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.

(National Geographic)   Thanks to global warming December showers bring January flowers   (news.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, global warming, flowers, plants, U.S., degree Fahrenheit, degree Celsius, Henry David Thoreau, University of Alaska  
•       •       •

1943 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Jan 2013 at 3:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-18 09:01:50 PM  
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: Every time there is a cold weather event, ignorant Fark scienticians (people lots smarter than YOU) come out in force and make the thread probably a double-digit percentage of posts pointing out "weather =/= climate." But, with a warm weather event, none of that is mentioned -- at least by the scienticians. Did you get it this time?

This is a blatant lie (surprise, surprise). I will personally post a correction to anyone who is equating a weather event with climate - warmer or colder. And I am very far from the only person.

And I would say it is 50:50 as to which way it goes.

/have you ever posted anything that wasn't a lie??

Well, sure... I don't pass on known misinformation with the intent to mislead. Let's take the statement quoted above... You are claiming that is a lie, you liar. I went through the list of threads in which I have posted, and the first one I noticed which referred to a warm event was THIS ONE. The first dozen comments are at least half about various AGW things -- sunscreen in March, and planting grapefruit. You don't correct any of those, and only make one veiled reference to a weather system not being climate -- but in a post telling someone they are wrong to suggest that the U.S. does not have climate.

Looks to me like the first example proves you a liar. Whoops. So, you have made a specific claim of me lying, and are, at very least, wrong. Most likely, you're lying, I'd say. So, this false claim of lying is what -- chaff you throw when you're lying to try to deflect attention? If so, I don't think it's working very well.
 
2013-01-18 09:08:10 PM  

GeneralJim: I don't pass on known misinformation with the intent to mislead.


Liar! That's exactly what you do, you farking liar.

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement. The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW, as Monkey Boy had been claiming. I knew that you would NEVER correct him, unless I set up a situation in which you could prove me wrong by doing so. So, now you have announced that Oreskes' survey has NOTHING to do with the support of scientists. Thank you. And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary.


What other lies did someone else 'force' you to make?
 
2013-01-18 09:16:18 PM  

GeneralJim: kingoomieiii:

In the real world, global climate change is, bear with me here, not up for debate between actual scientists and farking internet commenters.


So there's no room for ignorami such as, for example, patent clerks, to have any say at all? They should shut their whore mouths?

www.redorbit.com
Vat a putz, that kingoomieiii!


There's that tendency of yours to try to read minds again. That's not at all what kingoomieiii said.

That aside, I have the impression that Einstein was more of a physicist than a patent clerk. Certainly with more formal training, expertise, and access to where the actual science is done and discussed as opposed to most of the "internet commenters" out there. Put it this way - his ideas became important because of the papers he published, less so because of the conversations he had with random people in pubs.


GeneralJim: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

The currently used climate models are being proved wrong by the planet, as we speak. They are wrong.


The bit that kingoomieiii quoted still applies:

kingoomieiii: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Issac Asimov

 
2013-01-18 09:20:39 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Second, if your concern is about the validity of dendro-based proxies, we can actually see what sort of effect they have. From Mann et al. 2008 again:

Mann is a fraud. And any display of "data" that has been processed by a Mann "adjustment" should be thrown out. What does the temperature history for 2000 years look like? Look to the simple data from a bunch (18 in this case) of studies, averaged out. No "adjustment" from secret programs, no goddam bureaucrats, like Mann, farking with the data, just take the data from the studies, and average it. If one does this, one gets:

www.worldclimatereport.com
(from Loehle, 2007)


That does NOT compare well with the presentation made by Mann in the 2001 IPCC report:

www.roanokeslant.org



But, oddly enough, looks VERY much like what the IPCC was saying BEFORE Mann's fraudulent graph:

www.realclimate.org
 
2013-01-18 09:25:29 PM  

GeneralJim: We are cooling off, headed to another major glaciation.


On a geologic time-scale, yes we are nearing the end of the warm period and the earth will likely head into cooling over the next few thousand years. That will not help us over the next 300 years when man's massive contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to cook the everliving shiat out of us.

In typical denier fashion you take irrelevant facts and try to muddy the waters of the current situation. Who cares if 100 generations from now the earth is going to be cooler ... the current science says the next few hundred years is going to be increasing in global temperature/energy and is going to cause a lot of financial and human hardship. And it is clear that our massive contribution of greenhouse gasses is the cause.

