or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 4

post #121 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh please! You posted as link to an article that stated the Arctic isn't melting. I showed one that debunked that particular article. Sorry if you don't like that or want to spin it into something else.

 

Here's what you posted # 112 :

 

Having to prove everything redundantly with you guys is really when it should be obvious ( because you should know what you said ) is dumb.

 

You've proven that you can find links to content that is older than the piece I linked to and completely ignore what it is saying. That's about it.

Sorry I forgot the second link that mentions your article directly : http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/fimbul-ice-shelf-not-melting-as-fast-as-thought-and-why-this-does-not-mean-the-antarctic-is-not-losing-ice

 

That's where the second quote comes from and the date is June 28th. The Register article is the 25th. Satisfied?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #122 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry I forgot the second link that mentions your article directly : http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/fimbul-ice-shelf-not-melting-as-fast-as-thought-and-why-this-does-not-mean-the-antarctic-is-not-losing-ice

 

That's where the second quote comes from and the date is June 28th. The Register article is the 25th. Satisfied?

 

So...a comment from an alarmist blog on a scientific study is enough for you to completely disregard it. Gotcha.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #123 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sorry I forgot the second link that mentions your article directly : http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/fimbul-ice-shelf-not-melting-as-fast-as-thought-and-why-this-does-not-mean-the-antarctic-is-not-losing-ice

 

That's where the second quote comes from and the date is June 28th. The Register article is the 25th. Satisfied?

 

So...a comment from an alarmist blog on a scientific study is enough for you to completely disregard it. Gotcha.

Keep trying Jazzy but it's not just one person saying this. Also here's a little something directly from one of the people who published the paper mentioned in the register article. Pretty damning.

 

http://www.open-ocean.org/gallery/show/107

 

 

 

Quote:
The Gulf of Misinformation

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

A few days after our article was published, a piece profiling our work appeared at the Register of the UK written by Lewis Page entitled, "Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show." This is the equivalent of turning the statement "the cancer is not as bad as we thought" into "you don't have cancer." The severely distorted version of our study's conclusions then spread rapidly across the internet. It is a pattern that climate researchers have unfortunately observed many times, part of a widening gulf of misinformation between scientists and society. As one of the authors of this study, I can only repeat: this is not what we said. We have been misrepresented, and you, the reader, have been misled by some of those who claim---as scientists and journalists both surely should---to provide you with facts. || The "Project" link below gives the press release for our paper, and "Reference" links to the Register article.

I suppose the Conservatives here will continue to try and perpetrate the myth that I don't post supporting data for arguments. ( eyes roll if they could )


Edited by jimmac - 7/11/12 at 7:46pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #124 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Keep trying Jazzy but it's not just one person saying this. Also here's a little something directly from one of the people who published the paper mentioned in the register article. Pretty damning.

 

http://www.open-ocean.org/gallery/show/107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose the Conservatives here will continue to try and perpetrate the myth that I don't post supporting data for arguments. ( eyes roll if they could )

 

That's not "data."  Jesus. 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #125 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Keep trying Jazzy but it's not just one person saying this. Also here's a little something directly from one of the people who published the paper mentioned in the register article. Pretty damning.

 

http://www.open-ocean.org/gallery/show/107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suppose the Conservatives here will continue to try and perpetrate the myth that I don't post supporting data for arguments. ( eyes roll if they could )

 

That's not "data."  Jesus. 

 

 

Sophistry.  It's a form a data. It's a statement from one of the scientists that were misquoted in the Register article that Jazzy linked to.

 

It's support for my claim so quite trying to spin things ( like you do everything ). Haven't you learned by now that crap might have worked in the 90's but it doesn't fly anymore. Jesus yourself!

 

 

Here's a definition of Data from the dictionary :

 

Quote:
 individual facts, statistics, or items of information

It can be in any form in this case something you hate. Facts and items of information.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data


Edited by jimmac - 7/12/12 at 12:28pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #126 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sophistry.  It's a form a data. It's a statement from one of the scientists that were misquoted in the Register article that Jazzy linked to.

 

It's support for my claim so quite trying to spin things ( like you do everything ). Haven't you learned by now that crap might have worked in the 90's but it doesn't fly anymore. Jesus yourself!

 

 

Here's a definition of Data from the dictionary :

 

It can be in any form in this case something you hate. Facts and items of information.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data

 

When reading your posts, one gets the impression you pick up vocabulary from the news and attempt to use it at random (hence the term "sophistry"--something used in the media often with regard to the Obamacare debate).   Jimmac, you did not link to "data."  You posted a rebuttal to an article.  Now, that rebuttal may be valid...or it may not.  But it's not "data."   It's ironic you even post the definition of what data is...and then proceed to utterly ignore it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #127 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sophistry.  It's a form a data. It's a statement from one of the scientists that were misquoted in the Register article that Jazzy linked to.

 

It's support for my claim so quite trying to spin things ( like you do everything ). Haven't you learned by now that crap might have worked in the 90's but it doesn't fly anymore. Jesus yourself!

 

 

Here's a definition of Data from the dictionary :

 

It can be in any form in this case something you hate. Facts and items of information.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/data

 

When reading your posts, one gets the impression you pick up vocabulary from the news and attempt to use it at random (hence the term "sophistry"--something used in the media often with regard to the Obamacare debate).   Jimmac, you did not link to "data."  You posted a rebuttal to an article.  Now, that rebuttal may be valid...or it may not.  But it's not "data."   It's ironic you even post the definition of what data is...and then proceed to utterly ignore it.  

 

How could it not be valid? The quote is from one of the authors of the paper the Register misrepresented. ( eyes roll if they could )

 

This is just an example of your generous use of smoke and mirrors to appear like you've still got a valid argument in the matter.

 

 

Actually Sherlock the first time I heard the word " Sophistry " was from Captain Picard ( back in the early 90's ).lol.gif When I hear or read something I don't know or are unfamiliar with I look it up and it becomes part of my vocabulary or general knowledge. Also since I found the " Definition " of data in a dictionary I'm choosing that over your analysis.lol.gif

 

Once again from the dictionary in black and white ( not black is white lol.gif ) :

 

Quote:
 individual facts, statistics, or items of information

In this case it's facts and information ( the misrepresentation by the Register and items of information the explanation of what they really said once again ). There's also a link at the bottom of the article for the press release for their paper which in turn gives you a link to a letter describing the key points of their paper http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051012.shtml . ( eyes roll if they could )

 

 

Facts :

 

Information :

 

Quote:
Myself and the other three authors of the paper had put in a great deal of time and energy in order to carefully analyze a unique set of data from underneath one of Antarctica's major ice shelves. As you may recall, the past decade has seen the catastrophic breakup of a number of ice shelves, some as large as small states. This has prompted climate scientists to examine in more detail the interactions between the ocean and the ice. Our results suggest that the rate at which *some* ice shelves are melting is less than previously thought. We did not question the overall conclusion that the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is currently losing mass, which has consistently been concluded from several different methods.

