Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Ouroboros Rex wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Dave wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup. I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda, either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/ http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195 Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon. Bill "better late than TOO late" S. Nice series of right wing lie articles. Now, where is the actual wrongdoing? LOL Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth, Anonymous Ostrich. Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening" is like saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of ObamaCare. Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden doesn't make it true. Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the smoking gun e-mails, just that they were hacked. Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. The wheels are coming off and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road. BS (really) These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news' because of the 'hacked' data. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ "Hokey hockey sticks Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.) Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise. . . . All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape. . . . The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it. As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade. " Indeed. The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't /revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of what any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly suspected). Ostrich Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course. BS |
#82
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Nov 24, 4:39*pm, Lord Valve wrote:
Why, yes, quite so, quite so... And everybody knew that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun, the moon, all the planets and the stars revolved around it; not only that, a substance called phlogiston was contained in all flammable materials and released by combustion, disease was caused by bad odors, flight was impossible, and phrenology was the last word on determining character traits. *Not only that, heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. *Everybody knew these things, you see, because scientists - ****loads of 'em - said they were true. Only they weren't. Lord Valve Globally Cool I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons confused with "scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific methods that disproved the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and teabaggers. |
#83
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:14:55 -0800, "Bill Sornson" wrote: flipper wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Ouroboros Rex wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Dave wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup. I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious dissent. What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global Warming Church." The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda, either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/ http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195 Face it, losers: the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon. Bill "better late than TOO late" S. Nice series of right wing lie articles. Now, where is the actual wrongdoing? LOL Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth, Anonymous Ostrich. Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening" is like saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of ObamaCare. Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden doesn't make it true. Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the smoking gun e-mails, just that they were hacked. Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. The wheels are coming off and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road. BS (really) These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news' because of the 'hacked' data. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ "Hokey hockey sticks Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.) Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise. . . . All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape. . . . The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it. As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade. " Indeed. The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't /revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of what any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly suspected). Ostrich Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course. BS Further to the point, and as I've mentioned before, the 'hacked' emails comprise less than 5% of the total byte count with the rest being 'documents', 'code', and 'data' for... guess what... reconstructing the temperature series... including Yamal. That, and the no so hard to decode file name FOIA is why I say there's a lot more to this than what's bubbling around on the surface. I find it strange that a 'hacker' would be so interested in tree ring data sets. On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame." It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it." This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in 'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be. It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no sir. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents, files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records, for example)? As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID? Bill "it's so pathetic it's almost amusing" S. |
#84
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On 2009-11-25, flipper wrote:
[...] On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame." It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it." This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in 'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be. It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no sir. I don't think that "Rules of the Game" leaflet is written by the so-called scientists-- it's written by the government (or one of their quangos) and is just the usual kind of bull**** we expect from them. |
#85
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest
year of the century? -- AJ No. It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News: http://mediamatters.org/research/200708120001 "On Special Report, Jim Angle reported that NASA was forced "to admit it was wrong when it said that 1998 was the hottest year on record" and that NASA "now says 1934 was the hottest year, followed by 1998, then 1921." But Angle did not inform viewers that NASA's revision affected annual temperature rankings for the United States only; it had no effect on the annual global temperature rankings. " NASA recently corrected its climate figures after the discovery of inconsistencies in its U.S. temperature data. According to Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a contributor to the RealClimate blog (posting as "gavin"), the correction resulted in a re-ranking of NASA's list of the warmest years in the United States. For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant. .... " Mr Soul |
