AGWCult now threatening "Deniers"

[gslack]

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Tried to warn IanC not to try and explain "deviation" to the troll.. But he had to try and cross the bridge.. NOTHING gets across that bridge between his ears..

Lackwit gslack has complained in the past that I pick on his stupidities and ignore the warmera's idiotic bleatings. He doesn't seem to realize that he is an embarrassment to the skeptical side. I don't care if warmers make foolish statements and cannot sift the science from the bullshit. But when someone brings shame down on the skeptics through blatant stupidity even though he has been corrected countless times.....well that just pisses me off.

No what I realize is you are a habitual save-ass... You latch on to anybody when it suits your needs.. Like your latest with PMZ... You run from every arguement when you can't throw numbers from spencer at it... You regurgitate luke-warmer nonsense, and pretend it solves all problems.. You don't understand it really, you just know what they tell you. When asked to think about what they mean in reality, you run or play dumb...

When you pull the dumb act, do you think it gives the impression you know something others don't, or that you are a posturing BS artist? I'll give you a hint, it's the 2nd one...

 

[gslack]

Simple dumbass, have the temps remained the same for the last 180 years? An average temp for a given 30 years in a 180 year run, can vary simply because the freaking weather can vary..

AGAIN, we see you worshipping numbers that you do not relate to anything real.. To you they are numbers, but in reality those numbers represent an average temperature.. You are treating this as if the temps mean nothing so long as the math adds up.. it's ignorant and shows how little you actually think this through...

No 30 year period will be exactly like another 30 year period. You think so long as it can be statistically correct it's true. When in reality it's nothing more than a statistical possibility. Not a fact, not a given, not a certainty, just a possibility. Sounds great when you are guessing at something, but not so great when you are trying to claim something as a fact..

Want ot get a idea on something? Want to be in the ball park? Sure statistics is the way to go. Want to call something a fact? want to state something as a certainty? Statistics won't be enough...

Another fine example of half-ass climate science think... They aren't saying it was a statistical possibility the last years were records,they are saying they ARE records, and basing that claim on a 30 year period mean. And YOU are pretending that since a 30 year mean can be statistically "close enough" by climate science standards, than it is fact..

it's an asinine and silly assumption, and NOT a fact by any measure.. But then again you beleive in perfect heat engines and re-using the same energy to do the same task, so of course you think slip-shod crap like this is fine..

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Tried to warn IanC not to try and explain "deviation" to the troll.. But he had to try and cross the bridge.. NOTHING gets across that bridge between his ears..

LOL, yes Ian explained that deviation from a 30 year mean, no matter from what time period within a larger 180 year period, is a perfectly fine way to call a year a "record".. The fact that in that 180years we had variable temps and no 30 year period would be exactly like another, doesn't matter..

AND THAT shows us the difference between knowing numbers and knowing what the imply in the real world...The claim made about the chart wasn't claiming a deviance from any 30 year mean. That was what the chart showed, but the claim was the last 12 of 15 years were record high years..The chart stated one thing, but the claim using it made another.. Catching on yet? The claim said record, the chart said deviance from a 30 year mean.. It's a bait and switch.. ALSO, if the temps were constant and the same all 180 years, any 30year period would work, but the temps were not all the same..

It's a silly claim, using a misleading chart, classic warmer tactics. the chart can be useful in proper context, but in this context it's misleading if not an outright lie...

Now please continue crying about the mean and rude gslack, who has the nerve to insult back when he is insulted...

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk......always splitting my sides laughing when I post up this gem........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[IanC]

I have never seen someone so in need of an education.

It's almost as if you know better but say these things on purpose. I'm not sure anyone could be wrong this often.

Tried to warn IanC not to try and explain "deviation" to the troll.. But he had to try and cross the bridge.. NOTHING gets across that bridge between his ears..

LOL, yes Ian explained that deviation from a 30 year mean, no matter from what time period within a larger 180 year period, is a perfectly fine way to call a year a "record".. The fact that in that 180years we had variable temps and no 30 year period would be exactly like another, doesn't matter..

AND THAT shows us the difference between knowing numbers and knowing what the imply in the real world...The claim made about the chart wasn't claiming a deviance from any 30 year mean. That was what the chart showed, but the claim was the last 12 of 15 years were record high years..The chart stated one thing, but the claim using it made another.. Catching on yet? The claim said record, the chart said deviance from a 30 year mean.. It's a bait and switch.. ALSO, if the temps were constant and the same all 180 years, any 30year period would work, but the temps were not all the same..

It's a silly claim, using a misleading chart, classic warmer tactics. the chart can be useful in proper context, but in this context it's misleading if not an outright lie...

Now please continue crying about the mean and rude gslack, who has the nerve to insult back when he is insulted...

Lackwit- I asked you a very simple question. Show how the reference period can change the order of the yearly numbers from high to low. You can't because it makes no difference at all. You are mathematically illiterate.

I then pointed out a real problem. The rank order of years IS different when you compare the list from 1999 to the list from 2012 (for years included in both lists).

You fixate on the wrong things because you simply don't understand the basics. I find it difficult to converse with you because you are too stupid to comprehend what others are saying. Your scientific knowledge is a hodgepodge of talking points, often mangled and taken out of context.

A quick example. A while back you linked to a diagram showing how the tilt of the earth as it goes around the sun affects the insolation. At the end you proved that you didn't understand it, even though it was right in front of you. You said it was because the earth was farther from the sun in winter!!! The northern hemisphere is actually closer to the sun in winter, as you would have been taught in elementary school. You are a dunce, a lackwit. You are a stain on public school education, and if you actually have a degree in higher education that is a sad commentary on how far standards have dropped.