AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leftist Hate Speech - Page 3

post #81 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes, I can't actually believe what I say because then you would have to address it instead of why I am deluded.

Care to address why Krugman needs to resort to calling people traitors?

Hmm, I can't seem to find the word traitor (or traitors) anywhere in Krugman op-ed piece.

This would appear to be another example of mischaracterization.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #82 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hmm, I can't seem to find the word traitor (or traitors) anywhere in Krugman op-ed piece.

This would appear to be another example of mischaracterization.

Why am I not surprised?
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 #83 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You are welcome to present how you think your credentials make you an expert on planetary climate. You can use that knowledge to present a case and likely it would give you the ability to build a counterargument better than most.

However if you are just going to call people names, and dismiss them, then don't be surprised when they return the favor and dismiss you in return.

Those in the know... does not include yourself, sorry Bucko.

That's why we go to an 3rd party expert as I've said in the past. Bucko.

Many have been offered here on this subject. But I suppose if many people said : " A train's coming! Get off the tracks! " Just because many were saying the same thing you wouldn't pay attention? Right up until the time felt those metal wheels and saw the front of the engine.
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 #84 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:16pm
I find it intensely amusing that people who choose to deny the evidence supporting the human greenhouse gas emissions on climate make the stronger statement that humans cannot possibly have that big of an effect.

The amusement is caused by the fact that in my relatively short lifetime, a major climatic change directly tied to human activity was reversed because we took precautionary steps. Anybody remember the growing ozone hole?

Before that was, of course, sulfur dioxide from burning (without proper filtration) sulfur rich coal, which was tied directly to epidemiological fallout downwind (100s of miles) of the power plants. Not to mention reduced crop yields, massive tree death etc...

The list continues through the dust bowl, all the way to full scale and permanent desertification of many different geographical regions.

Of course humans can have that effect. (Earth worms have that effect, cyanobacteria had that effect).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #85 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The way things are shaping up is that the only ones that deny CC fit into some of the categories you mentioned. The fight has moved on significantly. There are those like trumptman, who, so to speak, titillate, with notions of gods and virgins but their only audience is anchored firmly in anti-government conspiracy types who are deranged beyond comprehension and are prone to venting their frustrations through excessive force.

So fortunately things are moving on and the lame arguments against CC are becoming just that thereby soon they'll be no more. More people are acting on the science not the vested interests spin and as conditions around us worsen yet more action will be necessary. Of course that's not all going to be to everyone liking, including myself sometimes no doubt, however as things stand I'm firmly on the side of far more needs to be done sooner rather than later, as I expect you've already gathered.

I'd be happy to read links of these "deniers" who have taken to the water towers with sniper rifles to vent their frustrations. Last I checked it was "environmentalists" who were burning housing tracts, torching car dealerships and sending packages that exploded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

A game is being played? By whom?

I'm sure I've got that PM around here somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Looks like the same game in this thread as well as the last one where I replied to him.

I'm always happy to help people catch on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Argh, you are completely right trumptman. It probable would have taken me at best two to three more posts to figure this out - at worst five. Thanks for saving me the trouble - I should have spotted this sooner.

Don't forget to take it a step farther. They will make demands of you in your posting that they will never do themselves. You'll attempt to meet the requests because they are logical by your reasoning but they don't share that reasoning. Feel free to ignore fallacies. Feel free to let your words stand on their own and realize that people other than those replying will read them. In the grand scheme of things, they will convince.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There are three links there, but I'll throw in a forth, the 2007 IPCC, and severel thousand very well respected peer reviewed climate science literature articles.

That should make you happy, I'm sure.

Should we play your game? Prove they are respected... prove they are peer reviewed... prove that everyone who did the review is a climate scientist... prove they are from a school I consider large enough.... prove they have enough published papers in the appropriate journals....prove those journals are appropriate using an objective measure outside that field....and do it all to my satisfaction lest I just dismiss it with a smiley. Finally in the end let me just dismiss it because I consider my own educational background closer to this than yours for reasons I don't care to state and which aren't at all relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes people who won't just cave in and agree black is white! Imagine that!