#86
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the climate sciences fear science so much? was EGGHEADSCAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Nov 25, 6:29*am, flipper wrote:
On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame." It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it." Apparently in climate sciences "science" means winning the argument, not proving the hypthesis. This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in 'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be. It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no sir. LOL. Makes one wonder, if "the science is settled" and "there is a consensus of scientists" why these guys -- after all, they're the world's leading global waming "scientists" -- should be so defensive. What is it they fear? Looks like their fear is inspired by their self knowledge that they lied, and lied, and lied, that their "science" was crooked from the beginning. Ron Bales thinks that some of them may be true believers in the hypothesis that manmade CO2 causes global warming, and lying for their faith; certainly some despair has been expressed in the Hadley Hack about their inability to prove the hypothesis, in the stubborn resistance of real life to follow their cooked data-based predictions. If Ron is right, these people must be incredibly stupid as well as incredibly crooked. One can forgive (and be amused by) undergraduate idiots like Ben Weiner and Bill Asher for falling for this crap, but the senior scientists who in the first instance cooked the data *know* what they've done -- which accounts for their fear of Freedom of Information disclosure -- and are scientists beside: for them this sort of self-delusion is also a self-disqualification from their chosen profession. Andre Jute “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck, climate "scientist", IPCC writer |
#87
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Global warmies flutter leaves to hide the forest, was EGGHEADSCAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Nov 25, 1:11*pm, Mr Soul wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest year of the century? -- AJ No. *It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News: For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant. Thanks for the clarification Brother Soul. Of course it isn't statistically significant because there was no global warming in the 1990s, merely statistical legerdemain. The earth's temperature is on the upslope, with natural variation caused by sunspot cycles, from the Little Ice Age towards the mild temperatures, but still warmer than today, which lasted for centuries during the Medieval Warm Period. The Hockey Stick that attempts to prove that the 1990s was the warmest decade is an attempt by the most unscientifica statistical trickery, condemned by two panels of the National Academy of Science, to falsify temperature history to flatten the LIA and MWP out of existence. The world is in no danger from global warming, and no link between temperature increase and manmade (or any other CO2) has ever been proven. The only manmade global warming is made by crooked "climate scientists". I hope this helps your understanding. Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html PS I don't get Fox News. I live in the country in Ireland. I get my information from the original sources published by the IPCC, the archives of the United States Senate, other official bodies, the original articles of both the global warmers and the sceptics, and so on, not from the media. |
#88
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Nov 25, 12:42*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
flipper wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:14:55 -0800, "Bill Sornson" wrote: flipper wrote: On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:01:41 -0800, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Ouroboros Rex wrote: Bill Sornson wrote: Dave wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Hey, don't sound so pleased. I'm a cyclist. I was looking forward to all those hi-temp days those lying *******s of the Global Warming Church promised me. Lying scumbags musta believed the Scientology overinflation of their intelligence quotients. They sure as hell got global warming out of a mucky teacup. I'm not sure if you're a lying-*******-fuel-industry stooge, or a rebel whose only cause is stroking his own ego with fallacious dissent. *What's funny is your arrogant reference to the "Global Warming Church." *The vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening, and that there IS a human component to it. You're the religious zealot ignoring and twisting science to suit your agenda, either for personal gain or latent adolescent nonconformity. Just saying it's so doesn't make it so. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...7393/climatega... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...evidence-of-gl... http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195 Face it, losers: *the wheels are (finally) coming off the Church of Global Warming Alarmism bandwagon. Bill "better late than TOO late" S. *Nice series of right wing lie articles. *Now, where is the actual wrongdoing? LOL *Just keep sticking your head in the (now cooling) earth, Anonymous Ostrich. Saying "the vast majority of scientists agree that GW IS happening" is like saying that the vast majority of doctors are in favor of ObamaCare. Dressing 'em up and putting them in the Rose Garden doesn't make it true. Funny how the NYT and WP aren't reporting the /content/ of the smoking gun e-mails, just that they were hacked. Enjoy your ideological delusion while it lasts. *The wheels are coming off and it's going to get /really/ bumpy down the road. BS (really) These problems aren't 'new' to those in the field, it's only 'news' because of the 'hacked' data. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/ "Hokey hockey sticks Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.) Tree data was secondary in importance to Mann's statistical technique, which would produce a dramatic modern upturn in temperatures - which became nicknamed the "Hockey Stick" - even using red noise. . . . All the papers come from a small but closely knit of scientists who mutually support each other's work. All use Yamal data. And without the Yamal data, the temperature record shows a very different shape. . . . The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it. As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here? The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade. " Indeed. *The hacked e-mails and other recent disclosures weren't /revelations/ of global warming hoaxism, they were /affirmations/ of what any honest, objective person already knew (or strongly suspected). *Ostrich Alarmist Nuts excluded, of course. BS Further to the point, and as I've mentioned before, the 'hacked' emails comprise less than 5% of the total byte count with the rest being 'documents', 'code', and 'data' for... guess what... reconstructing the temperature series... including Yamal. That, and the no so hard to decode file name FOIA is why I say there's a lot more to this than what's bubbling around on the surface. I find it strange that a 'hacker' would be so interested in tree ring data sets. On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame." It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it." This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in 'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be. It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no sir. