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.

(Reuters)   China's ships frozen in coldest global warming in 30 years   (reuters.com) divider line 172
    More: Amusing, global warming, square kilometres, China Daily, Shandong Province, China Meteorological Administration, loading  
•       •       •

12302 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-07 05:44:35 PM

Zafler: thamike: Oh look, the green wall of text is off hiatus.

What gets me, is that he's still around while the doctor with the magic, that based their assessments, of both people and issues, on established observations, has been hit with the delete-o-tron 5000.


Well this place is run by alcoholic hillbillies in Hawaiian shirts.
 
2013-01-07 05:51:06 PM

HighZoolander: Permanently?
That's just not right.


Seems to be, his posts are gone, and only the posts quoting him still exist. Apparently rubbing peoples noses into their own stupidity using logic and citations is frowned upon.
 
2013-01-07 05:59:13 PM

Zafler: HighZoolander: Permanently?
That's just not right.

Seems to be, his posts are gone, and only the posts quoting him still exist. Apparently rubbing peoples noses into their own stupidity using logic and citations is frowned upon.


Damn. I know I hadn't seen him post for a while, but didn't suspect it might be official and it didn't occur to me that the old posts might have been disappeared. It's sad - he was truly a master of his craft.
 
2013-01-07 08:42:11 PM

Zafler: HighZoolander: Permanently?
That's just not right.

Seems to be, his posts are gone, and only the posts quoting him still exist. Apparently rubbing peoples noses into their own stupidity using logic and citations is frowned upon.


I think what gets the attention of the people who run places in general is complaints. It may be that the squeaky wheel got the grease - as in one or more people complained loudly and enough times. All we can do is be vigilant ourselves - if one thinks someone is violating the posting rules, one should report it.
 
2013-01-07 09:11:00 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: And, you lying sack

GeneralJim calling someone else a liar is like a can of lard calling a toothpick fat.

/good jorb, you lying blowhole

I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.
 
2013-01-07 09:14:19 PM

GeneralJim: I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.


LOL ... I have never seen you be honest. Your career choice of "Paid Shill" takes honesty off the table.
 
2013-01-07 09:20:23 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: And, you lying sack

GeneralJim calling someone else a liar is like a can of lard calling a toothpick fat.

/good jorb, you lying blowhole
I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.


Well, I've got at least a couple of examples in this very thread - I'm sure you'll get to them eventually.
 
2013-01-07 09:26:56 PM

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.

LOL ... I have never seen you be honest. Your career choice of "Paid Shill" takes honesty off the table.



Feel free to repost this if you need it in the future:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.

 
2013-01-07 09:32:42 PM
Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.
 
2013-01-08 12:28:33 AM

Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.


Damnhippyfreak: Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.

LOL ... I have never seen you be honest. Your career choice of "Paid Shill" takes honesty off the table.


Feel free to repost this if you need it in the future:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.


What's even sadder is that he thinks you should apologize for forcing him to lie - of course he didn't want to do it, he just had to, because the Urantia book teaches respect for science, or something...
 
2013-01-08 12:37:21 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Zafler: HighZoolander: Permanently?
That's just not right.

Seems to be, his posts are gone, and only the posts quoting him still exist. Apparently rubbing peoples noses into their own stupidity using logic and citations is frowned upon.

I think what gets the attention of the people who run places in general is complaints. It may be that the squeaky wheel got the grease - as in one or more people complained loudly and enough times. All we can do is be vigilant ourselves - if one thinks someone is violating the posting rules, one should report it.


I would not be at all surprised if this is what happened - I saw at least one scrubbed thread while it was still open, and he'd referred to another. I can understand the desire to curb verbal abuse (as amusing as it was), but I'm not sure fark will be a better place when idiots and racists are the majority of people left posting though - and a lot of people he got into it with really should have been embarrassed by what they were posting (he just had his own way of guaranteeing it).
 
2013-01-08 12:39:10 AM

Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.


He may just be tired after the load of derp he dropped in the other thread -

GeneralJim: derp derp derp

 
2013-01-08 01:03:23 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: And, you lying sack, here's the deal....

- The planet is very cold right now.
- The planet is COOLING off at a reasonable time scale, the last 8000 years, preparatory to yet another major glaciation.
- Some 450 years ago, we had a large cold spell, the "little ice age," or LIA, after the medieval warm period.
- Despite lies by a couple of researchers, many studies have shown this LIA to have been global.
- Since around 300 years ago, we have been warming up after the LIA.
- With all the known cycles filtered out, the temperature rise has been 0.76 K/century
- The rate has not increased noticeably over the run-up, and in fact, was much steeper just after A.D. 1700.
- You are claiming that this run up USED to be natural, but is now man-made.

And you have the balls to claim that looking before the industrial revolution is dishonest? Really? How do you get in a car with those things? Let's look at the data...

You insist that we ONLY look at the information in the black box above. Really?

