March, Dr. Roy Spencer

[gslack]

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.

OKAY, you want to try and hide behind semantics? Bad move dumazz, now I have to embarrass you with your own semantical bullshit...

Your chosen definition..... Correct?

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.

That was your chosen definition you posted here to try and counter mine correct? Well of course it is I quoted your post.... Fine moving on....

look carefully where I underlined and made the type bold. What does that say?

Come on coward say it.... It says "anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average."

hmm... thats odd they use the word "average" there don't they.. An average of what? Why according to your chart an average of 20-30 years temperatures on each station. Wait, didn't I say that before? Why yes I did several fucking times!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html

And the funny part is I repeated the very words you used and you tried to say I was wrong in that...

YOUR INITIAL CLAIM...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200761-post50.html
"...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."


MY REPLY...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html
"...an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station."


YOUR ARGUMENT...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2201178-post52.html
"The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station."


Now show me difference azzhole.... There is none and all your BS is shown in all its glory for the entire forum to see... You just argued your own claim to try and cover up your stupidity in a pile of shit.... You are busted flat out and undeniably busted....

Now stop trying to BS your way around this and save yourself any further embarrassment, it will only get worse for you here on out. This is indefensible and everyone can see it....

 

[edthecynic]

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.

OKAY, you want to try and hide behind semantics? Bad move dumazz, now I have to embarrass you with your own semantical bullshit...

Your chosen definition..... Correct?

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.

That was your chosen definition you posted here to try and counter mine correct? Well of course it is I quoted your post.... Fine moving on....

look carefully where I underlined and made the type bold. What does that say?

Come on coward say it.... It says "anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average."

hmm... thats odd they use the word "average" there don't they.. An average of what? Why according to your chart an average of 20-30 years temperatures on each station. Wait, didn't I say that before? Why yes I did several fucking times!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html

And the funny part is I repeated the very words you used and you tried to say I was wrong in that...

YOUR INITIAL CLAIM...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200761-post50.html
"...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."


MY REPLY...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html
"...an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station."


YOUR ARGUMENT...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2201178-post52.html
"The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station."


Now show me difference azzhole.... There is none and all your BS is shown in all its glory for the entire forum to see... You just argued your own claim to try and cover up your stupidity in a pile of shit.... You are busted flat out and undeniably busted....

Now stop trying to BS your way around this and save yourself any further embarrassment, it will only get worse for you here on out. This is indefensible and everyone can see it....

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

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?


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.......

 

[Charles Stucker]

Dr. Roy Spencer is one of the very few sceptics with any credibility within science. However, Dr. Hansen is considered to be even more credible.

No doubt that is because he tells you what you want to hear.
Newsflash "Green Resources" are not green if their "greeness" is used as an excuse to increase consumption. You Rocks are a fraud, your claims that you can personally consume all you like because you have a note from Al Gore is part an parcel of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[gslack]

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.

OKAY, you want to try and hide behind semantics? Bad move dumazz, now I have to embarrass you with your own semantical bullshit...

Your chosen definition..... Correct?



That was your chosen definition you posted here to try and counter mine correct? Well of course it is I quoted your post.... Fine moving on....

look carefully where I underlined and made the type bold. What does that say?

Come on coward say it.... It says "anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average."

hmm... thats odd they use the word "average" there don't they.. An average of what? Why according to your chart an average of 20-30 years temperatures on each station. Wait, didn't I say that before? Why yes I did several fucking times!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html

And the funny part is I repeated the very words you used and you tried to say I was wrong in that...

YOUR INITIAL CLAIM...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200761-post50.html
"...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."


MY REPLY...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html
"...an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station."


YOUR ARGUMENT...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2201178-post52.html
"The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station."


Now show me difference azzhole.... There is none and all your BS is shown in all its glory for the entire forum to see... You just argued your own claim to try and cover up your stupidity in a pile of shit.... You are busted flat out and undeniably busted....

Now stop trying to BS your way around this and save yourself any further embarrassment, it will only get worse for you here on out. This is indefensible and everyone can see it....

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

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?


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.......

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

Except it wasn't COLD it was WET. This was actually the 5th warmest winter in the history of direct instrument measurement.

All winter it was the deniers on this board who, with every snowfall, were equating snow with cold and claiming that the snowfall proved we were experiencing record cold and we were starting in a new ice age for the last 15 years.
Remember?

