The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[mamooth]

Ahahahahaha! First mammaries challenged me to provide the proof.

And predictably, you're making excuses to run instead of providing it. I do credit you with being quite creative in the excuses you use to cover your retreats.

I If I made that up, you shouldn't be so afraid to agree to my terms!

But I do agree to your terms, my sweet cuddly bitch. That was implied. And by continuing the conversation, you agree to mine. So let's go. Provide your proof, so I can get to the debunking.

 

[mamooth]

Incidentally mammaries, you're damn quite about all of the "Climategate" facts!

No, I'm quite vocal about how your side got caught in multiple lies and open fraud, and how you choose to join in. It's just that the topic is boring. Everyone knows deniers lie and commit fraud more readily than normal humans breathe, so that's "dog bites man" news.

 

[P@triot]

And predictably, you're making excuses to run instead of providing it.

I'm not making excuses. I'm waiting on you to agree to admit you lied and to admit that "Global Warming" is a scam. There's a reason you won't do that right now.

 

[P@triot]

No, I'm quite vocal about how your side got caught in multiple lies and open fraud, and how you choose to join in.

And yet you ignore the indisputable evidence I provide while you've failed to add a single link or fact to back up your claim about conservatives "lying".

 

[mamooth]

Excellent. By continuing the conversation, you've accepted my terms.

I'm not making excuses. I'm waiting on you to agree to admit you lied and to admit that "Global Warming" is a scam.

That's your craziest goalpost shift yet. Here's what you asked before, and what I agreed to:

"When I provide the (well known) source - will you admit that “Global Warming” is a scam and acknowledge that I told the truth, right here on USMB?"

I agree to that, if I can't debunk your source. And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam.

The bet has been made, so you need to do your part. But you won't. You're running now. To all observers, it appears as if you already know you're going to lose.

Come on, let's do this. I'm ready. Provide your source for the claim that some scientist and all of us leftist loonies were screaming that NYC should be underwater by now.

 

[P@triot]

Here's what you asked before, and what I agreed to:

"When I provide the (well known) source - will you admit that “Global Warming” is a scam and acknowledge that I told the truth, right here on USMB?"

I agree to that, if I can't debunk your source.

Excellent! Bringing in flacaltenn to see if he can ban your account if you renig (cause we all know you will).

And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam.

Uh...I don’t agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.

 

[P@triot]

I If I made that up, you shouldn't be so afraid to agree to my terms!

But I do agree to your terms, my sweet cuddly bitch. That was implied.

Typical leftists, folks. She attempts to evade and then claims it was “implied” that she agreed.

I don’t do vague, sweetie. You leftists use vague to hide and spread propaganda. I do crystal clear, black and white. Now that I have you clearly agreeing to the challenge above, I’ll post as soon as we hear back from Flacaltenn. Just want to make sure your held accountable because you’re not a woman of your word.

 

[Crick]

P@triot, your put offs and delays and evasions are beginning to make me think you've got nothing to show.

 

[mamooth]

Uh...I don’t agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.

So, your conditions are that if you present a propaganda point, nobody is permitted to refute it, and you get to declare victory.

That's very Stalinist of you, forbidding any criticism of TheParty's dogma.

Let's summarize.

You made a challenge.

I accepted it.

You're now pissing yourself and running, in front of the whole board.

I suggest you rename yourself "Pusstriot", being how the whole board now considers you to be the ultimate pussy.

 

[P@triot]

P@triot, your put offs and delays and evasions are beginning to make me think you've got nothing to show.

Your girlfriend delayed. She just accepted yesterday.

 

[P@triot]

Uh...I don’t agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.

So, your conditions are that if you present a propaganda point, nobody is permitted to refute it, and you get to declare victory.

Nope. Not at all. You can absolutely refute it. I’m just not going to agree to do what you want based on your subjective opinion that you “debunked” it.

My challenge is not subjective. A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc. Our bet was built on indisputable fact. You want to extend that out to something subjective based on your biased opinion. Big difference there, sweetie.

 

[Crick]

Then why have you not posted it here? You have no power to make Mamooth do anything. Your comment earlier that you were going to try to get Mamooth banned if he broke a deal with you was absolutely pathetic. Where the fuck do you think you are?

Just put it down here and let your audience judge. All this delay convinces me that your statement includes a "could" or an "I believe" or a "possibly" as all good natural scientists know they do not possess absolutes.

 

[mamooth]

Hey P@triot, how'd your crying to the mods thing go? Not so well? They have no interest in your weepy personal vendettas? Imagine that. You're going to have to face me all by yourself. No wonder you're soiling yourself.

Nope. Not at all. You can absolutely refute it.

Obviously. That's why you won't present it. You've made that very clear.

I’m just not going to agree to do what you want based on your subjective opinion that you “debunked” it.

There won't be anything subjective about it.

My challenge is not subjective. A scientist said it. It’s a matter of record. We have his name, his title, etc. Our bet was built on indisputable fact.

