Quit ing supposing and find out. That was not me. Is that how you live your life? Guessing what you want things to be?
Can you point me to the part of that blog where they talk about a scientist actually being blackballed or otherwise maltreated?Calling a list a blacklist is fun and all...
As for the other two members: 'show some evidence that they voted Dem as a block. I get real tired of your 'suppose moments. Lieberman is all over the place. Supports free trade, hates the Iraq war, supports censorship, pro choice, etc.
Quit ing supposing and find out. That was not me. Is that how you live your life? Guessing what you want things to be?
They normally did vote democrat, and the did vote for Byrd.
Why can't you admit you were in error?
OK fine. Thought it was.
Not that important. We all know CO2 lags temperature over the ice core history.
Because you haven't shown their voting records and I know for a fact that Lieberman does not vote straight Democrat.
PopTech...
Have you ever seen Dr. Glassman's work?
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2
SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE AC ULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE
THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT
OF EL NIÑO
INTERNAL MODELING MISTAKES BY IPCC ARE SUFFICIENT
TO REJECT ITS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING CONJECTURE
THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN
Lead Authors, how many lead authors were there?
I did not make an argument, I asked a question.
Your drug addicted mind prevents your from following conversations. That reply was a discussion of an incident YOU brought up. It had nothing to do with the irrefutable fact that I never accused her of ANYTHING in ANY of my articles anywhere.
Last edited by Poptech; 05-27-2012 at 11:04 AM.
Yes but he never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal so I never bothered.
This is true, but nobody has been able to discredit him that I know of either.
The NAS president is 1 scientist, is this your "consensus"?
So You cannot claim the entire NAS membership body endorsed the conclusions of that report. Your "consensus" just crumbled.
257 in Working group 1 and 800 total including groups 2 and 3. You found 4. Very demonstrative, you would think they were high school dropouts.
You edited out the pipe bomb from your site I see. Its interesting how you do this. You still trying to maintain you did not write:
Going to call me a drug crazed psychotic again as if everyone that posts here doesn't know you wrote it.React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.
Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.
Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings
Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing
Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women
Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.
Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.
Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.
Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.
Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.
It was the first item under your little accusation blurb. You obviously edited it out of the article and I know that I didn't go around looking for terrorist threats. And while i know you are going into your denial mode to straight up lie, why were you saying that I hadn't come up with a reason why they didn't do that? I mean if I were making a defense then that means I was defending against something ie what you had posted.
But by all means continue lying. I know all manner of posters think you are slime for editing your aspie admission and then lie about it. If you are embarrassed about it and asked me to stop, I would have but after that youre just a deceptive piece of .
I do notice you still have your source watch El Salvador communist connection up. You still claiming they aren't communists when you have a board member working for communists in your citations? Or does that go with the communist flag on the le: it doesn't count? Intellectual cowardice at its finest.
And it was the corruption argument. Can you show corruption? you went right back to it. Your takes are getting slimier if thats possible. Its also like talking to a child in many ways. You get fixated on tracks. Must be your OCD.
I agree with the question PopTech is asking.
How many of the 800 were Lead Authors?
You shouldn't be looking that the 4 out of 800, but 4 out of how ever many were lead authors.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_autho...rs_updated.pdf
800 lead authors and review editors.
4 non PhD
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 05-27-2012 at 11:21 AM.
No I didn't you liar. It was never there. If I wrote it you would have quoted it when I asked you to the first time.
Incorrect, there was only 152 Lead Authors in AR4 WG1 and not 800 in total.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...sforeword.html
You are still missing the point, they should never have been lead authors. The IPCC is so incompetent they cannot even get basic credentials of their lead authors correct.
Psychotic Drug Addict, the main article has not changed,
http://climatechangedispatch.com/hom...bout-greenfyre
Your brain is so fried you cannot even follow our conversations.
I believe them to be socialists. You seem really upset about Sourcewatch. Do you edit their propaganda or just reference it?
I asked a question drug addict, you still cannot answer because of your limited mental abilities.
I am working on some new truth articles and will dedicate them to the drug addict, Fuzzy.
Wow...
They sure hand out les freely.
688 Lead and Coordinating Lead Authors.
Dumbass, that is the 5th report.
