Brrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[KittenKoder]

Seriously, go back and count how many different sources you used .... and you had the audacity to call others parrots ...

 

[edthecynic]

Seriously, go back and count how many different sources you used .... and you had the audacity to call others parrots ...

If you check back you'll see I used the proper source to match the denier's misrepresentation. For example, when the denier claimed we were cooling since 1998 I provided a graph that covered the anomalies for the necessary years.
And when a denier said the globe was cold because the USA was cold I provided a map of global anomalies for the year in question. Each graph was tailored to debunk the specific misrepresentation. The graph you wanted, and I supplied for you so you did no work in that case, showed nothing helpful.

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously, go back and count how many different sources you used .... and you had the audacity to call others parrots ...

If you check back you'll see I used the proper source to match the denier's misrepresentation. For example, when the denier claimed we were cooling since 1998 I provided a graph that covered the anomalies for the necessary years.
And when a denier said the globe was cold because the USA was cold I provided a map of global anomalies for the year in question. Each graph was tailored to debunk the specific misrepresentation. The graph you wanted, and I supplied for you so you did no work in that case, showed nothing helpful.

*sighs* See? Circular argument ... how many number of different sources have you used, I count at least ten from us opposing the hoax, how many have the hoax supporters used? I can only find three different and unique sources, all the rest, the same exact data repeated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Kitten that is bullshit. I have used NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Geophysical Union, just to mention a few. I have also posted links to every scientific society on earth, where you can see what their policy statements are concerning global warming.

 

[KittenKoder]

Now Kitten that is bullshit. I have used NOAA, NASA, the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Geophysical Union, just to mention a few. I have also posted links to every scientific society on earth, where you can see what their policy statements are concerning global warming.

All repeating the same scripted data ...

... funny thing about science, when the data isn't scripted it rarely matched between sources, actually, this is the first time in the history of humanity which it has and only in this one specific area ... ever take time to notice that?

Also, no, you only posted those that "agree" with the data, not every scientific society on earth, no even half of them, just the cherry picked ones you like.

 

[edthecynic]

Seriously, go back and count how many different sources you used .... and you had the audacity to call others parrots ...

If you check back you'll see I used the proper source to match the denier's misrepresentation. For example, when the denier claimed we were cooling since 1998 I provided a graph that covered the anomalies for the necessary years.
And when a denier said the globe was cold because the USA was cold I provided a map of global anomalies for the year in question. Each graph was tailored to debunk the specific misrepresentation. The graph you wanted, and I supplied for you so you did no work in that case, showed nothing helpful.

*sighs* See? Circular argument ... how many number of different sources have you used, I count at least ten from us opposing the hoax, how many have the hoax supporters used? I can only find three different and unique sources, all the rest, the same exact data repeated.

That's ridiculous. Just because CON$ lie in packs does not make them right.
For example, a denier said 1934 was warmer globally than 1998. There are hundreds of CON$ervative sites that will attest to it, but it still isn't true, and I posted a graph of the anomalies that covered the period of time. It happened to be the same graph that covered the warming ended after 1998 period and your "logic" is I can't use it because I already used it once then. LOL
Meanwhile the person who claimed 1934 was warmer than 1998 gave no graph or proof of any kind, only a link that said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA not the globe.

If you want different graphs, you have to come up with more unique deceptions.

 

[KittenKoder]

If you check back you'll see I used the proper source to match the denier's misrepresentation. For example, when the denier claimed we were cooling since 1998 I provided a graph that covered the anomalies for the necessary years.
And when a denier said the globe was cold because the USA was cold I provided a map of global anomalies for the year in question. Each graph was tailored to debunk the specific misrepresentation. The graph you wanted, and I supplied for you so you did no work in that case, showed nothing helpful.

*sighs* See? Circular argument ... how many number of different sources have you used, I count at least ten from us opposing the hoax, how many have the hoax supporters used? I can only find three different and unique sources, all the rest, the same exact data repeated.