 

The refute came here :

 

Quote:
A few days after our article was published, a piece profiling our work appeared at the Register of the UK written by Lewis Page entitled, "Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show." This is the equivalent of turning the statement "the cancer is not as bad as we thought" into "you don't have cancer." The severely distorted version of our study's conclusions then spread rapidly across the internet. It is a pattern that climate researchers have unfortunately observed many times, part of a widening gulf of misinformation between scientists and society. As one of the authors of this study, I can only repeat: this is not what we said. We have been misrepresented, and you, the reader, have been misled by some of those who claim---as scientists and journalists both surely should---to provide you with facts. || The "Project" link below gives the press release for our paper, and "Reference" links to the Register article.

 

In short The Register misreprented their work and people like Jazzy ( who wanted to hear what they wanted to hear ) swallowed it whole.

 

 

Give it up SDW. I know you don't like to lose but just like with the WMD in Iraq ( lol.gif ) you look silly when you try to refute the irrefutable. ( wink if I could )


Edited by jimmac - 7/12/12 at 3:22pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #128 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

How could it not be valid? The quote is from one of the authors of the paper the Register misrepresented. ( eyes roll if they could )

 

This is just an example of your generous use of smoke and mirrors to appear like you've still got a valid argument in the matter.

 

 

 

WTF are you babbling about?  I am saying the REBUTTAL (that YOU posted) may or may not be valid.  It very well may be...I'm not even evaluating that.  It's a wholly separate issue from our discussion.  That discussion is about your understanding of what DATA is.  Regardless of validity of the rebuttal, it's not "data."   That is all I'm saying (writing).  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Actually Sherlock the first time I heard the word " Sophistry " was from Captain Picard ( back in the early 90's ).lol.gif When I hear or read something I don't know or are unfamiliar with I look it up and it becomes part of my vocabulary or general knowledge. Also since I found the " Definition " of data in a dictionary I'm choosing that over your analysis.lol.gif

 

Wait...LOL...are you now claiming that you learned the word "sophistry" from fucking STAR TREK?   ROTFLMAO!!!!  lol.giflol.giflol.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Give it up SDW. I know you don't like to lose but just like with the WMD in Iraq ( lol.gif ) you look silly when you try to refute the irrefutable. ( wink if I could )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lose?  Again, what then the name of **** are you talking about?  All I did was state that one of the links you were refuting was from NASA.  You flipped out and started posting things like:  

 

  • "Keep trying Jazzy but it's not just one person saying this. Also here's a little something directly from one of the people who published the paper mentioned in the register article. Pretty damning."

  •  

    "It's support for my claim so quite trying to spin things ( like you do everything ). Haven't you learned by now that crap might have worked in the 90's but it doesn't fly anymore. Jesus yourself!"

  •  

    "I suppose the Conservatives here will continue to try and perpetrate the myth that I don't post supporting data for arguments. ( eyes roll if they could )."

     

     

     

    You literally don't even make sense.  It is amusing when you start acting out like this, however.  


     


     

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #129 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 

How could it not be valid? The quote is from one of the authors of the paper the Register misrepresented. ( eyes roll if they could )

 

This is just an example of your generous use of smoke and mirrors to appear like you've still got a valid argument in the matter.

 

 

 

WTF are you babbling about?  I am saying the REBUTTAL (that YOU posted) may or may not be valid.  It very well may be...I'm not even evaluating that.  It's a wholly separate issue from our discussion.  That discussion is about your understanding of what DATA is.  Regardless of validity of the rebuttal, it's not "data."   That is all I'm saying (writing).  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Actually Sherlock the first time I heard the word " Sophistry " was from Captain Picard ( back in the early 90's ).lol.gif When I hear or read something I don't know or are unfamiliar with I look it up and it becomes part of my vocabulary or general knowledge. Also since I found the " Definition " of data in a dictionary I'm choosing that over your analysis.lol.gif

 

Wait...LOL...are you now claiming that you learned the word "sophistry" from fucking STAR TREK?   ROTFLMAO!!!!  lol.giflol.giflol.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

Give it up SDW. I know you don't like to lose but just like with the WMD in Iraq ( lol.gif ) you look silly when you try to refute the irrefutable. ( wink if I could )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lose?  Again, what then the name of **** are you talking about?  All I did was state that one of the links you were refuting was from NASA.  You flipped out and started posting things like:  

 

  • "Keep trying Jazzy but it's not just one person saying this. Also here's a little something directly from one of the people who published the paper mentioned in the register article. Pretty damning."

  •  

    "It's support for my claim so quite trying to spin things ( like you do everything ). Haven't you learned by now that crap might have worked in the 90's but it doesn't fly anymore. Jesus yourself!"

  •  

    "I suppose the Conservatives here will continue to try and perpetrate the myth that I don't post supporting data for arguments. ( eyes roll if they could )."

     

     

     

    You literally don't even make sense.  It is amusing when you start acting out like this, however.  


     


     

They really don't have this new format down yet do they? I've been trying for 5 min. to post a reply!  Anyway someone's getting a little flipped out and it's not me. Unfortunately SDW you're floundering now and either don't see it ( or don't want to admit ) or it's that blindspot again. I'm glad you're amused ( in a sort of ignorance is bliss sort of fashion ). But it's you who are pretending to not understand. You try to address only one part of my post ( and what's wrong with the link from NASA? ). The other part is the really damning part but you don't want to look at it. Just let it go SDW. The more you try to come out on top here the more silly and removed from making a relevant contribution to the topic you get.

 

 

 

Quote:
 I am saying the REBUTTAL (that YOU posted) may or may not be valid. It very well may be...I'm not even evaluating that. It's a wholly separate issue from our discussion. That discussion is about your understanding of what DATA is. Regardless of validity of the rebuttal, it's not "data." That is all I'm saying (writing).

 

 

That might be what you're discussing but it's not what I am and not on topic. And may or not be valid?lol.gif Talk about trying to cloud the issue. You evaluate all you want but you're just being obtuse. Jesus!

 

Also your feigned amusement in order to appear superior isn't cutting it.

 

And given that you've admitted your a fan of ST also in the past your using it as a way to try to disgrace my argument is a little disgusting. You can pick up facts to investigate and increase your knowledge from anywhere SDW. I would think being a teacher you would want your students to know that. You know teaching them to be curious and all that.

 

Now you can pretend to be amused SDW but you only look like an idiot when you do this in the face of the facts at hand. The Register misrepresented a scientific paper. People like Jazzy seized on it to support a position. And now the Register and the people who believed them have egg on their face. That's the facts. The more you try to counter that ( or try to avoid it by clouding the issue ) the dumber you look given it's cut and dried nature.


Edited by jimmac - 7/12/12 at 7:11pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #130 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They really don't have this new format down yet do they? I've been trying for 5 min. to post a reply!  Anyway someone's getting a little flipped out and it's not me. Unfortunately SDW you're floundering now and either don't see it ( or don't want to admit ) or it's that blindspot again. I'm glad you're amused ( in a sort of ignorance is bliss sort of fashion ). But it's you who are pretending to not understand. You try to address only one part of my post ( and what's wrong with the link from NASA? ). The other part is the really damning part but you don't want to look at it. Just let it go SDW. The more you try to come out on top here the more silly and removed from making a relevant contribution to the topic you get.

 

 

 

 

That might be what you're discussing but it's not what I am and not on topic. And may or not be valid?lol.gif Talk about trying to cloud the issue. You evaluate all you want but you're just being obtuse. Jesus!