Imagine that indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

It does get rather old, the same old tired complaints, always casting dispersions upon others, there are no mirrors in some people's glass houses. We need to make a list, Letterman style

We need to publish some PM's where people make their motives very clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm just saying it like it is. I agree that's it's pretty freaky how extreme some are becoming. If they really believe CC is a hoax to control and even exterminate them it's not surprising their becoming so extreme, that's just the sad reality of where things are at. The denialists are left with extreme views because all the more rational ground has fallen from under them as the reality of science casts light on their positions. I certainly don't criticize a healthy debate and there's nothing wrong with being skeptical but informed scienctific study is undoubtedly preferable to desperate conspiracy theories lodged in ignorance that take advantage of any mistrust of government.

I understand the caricature. Can you please give examples of people acting on this hate? Again I can easily find articles for the reverse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I already have in depth, you just didn't notice it would seem.

What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #86 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Hmm, I can't seem to find the word traitor (or traitors) anywhere in Krugman op-ed piece.

This would appear to be another example of mischaracterization.

Sorry synonyms are so hard.

treasonist - traitor: someone who betrays his country by committing treason

treasonist = traitor.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'd be happy to read links of these "deniers" who have taken to the water towers with sniper rifles to vent their frustrations. Last I checked it was "environmentalists" who were burning housing tracts, torching car dealerships and sending packages that exploded.



I'm sure I've got that PM around here somewhere.



I'm always happy to help people catch on.



Don't forget to take it a step farther. They will make demands of you in your posting that they will never do themselves. You'll attempt to meet the requests because they are logical by your reasoning but they don't share that reasoning. Feel free to ignore fallacies. Feel free to let your words stand on their own and realize that people other than those replying will read them. In the grand scheme of things, they will convince.



Should we play your game? Prove they are respected... prove they are peer reviewed... prove that everyone who did the review is a climate scientist... prove they are from a school I consider large enough.... prove they have enough published papers in the appropriate journals....prove those journals are appropriate using an objective measure outside that field....and do it all to my satisfaction lest I just dismiss it with a smiley. Finally in the end let me just dismiss it because I consider my own educational background closer to this than yours for reasons I don't care to state and which aren't at all relevant.



Imagine that indeed.



We need to publish some PM's where people make their motives very clear.



I understand the caricature. Can you please give examples of people acting on this hate? Again I can easily find articles for the reverse.



What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.

Hmmm? Well it seem s that everyone can see what's going on here. Imagine that!
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 #88 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Sorry synonyms are so hard.

treasonist - traitor: someone who betrays his country by committing treason

treasonist = traitor.


If you mean in the legal sense yes.

If Krugman meant it in the legal sense, then we need to bring these traitors before the World Court. Right?

Krugman did not mean it in the legal sense.

Unless you can provide some definitive verbage directly from Krugman that these traitors be brought before the World Court, you don't have a leg to stand on, as it were.

Sorry Bucko.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #89 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'd be happy to read links of these "deniers" who have taken to the water towers with sniper rifles to vent their frustrations. Last I checked it was "environmentalists" who were burning housing tracts, torching car dealerships and sending packages that exploded.



I'm sure I've got that PM around here somewhere.



I'm always happy to help people catch on.



Don't forget to take it a step farther. They will make demands of you in your posting that they will never do themselves. You'll attempt to meet the requests because they are logical by your reasoning but they don't share that reasoning. Feel free to ignore fallacies. Feel free to let your words stand on their own and realize that people other than those replying will read them. In the grand scheme of things, they will convince.



Should we play your game? Prove they are respected... prove they are peer reviewed... prove that everyone who did the review is a climate scientist... prove they are from a school I consider large enough.... prove they have enough published papers in the appropriate journals....prove those journals are appropriate using an objective measure outside that field....and do it all to my satisfaction lest I just dismiss it with a smiley. Finally in the end let me just dismiss it because I consider my own educational background closer to this than yours for reasons I don't care to state and which aren't at all relevant.



Imagine that indeed.



We need to publish some PM's where people make their motives very clear.



I understand the caricature. Can you please give examples of people acting on this hate? Again I can easily find articles for the reverse.



What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.


Do I care one iota about my PM's? Nope! Publish away.

I sense some apparently long standing general discord aka issues, but we long standing members of PO know the truth about the backwater nature of PO and the disproportionate nature of the few who do post here.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #90 of 195
7/2/09 at 7:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

If you mean in the legal sense yes.

