March, Dr. Roy Spencer

[gslack]

Oh my, gslack continues to show his complete idiocy and ignorance.

Look boy, see the graphs that Ed posted? Now why don't you post some from a credible source to support your point of view?

How about some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that support your point of view? You do know what those are

Don't worry about CO2 tax. By the time we get around to it, the people of the world will be demanding a cessation of GHG emission, period. Of course, it will be far too late, but that is what is going to happen.

Seriously oldsocks, you have already shown yourself to be a complete and total nincompoop and wannabe internet climatologist.

You post anything that has a science groups name on it and claim its all proof of this or that, when in reality you either have no idea what it says at all (which I caught you at several times) or you lie about what it says or means.

Seriously Mr. Science journals and peer review, if you are so knowledgeable on this as you claim to be, why do you get your azz handed to you on this every single time? In fact every time you are shown an error in your logic or more accurately the logic they use (you never actually use it), you abandon the thread and start another on the same subject with a different approach?

Simple; you don't understand half what you think you do on this. All you really know is what they (green party, liberal media, etc,) tell you. And they tell you not to question the goracle, so you don't no matter what.

LOL, you moron... You tell me who are "the people of the world" who are going to support that bit of BS? LOL perhaps China with its more than a billion people who with the largest coal deposits in the world? Or maybe a few dozen or so of those very stable and peaceful African countries who cannot afford to go green and build thousands of windmills and solar farms which will destroy a great deal of the natural environment.

How about all those European countries who like to talk about being green and eco-conscious out one side of their mouths while they manipulate the markets of fossil fuels the world over. The freaking Dutch build windmills all over the place and at the same time they helped to clean Africa out of many of its natural resources and introduced opium to China creating one of the deadliest drug epidemics ever.

Yeah all them I bet.... You really do believe the crap they feed you... Wow, what a pathetic existence..... Dude if you don't want to believe me fine, but do yourself a favor and look at it objectively for once. Do you really and honestly think a truly scientific based process with no political twists involved , would need to jump through so many hoops just to remain respectable?

They wouldn't and thats the truth. If this was as cut and dry and factual as you claim there wouldn't so many holes in it. And the people behind it wouldn't be the same people who do the polluting.... Face it you are supporting those who rape this planet, and they have you believing the opposite of even what your own eyes and logic tells you... Now that is a royal mind job...... LOL

 

[edthecynic]

I ignored your insulting and ignorant bs excuse making because it was a conversation between oldrocks and I. And acknowledging your BS will only fuel you on. But I see you will keep on anyway, so lets get this over with now.....

You got some things wrong dipshit!

150 years of collected temps to decide what the norm is for a planet that is billions of years old..... Wow and you talk about science? HAHAHHAHAHA! keep talking about it because thats what you can handle. The reality of it you obviously don't get yet....

150 years of temps or 100 years of warming resulting in 1.4 degrees average temp increase, is like taking one grain of sand and saying all the rest of Virginia Beach must be judged by this one grain. WTF kind of science is that?

Also, dumazz they claimed to have gotten much of their previous comparative data from reconstructions using ice cores, tree rings, geological studies, and various other disciplines. These extrapolations rely on sophisticated computer modeling software, that is always updating and is continually found in error.

This is true even by al gore's own defense against the "hockey stick" graph inaccuracy. he even said at the time he got the chart the software had poor resolution by todays standards and the errors were a result of that.

Computer errors or not, the fact his chart made the medieval warming period and the little ice age almost non-existent is a telling example of science theory becoming science fact put of sheer nothing.

One of the biggest problems you little gaia worshiping hypocrites fail to acknowledge in the whole thing is the fact the warming trails the CO2 saturation point by 400-600 years or more... If it trails the saturation point by so long how can they claim all the crap they claim will happen in 100 years? They can't and thats the sad truth.

You are an idiot, and you don't know shit about me. Learn about me before you go off claiming I follow any talking head pundit.....

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

Now if you want to call someone a zealot or something, look into who or what they believe in.... Fact is azzhole I have no afinity for rush or beck or any other talking head. That is the reality of a thinking person as opposed to a person who lets the media think for him like you.....

You and your ilk like to paint everyone a certain way to simplify your argument and make it seem defensible. Well dumbazz I am a part of the reality you cannot fathom. You cannot grasp it because your life is an ideology and an ideology doesn't have to exist on its own, its an intangible and therefore defending it is as easy as saying "no you are wrong" and making any excuse you can think of. Ideology in practice is never what its proponents tell you its going to be... But then again you wouldn't understand that anyway would you...

Simply put for your ignorant azz... The fact you did not address any of my points, and continued to claim I worship Rush Limbaugh (whom I never watch or listen to), with no evidence to the fact, shows what an ignorant little liberal tool you really are.. Now go and read something not on your liberal approved reading list for once and experience some reality....

Again, since you missed it the first time, nothing in my post or the chart says anything about a NORMAL temp!!!!!!!!!

Your post shows you are the most ignorant DittoTard KNOW-IT-ALL who knows nothing in history. The chart uses ANOMALIES, not a "normal temp," to show a temp TREND!!!!!

So I did address your moronic "point" and I did give evidence that you worship Stuttering LimpTard, specifically your spelling Gore's name as one word, which makes you a liar as well as STUPID.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Strawman. And a stupid one to boot.

No it is not. Historical records PROVE that temperature does not follow CO2, but rather that if anything CO2 follows temperature.

 

[gslack]

Can't handle the truth I see.

And your Straw Men proves you know you are full of it!
Nowhere does my post or chart say anything about a "normal" temp, it merely shows a warming TREND over a 100 year period.

And obviously I know you better than you know yourself since you didn't come up with spelling Gore's name as one word on your own. You were Programmed by your MessiahRushie and you mindlessly obeyed your master.

