Alta4ever Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 hey, back from your Earth Hour revelry? The same questions are there for you, wunderkid... c'mon, take up the Shady cause. Show us you've more than a drive-by mouther - step up! Why would I? I don't respect you enough to bother. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
waldo Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 Why would I? I don't respect you enough to bother. it's hardly a matter of respect... you do what you do best - you drive-by, as you just did. You don't follow the discussion flow, you don't add to the mix... you simply drive-by lobbing your targeted slams. It's what you do best, it's what you're comfortable with... go with your strengths! Quote
Alta4ever Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 it's hardly a matter of respect... you do what you do best - you drive-by, as you just did. You don't follow the discussion flow, you don't add to the mix... you simply drive-by lobbing your targeted slams. It's what you do best, it's what you're comfortable with... go with your strengths! When it comes to you waldo you get what you deserve, and you don't deserve more then the passing/fleeting thought. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
waldo Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 When it comes to you waldo you get what you deserve, and you don't deserve more then the passing/fleeting thought. nothing out of the ordinary... that's just your routine being highlighted... go with your strengths... go with something that allows you an occasional grunt n' groan. Be all you can be - be the drive-by guy! Quote
wyly Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 Perfection is not a realistic state of being, but it is a goal. I will try to rise above. Will you ? I always go into every debate civil but I have no qualms retaliating...and I offer no civility with racists ... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Shady Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 I always go into every debate civil but I have no qualms retaliating...and I offer no civility with racists ... Who are these so-called racists? Or is racist just a term you deem to anyone who disagrees with you? Quote
waldo Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 Shady - don't get distracted... answer the questions. Show us all how that paper is the IPCC's and, as you put it, "my AGW heros"... worst nightmare that they won't acknowledge. c'mon, step up Shady. I've laid out the same clues for you over a couple of months since you first linked to that paper... the paper you ignorantly think counters the IPCC presentation findings, counters the position of, as you say, "AGW hero" scientists. Step up Shady - show how the IPCC and consensus science differs from the paper you think is some ta-da revelation. here, let me say it again for you. The principal findings of your ta-da paper do not counter the IPCC's position on the 'airborne fraction' of CO2. But again, you'd have to understand and make the distinction I keep questioning you to make: the distinction between the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions & the CO2 fraction in the air. You haven't a clue - none! Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 POLLUTION IS MONEY. They can not take it with them but they gain great satisfaction with taking us with them..there are powerful and spiteful men in the world who believe once they die that we should follow. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 ship long sailed... it's usage within the climate debate arena is a part of the lexicon. Glad you decided to join in on the climate debate... since you suggest anyone that accepts the theory of AGW climate change is, as you stated, "being lied to". Thanks for joining in... fresh meat is always welcome. You know, if you actually debated people here with a little more respect your arguments would be a lot more effective. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Oleg Bach Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 You know, if you actually debated people here with a little more respect your arguments would be a lot more effective. Mutual empowerment is respect- dis-empowerment for the sake of ego is counter productive. Quote
waldo Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 You know, if you actually debated people here with a little more respect your arguments would be a lot more effective. granted - I trust you will acknowledge our few exchanges have been, I believe, most civil. I will show the same level of respect directed my way... past history is a significant contributor. If individuals legitimately foster open debate based on the science, based on fact, based on (their) uncertainty, based on substantiated challenge, mutual respect grows - is realized. However, if, as is the case with a few around here in these climate change related threads, their sole missive is to falsify, distort, cast doubt, cast uncertainty - to, effectively, showcase their "intellectual dishonesty" while presuming to engage in a respectful manner. Consequently, I will offer little - or no - respect for individuals that partake in that manner. to your specific quote, if you weren't on the board earlier today, you missed a few exchanges - some that played out within the profile status update messages - messages that are no longer there. Suffice to say, that respect you speak to was not present in those status messages... as exchanged between 3 members, myself being one of. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 SOME people had cruel fathers who instilled the concept of respect...that it was abuse .....we should help each other..My dad said one thing..it had to do with empathy and real respect..."There are others"....simple...also my dad was an honour guard and a Captain..He taught me to be orderly...to respect and have a sense of honour...I grew up believing that honour was common and everyone had it...found out late in life that honour is rare..It caused me great distress attempting to keep honour in a world of dis-honour. Quote
wyly Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 (edited) You know, if you actually debated people here with a little more respect your arguments would be a lot more effective. let me offer a big BS to that ship called Respect left the harbour long ago...my first day on the forum I was insulted by Shady, unprovoked!...I've endured insult after insult without retaliation thinking sooner or later the mods will make an appearance but no...one can only take the high road for so long, and then I say F*** it this asshole is due for a beat down...poke a dog with a stick enough times don't act surprised when you get bit... respect is a two way street Edited March 31, 2010 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Oleg Bach Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 When I first arrived here it was very formal and very strict. The original mods kept a tight ship..they may have abandoned ship-- if this is true - then this might be the begining of the end for this site. Quote
wyly Posted March 31, 2010 Report Posted March 31, 2010 When I first arrived here it was very formal and very strict. The original mods kept a tight ship..they may have abandoned ship-- if this is true - then this might be the begining of the end for this site. not to long ago I recieved a caution for using libs instead of liberals(ok, it's in the rules which I didn't read)so they are still around...but that pales in comparison to what I've been called... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 Yeah, that damn democracy. If only there was a way to subvert it!****Yes. I'm sure him and his ilk would love to put democracy "on hold" for a while. The elitists of the world have never trusted the rabble. This shows it. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 (edited) sincerely... you're a strong denier - in regards your continued overt displays of intellectual dishonesty, your outright lies, your purposely casting doubt and uncertainty on the basis of fabrications, I have no qualms in lobbing an occasional invective... have a nice day! r=I have a real problem with the epithet "denier" being used here. There is a real difference fo opinion i whether or not therere is antroprogenic global warmning. Only Jew-haters and/or conspiracy theorists deny the Holocaust. And I don't favor Holocaust denial being a crim. There's no need to lace an already contentious debate with strong and offensive language, to little purpose. Edited April 1, 2010 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