 

Also your feigned amusement in order to appear superior isn't cutting it.

 

And given that you've admitted your a fan of ST also in the past your using it as a way to try to disgrace my argument is a little disgusting. You can pick up facts to investigate and increase your knowledge from anywhere SDW. I would think being a teacher you would want your students to know that. You know teaching them to be curious and all that.

 

Now you can pretend to be amused SDW but you only look like an idiot when you do this in the face of the facts at hand. The Register misrepresented a scientific paper. People like Jazzy seized on it to support a position. And now the Register and the people who believed them have egg on their face. That's the facts. The more you try to counter that ( or try to avoid it by clouding the issue ) the dumber you look given it's cut and dried nature.

 

 

jimmac, the only issue here is what you consider "data."  Do you consider the article (rebuttal) you posted data?  Yes or no, please.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #131 of 244

 

Quote:
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They really don't have this new format down yet do they? I've been trying for 5 min. to post a reply!  Anyway someone's getting a little flipped out and it's not me. Unfortunately SDW you're floundering now and either don't see it ( or don't want to admit ) or it's that blindspot again. I'm glad you're amused ( in a sort of ignorance is bliss sort of fashion ). But it's you who are pretending to not understand. You try to address only one part of my post ( and what's wrong with the link from NASA? ). The other part is the really damning part but you don't want to look at it. Just let it go SDW. The more you try to come out on top here the more silly and removed from making a relevant contribution to the topic you get.

 

 

 

 

That might be what you're discussing but it's not what I am and not on topic. And may or not be valid?lol.gif Talk about trying to cloud the issue. You evaluate all you want but you're just being obtuse. Jesus!

 

Also your feigned amusement in order to appear superior isn't cutting it.

 

And given that you've admitted your a fan of ST also in the past your using it as a way to try to disgrace my argument is a little disgusting. You can pick up facts to investigate and increase your knowledge from anywhere SDW. I would think being a teacher you would want your students to know that. You know teaching them to be curious and all that.

 

Now you can pretend to be amused SDW but you only look like an idiot when you do this in the face of the facts at hand. The Register misrepresented a scientific paper. People like Jazzy seized on it to support a position. And now the Register and the people who believed them have egg on their face. That's the facts. The more you try to counter that ( or try to avoid it by clouding the issue ) the dumber you look given it's cut and dried nature.

 

 

jimmac, the only issue here is what you consider "data."  Do you consider the article (rebuttal) you posted data?  Yes or no, please.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
jimmac, the only issue here is what you consider "data." 

 

 

 

It's not just me SDW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

 

 

 

Quote:

Data... data is raw. It simply exists and has no significance beyond its existence (in and of itself). It can exist in any form, usable or not. It does not have meaning of itself. In computer parlance, a spreadsheet generally starts out by holding data.

 

Do me a favor and read the link.

 

 

 

Quote:
  1. Data: symbols

  2. Information: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

  3. Knowledge: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

  4. Understanding: appreciation of "why"

  5. Wisdom: evaluated understanding.

 


Edited by jimmac - 7/18/12 at 9:08pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #132 of 244
Thread Starter 

Is your article "data?"  Yes or no.  Answer the question.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 244

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Is your article "data?"  Yes or no.  Answer the question.  

Oh for God's sake you're impossible to reason with! Yes I believe the article is data. It's a form of information which by the criteria of the link I supplied and the dictionary link it's data. Now did you read the link I just posted in defense of my position? I'm guessing you glossed over it because after all SDW You " know everything ".

 

 

But allow me to provide a difference that maybe you're suggesting :

 

Quote:
When data is processed, organized, structured or presented in a given context so as to make it useful, it is called Information.

Perhaps this is what you're getting at?

 

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information

 

 

Now how about commenting on the evidence provided that the Register and anyone who jumped on the band wagon was wrong? I mean that was the topic ( and I know how you love to stay on topic ) of thread instead of focusing on my definition of data how about the facts presented therein?. No matter what you call it I supplied support for my argument.


Edited by jimmac - 7/19/12 at 7:00pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #134 of 244

I have to say I hate this new format. It sucks.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #135 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Yes I believe the article is data.

 

Thank you.  At least you've made it clear to all that you don't understand the definition of the term.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #136 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:

Yes I believe the article is data.

 

Thank you.  At least you've made it clear to all that you don't understand the definition of the term.  

And you SDW have made it clear you care nothing for the topic of a thread. Especially when it's something you don't agree with. Because for you it's more important to win the argument ( and try to make me look bad ) than to address the subject of the thread. So you choose to focus on one tiny aspect of the conversation instead of the big picture or topic. You prefer to cover up or distract from the topic in a rather petty fashion.

 

I asked you to comment on the the topic and you igmored that request. Thanks for making your M.O. clear to everyone here ( as if they didn't already know with the spelling bee but now it's super obvious ). There's no denying it SDW. If you're going to draw those kind of conclusions about me then the other about you is true also.


Edited by jimmac - 7/20/12 at 9:38pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #137 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
And you SDW have made it clear you care nothing for the topic of a thread. Especially when it's something you don't agree with.

 

I started the thread.  Hello? 

 

 

Quote:
Because for you it's more important to win the argument ( and try to make me look bad ) than to address the subject of the thread.

 

I prefer to do both, actually.  :)  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

So you choose to focus on one tiny aspect of the conversation instead of the big picture or topic. You prefer to cover up or distract from the topic in a rather petty fashion.

 

 

A tiny aspect?  You mean, like, you posting something labeled "data" to support your overall argument, when in fact it's not data?  Yeah, what a small, insignificant thing.  And let's not forget, you are the one who posted those links, not me.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I asked you to comment on the the topic and you igmored that request. Thanks for making your M.O. clear to everyone here ( as if they didn't already know with the spelling bee but now it's super obvious ). There's no denying it SDW. If you're going to draw those kind of conclusions about me then the other about you is true also.

 

I've made my position abundantly clear on this issue:  I do not believe the Earth is warming abnormally.  Man-made AGW is a highly suspect theory, one that has been been perverted to support a global political agenda.  "I'm not the only one saying this" has literally been your only argument.  In fact, that seems to be your only argument for anything.  

 

As for what you term a "spelling bee, " well, we've been through this, as you say.  You don't just misspell words.  You don't just make typos or occasional grammatical errors.  You consistently demonstrate the lack of ability to communicate clearly in writing.  You make massive grammatical and spelling mistakes.  You use words you hear on Star Trek.  You use strawman arguments ad nauseam.  It all goes to your inability comprehend and respond to others in writing.  As for me, I'm more than happy to have you or anyone else point out the errors I make, even if they are merely a typo or autocorrect anomaly.  That way, I can fix those typos or occasional grammatical errors...something you apparently have no interest in.  

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
And you SDW have made it clear you care nothing for the topic of a thread. Especially when it's something you don't agree with.

 

I started the thread.  Hello? 

 

 

Quote:
Because for you it's more important to win the argument ( and try to make me look bad ) than to address the subject of the thread.

 

I prefer to do both, actually.  :)  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

So you choose to focus on one tiny aspect of the conversation instead of the big picture or topic. You prefer to cover up or distract from the topic in a rather petty fashion.

