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

[Taichiliberal]

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.

So as I follow the thread and make compliments to Cypress and Zap at various points, Damo claims that I haven't "read" it. Yet he can't explain how I can read something to comment on it and yet "not" read it as he claims.



Someone get an adult to explain to Damo how fucking dumb his assertion is. He's just a little kid pissing his pants in frustration because Cypress proved him wrong, and Zap dismissed others with simple examination and logic. So now he'll regress to the childish, "it's all a joke, you're not worth responding to, you're amusing me" schtick.

Grow the fuck up, Damo....you're embarassing yourself. You may have the last predictable retort. Until next thread.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

I'm sorry but that implies that those doing the science have liberal political agenda. If that were true others doing climate research would have spotted that in a NY minute and tore it apart. That's like saying QED isn't valid because Feinman had a political agenda to maintain funding for nuclear weapons research. It's pure conspiracy theory.

If the data and conclusion based on that data for climate change are politically biased and invalid then it will simply not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific community.

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry but that implies that those doing the science have liberal political agenda. If that were true others doing climate research would have spotted that in a NY minute and tore it apart. That's like saying QED isn't valid because Feinman had a political agenda to maintain funding for nuclear weapons research. It's pure conspiracy theory.

If the data and conclusion based on that data for climate change are politically biased and invalid then it will simply not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific community.

I believe that they have a fiscal agenda.

 

[Legion Troll's Troll]

Fart the Foople Farted and the earth got hotted.

End of story.

 

[Cypress]

There’s not a single, solitary NeoCon on this thread that goes to accountant to fix a tooth ache.

You all rely on experts, in all facets of your lives when it comes to medicine, science, or technology.



When it comes to science, these are the rules of the game, my dim witted Climate Gate clowns:.

Right wing blogs are not acceptable links for expert scientific information.

Rightwing think tanks are not acceptable sources for expert scientific information. CATO Institute, AEI, and Heritage Foundation don’t publish peer reviewed scientific research, and they don’t have any actual reputable climate scientists on their staff. Their website says their “environmental policy” experts are accountant dudes and economic dudes. Rotflamo. You don’t see me citing “ThinkProgress.org” as my source, do you?

Links to British tabloids are unacceptable. Murdoch’s London newspapers just had to freaking grovel and apologize for lying about the IPCC.

Links to rightwing blogs run by crackpots are unacceptable. I’ve had NeoCons try to pass off websites run by mentally disturbed “mushroom researchers”, mining company stock analysts posing as armchair scientists; and some blog by a crack pot who lives on a rural farm in Oregon and who sells home schooling materials.

Laughable, lame and hopelessly outdated Wikipedia links are unacceptable. Zap destroyed that feeble effort by pointing out none of the “sources” were to peer reviewed science. It’s all opinion shit. The majority of the links predate the fourth IPCC assessment, and were based on the older 2001 IPCC assessment. And MOST importantly, the list of “climate sceptic” scientists did not include any actual climate scientists. Don’t freaking bother us with the musing of botanists, astronomers, petroleum engineers, or geologists. The only dude on that list who could plausible claim to have done actual climate research, testified once he got under oath in court, that the earth is warming and that human emissions are largely responsible.

Editorial columns from the wall street journal are not acceptable.

Non-peer reviewed articles posted on some blog, and written by some dude is isn’t an actual climate researcher, are not acceptable.

No intelligent person who has a rudimentary college education and a semi-sophisticated knowledge of science is going to accept your blather about a global conspiracy of lying climate scientists. Y’all are as bad as 9/11 truthers. Don’t ever let me catch you making fun of truthers again, your down in the dirt with them.

All I’ve ever done is post the conclusions of the most reputable and prestigeious scientific organizations who have expertise in climate, on the entire PLANET.

And EVERY SINGLE ONE of them concludes that the earth is warming, and that it is very likely humans are largely responsible for warming of the last half century.