Maybe in 5k years we will be intentionally pumping CO2 into the air to try to raise the temperature ... that is a problem that future generations will solve. The problem we need to address now is the damages and destruction expected over the next 200 years.

So shove your irrelevant time-scale graphs back up where they belong and stop peddling the endless "delay action" propaganda of your corporate masters.
 
2013-01-18 09:28:57 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
First and most importantly, TFA isn't making the case for the existence of a warming trend or trying to quantify its rate, something where the idea of "weather =/= climate" would come up. Although you're still somewhat hung up on the very existence of anthropogenic climate change, this isn't the case in the scientific literature. Much research, such as the one talked about in TFA, is instead looking at its effects.

And, as a practicing scientician, doesn't that whole "Skip seeing if it exists, let's catalog the effects" process bother you... just a tad?

Also, you're lying AGAIN. I have reiterated MANY times that I buy the whole thing -- EXCEPT that the initial estimates of the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide were WAY too high. This means AGW is real, as I have repeatedly said, but of such small amplitude that it is a mere scientific curiosity. "By golly, will you look at this? People have managed to warm the planet a whole 0.4 K!" (Or whatever the exact amount is.)

That's all fine, except that the REALITY of the amount is insufficient to drive the climate panic industry, which is herding us to huge new taxes "to save the planet." So, rather than deal with the reality, the data are being fudged, crap graphing programs are being used, peer-review has been subverted, and the careers and credentials of any not going along with the scam are being threatened. It is turning the grand lady of science into a gutter whore, and for a really ugly and nasty pimp, too. And, you're playing YOUR part in this.
 
2013-01-18 09:32:56 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:
But what if we're interested in a medium-term trend? Something that, say, happens over the course of a few centuries instead of a few years or a few millennia?

Fine. Then factor OUT the longer term trends -- like the 400 years of warming we've been having. If you don't do that, you're either deliberately misleading people with your off-kilter results, or you are so COLOSSALLY ignorant that anything you say should be ignored. So, which is it?
 
2013-01-18 09:46:32 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Second, if your concern is about the validity of dendro-based proxies, we can actually see what sort of effect they have. From Mann et al. 2008 again:
Mann is a fraud. And any display of "data" that has been processed by a Mann "adjustment" should be thrown out. What does the temperature history for 2000 years look like? Look to the simple data from a bunch (18 in this case) of studies, averaged out. No "adjustment" from secret programs, no goddam bureaucrats, like Mann, farking with the data, just take the data from the studies, and average it. If one does this, one gets:

[www.worldclimatereport.com image 531x314]
(from Loehle, 2007)

That does NOT compare well with the presentation made by Mann in the 2001 IPCC report:

[www.roanokeslant.org image 360x249]


But, oddly enough, looks VERY much like what the IPCC was saying BEFORE Mann's fraudulent graph:

[www.realclimate.org image 507x247]


First of all, Mann has never committed fraud, you farking liar.

Second of all, you're putting your weight behind that Loehle paper? Maybe you should at least read his 2008 correction of that paper? Link

even though it doesn't apparently address all of the problems with the original: Link

But to be honest, shoddy scholarship and poor critical thinking is what I expect from you.
 
2013-01-18 11:51:54 PM  
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: I don't pass on known misinformation with the intent to mislead.

Liar! That's exactly what you do, you farking liar.

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement. The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW, as Monkey Boy had been claiming. I knew that you would NEVER correct him, unless I set up a situation in which you could prove me wrong by doing so. So, now you have announced that Oreskes' survey has NOTHING to do with the support of scientists. Thank you. And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary.

What other lies did someone else 'force' you to make?

Okay, jackass -- first off, PROVE MY INTENT, DUMBASS. Are you suggesting, AGAIN, that you can read minds? There's ANOTHER lie for you. Can't you accuse someone else of lying without lying yourself?

And, once more -- saying something untrue within a thread is not intending to deceive people about the facts. In point of fact, that one untrue statements was cleared up within that thread, not very long after it elicited a response from Hippy, AND, as a bonus, I apologized for exposing others to an untruth; this is all you've got, you farktard? I would say that pretty well PROVES I was not intending deceive. And, incidentally, that is the ONLY time I have done that on Fark.

YOU have yet to correct ANY of your lies, as far as I know. When are YOU planning to correct YOUR lies?
 
2013-01-19 12:00:35 AM  

GeneralJim: And, once more -- saying something untrue within a thread is not intending to deceive people about the facts. I


It is when you repeat it every threadeven after you've been made aware that it is false.

