AGW Believer AND Skeptic!!!

[konradv]

There is NOTHING scientific about that which is not falsifiable.

And you expect folks to take you seriously when you try to discuss science?

You are a fraud.
----------------------------

Line 1: TRUE

Line 2: WHY NOT?

Line 3: Unsupported by the preceding statements.

TRY AGAIN!

 

[Si modo]

Silly old Si! Calls others frauds for posting the real words of scientists, and then denies the science herself. ....

If you cannot even fathom the basic requirement for science actually to be science - falsifiability - then you are hopeless. But, we all know you just play at science.

As I have not denied any science, you are a liar.

When I have rep again, count on getting a neg rep for liying about me and my views. I keep telling you that will happen, yet you keep lying about me.

.... Come on, Si, post expicitly why AGW is incorrect. ....

Moron. As that is nothing that has anything to do with my position, I would have no interest in doing so.

Lie some more.

.... Come on scientist, show us some real science, ....

I have several times and you keep lying about that.

.... something other than politically driven rhetoric. ....

You're projecting. I don't mix science and politics because, gosh darnit, I actually have the ability to distinguish between the two. You haven't even the capacity to understand the most fundamental requirement for something to be scientific.














You and others can play at this with others, maybe; but not with me. You are out of your league.

Some day, someone will actually give me a decent debate on this topic. Dealing with you is just typical dealing with a USMB troll.

 

[Si modo]

There is NOTHING scientific about that which is not falsifiable.

And you expect folks to take you seriously when you try to discuss science?

You are a fraud.
----------------------------

Line 1: TRUE

Line 2: WHY NOT?

....

Ummmm, see Line 1.

 

[gslack]

There have been at least fourteen studies done that supported Mann's Hockey Stick chart. Here is one of them;

Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

Nice weasel tactic of coming back and posting after every one left.....

Funny but mann himself was not so sure recently...

"In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[56][57] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."
Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion." He has further suggested that the criticisms directed at his statistical methodology are purely political and add nothing new to the scientific debate.[58]"

Hockey stick controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thats okay buddy cry its all make believe then try to defend it after the fact... Nice bit of scientific work pal..

Nice demonstration of your ignorance of scientific terminology, old boy.

The Mann hockey stick stands. Even those that did not like Mann's statistical methods, National Academy of Sciences, when they did it their way, came up with a very similiar graph.

What "scientific terminology" did I get wrong? LOL, you do understand the lions share of that post was a quote from the source I linked to? I used no scientific terminology at all, the scientists did.....

HAHAHAHAHA! mr. science blog reader..... You crack me up man..

 

[konradv]

Ummmm, see Line 1.
---------------------------------

So, you falsified your data? Is that because you believe "everybody does it", so you give yourself a pass? I guess that's to be expected. It isn't far fromn falsifying what people said in their emails to falsifying the data in toto. I salute your honesty.

 

[Si modo]

Ummmm, see Line 1.
---------------------------------

So, you falsified your data? Is that because you believe "everybody does it", so you give yourself a pass? I guess that's to be expected. It isn't far fromn falsifying what people said in their emails to falsifying the data in toto. I salute your honesty.

Unbelievable. You haven't a clue as to the difference between falsifying and the concept of falsifiability. I cannot take you seriously at all in matters of the sciences.

 

[gslack]

Ummmm, see Line 1.
---------------------------------

So, you falsified your data? Is that because you believe "everybody does it", so you give yourself a pass? I guess that's to be expected. It isn't far fromn falsifying what people said in their emails to falsifying the data in toto. I salute your honesty.

Dude I realize you are new here like me, but seriously learn to use the quote feature. It clarifies to the person you are responding to and makes it easier for others to recognize who you are talking to.

If you don't know how I am sure there is a help forum here somewhere. And if you are too embarrassed to ask or seek help, get over it we all have to learn this the same way.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is NOTHING scientific about that which is not falsifiable.

And you expect folks to take you seriously when you try to discuss science?

You are a fraud.
----------------------------

Line 1: TRUE

Line 2: WHY NOT?

....

Ummmm, see Line 1.

Same ol', same ol'. Rhetoric, no science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly old Si! Calls others frauds for posting the real words of scientists, and then denies the science herself. ....