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

Now if you want to call someone a zealot or something, look into who or what they believe in.... Fact is azzhole I have no afinity for rush or beck or any other talking head. That is the reality of a thinking person as opposed to a person who lets the media think for him like you.....

You and your ilk like to paint everyone a certain way to simplify your argument and make it seem defensible. Well dumbazz I am a part of the reality you cannot fathom. You cannot grasp it because your life is an ideology and an ideology doesn't have to exist on its own, its an intangible and therefore defending it is as easy as saying "no you are wrong" and making any excuse you can think of. Ideology in practice is never what its proponents tell you its going to be... But then again you wouldn't understand that anyway would you...

Simply put for your ignorant azz... The fact you did not address any of my points, and continued to claim I worship Rush Limbaugh (whom I never watch or listen to), with no evidence to the fact, shows what an ignorant little liberal tool you really are.. Now go and read something not on your liberal approved reading list for once and experience some reality....

Again, since you missed it the first time, nothing in my post or the chart says anything about a NORMAL temp!!!!!!!!!

Your post shows you are the most ignorant DittoTard KNOW-IT-ALL who knows nothing in history. The chart uses ANOMALIES, not a "normal temp," to show a temp TREND!!!!!

So I did address your moronic "point" and I did give evidence that you worship Stuttering LimpTard, specifically your spelling Gore's name as one word, which makes you a liar as well as STUPID.

OK IMBECILE LISTEN VERY VERY CAREFULLY!!!!

For something like a temperature to be considered abnormal such as your side is claiming the rise in temperature over the last 100 years is. THey and you claim this rise in temperature is abnormal.... Got that so far dumazz???

IF they decided the last 100 years is an abnormal rising in temperature, then they have to have some frame of reference. Some time line or temperature record sequence or something to look at and call normal in order to call any other temperature abnormal.... YOU ignorant azzhole....

IF the last 100 years is supposed to be an above average or abnormal rise in temperature than they must have a reference point on which to judge from.... You are an insufferable little twerp, who understands nothing about any of this.

Now go and sit down somewhere and let the adults talk junior, you have shown your ignorance and comprehension level. The fact is both of the images you posted are without context and data to give them a basis, and not to mention the "anomalies" are temperature spikes that are not the norm. As in abnormal, or not the usual. They claim these are evidence of global warming, just as you are trying to do now.... Follow me so far dumazz?

Now IF they are not normal, than they must have some frame of reference you little nitwit......... Now once more go away and let the adults talk now...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We can clearly show that a rise from 280 ppm to 385 ppm has increased the temperature on this planet. We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today.

We can clearly show the absorbtion bands for water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, as well as many industrial GHGs.

All you can show is politically motivated yap-yap, with zero scientific backing.

That's not science. For all you know an in eucalyptus trees are causing the warming. See! Look! It's warmer and there's a eucalyptus tree! How's that "Science"?

Show me one (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that backs your "deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 causes immediate, cataclysmic and irreversible warming" hypothesis.

Pointing to places where it's warm is neither global nor warming

 

[gslack]

oldsocks said "We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today."

And the sea level is high today? Compared to what? When? Ah now you see the problem with context in regards to those kinds of statements...

Those kinds of claims are irresponsible and misleading if not completely false based on premise. They require a faith in several unknown factors.

1. They require the faith that the CO2 was the cause and not the effect of the warming. And real studies show the CO2 has followed the warming and not preceded it.

2. They require faith in very little real knowledge outside of speculation and hypothetical guesswork. Everyday the methods of last week are old hat and the new methods paint a different picture which shows the problem in this kind of hypothesizing.

3. They require faith in the idea the sun was not involved in any of this. The reality is the sun changes in output, in position relative to the solar system and galaxy even the universe. Gravitational fields change, orbits are pushed and pulled closer or farther away by outside forces all the time. These things are very difficult to detect from our small perspective here until after the fact. And since we are a relatively young inhabitant of this planet when taken into account with the overall solar system much less galaxy, we are blind as bats right now. As the sun tracks its way across the equinoxes and enters into other areas of the star systems we will change as the gravity, radiations, and forces effect us, and we dont know how or how much this will be.

And I have one question for you now..... Was the rise in PPM from 180 to 300 PPM before or after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the rising waters? if it was before I would love to see any evidence you can find of that specifically, because that's not what the real science claims at all. And if it was after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the oceans to rise, what caused the warming?

Ya know whats funny... Your side tries to twist science to make a claim, and the nature of science makes it very easy for a person with patience and a critical mind to see its twisted.... LOL, so-called scientists twisting science to suit there own ends. The fact is science is like math, it can be checked for flaws and eventually they will come out...

 

[edthecynic]

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

Now if you want to call someone a zealot or something, look into who or what they believe in.... Fact is azzhole I have no afinity for rush or beck or any other talking head. That is the reality of a thinking person as opposed to a person who lets the media think for him like you.....

You and your ilk like to paint everyone a certain way to simplify your argument and make it seem defensible. Well dumbazz I am a part of the reality you cannot fathom. You cannot grasp it because your life is an ideology and an ideology doesn't have to exist on its own, its an intangible and therefore defending it is as easy as saying "no you are wrong" and making any excuse you can think of. Ideology in practice is never what its proponents tell you its going to be... But then again you wouldn't understand that anyway would you...

Simply put for your ignorant azz... The fact you did not address any of my points, and continued to claim I worship Rush Limbaugh (whom I never watch or listen to), with no evidence to the fact, shows what an ignorant little liberal tool you really are.. Now go and read something not on your liberal approved reading list for once and experience some reality....

Again, since you missed it the first time, nothing in my post or the chart says anything about a NORMAL temp!!!!!!!!!

Your post shows you are the most ignorant DittoTard KNOW-IT-ALL who knows nothing in history. The chart uses ANOMALIES, not a "normal temp," to show a temp TREND!!!!!