If Krugman meant it in the legal sense, then we need to bring these traitors before the World Court. Right?

Klugman did not mean it in the legal sense.

Unless you can provide some definitive verbage directly from Krugman that these traitors be brought before the World Court, you don't have a leg to stand on, as it were.

Sorry Bucko.

No problem Bucko. Sure it was from the dictionary/thesaurus sense, but I enjoy the rationalizations.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #91 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No problem Bucko. Sure it was from the dictionary/thesaurus sense, but I enjoy the rationalizations.

Yeah, I agree, that opening post was a dozzy, no make that a whopper.

Krugman never used the word treason in the strict legal sense, thus those that commit "treason against the planet" are definitely NOT traitors.

Show us all where Krugman called those people traitors again.

It's not there to be found.

Thus you are directly engaging in a gross mischaracterization.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #92 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:03pm
That is one slow bear trap. It took you 20 minutes to write that post franksargent after trumptman had replied? I would have thought your traps be faster.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

That is one slow bear trap. It took you 20 minutes to write that post franksargent after trumptman had replied? I would have thought your traps be faster.

POW! BAM! KABOOM!

I don't live 247 in PO like some people do. I'm actually doing some real work during all this nonsense.

It's called multitasking.

Go do your math again.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #94 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

POW! BAM! KABOOM!

I think you missed your true calling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I don't live 247 in PO like some people do. I'm actually doing some real work during all this nonsense.

Like posting other liberal content and threads?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=1#post1444111
Post made at 7:33 PM today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

It's called multitasking.

You should patent it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Go do your math again.

Post 88 [Your Bear Trap Post] (7:40 PM) - Post 86 [trumptman's post] (7:21 PM).

19 minutes. Ah your right, 19 minutes instead of 20 minutes. Still one very slow bear trap.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:29pm
tell me something Talon8472, is there something wrong with being a liberal?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #96 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I think you missed your true calling.



Like posting other liberal content and threads?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=1#post1444111
Post made at 7:33 PM today.



You should patent it.



Post 88 [Your Bear Trap Post] (7:40 PM) - Post 86 [trumptman's post] (7:21 PM).

19 minutes. Ah your right, 19 minutes instead of 20 minutes. Still one very slow bear trap.

Yeah, you were standing right next to me during those 19 minutes also, watching my every move.

Dude take care of yourself, you sound kind of, how should I state it, different, that's it, you're so different.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

tell me something Talon8472, is there something wrong with being a liberal?

Inherently, no.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Inherently, no.

Then why use the modifier liberal when describing frank's other postings?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #99 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Yeah, you were standing right next to me during those 19 minutes also, watching my every move.

Hey, I wasn't complaining. Just noting that you were still busy in PO between those 19 minutes. Heck, I couldn't blame as if you were watching Conan O'Brien, or the Colbert Report in between. Not too crazy about the "The Daily Show" by John Stewart. He has his funny moments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Dude take care of yourself, you sound kind of, how should I state it, different, that's it, you're so different.

True, I changed my strategy after realizing trumptman's insights.
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Then why use the modifier liberal when describing frank's other postings?

Revealing bias and the subtle hypocrisy of using the word "right" (aka Conservative Republican).
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'd be happy to read links of these "deniers" who have taken to the water towers with sniper rifles to vent their frustrations. Last I checked it was "environmentalists" who were burning housing tracts, torching car dealerships and sending packages that exploded.



I'm sure I've got that PM around here somewhere.



I'm always happy to help people catch on.



Don't forget to take it a step farther. They will make demands of you in your posting that they will never do themselves. You'll attempt to meet the requests because they are logical by your reasoning but they don't share that reasoning. Feel free to ignore fallacies. Feel free to let your words stand on their own and realize that people other than those replying will read them. In the grand scheme of things, they will convince.



Should we play your game? Prove they are respected... prove they are peer reviewed... prove that everyone who did the review is a climate scientist... prove they are from a school I consider large enough.... prove they have enough published papers in the appropriate journals....prove those journals are appropriate using an objective measure outside that field....and do it all to my satisfaction lest I just dismiss it with a smiley. Finally in the end let me just dismiss it because I consider my own educational background closer to this than yours for reasons I don't care to state and which aren't at all relevant.



