window)

I went to TFA, as I said, and I found the following: "The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year." Arithmetic places their 2011 budget at about $4.5m. What is this $6 million you speak of? Could it be.....?
 
2012-03-04 09:26:34 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
What's worse, and very telling, is that you aren't even certain when you should be repeating these types of things. For example, when we identify unhealthy, paranoid thoughts in you (UN conspiracies, UFO cults), these are things that are, in fact, very unhealthy ways of looking at the world around you.

Reciting the U.N.'s literature and policy statement is NOT a "conspiracy theory." It takes a cognitive disorder to believe that taking the U.N. at their word is lunacy. What is wrong with you? And, just FYI, I am not a UFO cultist. Sorry to disappoint: I disavow all responsibility for your many failures to understand.

/ ... and what is it when someone sees false mental problems in others? (Well, projection in your case, but I mean in general.)
 
2012-03-04 09:27:57 AM  

GeneralJim: Wow. You used British-sounding slang. There's no way anyone not British could possibly do that. You seem leg


Wait, are you seriously implying now that EVERYONE who is arguing with you in this thread is an alt of Dr. Mojo PhD?

Oh man, you are just so entertainingly crazy. This thread keeps delivering the laughs.
 
2012-03-04 09:32:27 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Take your pick, you crazy farking diamond.


Err, I don't own a camera.
 
2012-03-04 09:53:40 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You know what else is a strong indicator? Your NEED to respond. You had me on ignore, Jim, and had to keep replying to me and addressing me anyway. I didn't have you on ignore, I'm free to pursue your ideas, and never claimed I wouldn't. But you made a big show -- dramatics are a hallmark of BPD, by the way -- of putting your "enemy"/enemies on ignore, and then responding to them anyway, while complaining loudly that Fark was somehow "broken" because you couldn't stop responding. You attempted to use the ignore feature to insulate you from negative stimulus, while compulsively being forced to respond to that negative stimulus anyway. That's extremely abnormal.

Well, you tosser, Fark's ignore IS broken, which you can discover for yourself. And, yeah, it's a morbid curiosity thing. From time to time, when I see headers showing you posted right after me, I take a look. I'd have preferred a fully-functional ignore.

And, asswipe, Fark's ignore feature is broken, not because I "can't stop responding," it's broken because it doesn't work. The problem is, one has the choice of seeing every message header, without the message, or having the counter on the "recent" section of the profile list all the ignored posts as "new" posts. Check it yourself, you insufferable jackass -- that's the way it is. I suppose you'd prefer to find someone in authority, and ask them if it's broken, or, better yet, take a poll of the mods, and THAT will tell you if it's broken. At least that approach would be consistent with your aberrant idea of what science is.

And, you have nothing to offer. Constant carping, creepy stalker behavior, and a constant stream of dire mental diagnosis doesn't substitute very well for a reasoned conversation. Do I need to point out that ANYONE of any professional standing would be utterly remiss to attempt a diagnosis from Fark posts? Well, yeah, probably to YOU. You're more like an infection than a personality. You're a rash on the body politic. But, I can't actually get away from your drivel, so the half-way thing just isn't doing it for me. Too bad the Fark ignore isn't working. Just more imperfection in an imperfect world.
 
2012-03-04 10:00:54 AM  

GeneralJim: I went to TFA, as I said, and I found the following: "The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year." Arithmetic places their 2011 budget at about $4.5m.


GeneralJim: When we had that "leak" of memos from the utterly inoccuous Heartland Institute, did you notice how their budget is about a million dollars a year?


So you're going to admit to being wrong... when, exactly?

A strong indicator of borderline personality disorder is the inability to admit wrongdoing even when caught doing so and an attempt to shift the scrutiny of the criticism onto another person, especially the accuser (blame shifting).
 
2012-03-04 10:13:41 AM  

GeneralJim: Reciting the U.N.'s literature and policy statement is NOT a "conspiracy theory."


Borderlines will frequently attempt to refocus criticism towards an innocuous event and act as if the criticism focuses on that event, rather than the event specified.

For example, a borderline female partner may attempt to hurt or make her partner jealous by fawning over a past lover. She will then criticize her partner for being upset because he knows "she has been with other people".

In another, totally hypothetical (of course) example, the (far rarer male) borderline may recite dry UN policy. The borderline will then read extensively into the policy, drawing wild, paranoid conclusions. If criticized on the wild conclusions he has drawn, he will act as if he is being criticized for the mere recitation, and not the wild interpretation.

GeneralJim: and what is it when someone sees false mental problems in others?


The borderline personality will frequently attempt to project their own failures onto others. For example, when confronting a psychologist, psychiatrist, other mental health professional, or knowledgeable family member or friend who has gone seeking answers for their behaviour, the borderline will (though totally unqualified to do so) begin to attempt to "diagnose" mental disorders in others, as seen here:

GeneralJim: The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way.



