A Quick Update on "Climate Gate" Comedy: Denialist Follies, Part Trois

Damocles said:
When there is specific political interest in the result and all funding depends on their result the funding of science can be questioned when it comes from that political entity. Like a study paid for by cigarette companies seeking specific results...

However, in this case Superfreak was being sarcastic. The study was government funded, the result is not in synchopathy with your desired result.
Click to expand...
OH that's non-sense Damo. You're saying that these professional scientist would corrupt their research and their ethics to publish bogus science in order to advance a hiden agenda (their funding). My god if that were true #1, almost all scientific research being performed wold be unreliable and with out merit and #2. Their colleagues would be all over that like fly on shit.

Anyone who has ever had to write a grant proposal couldn't help but lauging at that! ;-)

This is just plain silly conspiracy theory non-sense.
 
Superfreak said:
It is truly amazing how you can continue answering posts like tinfoils.... but refuse to answer any questions directed at you.

I wonder why that is Mott....
Click to expand...
Relevent to your post, it's because I'm at work and I haven't read your links. I have work to do. I'll get back with you later. Be patient.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Relevent to your post, it's because I'm at work and I haven't read your links. I have work to do. I'll get back with you later. Be patient.
Click to expand...

some of the questions were quite simple Mott....

WHY do you now call it anthropogenic CLIMATE CHANGE when all along it was AGW?

Surely if man is causing the global WARMING.... you wouldn't need to change the terminology to climate change (which essentially encompasses EVERYTHING that occurs with regards to the climate).

I understand you are not going to read the full 50 pages at work... but there were other simple questions as well that you skipped over to respond instead to tinfoil.

Very telling Mott.... very telling...
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Evidently, you didn't read the subsequent posts by Zap and Cypress where they detail exactly how and why the Wikipedia source isn't up to snuff. Please do so, because you look really foolish with all the condescending rants in lieu of those explanations.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
They didn't detail squat. They just repeated "It's wiki" and ignored the sourcing.
Click to expand...


No, they repeatedly pointed out that the information was OUTDATED! Cypress went to great length and detail to demonstrate that taken to task, the "experts" on your side of the argument can't hold up under oath or scrutiny. Zap did a list as to why the Wiki link just isn't up to snuff.

C'mon Damo, you're not even trying! Your insipid stubborness and denial on this subject just doesn't cut it.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar
Alrightie then...lets take a look at some of your "References":

#5-8...ALL OPINION PIECES

#10...an article from a DECADE ago...got anything more recent?

#11-12...MORE opinion pieces...

#23...listed as a "letter to the editor"...click it and it says "404 Not Found" GOOD SOURCE!

#25...NEWSMAX! No BIAS there, eh?

#32...from the NCPA,,,just another RightWing Propaganda Arm!

#60...Opinion piece from the CATO Institute...another RightWing Organization.

HELL...half the "references" cite one of two guys as their source...William Happer or Tim Ball...

...so yeah, Wikipedia is still pretty unreliable..but you just keep on using them...it does make my job easier.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles
They didn't detail squat. They just repeated "It's wiki" and ignored the sourcing.
Click to expand...

ZappasGuitar said:
REALLY!?!

"Didn't detail squat"?

You did see where I checked out the "sources"?

Damo...reduced to bald faced lies...it's sad really.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that in the face of FACTS from the very sources they once lauded, our insipidly stubborn climate change deniers just keep lying, denying and regurgitating information that is either dated or disproven.

You and Cypress have done the equivalent of exposing Dracula to sunlight...and our resident opposition just doesn't like it.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
No, they repeatedly pointed out that the information was OUTDATED! Cypress went to great length and detail to demonstrate that taken to task, the "experts" on your side of the argument can't hold up under oath or scrutiny. Zap did a list as to why the Wiki link just isn't up to snuff.

C'mon Damo, you're not even trying! Your insipid stubborness and denial on this subject just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you are quite dishonest... Zap's list was a feeble attempt to cherry pick which was completely debunked by myself.

The majority of those links on Wiki were within the past five years. Also, as I stated to the other twits.... are you going to discount anything produced by the fear mongers that is older than five years? If not, then the point of the 'age of the article' is moot, unless you can show that the DATA itself used by those authors to support their views is also out of date.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Isn't it amazing that in the face of FACTS from the very sources they once lauded, our insipidly stubborn climate change deniers just keep lying, denying and regurgitating information that is either dated or disproven.

You and Cypress have done the equivalent of exposing Dracula to sunlight...and our resident opposition just doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

obviously you need to continue reading the thread.... you will find your ramblings above are nothing short of absurd
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... you are quite dishonest... Zap's list was a feeble attempt to cherry pick which was completely debunked by myself.

ZAP listed EXACTLY what was in the link and pointed out EXACTLY what was wrong with it. Your assertion of "self debunking" is nothing more than your OPINION...and an absurd opinion at that. If you can factually prove him wrong, then either do it or STFU. What I stated is EXACTLY what is in the chronology of the post, your insipidly stubborn supposition and conjecture non-withstanding. So pick up your ass and get in gear, chuckles.

The majority of those links on Wiki were within the past five years. As Cypress aptly demonstrated, that is not an accurate statement by you. Also, as I stated to the other twits.... are you going to discount anything produced by the fear mongers that is older than five years? If not, then the point of the 'age of the article' is moot, unless you can show that the DATA itself used by those authors to support their views is also out of date.
Click to expand...

Sorry chuckles, but that ploy of yours isn't going to cut it. YOU and your cohorts are consistently referring to information that is dated AND THEN IGNORE RECENT INFORMATION THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THAT INFORMATION. That is the case here, and rather than just have the stones to acknowledge it, you throw up a bunch of "what if's" to dodge the issue.