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html

No one equates better than the algorians. You guys equate lack of snowfall with a warming planet, you equate current short term weather with climate, and just about everything else one can imagine according to your side is evidence of AGW. But let us use the same kind of logic and reason and you cry about it...

Well don't use this kind of logic if its wrong..

You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html

You can always spot the mindless brainwashed DittoTards a mile away! Their MessiahRushie told them to spell gore's name as one word, and they are powerless to do anything different.

The only people equating short term localized weather with climate are you deniers. See the first quote in my sig.

Scientists are using a 100 year warming trend to support their claim of global warming.

Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html

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?

Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html

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.

Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

 

[Old Rocks]

Dr. Roy Spencer is one of the very few sceptics with any credibility within science. However, Dr. Hansen is considered to be even more credible.

No doubt that is because he tells you what you want to hear.
Newsflash "Green Resources" are not green if their "greeness" is used as an excuse to increase consumption. You Rocks are a fraud, your claims that you can personally consume all you like because you have a note from Al Gore is part an parcel of your intellectual dishonesty.

So, have you been hacking the e-mails between Al Gore and myself?

Dr. Hansen's credibility is established within the scientific community worldwide.

NASA GISS: James E. Hansen

Research Interests:
As a college student in Iowa, I was attracted to science and research by James Van Allen's space science program in the physics and astronomy department. Since then, it only took me a decade or so to realize that the most exciting planetary research involves trying to understand the climate change on earth that will result from anthropogenic changes of the atmospheric composition.

One of my research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially interpreting remote sounding of the earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Such data, appropriately analyzed, may provide one of our most effective ways to monitor and study global change on the earth. The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.

I am also interested in the development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate. The scientific excitement in comparing theory with data, and developing some understanding of global changes that are occurring, is what makes all the other stuff worth it.

As head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he is considered the premier researcher concerning global warming and the climate change that is is driving.

 

[Charles Stucker]

So, have you been hacking the e-mails between Al Gore and myself?

Blah, Blah, Blah.
How much have you, PERSONALLY, reduced consumption to combat GoreBull Warming (TM)?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer is "not in the least."
That makes YOU a fraud.

 

[edthecynic]

OKAY, you want to try and hide behind semantics? Bad move dumazz, now I have to embarrass you with your own semantical bullshit...

Your chosen definition..... Correct?



That was your chosen definition you posted here to try and counter mine correct? Well of course it is I quoted your post.... Fine moving on....

look carefully where I underlined and made the type bold. What does that say?

Come on coward say it.... It says "anomaly” means a departure from a reference value or long-term average."

hmm... thats odd they use the word "average" there don't they.. An average of what? Why according to your chart an average of 20-30 years temperatures on each station. Wait, didn't I say that before? Why yes I did several fucking times!!!!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html

And the funny part is I repeated the very words you used and you tried to say I was wrong in that...

YOUR INITIAL CLAIM...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200761-post50.html
"...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."


MY REPLY...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200836-post51.html
"...an average of 20-30 years is the average they use for each specific station."


YOUR ARGUMENT...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2201178-post52.html
"The 20 to 30 years is used to CALIBRATE an average to measure the anomaly against for each individual station."


Now show me difference azzhole.... There is none and all your BS is shown in all its glory for the entire forum to see... You just argued your own claim to try and cover up your stupidity in a pile of shit.... You are busted flat out and undeniably busted....

Now stop trying to BS your way around this and save yourself any further embarrassment, it will only get worse for you here on out. This is indefensible and everyone can see it....

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html

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?

Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html

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.

Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

Grow up, child.

 

[gslack]

Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." That is completely different from using a 30 year average to CALIBRATE each individual station to record the anomalies for that station. Only AFTER I explained to you what an anomaly is did you try to switch from a PLANETARY norm to a norm for each station rather than admit you were making a complete fool of yourself all along right up to the present.
Grow up, child.

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html


Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html

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.

Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

Grow up, child.

Look azzhole you kept trying to lie your way out of it pretend I was wrong. The fact is you were wrong, you showed time and again you didn't understand shit and instead of just shutting up and learning something you tried to lie and cover it up in a mountain of BS and semantics.....