They will not be able to cite evidence or examples of behaviour. The evidence and examples of behaviour cited by qualified individuals towards them, however, will be summarily dismissed.

GeneralJim: (Well, projection in your case, but I mean in general.)


Borderlines will frequently mirror the behaviour of others in an attempt to adopt tone and authority they see as commanding respect. What often "commands respect" in the mind of the borderline is that which induces anxiety in them; if this is how others "feel power" over them, then surely by mimicking the behaviour they can feel power over others (this is not normal thinking, and borderlines frequently feel themselves in "power struggles" with others, including peers and even loved ones.)

For example, when accused earlier of particular behaviour (as in the previously cited paragraph), the borderline may project the faults back onto the accuser (or, more simply, the "NO U!" response). They may even do this when what they are projecting is projection itself, without a hint of irony.
 
2012-03-04 10:37:51 AM  

GeneralJim: Well, you tosser, Fark's ignore IS broken, which you can discover for yourself. And, yeah, it's a morbid curiosity thing. From time to time, when I see headers showing you posted right after me, I take a look. I'd have preferred a fully-functional ignore.


In what manner is it broken? Also, a "morbid curiosity thing" is a compulsion. Arguing that you don't suffer from a compulsion, you just suffer from a compulsion doesn't help your case.

GeneralJim: And, asswipe, Fark's ignore feature is broken, not because I "can't stop responding," it's broken because it doesn't work.


So you've suggested. How does it not work? You admit that it ignores people, and all you see is the headers. What's the problem?

GeneralJim: The problem is, one has the choice of seeing every message header, without the message, or having the counter on the "recent" section of the profile list all the ignored posts as "new" posts. Check it yourself, you insufferable jackass -- that's the way it is.


So it's not broken. It's just that it works "unfairly" towards you, and not up to your "standards".

Borderlines frequently see the world in terms of "fair" and "unfair", and things that frustrate them are "broken".

GeneralJim: I suppose you'd prefer to find someone in authority, and ask them if it's broken, or, better yet, take a poll of the mods, and THAT will tell you if it's broken. At least that approach would be consistent with your aberrant idea of what science is.


Borderlines also have a tendency to create unnecessary authority figures. This stems from what is theorized to be at the heart of borderline personality disorder, what is frequently referred to as the "core wound of abandonment". Essentially mommy/daddy issues (issues with the opposite-sex parent seen as narcissistic and uncaring, impairing proper sexual imprinting and issues of early childhood comfort that lead to life-long feels of being frustrated and alone, consequently soothed with grandiosity and self-importance).

Summarily, if seeing strong correlation between a person's behaviour of symptoms of borderline personality disorder, one might draw the conclusion that statements to "take a poll of the mods" is a demand to run to an authority figure for soothing and confirmation. The need for authority to soothe and comfort stems from a borderline's inability to engage in self-soothing.

GeneralJim: And, you have nothing to offer. Constant carping, creepy stalker behavior


Borderlines will frequently attempt to wage a "distortion campaign" against their targets, including vague accusations of crime or immoral behaviour. In this case, stalking. When asked repeatedly to cite what constitutes "stalking" in their mind, they will be unable to identify any actual symptoms of such behaviour, and simply ignore the request and repeat the claim.
 
2012-03-04 10:38:26 AM  

Zafler: Dr. Mojo PhD: Take your pick, you crazy farking diamond.

Err, I don't own a camera.


A cellphone with a camera, perhaps?
 
2012-03-04 10:55:20 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: You know, Mojo is a stalker jackass

This is another big hallmark of borderline personality disorder, the constant belief in victimization while attempting to denigrate others (it's called the distortion campaign). You've yet to point to a single example of stalking on my or anybody else's part. "Stalking" you seems to involve participating in a conversation with you on a public message board.

So, of course, your response to me saying you're a stalker is to stalk me harder, and do some more unrequested, ignorant mental diagnosis of me, whom you have never met? Nice. Nothing creepy about THAT at all. Nope. PERFECTLY normal.
 
2012-03-04 11:01:07 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: Poor Mojo. You haven't gotten a single thing about me right so far in this thread.

So you deny posting a link to a cover of Time magazine about an article titled "The Cooling of America", (an article which is, in fact, about fuel prices) in a global warming thread, in response to a person busting a photoshopped cover of Time touting a global ice age in the 70s which was never published, in an attempt to defend your and your ally's position that there was some "cooling hysteria" (which never existed) in the 1970s?

I seem to see a screenshot of that exact thing happening. Are you suggesting I forged the screenshot? And if I find the thread and link to it, will you somehow claim I hacked Fark?

Loo. Nah. Tick.