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents, files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records, for example)? No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to just make **** up, though. As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID? I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off the chart on the authoritarian retard scale. Would you care to cement my opinion of you by lying some more? Perhaps you want to talk about fear and just punishment or some other stereotypical thing that people with your personality disorder usually fall back on. |
#89
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"adminattubezone.net" wrote:
On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote: Why, yes, quite so, quite so... And everybody knew that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun, the moon, all the planets and the stars revolved around it; not only that, a substance called phlogiston was contained in all flammable materials and released by combustion, disease was caused by bad odors, flight was impossible, and phrenology was the last word on determining character traits. Not only that, heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Everybody knew these things, you see, because scientists - ****loads of 'em - said they were true. Only they weren't. Lord Valve Globally Cool I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons confused with "scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific methods that disproved the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and teabaggers. You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed. Watching you squirm will be entertaining. Watching you scream bloody murder when your socialist horse-**** comes crashing down around your ears in 2010 will be exquisite. Lord Valve American |
#90
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the climate sciences fear science so much? was EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Andre Jute wrote:
On Nov 25, 6:29 am, flipper wrote: On another note, here's an interesting included pdf: "RulesOfTheGame." It opens by explaining: "The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it." Apparently in climate sciences "science" means winning the argument, not proving the hypthesis. This from what is supposedly a group of scientists interested only in 'where the science takes us' no matter what that might be. It's so refreshing to see "pure science" at work. No politics here, no sir. LOL. Makes one wonder, if "the science is settled" and "there is a consensus of scientists" why these guys -- after all, they're the world's leading global waming "scientists" -- should be so defensive. What is it they fear? Looks like their fear is inspired by their self knowledge that they lied, and lied, and lied, that their "science" was crooked from the beginning. Ron Bales thinks that some of them may be true believers in the hypothesis that manmade CO2 causes global warming, and lying for their faith; certainly some despair has been expressed in the Hadley Hack about their inability to prove the hypothesis, in the stubborn resistance of real life to follow their cooked data-based predictions. If Ron is right, these people must be incredibly stupid as well as incredibly crooked. One can forgive (and be amused by) undergraduate idiots like Ben Weiner and Bill Asher for falling for this crap, but the senior scientists who in the first instance cooked the data *know* what they've done -- which accounts for their fear of Freedom of Information disclosure -- and are scientists beside: for them this sort of self-delusion is also a self-disqualification from their chosen profession. Andre Jute “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck, climate "scientist", IPCC writer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk Bill "trippy, but makes its point" S. |
#91
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Global warmies flutter leaves to hide the forest, was EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
... On Nov 25, 1:11 pm, Mr Soul wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Er, didn't NASA recently say they made a mistake, 1934 was the warmest year of the century? -- AJ No. It's apparent that you rely too much on FOX News: For example, whereas 1998 was previously ranked as the warmest year for the United States, it is now ranked second, behind 1934. According to Schmidt, the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States -- both before and after the correction -- is not statistically significant. Thanks for the clarification Brother Soul. Of course it isn't statistically significant because there was no global warming in the 1990s, merely statistical legerdemain. The earth's temperature is on the upslope, with natural variation caused by sunspot cycles, from the Little Ice Age towards the mild temperatures, but still warmer than today, which lasted for centuries during the Medieval Warm Period. The Hockey Stick that attempts to prove that the 1990s was the warmest decade is an attempt by the most unscientifica statistical trickery, condemned by two panels of the National Academy of Science, to falsify temperature history to flatten the LIA and MWP out of existence. The world is in no danger from global warming, and no link between temperature increase and manmade (or any other CO2) has ever been proven. The only manmade global warming is made by crooked "climate scientists". I hope this helps your understanding. Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html PS I don't get Fox News. I live in the country in Ireland. I get my information from the original sources published by the IPCC, the archives of the United States Senate, other official bodies, the original articles of both the global warmers and the sceptics, and so on, not from the media. It's too bad you've probably got a head full of Guinness or Tullamore Dew all the time or you might actually get what you read through your besotted brain pan. Who the **** let a Boer into Ireland anyway. ****in' stupid sot he was. I guess my granddad didn't kill enough of you when he was there. |
#92