So I did address your moronic "point" and I did give evidence that you worship Stuttering LimpTard, specifically your spelling Gore's name as one word, which makes you a liar as well as STUPID.

OK IMBECILE LISTEN VERY VERY CAREFULLY!!!!

For something like a temperature to be considered abnormal such as your side is claiming the rise in temperature over the last 100 years is. THey and you claim this rise in temperature is abnormal.... Got that so far dumazz???

IF they decided the last 100 years is an abnormal rising in temperature, then they have to have some frame of reference. Some time line or temperature record sequence or something to look at and call normal in order to call any other temperature abnormal.... YOU ignorant azzhole....

IF the last 100 years is supposed to be an above average or abnormal rise in temperature than they must have a reference point on which to judge from.... You are an insufferable little twerp, who understands nothing about any of this.

Now go and sit down somewhere and let the adults talk junior, you have shown your ignorance and comprehension level. The fact is both of the images you posted are without context and data to give them a basis, and not to mention the "anomalies" are temperature spikes that are not the norm. As in abnormal, or not the usual. They claim these are evidence of global warming, just as you are trying to do now.... Follow me so far dumazz?

Now IF they are not normal, than they must have some frame of reference you little nitwit......... Now once more go away and let the adults talk now...

What I love about you CON$ is you make complete fools of yourselves without even knowing it which is why you stoop to arrogant condescension, which is what makes your complete IGNORANCE of what an ANOMALY is so hilarious!!!!!!!!!
And the chart says what the reference the ANOMALY is measured against to show the TREND!!!!!

Your "normal" Straw Man didn't work before, what makes you think it will suddenly work with "abnormal?"

Please highlight where normal or abnormal is used.
What a moron!!!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Brawk... Anomaly! Brawk!
Polly wanna cracker TWEE-tweet!

 

[gslack]

Again, since you missed it the first time, nothing in my post or the chart says anything about a NORMAL temp!!!!!!!!!

Your post shows you are the most ignorant DittoTard KNOW-IT-ALL who knows nothing in history. The chart uses ANOMALIES, not a "normal temp," to show a temp TREND!!!!!

So I did address your moronic "point" and I did give evidence that you worship Stuttering LimpTard, specifically your spelling Gore's name as one word, which makes you a liar as well as STUPID.

OK IMBECILE LISTEN VERY VERY CAREFULLY!!!!

For something like a temperature to be considered abnormal such as your side is claiming the rise in temperature over the last 100 years is. THey and you claim this rise in temperature is abnormal.... Got that so far dumazz???

IF they decided the last 100 years is an abnormal rising in temperature, then they have to have some frame of reference. Some time line or temperature record sequence or something to look at and call normal in order to call any other temperature abnormal.... YOU ignorant azzhole....

IF the last 100 years is supposed to be an above average or abnormal rise in temperature than they must have a reference point on which to judge from.... You are an insufferable little twerp, who understands nothing about any of this.

Now go and sit down somewhere and let the adults talk junior, you have shown your ignorance and comprehension level. The fact is both of the images you posted are without context and data to give them a basis, and not to mention the "anomalies" are temperature spikes that are not the norm. As in abnormal, or not the usual. They claim these are evidence of global warming, just as you are trying to do now.... Follow me so far dumazz?

Now IF they are not normal, than they must have some frame of reference you little nitwit......... Now once more go away and let the adults talk now...

What I love about you CON$ is you make complete fools of yourselves without even knowing it which is why you stoop to arrogant condescension, which is what makes your complete IGNORANCE of what an ANOMALY is so hilarious!!!!!!!!!
And the chart says what the reference the ANOMALY is measured against to show the TREND!!!!!

Your "normal" Straw Man didn't work before, what makes you think it will suddenly work with "abnormal?"

Please highlight where normal or abnormal is used.
What a moron!!!!!

Okay moron point out the straw man for me...... LOL you can't can you.... You have been repeating the term over and again and as of yet no direct implication or pointing of the supposed straw man argument. What you pick that term up on here and still unsure what it really means? LOL.... So come on genius show us your intellectual might and point out the straw man to us..... point it out directly not some general claim but the actual straw man defensive posturing you claim..... I will wait.....

An anomaly is an abnormality dumazz..... Didn't know that did you.... LOL too funny!

Don't take my word for it look at what webster says on it...

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Wow what an ignorant display by you...... You have spouted off a term you don't understand giving no reference to its use by me. And then you went off rambling about my not understanding what an anomaly is when in fact my entire post said nearly the same thing about it as merriam webster.... What an embarrassing day for you....

Once more for the idiot....(thats you) an anomaly, abnormality, or whatever term you like to use can only be termed as such with a point of reference with which to judge it as such... You understand this yet? What is it too many big words? Damn you are a slow one....

100 years of warming versus billions of years for the planet is no realistic way to make any kind of judgments regarding what is or is not an anomalous trend in temperature. And therefore not evidence of global warming by any scientific measure.

Now is the word "anomalous" to big for you? Freakin moron...

 

[edthecynic]

OK IMBECILE LISTEN VERY VERY CAREFULLY!!!!

For something like a temperature to be considered abnormal such as your side is claiming the rise in temperature over the last 100 years is. THey and you claim this rise in temperature is abnormal.... Got that so far dumazz???

IF they decided the last 100 years is an abnormal rising in temperature, then they have to have some frame of reference. Some time line or temperature record sequence or something to look at and call normal in order to call any other temperature abnormal.... YOU ignorant azzhole....

IF the last 100 years is supposed to be an above average or abnormal rise in temperature than they must have a reference point on which to judge from.... You are an insufferable little twerp, who understands nothing about any of this.

Now go and sit down somewhere and let the adults talk junior, you have shown your ignorance and comprehension level. The fact is both of the images you posted are without context and data to give them a basis, and not to mention the "anomalies" are temperature spikes that are not the norm. As in abnormal, or not the usual. They claim these are evidence of global warming, just as you are trying to do now.... Follow me so far dumazz?