See? What a dumbass. I'm not "denying" anything you farkstick. A screenshot isn't from YOU. Another check mark in your "failed to understand" column. An unbroken record.

Another interesting note... The cooling hysteria being whipped back then? The result of the computer model of one James Hansen. Turns out he did modeling for Venus' atmosphere, and apparently kept too much of it in. In point of fact, a certain Hungarian NASA expert has examined the GCMs and found them filled with assumptions that would be true on Mars or Venus, but not on Earth.
 
2012-03-04 11:04:15 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: And, just FYFI, as part of the disability evaluation program, I was fully evaluated, including a shrink visit, and found dead-cold, boringly sane.

Masks of Sanity: Detecting Disguised Personality Disorders

Cause golly, that's hard to pull of.

Hoo, boy... So, now I'm crazy BECAUSE I was found mentally healthy? This is most amusing coming from the same skidmark calling me a conspiracy theorist because I believe what the U.N. has published and announced. Choice.
 
2012-03-04 11:08:24 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
I do love the mental imbalance on display here, again. I'm going to accuse you of something, accept no evidence that it's not true, and the only evidence I'll accept is an all-expenses paid junket by you. And if you don't take me up on it, YOU'RE stupid. YOU'RE an idiot.

TOTAL failure to understand. Nope, any time I say just about anything, there you are to either state or imply that I'm lying. I've offered to back any of my personal statements with a cash wager. When it comes to that, so far you have pussed. Apparently you know I'm not lying.

So, are you REALLY that dumb, or do you just play a retard on the 'Nets for the lulz?
 
2012-03-04 11:11:30 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
What you're alleging is a massive investment of a single individual's time and effort to conspire against you (and you personally) by pulling off the impossible. A person that invests virtually 24 hours a day to attack you constantly, who has established habits and entire personalities just to do this.

Wow, that would be NUTS, huh? Well, wait a minute... Just count your words ABOUT me, personally, in this thread alone, with only THIS alt. Why, THAT'S nuts, right there.

/... and, not at ALL stalker-like to follow me around with nothing but personal comments... nope. PERFECTLY normal.
 
2012-03-04 11:15:44 AM  

GeneralJim: So, of course, your response to me saying you're a stalker is to stalk me harder


Ah, we finally discover exactly what GeneralJim considers "stalking". Any reply to him whatsoever that he doesn't like!

That's normal behaviour. That's a normal thought for a normal person!

Post on a publicly-available message board that anybody can participate in (with the discretion of the private owner of the board and his agents). Did somebody reply to you? Yes? Did they say something you don't personally like? Yes? Stalking!

"Shut up because I say so! And if you don't you're bad! And if you reply it just proves you're bad! And I can keep replying to keep telling you you're bad, and that makes me ok, but if you reply to that, you guessed it, still bad!" -- again, totally normal thoughts from a totally grounded man. Actually, of course, this is completely childish behaviour. It's a childish attempt at "winning".

Remember when you were five and you used to mutter "homosaywhat" and when you're friend said "what" you'd tease him about being a homo? Yeah, children attempt to create imaginary "verbal contracts" where what they say goes, and if you contradict their completely arbitrary rules, it just proves what they say is true. It's cute. When they're five.

By the by, can anybody guess what personality disorder extremely childish behaviour such as this is a hallmark of? I'll give you a hint. It's starts with a "b" and ends with "orderline personality disorder."

GeneralJim: do some more unrequested, ignorant mental diagnosis of me


You mean exactly as you have done?

GeneralJim: The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way.



Is there a reason you believe you're "special", and you don't have to adhere to the norms of behaviour you demand of others?

Just more normal thoughts from General "Perfectly Sane, Really Guys!" Jim!

GeneralJim: whom you have never met?


Why is that a factor? Do I need to shake hands with you? Again, notice the attempt to redirect the conversation into an irrelevancy, as previously discussed here:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Borderlines will frequently attempt to refocus criticism towards an innocuous event and act as if the criticism focuses on that event, rather than the event specified.



I have interacted with GeneralJim hundreds of times through hundreds of individual threads over several years.

Jim wishes to have our attention drawn away from this fact, and act as if what's important to analyzing his years-long patterns of behaviour isn't constant interactions with an individual, but some vague, deliberately undisclosed "power" you can get from personally meeting somebody face to face.

Why, Jim? What about meeting somebody face-to-face to you believe would enhance several years of interacting with you? Can you explain that? Or, like everything else you're asked to explain, will you compulsively respond without addressing the topic of substance, instead couching your reply in anger, invective and, most tellingly, deflection?
 