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Lord Valve tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" : Even the New York Slimes can't spin this one away - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html The Boston Herald weighs in - http://www.bostonherald.com/business...cleid=1213483& srvc=business&position=recent Gosh, this is *ever* so shocking - I mean, who knew? Oops, I mean, who *didn't* know? Evidently, just the pack of Green Weenies, Watermelons and Ecotards who infect these sorry-ass boards... 'Scuse me, I gotta go laugh now...toodle-oo, pip-pip, etc. OK, commence spinning. Lord Valve Globally Cool Didya see the Brit-ard uber-climate-pseudoscientist "Dr. Kevin" digging himself a deeper hole on Fox this morning? "So, you admit you have no honor, and now you show you have no shame." His career is done. Same thing last night on CNBC where the libs were barfing all over the carpet trying to spin it. This one is going to take them all out forever. I've been saying this crap was a proven fraud since canucklehead liberazi Maurice Strong, the actual goof that dreamed it up, admitted it was a cash grab back in '96 in Rio. -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams |
#93
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Ouroboros Rex" tapped the mic and amongst other
things, said, "Is this on?" : Lord Valve wrote: Even the New York Slimes can't spin this one away - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html The Boston Herald weighs in - http://www.bostonherald.com/business...icleid=1213483 &srvc=business&position=recent Gosh, this is *ever* so shocking - I mean, who knew? Oops, I mean, who *didn't* know? Evidently, just the pack of Green Weenies, Watermelons and Ecotards who infect these sorry-ass boards... 'Scuse me, I gotta go laugh now...toodle-oo, pip-pip, etc. OK, commence spinning. We'll wait for the first actual wrongdoing to be exposed. Day 4 and counting, IIRC. lol The scientists themselves are copping to the authenticity of the emails. Scientists cooking their books and fudging data is the definition of wrongdoing. Glad to see you joining their club so readily, because they are all as good as fired, their work has to be stricken from the record from hench forth, and their careers are destroyed. Watch Al Gore throw them under the bus to save his own sorry azz. They are the basis of his entire thesis, so he's done too. -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams |
#94
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Nov 25, 2:21*pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:42*am, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents, files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records, for example)? No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to just make **** up, though. from file mail/1107454306.txt At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID? I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off the chart on the authoritarian retard scale. The files were released to the BBC nearly a full week before they appeared on the Russian server. The documents in question are all subject to the various Freedom of Information Acts of the countries in which they originated, the countries and other jurisditions which funded these men, &/or the countries in which the physical data resided. So perhaps you can explain what crime was commited. |
#95
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
|
#96
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Lord Valve wrote:
"adminattubezone.net" wrote: On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote: Why, yes, quite so, quite so... And everybody knew that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun, the moon, all the planets and the stars revolved around it; not only that, a substance called phlogiston was contained in all flammable materials and released by combustion, disease was caused by bad odors, flight was impossible, and phrenology was the last word on determining character traits. Not only that, heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Everybody knew these things, you see, because scientists - ****loads of 'em - said they were true. Only they weren't. Lord Valve Globally Cool I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons confused with "scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific methods that disproved the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and teabaggers. You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed. Only in your wet dreams. |
#97
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Norman wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:21 pm, landotter wrote: On Nov 25, 12:42 am, "Bill Sornson" wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't many hundreds of these documents, files, data and e-mails subject to Freedom of Information Requests that had been or are being ignored and worse (destroyed, deleted and altered records, for example)? No. You are wrong. It's typical of conspiracists like yourself to just make **** up, though. from file mail/1107454306.txt At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote: Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc ! Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. D'oh! LOL As with all things AlGore-ish, OF WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID? I think they're afraid of irrational right wing authoritarian goons like you, if they're afraid of anything. It wasn't scientists and rational thinkers that committed the crime of breaking into their server--it was nuts like you. Of course--you don't see crime if it's your faction that's guilty. That's typical for those that score off the chart on the authoritarian retard scale. The files were released to the BBC nearly a full week before they appeared on the Russian server. The documents in question are all subject to the various Freedom of Information Acts of the countries in which they originated, the countries and other jurisditions which funded these men, &/or the countries in which the physical data resided. So perhaps you can explain what crime was commited. D'oh! LOL Bill "earth's so hot little ground rat gonna freeze his toesies off" S. |
#98
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes,rec.bicycles.tech
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
RATS SEEN CROSSING CANADIAN BORDER |
#99
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"RichL" tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" m: Lord Valve wrote: "adminattubezone.net" wrote: On Nov 24, 4:39 pm, Lord Valve wrote: Why, yes, quite so, quite so... And everybody knew that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun, the moon, all the planets and the stars revolved around it; not only that, a substance called phlogiston was contained in all flammable materials and released by combustion, disease was caused by bad odors, flight was impossible, and phrenology was the last word on determining character traits. Not only that, heavy objects fell faster than lighter ones. Everybody knew these things, you see, because scientists - ****loads of 'em - said they were true. Only they weren't. Lord Valve Globally Cool I think you're getting alchemists, theologians and barber-surgeons confused with "scientists", Willie. Twas the scientists and adoption of scientific methods that disproved the conventional wisdom of which you speak, not ranting luddites and teabaggers. You Warmie assholes have been OWNED, publicly outed. Only in your wet dreams. Well, he better get a mop because the reality is so much wetter. You dolts are so fzcked now that kids will be laughing at you for centuries. -- All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation, John Adams |