So now you are lying about both. that's nice. You aren't fooling anyone. Just edit those mistakes away then you don't have to own up to them, aspie.
And there are coordinator lead authors and lead authors. Look at the list dimwit. CLA LA and RE. So none of the CLA were grad students only the second tier of LA. Thats a convenient oversight.
So you have the link that has her working with communists and a communist flag but you only call her socialists. I would have used the Norway flag myself and left out the USSR connection if i was going to make that claim. Otherwise even a 8 year old can get the implication.
I am not mad. I am just disgusted by your tactics. You really are a coward. Edit stuff and try to play it off like it didn't happen. Still have comments saying that they were ecoterrorists and trying to play that off like thats on me.
Its transparent at this point.
You asked the question before. I had no interest in actually participating in the argument. You can sit there and act like I ever had any intention if it makes you feel better. I think it makes you look even more the rube.
Fuzzy...
PopTech brings up a link exposing how lax the IPCC was with their AR4 Lead editors, and you provide a list of the upcoming AR5...
That 688 doesn't count!
I'll bet he doesn't know the difference between FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, and AR5...
That is...
Wait...
I'll bet he's googling hard right now.
You are a drug addicted liar. I never changed anything in the main article,
http://climatechangedispatch.com/hom...bout-greenfyre
No I prefer images that piss off drug addicts but skeptics understand instantly.
I've always claimed that Earth First is an eco-terrorist organization. You fricking mind is so fried it is unbelievable. You brought this up already and failed to quote where I mentioned her in anyway in my article. You are a failure. You cannot mentally argue what I said so you make up strawman arguments.
What is transparent is how dishonest you are.
You cannot participate in arguments because you lack the mental ability to do so.
i thought we were trying to get a feel for how many LA there were.
The 4 grad students in question weren't every year.
a) 2001
b) 1994
c) 2007
d) early-1997
IOW, for each iteration there was at most two non PhD amongst all the LA for that particular year and that only happened in 1994 and 1997. In 2001 and 2007 there were only one.
You would make it seem that they were endemic but clearly is not the case.
None were from the 5th report.
Showing another heavily edited page doesn't posit much. Might want to edit in the nukes to make it more convincing.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3575Again, with your strawman argument. I never claimed this was their most egregious nor do I consider it that. I consider attempting to sabotage Nuclear power plants on a slightly higher level.
The strawman was that you never claimed it was the more egregious and you instead pointed to the nukes as being worse. You just edited them out. Just like you did with:
andI was being sarcastic and it was not meant to imply all do, rather that FuzzyLumpkins does not have a good defense for why they would be carrying around a pipebomb unless it was for a eco-terrorist plot. The fact that they blew themselves up instead of hurting an innocent person is just dumb luck.
I also recall the maiming language that you used originally in your article.Though I suppose it is normal behavior for environmentalists to ride around with pipe bombs.
You of course still deny writing these words:
React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation Fail - None of my reactions have been rage, shame or humiliation. This is a forum, you cannot see my physical person which remains completely calm at all times online.
Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals Fail - I have not taken advantage of anyone. That is just absurd.
Have excessive feelings of self-importance Fail - I have no such feelings
Exaggerate achievements and talents Fail - I have exaggerated nothing
Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love Fail - on all counts, I am already successful, I do not seek "power", I am not vain, I have no fantasies about my intelligence, I am in a fullfilling relationship with a beautiful women
Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment True - You got me there, I do not expect to be dishonestly lied about and now smeared as you and RG have done.
Need constant attention and admiration Fail - Absolute fail, You have no idea how I do not care for attention or admiration.
Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy Check - I could careless about yours or anyone else's feelings online. All I care about is what is true.
Have obsessive self-interest - Check - This is true but it has nothing to with this disorder but actually something else. I believe I have a mild form of aspergers syndrome similar to Michael Burry that allows me to relentlessly concentrate on a topic if I choose. This is actually a strength as I effectively never tire.
Pursue mainly selfish goals - Absolutely False - My whole point for doing this is I do not like liars like you and other alarmists. If you never stated any lies I would not even be here.
Sure but only having one maybe two a single time out of hundreds of authors total is not very significant. Its ad hominem anyway because at no point do you even look at their work
2007 had 1 out 450 LA.
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)