2012-03-04 11:28:32 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Now, I can't speak for anybody else, Jim, but here's a little photo I took this morning while walking my dog to show you how crazy you are:

[i.imgur.com image 640x480]
Notice the "Mojo
The "YOURS TO DISCOVER" legend at the bottom of that plate and the font on the plate makes that an Ontario plate taken some time after 6:50 AM (a direct quote from your post timestamped at that time) and before 9:20 AM (the time of this post). Now, if any of my many other alts start throwing up personally signed, dated photos showing landmarks from multiple provinces, states, and countries, either we're capable of teleportation -- since even a supersonic jet couldn't get us around to all those places that fast, let alone with the airport gropings included -- or your lunatic theory is based on crazy thoughts in your head.

Take your pick, you crazy farking diamond.

If I were trying to prove that you're unstable, I'd be obliged to thank you for all the help.

So, wherever you are, you found what appears to be an Ontario Plate. Congratulations. Naturally, those are found ONLY in Ontario. And, of course, there's no way that someone else could take a photo in the world and get it to you within an hour or two. Mail delivery takes weeks, right? This is really funny in a guilty pleasure sort of way. Good to know you haven't, like, OBSESSED over it, or anything.

You wrote that out, (No printer there in the basement?) went out, photographed a license plate, and posted it, claiming that if other pictures from other places appear, it's proof of something. Does this posting behavior of yours seem normal to you?


rlv.zcache.com
The fact that it's spelled "Loonatic"
proves I'm in Canada, too!
 
2012-03-04 11:37:14 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: I went to TFA, as I said, and I found the following: "The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70% from last year." Arithmetic places their 2011 budget at about $4.5m.

GeneralJim: When we had that "leak" of memos from the utterly inoccuous Heartland Institute, did you notice how their budget is about a million dollars a year?

So you're going to admit to being wrong... when, exactly?

A strong indicator of borderline personality disorder is the inability to admit wrongdoing even when caught doing so and an attempt to shift the scrutiny of the criticism onto another person, especially the accuser (blame shifting).

I wouldn't want to disappoint you. Yeah, I misremembered the amount. In the previous thread, too. But, if I misremembered it, it isn't a lie. Oh, dear.
 
2012-03-04 11:47:49 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
In another, totally hypothetical (of course) example, the (far rarer male) borderline may recite dry UN policy. The borderline will then read extensively into the policy, drawing wild, paranoid conclusions. If criticized on the wild conclusions he has drawn, he will act as if he is being criticized for the mere recitation, and not the wild interpretation.


"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Ottmar Edenhofer,
co-chair, IPCC Working Group III,
lead author IPCC AR 4, 2007
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

/ Without interpretation, wild or otherwise...
 
2012-03-04 11:50:22 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Borderlines will frequently attempt to wage a "distortion campaign" against their targets, including vague accusations of crime or immoral behaviour. In this case, stalking. When asked repeatedly to cite what constitutes "stalking" in their mind, they will be unable to identify any actual symptoms of such behaviour, and simply ignore the request and repeat the claim.

Example: This post.
Example: Your previous post.
Example: Your post before your previous post.
Example: Rinse, repeat.
 
2012-03-04 11:51:45 AM  

GeneralJim: A screenshot isn't from YOU.


Uh, yes it is. I took that screenshot, and I posted it. Also, you don't seem to understand what I'm driving at, or you're deliberately trying to create as many arguments as possible -- this is called chaos making, and it's a hallmark of BPD as well. Anyway, you said "so because some people believe the moon landing was a hoax and they're crazy, people who believe global warming is a hoax must ALSO be crazy?"

It's a valid point Jim. You raised a valid criticism of that. Not all things that people believe are conspiracies are real, and that doesn't preclude one thing from being a conspiracy. Here's where you start to go off the rails, nutbar. I then point out that "because some people believe that global cooling was just hysteria doesn't mean that global warming is ALSO hysteria." And then I posted a screenshot of you running afoul of your own earlier, valid reasoning.

And now we get your typical "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING JERKFACE ASSBUTT!" screaming fit. Oddly, once again, without pointing out what exactly is wrong with that.

GeneralJim: Another interesting note... The cooling hysteria being whipped back then? The result of the computer model of one James Hansen. Turns out he did modeling for Venus' atmosphere


We know this Jim. I was one of the very people that pointed out to you. Remember that thread? Remember your stupid little story about the work James Hansen was doing in 1975?

GeneralJim: Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.


Remember when we had to come along and point out to you that in 1975 Hansen was modelling Venus? And one of the (many) people that pointed out to you that you were an idiot was me:

By the way, Jim... here's James Hansen's paper that S.I. Rasool used the model of. Notice something interesting? I'll give you a hint:
THE ATMOSPHERE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF VENUS
A DUST INSULATION MODEL


Remember that Jim? Remember when you claimed S.I. Rasool applying Hansen's Venus model on Earth meant that Hansen was a "cooling alarmist"? And we had to point out to you that you were, once again, so full of shiat your tear ducts were squirting diarrhea?