#100
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Don Pearce wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool would say that it doesn't. Mr Soul Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for the last ten years. Well, around here temperature has probably been rising. About 30 years ago I bought a pair of cross-country skis and used them for about 10 years in nearby places. There hasn't been enough snow around here for at least 15 years to make them worthwhile, even to enthusiasts. But that's all short term noise in the cosmic scheme of things. When you start talking about making changes involving thousands of billions of dollars, you need more evidence than just some short-term variations. **Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY referred to historical data streching back hundreds of thousands of years: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2 levels. **Tsk, tsk. Regurgitating a lie does not make it the truth. Many of us know that you've apparently unknowingly done that many times in the past, Trevor. **Sorry, you got it wrong. I have been very consistent in my remarks concerning those with religious beliefs. The supernatural is complete bunk. There is no such thing as a God, miracles, life after death and a whole host of gobbledegook promoted by liars and charalatans throughout the millenia. I'm sorry if the truth is uncomfortable for you. That I speak the truth, is no reason to call me a liar. Repeat after me: * 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. * The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual, yearly variations. * 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record. * The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists). Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and relevant like sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort of conclusion can reasonably be formed with 14 years worth of data? Normally that would be a rhetorical question, but given the circumstance I feel obliged to answer it with a resounding "NONE!". **Idiot. You SHOULD know that the Sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years in duration, NOT 14! This is basic stuff we all learned in electronics way back. Your education is sadly lacking. That is, notwithstanding, the fact that I live with a scientist. She studies the Sun and it's effects on the ionosphere. Every (week)day of the week. Sometimes on weekends too. She has done so for more than 20 years. She has forgotten more than I and (very obviously, you) will ever know about the Sun and it's influence on the planet. The department she works for monitors the Sun's output 24/7 (they have sensors all over the planet) and can tell with considerable accuracy not only what the Sun's output is at any one time, but they issue predictions for the next 24 hours. We have, at great length, discussed the influence of the Sun on the planet's climate. She has shown me the data and explained to me that variations in planetary warming due to Solar influence can explain around 20% of the warming we have noted. That leaves around 80% unexplained (to everyone but real scientists, anyway). The reality is quite prosaic: CO2 is the only factor that can explain the other 80%. * Do not listen to the religious nutters. Pay attention to the scientists. Good advice that Trevor has a poor track record for following when the "religious nutters" hide under a cloak of pseudo-science. **Nope. Religious nutters hide under a cloak of religion. They, like you, reject science at every opportunity. OTOH, I do not reject science. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#101
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:16:19 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists, and suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc to be damning. And fyi, I am not of the right wing. Well if you aren't, you are preaching the same thing that they preach (except I don't recall any of them saying the Earth is cooling). Perhaps you should read this - it's from the EPA - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6 Mr Soul Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars and personal interests on both sides of that fence. **Perhaps. And it is a fact that the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. **Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a warming planet. That is a part of what these emails are seeking to conceal. **Really? The method goes thus. First deny totally. Then when the facts emerge, claim that the readings are anomalies, and normal warming will be resumed. Anything, in fact, apart from admitting the data. **That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is warming. The facts support a warming. This all a travesty of science. **Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present no science. Real scientists put their data and theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. **Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal scientific rigors. They even include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life easier. **The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used to demolish their bull****. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only kind that carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we have in AGW is a situation where there is a quasi-religious position that may not be denied on pain of loss of tenure, job, livelihood. **Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and explain these facts in light of your unsupported claim: * Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities. * That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more than US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests. * Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter. This is NOT science, it is pure totalitarian politics. **Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#102