 

 

A tiny aspect?  You mean, like, you posting something labeled "data" to support your overall argument, when in fact it's not data?  Yeah, what a small, insignificant thing.  And let's not forget, you are the one who posted those links, not me.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I asked you to comment on the the topic and you ignored that request. Thanks for making your M.O. clear to everyone here ( as if they didn't already know with the spelling bee but now it's super obvious ). There's no denying it SDW. If you're going to draw those kind of conclusions about me then the other about you is true also.

 

I've made my position abundantly clear on this issue:  I do not believe the Earth is warming abnormally.  Man-made AGW is a highly suspect theory, one that has been been perverted to support a global political agenda.  "I'm not the only one saying this" has literally been your only argument.  In fact, that seems to be your only argument for anything.  

 

As for what you term a "spelling bee, " well, we've been through this, as you say.  You don't just misspell words.  You don't just make typos or occasional grammatical errors.  You consistently demonstrate the lack of ability to communicate clearly in writing.  You make massive grammatical and spelling mistakes.  You use words you hear on Star Trek.  You use strawman arguments ad nauseam.  It all goes to your inability comprehend and respond to others in writing.  As for me, I'm more than happy to have you or anyone else point out the errors I make, even if they are merely a typo or autocorrect anomaly.  That way, I can fix those typos or occasional grammatical errors...something you apparently have no interest in.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I started the thread. Hello?

Can you say cop out?

 

 

 

Quote:

I prefer to do both, actually.

But you ignored one.

 

 

 

Quote:

I've made my position abundantly clear on this issue: I do not believe the Earth is warming abnormally. Man-made AGW is a highly suspect theory, one that has been been perverted to support a global political agenda. "I'm not the only one saying this" has literally been your only argument. In fact, that seems to be your only argument for anything. 

This says nothing about the fact that the Register printed a falsehood and supporters of the idea that GW isn't real saw it as a chance to prove their point. It was in error SDW. Not true.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
 You use words you hear on Star Trek. 

 

 

I wish it was easier to look things up on here or I'd dig up that thread from about a year ago where you used the picture of Picard and how many lights in a post. And really SDW do you really teach kids that it's bad to pick up ideas from certain places and learn from them? Really do you teach like this? Really? That's really reaching SDW.

 

 

 

Quote:

You consistently demonstrate the lack of ability to communicate clearly in writing.

That must be why I excelled in every writing class I've ever attended. In all of my 59 years you're the first to say this. And no you're not my friend doing me a favor. I'll be the first to admit that my spelling skills are lazy ( in spite of all the reading I've done ) However in all of those classes the instructors have chosen to focus on the content. The ideas in my writing. Something you seem to be incapable of doing when it suits you. All of what you've posted so far ignores the fact that your premise for this thread ( if you use the Register information as proof ) is bogus. Also as I've demonstrated you make mistakes as well ( yes we know they're typos when you do it ). All of this seems like you want to ignore the fact that your thread contained items that were in error on the anti GW side and you want to draw attention away from that.

 

Notice how I keep steering it back on topic?

 

A little something about Judith Curry :

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/04/28/205879/judith-curry-mcintyre-watts/?mobile=nc

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/

 

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/judith-currys-disingenuous-blame-game/

 

http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2012/01/judith-curry-nonsense-sampler.html

 

 

Quote:
Her position on this is as clear as it is indefensible: the less we understand the radical changes we have set in motion in the earth's climate, the less we need to worry about them. If the science cannot reduce the uncertainty to an unspecified, but very low level (as determined by Curry herself, based on subjective criteria she has never specified), we are asked to ignore the science completely.
 

 

 

 

Quote:

Above we have a particularly egregious example of this. Scientists have accurately projected changes in precipitation, but they are happening faster than the models predict. In the world according to Judith Curry, this is supposed to be reassuring, because:

1. The climate models didn't get it exactly right.
2. Climate models are unreliable.
3. Therefore, the risks climate science is telling us about (based on a heap of evidence, including the models) aren't anything to worry about.

You can see how a first year undergrad who had just learned about the problem might fall into this fallacy, but for a PhD who claims uncertainty as a research interest, it's insane. Curry would have us believe that if somebody comes to your house and tells you your kid was hit by a truck going 60mph, and you rush to the scene only to be told by the highway patrol that your kid was struck by a truck going 80mph, that you ought to relax and go home, since clearly the first person didn't know what they were talking about.
 

 

 

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climate_scientist_michael_mann_fights_back_against_skeptics/2516/

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

 

There's much more if you want it.


Edited by jimmac - 7/21/12 at 12:07pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #139 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
That must be why I excelled in every writing class I've ever attended. In all of my 59 years you're the first to say this. And no you're not my friend doing me a favor. I'll be the first to admit that my spelling skills are lazy ( in spite of all the reading I've done ) However in all of those classes the instructors have chosen to focus on the content. The ideas in my writing. Something you seem to be incapable of doing when it suits you. All of what you've posted so far ignores the fact that your premise for this thread ( if you use the Register information as proof ) is bogus. Also as I've demonstrated you make mistakes as well ( yes we know they're typos when you do it ). All of this seems like you want to ignore the fact that your thread contained items that were in error on the anti GW side and you want to draw attention away from that

 

 

Since the rest of your post is biased, blind nonsense, I'll focus on this....something which is just regular nonsense.  Your writing skills suck.  Spelling and grammar matter, sir.  Any teacher that allowed you to slide on "content" without strong persuasive and grammatical skills was--put simply--a poor teacher.  

 

Example:  However in all of those classes the instructors have chosen to focus on the content. The ideas in my writing. 

 

Care to tell me what's wrong with the above?  I didn't think so.  

 

 

As for me, yes...please continue to point out my errors.  It gives me an opportunity to correct them.  Unlike you, I like when people point out my errors.  It only improves my writing (informal as AI is).  

 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
That must be why I excelled in every writing class I've ever attended. In all of my 59 years you're the first to say this. And no you're not my friend doing me a favor. I'll be the first to admit that my spelling skills are lazy ( in spite of all the reading I've done ) However in all of those classes the instructors have chosen to focus on the content. The ideas in my writing. Something you seem to be incapable of doing when it suits you. All of what you've posted so far ignores the fact that your premise for this thread ( if you use the Register information as proof ) is bogus. Also as I've demonstrated you make mistakes as well ( yes we know they're typos when you do it ). All of this seems like you want to ignore the fact that your thread contained items that were in error on the anti GW side and you want to draw attention away from that

 

 

Since the rest of your post is biased, blind nonsense, I'll focus on this....something which is just regular nonsense.  Your writing skills suck.  Spelling and grammar matter, sir.  Any teacher that allowed you to slide on "content" without strong persuasive and grammatical skills was--put simply--a poor teacher.  

 

Example:  However in all of those classes the instructors have chosen to focus on the content. The ideas in my writing. 

 

Care to tell me what's wrong with the above?  I didn't think so.  

 

 

As for me, yes...please continue to point out my errors.  It gives me an opportunity to correct them.  Unlike you, I like when people point out my errors.  It only improves my writing (informal as AI is).  