BubberMiley Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 That's probably because of your religious-like zealotry. Religious-like zealotry can only define those who believe in something despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. You're just operating on faith now, Shady, and a bunch of mullahs that spent millions and millions of dollars to feed you lies you gullibly bought without question. Hallelujah! Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 Religious-like zealotry can only define those who believe in something despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Your definition is not only wrong, it's ridiculous. Not to mention my characterization of waldo was religious-like zealotry, not specifically religious zealotry. And there definitely is a litany of information questioning not only the science, but especially the scientific practices of AGW scientists. In which waldo has shown zero interest, and infact, gone out of his way to defend. That my friend, is blind religious-like zealotry. Quote
waldo Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 Shady - don't get distracted... answer the questions. Show us all how that paper is the IPCC's and, as you put it, "my AGW heros"... worst nightmare that they won't acknowledge. c'mon, step up Shady. I've laid out the same clues for you over a couple of months since you first linked to that paper... the paper you ignorantly think counters the IPCC presentation findings, counters the position of, as you say, "AGW hero" scientists. Step up Shady - show how the IPCC and consensus science differs from the paper you think is some ta-da revelation. here, let me say it again for you. The principal findings of your ta-da paper do not counter the IPCC's position on the 'airborne fraction' of CO2. But again, you'd have to understand and make the distinction I keep questioning you to make: the distinction between the airborne fraction of CO2 emissions & the CO2 fraction in the air. You haven't a clue - none! Shady... let's play. Let's see if we can tease it out of you. That article/paper is obviously important to you - you clearly think it's significant. You truly seem to feel it challenges or counters the prevailing science... well... actually, you haven't a clue on what the article/paper is actually about - let's not kid ourselves, hey. It's simply another instance of you linking to something and pronouncing 'ta da'... even though you've offered that same article twice now, all you've done, as all you ever do, is offer a blind link without comment... without actually suggesting what significance the linked reference actually holds. Some denier-blog has obviously sent you on a misguided mission, one without follow-through... or you simply can't decipher the presumed follow-through - hence, the blind link with no comment. So, ya - let's play. Let's start with a few teasers metered out for effect... let's start with this little teaser #1 from the IPCC AR4 WG1 - Physical Sciences report: There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate as a fraction of fossil fuel plus cement emissions since routine atmospheric CO2 measurements began in 1958. This ‘airborne fraction’ has shown little variation over this period. c'mon Shady... I've left you so many clues as it stands. Step up - explain yourself. You clearly said that blind linked article was, as you stated, "all I need". (I've had a growing bookmarked list of several other question series you've left hanging without response over the past many months now - I'm sure we can have some real fun with those also, hey buddy?) Quote
waldo Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 Your definition is not only wrong, it's ridiculous. Not to mention my characterization of waldo was religious-like zealotry, not specifically religious zealotry. And there definitely is a litany of information questioning not only the science, but especially the scientific practices of AGW scientists. In which waldo has shown zero interest, and infact, gone out of his way to defend. That my friend, is blind religious-like zealotry. don't back-peddle now, Shady. It's a real shame you can't actually articulate that, as you call it, "litany of information"... hence your favoured fall-back to dropping blind links without your own commentary (and typically blind links to dishonest and/or lazy journalism fronted, principally, by your go-to tabloid sources). hey Shady, did you hear... Phil Jones has been exonerated by the British HOC investigative committee - stay tuned... more to come. By the way, although just a few days old now, did you also see notice of that KPMG review that cleared the IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, of allegations of financial irregularity - here: Quote
waldo Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 r=I have a real problem with the epithet "denier" being used here. There is a real difference fo opinion i whether or not therere is antroprogenic global warmning. Only Jew-haters and/or conspiracy theorists deny the Holocaust. And I don't favor Holocaust denial being a crim. There's no need to lace an already contentious debate with strong and offensive language, to little purpose. like I said earlier today, that generic label is long established within the lexicon surrounding the climate debate. There's a veritable industry that's worked to spin a clear distinction between legitimate skeptics and those that absolutely deny the overwhelming consensus on the theory of AGW climate change. No one... no one... presumes to associate the generic label with anything other than those who deny - the science. On a very rare occasion, you'll see someone raise a concern similar to yours - invariably it comes from someone with a legitimate personal position (although, usually it's someone new to the debate), or... it comes from someone who truly denies the science and presumes to marginalize and/or obfuscate within the debate. Quote
Pliny Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 marginalize and/or obfuscate within the debate. He said, "marginalize and obfuscate"...heh..heh..heh..hehheh..heh. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
waldo Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 He said, "marginalize and obfuscate"...heh..heh..heh..hehheh..heh. ah Pliny - thread bumper extraordinaire! Good on ya, mate. Quote
Shady Posted April 1, 2010 Report Posted April 1, 2010 It's a real shame you can't actually articulate that, as you call it, "litany of information" You must be joking. I've posted reference after reference of information refuting many of the claims of the AGW true-believers. Here's the latest... Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal” line. ... The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record. ... The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean. ... And JAXA, using the more advanced AMSR-E sensor platform on the AQUA satellite, shows a similar uptick now intersecting the 2003 data line. Link And to think it was just a couple of years ago in which this was predicted... Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013' "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." Link LOL. So their 2 year so-called conservative forcast has already been proven wrong, in a mere 24 months. That's some computer model they've got there! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.