Anyone See A Trend Here?

[kiwiman127]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

Seems to me that you opened the door. You laid down the first "Baseball Card." No?

 

[Crick]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

What the fuck is the matter with me is that I believe it far more likely that the opinion held by 97% of climate scientists is correct than is the differing opinion held by 1% of them.

What the fuck is the matter with you?

 

[westwall]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

He's a troll. Don't waste your time.

 

[westwall]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

What the fuck is the matter with me is that I believe it far more likely that the opinion held by 97% of climate scientists is correct than is the differing opinion held by 1% of them.

What the fuck is the matter with you?

Probably the fact that your "97%" number is pure unadulterated bullshit. Has been shown to be bullshit to you on at least ten different occasions and you keep dredging that bullshit number up over and over again as if it is some sort of magic number.

It isn't. It's just bullshit. And so are you.

 

[SSDD]

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

What the fuck is the matter with me is that I believe it far more likely that the opinion held by 97% of climate scientists is correct than is the differing opinion held by 1% of them.

What the fuck is the matter with you?

Probably the fact that your "97%" number is pure unadulterated bullshit. Has been shown to be bullshit to you on at least ten different occasions and you keep dredging that bullshit number up over and over again as if it is some sort of magic number.

It isn't. It's just bullshit. And so are you.

It is like that bit of dogma that rocks posts at the drop of a hat that he claims proves a greenhouse effect and age but can't seem to point to anything resembling proof in the whole thing...they are like pavlov's dogs....they are conditioned to react to certain stimuli. Pavlov's dogs salivated when a bell was rung because they thought they were going to be fed...they salivated whether they were actually going to be fed or not.

Warmers react the same way...when they are shown information that challenges their beliefs...they react by posting something that gives them comfort....doesn't matter whether it is true or not, they aren't interested in truth...they are interested in comfort and putting the challenge to their dogma behind them. Rocks posts that silly bit of greenhouse effect tripe....crick posts his appeal to authority even though that claim has been soundly discredited. It makes him feel good to believe that he is on the side of truth justice and the american way....look back though his posts....it is his go to means of comforting himself.

 

[SSDD]

I don't use Judith Curry as a reference for my arguments. I believe her to be incompetent. The same goes for Anthony Watts. But she's the best you've got and for some reason you all think highly of Mr Watts. So if you want to throw up Steve Goddard as a reliable reference, you'll need to address their dissatisfaction with the man's work.

Of course you did...when you posted that little clip from here, you used her as a reference and like everything else you use as a reference...you only use the part that suits you no matter how far you must take it out of context...

Here is link to another post on a different thread where you used Curry as a reference...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9406853-post63.html

And another

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9375557-post16.html

So you cherry pick, you lie, and you are a hypocrite.

 

[flacaltenn]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

Seems to me that you opened the door. You laid down the first "Baseball Card." No?

Yes I did !!! Crick was gonna draft a hall of fame player along with a player that got twice busted back down to the Round Rock Rompers. So I pulled the card.. Just rying to keep him from screwing up his whole Fantasy League season.

 

[percysunshine]

If you global warminist advocates on this thread are not getting paid for promoting the theory, you are morons. Everyone else is making a buck off this scam.

.

 

[jc456]

How long would be the CVs of the thousands of PhD climate scientists who disagree with her?

You think we're just swapping Baseball Cards here?? What the fuck is the matter with you?

What the fuck is the matter with me is that I believe it far more likely that the opinion held by 97% of climate scientists is correct than is the differing opinion held by 1% of them.

What the fuck is the matter with you?

As the song says, whatever get's you through the night........

 

[PredFan]

The trend is that more and more deniers are getting desperate enough to use Goddard's fudged data, despite the way it completely destroys their credibility.

You got any actual data to prove your claim? Of course you don't...What you have is what all losers of your ilk have...ad hominems and a wheel barrow full of bitterness.

I have to take issue with you on this. I believe you are wrong here. It's a TRUCKLOAD of bitterness.

 

[jc456]

The trend is that more and more deniers are getting desperate enough to use Goddard's fudged data, despite the way it completely destroys their credibility.

You got any actual data to prove your claim? Of course you don't...What you have is what all losers of your ilk have...ad hominems and a wheel barrow full of bitterness.

I have to take issue with you on this. I believe you are wrong here. It's a TRUCKLOAD of bitterness.

I''d say a tanker full!

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary: Deniers know they're using fudged data from Goddard ... yet still use it.

They're liars-for-the-cult, and proud of it. Since their cult says the ends always justify the means, they self-define lying on behalf of their cult as a good and noble endeavor.

 

[jc456]

Thread summary: Deniers know they're using fudged data from Goddard ... yet still use it.

They're liars-for-the-cult, and proud of it. Since their cult says the ends always justify the means, they self-define lying on behalf of their cult as a good and noble endeavor.

Hi pot, how's the kettle?

 

[SSDD]

Thread summary: Deniers know they're using fudged data from Goddard ... yet still use it.

They're liars-for-the-cult, and proud of it. Since their cult says the ends always justify the means, they self-define lying on behalf of their cult as a good and noble endeavor.

Acrtually, we know no such thing...your buddy crick used J. Curry as evidence that Goddard was incorrect...he just neglected to post the rest of the story where she got all the data and said herself that there was no rational justification for what is going on with the surface record...Turned out that Goddard was dead on right....better than 40% of the surface is estimates used instead of the actual data.

 

[Crick]

I did not use Curry as "evidence" that Goddard was wrong. I stated that Curry said that Goddard's website was crackpot. That is a fact. Goddard is still full of shit. There is nothing unduly wrong with the USHCN record. There has been no attempt to falsify or manipulate the data. It would be pointless to do so in any case. The net affect of those changes on the GLOBAL record is infinitesimal. This is simply more denier desperation. You haven't got shit to argue with, so when you think you do, you go nuts with it.

 

[SSDD]

I did not use Curry as "evidence" that Goddard was wrong. I stated that Curry said that Goddard's website was crackpot. That is a fact. Goddard is still full of shit. There is nothing unduly wrong with the USHCN record. There has been no attempt to falsify or manipulate the data. It would be pointless to do so in any case. The net affect of those changes on the GLOBAL record is infinitesimal. This is simply more denier desperation. You haven't got shit to argue with, so when you think you do, you go nuts with it.

You cherry picked a few of her words in an effort to make a point...that is using her as evidence to support your position...typically, you lied and didn't provide the whole story but you unquestionably used her as evidence to support your position.

And of course the data have been manipulated and falsified....give me one rational explanation why 40% of a record would be comprised of estimates when 100% of the observed record is available and accurate?

 

[Crick]

Ask NOAA and NCDC. I don't work for them. I just trust them a hell of a lot more than I trust Goddard, Curry or you.

 

[jc456]

I did not use Curry as "evidence" that Goddard was wrong. I stated that Curry said that Goddard's website was crackpot. That is a fact. Goddard is still full of shit. There is nothing unduly wrong with the USHCN record. There has been no attempt to falsify or manipulate the data. It would be pointless to do so in any case. The net affect of those changes on the GLOBAL record is infinitesimal. This is simply more denier desperation. You haven't got shit to argue with, so when you think you do, you go nuts with it.

LiaR

 

[Crick]

Where do you believe I have lied?

 

[jc456]

Where do you believe I have lied?

in the quote that was attached to my post.