 

 

 

 

SDW you miss the point by a mile! This thread isn't about writing skills so I'm not going to respond to off topic comments anymore. It's about GW which since you started the thread you should know that!  However once again you ignore the fact that my original conversation with jazzy ( which you chose to become a part of ) was about something GW skeptics were using as proof that GW isn't real. It was proven wrong. How is that biased, blind, nonsense? I'm waiting on an answer for this one. This isn't a case of personal bias. It's a case of a publication misrepresenting what a scientist said on the matter. That's pretty cut and dried. It seems like you want to gloss over that. Why?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #141 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW you miss the point by a mile! This thread isn't about writing skills so I'm not going to respond to off topic comments anymore. It's about GW which since you started the thread you should know that!  However once again you ignore the fact that my original conversation with jazzy ( which you chose to become a part of ) was about something GW skeptics were using as proof that GW isn't real. It was proven wrong. How is that biased, blind, nonsense? I'm waiting on an answer for this one. This isn't a case of personal bias. It's a case of a publication misrepresenting what a scientist said on the matter. That's pretty cut and dried. It seems like you want to gloss over that. Why?

 

I didn't gloss over anything.  I acknowledged that the rebuttal you posted may be valid.  My point was that you don't understand what "data" is.  That happens to be a central issue when we are discussion a very data-dependent issue like AGW.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #142 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW you miss the point by a mile! This thread isn't about writing skills so I'm not going to respond to off topic comments anymore. It's about GW which since you started the thread you should know that!  However once again you ignore the fact that my original conversation with jazzy ( which you chose to become a part of ) was about something GW skeptics were using as proof that GW isn't real. It was proven wrong. How is that biased, blind, nonsense? I'm waiting on an answer for this one. This isn't a case of personal bias. It's a case of a publication misrepresenting what a scientist said on the matter. That's pretty cut and dried. It seems like you want to gloss over that. Why?

 

I didn't gloss over anything.  I acknowledged that the rebuttal you posted may be valid.  My point was that you don't understand what "data" is.  That happens to be a central issue when we are discussion a very data-dependent issue like AGW.  

May be valid?lol.gif

 

It's cut and dried. There is no " May be? The Register got it wrong in the worst example of poor journalism. And then GW skeptics ran with it. There's no grey area here SDW. Absolutely none.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

May be valid?lol.gif

 

It's cut and dried. There is no " May be? The Register got it wrong in the worst example of poor journalism. And then GW skeptics ran with it. There's no grey area here SDW. Absolutely none.

 

Whether it's valid or not is besides the point.  It could be "cut and dried" as you point out.  The issue is that you presented it as "data," when in fact it was nothing of the kind.  You are unqualified to discuss the topic of AGW because you don't understand what data is and is not.  You've shown this in other areas too, particularly that of economics.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

May be valid?lol.gif

 

It's cut and dried. There is no " May be? The Register got it wrong in the worst example of poor journalism. And then GW skeptics ran with it. There's no grey area here SDW. Absolutely none.

 

Whether it's valid or not is besides the point.  It could be "cut and dried" as you point out.  The issue is that you presented it as "data," when in fact it was nothing of the kind.  You are unqualified to discuss the topic of AGW because you don't understand what data is and is not.  You've shown this in other areas too, particularly that of economics.  

No the on topic issue is there's no maybe. One of the persons that they were quoting ( part of the project ) refuted what the Register printed. There's no maybe or could be about it. There is no doubt SDW. And if I'm unqualified so are you who insisted that there were WMD in Iraq shortly before the invasion ( and even after ) when there was clearly nothing to find. You clearly demonstrated you can't get past your partisan views when it comes to world events. So how could you judge anything concerning politics, economics, or the world? As a matter of fact you obfuscate on a regular basis. You act like your judgment was God when it couldn't be farther from the truth. Please get off of your high horse SDW. You don't belong there.

 

 

Quote:
Whether it's valid or not is besides the point.

 

Hardly. You should know better. You're the Thread starter aren't you?


Edited by jimmac - 7/25/12 at 7:25pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #146 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No the on topic issue is there's no maybe. One of the persons that they were quoting ( part of the project ) refuted what the Register printed. There's no maybe or could be about it. There is no doubt SDW. And if I'm unqualified so are you who insisted that there were WMD in Iraq shortly before the invasion ( and even after ) when there was clearly nothing to find. You clearly demonstrated you can't get past your partisan views when it comes to world events. So how could you judge anything concerning politics, economics, or the world? As a matter of fact you obfuscate on a regular basis. You act like your judgment was God when it couldn't be farther from the truth. Please get off of your high horse SDW. You don't belong there.

 

 

 

Hardly. You should know better. You're the Thread starter aren't you?

 

 

It being "cut and dried" and there being "no doubt" have absolutely nothing to do with your article being data, or something else.  Why you refuse to concede this point is beyond me.  It doesn't even harm your argument.  Rather, it simply shows that you continue to be either unable or unwilling to distinguish between data and other forms of information. 

 

As for your predictable WMD comments:  Yes, you've tried to make this argument before.  This argument is that because I happened to be wrong on this one issue, I must be wrong about every other issue.  That's hilariously stupid, but carry on.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Hardly. You should know better. You're the Thread starter aren't you?

 

 

If you'd like to actually discuss the topic I started, that's fine.  Whenever you do engage however, you post some opinion piece and state "I'm not the only one saying this."   That's your entire argument...that you're not the only one saying this.    I prefer to focus on actual, uh, data.  lol.gif

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #147 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No the on topic issue is there's no maybe. One of the persons that they were quoting ( part of the project ) refuted what the Register printed. There's no maybe or could be about it. There is no doubt SDW. And if I'm unqualified so are you who insisted that there were WMD in Iraq shortly before the invasion ( and even after ) when there was clearly nothing to find. You clearly demonstrated you can't get past your partisan views when it comes to world events. So how could you judge anything concerning politics, economics, or the world? As a matter of fact you obfuscate on a regular basis. You act like your judgment was God when it couldn't be farther from the truth. Please get off of your high horse SDW. You don't belong there.

 

 

 

Hardly. You should know better. You're the Thread starter aren't you?

 

 

It being "cut and dried" and there being "no doubt" have absolutely nothing to do with your article being data, or something else.  Why you refuse to concede this point is beyond me.  It doesn't even harm your argument.  Rather, it simply shows that you continue to be either unable or unwilling to distinguish between data and other forms of information. 

 

As for your predictable WMD comments:  Yes, you've tried to make this argument before.  This argument is that because I happened to be wrong on this one issue, I must be wrong about every other issue.  That's hilariously stupid, but carry on.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Hardly. You should know better. You're the Thread starter aren't you?

 

 

If you'd like to actually discuss the topic I started, that's fine.  Whenever you do engage however, you post some opinion piece and state "I'm not the only one saying this."   That's your entire argument...that you're not the only one saying this.    I prefer to focus on actual, uh, data.  lol.gif

The response ( by one of the members of the project ) to the Register article wasn't an opinion piece. 

 

Also about Iraq you were about as wrong as a person could be about an important issue that cost us a lot of money and lives! And now you try to downplay it? As you would say " Wow! Just wow! ". As it was very important and obvious to everyone with half a brain that wasn't weighed down by partisan thinking your judgement must be called into question on every issue that might have partisan bias SDW. It was a clear indicator of your way of thinking as you made quite a stink about that wrong side of the issue for quite awhile. I'm sure you'd like it to just simply go away as it's been a few years but that simply can't happen and won't happen. Also once again you're off topic Mr. thread starter. Why you can't see any of this I don't know. It must be that amygdala of yours getting in the way. lol.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #148 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The response ( by one of the members of the project ) to the Register article wasn't an opinion piece.