Imagine that indeed.



We need to publish some PM's where people make their motives very clear.



I understand the caricature. Can you please give examples of people acting on this hate? Again I can easily find articles for the reverse.



What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.

Trumptman you need to re-read what you posted in response to my posts. What you are saying is completely out of the context of what was being discussed, somehow you've got muddled. Check and you'll see for yourself. If you don't see what I'm talking about I'll point it out myself.

As to violence there have already been acts of terrorism carried out by those harboring paranoid beliefs. Go to the wiki link that was recently posted here about domestic terrorists. It's these far out beliefs, notably like the recent Holocaust Museum shooter, that reinforces their convictions and adds to their sense of despair, encouraging them to extremism. A trend that is no doubt going to get worse the more they see laws governing their carbon footprint take hold.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #102 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Revealing bias and the subtle hypocrisy of using the word "right" (aka Conservative Republican).

I am unsure of what you mean here.

Whose bias, and whose hypocrisy?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #103 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Then why use the modifier liberal when describing frank's other postings?

One the one hand I've started 14 threads total in PO, but on the other hand, if say I had started several hundred new threads, that would be more thread starts, if you ask me.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #104 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Then why use the modifier liberal when describing frank's other postings?

Hey, how come you aren't haranguing Frank about associating me with bear traps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Trumptman you need to re-read what you posted in response to my posts. What you are saying is completely out of the context of what was being discussed, somehow you've got muddled. Check and you'll see for yourself. If you don't see what I'm talking about I'll point it out myself.

As to violence there have already been acts of terrorism carried out by those harboring paranoid beliefs. Go to the wiki link that was recently posted here about domestic terrorists. It's these far out beliefs, notably like the recent Holocaust Museum shooter, that reinforces their convictions and adds to their sense of despair, encouraging them to extremism. A trend that is no doubt going to get worse the more they see laws governing their carbon footprint take hold.

I'll do you one better. I'll quote it myself.

Quote:
Very appropriate words on CC by Krugman. I don't blame the ignorant, that are fed their views by corrupt politicians but I do blame those mostly repub politicians who are willing to sacrifice untold harm for their own benefit. Treason can sometimes be noble. CC denialist politicians are not noble and their actions amount to treason and terrorism.

My words...

What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.

I see no muddle. I also don't see how the example you've cited has anything to do with global warming.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 195
7/2/09 at 8:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Hey, how come you aren't haranguing Frank about associating me with bear traps?



I'll do you one better. I'll quote it myself.



My words...

What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I've not read anything this thread that claimed contrary to that. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste.

I see no muddle. I also don't see how the example you've cited has anything to do with global warming.

Trumptman you've missed it.

Tomorrow I'll post where your confusion lies if you haven't already spotted and posted it yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman

"Care to address why Krugman needs to resort to calling people traitors?"

My response "I already have in depth, you just didn't notice it would seem."

To which you then replied "What I read is that you completely concurred with Krugman in both his views and language use. I'VE NOT READ ANYTHING THIS THREAD THAT CLAIMED CONTRARY TO THAT. If I missed it accept my apology but please post it again even if it is just a copy/paste."

Why on earth did you think I would try and say something contrary to that?????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #106 of 195
7/3/09 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The denialists are left with extreme views because all the more rational ground has fallen from under them as the reality of science casts light on their positions.

And the last decade of non global warming? Seems that having "extreme views" would require someone to ignore facts.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 195
7/3/09 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

And the last decade of non global warming? Seems that having "extreme views" would require someone to ignore facts.

Yeah, it's really sad when people cherry pick their data which has astronomical and geological explanations...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #108 of 195
7/3/09 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

And the last decade of non global warming? Seems that having "extreme views" would require someone to ignore facts.

Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #109 of 195
7/3/09 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Really?

Really really.

And, since a pic is worth more than a youtube ...

Reply
Reply
post #110 of 195
7/3/09 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Really really.

And, since a pic is worth more than a youtube ...


It's telling that you would keep referring to the same discredited data that even it's authors acknowledge was wrong and has been proved in peer reviewed papers conclusively. Talk about making it obvious you ain't got nothing et al!

A re-fresh of what we have already been over before-

"After correcting for the mistake, the researchers obtained fundamentally different results: whereas Spencer's analysis showed a cooling of the Earth's troposphere, the new analysis revealed a warming.