Just like the way you repeat the whole "CO2 lags warming" talking point even after we pointed out, from your own source, that this research only applies to warming due to the Milankovich cycles and, in the paper's author's own words, does not apply to the current global warming.

You stopped citing the paper but you still endlessly repeat the claim and use the graph. This is a lie ... one that you commit over and over and over.
 
2013-01-19 12:10:33 AM  
HighZoolander:
First of all, Mann has never committed fraud, you farking liar.

This is an interesting claim, seeing as Michael Mann has since admitted that there WAS a medieval warm period... AND, that it has been shown that Mann's methodology would generate a hockey stick almost independently of the data input, by feeding it spectral noise. Do you get that? WHATEVER data you feed into Michael Mann's program, it gives you a hockey-stick shaped graph. Either that study is fraudulent, or Mann is the sloppiest researcher EVAR.

But, this claim you make, that Mann has NEVER committed fraud... are you a scientific paper auditor? Well, I say PROVE IT.
 
2013-01-19 12:13:30 AM  
HighZoolander:
Second of all, you're putting your weight behind that Loehle paper? Maybe you should at least read his 2008 correction of that paper? Link

even though it doesn't apparently address all of the problems with the original: Link

But to be honest, shoddy scholarship and poor critical thinking is what I expect from you.

The first link is farked, and the second links to a perpetrator's blog. That's what I expect from YOU.
 
2013-01-19 12:37:24 AM  
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: And, once more -- saying something untrue within a thread is not intending to deceive people about the facts.

It is when you repeat it every threadeven after you've been made aware that it is false.

Just so you are aware, AGW is incredibly tiny, far less than a half Kelvin at this point. There, you've been made aware that it is false. You will never bring it up again, right? Because if you did, you'd be a flaming liar AND hypocrite.

That's the whole problem with jackasses like you -- somehow YOU never make an error. When someone else tells you something that doesn't fit inside your predudices, you howl like monkeys, and start flinging your feces. But, you don't even know the most BASIC points of science -- such as it's very easy to falsify something. There is no equivalent to the legal system's "presumption of innocence." If anything, hypotheses are assumed to be false, but are left in place while the effort to falsify them continues. If I hypothesize that all swans are white, since I have only seen white ones, and have seen over a hundred swans, all white. It doesn't matter if I produce a BILLION white swans, if you produce ONE black swan, my hypothesis is falsified.

This whole cheerleader crap in favor of a hypothesis which has been falsified several times is kind of a new thing, and would not have happened without there being a LOT of money and control in it for government agencies around the world, which provides a LOT of research money to people who show promise to get the "correct" results, that is, results which favor the governments getting more money. Rooting for a hypothesis is NOT science. Trying to shoot one down is the essence of science.
 
2013-01-19 01:03:42 AM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: And, once more -- saying something untrue within a thread is not intending to deceive people about the facts.

It is when you repeat it every threadeven after you've been made aware that it is false.
Just so you are aware, AGW is incredibly tiny, far less than a half Kelvin at this point. There, you've been made aware that it is false. You will never bring it up again, right? Because if you did, you'd be a flaming liar AND hypocrite.

That's the whole problem with jackasses like you -- somehow YOU never make an error. When someone else tells you something that doesn't fit inside your predudices, you howl like monkeys, and start flinging your feces. But, you don't even know the most BASIC points of science -- such as it's very easy to falsify something. There is no equivalent to the legal system's "presumption of innocence." If anything, hypotheses are assumed to be false, but are left in place while the effort to falsify them continues. If I hypothesize that all swans are white, since I have only seen white ones, and have seen over a hundred swans, all white. It doesn't matter if I produce a BILLION white swans, if you produce ONE black swan, my hypothesis is falsified.

This whole cheerleader crap in favor of a hypothesis which has been falsified several times is kind of a new thing, and would not have happened without there being a LOT of money and control in it for government agencies around the world, which provides a LOT of research money to people who show promise to get the "correct" results, that is, results which favor the governments getting more money. Rooting for a hypothesis is NOT science. Trying to shoot one down is the essence of science.


What a load of crap. I am sorry that science does not agree with your fiction but I will not apologize for it. Your idiotic conspiracy theories do not compare to peer reviewed science.

I notice you did not even try to defend my one example of the many long debunked lies that you endlessly trot out.

You have no high ground to stand on. You sold your soul to big oil years ago.

/how much do you make off of each green post anyway??
 