NeoCons, you’re on deck. Your bullshit rightwing, non-scientific links aren’t cutting it. Ball’s in your court. It’s your turn to provide credible, reputable, and internationally-accepted scientific sources and organizations who support your yelps and hollers.


Take the Climate Gate Clown Challenge:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There’s not a single, solitary NeoCon on this thread that goes to accountant to fix a tooth ache.

You all rely on experts, in all facets of your lives when it comes to medicine, science, or technology.



When it comes to science, these are the rules of the game, my dim witted Climate Gate clowns:.




All I’ve ever done is post the conclusions of the most reputable and prestigeious scientific organizations who have expertise in climate, on the entire PLANET.

And EVERY SINGLE ONE of them concludes that the earth is warming, and that it is very likely humans are largely responsible for warming of the last half century.



NeoCons, you’re on deck. Your bullshit rightwing, non-scientific links aren’t cutting it. Ball’s in your court. It’s your turn to provide credible, reputable, and internationally-accepted scientific sources and organizations who support your yelps and hollers.


Take the Climate Gate Clown Challenge:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=663778&postcount=3

.

Not according to Damo. None of the climate research is valid because they all have a vested interest in drawing a pay check from researching a wedge issue.

That does bring up another question. How is this a wedge issue?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

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.

No... ZAP cherry picked a few things out of the list of sources in a pathetic attempt to discredit ALL of the sources.

You have been proven wrong and now you are embarrassed. You have no concept of chronology. Because the chronology went like this...

1) Zap cherry picks some sources, pretends most of the sources are pre-2001, asks for 'newer sources' and 'reports' rather than articles that directly quote the researcher (Zap calls this opinion pieces)

2) Superfreak points out to the moronic Zap that within the list of sources over half are within the past five years. He also points out to the moronic Zap that there are a links to several up to date reports on the topic showing why the 'debate is NOT over' (which debunks the idiot Cypress's assertion that the debate is over). Superfreak also points out that proclaiming a report is not valid purely on the DATE of the report is quite simply.... stupid. Especially given the fact that we know Zap is not going to toss out any of the reports by the fear mongers for the same reason.

3) Taichi, embarrassed at his own destruction and trying to spin says... it did not happen, I showed you "EXACTLY" what was in the link (minus of course all those other sources I am pretending don't exist)

4) Superfreak once again mocks the moronic Zap and Tai chi for their stupidity.

 

[Damocles]

Not according to Damo. None of the climate research is valid because they all have a vested interest in drawing a pay check from researching a wedge issue.

That does bring up another question. How is this a wedge issue?

Yeah, because nobody can see the inherent political football if their name is Mott. And no, I didn't say "none is valid" I said that people question it "because" then gave you reasons. You then tell me that it's been "debunked" but show none of this "debunking" (nor does Cypress who just repeats that he makes mad love with IPCC officials and wants to have their babies). Exaggeration is fun, but it doesn't make you right nor does it change the things I asked about, that haven't been "largely debunked" as you insisted they had earlier.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yeah, because nobody can see the inherent political football if their name is Mott. And no, I didn't say "none is valid" I said that people question it "because" then gave you reasons. You then tell me that it's been "debunked" but show none of this "debunking" (nor does Cypress who just repeats that he makes mad love with IPCC officials and wants to have their babies).

Hey now... don't forget the National Academy of Sciences.... Cypress loves humping their legs as well.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not according to Damo. None of the climate research is valid because they all have a vested interest in drawing a pay check from researching a wedge issue.

That does bring up another question. How is this a wedge issue?

Typical bullshit from the left. No ONE is saying that ALL of the data is fraudelent or that none of the research is valid.

We are stating that only a complete fucking moron would state that the 'debate is over' which Cypress does repeatedly even though his own masters say otherwise.

Also... can't help but notice yet again that you have time to create bullshit posts, but have still not answered any of my questions. I wonder why.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Still no answer from Mott on the questions... I wonder why...