 

I didn't claim it was.  It was also not "data" however.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Also about Iraq you were about as wrong as a person could be about an important issue that cost us a lot of money and lives! And now you try to downplay it? As you would say " Wow! Just wow! ".

 

Downplay it?  Hardly.  I've acknowledged it openly.  

 

 

Quote:
As it was very important and obvious to everyone with half a brain that wasn't weighed down by partisan thinking your judgement must be called into question on every issue that might have partisan bias SDW.

 

The above is a demonstrably false statement.  It was not a "partisan issue" at all.  Many Democrats are on record stating that Saddam had to be stopped due to WMD.  The judgement of the world intelligence community was that he had them.  Our own government believed it wasn't even a question.  If you want to take a victory lap because it turned out I (and thousands of other people who were more informed) was wrong, that's fine.  But don't tell me it's a "partisan issue."  It clearly isn't.  

 

 

 

Quote:
It was a clear indicator of your way of thinking as you made quite a stink about that wrong side of the issue for quite awhile. I'm sure you'd like it to just simply go away as it's been a few years but that simply can't happen and won't happen. Also once again you're off topic Mr. thread starter. Why you can't see any of this I don't know. It must be that amygdala of yours getting in the way. lol.gif

 

You're embarrassing yourself.  I've clearly demonstrated that your premise of my position being partisan in nature is false.  Moreover, you attempting to use it in every thread really makes you look desperate.  You were then as you are now--a stopped clock that is right twice a day.  In reality, it is your partisanship that caused you to claim that "anyone with a brain" could see there was no WMD.  You rolled the dice, and happened to win.  Of course, you celebrated your "victory" over something that ended up being bad for the country--but that's nothing new.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #149 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
The response ( by one of the members of the project ) to the Register article wasn't an opinion piece.

 

I didn't claim it was.  It was also not "data" however.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Also about Iraq you were about as wrong as a person could be about an important issue that cost us a lot of money and lives! And now you try to downplay it? As you would say " Wow! Just wow! ".

 

Downplay it?  Hardly.  I've acknowledged it openly.  

 

 

Quote:
As it was very important and obvious to everyone with half a brain that wasn't weighed down by partisan thinking your judgement must be called into question on every issue that might have partisan bias SDW.

 

The above is a demonstrably false statement.  It was not a "partisan issue" at all.  Many Democrats are on record stating that Saddam had to be stopped due to WMD.  The judgement of the world intelligence community was that he had them.  Our own government believed it wasn't even a question.  If you want to take a victory lap because it turned out I (and thousands of other people who were more informed) was wrong, that's fine.  But don't tell me it's a "partisan issue."  It clearly isn't.  

 

 

 

Quote:
It was a clear indicator of your way of thinking as you made quite a stink about that wrong side of the issue for quite awhile. I'm sure you'd like it to just simply go away as it's been a few years but that simply can't happen and won't happen. Also once again you're off topic Mr. thread starter. Why you can't see any of this I don't know. It must be that amygdala of yours getting in the way. lol.gif

 

You're embarrassing yourself.  I've clearly demonstrated that your premise of my position being partisan in nature is false.  Moreover, you attempting to use it in every thread really makes you look desperate.  You were then as you are now--a stopped clock that is right twice a day.  In reality, it is your partisanship that caused you to claim that "anyone with a brain" could see there was no WMD.  You rolled the dice, and happened to win.  Of course, you celebrated your "victory" over something that ended up being bad for the country--but that's nothing new.  

Well someone's embarrassing one's self by insisting on being off topic and avoiding the fact that the anti GW people blew it this time by going with the article from the Register.

 

And SDWlol.gif about WMD there was no roll of any dice ( hence the reference to downplay ). The people over in Iraq ( inspectors ) before and after said " Nothing to find " . The UN said there wasn't enough evidence for an invasion. And you keep going back to the Democrats wanting to support a president that didn't deserve it. What the hell does that prove? They were wrong also. There was one ( Senator Byrd ) That didn't. And what did you guys do? Pick on his KKK past that had nothing to do with the situation. Here's how he felt about the invasion :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8  if you ask me this did a lot to make up for something he did in his 20's. 

 

In the end you refused to believe anyone who said the invasion wasn't justified. It was obvious to everyone except those that desperately wanted something to support their position. Your display SDW ( as always ) is pathetic. Please stop the obfuscation and get back on topic. 


Edited by jimmac - 7/29/12 at 11:43am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #150 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well someone's embarrassing one's self by insisting on being off topic and avoiding the fact that the anti GW people blew it this time by going with the article from the Register.

 

And SDWlol.gif about WMD there was no roll of any dice ( hence the reference to downplay ). The people over in Iraq ( inspectors ) before and after said " Nothing to find " . The UN said there wasn't enough evidence for an invasion. And you keep going back to the Democrats wanting to support a president that didn't deserve it. What the hell does that prove? They were wrong also. There was one ( Senator Byrd ) That didn't. And what did you guys do? Pick on his KKK past that had nothing to do with the situation. Here's how he felt about the invasion :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8  if you ask me this did a lot to make up for something he did in his 20's. 

 

In the end you refused to believe anyone who said the invasion wasn't justified. It was obvious to everyone except those that desperately wanted something to support their position. Your display SDW ( as always ) is pathetic. Please stop the obfuscation and get back on topic. 

 

1.  I'll state it again:  Whether or not "the anti GW people blew it" is of no consequence.  What happened is that during the discussion, you proved you don't know what data is once and for all.  

 

2.  You're moving the goalposts now.  Whether or not an invasion was justified is another matter entirely.  Your claim was that I believed there were WMD for "partisan" reasons.  I showed that claim to be false, because there were many Democrats who said as late as 2003 that Saddam had WMD.  

 

Now, if you'd like to start a WMD rehash thread, that's fine.  But trying to disqualify every argument I make based on the fact we didn't find WMD in Iraq is laughable.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #151 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well someone's embarrassing one's self by insisting on being off topic and avoiding the fact that the anti GW people blew it this time by going with the article from the Register.

 

And SDWlol.gif about WMD there was no roll of any dice ( hence the reference to downplay ). The people over in Iraq ( inspectors ) before and after said " Nothing to find " . The UN said there wasn't enough evidence for an invasion. And you keep going back to the Democrats wanting to support a president that didn't deserve it. What the hell does that prove? They were wrong also. There was one ( Senator Byrd ) That didn't. And what did you guys do? Pick on his KKK past that had nothing to do with the situation. Here's how he felt about the invasion :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeAFb5p2qX8  if you ask me this did a lot to make up for something he did in his 20's. 

 

In the end you refused to believe anyone who said the invasion wasn't justified. It was obvious to everyone except those that desperately wanted something to support their position. Your display SDW ( as always ) is pathetic. Please stop the obfuscation and get back on topic. 

 

1.  I'll state it again:  Whether or not "the anti GW people blew it" is of no consequence.  What happened is that during the discussion, you proved you don't know what data is once and for all.  