2013-01-19 01:14:01 AM  
GeneralJim
When someone else tells you something that doesn't fit inside your predudices, you howl like monkeys, and start flinging your feces.

You know, I miss this about Fark. People making eye-rollingly unaware personal attacks to the amusement of people checking back for funny pictures or porn. I'll probably Farky you since your green text made me think you were lordargent, who is like Superman to your Bizarro.

Lately it's all people trying their hand at trolling. It's refreshing to see a genuine hotheaded ignoramous. Reminds me of my younger days.

/by which I mean this morning
 
2013-01-19 01:17:17 AM  
Farking Canuck:
Just like the way you repeat the whole "CO2 lags warming" talking point even after we pointed out, from your own source, that this research only applies to warming due to the Milankovich cycles and, in the paper's author's own words, does not apply to the current global warming.

You stopped citing the paper but you still endlessly repeat the claim and use the graph. This is a lie ... one that you commit over and over and over.

It's NOT a lie, dumbass. It's not even false. The ice cores CLEARLY show that carbon dioxide level changes have little to no effect on global temperature. And, as I explained, several times, the laws of physics are NOT going to change because people made the carbon dioxide, instead of other parts of nature making it. Or, are you suggesting the laws of physics DO change somehow? If so, please explain -- I'll go get some popcorn.

But, thanks for the illustration of the problem you have. I point out a valid falsification of AGW, and (of course) that can't stand, so people blat stupid crap about it. In this case, stupid crap that violates the laws of physics. Why? Because a scientist, a REAL one, is not willing to apply his findings to an area which he did not study. That's appropriate. ESPECIALLY when doing that not only puts him at risk of making a mistake by extrapolating too far, but puts him at risk of his job, and any future funding. Didn't it seem weird that CERN forbid scientists to talk about the climate implications of their CLOUD experiments? That's because the results apply DIRECTLY to climate, and back Svensmark up on the one area in which he was weak. Y'all are just too damned dumb to be able to recognize a scam when it's dipping into your pocket.


www.dumpaday.com
 
2013-01-19 01:43:37 AM  
Farking Canuck:
What a load of crap. I am sorry that science does not agree with your fiction but I will not apologize for it. Your idiotic conspiracy theories do not compare to peer reviewed science.

Don't blame ME for your stupidity. And, incidentally, I'm simply going by the science - I don't really give a crap what the result, but the science points, most clearly, to a a falsified AGW. The planet does not agree with IPCC projections:

media.reason.com
Hey, looks like we WAY overestimated warming... again.


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
Other people (Non-Warmer-Alarmists) predict more accurately...
The original published temperature record is in red, while the updated version is in blue.
The black curve is the proposed harmonic component plus the proposed corrected anthropogenic warming trend.
The figure shows in yellow the harmonic component alone made of the four cycles,
which may be interpreted as a lower boundary limit for the natural variability.
The green area represents the range of the IPCC 2007 GCM projections.
 
2013-01-19 02:18:29 AM  

GeneralJim: YOU have yet to correct ANY of your lies, as far as I know. When are YOU planning to correct YOUR lies?


Unlike you, I haven't ever lied in these threads, though I have insulted you an awful lot. And you really should apologize to me for all the times you've made that necessary, dumbass.
 
2013-01-19 02:20:09 AM  

GeneralJim: Okay, jackass -- first off, PROVE MY INTENT, DUMBASS. Are you suggesting, AGAIN, that you can read minds?


Uh, it's right there in the text I quoted...Did you forget how to read again?
 
2013-01-19 02:23:44 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:

Second, if your concern is about the validity of dendro-based proxies, we can actually see what sort of effect they have. From Mann et al. 2008 again:


Mann is a fraud. And any display of "data" that has been processed by a Mann "adjustment" should be thrown out. What does the temperature history for 2000 years look like? Look to the simple data from a bunch (18 in this case) of studies, averaged out. No "adjustment" from secret programs, no goddam bureaucrats, like Mann, farking with the data, just take the data from the studies, and average it. If one does this, one gets:

www.worldclimatereport.com
(from Loehle, 2007)


That does NOT compare well with the presentation made by Mann in the 2001 IPCC report:

www.roanokeslant.org


Well, let's see what these two (Mann et al. 1999 and Loehle & McCulloch 2008) actually look like on a common baseline based on their overlap with the instrumental record (in this case GISTEMP) and both with the 29-year filter that Loehle & McCulloch 2008 used:

i48.tinypic.com
I also threw in Mann et al. 2008 for comparison. The pink lines are the 95% CI for Loehle & McCulloch 2008. Note that where they differ significantly is from around 1500-1700.

