Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-06-2009, 09:35 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Is this one of those responses where you actually add something to the conversation?

Oh yes... ad hominem. No discussion. No debate on points. Just links looking to shoot the messenger and then some sort of support from your dick sucker. You must be proud.
I feel like I'm a character in "American beauty"! What you saw through the window nhutfur, was just two guys having a conversation. Now put your Luger back in your pants and go home.....
I knew your now deleted blog photo reminded me of a gay Nazi character from a movie but until you mentioned your closet ....

Last edited by handle; 12-06-2009 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-06-2009, 09:39 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Oh yes... ad hominem. No discussion. No debate on points. Just links looking to shoot the messenger and then some sort of support from your dick sucker. You must be proud.
The last resort of whimpfur and his fellow denialists. Sorry, old man, maybe you've forgotten, but you've played this card way too often, and my answer has always been the same: if you're going to appeal to authority, it's legitimate to question that authority. Looking to George Will for honesty on global warming is like ... well, looking to you for originality in insults.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-06-2009, 09:55 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

...a little humor.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-06-2009, 11:10 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

...a little clarity.

Osmium? Starwatcher? Any critique?
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-06-2009, 11:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
...a little clarity.

Starwatcher?? Instead of pulling column A and B out of some oriface how about you give us your critique of this?
I know this clown from NewsBusters.

When I saw his panting "... the greatest scientific fraud in history," I had to wonder whose ass you were talking about pulling things out of.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-06-2009, 11:51 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I know this clown from NewsBusters.

When I saw his panting "... the greatest scientific fraud in history," I had to wonder whose ass you were talking about pulling things out of.
Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:06 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.
I don't waste my time debunking your opinion pieces anymore. There's no point -- you're determined to be a denialist, and you've never budged in the slightest or conceding the first thing whenever I've spent the time to show where your big time hoaxer pieces are wrong. The most I ever have gotten out of you is whimpering, followed by name-calling, followed by attempts to change the subject.

Now I'm just in it for the lulz, as far as you're concerned, so keep those "science links" coming!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:10 AM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Ahhh agian nothing to add...can call someone a clown but can't even take down the clown. What pathetic prick you are.
Remember folks! Friends don't let friends drink and post. Got a designated driver? Got a friend? Got advil? Got a sponsor? Got a way out of this?
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:12 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the 'fur out of the water...

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Remember folks! Friends don't let friends drink and post. Got a designated driver? Got a friend? Got advil? Got a sponsor? Got a way out of this?
'fur has friends?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:20 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the 'fur out of the water...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Ah, yes. George Eff Will. And who could question his credibility on this issue?
Carl Zimmer, that's who.

(h/t: Balt.)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:27 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the 'fur out of the water...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Carl Zimmer, that's who.
And via Carl, George Monbiot's column is worth a look.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-07-2009, 10:45 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
...a little clarity.

Osmium? Starwatcher? Any critique?
I do not believe the graphs in that article look damning in any way. "But I defy anyone to compare the above chart..." Okay, he has defied me, but I will retort that it looks like science to me. It looks messy. Every day I come to work and deal with messy. It's not my field, but to me nothing in this looks unusual.

I want to do an experiment where the graphs and models used to make jet engines and rockets, medicines, and cars are made political and released onto the internet. In all of those fields, you will see the same kind of thing: where the efforts of lots of people go into teasing out trends and truths from noise and ambiguities.

This "climategate" is political, and people whose jobs it is to be political see an ambiguity in that green line, and it is their job to get as much out of it as they can. (The black line is frankly enough for me. Why not talk about that?) The stuff at the end about the personal liberties of every America: what the hell is he talking about? Whoever this guy is, he should go outside and get some fresh air, walk around, put his life in perspective. This is a graph. A graph. Its consequence is what?--to make energy cleaner? No one is executing people over this graph.

