When you cannot debate my arguments, you now have to attempt to demonize me by lying about me being a sociopath. This behavior is expected by those who lack intellectual honesty and integrity.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/tag/flooding/
Welcome to 6 months ago.
When you cannot debate my arguments, you now have to attempt to demonize me by lying about me being a sociopath. This behavior is expected by those who lack intellectual honesty and integrity.
Your delusions that I after any remote interest in "attention" from you speaks to your narcissism.
ROFLMAO to your paranoid fantasies for your safety.
Either post evidence of me ever "stalking" anyone on the Internet (following someone around) or retract this libel.
Your reason for attempting to demonize me is clear from this post. At least you have conceded by this behavior that you cannot debate me.
ROFLMAO! Your delusions continue. Just because I do not care if I hurt your "feelings" online does not translate into wishing anyone physical harm in real life. The only thing disturbing is your sick vendetta to demonize me this way.
You stopped debating me because you cannot. My train of thought it consistently rational.
I am sure you tried to demonize others with lies when you have been unable to debate them as well.
Actually I do not appreciate the way psychologists do their "science" and desperate people then misuse it to smear others.
Do you have a special badge I should wear that states I am an introvert? Or are you just mad that I do not accept your lies about me and do not wish to be friendly with people who do? This is where you have to go to when you get defeated in an argument, instead of accepting it.
So you continue to lie that I mentioned "pipe bombs" anywhere? Are you in denial that Lefebvre was found guilty of money laundering?
NETeller ex-directors on money laundering charges (Reuters, January 16, 2007)
The failed attempts at demonization continues.
Do these desperate tactics really work? What I have seen is that he simply agrees with me on these issues.
The only thing you should be apologizing for is your repeated lies.
Thanks for the ultimate confession of having lost the argument.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-06-2012 at 07:06 AM.
Issues.
I know that people are studying it. It's a constant project. Where do you think I found the info? I just figured those who are indoctrinating you may not have told you. Hence, the question, meaning "do any of you..."
Yes, I recall seeing this mentioned before. I don't recall the levels being more than 5 mm though. Naturally it's because of more rain.
LOL at your one again incorrect assumption of what I think. And yes, I saw data from Grace as well.
Should I just wait for you to tell me what I am thinking all the time since you claim to be an expert psychic?
Thinkprogress and graph from cartoonist climate blog in one post.
Bravo
Is it incorrect because it is on that website and the author is a "cartoonist" with a blog?
I generally don't read websites that talk about how much/little the sea rose/sank in a given year.
I get no data either way.
One would expect variances in long term trends.
If it continues to drop over ten years, then it becomes a bit more meaningful.
Speaking of which.
Atmospheric CO2 as measured at the Muana Loa observatory at the start of the thread, in October 2010:
387.18
Current Atmopheric CO2, same station, March 2012:
394.45
This thread has been going on long enough to see changes, as measured.
CO2 when I joined Spurstalk, 2005:
382.14
CO2 concentration when I graduated highschool, circa 1988
354
CO2 when I was born, circa 1970:
324
Dataset can be found in an Excel spreadheet:
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-No...-co2-data.html
Nifty.
Lack of anything resembling a persuasive argument. Ridicule and ad hominem in one statement.
Bravo.
is there even any evidence that the latter lies like you do?
Yes, that's all it was. A short term anomaly. It's back to it's normal trend. Still, I have a hard time when people like to claim it's from CO2, when so many other factors play a roll. I say it's impossible for them to have an educated guess of the level changes by CO2 warming when the other levels are not accounted for.
Tell me again how you care about the science??!?!?!?
I gotz da youtoobz now.
If you get the chance, here is a good bit that outlines the diffrences between skepticism, and irrational denial:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/
Browsing through these links, it strikes me as having a close parallel to a lot of 9-11 or creationist debunker websites and clearinghouses.
The more time one spends on the merry-go-round, the easier it is to see who is being reasonable and who is not.
You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.
Of course, when you are dealing with ideologic nutjobs, you have to keep in the back of your head, they are fighting, to them, a direct battle between good and evil.
The ends start justifying the means at that point.
Skeptical Science [a website devoted to climate science] hacked, private user details publicly posted online
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Skep...ed-online.htmlSometime over the last few days, the Skeptical Science website has been hacked. The hacker has taken much or all of the Skeptical Science database, zipped various excerpts into a single file, uploaded the file onto a Russian website then linked to the zip file from various blogs. While we are still attempting to verify the authenticity of the file, initial scans seem to indicate the hacker has included the entire database of Skeptical Science users. Access to the full database (which includes private details) is restricted only to myself and I am the only one with access to all of the raw data - this fact alone indicates that this breach of privacy came in the form of an external hack rather than from within Skeptical Science itself.
Of great concern is the fact that the hacker has published personal details such as emails and IP addresses of each user. Many users for various reasons have posted under pseudonyms and the Skeptical Science Comments Policy forbids cyberstalking. Consequently, that the private details of every Skeptical Science user has been stolen and publicly posted is a deeply regretable and unfortunate occurence.
Although user passwords are encrypted in the database, it is unknown whether the hacker has been successful in decrypting passwords. As a safeguard, it is highly recommended that everyone update their user passwords. You can do this via the Update Profile form.
Rest assured, we are working hard to upgrade Skeptical Science's security in order to more robustly protect users' private details. We are also in the process of soliciting legal advice on these matters and contacting the appropriate authorities. We would like to thank those who have come to us with information about this hack and those who have decided against spreading the aforementioned files (e.g. Anthony Watts). We all believe that protecting the privacy of individuals is of the utmost importance and we would hope that all illegally obtained do ents and files are removed from uploaded servers and disposed of.
This is not the kind of thing that an honest, ethical skeptic would undertake.
Honestly, it smacks to me of borderline terrorism, wherein really unethical things are done by people who have rationalized all sorts of unethical behavior in order to acheive a political goal.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-10-2012 at 12:18 PM.
It is out there if you cared to look. I don't think you are not being honest about that, either to me, or to yourself. Sorry.You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.
What does it say to you that the people who deal with moon hoaxers, twoofers, creationists, etc. think that people who are denying AGW tend to seem to them like the same kind of people?
I am not the only one to come to this conclusion, and I came to it completely independently of anyone else, before discovering I wasn't the only one who thinks this way.
Liar. Without strong feedbacks, we wouldn't have glacials and interglacials. But yeah, you're much smarter than most scientists and they just have it wrong.You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.
Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.
Really compelling arguments.
All these feedback's still are positive or negative feedback from the source of the energy.
Our sun...
Any changes in our sun have a similar change at the output of all these feedback processes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