Now IF they are not normal, than they must have some frame of reference you little nitwit......... Now once more go away and let the adults talk now...

What I love about you CON$ is you make complete fools of yourselves without even knowing it which is why you stoop to arrogant condescension, which is what makes your complete IGNORANCE of what an ANOMALY is so hilarious!!!!!!!!!
And the chart says what the reference the ANOMALY is measured against to show the TREND!!!!!

Your "normal" Straw Man didn't work before, what makes you think it will suddenly work with "abnormal?"

Please highlight where normal or abnormal is used.
What a moron!!!!!

Okay moron point out the straw man for me...... LOL you can't can you.... You have been repeating the term over and again and as of yet no direct implication or pointing of the supposed straw man argument. What you pick that term up on here and still unsure what it really means? LOL.... So come on genius show us your intellectual might and point out the straw man to us..... point it out directly not some general claim but the actual straw man defensive posturing you claim..... I will wait.....

An anomaly is an abnormality dumazz..... Didn't know that did you.... LOL too funny!

Don't take my word for it look at what webster says on it...

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Wow what an ignorant display by you...... You have spouted off a term you don't understand giving no reference to its use by me. And then you went off rambling about my not understanding what an anomaly is when in fact my entire post said nearly the same thing about it as merriam webster.... What an embarrassing day for you....

Once more for the idiot....(thats you) an anomaly, abnormality, or whatever term you like to use can only be termed as such with a point of reference with which to judge it as such... You understand this yet? What is it too many big words? Damn you are a slow one....

100 years of warming versus billions of years for the planet is no realistic way to make any kind of judgments regarding what is or is not an anomalous trend in temperature. And therefore not evidence of global warming by any scientific measure.

Now is the word "anomalous" to big for you? Freakin moron...

When the Straw Man fails, play dumb. But doesn't playing dumb contradict you arrogant condescension????

Anomalies are used because it is impossible to get all the thermometers in all the stations calibrated the same, so an average of usually 20 to 30 years FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is used as the BASE and any DEVIATION from that average FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is recorded as the anomaly. Anomalies do not give a specific temp, just a deviation from an average which shows only a TREND. So there is no set "normal temp" which is why the chart shows only a zero point and the deviation from that zero point. There is no set temp for the zero point, no normal or abnormal.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

There is no sense in having an argument with a man so stupid he doesn't know you have the better of him.
- John Roper

 

[gslack]

What I love about you CON$ is you make complete fools of yourselves without even knowing it which is why you stoop to arrogant condescension, which is what makes your complete IGNORANCE of what an ANOMALY is so hilarious!!!!!!!!!
And the chart says what the reference the ANOMALY is measured against to show the TREND!!!!!

Your "normal" Straw Man didn't work before, what makes you think it will suddenly work with "abnormal?"

Please highlight where normal or abnormal is used.
What a moron!!!!!

Okay moron point out the straw man for me...... LOL you can't can you.... You have been repeating the term over and again and as of yet no direct implication or pointing of the supposed straw man argument. What you pick that term up on here and still unsure what it really means? LOL.... So come on genius show us your intellectual might and point out the straw man to us..... point it out directly not some general claim but the actual straw man defensive posturing you claim..... I will wait.....

An anomaly is an abnormality dumazz..... Didn't know that did you.... LOL too funny!

Don't take my word for it look at what webster says on it...

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Wow what an ignorant display by you...... You have spouted off a term you don't understand giving no reference to its use by me. And then you went off rambling about my not understanding what an anomaly is when in fact my entire post said nearly the same thing about it as merriam webster.... What an embarrassing day for you....

Once more for the idiot....(thats you) an anomaly, abnormality, or whatever term you like to use can only be termed as such with a point of reference with which to judge it as such... You understand this yet? What is it too many big words? Damn you are a slow one....

100 years of warming versus billions of years for the planet is no realistic way to make any kind of judgments regarding what is or is not an anomalous trend in temperature. And therefore not evidence of global warming by any scientific measure.

Now is the word "anomalous" to big for you? Freakin moron...

When the Straw Man fails, play dumb. But doesn't playing dumb contradict you arrogant condescension????

Anomalies are used because it is impossible to get all the thermometers in all the stations calibrated the same, so an average of usually 20 to 30 years FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is used as the BASE and any DEVIATION from that average FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is recorded as the anomaly. Anomalies do not give a specific temp, just a deviation from an average which shows only a TREND. So there is no set "normal temp" which is why the chart shows only a zero point and the deviation from that zero point. There is no set temp for the zero point, no normal or abnormal.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

There is no sense in having an argument with a man so stupid he doesn't know you have the better of him.
- John Roper

look dipshit, an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station... Correct? Good, than I will simplify a bit more for your silly azz. 20-30 years is no accurate means to draw an average on which to make a case for AGW..... Understand yet?

Face it you like your pal oldsocks got busted once again talking out your azz and playing scientist.... You didn't understand what you posted, and then didn't understand the fact an anomaly is a an abnormality or a variance form the norm. And even more telling you didn't grasp the concept of what that norm is or what it needs to represent when trying to use this kind of data to make a case for AGW...

You idiots all get told this or that data shows the world is warming and it will kill the planet, and you screm anad cry posting it all over without really asking the obvious questions that any thinking person should ask. Questions like what is the context, how did they arrive at the norm or average to deem any temps anomalous, and what time frame is it all based on and its relevance on a global and ever increasing time scale.

You ditto heads don't ask because you want to believe all the BS, and you will no matter how ignorant it gets.... Welcome to the world of the religious zealot...

 

[edthecynic]

Okay moron point out the straw man for me...... LOL you can't can you.... You have been repeating the term over and again and as of yet no direct implication or pointing of the supposed straw man argument. What you pick that term up on here and still unsure what it really means? LOL.... So come on genius show us your intellectual might and point out the straw man to us..... point it out directly not some general claim but the actual straw man defensive posturing you claim..... I will wait.....