No, of course you don't remember that. Borderlines frequently dissociate. Anyway, it doesn't do much to help your case that you frequently abandon previously held positions and attempt to adopt the positions of your opponents, acting like knowledge you had to be exposed to is knowledge you've had all along (all while never admitting fault that you had to be educated by US, the ones who in your mind are always wrong).

There's something so incredibly surreal about arguing with a person so profoundly stupid they will tell you you're wrong, you will literally educate them, and a few weeks later they're repeating your own point back to in a lecturing "DID YOU KNOW?" tone trying to convince you you're wrong again. God you're a farking pathetic tool.
 
2012-03-04 11:59:33 AM  

GeneralJim: Good to know you haven't, like, OBSESSED over it, or anything.


Dr. Mojo PhD: I will claim that I am some sort of "master puppeteer" and some effortless two-second scribble job


God you're pathetic. Hours before your post I was literally able to predict that you'd consider the effort it takes to write and snap a digital photo while running an errand to be some sort of "power" on your part.

GeneralJim: You wrote that out, (No printer there in the basement?)


Dr. Mojo PhD: Each of these contains a personal message also containing different handwriting


Don't you find it sad and pathetic that you are so transparently insane that your opponents are able to predict precisely which mental defence mechanisms you'll use to insulate your fragile, paranoid ego?
 
2012-03-04 12:02:31 PM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: So, of course, your response to me saying you're a stalker is to stalk me harder

Ah, we finally discover exactly what GeneralJim considers "stalking". Any reply to him whatsoever that he doesn't like!

That's normal behaviour. That's a normal thought for a normal person!

Post on a publicly-available message board that anybody can participate in (with the discretion of the private owner of the board and his agents). Did somebody reply to you? Yes? Did they say something you don't personally like? Yes? Stalking!

And, of course, a stalker would no doubt say "What is stalking? I'm just walking on the public street, staying at least ten feet away from you, and that's stalking? Done that way? Yeah, it is.

"Shut up because I say so! And if you don't you're bad! And if you reply it just proves you're bad! And I can keep replying to keep telling you you're bad, and that makes me ok, but if you reply to that, you guessed it, still bad!" -- again, totally normal thoughts from a totally grounded man. Actually, of course, this is completely childish behaviour. It's a childish attempt at "winning".

Oh, you're trying to WIN. Okay then, you win. This is my last post this thread. Enjoy.

Remember when you were five and you used to mutter "homosaywhat" and when you're friend said "what" you'd tease him about being a homo? Yeah, children attempt to create imaginary "verbal contracts" where what they say goes, and if you contradict their completely arbitrary rules, it just proves what they say is true. It's cute. When they're five.

Nope, never did that. But, it DOES sound like you going on about what I need to do, and research, and blah, blah, blah, though. Coincidence?

By the by, can anybody guess what personality disorder extremely childish behaviour such as this is a hallmark of? I'll give you a hint. It's starts with a "b" and ends with "orderline personality disorder."

GeneralJim: do some more unrequested, ignorant mental diagnosis of me

You mean exactly as you have done?

GeneralJim: The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way.

Is there a reason you believe you're "special", and you don't have to adhere to the norms of behaviour you demand of others?

Just more normal thoughts from General "Perfectly Sane, Really Guys!" Jim!

GeneralJim: whom you have never met?

Why is that a factor? Do I need to shake hands with ...

Thanks for the FINE example of stalker behavior!

Oh, and noting that you consistently fail to understand similar situations is not psychoanalysis, or anything like it. Nice try, though... Now, why don't you run off to your Temple of Jim archives, and find someplace where I was throwing your Not-worth-a-Lucy-Pelt-nickel diagnosis back at you, and claim that I do it too. I'll wait, but, um, elsewhere.
 
2012-03-04 12:04:54 PM  
Oh, and how could I forget this:

GeneralJim: And, of course, there's no way that someone else could take a photo in the world and get it to you within an hour or two. Mail delivery takes weeks, right?


Dr. Mojo PhD: Therefore, my enemy has his own personal army.


Yeah, Jim. That's the ticket. What I -- being me, chimp ninja, Jon Snow, The Envoy, Zafler, etc. -- do is recruit outside sources to persecute you. Instead of recruiting these outsiders to actually post as each individual character, thus avoiding any type of massive behavioural tells, we keep them on ice for years, and drag them out to take quick snapshots. All for you.

Normal people thoughts for just another normal guy!
 
2012-03-04 12:12:03 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Nice try at deflection. However, this is NOT being done at the behest of "scientists," whomever you imagine them to be. This was ordered up special by the U.N. The goal is to enact draconian carbon legislation, through which they can redistribute the first world's wealth.