My take is that, yes, all this weather data and its digestion should be more open. In fact, all data should be more open, because then people can get used to what data really looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-07-2009, 11:17 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
I do not believe the graphs in that article look damning in any way. "But I defy anyone to compare the above chart..." Okay, he has defied me, but I will retort that it looks like science to me.
...
In fact, all data should be more open, because then people can get used to what data really looks like.
I guess the visual representation of how the "warming" was manipulated is something scientist can debate and there were a dozen graphs in the article so I am not sure which one you are referring to...however, the opinion I was looking for was on the "hidden decline". The blatent removal of the MWP. The blatent manipulation of data. Does this not bother you?

But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-07-2009, 12:01 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
I guess the visual representation of how the "warming" was manipulated is something scientist can debate and there were a dozen graphs in the article so I am not sure which one you are referring to...however, the opinion I was looking for was on the "hidden decline". The blatent removal of the MWP. The blatent manipulation of data. Does this not bother you?

But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.
I was talking about the 5th and 6th plots, the one concerning the "hidden decline" that appears in one of several proxy data sets. Discrepancies like that could mean that the data is not a valid proxy, or that it lags with an unknown time constant, or it could mean we don't understand anything (which is what the climategate pushers are claiming). Then you would also have to explain the rise in thermometer data, which seems more relevant to me.

It is without a doubt true that things like "the decline" have been excluded on purpose to keep from obscuring the message. The message being that global temperature is rising, and the level is above the levels far in the past (this latter is the assertion in question). This is what you and others are objecting to. Your assumption is that this amounts to a conspiracy. There is a second possibility--that there is frequently some inconsistent component of data, and it is in fact standard procedure across all fields of science to remove those kinds of things when presenting data to an audience. This is in fact a dumbing down of the information leading up to the message. The amount you dumb it down is a subjective call, depending on your audience. This is done by 100% of scientists, because when you show an undigested mess to people, you are not helping or doing your job: taking complexity and boiling it to a theory.

However, the argument about truth and falsity of your conclusion takes place at a level where people understand all the data, at conferences and in the literature. It is an evolutionary, dialectical process, and the general public does not take part in it.

But when something becomes political, you get things like laymen who frankly have just enough background to be a pain but not to actually understand drawing irresponsible conclusions from messy raw data. These people are doing something wrong.

And here is the part you will like, so don't miss it: Then the scientists involved go to greater pains to keep things locked down, keep outsiders from looking at the raw data. And these some of these outsiders end up being other scientists who disagree in some way with their conclusion. This is really wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
But whatever, it seems that because it has become political ALSO, you seem to want to say that its eyes look just fine, even when the bulbous nose has a wart on it. I get it.
No this is not what I'm saying. I think that scientists who disagree have to be allowed to see as much of the thought process as the as the scientific "free market" allows, which appears to be more than they've gotten in the historical climate field. (Maybe not, I dunno, I'm assuming climategate means that someone has actually been excluded.)

But all the articles you are posting are by non-scientists as far as I can tell. So I don't care that much about them. The worst you will be able to pin on me is this: I am in fact an elitist in the sense that everyone's opinion who matters has been to graduate school and gotten a PhD in the field (I am not really included in that, I point out).

Politics turns on a dime. Science turns like a freight train. So I don't really seem affected by a dip in a green line on a plot with five lines on it. Note it and proceed. If there is major fallout from this, it will happen in about a year, when the ripple has had a chance to go through the scientific community, and we see what comes out. What exactly are you expecting? There is not any clear falsification of data here--none. No matter how much people want there to be, there is not. This is not cold fusion.

So, Whatfur, your concern has been noted. I trust you have noted my counterpoint. So ...? Let's keep watching with interest if the science changes. I'm not name calling, I'm not being disrespectful. I'm saying this is important, but not a smoking gun revealing that CO2 is actually good.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-07-2009, 06:54 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.

Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys. Sure, there are numerous ways to explain the graphs and or the reasons in manipulating them. However, one would have to ignore the email vernacular of these guys to think their goal is "dumbing" things down to make it more understandable to the masses. (That's ridiculous). One would have to ignore the vernacular to say there is nothing conspiratorial about it. You obviously choose to ignore the vernacular. Now you do throw in a couple generalizations that most certainly would agree with...but you want to fall short of applying those rules to the Jones/Mann clan or suggesting they fell outside of them. They did.

Lastly, yes lets keep watching and lets keep international and national governments from making decisions for us based on incomplete and short-sighted analysis. Starwatcher here mentions 30 years as some gold standard in this arena...that is silly...1500 years maybe, ...but lets not drop off a couple hundred years here and there when it suits what we want our final analysis to look like.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-07-2009, 07:17 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.

Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys. Sure, there are numerous ways to explain the graphs and or the reasons in manipulating them. However, one would have to ignore the email vernacular of these guys to think their goal is "dumbing" things down to make it more understandable to the masses. (That's ridiculous). One would have to ignore the vernacular to say there is nothing conspiratorial about it. You obviously choose to ignore the vernacular. Now you do throw in a couple generalizations that most certainly would agree with...but you want to fall short of applying those rules to the Jones/Mann clan or suggesting they fell outside of them. They did.

Lastly, yes lets keep watching and lets keep international and national governments from making decisions for us based on incomplete and short-sighted analysis. Starwatcher here mentions 30 years as some gold standard in this arena...that is silly...1500 years maybe, ...but lets not drop off a couple hundred years here and there when it suits what we want our final analysis to look like.
He sobers up pretty good folks.... but the old song never changes, not even one bit:
Here's a Nhutfur post from a year and a half ago where he explains his point of view on the subject, proving that no matter who rebuts him, or how they go about it, he is unwavering in his conviction, and downright nasty when effectively countered. He solicits "discussion" but can't stand it when no one is buying his boiler plate talking points .

May '08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
A couple things...I do not deny that humans have an effect on the environment, but how much I believe is guesswork and currently with what has happened in the last 10 years as well as the recent ocean temp studies coming back surprising so opposite to what Gore predicted...I just have to say hang onto the farm for 50 years or so until there actually is something conclusive. I am on the side of wanting to be proactive but smart about it.

Last edited by handle; 12-07-2009 at 08:29 PM.. Reason: missing word
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-07-2009, 10:34 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
First, thanks for a more thorough reply.

Second, I have provided a couple dozen different links since the Orr, Manzi talk and most if not written by a scientist, reference scientists. Do not be deluded by anything Keefe, a documented liar, is spewing. Do your own research. Its a bit arrogant also to want to dismiss facts based on who is providing them. This particular article is not written by a "scientist" but not only does he cite numerous scientists and scientific publications but what he produced here is not being disputed.
Well, I didn't read them all, but I read six or so, and the one that starts this thread I replied to caught my eye. They're not bad--I am learning stuff from them. I just don't think I am going to decide on the technical conclusion based on them. I don't think that's arrogant. All the time people tell me that, like, shampoo causes cancer and stuff like that. I'll let my mind be made up on that by a doctor or shampooist. Etc.

And BTW, I'm pretty much just reading you and me in this discussion, so I'm not taking any cues from anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Third, you again sound alot like someone making excuses for these guys.
I don't mean to make excuses for *them*. I think they did something wrong--kept things too secret from the rest of the scientific community. I'm just saying I don't think it affects the overall science. And also that I think it started not by a conspiracy, but by a defensive crounch (which is maybe somewhat understandable, but still not defensible).
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-07-2009, 11:33 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
Well, I didn't read them all, but I read six or so, and the one that starts this thread I replied to caught my eye. They're not bad--I am learning stuff from them. I just don't think I am going to decide on the technical conclusion based on them. I don't think that's arrogant. All the time people tell me that, like, shampoo causes cancer and stuff like that. I'll let my mind be made up on that by a doctor or shampooist. Etc.