An anomaly is an abnormality dumazz..... Didn't know that did you.... LOL too funny!

Don't take my word for it look at what webster says on it...

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Wow what an ignorant display by you...... You have spouted off a term you don't understand giving no reference to its use by me. And then you went off rambling about my not understanding what an anomaly is when in fact my entire post said nearly the same thing about it as merriam webster.... What an embarrassing day for you....

Once more for the idiot....(thats you) an anomaly, abnormality, or whatever term you like to use can only be termed as such with a point of reference with which to judge it as such... You understand this yet? What is it too many big words? Damn you are a slow one....

100 years of warming versus billions of years for the planet is no realistic way to make any kind of judgments regarding what is or is not an anomalous trend in temperature. And therefore not evidence of global warming by any scientific measure.

Now is the word "anomalous" to big for you? Freakin moron...

When the Straw Man fails, play dumb. But doesn't playing dumb contradict you arrogant condescension????

Anomalies are used because it is impossible to get all the thermometers in all the stations calibrated the same, so an average of usually 20 to 30 years FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is used as the BASE and any DEVIATION from that average FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is recorded as the anomaly. Anomalies do not give a specific temp, just a deviation from an average which shows only a TREND. So there is no set "normal temp" which is why the chart shows only a zero point and the deviation from that zero point. There is no set temp for the zero point, no normal or abnormal.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

There is no sense in having an argument with a man so stupid he doesn't know you have the better of him.
- John Roper

look dipshit, an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station... Correct? Good, than I will simplify a bit more for your silly azz. 20-30 years is no accurate means to draw an average on which to make a case for AGW..... Understand yet?

Face it you like your pal oldsocks got busted once again talking out your azz and playing scientist.... You didn't understand what you posted, and then didn't understand the fact an anomaly is a an abnormality or a variance form the norm. And even more telling you didn't grasp the concept of what that norm is or what it needs to represent when trying to use this kind of data to make a case for AGW...

You idiots all get told this or that data shows the world is warming and it will kill the planet, and you screm anad cry posting it all over without really asking the obvious questions that any thinking person should ask. Questions like what is the context, how did they arrive at the norm or average to deem any temps anomalous, and what time frame is it all based on and its relevance on a global and ever increasing time scale.

You ditto heads don't ask because you want to believe all the BS, and you will no matter how ignorant it gets.... Welcome to the world of the religious zealot...

Hey MORON! The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station. The record of the anomalies covers over 100 years. You can't be condescending and keep playing dumb at the same time.

I gave you a link on what an anomaly means in scientific usage, you obviously ignored it because you are a DittoTard Know-It-All.

From the link you ignored:

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

The data shows a 100 year WARMING TREND, it says nothing about what a normal temp is. Again the chart lists no temp at all, only a zero point and the deviation from that point either warmer or colder.

 

[Old Rocks]

oldsocks said "We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today."

And the sea level is high today? Compared to what? When? Ah now you see the problem with context in regards to those kinds of statements...

With see the problem with your kind of logic. Compared to the docks in the port cities of the world, dimwit.

Those kinds of claims are irresponsible and misleading if not completely false based on premise. They require a faith in several unknown factors.

1. They require the faith that the CO2 was the cause and not the effect of the warming. And real studies show the CO2 has followed the warming and not preceded it.

OK, be an idiot and repeat this old saw. Anyone with the least reading in science understands the relationship of the Milankovic Cycles and CO2.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?


2. They require faith in very little real knowledge outside of speculation and hypothetical guesswork. Everyday the methods of last week are old hat and the new methods paint a different picture which shows the problem in this kind of hypothesizing.

I see. All of the worlds Scientific Societies, Academies of Science, and major Universities operate on very little real knowledge. Your own willfull ignorance is showing.

3. They require faith in the idea the sun was not involved in any of this. The reality is the sun changes in output, in position relative to the solar system and galaxy even the universe. Gravitational fields change, orbits are pushed and pulled closer or farther away by outside forces all the time. These things are very difficult to detect from our small perspective here until after the fact. And since we are a relatively young inhabitant of this planet when taken into account with the overall solar system much less galaxy, we are blind as bats right now. As the sun tracks its way across the equinoxes and enters into other areas of the star systems we will change as the gravity, radiations, and forces effect us, and we dont know how or how much this will be.

So you are stating that the climatologists of the world, many with Phds, ignore the the sun? Keep yapping, you are sounding more and more idiotic.

And I have one question for you now..... Was the rise in PPM from 180 to 300 PPM before or after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the rising waters? if it was before I would love to see any evidence you can find of that specifically, because that's not what the real science claims at all. And if it was after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the oceans to rise, what caused the warming?

Ya know whats funny... Your side tries to twist science to make a claim, and the nature of science makes it very easy for a person with patience and a critical mind to see its twisted.... LOL, so-called scientists twisting science to suit there own ends. The fact is science is like math, it can be checked for flaws and eventually they will come out...

Gslack, you are just about the yappiest dum dum on the board. And your methods of arguement are very much like that of an adolescent.

 

[gslack]

When the Straw Man fails, play dumb. But doesn't playing dumb contradict you arrogant condescension????

Anomalies are used because it is impossible to get all the thermometers in all the stations calibrated the same, so an average of usually 20 to 30 years FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is used as the BASE and any DEVIATION from that average FOR THAT PARTICULAR STATION is recorded as the anomaly. Anomalies do not give a specific temp, just a deviation from an average which shows only a TREND. So there is no set "normal temp" which is why the chart shows only a zero point and the deviation from that zero point. There is no set temp for the zero point, no normal or abnormal.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies

There is no sense in having an argument with a man so stupid he doesn't know you have the better of him.
- John Roper

look dipshit, an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station... Correct? Good, than I will simplify a bit more for your silly azz. 20-30 years is no accurate means to draw an average on which to make a case for AGW..... Understand yet?