Wow. A whole bunch of nuttery there, but this stands out.
Where do you guys list your talking points? You really need to get out a memo, and get this one corrected. When the U.N. ADMITS that its goal with climate legislation is to re-distribute wealth, and calls it "economic justice," it really isn't "nuttery" to believe them, ESPECIALLY if the legislation proposed does just that. Where does this even come from?



It's more that the one bit of proof you use for this doesn't actually say what you claim it does. The point is more that with this particular environmental problem, since economic growth is currently so coupled with emissions, addressing development is a necessary component.

Besides this, there's some notable gaps in what you're talking about that aren't even addressed in that bit of "proof". First, the fact that, counter to your claim, the U.N. does not and cannot propose legislation. Second, the link or mechanism that you believe somehow allows the U.N.to affect a whole field of science. Third, the U.N. is a lar

There's a whole lot more in what you're claiming that can be justified by one single interview (that doesn't even say what you think it does). I'm sorry, but your claims do sound a bit nutty.
 
2012-03-04 12:18:44 PM  

GeneralJim: And, of course, a stalker would no doubt say "What is stalking? I'm just walking on the public street, staying at least ten feet away from you, and that's stalking? Done that way? Yeah, it is.


Of course they would, Jim. The difference is an actual stalker violates your boundaries, follows you constantly, that sort of thing. You seem to have an inability to distinguish this sort of behaviour.

See, first of all, this is a publicly available message board. Second, given your often late thread posting habits, you show up in these threads typically after most of us do. What kind of moron shows up where he knows other people are going to be and then claims they are stalking him? Oh, right. A farking lunatic. "THE DOCTORS IN THE ASYLUM ARE STALKING ME! THEY'RE ALWAYS HERE!"

See, Jim, this is your inability to discriminate between scenarios. Borderlines frequently lack social norms of behaviour, so they're unsure of what actually constitutes stalking. What you're doing is describing a guy who works near you taking the same bus as you every day as "stalking". That's idiocy. If you repeatedly scream at this guy on the bus that he's stalking you, you better believe he's going to tell you to eat a farking bag of dicks, Jim.

But to you, that's normal. The fact that he's not letting you scream at him and abuse him and call him a stalker for sharing a commonality with you and that has no bearing on you, personally, whatsoever (what actually constitutes stalking) is only "proof" that he's a stalker.

That's, um, psycho.

GeneralJim: Oh, you're trying to WIN. Okay then, you win. This is my last post this thread. Enjoy.


Oh look, more projection. How utterly and totally unforeseen.

GeneralJim: But, it DOES sound like you going on about what I need to do, and research


Wow Jim, people expect you to provide evidence for your assertions. That's definitely childish behaviour right there. Nope, totally not projecting your faults onto others are anything. Just more normal thoughts for normal people.

GeneralJim: Thanks for the FINE example of stalker behavior!


So now "stalking you" has expanded from "any reply to me I don't like" to "referencing I post I made ADDRESSED TO YOU an hour and fifteen minutes earlier".

Boy, the more you try to prove you're a mentally healthy individual, the more I see it, personally. How did I never understand before that if I quoted you replying to me in a subsequent reply to you, that was "stalking".

You know borderlines will frequently try to convince you they're mentally healthy and that you're the crazy one while they're going nuts, right?
 
2012-03-04 12:23:49 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: lokisbong:
No there are people right here on Fark claiming climate scientists get rich from "pushing the AGW scam" by way of the grants they receive. I won't go search out these comments but I have read them in the last month.

You are probably remembering some warmer "pretending" to be a skeptic, and actually BECOMING the straw man.


Ahem.

GeneralJim: And, no, despite the efforts of douchebags like you to portray MY position, there are only a few scientists getting rich. (Doesn't $10 million seem like a large lab fund? What has happened is that the amount of research money has increased 20-fold
Why do you warmer 'tards all share cognitive disorders? It looks like Phil Jones got an extra ten million... but, one guy is not "all the scientists getting rich." I can tell you, I can repeat it for you, but I simply cannot understand it for you.



This is the sort of thing that precipitates me and others calling you dishonest. You're now talking about "all the scientists getting rich", while the claim you're addressing (and your own past post proving yourself wrong) makes no such qualifier. In addition, you're now directly contradicting yourself as you now claim you meant "one guy", when your past comment mentioned "a few". I'm sorry, but this sort of blatant self-contradiction and misrepresentation either means you're having trouble reading, or you're being somewhat dishonest.

Like it or not, the claim that "climate scientists get rich from "pushing the AGW scam" by way of the grants they receive" is something you yourself have expressed in the past - it isn't a straw man.
 
2012-03-04 12:44:14 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The problems with your claim that these posts point out remain, even though you've ignored them.
This paper has the magic peer-review juju. You want this to be removed? Tough shiat. You start complaining when people use Oreskes' paper, and maybe I'll listen. At least I'm interpreting this one correctly -- Oreskes as the "97% of climatologists agree" is simply bad reading, by ALL of you.