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Keeping this fresh for Mott, who I am sure will be along any moment to answer the questions.... surely he is not going to duck them forever....

 

[zappasguitar]

No... ZAP cherry picked a few things out of the list of sources in a pathetic attempt to discredit ALL of the sources.

You have been proven wrong and now you are embarrassed. You have no concept of chronology. Because the chronology went like this...

1) Zap cherry picks some sources, pretends most of the sources are pre-2001, asks for 'newer sources' and 'reports' rather than articles that directly quote the researcher (Zap calls this opinion pieces)

2) Superfreak points out to the moronic Zap that within the list of sources over half are within the past five years. He also points out to the moronic Zap that there are a links to several up to date reports on the topic showing why the 'debate is NOT over' (which debunks the idiot Cypress's assertion that the debate is over). Superfreak also points out that proclaiming a report is not valid purely on the DATE of the report is quite simply.... stupid. Especially given the fact that we know Zap is not going to toss out any of the reports by the fear mongers for the same reason.

3) Taichi, embarrassed at his own destruction and trying to spin says... it did not happen, I showed you "EXACTLY" what was in the link (minus of course all those other sources I am pretending don't exist)

4) Superfreak once again mocks the moronic Zap and Tai chi for their stupidity.

Then surely the brainiac SF can show the "moron Zap" where EXACTLY the aforementioned Zap has said "debate is over"?

You make all these ridiuclous assumptions and claims...hows about backing just that one up?

 

[zappasguitar]

Originally Posted by Damocles:

Yeah, because nobody can see the inherent political football if their name is Mott. And no, I didn't say "none is valid" I said that people question it "because" then gave you reasons. You then tell me that it's been "debunked" but show none of this "debunking" (nor does Cypress who just repeats that he makes mad love with IPCC officials and wants to have their babies).

Hey now... don't forget the National Academy of Sciences.... Cypress loves humping their legs as well.

More shining examples of what passes for "civil debate"

Name calling, world-class hyperbole and just plain ignoring what is inconvenient for you to hear...standard Tightie Rightie debate tactics.

I can't WAIT to hear what ridiculous bullshit you stand ready to accuse me of next!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Then surely the brainiac SF can show the "moron Zap" where EXACTLY the aforementioned Zap has said "debate is over"?

You make all these ridiuclous assumptions and claims...hows about backing just that one up?

Moron.... do try READING.... I stated quite clearly the debunking of 'the debate is over' was directed at CYPRESS...

the debunking of your stupidity came when I pointed out how you cherry picked sources and ignored those that went against your preconceived views that your masters spoon fed you.

 

[zappasguitar]

Moron.... do try READING.... I stated quite clearly the debunking of 'the debate is over' was directed at CYPRESS...

the debunking of your stupidity came when I pointed out how you cherry picked sources and ignored those that went against your preconceived views that your masters spoon fed you.

Right...that's where this came from:

"2) Superfreak points out to the moronic Zap that within the list of sources over half are within the past five years. He also points out to the moronic Zap that there are a links to several up to date reports on the topic showing why the 'debate is NOT over'"

I have NEVER said "debate is over" and you keep trying to imply I have.

I'd also like to say that reading "information" you include might be a little easier if I wasn't constantly having to swim through oceans of ridiculous hyperbole I read in your posts.

 

[zappasguitar]

Moron.... do try READING.... I stated quite clearly the debunking of 'the debate is over' was directed at CYPRESS...

the debunking of your stupidity came when I pointed out how you cherry picked sources and ignored those that went against your preconceived views that your masters spoon fed you.

Also...let's discuss the "sources" you claim I cherry picked. I cherry picked nothing as they are all YOUR SOURCES. I simply took a few minutes to look into some of the more obvious propaganda pieces and needless to say I was right.