That's ridiculous. Just because CON$ lie in packs does not make them right.
For example, a denier said 1934 was warmer globally than 1998. There are hundreds of CON$ervative sites that will attest to it, but it still isn't true, and I posted a graph of the anomalies that covered the period of time. It happened to be the same graph that covered the warming ended after 1998 period and your "logic" is I can't use it because I already used it once then. LOL
Meanwhile the person who claimed 1934 was warmer than 1998 gave no graph or proof of any kind, only a link that said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA not the globe.

If you want different graphs, you have to come up with more unique deceptions.

Okay, now ... you do realize that many of the propositions forcing us to use these companies that produce the "green" products endorsed by the scientists you quote were, and still are, conservatives, right? Also many of us who are not conservatives have been telling you all for years "don't just swallow a pill because it makes you feel good because you never know who really made it" (the pill being statistics and studies). However, like those who behave like oh ... well ... a famous one Rush, you are ranting and raving like lunatics as well, just on the opposite end. While we are saying that all possibilities and all studies should be considered before investing everything into one action that may well prove to be worse for the planet and ourselves. Ethanol being the most recent, there you go, you didn't heed our warning then and a conservative who saw the potential to make a profit on your rantings did, now look where we are with that one. Recycling companies are still being covered up, and guess who owns those. Conspiracy nuts should really focus on this environmentalism, because it really smells like a legitimate full blown conspiracy, and you are not helping it look like anything more.

 

[Sinatra]

March 2009 global temps were the coldest in ten years.

It is too damn cold, and might continue to get colder.

Dammit!

 

[edthecynic]

*sighs* See? Circular argument ... how many number of different sources have you used, I count at least ten from us opposing the hoax, how many have the hoax supporters used? I can only find three different and unique sources, all the rest, the same exact data repeated.

That's ridiculous. Just because CON$ lie in packs does not make them right.
For example, a denier said 1934 was warmer globally than 1998. There are hundreds of CON$ervative sites that will attest to it, but it still isn't true, and I posted a graph of the anomalies that covered the period of time. It happened to be the same graph that covered the warming ended after 1998 period and your "logic" is I can't use it because I already used it once then. LOL
Meanwhile the person who claimed 1934 was warmer than 1998 gave no graph or proof of any kind, only a link that said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA not the globe.

If you want different graphs, you have to come up with more unique deceptions.

Okay, now ... you do realize that many of the propositions forcing us to use these companies that produce the "green" products endorsed by the scientists you quote were, and still are, conservatives, right? Also many of us who are not conservatives have been telling you all for years "don't just swallow a pill because it makes you feel good because you never know who really made it" (the pill being statistics and studies). However, like those who behave like oh ... well ... a famous one Rush, you are ranting and raving like lunatics as well, just on the opposite end. While we are saying that all possibilities and all studies should be considered before investing everything into one action that may well prove to be worse for the planet and ourselves. Ethanol being the most recent, there you go, you didn't heed our warning then and a conservative who saw the potential to make a profit on your rantings did, now look where we are with that one. Recycling companies are still being covered up, and guess who owns those. Conspiracy nuts should really focus on this environmentalism, because it really smells like a legitimate full blown conspiracy, and you are not helping it look like anything more.

I posted mostly graphs and maps, what quotes from what scientists are you talking about?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I did post graphics, without comment, as a reply to another post, so any quote was theirs.

 

[KittenKoder]

That's ridiculous. Just because CON$ lie in packs does not make them right.
For example, a denier said 1934 was warmer globally than 1998. There are hundreds of CON$ervative sites that will attest to it, but it still isn't true, and I posted a graph of the anomalies that covered the period of time. It happened to be the same graph that covered the warming ended after 1998 period and your "logic" is I can't use it because I already used it once then. LOL
Meanwhile the person who claimed 1934 was warmer than 1998 gave no graph or proof of any kind, only a link that said 1934 was the warmest year in the USA not the globe.

If you want different graphs, you have to come up with more unique deceptions.