This is exactly what I mean when I accuse of dishonestly ignoring criticism and scientific evidence. Surely even you can see the problem with simply pretending that serious faults with a claim don't exist. This is the sort of thing that suggests you're approaching this topic like an irrational zealot instead of some sort of rational 'skeptic'. That aside, that you believe problems exist with other papers does not somehow mean that the problems with your claims somehow magically don't count. Further dishonesty is suggested by your reliance on some sort of straw-man of "magic peer-review juju" - you're aware of the problems with such a standard and are dishonestly and hypocritically relying on it yourself.

Further proof that suggests you're a bit decoupled from the actual evidence is the fact you aren't even getting the basics right in regards to the paper you're trying to criticize. Oreskes, contrary to your claim, did not say that "97% of climatologists agree". You're mixing up her paper with Doran & Zimmerman 2009 (which is the source of that 97.4% number you're thinking of). In other words, no you are definitely not "interpreting this one correctly".

Let's see if you further prove me right by also ignoring this basic mistake in your claim, as you do with the others. Actually attempting to present some sort of counter-argument (or to argue against Oreskes' paper) would be a far better choice. Let's see what you choose to do.
 
2012-03-04 12:48:44 PM  

GeneralJim:
Close enough... water hanging in the air. It's part of the process.



We pretty much ARE out of carbon dioxide. Less than 400 PPM. So far, the planet's response has been to evolve creatures who take carbon dioxide out of sequestration. Let's hope nothing more drastic is needed.



You hold yourself out to be the protector of science and the scientific method, and when you make an obvious error that a five year old would understand, your response is, "close enough"

That's almost as funny as you claiming that there is a fixed amount of carbon dioxide and that we're almost out of it.


/how much did you pay that shrink to pass you?
 
2012-03-04 12:50:57 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Seriously, tell someone you know in real life about all these alts you think are trying to smear you and see what kind of reaction you get and what they think about it. While you're at it, tell them about the U.N. conspiracy stuff too. A reality check from a friend can be useful sometimes.
You know, Mojo is a stalker jackass, but you really are the least honest, most condescending, and generally just UGLY-spirited of all the warmer alarmist gang.

Oh, and nobody has an alt. Right. Believing published mission statements, and policy statements from the freaking vice-chair of the IPCC is crazy. Yeah, right. Dumbass. Get some new material; this shiat is WAY stale.



I'm not saying that "nobody has an alt". However, it's a far cry from that to believing that quite a few, if not most of the people responding to you in a thread is in fact one person who's stalking you and out to smear you. In addition, as I've stated before, your conspiracy goes far beyond what can be justified by a single interview (the "published mission statements" is something newer that you should probably back up in some way).

I'm just suggesting you tell someone you know about this in real life to get their take on it - if you dare. That's all.
 
2012-03-04 12:53:54 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: And, of course, a stalker would no doubt say "What is stalking? I'm just walking on the public street, staying at least ten feet away from you, and that's stalking? Done that way? Yeah, it is.

Of course they would, Jim. The difference is an actual stalker violates your boundaries, follows you constantly, that sort of thing. You seem to have an inability to distinguish this sort of behaviour.

See, first of all, this is a publicly available message board. Second, given your often late thread posting habits, you show up in these threads typically after most of us do. What kind of moron shows up where he knows other people are going to be and then claims they are stalking him? Oh, right. A farking lunatic. "THE DOCTORS IN THE ASYLUM ARE STALKING ME! THEY'RE ALWAYS HERE!"

See, Jim, this is your inability to discriminate between scenarios. Borderlines frequently lack social norms of behaviour, so they're unsure of what actually constitutes stalking. What you're doing is describing a guy who works near you taking the same bus as you every day as "stalking". That's idiocy. If you repeatedly scream at this guy on the bus that he's stalking you, you better believe he's going to tell you to eat a farking bag of dicks, Jim.

But to you, that's normal. The fact that he's not letting you scream at him and abuse him and call him a stalker for sharing a commonality with you and that has no bearing on you, personally, whatsoever (what actually constitutes stalking) is only "proof" that he's a stalker.

That's, um, psycho.

GeneralJim: Oh, you're trying to WIN. Okay then, you win. This is my last post this thread. Enjoy.

Oh look, more projection. How utterly and totally unforeseen.

GeneralJim: But, it DOES sound like you going on about what I need to do, and research

Wow Jim, people expect you to provide evidence for your assertions. That's definitely childish behaviour right there. Nope, totally not projecting your faults onto others are anything. Just more normal ...




That entire exchange was just so awesome. And you wonder why people sponsor you for totalfark?
 
2012-03-04 12:59:38 PM  

GeneralJim: ... And, Fark mercifully cuts off your blather here. Okay, how about you authorize me to research your alt status? Okay? Get your little buddies to sign on, too. I keep trying to make you pay some money for your idiocy... so far, no takers.