And BTW, I'm pretty much just reading you and me in this discussion, so I'm not taking any cues from anyone.



I don't mean to make excuses for *them*. I think they did something wrong--kept things too secret from the rest of the scientific community. I'm just saying I don't think it affects the overall science. And also that I think it started not by a conspiracy, but by a defensive crounch (which is maybe somewhat understandable, but still not defensible).
We may disagree a bit...but thats ok. Thanks again, I appreciate your input.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-08-2009, 02:43 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

A perspective and contrast:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/...dy_this_in.php
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-08-2009, 02:57 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Why, it's almost as though there wasn't a firewall at the WaPo between news and George Eff Will's columns!

Thanks for the link. And please keep it handy for the next time some wingnut says the WaPo is part of the "liberal media."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-08-2009, 03:11 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Figured as much. You accuse me of something I did not do and then when called on it you first try to confuse the masses and then run away yelling insults over your shoulder. I guess that is YOUR specialty.

One last time, either provide the backup for your LIE, apologize for the mistake, or wear the label of "Fucking Phony".
this trick of yours is getting old. anyone willing to follow those links will see immediately that you are citing garbage that has been thoroughly debunked. the fact that you are either too dishonest or too stupid to acknowledge that just shows everybody what a waste of time it is to listen to your ranting.

if anybody wonders whether this douche bag has anything relevant to say - follow those links! - this is a golden opportunity to see for yourself the depths of his dishonesty. of course, there is the humor value when he starts screeching about others being "phony", that is icing on the cake.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-08-2009, 05:27 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
this trick of yours is getting old. anyone willing to follow those links will see immediately that you are citing garbage that has been thoroughly debunked. the fact that you are either too dishonest or too stupid to acknowledge that just shows everybody what a waste of time it is to listen to your ranting.

if anybody wonders whether this douche bag has anything relevant to say - follow those links! - this is a golden opportunity to see for yourself the depths of his dishonesty. of course, there is the humor value when he starts screeching about others being "phony", that is icing on the cake.
Popcorn,

Yes follow the links. Find me the name of the author that Twinswords is accusing me of defending. Show me where I am defending him. And I will apologize. It is YOU who is the douche bag. Just like I busted you with phony quotes, phone numbers and phony rightousness, you try to help TS out in the same kind of douche bag liberal BS.

But yeah, find me the author he is talking about and lead me to my apology.
Give me the name that was so difficult for him to come up with.

Last edited by Whatfur; 12-08-2009 at 05:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-08-2009, 07:00 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Popcorn,

Yes follow the links. Find me the name of the author that Twinswords is accusing me of defending. Show me where I am defending him. And I will apologize. It is YOU who is the douche bag. Just like I busted you with phony quotes, phone numbers and phony rightousness, you try to help TS out in the same kind of douche bag liberal BS.

But yeah, find me the author he is talking about and lead me to my apology.
Give me the name that was so difficult for him to come up with.
Yeah! Follow the links! I did and discovered the plot behind the conspiracy of confusion perpetrated by the lying liberals!!...
See, Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!
Sooo this means he has changed the subject to spitting hairs and lashing out at the messenger once again, because he can't understand what commenting out a subroutine call does, but he knows it left egg on his face.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-08-2009, 08:31 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Yeah! Follow the links! I did and discovered the plot behind the conspiracy of confusion perpetrated by the lying liberals!!...
See, Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!
Sooo this means he has changed the subject to spitting hairs and lashing out at the messenger once again, because he can't understand what commenting out a subroutine call does, but he knows it left egg on his face.
Ya know, now that I think about it, in Twinswords defense, three lefts, do in fact, make a right.

So a negative criticism of a negative criticism of a negative criticism, may in fact be considered to be a defense of the original negative criticism.
Which means not only has Muttfur given me a headache, but he did in fact defend Eric Raymond, who wrote this that was debunked here which Scumfur tried and failed to debunk here.