Christy's group estimated the temperature at the exact time they wanted, rather than when the satellite actually was overhead, by looking at temperature measurements the satellite to the east and west of its position. From this they concluded the troposphere was warming by about 0.09 °C per decade. Using the analysis from Mears and Wentz, Santer showed that the new data was consistent with climate models and theories."Mears and Wentz instead used data generated by a complex model of the atmosphere to adjust the satellite measurements. On doing so, the troposphere suddenly appears to be warming by almost 0.2 °C per decade, in agreement with climate models3."
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8917093/

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #111 of 195
7/3/09 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's telling that you would keep referring to the same discredited data that even it's authors acknowledge was wrong and has been proved in peer reviewed papers conclusively. Talk about making it obvious you ain't got nothing et al!

Discredited by yourself, or other folks trying to make hay? Here's the author's web site and a current plot of satellite data:



Look up "Dr. Roy Spencer" and his credits.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 195
7/3/09 at 1:34pm
He also believes in Intelligent Design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Nutbar scientist.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 195
7/3/09 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Discredited by yourself, or other folks trying to make hay? Here's the author's web site and a current plot of satellite data:



Look up "Dr. Roy Spencer" and his credits.

Yes he's the flag bearer for the GOP and the religous right concerning climate change.
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 #114 of 195
7/3/09 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

He also believes in Intelligent Design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Nutbar scientist.

Quote:
He has been referred to as the "official climatologist of the EIB Network" by Rush Limbaugh, who is the owner of the Excellence In Broadcasting network.[15]

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #115 of 195
7/3/09 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Discredited by yourself, or other folks trying to make hay? Here's the author's web site and a current plot of satellite data:



Look up "Dr. Roy Spencer" and his credits.

No Taskiss not me, scientists presenting their evidence in peer reviewed papers all drawing the same conclusions and understandings that the measurements where wrong and by how much. The data amended for it's flaws shows the same pattern of warming as all the other data recorded, which even Christy and Spencer acknowledged was an accurate correction to their data.

Isn't it amazing how drawn to those results you are. A couple out of hundreds of climatologists (at the last count there were 97.4% of climatologists agreeing with the CC science) that are skeptical of CC, or where. I believe Christy has significantly modified his views to where he no longer disagrees that man is warming the planet, a position he hadn't held until he new his data didn't justify that conclusion.

You also ignore ALL the other measurements. Why just pick this data and ignore all the rest. Don't the other measurements deserve your attention too?

It's getting dull going over all of the same old ground with you stuck in a hole, metaphorically speaking. Unless you can post something of value and look at the science overall and not just thin slices of it that you think will prove definitively it's all a scam, there's no point in me responding to you any further.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #116 of 195
7/3/09 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Really really.

And, since a pic is worth more than a youtube ...


Curve fitting of this type is a major no-no.

P = 0 that this is from the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.

Just looking at 30 years of data and fitting a minimum of a cubic equation is extremely bad, it isn't climate science, oe science, oe even engineering worthy, that's for sure.

As proof, show us all this curve extrapolated ten years forward (or backward in time).

As an example, with 50 years of record for CO2 data, the most anyone might dare do is fit a 2nd order least squares curve (quadratic).

Just looking at this POS makes me smile, seriously.

A forward extrapolation probably shows Planet Earth below absolute zero.

Effin' funny laugh riot stuff there dude, show us all more whacky plots, ROTFLMFAO!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 195
7/3/09 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Discredited by yourself, or other folks trying to make hay? Here's the author's web site and a current plot of satellite data:



Look up "Dr. Roy Spencer" and his credits.

Is this the source of that funny papers plot curve fitting paper above?

I'm still laughing, seriously.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 195
7/4/09 at 6:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No Taskiss not me, scientists presenting their evidence in peer reviewed papers all drawing the same conclusions and understandings that the measurements where wrong and by how much. The data amended for it's flaws shows the same pattern of warming as all the other data recorded, which even Christy and Spencer acknowledged was an accurate correction to their data.

Isn't it amazing how drawn to those results you are. A couple out of hundreds of climatologists (at the last count there were 97.4% of climatologists agreeing with the CC science) that are skeptical of CC, or where. I believe Christy has significantly modified his views to where he no longer disagrees that man is warming the planet, a position he hadn't held until he new his data didn't justify that conclusion.