If you cannot even fathom the basic requirement for science actually to be science - falsifiability - then you are hopeless. But, we all know you just play at science.

As I have not denied any science, you are a liar.

When I have rep again, count on getting a neg rep for liying about me and my views. I keep telling you that will happen, yet you keep lying about me.

.... Come on, Si, post expicitly why AGW is incorrect. ....

Moron. As that is nothing that has anything to do with my position, I would have no interest in doing so.

Lie some more.

.... Come on scientist, show us some real science, ....

I have several times and you keep lying about that.

.... something other than politically driven rhetoric. ....

You're projecting. I don't mix science and politics because, gosh darnit, I actually have the ability to distinguish between the two. You haven't even the capacity to understand the most fundamental requirement for something to be scientific.














You and others can play at this with others, maybe; but not with me. You are out of your league.

Some day, someone will actually give me a decent debate on this topic. Dealing with you is just typical dealing with a USMB troll.

Out of my league? With someone that claims science and just posts rhetoric?

As for your neg reps, what the hell do you think this is? A message board on the net is hardly something that I take that seriously. So neg rep me to the point of 0. I do not give a damn.

This board is useful for one thing, I get information here that I would not get otherwise because of the diversity of experiance and backgrounds represented. And you are truly a disapointment. Even ol' Doooodeee.... and Frank have given me more to investigate than you have.

You claim to be a scientist, and fail to throw out anything at all that is interesting enough to research.

 

[code1211]

How it hiding the data part of science, stonewalling FOIA requests? Hiding the decline, all that rot?
------------------------------

How is it part? It's a VERY IMPORTANT part. How can you tell if humans are having an effect, if you don't "hide" data from other sources? I guess it's the word. I would have preferred they used the term "subtracted out". That isn't an example of fraud, but everyday scientific practice. If the sun cycle is going through a cooling phase, you'd have to "hide the decline" in order to see what's left, presumably the effect of man, barring other possibilities.

There is NOTHING scientific about that which is not falsifiable.

And you expect folks to take you seriously when you try to discuss science?

You are a fraud.

Your avatar is priceless! Absolutely brilliant!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

When presented with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, 80% of people sign it. ALL the warmers sign it. OldCrocks would.

It shows the complete ignorance of science and chemistry of the general public, and how appeal to emotions and straw man arguments, and junk science can get them to believe anything.

For, just like they believed "rain follows the plow" and "the new ice age," they believe CO2 is warming the planet, and they sign the petition to ban.....

WATER.

Because di-hydrogen monoxide sounds really really BAD.

 

[Si modo]

Silly old Si! Calls others frauds for posting the real words of scientists, and then denies the science herself. ....

If you cannot even fathom the basic requirement for science actually to be science - falsifiability - then you are hopeless. But, we all know you just play at science.

As I have not denied any science, you are a liar.

When I have rep again, count on getting a neg rep for liying about me and my views. I keep telling you that will happen, yet you keep lying about me.

Moron. As that is nothing that has anything to do with my position, I would have no interest in doing so.

Lie some more.

I have several times and you keep lying about that.

.... something other than politically driven rhetoric. ....

You're projecting. I don't mix science and politics because, gosh darnit, I actually have the ability to distinguish between the two. You haven't even the capacity to understand the most fundamental requirement for something to be scientific.














You and others can play at this with others, maybe; but not with me. You are out of your league.

Some day, someone will actually give me a decent debate on this topic. Dealing with you is just typical dealing with a USMB troll.

Out of my league? With someone that claims science and just posts rhetoric?

As for your neg reps, what the hell do you think this is? A message board on the net is hardly something that I take that seriously. So neg rep me to the point of 0. I do not give a damn.

This board is useful for one thing, I get information here that I would not get otherwise because of the diversity of experiance and backgrounds represented. And you are truly a disapointment. Even ol' Doooodeee.... and Frank have given me more to investigate than you have.

You claim to be a scientist, and fail to throw out anything at all that is interesting enough to research.

As I said, when someone will actually enter into a debate (note the specific nature of that term) about the science (note that also has a specific nature), I will be quite pleased. I have yet to see anything of the sort (debate the science) from you. Right now, and consistently, you keep the level of 'debate' at the most base of levels.