Okay, now ... you do realize that many of the propositions forcing us to use these companies that produce the "green" products endorsed by the scientists you quote were, and still are, conservatives, right? Also many of us who are not conservatives have been telling you all for years "don't just swallow a pill because it makes you feel good because you never know who really made it" (the pill being statistics and studies). However, like those who behave like oh ... well ... a famous one Rush, you are ranting and raving like lunatics as well, just on the opposite end. While we are saying that all possibilities and all studies should be considered before investing everything into one action that may well prove to be worse for the planet and ourselves. Ethanol being the most recent, there you go, you didn't heed our warning then and a conservative who saw the potential to make a profit on your rantings did, now look where we are with that one. Recycling companies are still being covered up, and guess who owns those. Conspiracy nuts should really focus on this environmentalism, because it really smells like a legitimate full blown conspiracy, and you are not helping it look like anything more.

I posted mostly graphs and maps, what quotes from what scientists are you talking about?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I did post graphics, without comment, as a reply to another post, so any quote was theirs.

Note: Do not argue semantics ... it weakens your position greatly.

 

[edthecynic]

Okay, now ... you do realize that many of the propositions forcing us to use these companies that produce the "green" products endorsed by the scientists you quote were, and still are, conservatives, right? Also many of us who are not conservatives have been telling you all for years "don't just swallow a pill because it makes you feel good because you never know who really made it" (the pill being statistics and studies). However, like those who behave like oh ... well ... a famous one Rush, you are ranting and raving like lunatics as well, just on the opposite end. While we are saying that all possibilities and all studies should be considered before investing everything into one action that may well prove to be worse for the planet and ourselves. Ethanol being the most recent, there you go, you didn't heed our warning then and a conservative who saw the potential to make a profit on your rantings did, now look where we are with that one. Recycling companies are still being covered up, and guess who owns those. Conspiracy nuts should really focus on this environmentalism, because it really smells like a legitimate full blown conspiracy, and you are not helping it look like anything more.

I posted mostly graphs and maps, what quotes from what scientists are you talking about?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I did post graphics, without comment, as a reply to another post, so any quote was theirs.

Note: Do not argue semantics ... it weakens your position greatly.

Semantics!
You're the one ranting from "green" endorsements to conspiracy theories, you are all over the place tonight! Maybe you can work Photoshop in there too.

 

[KittenKoder]

I posted mostly graphs and maps, what quotes from what scientists are you talking about?
I think you have me confused with someone else. I did post graphics, without comment, as a reply to another post, so any quote was theirs.

Note: Do not argue semantics ... it weakens your position greatly.

Semantics!
You're the one ranting from "green" endorsements to conspiracy theories, you are all over the place tonight! Maybe you can work Photoshop in there too.

Now you are struggling against the binds of your own misstep by deflecting it to me ... if you embrace this feeling you may break the brain washing you have experienced and open your mind to all the possibilities of life and the environment.

 

[edthecynic]

Note: Do not argue semantics ... it weakens your position greatly.

Semantics!
You're the one ranting from "green" endorsements to conspiracy theories, you are all over the place tonight! Maybe you can work Photoshop in there too.

Now you are struggling against the binds of your own misstep by deflecting it to me ... if you embrace this feeling you may break the brain washing you have experienced and open your mind to all the possibilities of life and the environment.

That's better than Photoshop. LOL

 

[KittenKoder]

Semantics!
You're the one ranting from "green" endorsements to conspiracy theories, you are all over the place tonight! Maybe you can work Photoshop in there too.

Now you are struggling against the binds of your own misstep by deflecting it to me ... if you embrace this feeling you may break the brain washing you have experienced and open your mind to all the possibilities of life and the environment.

That's better than Photoshop. LOL

Tell me, how are these two different:

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

AND

"Liberals want you to believe that the world is coming to an end, that honest, hard working Americans should sacrifice their own lives to save it."

 

[edthecynic]

Now you are struggling against the binds of your own misstep by deflecting it to me ... if you embrace this feeling you may break the brain washing you have experienced and open your mind to all the possibilities of life and the environment.