You also ignore ALL the other measurements. Why just pick this data and ignore all the rest. Don't the other measurements deserve your attention too?

It's getting dull going over all of the same old ground with you stuck in a hole, metaphorically speaking. Unless you can post something of value and look at the science overall and not just thin slices of it that you think will prove definitively it's all a scam, there's no point in me responding to you any further.

Hey, you said the author acknowledged there were errors, I posted a current graph from his web site, so... well, I guess that you just refuse to acknowledge a peer reviewed bit o' science, eh?

Quote:
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award

NOW, if your credentials can match his, they you got something...or even get a link to someone who has his background in satellite monitoring work... but I'm thinking all you can do is trot out folks that disagree in writing, not with data.

So, how 'bout YOU show a graph of global temps over the last decade, from someone with credits equal to Spencers? Put your graphs where you mouth is. Oh, and I don't think youtube is peer reviewed, and I don't open those links just 'cause they're 99.99% garbage. Try something from a college or some .gov site.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 195
7/4/09 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Hey, you said the author acknowledged there were errors, I posted a current graph from his web site, so... well, I guess that you just refuse to acknowledge a peer reviewed bit o' science, eh?

NOW, if your credentials can match his, they you got something...or even get a link to someone who has his background in satellite monitoring work... but I'm thinking all you can do is trot out folks that disagree in writing, not with data.

So, how 'bout YOU show a graph of global temps over the last decade, from someone with credits equal to Spencers? Put your graphs where you mouth is. Oh, and I don't think youtube is peer reviewed, and I don't open those links just 'cause they're 99.99% garbage. Try something from a college or some .gov site.

There are three; GISS, HadCRUT3, and RSS. UAH was the outlier until their 2005 revision brought their synthesis within the range of the other three.

Note RSS synthesis uses the same data sets that UAH is using, and RSS has always followed much more closely the GISS and HadCRUT3 data sets from the get go.

The real funny part here is that the UAH data synthesis has itself changed over time irrespective of new data, and these changes have tended TOWARDS the GISS, RSS and HadCRUT3 data sets.

The last major revision occured in 2005, between 5.1 and 5.2 of the UAH synthesis.

On another note, the data with the least squares curve fitting is a 4th order (quintic) polynomial. This is a full 3 orders higher then even UAH people state, no one ever does a higher order polynomial fitting, not good science or statistics for that matter, all fittings that I have ever seen are either linear or moving average as reported in the scientific literature.

Also if you download this dataset, plot the NoPo (North Pole 70-90N latitudes inclusive) (and the SoPo data sets if you wish, the SoPO shows little change) time series, this shows a temperature trend 3.5X greater than the global trend (from 0.125 C/decade globally to 0.438 C/decade for the North Pole).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #120 of 195
7/4/09 at 7:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Hey, you said the author acknowledged there were errors, I posted a current graph from his web site, so... well, I guess that you just refuse to acknowledge a peer reviewed bit o' science, eh?

NOW, if your credentials can match his, they you got something...or even get a link to someone who has his background in satellite monitoring work... but I'm thinking all you can do is trot out folks that disagree in writing, not with data.

So, how 'bout YOU show a graph of global temps over the last decade, from someone with credits equal to Spencers? Put your graphs where you mouth is. Oh, and I don't think youtube is peer reviewed, and I don't open those links just 'cause they're 99.99% garbage. Try something from a college or some .gov site.

Taskiss I've read Spencer's work including all of his own website, arguing the levels of warming pose no serious threats. If you want to argue from a perpective that is so set against AGW on his speculation alone you've got a narrative that's purpose is predominately hostile to all the other science out there. Your interest in proving that AGW isn't happening is not only dismissed by the scientist but people and lanscapes all around the globe. It's a position that increasingly looks rediculous as people see with there own eyes glaciers disappear around the world and on and on.

There are websites across the internet you will see telperature readings, including this one. Why you need me to post any is beyond me. If you've got a point you want to make, just make it and given you have a photo website to get images onto this forum you'll be able to post whatever you want right onto the forum page, which is something I can't do at the moment as I have no photo site account.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Leftist Hate Speech