Face it you like your pal oldsocks got busted once again talking out your azz and playing scientist.... You didn't understand what you posted, and then didn't understand the fact an anomaly is a an abnormality or a variance form the norm. And even more telling you didn't grasp the concept of what that norm is or what it needs to represent when trying to use this kind of data to make a case for AGW...

You idiots all get told this or that data shows the world is warming and it will kill the planet, and you screm anad cry posting it all over without really asking the obvious questions that any thinking person should ask. Questions like what is the context, how did they arrive at the norm or average to deem any temps anomalous, and what time frame is it all based on and its relevance on a global and ever increasing time scale.

You ditto heads don't ask because you want to believe all the BS, and you will no matter how ignorant it gets.... Welcome to the world of the religious zealot...

Hey MORON! The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station. The record of the anomalies covers over 100 years. You can't be condescending and keep playing dumb at the same time.

I gave you a link on what an anomaly means in scientific usage, you obviously ignored it because you are a DittoTard Know-It-All.

From the link you ignored:

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

The data shows a 100 year WARMING TREND, it says nothing about what a normal temp is. Again the chart lists no temp at all, only a zero point and the deviation from that point either warmer or colder.

Now you are being deliberately stupid trying to fake your way through it hoping no one notices.... Well too late moron we already noticed....

I posted the definition of anomaly from merriam webster azzhole... All you did was try and parrot it with another source trying to cover up your ignorance....

A variance from the norm just like my original definition stated huh.... Yeah azzhole....

Now first the temps charts you submitted show anomalies or deviations from a norm.. A norm is an average you idiotic pain in the azz... So each anomaly is a deviation from the norm for that particular station just like I said several times now... A norm is an average and in this case the average or norm per station you nincompoop.

They base those norms or averages on 100 years. Now 100 years in comparison to 4 billion or more is not an accurate or even logical way to make a case for AGW..... Understand this yet you dumazz?

You can play all you want and try to pretend this is somehow different than what I stated several times before until the cows come home and it won't matter. YOU got caught showing your ignorance and instead of shutting up and going away you chose to play it off like it didn't happen and keep on pretending.. Well azzhole my posts are all right here and they show what went on despite what you try to pretend now..

 

[gslack]

oldsocks said "We can clearly show that the rise from 180 ppm to 300 ppm 120,000 years ago created a world with a sea level much higher than that of today."

And the sea level is high today? Compared to what? When? Ah now you see the problem with context in regards to those kinds of statements...

With see the problem with your kind of logic. Compared to the docks in the port cities of the world, dimwit.

Those kinds of claims are irresponsible and misleading if not completely false based on premise. They require a faith in several unknown factors.

1. They require the faith that the CO2 was the cause and not the effect of the warming. And real studies show the CO2 has followed the warming and not preceded it.

OK, be an idiot and repeat this old saw. Anyone with the least reading in science understands the relationship of the Milankovic Cycles and CO2.
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?


2. They require faith in very little real knowledge outside of speculation and hypothetical guesswork. Everyday the methods of last week are old hat and the new methods paint a different picture which shows the problem in this kind of hypothesizing.

I see. All of the worlds Scientific Societies, Academies of Science, and major Universities operate on very little real knowledge. Your own willfull ignorance is showing.

3. They require faith in the idea the sun was not involved in any of this. The reality is the sun changes in output, in position relative to the solar system and galaxy even the universe. Gravitational fields change, orbits are pushed and pulled closer or farther away by outside forces all the time. These things are very difficult to detect from our small perspective here until after the fact. And since we are a relatively young inhabitant of this planet when taken into account with the overall solar system much less galaxy, we are blind as bats right now. As the sun tracks its way across the equinoxes and enters into other areas of the star systems we will change as the gravity, radiations, and forces effect us, and we dont know how or how much this will be.

So you are stating that the climatologists of the world, many with Phds, ignore the the sun? Keep yapping, you are sounding more and more idiotic.

And I have one question for you now..... Was the rise in PPM from 180 to 300 PPM before or after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the rising waters? if it was before I would love to see any evidence you can find of that specifically, because that's not what the real science claims at all. And if it was after the warming which melted the glaciers causing the oceans to rise, what caused the warming?

Ya know whats funny... Your side tries to twist science to make a claim, and the nature of science makes it very easy for a person with patience and a critical mind to see its twisted.... LOL, so-called scientists twisting science to suit there own ends. The fact is science is like math, it can be checked for flaws and eventually they will come out...

Gslack, you are just about the yappiest dum dum on the board. And your methods of arguement are very much like that of an adolescent.

LOL nice bit of excuse making in that link.... I read it and all I saw was "excuses excuses"... No matter how bad the azzholes get busted they have an excuse that will confound the subject long enough for them to change the subject or put more crap they call evidence. They just like you are a liar and dishonest to the core. You justify this with some twisted religious-like faith based logic...... What an utter waste......

Your article tried to blame the milankovich cycles for the warming before the CO2 rise... Yep the exact same milankovich cycles they said had no measurable bearing on climate change just before..... WTF? Is there any point at all where you say enough? Seriuously they lie to cover the last lie and you call it gospel each time no matter how it contradicts their own claims..... You f'ing people are astounding.. Even IF the milankovitch cycles are the cause of the pre CO2 warming, the fact is the cycles not the CO2 warmed the planet just as scientists claimed before and your AGW crowd called them hacks..... You pathetic excuse for a human, you have the utter gall to try and blame what the very thing you denied possible just months before and act like nothing is wrong? You people have no soul......

 

[edthecynic]

look dipshit, an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station... Correct? Good, than I will simplify a bit more for your silly azz. 20-30 years is no accurate means to draw an average on which to make a case for AGW..... Understand yet?