 

2.  You're moving the goalposts now.  Whether or not an invasion was justified is another matter entirely.  Your claim was that I believed there were WMD for "partisan" reasons.  I showed that claim to be false, because there were many Democrats who said as late as 2003 that Saddam had WMD.  

 

Now, if you'd like to start a WMD rehash thread, that's fine.  But trying to disqualify every argument I make based on the fact we didn't find WMD in Iraq is laughable.  

 

Quote:

Whether or not "the anti GW people blew it" is of no consequence

It's of every consequence SDW. It undermines the case for GW not being real!lol.gif I'm not moving any goal posts! I'm staying within them with respect to the topic ( set by you ). You on the other hand are all over the place deperately trying to avoid the issue! Jesus you're a riot!lol.gif  And psst! SDW the argument about WMD has been over for a long time. There were none. Just like the inspectors and people with at least half a brain were saying!lol.gif There was no justification ( based on that or any other stated reason before hand for the invasion ). Evidently you still won't accept that! lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Your claim was that I believed there were WMD for "partisan" reasons. I showed that claim to be false, because there were many Democrats who said as late as 2003 that Saddam had WMD. 

Partasinship can take many forms SDW even support of an unjustified war. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Partisan

 

Quote:
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

 

 

 

 

Now can we get back on topic? I'm betting not. ( wink if I could ) But if you insist by all means keep digging that hole SDW.


Edited by jimmac - 7/29/12 at 1:17pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #152 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
It's of every consequence SDW. It undermines the case for GW not being real!lol.gif

 

The burden of proof is on those claiming Global Warming exists.  Secondly, it's of no consequence because the issue is that you presented a narrative rebuttal as DATA.  You don't know what data is.

 

 

Quote:
I'm not moving any goal posts! I'm staying within them with respect to the topic ( set by you ). You on the other hand are all over the place deperately trying to avoid the issue! Jesus you're a riot!lol.gif 

 

Yes, you are.  You claimed that my belief that Saddam had WMD was partisan.  I showed several examples of Democratic politicians claiming the same exact thing, thereby proving your claim false. You then shifted the claim to the UN not finding WMD before the invasion, nor stating there was a justification for war (as if they had the final word on that).  This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts in a debate.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And psst! SDW the argument about WMD has been over for a long time.

 

Apparently you don't know that, because you bring it up in every thread.  It was nearly a decade ago, and yet you still cling to it desperately.  

 

 

Quote:
There were none. Just like the inspectors and people with at least half a brain were saying!lol.gif

 

Ah, yes.  I see that you still believe the point of the inspections was to find hidden weapons, as if it was some kind of scavenger hunt.  The point, jimmac, was to ensure Iraq's verifiable disarmament.  Iraq did not veritably disarm, as other countries had done under UN-led efforts (example:  South Africa).  As for others, I take it then that all the Democrats who claimed Saddam had weapons were less than half-brained?  John Kerry?  Bill Clinton?  Hillary Clinton?  Evan Bayh, et al?  I suppose the Director of the CIA and those who formed the collective judgment of world intelligence (The British, The French, The Germans, The Israelis, etc) were all stupid?  Man, since you are clearly smarter than all of these people, you have a quite a future ahead of you!  :) 

 

 


 

Quote:

There was no justification ( based on that or any other stated reason before hand for the invasion ). Evidently you still won't accept that! lol.gif

 

Once again, that is another topic.  It's a topic you're wrong about, but another topic nonetheless.

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #153 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
It's of every consequence SDW. It undermines the case for GW not being real!lol.gif

 

The burden of proof is on those claiming Global Warming exists.  Secondly, it's of no consequence because the issue is that you presented a narrative rebuttal as DATA.  You don't know what data is.

 

 

Quote:
I'm not moving any goal posts! I'm staying within them with respect to the topic ( set by you ). You on the other hand are all over the place desperately trying to avoid the issue! Jesus you're a riot!lol.gif 

 

Yes, you are.  You claimed that my belief that Saddam had WMD was partisan.  I showed several examples of Democratic politicians claiming the same exact thing, thereby proving your claim false. You then shifted the claim to the UN not finding WMD before the invasion, nor stating there was a justification for war (as if they had the final word on that).  This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts in a debate.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And psst! SDW the argument about WMD has been over for a long time.

 

Apparently you don't know that, because you bring it up in every thread.  It was nearly a decade ago, and yet you still cling to it desperately.  

 

 

Quote:
There were none. Just like the inspectors and people with at least half a brain were saying!lol.gif

 

Ah, yes.  I see that you still believe the point of the inspections was to find hidden weapons, as if it was some kind of scavenger hunt.  The point, jimmac, was to ensure Iraq's verifiable disarmament.  Iraq did not veritably disarm, as other countries had done under UN-led efforts (example:  South Africa).  As for others, I take it then that all the Democrats who claimed Saddam had weapons were less than half-brained?  John Kerry?  Bill Clinton?  Hillary Clinton?  Evan Bayh, et al?  I suppose the Director of the CIA and those who formed the collective judgment of world intelligence (The British, The French, The Germans, The Israelis, etc) were all stupid?  Man, since you are clearly smarter than all of these people, you have a quite a future ahead of you!  :) 

 

 


 

Quote:

There was no justification ( based on that or any other stated reason before hand for the invasion ). Evidently you still won't accept that! lol.gif

 

Once again, that is another topic.  It's a topic you're wrong about, but another topic nonetheless.

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes, you are. You claimed that my belief that Saddam had WMD was partisan. I showed several examples of Democratic politicians claiming the same exact thing

And I showed you that being partisan can involve more than a political party. ( wink if I could )

 

 

Quote:

The burden of proof is on those claiming Global Warming exists

Yes. That's why they've supplied so much evidence and the other side has to resort to tabloids misquoting people.

 

 

Quote:

Apparently you don't know that, because you bring it up in every thread. It was nearly a decade ago, and yet you still cling to it desperately. 

When a person is this wrong it should be brought up again and again no matter how long ( and didn't we just leave there? ).

 

 

Quote:

The point, jimmac, was to ensure Iraq's verifiable disarmament

However the real bottom line was that they had disarmed. There was nothing to find hence no justification for the invasion. Even the UN at the the time was saying that. And yes a lot of people that wanted to give ol' Dubbya the benefit of a doubt were wrong. However as I've shown not all of them believed that and they should have listened to senator Byrd. Bush just wanted to push for war because he couldn't get OSB ( which by the way Obama did and that must really sting ) and he wanted a distraction from his inept handling of things here at home.

 

 

Quote:

Once again, that is another topic. It's a topic you're wrong about, but another topic nonetheless.

I'm totally right about that and you once again are 700 lol.gif

 

And who started pushing the topic off in the first place?


Edited by jimmac - 7/30/12 at 1:38pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #154 of 244
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:

And I showed you that being partisan can involve more than a political party. ( wink if I could )

 

 

No.  That's what "partisan" means.  And that's what you mean.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes. That's why they've supplied so much evidence and the other side has to resort to tabloids misquoting people.

 

 

Right, and the pro-AGW people don't manipulate and falsify data.  There is also no money to be made from global warming.  The GW hysteria folks have nothing to gain at all...their motives are pure.  Right?  