Perhaps, just perhaps, you will actually get it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As I said, when someone will actually enter into a debate (note the specific nature of that term) about the science (note that also has a specific nature), I will be quite pleased. I have yet to see anything of the sort from you.

And, you won't.

 

[Si modo]

As I said, when someone will actually enter into a debate (note the specific nature of that term) about the science (note that also has a specific nature), I will be quite pleased. I have yet to see anything of the sort from you.

And, you won't.

It does seem that way. He consistently projects views onto me that have nothing to do with anything I have ever said. Thus, he is a moron and/or a troll. Certainly, he is no scientist as there is no logic to much of anything he does on this topic.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As I said, when someone will actually enter into a debate (note the specific nature of that term) about the science (note that also has a specific nature), I will be quite pleased. I have yet to see anything of the sort from you.

And, you won't.

It does seem that way. He consistently projects views onto me that have nothing to do with anything I have ever said. Thus, he is a moron and/or a troll.

He's just a weak debater. Straw man arguments and appeal to authority is all he has. He's one of the laughingstocks of the board.

 

[saveliberty]

he regrets getting caught.

Del, you da ostrich, you da ostrich! Which leaves asswipe faither for konradv.

 

[saveliberty]

When presented with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, 80% of people sign it. ALL the warmers sign it. OldCrocks would.

It shows the complete ignorance of science and chemistry of the general public, and how appeal to emotions and straw man arguments, and junk science can get them to believe anything.

For, just like they believed "rain follows the plow" and "the new ice age," they believe CO2 is warming the planet, and they sign the petition to ban.....

WATER.

Because di-hydrogen monoxide sounds really really BAD.

In Old Rocks defense, water will kill you and makes a great torture method. Why Old Rocks might say it is as bad as dihydrogen monoxide. ALMOST

 

[Midnight Marauder]

When presented with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, 80% of people sign it. ALL the warmers sign it. OldCrocks would.

It shows the complete ignorance of science and chemistry of the general public, and how appeal to emotions and straw man arguments, and junk science can get them to believe anything.

For, just like they believed "rain follows the plow" and "the new ice age," they believe CO2 is warming the planet, and they sign the petition to ban.....

WATER.

Because di-hydrogen monoxide sounds really really BAD.

In Old Rocks defense, water will kill you and makes a great torture method. Why Old Rocks might say it is as bad as dihydrogen monoxide. ALMOST

OldCrocks would be all upset about:

Dihydrogen monoxide:

• is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
• may cause severe burns.
• is fatal if inhaled.
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant.
• in nuclear power plants.
• in the production of Styrofoam.
• as a fire retardant.
• in many forms of cruel animal research.
• in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
• as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

 

[Old Rocks]

When presented with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, 80% of people sign it. ALL the warmers sign it. OldCrocks would.

It shows the complete ignorance of science and chemistry of the general public, and how appeal to emotions and straw man arguments, and junk science can get them to believe anything.

For, just like they believed "rain follows the plow" and "the new ice age," they believe CO2 is warming the planet, and they sign the petition to ban.....

WATER.

Because di-hydrogen monoxide sounds really really BAD.

Good lord, what a stupid lie to post? But in keeping with the lack of character that is so present in your posts.

 

[saveliberty]

When presented with a petition to ban di-hydrogen monoxide, 80% of people sign it. ALL the warmers sign it. OldCrocks would.

It shows the complete ignorance of science and chemistry of the general public, and how appeal to emotions and straw man arguments, and junk science can get them to believe anything.

For, just like they believed "rain follows the plow" and "the new ice age," they believe CO2 is warming the planet, and they sign the petition to ban.....

WATER.

Because di-hydrogen monoxide sounds really really BAD.

Good lord, what a stupid lie to post? But in keeping with the lack of character that is so present in your posts.

It was 86% actually:

In 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old junior high student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, Idaho, gathered 43 votes to ban the chemical, out of 50 people surveyed among his classmates. Zohner received the first prize at Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair for analysis of the results of his survey.[4] In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion."[11]

Dihydrogen monoxide hoax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bigger hoax still continues....