That's better than Photoshop. LOL

Tell me, how are these two different:

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

AND

"Liberals want you to believe that the world is coming to an end, that honest, hard working Americans should sacrifice their own lives to save it."

Don't try to pin either one on me!

A Cynic sees Liberal and CON$ervative as a team working together,
the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."

 

[KittenKoder]

That's better than Photoshop. LOL

Tell me, how are these two different:

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

AND

"Liberals want you to believe that the world is coming to an end, that honest, hard working Americans should sacrifice their own lives to save it."

Don't try to pin either one on me!

A Cynic sees Liberal and CON$ervative as a team working together,
the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."

Actually ...

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

... is just a reworded version of pretty much everything you have said.

 

[edthecynic]

Tell me, how are these two different:

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

AND

"Liberals want you to believe that the world is coming to an end, that honest, hard working Americans should sacrifice their own lives to save it."

Don't try to pin either one on me!

A Cynic sees Liberal and CON$ervative as a team working together,
the political equivalent of "Good Cop, Bad Cop."

Actually ...

"Conservatives want you to believe that nothing is wrong, that the greedy corporations are not hurting the environment."

... is just a reworded version of pretty much everything you have said.

Of course you have to "reword" it, cause I never said it!!! That's the same crap LimpBoy pulls. You are thoroughly programmed.

"Manage the Public Dollars"
"Manage the Public Dollars"
February 13, 2009
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
OBAMA: Those of us who manage the public dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and our government.

RUSH: Those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, do our business in the light of day.

Last Chance Friday, as Drive-Bys Refuse to Report on Obama's Bill
February 13, 2009
RUSH: Now, if I sit here and say, "President Obama is lying," nobody wants to hear that. They're going to hate me. They're going to think I'm nitpicking. They're going to think I'm a sore loser -- which goes to illustrate the state in which we find ourselves, because this is an out-and-out lie. What has happened is the opposite of responsible. There is no accountability. There is no precious, wise spending of tax dollars here. It's irresponsible as hell. There are no costs being cut whatsoever -- and Washington is doing the opposite of tightening its belt. This is the largest spending increase in one piece of legislation in the history of this country, and there's no evidence in this country for 80 years that anything like this has ever worked before.

And then Obama said this: "Those of us who manage the public's knowledge..." Remember that? "Those of us who manage the public's knowledge will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can they restore the vital trust between the people and their government." None of this except "manage the public's knowledge," is true. That's exactly what they do. I really never thought of government doing that until Obama came, and that's exactly what they're doing, government as an entity that manages the public's knowledge, and he's got his willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media doing just that. They are managing the public's knowledge, and they are targeting anybody who wants to get the truth out about what this administration's doing.

 

[KittenKoder]

Still no difference (other than which side) between the comments, and we've seen those before, care to stop parroting anytime soon?

 

[edthecynic]

Still no difference (other than which side) between the comments, and we've seen those before, care to stop parroting anytime soon?

And neither one ever came from me. You own your Straw Men.

I have only gone as far as saying that there has been a 100 year warming trend, NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE. The only cause I ruled out was the 11 year sunspot cycle, and again with a graph with the sunspot cycle and temp plotted together. Just the right graph to use.

 

[KittenKoder]

Still no difference (other than which side) between the comments, and we've seen those before, care to stop parroting anytime soon?

And neither one ever came from me. You own your Straw Men.

I have only gone as far as saying that there has been a 100 year warming trend, NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE. The only cause I ruled out was the 11 year sunspot cycle, and again with a graph with the sunspot cycle and temp plotted together. Just the right graph to use.

*eye roll with yawn* Back to the sunspot argument AGAIN! Didn't you parrot that one enough already?

Doesn't matter who said what exact quotes, summarizing is pretty accurate this time, and I summarized your statements into a fitting quote often used by the left wingnuts and matched it up with one from the right wingnuts ... both look exactly the same to me, the unwillingness to consider other possibilities, the distraction from the real issues with the "victim" declaration ...