Over HALF the "sources" your global warming deniers cite are OPINION PIECES or straight out PROPAGANDA written by people or groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

For example...that you are incapable of accepting that a piece written by the NCPA, who get airtime every single week on the Mike Gallagher show, might be biased displays just how blind YOU are to the truth.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

you guys will never believe each other, you will argue endlessly against each others sources and will never change your minds

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There’s not a single, solitary NeoCon on this thread that goes to accountant to fix a tooth ache.

There isn't a single solitary liberal left wing fear monger who will read any evidence that contradicts their masters spoon fed fear mongering.

All I’ve ever done is post the conclusions of the most reputable and prestigeious scientific organizations who have expertise in climate, on the entire PLANET.

All you have ever done is ignore anything that goes against your beloved masters opinions. You never show the ACTUAL data, you just take quotes from summaries from organizations who benefit from the man induced global warming theory being true.

You never do address WHY it is that suddenly there was a shift from AGW to 'climate change'

WHY is that Cypress? Is it because the answer shatters the mirror?

And EVERY SINGLE ONE of them concludes that the earth is warming, and that it is very likely humans are largely responsible for warming of the last half century.

STANDARD BULLSHIT from the left. We are not arguing whether or not there was warming in the latter half of the century. We are asking for evidence that man is the primary cause. Yet you morons always state 'well they all conclude there was warming' as if that is the argument.

Stating: "it is very likely that humans are largely responsible" ... how many fucking qualifiers do you want in there?

Not that it matters because the so-called 'evidence' is tenuous at best. Which is why idiots like you continue to label everything that contradicts that theory as 'right wing'.

NeoCons, you’re on deck. Your bullshit rightwing, non-scientific links aren’t cutting it. Ball’s in your court. It’s your turn to provide credible, reputable, and internationally-accepted scientific sources and organizations who support your yelps and hollers.

No moron... you have been on deck for quite some time. You just keep ignoring everyone who shows you evidence that the debate is NOT over.




As for the expertise.... how about you go to the NAS site... pull up the list of scientists on there... for the environmental section (US)...

WHY do 17/49 have no listed experience?

Next tell us.... how does one become appointed to the NAS?

Now tell us... since you like to list that 'the NAS of every developed country supports global warming I mean climate change'... why not mention the NAS environmental sciences and ecology group for:

England is just FOUR people?
Australia .... ONE
Germany.... ONE
Canada... ONE
Norway.... NONE
New Zealand.... NONE
Spain..... NONE
Switzerland.... NONE
Japan..... NONE
Ireland.... NONE
Italy.... NONE
France... NONE
Denmark.... NONE

By your definition of 'not working in the specific field'... all those NAS countries above are not really qualified to be giving assessments.... yet they are.... I wonder how they are managing that....

Could it be that they are just signing off, because that is the cool thing to do?

This is the laughable portion of your bullshit about 'every respected source blah blah blah'... they ALL get their data from the same sources and they all piggy back on one another.

Yet lemmings like you pretend they are all coming to the same conclusion via their OWN research and analysis.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also...let's discuss the "sources" you claim I cherry picked. I cherry picked nothing as they are all YOUR SOURCES. I simply took a few minutes to look into some of the more obvious propaganda pieces and needless to say I was right.

Over HALF the "sources" your global warming deniers cite are OPINION PIECES or straight out PROPAGANDA written by people or groups who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

For example...that you are incapable of accepting that a piece written by the NCPA, who get airtime every single week on the Mike Gallagher show, might be biased displays just how blind YOU are to the truth.

Again moron.... you most certainly DID cherry pick....

Your comment on #10 source was....'this is from 2001.... got anything newer'.... when it was CLEAR that there were over THIRTY other sources dated in the past five years.

Tell me moron... how is that NOT cherry picking?

You also picked out the articles from newspapers and then acted like everything listed was a 'right wing opinion piece'.... despite the FACT that there are research REPORTS on the site. This was pointed out to you, yet you ignored it.

You again try to pretend the piece written by the HEAD OF THE CLIMACTIC RESEARCH DEPARTMENT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE is some sort of right wing propaganda. This is where your dishonesty kicks into high gear.