What could account for these differences (besides the fraud you irrationally assume)? One difference is spatial extent. Mann et al. 1999 deals with only the Northern hemisphere, While Loehle & McCulloch 2008 (and Mann et al. 2008) are meant to be global. So part of the difference is that Mann et a. 1999 only represents half the area the other does.

Another difference is the different methods used. For example, we can look at the locations the 18 series that Loehle & McCulloch used:
i47.tinypic.com

And compare this with what Mann et al. used (note that not all of these were used for the NH reconstruction):
i48.tinypic.com

The problem here is that there are very good possible reasons for these differences besides the fraud you automatically assume. Once again, you seem to be filling in gaps in your knowledge (borne out of your intentional ignorance) with a somewhat irrational assumption of fraud.


GeneralJim: But, oddly enough, looks VERY much like what the IPCC was saying BEFORE Mann's fraudulent graph:

www.realclimate.org


This is what I mean by your 'intentional ignorance'. You are well aware by now that this graph represents only Central England and isn't even quantitative, and yet you attempt to directly compare it to a global reconstruction, never mind a NH-only one.
 
2013-01-19 02:28:01 AM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Second of all, you're putting your weight behind that Loehle paper? Maybe you should at least read his 2008 correction of that paper? Link

even though it doesn't apparently address all of the problems with the original: Link

But to be honest, shoddy scholarship and poor critical thinking is what I expect from you.
The first link is farked, and the second links to a perpetrator's blog. That's what I expect from YOU.


I'm honestly not sure why you're having trouble with the first link, it's come up fine for me several times now. (It goes to the abstract and download link of the Loehle and McCulloch 2008 paper that DamnHippyFreak mentions in the post above this one).

As for dismissing any criticism of a paper without reading it, that's about what I'd expect from you. I guess I am surprised though that you won't bother when an author corrects their own paper, but instead just continue to cite bad information. No wait, scratch that, I'm not surprised at all.
 
2013-01-19 02:38:50 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:

First and most importantly, TFA isn't making the case for the existence of a warming trend or trying to quantify its rate, something where the idea of "weather =/= climate" would come up. Although you're still somewhat hung up on the very existence of anthropogenic climate change, this isn't the case in the scientific literature. Much research, such as the one talked about in TFA, is instead looking at its effects.


And, as a practicing scientician, doesn't that whole "Skip seeing if it exists, let's catalog the effects" process bother you... just a tad?


There are times where it is very apparent how little contact you have with the actual scientific literature. As a practicing scientist, I'm aware of the basic fact that the vast majority of publications offer relatively small contributions. You really ought to actually read some of these papers that we refer you to or that you cite, or that are mentioned in news articles. Not every paper is a review paper. Think about this for a second - do you really expect every paper to reproduce the work of its predecessors? Again, the hangups you have really aren't what is reflected in the scientific literature.


GeneralJim: Also, you're lying AGAIN. I have reiterated MANY times that I buy the whole thing -- EXCEPT that the initial estimates of the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide were WAY too high. This means AGW is real, as I have repeatedly said, but of such small amplitude that it is a mere scientific curiosity. "By golly, will you look at this? People have managed to warm the planet a whole 0.4 K!" (Or whatever the exact amount is.)

That's all fine, except that the REALITY of the amount is insufficient to drive the climate panic industry, which is herding us to huge new taxes "to save the planet." So, rather than deal with the reality, the data are being fudged, crap graphing programs are being used, peer-review has been subverted, and the careers and credentials of any not going along with the scam are being threatened. It is turning the grand lady of science into a gutter whore, and for a really ugly and nasty pimp, too. And, you're playing YOUR part in this.


Sorry about that. I should have said 'you're still somewhat hung up on the very existence of significant anthropogenic climate change'. Regardless, a hangup of yours that isn't reflected in the vast majority of the scientific literature.
 
2013-01-19 02:43:54 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:

But what if we're interested in a medium-term trend? Something that, say, happens over the course of a few centuries instead of a few years or a few millennia?


Fine. Then factor OUT the longer term trends -- like the 400 years of warming we've been having. If you don't do that, you're either deliberately misleading people with your off-kilter results, or you are so COLOSSALLY ignorant that anything you say should be ignored. So, which is it?



This is exactly what has been done. Every time you hear about attempts to quantify something like orbital forcing, this is what they're trying to get at. I'm sorry, but the fact that you don't know this suggests your comment about being "COLOSSALLY ignorant" may apply more to yourself here.
 