Now, you see your ignorance all laid out for you and so do the rest of us.. Go and cry or something, but trying to lie about me or what I said is a bad move..

 

[Old Rocks]

So, have you been hacking the e-mails between Al Gore and myself?

Blah, Blah, Blah.
How much have you, PERSONALLY, reduced consumption to combat GoreBull Warming (TM)?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer is "not in the least."
That makes YOU a fraud.

You do not know me, and I don't know you. And prefer to keep it that way, given the intellectual content of your posts.

So your statements concerning what I have or have not done are just BS. Same as the rest of your statements on this board have been.

 

[gslack]

So, have you been hacking the e-mails between Al Gore and myself?

Blah, Blah, Blah.
How much have you, PERSONALLY, reduced consumption to combat GoreBull Warming (TM)?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer is "not in the least."
That makes YOU a fraud.

You do not know me, and I don't know you. And prefer to keep it that way, given the intellectual content of your posts.

So your statements concerning what I have or have not done are just BS. Same as the rest of your statements on this board have been.

Translation: Oldsocks has done nothing personally to reduce consumption or combat AGW. Nothing but hang out in web forums and post green party propaganda.

Go ahead douchebag, negative rep me again.... Pathetic....

 

[edthecynic]

LOL you going to continue lying then? Okay azzhole lets take care of this now then...
Above you said...

"Listen asshat, you accused scientists of arbitrarily picking some normal temp FOR THE PLANET out of the blue with no rhyme or reason and calling any deviation from this PLANETARY norm "abnormal." "

Correct? Good... Lets review what went on from the beginning here...

your first post to me... http://www.usmessageboard.com/2185229-post8.html

now in the post mentioned above you stuck the chart in. The chart was the anomalies chart you keep crying about... Now I ask you what in the hell does an anomalies chart based on a 10-20 year average per station have to do with what you said there? Nothing at all whatsoever in any way shape or form does it have anything at all to do with what you said in that post.

That was ignorant post #1.... Wait it gets better..

My response to you.... I was very general and merely addressed the hypocrisy of your statement about the deniers equating snow with cold, by pointing out the warmers equate that exact same way when it suits them. Now notice no where in this do I mention the chart you posted.. the reason I didn't mention it is it was not relevant to either anything you had said or anything I had said to that point.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2190719-post23.html


You responded with another post with another chart this one showing a 120 year temperature record. here you basically call me a rush limbaugh fan and such...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192718-post28.html


Pay particular attention to the part I bolded, italicized and underlined, its important..... that was ignorant post #2... Moving on....

In my response to you I was tired now of your charts and ignorance. THe first one was irrelevant to to your own post, and the second was just silly, we all know they have kept track the temps since somewhere between 1850-1880 and present day. posting it was just you trying to look more informed.... I shortened the quote here for brevity but the link goes directly to the full post.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2197079-post34.html


Notice in my response above I was very general and did so deliberately to avoid the kind of semantics tit for tat I could tell you would go for when shown to be wrong. I gave a very generalized point explaining that your charts were no evidence of AGW given the scope of 100 or so years compared to the age of the planet overall...

your response was truly ignorant.....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2199464-post38.html


Truth? what truth? All you did was insult me and post another chart confirming what we already know. What the fuck? no one denied the second charts claims, all I did was point out that was no real evidence of AGW given the short amount of time it covers compared to the planets overall age.

Then you start in with the straw man claim.... okay dumazz I asked you before to point out the straw man or give me an example of it and you didn't even acknowledge it... Fact is you don't know what it is really, all you know is you saw the term used here before and thought it probably fit here... Well dumazz it doesn't..

I am going to help this once to stop ignorance... According to wikkipedia.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Got it? For you to make the straw man claim against me, you first have to take a clear position. So what was your position? Was it the first chart? Well that would be ignorant because you didn't say anything about it in your post. Was it the second chart? Well no one contended it we all know and agree they keep track of temps over the last 100 years or better.

The reality is you didn't know what you were talking about, all you knew was you wanted to claim I was wrong because I was anti-AGW. You first posted a chart that was irrelevant to your post and the topic. Then you posted another chart which no one contended against. All the while you insulted me with no clear point.

Yeah epically stupid.... Don't worry I have more in my next post... to be continued...

Grow up, child.