I do like when I mentioned that Envoy was probably one of Monkey Boy's alts -- He blubblered something to the effect of "How could you say that? We use different syntax and word choices." Yeah, that is EXACTLY what someone would say if falsely accused... "How could you tell? I used different syntax and word choices" is more like it.

The reason I can tell? There are common cognitive disorders. Your brains all malfunction in the same way. That is rather amazingly unlikely. Occam's razor suggests that someone with the self-loathing "you all" share would try to puff themselves up in some way. ITG, and all. Or, become a one-man crowd, and get a giant circle-suck going, all agreeing on the bad man who actually presents real science, and points out the LACK of it on your side, despite all the organizations of scientists who support you.



Criminy. You really are close to stepping off the edge here. Come back after a break and read this to yourself - the somewhat circular thinking, the misuse of Occam's razor to state the exact opposite of what it would suggest, the perception of persecution. This isn't good.
 
2012-03-04 01:03:56 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-03-04 01:06:02 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: This is the sort of thing that precipitates me and others calling you dishonest. You're now talking about "all the scientists getting rich", while the claim you're addressing (and your own past post proving yourself wrong) makes no such qualifier. In addition, you're now directly contradicting yourself as you now claim you meant "one guy", when your past comment mentioned "a few". I'm sorry, but this sort of blatant self-contradiction and misrepresentation either means you're having trouble reading, or you're being somewhat dishonest.


Of course, we know this isn't the first time our little UFO cultist has done this, either. The infamous chimp_ninja partial pressure exchange, which ended with Jim claiming c_n didn't know a can of coke was pressurized (it was written in c_n's post) and THAT is why he posted the "atmosphere as dense as wood" paper -- to "troll" him for not knowing soda was under pressure -- and then his epic meltdown when it was pointed out that, in fact, he knew exactly that and was the one who pointed it out to Jim, so what would Jim's excuse be for believing he needed to be trolled?

And then there's this thread, where he tries to lecture me on the fact that James Hansen made a Venus climate model. A few weeks ago, when he tried to claim Hansen's 70's research caused a "cooling panic", we had to point out that Hansen had modeled Venus, not Earth, and that Rasool applied Hansen's Venusian model to Earth and published the paper Jim made reference to.

He admitted no fault on his part, for either a) being woefully ignorant on the subject he pontificates at length about or b) attempting to fault Hansen for somebody else entirely using his work inappropriately, and attempted to act as if one of the very people that had to point this out to him needed to be "educated" on the fact that mere weeks ago, he wasn't even aware of, and now tries to incorporate into his arguments.

It's beyond dishonesty at this point. It's insanity, and it's farking surreal.
 
2012-03-04 01:13:20 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Damnhippyfreak: This is the sort of thing that precipitates me and others calling you dishonest. You're now talking about "all the scientists getting rich", while the claim you're addressing (and your own past post proving yourself wrong) makes no such qualifier. In addition, you're now directly contradicting yourself as you now claim you meant "one guy", when your past comment mentioned "a few". I'm sorry, but this sort of blatant self-contradiction and misrepresentation either means you're having trouble reading, or you're being somewhat dishonest.

Of course, we know this isn't the first time our little UFO cultist has done this, either. The infamous chimp_ninja partial pressure exchange, which ended with Jim claiming c_n didn't know a can of coke was pressurized (it was written in c_n's post) and THAT is why he posted the "atmosphere as dense as wood" paper -- to "troll" him for not knowing soda was under pressure -- and then his epic meltdown when it was pointed out that, in fact, he knew exactly that and was the one who pointed it out to Jim, so what would Jim's excuse be for believing he needed to be trolled?

And then there's this thread, where he tries to lecture me on the fact that James Hansen made a Venus climate model. A few weeks ago, when he tried to claim Hansen's 70's research caused a "cooling panic", we had to point out that Hansen had modeled Venus, not Earth, and that Rasool applied Hansen's Venusian model to Earth and published the paper Jim made reference to.

He admitted no fault on his part, for either a) being woefully ignorant on the subject he pontificates at length about or b) attempting to fault Hansen for somebody else entirely using his work inappropriately, and attempted to act as if one of the very people that had to point this out to him needed to be "educated" on the fact that mere weeks ago, he wasn't even aware of, and now tries to incorporate into his arguments.

It's beyond dishonesty at this point. It's insanity, and it's farking surreal.



Huh. I'm very close to convinced on this last point from looking at his exchanges with you in this thread. As much as I disagree with the guy, I don't want to make his mental situation any worse (it's the reason why I've left chuckufarlie alone). Do you think me pushing him on this stuff could be harmful from a mental health standpoint?
 
Displayed 50 of 504 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report