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:46:37 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:16:19 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists, and suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc to be damning. And fyi, I am not of the right wing. Well if you aren't, you are preaching the same thing that they preach (except I don't recall any of them saying the Earth is cooling). Perhaps you should read this - it's from the EPA - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6 Mr Soul Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars and personal interests on both sides of that fence. **Perhaps. And it is a fact that the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. **Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a warming planet. That is a part of what these emails are seeking to conceal. **Really? The method goes thus. First deny totally. Then when the facts emerge, claim that the readings are anomalies, and normal warming will be resumed. Anything, in fact, apart from admitting the data. **That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is warming. The facts support a warming. This all a travesty of science. **Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present no science. Real scientists put their data and theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. **Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal scientific rigors. They even include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life easier. **The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used to demolish their bull****. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only kind that carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we have in AGW is a situation where there is a quasi-religious position that may not be denied on pain of loss of tenure, job, livelihood. **Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and explain these facts in light of your unsupported claim: * Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities. * That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more than US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests. * Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter. This is NOT science, it is pure totalitarian politics. **Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot. Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency to your "argument". d |
#103
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:46:37 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:16:19 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: The ones that are out of date, or say nothing can be ignored. There are plenty enough that are current, from environmental scientists, and suggesting ways of hiding data, doing "tricks" on the maths etc to be damning. And fyi, I am not of the right wing. Well if you aren't, you are preaching the same thing that they preach (except I don't recall any of them saying the Earth is cooling). Perhaps you should read this - it's from the EPA - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/science.html#q6 Mr Soul Truth has nothing to do with political leanings - there are liars and personal interests on both sides of that fence. **Perhaps. And it is a fact that the earth is currently in a cooling cycle. **Nope. YOU have falied to prove this claim. The present TREND is to a warming planet. That is a part of what these emails are seeking to conceal. **Really? The method goes thus. First deny totally. Then when the facts emerge, claim that the readings are anomalies, and normal warming will be resumed. Anything, in fact, apart from admitting the data. **That is how the deniers operate. They deny totally that the planet is warming. The facts support a warming. This all a travesty of science. **Indeed. That the deniers have any traction is an obscenity. They present no science. Real scientists put their data and theories out there, and seek refutation by other scientists. **Indeed. It is a pity that idiots like Plimer fail to do this. Guys like Plimer just aim for the popular press, completely bypassing the normal scientific rigors. They even include methods of refutation alongside their theories to make life easier. **The deniers certianly do just that. Fortunately, the facts can be used to demolish their bull****. This called a falsifiable theory, and it is the only kind that carries any scientific weight or credibility. What we have in AGW is a situation where there is a quasi-religious position that may not be denied on pain of loss of tenure, job, livelihood. **Really? Prove it. In your proof, consider the following facts and explain these facts in light of your unsupported claim: * Throughout the Presidency of George W Bush (who is a well-known climate change denier) the US EPA consistently took the line that the planet is warming and that it's warming is likely due to anthropogenic activities. * That Prof. Lindzen (a well-known climate change denier) was paid more than US$2,500.00/day by fossil fuel interests. * Please present evidence which shows any research scientist is being paid more than US$2,500.00/day as a global warming supporter. This is NOT science, it is pure totalitarian politics. **Nope. It's just the facts, you idiot. Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency to your "argument". **Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#104
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:52:33 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency to your "argument". **Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact. Is that really how your brain works? Your ability to produce an argument is still right up to the expected mark. Incidentally I didn't answer your previous comments because they were simply repeats of your blind adherence to the Orthodoxy. They added nothing, and I won't go round that loop again. Now lose the stars, or continue looking like a berk to the casual glance as well as the deeper read. d |
#105
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:52:33 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: Still the stars Trevor. Do they make you feel important? Do you have stars on your bedroom door too? They certainly don't lend any cogency to your "argument". **Your inability to address my questions and my points is duly noted. I accept your admission that you have no idea about the matter. I further acknowledge that you now admit that AGW is a fact. Is that really how your brain works? **Let's review the facts: * You make some wild, unsubstantiated claims. I ask for proof. You fail to provide the proof. I reject your claim. * I ask some questions about your position. You fail to answer those questions. I, therefore, place your position as an untenable one. * I make some points. You fail to provide any scientific evidence to reject my points. I, therefore, claim that I am correct, until proven otherwise. Your ability to produce an argument is still right up to the expected mark. Incidentally I didn't answer your previous comments because they were simply repeats of your blind adherence to the Orthodoxy. They added nothing, and I won't go round that loop again. **LOL! You failed to back your own postion! Now lose the stars, or continue looking like a berk to the casual glance as well as the deeper read. **I further accept that you cannot justify your claims. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#106