Look azzhole you kept trying to lie your way out of it pretend I was wrong. The fact is you were wrong, you showed time and again you didn't understand shit and instead of just shutting up and learning something you tried to lie and cover it up in a mountain of BS and semantics.....

Now, you see your ignorance all laid out for you and so do the rest of us.. Go and cry or something, but trying to lie about me or what I said is a bad move..

You're regressing back to infancy.

 

[Old Rocks]

blah, blah, blah.
How much have you, personally, reduced consumption to combat gorebull warming (tm)?
Rhetorical question, we all know the answer is "not in the least."
that makes you a fraud.

you do not know me, and i don't know you. And prefer to keep it that way, given the intellectual content of your posts.

So your statements concerning what i have or have not done are just bs. Same as the rest of your statements on this board have been.

translation: Oldsocks has done nothing personally to reduce consumption or combat agw. Nothing but hang out in web forums and post green party propaganda.

Go ahead douchebag, negative rep me again.... Pathetic....

ok

 

[gslack]

Grow up, child.

Look azzhole you kept trying to lie your way out of it pretend I was wrong. The fact is you were wrong, you showed time and again you didn't understand shit and instead of just shutting up and learning something you tried to lie and cover it up in a mountain of BS and semantics.....

Now, you see your ignorance all laid out for you and so do the rest of us.. Go and cry or something, but trying to lie about me or what I said is a bad move..

You're regressing back to infancy.

Best leave me alone punk, I do have more I can place up here to show your ignorance.... I gave you a reprieve but if you are mistaking kindness for weakness I will be happy to continue where I left off...

 

[gslack]

you do not know me, and i don't know you. And prefer to keep it that way, given the intellectual content of your posts.

So your statements concerning what i have or have not done are just bs. Same as the rest of your statements on this board have been.

translation: Oldsocks has done nothing personally to reduce consumption or combat agw. Nothing but hang out in web forums and post green party propaganda.

Go ahead douchebag, negative rep me again.... Pathetic....

ok

Yeah thats what a punk would do... Best get to neg reppin me now useless... hey even better why don't you go and cry to a mod or something..... Little crybaby..

 

[momonkey]

Perhaps you are ignorant enough to not understand just who Dr. Roy Spencer is?

Perhaps you are stupid enough not to accept the reality that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

Except, of course, when DittoTards do it.

August 9, 2007
RUSH: I got a note here from our official climatologist Roy Spencer, University of Alabama at Huntsville. He is a genuine scientist and has been doing some research and he released the research today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Mar 20, 2008
RUSH: As you know, the official climatologist of this program is Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville

February 2, 2010
RUSH: I just got a flash from our official climatologist here at the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama-Huntsville)

I hate a quote out of context.



The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. 'All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds...'" for those of you in Rio Linda, those are the clouds that look like feathers up there. So, "'as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases,' he said. 'That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space,'" which, in my layman's observation, would mean that the Earth has its own built-in cooling system. How amazing would that be, that the Earth has its own built-in cooling system.



A Dispatch from Roy Spencer

 

[Old Rocks]

Nice theory. But the temperatures just keep going up. As per Dr. Spencer's own figures.

 

[Old Rocks]

translation: Oldsocks has done nothing personally to reduce consumption or combat agw. Nothing but hang out in web forums and post green party propaganda.

Go ahead douchebag, negative rep me again.... Pathetic....

ok

Yeah thats what a punk would do... Best get to neg reppin me now useless... hey even better why don't you go and cry to a mod or something..... Little crybaby..

Gee, you stated that I should do that again. So what are you crying about?

Sheesh, adolescent tantrum after adolescent tantrum. You are older than 13, right?

 

[gslack]

ok

Yeah thats what a punk would do... Best get to neg reppin me now useless... hey even better why don't you go and cry to a mod or something..... Little crybaby..

Gee, you stated that I should do that again. So what are you crying about?

Sheesh, adolescent tantrum after adolescent tantrum. You are older than 13, right?

Well keep going azzhole, soon you will be noticed being an idiot and abusing the system...... LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

System? An internet message board is a system? Lordy, lordy.

 

[gslack]

System? An internet message board is a system? Lordy, lordy.

LOL why its the dancing bear.....

Why don't you explain the lie you posted from source watch now for us all dipshit LOL


AHAHAHAHAHAAHHA!