VERY clearly, one can see the 1600-year cycle as a crisp sine wave. The part within the rectangle, in context, can be seen as part of the normal cycle. And, I note that the little segment in the rectangle has only about 1/3 the rise of a whole cycle.

In visual form, THIS is why it is necessary to look at more time than just since the beginning of the industrial revolution to evaluate any potential anthropogenic effects on temperature. If one leaves this vital information out, one is being less than honest, and most likely misleading. And, if one not only refuses to present this vital information, AND accuses anyone who points it out of dishonesty, well, that's dickery of the first order.


Again, you're just throwing random stuff out there in an attempt to change the subject, while misrepresenting what I've claimed while doing so. Yet again, none of this counters what I've said. I'll point out yet again that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

I am getting mighty sick of your lying, and your utter stupidity, whether it is is faked stupidity, or whether you come by it naturally.

If the natural pattern of climate indicates that what is happening today is not only normal, but EXPECTED, that is not "random stuff." It goes to the very heart of the alarmist argument -- that "something horrible is happening" and that "we have to fix it." If there is nothing going on which is not part of nature, y'all can bugger off. And, when one looks at a large enough picture, exactly that pattern emerges.

I also note, you braying ass, that the timeline you objected to was one showing hundreds of millions of years. The one illustrated, and to which you are replying here, is only two thousand years. So, once again, THANK YOU for proving my arguments on the subject of your perfidy. You simply biatch at ANY time frame which is not the pre-programmed one selected to put AGW in the best possible light. Lots of people cherry-pick time frames to support their contentions. However, you are the only person I can recall who insists that everyone else use their cherry-picked range.

The "warming" we have now is not, really, a warming at all. It is a recovery from an extra-cold time, and in no way has been shown to be altering the longer perspective, which is that we are on an 8000 year cooling streak, and headed for another major glaciation. And, since the cycle is 1600 years, no way is a 150 year slice going to show it.

And, unless you are going to claim that atmospheric physics changes in the presence of humans, it makes no difference if people were present or not. Furthermore, that whole argument is, typically, dishonest to the point of being a lie, because humans WERE present continuously for the last two thousand years, and for considerable time before the graph I presented even starts.

So, in summary:

Your point is invalid. Looking at even five hundred years shows that current warming is natural, and started well BEFORE carbon dioxide was released by mankind
.
Looking at about two thousand years shows that this is part of a 1600-year cycle which is VERY normal. If we were NOT warming back up now, we would be in trouble. Well, we are still in trouble -- should we survive another thousand or two years, we WILL be dealing with either a major glaciation, or some incredible new technology developed to forestall that major glaciation.

Now, since I have so thoroughly debunked this argument, since you gripe about this subject, I expect that you will never bring it up again. Right? Or, perhaps, is that yet another of those rules of debate which apply to your opponents, but not to you?

In all our conversations, you have the same pattern. Total dishonesty, and continual claims that you don't understand the simple points being made. You're a Tar Baby. So, this is my last post to you in this thread. I have many more important things to do than point out the constant stream of errors from a troll who is most likely a paid shill here just to gum up the works. I have to organize my sock drawer, for one. So, I'll deal with you in some future thread, at least until you start the same shiat again. I recently experimented with the ignore feature, and while I am no longer using it, I DO look back fondly on the time I did not get your ridiculous posts. So welcome to virtual ignore. Bye now.
 
2013-01-08 01:08:50 AM
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.

LOL ... I have never seen you be honest. Your career choice of "Paid Shill" takes honesty off the table.

Don't you know what "example" means? You got nothing.

And, no I don't get paid to do this. But, as always, if someone out there wants to pay me for this, I'm available. Thanks for the ad.
 
2013-01-08 01:11:18 AM
Zafler:
Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.

Did someone mention a ban? Not of alts, obviously. You can't tell me there are two out there with the same cognitive disorder, and the same fascination with timestamps over content.
 
2013-01-08 01:13:10 AM

GeneralJim: Don't you know what "example" means? You got nothing.



yet another lie from a lying liar.

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.

 
2013-01-08 01:31:23 AM

GeneralJim: I am getting mighty sick of your lying, and your utter stupidity, whether it is is faked stupidity, or whether you come by it naturally.

If the natural pattern of climate indicates that what is happening today is not only normal, but EXPECTED, that is not "random stuff." It goes to the very heart of the alarmist argument -- that "something horrible is happening" and that "we have to fix it." If there is nothing going on which is not part of nature, y'all can bugger off. And, when one looks at a large enough picture, exactly that pattern emerges.

I also note, you braying ass, that the timeline you objected to was one showing hundreds of millions of years. The one illustrated, and to which you are replying here, is only two thousand years. So, once again, THANK YOU for proving my arguments on the subject of your perfidy. You simply biatch at ANY time frame which is not the pre-programmed one selected to put AGW in the best possible light. Lots of people cherry-pick time frames to support their contentions. However, you are the only person I can recall who insists that everyone else use their cherry-picked range.