2013-01-19 12:28:05 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander:

GeneralJim: I don't pass on known misinformation with the intent to mislead.

Liar! That's exactly what you do, you farking liar.

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement. The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW, as Monkey Boy had been claiming. I knew that you would NEVER correct him, unless I set up a situation in which you could prove me wrong by doing so. So, now you have announced that Oreskes' survey has NOTHING to do with the support of scientists. Thank you. And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary.

What other lies did someone else 'force' you to make?


Okay, jackass -- first off, PROVE MY INTENT, DUMBASS. Are you suggesting, AGAIN, that you can read minds? There's ANOTHER lie for you. Can't you accuse someone else of lying without lying yourself?


Actually, in this case you outright stated your supposed intent (in bold). However, this is probably a lie itself for the reasons I'll get into in a sec.


GeneralJim:And, once more -- saying something untrue within a thread is not intending to deceive people about the facts. In point of fact, that one untrue statements was cleared up within that thread, not very long after it elicited a response from Hippy, AND, as a bonus, I apologized for exposing others to an untruth; this is all you've got, you farktard? I would say that pretty well PROVES I was not intending deceive. And, incidentally, that is the ONLY time I have done that on Fark.

Was it not "within that thread". Nope. Here's the "explanation" you gave (that HighZoolander quoted) in one thread, and here's the "deliberate misstatement" in an earlier thread. Contrary to your claim, this was not "within that thread".

So was this "one untrue statement", "within that thread", "the ONLY time I have done that on Fark" ? Nope. You made the false claim twice in the thread, with me correcting you both times. If it was indeed some sort of "deliberate misstatement", why didn't you spring your clever trap after the first time? Or earlier this year when you stated the same untruth and I attempted to correct you? Or how about when I corrected you more than two years ago:

Damnhippyfreak: First off, the 97% number comes from Doran 2009, not Oreskes.


I'm sorry, but you're lying here to cover up a mistake (borne out of your intentional ignorance) you've been making over and over and over for more than two years.


So, was this untruth "cleared up" by you? Nope, yet again. In the bit that HighZoolander quoted, where you supposedly "cleared up", you go on to explain that

GeneralJim: The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW...


As has been pointed out to you again and again, the 98% number (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American:

scienceblogs.com


I'm sorry, but this incident is this a good example of you demonstrating your intentional ignorance about something as you haven't been able to correct a basic mistake over the course of two years even after being repeatedly corrected. it also demonstrates how truly dishonest you are as you lie to try to cover it up.
 
2013-01-19 01:08:24 PM  
Just providing an easy link to the above explanation since GeneralJim, if history serves, will likely ignore his falsehoods and simply repeat them next thread.

The comment where GeneralJim is proven to be either lying... or lying about lying.

Or here. Or originally here.
 
2013-01-19 03:20:19 PM  
Farking Canuck:
You have no high ground to stand on. You sold your soul to big oil years ago.

/how much do you make off of each green post anyway??

Yet ANOTHER thing I've explained many times. Oil companies WANT this panic to turn into legislation. That way, they will have ensured profits, which are also bigger, and which will carry on for much longer. Hell, the oil company lobbyists wrote the legislation. They won't pay squat to anyone writing against AGW. The only shills in this game are paid by environmental groups.
 
2013-01-19 03:21:48 PM  
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: YOU have yet to correct ANY of your lies, as far as I know. When are YOU planning to correct YOUR lies?

Unlike you, I haven't ever lied in these threads, though I have insulted you an awful lot. And you really should apologize to me for all the times you've made that necessary, dumbass.

Biggest lie yet.
 
2013-01-19 03:28:47 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: YOU have yet to correct ANY of your lies, as far as I know. When are YOU planning to correct YOUR lies?

Unlike you, I haven't ever lied in these threads, though I have insulted you an awful lot. And you really should apologize to me for all the times you've made that necessary, dumbass.
Biggest lie yet.



You could always follow this guy's missive:

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.

 
2013-01-19 03:41:12 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: YOU have yet to correct ANY of your lies, as far as I know. When are YOU planning to correct YOUR lies?

Unlike you, I haven't ever lied in these threads, though I have insulted you an awful lot. And you really should apologize to me for all the times you've made that necessary, dumbass.
Biggest lie yet.


No, I really have insulted you a lot, and I really think you do owe me an apology for making it necessary. I'll wait.
 
Displayed 29 of 79 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report