Face it you like your pal oldsocks got busted once again talking out your azz and playing scientist.... You didn't understand what you posted, and then didn't understand the fact an anomaly is a an abnormality or a variance form the norm. And even more telling you didn't grasp the concept of what that norm is or what it needs to represent when trying to use this kind of data to make a case for AGW...

You idiots all get told this or that data shows the world is warming and it will kill the planet, and you screm anad cry posting it all over without really asking the obvious questions that any thinking person should ask. Questions like what is the context, how did they arrive at the norm or average to deem any temps anomalous, and what time frame is it all based on and its relevance on a global and ever increasing time scale.

You ditto heads don't ask because you want to believe all the BS, and you will no matter how ignorant it gets.... Welcome to the world of the religious zealot...

Hey MORON! The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station. The record of the anomalies covers over 100 years. You can't be condescending and keep playing dumb at the same time.

I gave you a link on what an anomaly means in scientific usage, you obviously ignored it because you are a DittoTard Know-It-All.

From the link you ignored:

What is a temperature anomaly?

The term “temperature anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

The data shows a 100 year WARMING TREND, it says nothing about what a normal temp is. Again the chart lists no temp at all, only a zero point and the deviation from that point either warmer or colder.

Now you are being deliberately stupid trying to fake your way through it hoping no one notices.... Well too late moron we already noticed....

I posted the definition of anomaly from merriam webster azzhole... All you did was try and parrot it with another source trying to cover up your ignorance....

A variance from the norm just like my original definition stated huh.... Yeah azzhole....

Now first the temps charts you submitted show anomalies or deviations from a norm.. A norm is an average you idiotic pain in the azz... So each anomaly is a deviation from the norm for that particular station just like I said several times now... A norm is an average and in this case the average or norm per station you nincompoop.

They base those norms or averages on 100 years. Now 100 years in comparison to 4 billion or more is not an accurate or even logical way to make a case for AGW..... Understand this yet you dumazz?

You can play all you want and try to pretend this is somehow different than what I stated several times before until the cows come home and it won't matter. YOU got caught showing your ignorance and instead of shutting up and going away you chose to play it off like it didn't happen and keep on pretending.. Well azzhole my posts are all right here and they show what went on despite what you try to pretend now..

Let me remind you what you said:

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

For the last time, there is no normal temp, each station has its own UNIQUE average to calibrate its own anomaly against. Anomalies only show a TREND, either warmer or colder, and nothing else. Anomalies across the globe show a 100 year warming TREND.
Grow up, child!

 

[gslack]

Hey MORON! The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station. The record of the anomalies covers over 100 years. You can't be condescending and keep playing dumb at the same time.

I gave you a link on what an anomaly means in scientific usage, you obviously ignored it because you are a DittoTard Know-It-All.

From the link you ignored:



The data shows a 100 year WARMING TREND, it says nothing about what a normal temp is. Again the chart lists no temp at all, only a zero point and the deviation from that point either warmer or colder.

Now you are being deliberately stupid trying to fake your way through it hoping no one notices.... Well too late moron we already noticed....

I posted the definition of anomaly from merriam webster azzhole... All you did was try and parrot it with another source trying to cover up your ignorance....

A variance from the norm just like my original definition stated huh.... Yeah azzhole....

Now first the temps charts you submitted show anomalies or deviations from a norm.. A norm is an average you idiotic pain in the azz... So each anomaly is a deviation from the norm for that particular station just like I said several times now... A norm is an average and in this case the average or norm per station you nincompoop.

They base those norms or averages on 100 years. Now 100 years in comparison to 4 billion or more is not an accurate or even logical way to make a case for AGW..... Understand this yet you dumazz?

You can play all you want and try to pretend this is somehow different than what I stated several times before until the cows come home and it won't matter. YOU got caught showing your ignorance and instead of shutting up and going away you chose to play it off like it didn't happen and keep on pretending.. Well azzhole my posts are all right here and they show what went on despite what you try to pretend now..

Let me remind you what you said:

Look moron how do you decide what is considered a normal temp? How did they? Well according to your idiotic and uninformed azz they took 100 years and said this is not normal.......

For the last time, there is no normal temp, each station has its own UNIQUE average to calibrate its own anomaly against. Anomalies only show a TREND, either warmer or colder, and nothing else. Anomalies across the globe show a 100 year warming TREND.
Grow up, child!

How old are you?

Look azzhole I am not going to explain this anymore.... YOU are an idiot and everyone can see it plain as day.

Do you understand the fact I have explained this exact same concept in several different ways, using whatever words your OCD suffering little mind can grasp, and after every single one you have pretended that the words average and norm are somehow different..... What a f'ing moron......

here once more to show what a moron you are... Here is post 49 where I linked to merriam webster giving the definition...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200566-post49.html

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Now look at the bottom... particularly definitions 2 and 3... It says some words I used before to try and get through to your thick head.... let me show you.... see? Notice a few words that are in that definition.... Yeah you are that fucking asinine.....

You complete nincompoop, you have for the last 5 posts shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt you are ignorant to the point of being insufferable....

You didn't understand the concept, the terms, the definitions, hell you didn't even understand after I gave a definition from a dictionary.... Could you possibly be more idiotic?

Now you can continue to try and save your azz by talking shit and trying to twist it. But the forum will read this the more you BS your way through the more it will show. You have made an utter fool of yourself, and instead of doing the smart thing and quietly going away, you have been trying to change the meaning of words.... idiot....

Now unless you really want me to lay out each one of your posts here in order showing the truth and your ignorance for all to see, you best leave this be....

 

[edthecynic]

Now you are being deliberately stupid trying to fake your way through it hoping no one notices.... Well too late moron we already noticed....

I posted the definition of anomaly from merriam webster azzhole... All you did was try and parrot it with another source trying to cover up your ignorance....

A variance from the norm just like my original definition stated huh.... Yeah azzhole....