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Repeat after me: * 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. * The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual, yearly variations. * 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record. * The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists). Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and relevant like sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort of conclusion can reasonably be formed with 14 years worth of data? Do you mean 1400 years, or 14,000? I mean 14, the number that Trevor mentioned: "* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record." Information about temperatures over the past 1400 or 14,000 years is inferred, not based on actual measurements. **It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity with - science. The proxy data used to obtain temperature records is based on radioactive decay and is well known and a mature technology. It has been cross-checked for accuracy many times. BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is 450,000. The most recent data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000 years. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#107
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third grade. Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality. Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a Christian right now. I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist. Prove me wrong. In your world you are right. How could you be otherwise? Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the Earth is cooling down? Done in another post. **Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#108
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third grade. Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality. Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a Christian right now. I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist. Prove me wrong. In your world you are right. How could you be otherwise? Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the Earth is cooling down? Done in another post. **Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths. If you spent more time reading and less typing your pretty little stars, you wouldn't need to keep asking for repeats. d |
#109
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:42 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: Brilliant piece of reasoning! I'm convinced you have now made third grade. Don - the right-wingnuts used Mars warming as evidence on why the Earth might be warming up. This wasn't my reasoning. But I agree that the right-wingnuts have about a 3rd grade mentality. Go away for a while and learn how to argue. You reason like a Christian right now. I am willing to bet that you are a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist. Prove me wrong. In your world you are right. How could you be otherwise? Why do you continue to not provide us with the evidence that the Earth is cooling down? Done in another post. **Present your evidence. We won't hold our breaths. If you spent more time reading and less typing your pretty little stars, you wouldn't need to keep asking for repeats. **Inability to present evidence - claim rejected. I suggest you learn some science, rather than persist in religious beliefs. It's how we humans work in the real world, as opposed to your world of nonsense and gobbledegook. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#110
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Lord Valve" wrote in message
... Even the New York Slimes can't spin this one away - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...21climate.html The Boston Herald weighs in - http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ition=r ecent Gosh, this is *ever* so shocking - I mean, who knew? Oops, I mean, who *didn't* know? Evidently, just the pack of Green Weenies, Watermelons and Ecotards who infect these sorry-ass boards... 'Scuse me, I gotta go laugh now...toodle-oo, pip-pip, etc. OK, commence spinning. Lord Valve Globally Cool Fatso, Here's a free clue - these dumb ****s shop at Walmart. |
#111
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Mr Soul" wrote in message ... Yours is the Orthodoxy Which May Not Be Challenged. I think we can all manage the trivial job of working out which is which, particularly now the lies at its heart are being exposed. And you live in a dream world. The Earth is warming up - everybody knows that. **Not true. Everyone does not know this. Only those who can think critically and without resorting to supernatural beliefs realise that the planet is warming. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#112
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Repeat after me: * 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. * The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual, yearly variations. * 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record. * The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists). Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and relevant like sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort of conclusion can reasonably be formed with 14 years worth of data? Do you mean 1400 years, or 14,000? I mean 14, the number that Trevor mentioned: "* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record." Information about temperatures over the past 1400 or 14,000 years is inferred, not based on actual measurements. **It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity with - science. You're such a charmer, Trevor. The proxy data used to obtain temperature records is based on radioactive decay IOW, inference. and is well known and a mature technology. So is radiocarbon dating. Doesn't mean that radiocarbon dating is 100% accurate. It has been cross-checked for accuracy many times. It's very clear revor that you would not know an inference if one bit you in the nose. BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is 450,000. Trevor, you could stop being snotty and realize that it was you who provided data from just 14 years and inferred a trend based on just it. The most recent data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000 years. Trevor, if you had the cards you should have played them when you needed to, not just after you were called up short based on what you said. |
#113
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Don Pearce wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool would say that it doesn't. Mr Soul Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for the last ten years. Well, around here temperature has probably been rising. About 30 years ago I bought a pair of cross-country skis and used them for about 10 years in nearby places. There hasn't been enough snow around here for at least 15 years to make them worthwhile, even to enthusiasts. But that's all short term noise in the cosmic scheme of things. When you start talking about making changes involving thousands of billions of dollars, you need more evidence than just some short-term variations. **Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY referred to historical data streching back hundreds of thousands of years: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2 levels. Here's another news flash for you Trevor: Correlation is not the same as causality. |