The "warming" we have now is not, really, a warming at all. It is a recovery from an extra-cold time, and in no way has been shown to be altering the longer perspective, which is that we are on an 8000 year cooling streak, and headed for another major glaciation. And, since the cycle is 1600 years, no way is a 150 year slice going to show it.

And, unless you are going to claim that atmospheric physics changes in the presence of humans, it makes no difference if people were present or not. Furthermore, that whole argument is, typically, dishonest to the point of being a lie, because humans WERE present continuously for the last two thousand years, and for considerable time before the graph I presented even starts.



You're missing the point. The idea is that throwing out a series of unrelated arguments does not somehow invalidate or affect in any way the counter-argument that I put forward. How does any of this inform the idea that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal".


GeneralJim: So, in summary:

Your point is invalid. Looking at even five hundred years shows that current warming is natural, and started well BEFORE carbon dioxide was released by mankind
.
Looking at about two thousand years shows that this is part of a 1600-year cycle which is VERY normal. If we were NOT warming back up now, we would be in trouble. Well, we are still in trouble -- should we survive another thousand or two years, we WILL be dealing with either a major glaciation, or some incredible new technology developed to forestall that major glaciation.

Now, since I have so thoroughly debunked this argument, since you gripe about this subject, I expect that you will never bring it up again. Right? Or, perhaps, is that yet another of those rules of debate which apply to your opponents, but not to you?

In all our conversations, you have the same pattern. Total dishonesty, and continual claims that you don't understand the simple points being made. You're a Tar Baby. So, this is my last post to you in this thread. I have many more important things to do than point out the constant stream of errors from a troll who is most likely a paid shill here just to gum up the works. I have to organize my sock drawer, for one. So, I'll deal with you in some future thread, at least until you start the same shiat again. I recently experimented with the ignore feature, and while I am no longer using it, I DO look back fondly on the time I did not get your ridiculous posts. So welcome to virtual ignore. Bye now.


people.virginia.edu

Again, this makes no sense. The idea that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal" because...."looking at even five hundred years shows that current warming is natural, and started well BEFORE carbon dioxide was released by mankind"?

None of what you've said is mutually exclusive or even attempts to address the counter-argument I put forward. I'm sorry but it does look like you're trying to change the subject.
 
2013-01-08 01:39:41 AM

HighZoolander: Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.

Damnhippyfreak: Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: I see you've backed up your claim with the typical amount of support -- not a damned thing. Piss off, you ignoranus. As always, point out just ONE example of me lying, or STFU.

LOL ... I have never seen you be honest. Your career choice of "Paid Shill" takes honesty off the table.


Feel free to repost this if you need it in the future:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.

What's even sadder is that he thinks you should apologize for forcing him to lie - of course he didn't want to do it, he just had to, because the Urantia book teaches respect for science, or something...



One thing I will miss about the guy you mentioned (besides his dynamic posting style) is his experience in dealing with people with mental health issues:

"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)."

Hopefully he made it over to banniNation or something.
 
2013-01-08 02:19:36 AM

GeneralJim: You're a Tar Baby. So, this is my last post to you in this thread. I have many more important things to do than point out the constant stream of errors from a troll who is most likely a paid shill here just to gum up the works. I have to organize my sock drawer, for one. So, I'll deal with you in some future thread, at least until you start the same shiat again. I recently experimented with the ignore feature, and while I am no longer using it, I DO look back fondly on the time I did not get your ridiculous posts. So welcome to virtual ignore. Bye now.


I would argue that this does not represent much of a change at all. You just skipped the post where I pointed out the blatant falsehood you put forward about the IPCC review of climate sensitivity, you're ignoring the counter-argument you're supposedly responding to in your post, and you apparently will ignore the later post where I catch you in even more lies. Ignoring my posts and the information within is what you tend to do already.

I'm sorry, but to maintain the claims that you do already requires an vigorous and deliberate avoidance of information on your part - a sort of pro-active ignorance. What you're stating is just more of the same.
 
2013-01-08 06:57:29 AM

GeneralJim: Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.
Did someone mention a ban? Not of alts, obviously. You can't tell me there are two out there with the same cognitive disorder, and the same fascination with timestamps over content.


is that you LordAgent?
 
2013-01-09 12:59:07 AM
uttertosh:
GeneralJim: Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.

Did someone mention a ban? Not of alts, obviously. You can't tell me there are two out there with the same cognitive disorder, and the same fascination with timestamps over content.

is that you LordAgent?

No, but it's a reasonable call. He puts OTHERS' text in green.
 
2013-01-09 04:28:52 AM

GeneralJim: uttertosh: GeneralJim: Zafler: Uhoh, you guys posted, now he's bailing on the thread for 3 to 4 hours.

Did someone mention a ban? Not of alts, obviously. You can't tell me there are two out there with the same cognitive disorder, and the same fascination with timestamps over content.

is that you LordAgent?
No, but it's a reasonable call. He puts OTHERS' text in green.


Ah, my mistake. Carry on! :-)
 
Displayed 22 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report