Which of course means Drunkenskunkfur owes everyone on the planet an apology.
And me some asprin.

Last edited by handle; 12-08-2009 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-08-2009, 11:52 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
this trick of yours... is icing on the cake.

Ahhhh...as they say, leave a pile of dog shit lying around long enough and a libtard is going to step in it.

I am actually starting to think that handle is not really graz's sock-puppet, but mine.

First, I see him chime in to my discussion with osmium here after obviously seaching the forum annals for something to use to ridicule me with and the best he comes up with is a post from a year and a half ago that if anything it shows that I am consistant and true. Now he did try to put a lame spin on it, but I am pretty sure that anyone who happens to be intellectually honest (a rare commodity I am finding here amongst the libtards) probably felt a bit sorry for that bit of ineptitude. I suppose that after all the time he spent agonizingly searching for something to use against me, trying to spin my "unwavering" "convictions" as a negative was better than just writing off the time as wasted.

Now, like a gift that just keeps giving, I see handle comes through for me again and provides me exactly the name we all have been waiting for and he even bolded it. The name Twinswords was smart enough to run away from, because he knew I caught him with shit on his shoes. Yes, the guy with a sword in each arm was not big enough to admit his mistake and instead, like so many others here, ran away while continuing to spew insults over his shoulder. The Phucking Phony!! When will any of you just decide to man up? And, too funny, just like others here who ignorantly ran to Popcorn's defense recently when he misquoted an article and made up numbers whilst crawling out of the woodwork because he thought he saw a way to insult me here; he is stupiding returning the favor to Twinswords. And what does HE get for it? Further humiliation and yep... shit on his shoes. What is that quote again about those not knowing history being destined to repeat it?

In any case yes lets look at the unveiling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Which means not only has Muttfur given me a headache, but he did in fact defend Eric Raymond, who wrote this that was debunked here which Scumfur tried and failed to debunk here.
Yep! Eric Raymond, who was brought into this thread by Branflake and I never commented on him. Claymisher chimed in about Raymond smelling like his mother or something...and I never commented on him. Starwatcher brings in an article that links to him...and I never commented on him. My comments were specifically targetted on the methodology utilized by Lambert in trying to legitimize the computer code. Dozens of articles have been written that include and talk about this code. Nothing I wrote defended anything unique to Raymond's take on it. EVERYTHING I wrote was specific to Lambert's take on it. Twinsword's made a mistake. Twinswords tried use that falsity to align me with something completely different again that Raymond said. And I am the one having to defend myself from the jackels.

Fuck off you stupid pricks. You lose...again. Oh wait...except for handle.
Him I need to acknowledge separately as in one fall swoop (foul swoop?) he proved that since at least "May, 08" I have acknowledged AGW and man's involvement...thus proving Starwatcher wrong in his little insulting backhand in my direction....he enabled me to once again to take Popcorn to task for his errant quoting and use of imaginary numbers in a failed attempt of jumping all over me for what again? Oh yeah ...posting a link (full of scientists, btw)...and now HANDLE is THE MAN that not only steps in the dog shit but wallows in it enough to allow me to point out that it is true Twinswords is a fucking phony and a small one at that. Swords turned into butter knives, one might say. So, could one of you please let handle know how much I appreciate the extra work he performed here? Cuz we ain't talkin. LOL!!!1!

Last edited by Whatfur; 12-08-2009 at 11:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:05 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Hark... I heard a wimpfur, was my name called?

So it's the old: I might have linked to something, but that don't mean you all can attribute agreement to it by me. And further let me draw out the tale to a convoluted and near interminable length, so as the only likely one with patience enough to respond or foolish enough to follow would be handle or his sockpuppet. Who really put it best:
Quote:
Slutfur was debunking the debunking of the debunking, not defending the original debunker!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:12 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
* pant! pant! pant! *


LMAO.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:37 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post

LMAO.
How nice. You have grabbed a picture of my father. Now deceased. Killed by a drunk on the highway just over 5 years ago at 70 yo. At 70, he too could have still kicked your ass. If it was me you were looking to pant over you would have to choose the one on the left.