#114
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Don Pearce wrote: On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool would say that it doesn't. Mr Soul Cooling, not warming. The global temperature has been dropping for the last ten years. Well, around here temperature has probably been rising. About 30 years ago I bought a pair of cross-country skis and used them for about 10 years in nearby places. There hasn't been enough snow around here for at least 15 years to make them worthwhile, even to enthusiasts. But that's all short term noise in the cosmic scheme of things. When you start talking about making changes involving thousands of billions of dollars, you need more evidence than just some short-term variations. **Of course. Which is why I have CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY referred to historical data streching back hundreds of thousands of years: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/ Note the relationship between temperature levels and CO2 levels. Here's another news flash for you Trevor: Correlation is not the same as causality. **Here's a newsflash for you: I did not suggest that it was. There is, OTOH, a great deal of evidence to suggest that the two are RELATED. Evidence. You know what that is. The sort of thing that is completely lacking in relgion. Unlike you, I base my opinions on evidence and truth, whilst you base yours on nothing related to reality. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#115
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "Ouroboros Rex" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message Repeat after me: * 1998 was an unusually warm, El Nino year. * The temperature TREND is the important thing, not individual, yearly variations. * 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record. * The TREND of rising temperature levels is clear (to scientists). Given that something simple, well-known, gross, and relevant like sunspots has an 22 year cycle - what sort of conclusion can reasonably be formed with 14 years worth of data? Do you mean 1400 years, or 14,000? I mean 14, the number that Trevor mentioned: "* 13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest on record." Information about temperatures over the past 1400 or 14,000 years is inferred, not based on actual measurements. **It is based on something you appear to lack familiarity with - science. You're such a charmer, Trevor. **Let me remind you of some words you uttered recently: "Many of us know that you've apparently unknowingly done that (lie) many times in the past, Trevor." And: "Good advice that Trevor has a poor track record for following when the "religious nutters" hide under a cloak of pseudo-science." It was YOU who chose to 'cast the first stone'. Let me additionally remind you that I am not a Christian. I do not turn the other cheek. Attempting to slur me will be repaid many times over. You are a huge and very easy target. If you wish to keep the discussion civil, I am always ready to comply. The proxy data used to obtain temperature records is based on radioactive decay IOW, inference. **And one which has been verfiied. and is well known and a mature technology. So is radiocarbon dating. Doesn't mean that radiocarbon dating is 100% accurate. **Radiocarbon dating has an accuracy which varies with different factors. OTOH, it is damned good for what it can be used for. As is the proxy data I cited. It has been verified by different people in different locales. Unlike supernatural claptrap. It has been cross-checked for accuracy many times. It's very clear revor that you would not know an inference if one bit you in the nose. BTW: The number of years you are grappling for is 450,000. Trevor, you could stop being snotty and realize that it was you who provided data from just 14 years and inferred a trend based on just it. **Wrong. I provided data stretching back several hundred thousand years. I suggest you read ALL my posts in this thread. You may learn something. The most recent data stretches back around 600,000 years. NOT 14,000 years. Trevor, if you had the cards you should have played them when you needed to, not just after you were called up short based on what you said. **Like I said: Read the damned thread IN IT'S ENTIRETY, you pompous boob. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#116
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
flipper wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:34:28 -0800 (PST), Mr Soul wrote: These emails are unimportant. Global warming exists and only a fool would say that it doesn't. Mr Soul And that, my friends, is what AGW loons call 'scientific debate'. **Not at all. Here is a short list of scientific organisations (as opposed to blogs from some farmer in Idaho, that you cite) that employ REAL scientists (as opposed to religious nutters and fossil fuel apologists) that fully embrace the facts of global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/index.shtml http://www.academie-sciences.fr/ http://www.lincei.it/index.php http://www.agu.org/ http://www.ametsoc.org/ http://www.science.org.au/aashome.htm http://www.cmos.ca/ http://english.cas.cn/ http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/Site/...e/council.aspx http://www.insa.ac.in/html/home.asp http://www.interacademies.net/?id=4278 http://www.kva.se/en/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer http://www.noaa.gov/ http://www.akademisains.gov.my/ http://www.ria.ie/ http://www.ras.ru/index.aspx?_Language=en http://www.scj.go.jp/en/ http://www.aip.org/ http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/ http://royalsociety.org/ http://www.epa.gov/ http://www.rsc.ca/ http://www.csiro.au/ http://www.caswi.org/ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...20080923c.html I suggest you write to each of the above organisations and present your theories to them. Tell them that the hundreds of scientists employed by those organisations are wrong and that you have exciting new data (from some blog you found on the internet) which dispells the thousands of hours of work done by those scientists. I look forward to seeing the replies you receive. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
#117
Posted to alt.guitar.amps,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Global warmies flutter leaves to hide the forest, was EGGHEADS CAUGHT BULL****TING - ROFLMBFAO!
Dahh Brother - you completely misread the quote I gave. Please learn
to read first. I'm glad that you are in Ireland because when the polar ice caps melt, the Gulf Stream may get affected and you'll be mightly cold where you are! Me, on the other hand, will be quite warm where I am (New Hampshire). It's one of the warmest falls on record right now - thank you. Mr Soul |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DeserTBob aka Bob Scarborough caught in a lie | Tech | |||
DeserTBob aka Bob Scarborough caught in a lie | Pro Audio | |||
DeserTBob aka Bob Scarborough caught in a lie | General | |||
DeserTBob aka Bob Scarborough caught in a lie | Marketplace | |||
Krooshit caught lying, yet again! | Audio Opinions |