Likewise, my refutation is not subjective in any way. We're on equal footing, so the bet penalties and payoffs should be equal. That's fair, thus it terrifies you. You know you need intellectual affirmative action to have a chance against any liberal, but we're not obligated to comply with that demand.

You want to extend that out to something subjective based on your biased opinion. Big difference there, sweetie.

No more excuses. Let's drop all bets. That way, you no longer have any excuse to run. Now, present your evidence that some famous scientist predicted NYC would be underwater by now, so I can proceed to make my point that you got bamboozled by your cult, and that you'll still kiss the heinies of those who lied to you even after you've been made aware that they lied.

 

[P@triot]

No more excuses. Let's drop all bets. That way, you no longer have any excuse to run.

Uh-oh...looks like someone did a basic Google search and now realizes she is screwed.

 

[Crick]

For god's sake post it.

 

[mamooth]

Uh-oh...looks like someone did a basic Google search and now realizes she is screwed.

So you're saying the bet is on. Excellent. I'll hold you to that.

Being that Pusstriot here has once more failed in his quest to locate his balls (magnification and tweezers were not sufficient), I'll have to help him out.

This is what Pusstriot thinks his irrefutable source is, either this Salon piece, or one of the conspiracy blogs quoting it.

Stormy weather

In that piece, Bob Reiss says in a phone interview with Salon:
---
While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.
---

Slam dunk for Pusstriot? Nope. That's not a quote of Hansen. That's a quote of what Bob Reiss remembered about an 13-year-old conversation at that particular instant. And Bob Reiss later stated that he goofed in his recollection.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

---
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.
---

The actual quote by Hansen was not "20 years from now" (now being 1988). It was "40 years after a doubling". As a doubling of CO2 hasn't happened yet, the 40-year clock hasn't even started ticking yet.

Oh, Pusstriot also lied about all of NYC supposedly being under water, as the statement only covered a freeway along the river.

So, that's the objective truth. Pusstriot will have a hard time trying to weasel away, as the people he claims are his reliable sources are the ones saying he was lying.

Thus, by the terms of the bet that Pusstriot accepted, he must to admit to the board that he was lying, that I was telling the truth, and that he has spent years as the devoted brainless acolyte of a liars' cult.

Pusstriot, see what happens when you refuse to look at non-cult sources? Take a lesson. Be like the rational people, and look at every source.

<mic drop>

 

[P@triot]

Thus, by the terms of the bet that Pusstriot accepted, he must to admit to the board that he was lying, that I was telling the truth, and that he has spent years as the devoted brainless acolyte of a liars' cult.

One can always count on mammaries to lie (and then lie about her lies)...

And you agree that if I do debunk it, you admit denialism is a scam.

Uh...I don’t agree to that. At all. Because you will claim you “debunked” it when you didn’t. That’s just what you do. It’s (sadly) how you operate on here.

As always...the indisputable, undeniable facts are right there in black and white (post #306 if people want additional context) and yet mammaries desperately tries to rewrite it to fit her bat-shit crazy narrative. I made it ultra clear that I didn’t agree to anything that bat-shit crazy broad wanted. Even underlined it and bolded it to make it more obvious.

The left-wing parasites like mammaries are so afraid that their ticket to mooch off of society will be revoked if they don’t keep spreading their propaganda.

 

[P@triot]

Oh, Pusstriot also lied about all of NYC supposedly being under water, as the statement only covered a freeway along the river.

One post...multiple lies by mammaries. Nowhere in this thread did I use the phrase “all of New York”. This is a short thread of 32 pages. Look for yourselves. Use the search feature above and check the option for “search this thread only”.

 

[P@triot]

So, that's the objective truth. Pusstriot will have a hard time trying to weasel away, as the people he claims are his reliable sources are the ones saying he was lying.

I told everyone that mammaries the parasite would declare she “debunked” it when she didn’t. I haven’t even posted anything yet and she’s already declaring that she “debunked” it.

 

[P@triot]

For god's sake post it.

Ok...I’ll do it for you Crick (since Facaltenn hasn’t weighed in yet and we all know mammaries will never keep her word anyway).

The former NASA climate scientist who predicted parts of New York City would soon be underwater, now says he’s not a global warming “alarmist.”

Now remember, mammaries claimed that no scientist ever said that. Not only is this a scientist, but specifically a climate scientist.

Furthermore, please read the entire article. At no point does this climate scientist deny making those statements (mammaries claims it stems from a reporter misquoting him years later, but if that were even remotely true, he would have denied the statements in this article and he doesn’t).

See, she panicked because she knows I don’t make shit up. I post links (tons of them). So she used Google (presumably for the first time ever), found that a scientist did in fact say that, then searched the usual left-wing propaganda sites for an answer to explain away this huge problem.

Scientist Who Predicted NYC Would Be Underwater Says He’s ‘Not An Alarmist’