Nice try though butterknife. I know, not easy for you being a fucking phony.

Last edited by Whatfur; 12-09-2009 at 01:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:39 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Hark... fool...:
When the truth is on one's side, insults from the little people are alot like music. Sing away.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-09-2009, 12:56 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
How nice. You have grabbed a picture of my father. Now deceased. Killed by a drunk on the highway just over 5 years ago at 70 yo. At 70, he too could have still kicked your ass. If it was me you were looking to pant over you would have to choose the one on the left.

Nice try though butterknife. I know, not easy for you being a fucking phony.
My dad was about a dozen years older than yours and from the same part of the country; though he's been gone nearly thirty years, now. So, I sympathize; but, I know for sure that you'd have little problem pulling a profile pic and saying something snide and pointless - so why pull the outrage thing out on this?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:13 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
My dad was about a dozen years older than yours and from the same part of the country; though he's been gone nearly thirty years, now. So, I sympathize; but, I know for sure that you'd have little problem pulling a profile pic and saying something snide and pointless - so why pull the outrage thing out on this?
Funny...I saw you lingering a bit here and actually had the silly thought that you might read the goings on and decide to be large. You were almost there.

Outrage? Ha. Not something one can do in a forum...really. I WILL give Butterknife the benefit of the doubt that he thought it was me and most certainly did not know it was my dead father. I certainly would never grab a profile pic of someones dead parent and utilize it here...and actually if I did by mistake and was told about it...I would remove it. But, thats me.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:18 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
When the truth is on one's side, insults from the little people are alot like music. Sing away.
Not in good voice this evening...cue clip.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-09-2009, 01:24 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Funny... I certainly would never grab a profile pic of someones dead parent and utilize it here...and actually if I did by mistake and was told about it...I would remove it.
But as you are a proven liar... what's to convince anyone of your bona fides now? Maybe just like the little boy on the left... you still have some growin' up to do... or at least some self-pity to bury and a new self-myth to cultivate.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-09-2009, 09:52 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default all we need to know

Whether the weather be fine,
Or whether the weather be not,
Whether the weather be cold,
Or whether the weather be hot,
We'll weather the weather,
Whatever the weather,
Whether we like it or not!

-Nursery Rhyme

Last edited by look; 12-09-2009 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-09-2009, 10:30 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
But as you are a proven liar... what's to convince anyone of your bona fides now? ...
Lacking proof you sound rather hollow and well ...like Butterknifes...tiny.

Unlike you, I am obviously not here to fill a friendship void. I do that with those more tangible. So my statement of facts are not meant to convince anyone but those who deal in the truth... nor would I bother with a weasel like yourself.

Last edited by Whatfur; 12-09-2009 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:03 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
... nor would I bother with a weasel like yourself.
And yet you continue to respond. To bad that your mythical old man didn't teach you how to fight anything other than fish. He might have done well to learn ya some respect for others. And pride in conveying your feelings -let's leave ideas aside- with words that convince, instead of bluster that fools a handful at best.

Regards,
An Inconvenient Truth (-teller)
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:13 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Sean Carroll ...

... has a short post on the events the denialists would like to call "Climategate."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
And yet you continue to respond. To bad that your mythical old man didn't teach you how to fight anything other than fish. He might have done well to learn ya some respect for others. And pride in conveying your feelings -let's leave ideas aside- with words that convince, instead of bluster that fools a handful at best.

Regards,
An Inconvenient Truth (-teller)
Respect begets respect.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:20 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Respect begets respect...dickhead.
And I have little for you.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: When the small get even smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
And I have little for you.
Breaks my heart. I am sorry you grew up fatherless though. It obviously has taken its toll.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.