GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: . . . a short term period (relative to variability) can be misleading.Indeed. As, for instance, when one looks at only 150 years of data when a large 1600-year cycle is in progress. I have already explained this to you many times. And, after all, it is YOUR logic and YOUR complaint -- but only when it applies to others. You are being dishonest, after being informed of you error. This is made worse by the fact that you castigate anyone who disagrees with you if they do the same thing -- like you are doing here.[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]If one follows the curve, one sees that the temperatures should be rising at about the rate they HAVE been, over the term of fifty to a hundred years. When the full context, rather than a short segment of a cycle, is viewed, it is clear that exactly the warming we are seeing is what is expected from past cycles.
Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for lying, you really need to be more careful throwing such accusations around considering your recent more-mendacious-than-usual behavior. You still haven't dealt with your lies from the previous (and still-open) thread.No lies in any open or closed thread. You must be reading your own posts. Careful with that -- that kark will rot your brains, assuming you have any left.Heh. This itself (in bold) is a lie. The particular lie I'm referring to is documented here, or here or originally here. You're just tacking on even more lies in order to deny it.In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.
In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.Two days without a response is probably enough to lend some validity to this.
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: In addition, most likely you will ignore this, further proving me right.Two days without a response is probably enough to lend some validity to this.What's it like being wrong all the time? Your referenced item is NOT a lie. A lie has the intention to deceive, which I clearly did NOT, as I corrected it in the same thread. Looks like you're lying AGAIN.
Damnhippyfreak: -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".
Similarly, said links do prove you did lie. Multiple times as you continue, as you do here, to lie to try to cover it up.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come check out what's behind the curtain.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 21 2018 16:12:45
Runtime: 0.258 sec (257 ms)