Cypress and Zap made their cases based on fact and logic....TFB for you if it doesn't fit your belief system. Grow the fuck up and stop being so SUPERFREAK-ing dense.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Isn't it amazing that in the face of FACTS from the very sources they once lauded, our insipidly stubborn climate change deniers just keep lying, denying and regurgitating information that is either dated or disproven.

You and Cypress have done the equivalent of exposing Dracula to sunlight...and our resident opposition just doesn't like it.
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
obviously you need to continue reading the thread.... you will find your ramblings above are nothing short of absurd
Click to expand...

:palm: Grow up, chuckles. Cypress has given valid reports of RETRACTIONS and APOLOGIES by those who were so adamant about the guilty regarding "Climate Gate". THEY WERE WRONG BY THEIR OWN WORDS. Deal with it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OH that's non-sense Damo. You're saying that these professional scientist would corrupt their research and their ethics to publish bogus science in order to advance a hiden agenda (their funding). My god if that were true #1, almost all scientific research being performed wold be unreliable and with out merit and #2. Their colleagues would be all over that like fly on shit.

Anyone who has ever had to write a grant proposal couldn't help but lauging at that! ;-)

This is just plain silly conspiracy theory non-sense.
Click to expand...
Not all government funding comes with a related wedge issue. When any colleague gets on that, it is poo-pooed away on threads like this one as "right wing" publications, like the study that SF posted and Taichi rejected because of it's "right-wing" slant.
 
Threedee said:
AKA the chronology of posts...
Click to expand...

Something you haven't yet learned to adhere to, genius.

Cypress provides PROOF of retractions and apologies by those who were SO sure about the guilty in the "Climate Gate" case. Grow the fuck up and deal with it.

Zap did an excellent job of deconstructing the so-called "valid" sources of the Wiki link, and Cypress kiboshed it further by demonstrating how the "dated" source material of the Wiki link has been LONG disproved by more recent information.

Had you actually followed the "chronology of the posts", you'd know this.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Grow up, chuckles. Cypress has given valid reports of RETRACTIONS and APOLOGIES by those who were so adamant about the guilty regarding "Climate Gate". THEY WERE WRONG BY THEIR OWN WORDS. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Translation:

I almost read the thread, and now I won't because when I saw I was pWned early on it became less embarrassing to just pretend like I didn't read.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Looks to me like he believes he's his intellectual better.
Click to expand...

Looks to me that YOU still don't have the brains or guts to actually debate the issue..but since I kicked your flabby ass and exposed you for the POS bigot that you are awhile back, all you can do is just follow me around joining slam fests and sending poison pen reputation notes. You're one pathetic Loyal End of a neocon jackass. Carry on.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Grow up, chuckles. Cypress has given valid reports of RETRACTIONS and APOLOGIES by those who were so adamant about the guilty regarding "Climate Gate". THEY WERE WRONG BY THEIR OWN WORDS. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
Translation:

I almost read the thread, and now I won't because when I saw I was pWned early on it became less embarrassing to just pretend like I didn't read.
Click to expand...

Jeezus, Damo....everytime you get proven wrong, you become a petulant child. Grow the fuck up, man. Cypress and Zap just have the case by FACTS and logic, while you and your insipidly stubborn compadres just keep rehashing moot and disproven points. If my complementing Cypress and Zap is too much for your fevered brow to handle, then IA me or stop acting like a wussy.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Jeezus, Damo....everytime you get proven wrong, you become a petulant child. Grow the fuck up, man. Cypress and Zap just have the case by FACTS and logic, while you and your insipidly stubborn compadres just keep rehashing moot and disproven points. If my complementing Cypress and Zap is too much for your fevered brow to handle, then IA me or stop acting like a wussy.
Click to expand...
LOL. Perfect. Exactly as I predicted....

You provide so much entertainment.

Translation:

I still continue to pretend like I haven't read the thread.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Jeezus, Damo....everytime you get proven wrong, you become a petulant child. Grow the fuck up, man. Cypress and Zap just have the case by FACTS and logic, while you and your insipidly stubborn compadres just keep rehashing moot and disproven points. If my complementing Cypress and Zap is too much for your fevered brow to handle, then IA me or stop acting like a wussy.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
LOL. Perfect. Exactly as I predicted....

You provide so much entertainment.

Translation:

I still continue to pretend like I haven't read the thread.
Click to expand...

And there you have it folks......Damo is just another joker who doesn't like his veneer of intellectual superiority disproved in a printed, chronicled format. Cypress and Zap presented their cases and to date, the facts and logic cannot be shaken by Damo or anyone else. So Damo does what has become the staple of many defeated neocon numbskulls (Damo swears he's not one of them, but damn sure does a good imitation)...Damo indulges in a slam fest against the poster full of false claims and accusations, dodging from his defeat. Hell, all I'm doing is complementing Cypress and Zap...and that's just too much for Damo to handle.

I almost pity our chuckling Damo sometimes...almost.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it folks......Damo is just another joker who doesn't like his veneer of intellectual superiority disproved in a printed, chronicled format. Cypress and Zap presented their cases and to date, the facts and logic cannot be shaken by Damo or anyone else. So Damo does what has become the staple of many defeated neocon numbskulls (Damo swears he's not one of them, but damn sure does a good imitation)...Damo indulges in a slam fest against the poster full of false claims and accusations, dodging from his defeat. Hell, all I'm doing is complementing Cypress and Zap...and that's just too much for Damo to handle.

I almost pity our chuckling Damo sometimes...almost.
Click to expand...
:D

This is such a joy. Another piece of evidence that you actually haven't "read" the thread. Either you are good at pretending ignorance of the posts that followed, or you really do just keep yourself ignorant and so we wind up talking about you. It is fun. I suggest you keep entertaining me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top