Now first the temps charts you submitted show anomalies or deviations from a norm.. A norm is an average you idiotic pain in the azz... So each anomaly is a deviation from the norm for that particular station just like I said several times now... A norm is an average and in this case the average or norm per station you nincompoop.

They base those norms or averages on 100 years. Now 100 years in comparison to 4 billion or more is not an accurate or even logical way to make a case for AGW..... Understand this yet you dumazz?

You can play all you want and try to pretend this is somehow different than what I stated several times before until the cows come home and it won't matter. YOU got caught showing your ignorance and instead of shutting up and going away you chose to play it off like it didn't happen and keep on pretending.. Well azzhole my posts are all right here and they show what went on despite what you try to pretend now..

Let me remind you what you said:



For the last time, there is no normal temp, each station has its own UNIQUE average to calibrate its own anomaly against. Anomalies only show a TREND, either warmer or colder, and nothing else. Anomalies across the globe show a 100 year warming TREND.
Grow up, child!

How old are you?

Look azzhole I am not going to explain this anymore.... YOU are an idiot and everyone can see it plain as day.

Do you understand the fact I have explained this exact same concept in several different ways, using whatever words your OCD suffering little mind can grasp, and after every single one you have pretended that the words average and norm are somehow different..... What a f'ing moron......

here once more to show what a moron you are... Here is post 49 where I linked to merriam webster giving the definition...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200566-post49.html

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Now look at the bottom... particularly definitions 2 and 3... It says some words I used before to try and get through to your thick head.... let me show you.... see? Notice a few words that are in that definition.... Yeah you are that fucking asinine.....

You complete nincompoop, you have for the last 5 posts shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt you are ignorant to the point of being insufferable....

You didn't understand the concept, the terms, the definitions, hell you didn't even understand after I gave a definition from a dictionary.... Could you possibly be more idiotic?

Now you can continue to try and save your azz by talking shit and trying to twist it. But the forum will read this the more you BS your way through the more it will show. You have made an utter fool of yourself, and instead of doing the smart thing and quietly going away, you have been trying to change the meaning of words.... idiot....

Now unless you really want me to lay out each one of your posts here in order showing the truth and your ignorance for all to see, you best leave this be....

what a moron

 

[gslack]

Let me remind you what you said:



For the last time, there is no normal temp, each station has its own UNIQUE average to calibrate its own anomaly against. Anomalies only show a TREND, either warmer or colder, and nothing else. Anomalies across the globe show a 100 year warming TREND.
Grow up, child!

How old are you?

Look azzhole I am not going to explain this anymore.... YOU are an idiot and everyone can see it plain as day.

Do you understand the fact I have explained this exact same concept in several different ways, using whatever words your OCD suffering little mind can grasp, and after every single one you have pretended that the words average and norm are somehow different..... What a f'ing moron......

here once more to show what a moron you are... Here is post 49 where I linked to merriam webster giving the definition...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200566-post49.html

Anomaly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
anomaly
Main Entry: anom·a·ly
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈnä-mə-lē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural anom·a·lies
Date: 1603

1 : the angular distance of a planet from its perihelion as seen from the sun
2 : deviation from the common rule : irregularity
3 : something anomalous : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified

Now look at the bottom... particularly definitions 2 and 3... It says some words I used before to try and get through to your thick head.... let me show you.... see? Notice a few words that are in that definition.... Yeah you are that fucking asinine.....

You complete nincompoop, you have for the last 5 posts shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt you are ignorant to the point of being insufferable....

You didn't understand the concept, the terms, the definitions, hell you didn't even understand after I gave a definition from a dictionary.... Could you possibly be more idiotic?

Now you can continue to try and save your azz by talking shit and trying to twist it. But the forum will read this the more you BS your way through the more it will show. You have made an utter fool of yourself, and instead of doing the smart thing and quietly going away, you have been trying to change the meaning of words.... idiot....

Now unless you really want me to lay out each one of your posts here in order showing the truth and your ignorance for all to see, you best leave this be....

what a moron

Come on smart guy whats the last definition say an anomaly is.... LOL come on coward say it.... I dare you....

Spineless little twerp you been dancing and Bullshitting all this time and in the end you look like an even bigger moron. You are completely and totally pathetic....

 

[edthecynic]

How old are you?

Look azzhole I am not going to explain this anymore.... YOU are an idiot and everyone can see it plain as day.

Do you understand the fact I have explained this exact same concept in several different ways, using whatever words your OCD suffering little mind can grasp, and after every single one you have pretended that the words average and norm are somehow different..... What a f'ing moron......

here once more to show what a moron you are... Here is post 49 where I linked to merriam webster giving the definition...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200566-post49.html



Now look at the bottom... particularly definitions 2 and 3... It says some words I used before to try and get through to your thick head.... let me show you.... see? Notice a few words that are in that definition.... Yeah you are that fucking asinine.....

You complete nincompoop, you have for the last 5 posts shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt you are ignorant to the point of being insufferable....

You didn't understand the concept, the terms, the definitions, hell you didn't even understand after I gave a definition from a dictionary.... Could you possibly be more idiotic?

Now you can continue to try and save your azz by talking shit and trying to twist it. But the forum will read this the more you BS your way through the more it will show. You have made an utter fool of yourself, and instead of doing the smart thing and quietly going away, you have been trying to change the meaning of words.... idiot....

Now unless you really want me to lay out each one of your posts here in order showing the truth and your ignorance for all to see, you best leave this be....

what a moron

Come on smart guy whats the last definition say an anomaly is.... LOL come on coward say it.... I dare you....

Spineless little twerp you been dancing and Bullshitting all this time and in the end you look like an even bigger moron. You are completely and totally pathetic....

I already posted the SCIENTIFIC definition of an anomaly. You wouldn't cling to the dictionary definition if you weren't SURE you were wrong.
Thank you, child.