 

 

 

Quote:
When a person is this wrong it should be brought up again and again no matter how long ( and didn't we just leave there? ).

 

 

I don't know what "this wrong" means, but I do know that my judgment was based on all of the evidence available to me.  Many people came to the same conclusion, including leading Democrats such as The Clintons, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, etc.   Are you writing letters to their offices, jimmac?  Didn't you vote for Kerry?  How do you reconcile that?  

 

Secondly, what I do find a little sad is the fact that you have been taking victory laps over guessing the right answer on WMD for 9 years now.  Yes, GUESSING.  The evidence was overwhelming.  Even the Director of the CIA said as much.  Well, it turned out to be wrong.  But for some reason Jimmac the Stopped Clock™ is running around claiming he knew better all along, and that anyone else who disagreed is a fool.  

 

 

 

Quote:
However the real bottom line was that they had disarmed.

 

False.  They were to VERIFIABLY disarm.  You are wrong.  

 

 

Quote:
There was nothing to find hence no justification for the invasion.

 

False.  There were many other justifications that were presented.  Of course, every time they came up, the administration was accused of "shifting justifications."  

 

 

Quote:
Even the UN at the the time was saying that.

 

"Even" the UN? The UN and its weapons inspectors are completely incompetent and corrupt.  Do you know that lead inspector Hans Blix never found any weapons...ever?  

 

 

Quote:
And yes a lot of people that wanted to give ol' Dubbya the benefit of a doubt were wrong.

 

Oh, I see.   Bush fooled them all.  Jesus Christ.  

 

 

Quote:
However as I've shown not all of them believed that and they should have listened to senator Byrd.

 

About what...joining the Klan?  

 

 

Quote:
Bush just wanted to push for war because he couldn't get OSB

 

You're just making shit up now.  You have no backing for that statement whatsoever.  

 

 

Quote:
( which by the way Obama did and that must really sting )

 

Obama gave an order any President would have given.  And who does it sting?  

 

 

Quote:

and he wanted a distraction from his inept handling of things here at home.

 

 

Uh, you mean like a booming economy and killing 3/4 of AQ's leadership in 3 years?  Yeah, inept.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 I'm totally right about that and you once again are 

 

And who started pushing the topic off in the first place?

 

Poor jimmac.  Over the years, other liberal members have used images effectively and humorously.  But try as he might, he just doesn't have the intellectual and artistic creativity to do so.  Sad, really  :(

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #155 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Quote:

And I showed you that being partisan can involve more than a political party. ( wink if I could )

 

 

No.  That's what "partisan" means.  And that's what you mean.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes. That's why they've supplied so much evidence and the other side has to resort to tabloids misquoting people.

 

 

Right, and the pro-AGW people don't manipulate and falsify data.  There is also no money to be made from global warming.  The GW hysteria folks have nothing to gain at all...their motives are pure.  Right?  

 

 

 

Quote:
When a person is this wrong it should be brought up again and again no matter how long ( and didn't we just leave there? ).

 

 

I don't know what "this wrong" means, but I do know that my judgment was based on all of the evidence available to me.  Many people came to the same conclusion, including leading Democrats such as The Clintons, John Kerry, Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman, etc.   Are you writing letters to their offices, jimmac?  Didn't you vote for Kerry?  How do you reconcile that?  

 

Secondly, what I do find a little sad is the fact that you have been taking victory laps over guessing the right answer on WMD for 9 years now.  Yes, GUESSING.  The evidence was overwhelming.  Even the Director of the CIA said as much.  Well, it turned out to be wrong.  But for some reason Jimmac the Stopped Clock™ is running around claiming he knew better all along, and that anyone else who disagreed is a fool.  

 

 

 

Quote:
However the real bottom line was that they had disarmed.

 

False.  They were to VERIFIABLY disarm.  You are wrong.  

 

 

Quote:
There was nothing to find hence no justification for the invasion.

 

False.  There were many other justifications that were presented.  Of course, every time they came up, the administration was accused of "shifting justifications."  

 

 

Quote:
Even the UN at the the time was saying that.

 

"Even" the UN? The UN and its weapons inspectors are completely incompetent and corrupt.  Do you know that lead inspector Hans Blix never found any weapons...ever?  

 

 

Quote:
And yes a lot of people that wanted to give ol' Dubbya the benefit of a doubt were wrong.

 

Oh, I see.   Bush fooled them all.  Jesus Christ.  

 

 

Quote:
However as I've shown not all of them believed that and they should have listened to senator Byrd.

 

About what...joining the Klan?  

 

 

Quote:
Bush just wanted to push for war because he couldn't get OSB

 

You're just making shit up now.  You have no backing for that statement whatsoever.  

 

 

Quote:
( which by the way Obama did and that must really sting )

 

Obama gave an order any President would have given.  And who does it sting?  

 

 

Quote:

and he wanted a distraction from his inept handling of things here at home.

 

 

Uh, you mean like a booming economy and killing 3/4 of AQ's leadership in 3 years?  Yeah, inept.  

 

 

 

Quote:

 I'm totally right about that and you once again are 

 

And who started pushing the topic off in the first place?

 

Poor jimmac.  Over the years, other liberal members have used images effectively and humorously.  But try as he might, he just doesn't have the intellectual and artistic creativity to do so.  Sad, really  :(

 

 

SDW I don't have time right now to address how stupid this reply was but I'll just leave you with this from the dictionary :

 

Quote:
No. That's what "partisan" means. And that's what you mean. 

Now you're telling me what I mean? It really sounds like your losing it big time.lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
1.
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

 

Sorry but I'll take a dictionary over your idea of what something means any day of the week.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Partisan

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #156 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW I don't have time right now to address how stupid this reply was but I'll just leave you with this from the dictionary :

 

If you have enough time to make snarky comments devoid of any real substance across multiple threads in response to anything anyone says that you disagree with, then you most certainly do have time to address "how stupid this reply was".

 

Either you can't or you won't. But don't insult our intelligence by saying you don't have time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #157 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

If you have enough time to make snarky comments devoid of any real substance across multiple threads in response to anything anyone says that you disagree with, then you most certainly do have time to address "how stupid this reply was".

 

Either you can't or you won't. But don't insult our intelligence by saying you don't have time.

 

It's typical behavior: 

 

1.  jimmac makes a claim

2.  Said claim is blown out of the water

3.  jimmac moves the goal posts

4.  Opponent calls him on this, then blows the second claim out of the water

5.  "WMD!"  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #158 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

If you have enough time to make snarky comments devoid of any real substance across multiple threads in response to anything anyone says that you disagree with, then you most certainly do have time to address "how stupid this reply was".

 

Either you can't or you won't. But don't insult our intelligence by saying you don't have time.

 

It's typical behavior: 

 

1.  jimmac makes a claim

2.  Said claim is blown out of the water

3.  jimmac moves the goal posts

4.  Opponent calls him on this, then blows the second claim out of the water

5.  "WMD!"  

Sigh! I'll abstain from commenting in our usual style of banter on this issue until you reply to Hands' U.K. thread as a matter of detente to see if we can have a real conversation ( not just squaring off ). Let's see what you do with it.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #159 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #160 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

 

Beat me too it.  Can't wait for BR et al to respond.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another Nail in the AGW Coffin