Posted by Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?
Comments
-
immortalised on the Internet as The Guy Who Could Have Stopped Brad At Nuremberg
Delusions of grandeur? Check.
Persecution complex? Check.
Fantasy paraded as truth? Check.
complete lack of compunction? Check.Yup, you’re a psychotic.
-
“So that’ll be $75.”
Just for you, FINE!
Is that you manning up and volunteering? Yes? Please say yes.
-
Oops, wrong believalist.
Ooops, wrong.
Nah, you’re quite at home with wrong, aren’t you.
IPCC conspiracy? AGW a scam? Consensus proof of non-science? You’re all over the place but all firmly in the wrong-land.
And you’d have thought that someone who professed to have gone to university to learn philosophy would have know what theism/gnotsticism was all about.
But no, this scabby bollock of an idiot knows only the “populist” version of the meanings of these words.
Pretty firm proof that you either never did that university course or you missed all the lectures.
-
I’ve already answered three questions.
That’s $75 please.
-
Looks like we have a welcher, as Lotharson predicted.
-
Har har.
C’mon, I said I’d ask the One Minute Dead Easy Fast Money Climate Question to whoever was man enough to accept.
You haven’t accepted, EVEN THOUGH I’VE OFFERED TO TREBLE THE PRIZE MONEY FOR YOU, because we’re friends.
Come on, nominate yourself.
-
I could have answered a fourth, but I didn’t want to be missing $100 rather than merely $75.
-
I’ve already answered your question:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/01/january-2013-open-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-146010
but you asked two more. As opposed to leaving or paying $25.
I answered those too, but you still welched on your deal.
-
You on the other hand took your ball and racket and went to play on another court.
No, dear.
My previous extensive time commitment writing answers to Brad’s previous claims even though they were argued in rather bad faith, and which are essentially the same as his current claims, and then refusing to write them again at Brad’s demand is not “taking my ball and racket and going to play on another court”. Nor is it “bad sportsmanship”. My refusal is pointing out that Brad already lost that game but he’s trying to break the rules and have a do-over. You know, the actual bad sportsmanship indulged in by bad sports who don’t like the result the first time?
-
And Brat, you still didn’t say what the point of this “challenge” was.
-
Listen, while you half-men are faffing about in the mirror, working up the minimal courage needed to answer a dead simple fast money one minute question, allow me to publish in open view, for all posterity, the fine print of the suicidally generous ground rules!
1. As I said, it’s going to be a REMEDIALLY BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL question on a topic on which the average deltoid (and presumably you) routinely makes CONFIDENT assertions.
2. The answer (if you know it) can be written with LITTLE TO NO technical precision.
3. It is NOT a trick question.
4. You do NOT need to provide evidence in your answer.
If for whatever reason there’s any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there’s no reason why there should be if you know what you’re talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.
5. I am allowing you COPIOUS time for reading and typing.
Any questions? Anything you’d like to request to sweeten the deal, or just reassure you how bona-fide dead easy this fast money will be for anyone who knows what they’re talking about?
-
Uhm, when a congenital liar and confirmed idiot makes claims about how they can be trusted, why should we trust them this time?
I’ve already ANSWERED your question.
But you’re still here.
-
” we can argue about all that later, off the clock”
Which would require that you still be posting here.
In contravention to your blank assertion (which we have ample reason to believe is false) that you would leave.
-
“And Brat, you still didn’t say what the point of this “challenge” was.”
Wow! (In all senses of the ejaculation!) Another interested customer!
Oh, it’s the same interested customer.
Never mind—let me tell you the “point” of this special, never-to-be-repeated near-giveaway!
If you can answer the question,
1. I’ll make out a check PAYABLE TO WOW for $25—what? What am I talking about? Just for Wow, THREE TIMES THAT. Mates’ rates, and all.
2. I’ll self-Lewandowsky. Willingly. Without a further peep.
-
Never mind—let me tell you the “point” of this special, never-to-be-repeated near-giveaway!
Nope, still not getting your point.
All you’re doing is stating what you “promise” to do.
Not why you want to do it.
-
And it’s weird that you claim “never to be repeated” when I’ve answered three questions you demanded an answer to before paying up and going away.
And so far neither case has occurred.
-
“Uhm, when a congenital liar and confirmed idiot makes claims about how they can be trusted, why should we trust them this time?”
I’m glad you asked.
You shouldn’t trust me! Instead, a much better strategy would be to ACCEPT the challenge and ANSWER the elementary question, confident that (being a denialist weasel) I’ll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!
-
Try this:
Leave without a peep.
-
Instead, a much better strategy would be to ACCEPT the challenge and ANSWER the elementary question
ALREADY ANSWERED
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/01/01/january-2013-open-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-146010
-
” we can argue about all that later, off the clock”
Which would require that you still be posting here.”
Not at all. We can do it anywhere you elect. But you will of course have the perfect legal and moral right, should you choose, to republish at this site or wherever you like, for all the world to see, my Jesuitical bad-faith weaselling-out attempts, thus providing the first known evidence that deniers really are bad people, and becoming a minor celebrity among the believalist “intelligentsia”!
Or does that prospect not interest you?
-
I’ll denialistically try to weasel out of the deal, thus exposing myself as a denialist weasel for all the Internet to see!
a) We already KNOW you’re a denialist weasel.
b) And breaking the deal you’ll stay around and nobody gets the $25c) it’s already been answered, but you’re still here, still not admitting you’re a lying denialist idiot and still no dosh.
-
Why the hell are you spending so much time trying to get agreement to answer your questions when they’ve been answered and ignored many many times before and you’ve never once asked if you can ask a question?
-
Or, in Brat-speak:
Point?
-
@Wow, do you have kids?
I’m picturing them asking “Daddy/Mummy, can I ask you a question?”
and you replying, barely able to contain your smirk:
“Yes. Ha ha! YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION AND I ANSWERED IT! Question time over! You had your question! Lol! Lol!”
You have NOT accepted the challenge, and I have NOT asked you the One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Question.
When I said “the only question is, are you man enough to accept the challenge?” that was NOT the question.
(Sorry to spell it out as one would to, you know, a child, but that’s how you’re behaving, Mister Dad Humour.)
-
So far, not ONE of you brave deltoids has put his hand up.
Listen, since it was clearly unrealistic to expect the slightest courage from any of you, I’m going to make it an OPEN QUESTION.
ANYONE CAN ANSWER AND CLAIM THE PRIZE.
Ready? …. (actually, it doesn’t matter if any of you lilylivered homunculi are ready…)
Set….
-
Another question to answer that
a) won’t shut you up
b) won’t get you to pay out“Yes. Ha ha! YOU ASKED ME A QUESTION AND I ANSWERED IT! Question time over! You had your question! Lol! Lol!”
Where?
You have NOT accepted the challenge, and I have NOT asked you the One Minute Dead Simple Fast Money Climate Question
Yes you did. It was
“Are you that person with half a brain?”.
To which the answer, easy, no evidence, no need to know the science, since I have both hemispheres of my brain, “No”.
But you’re still here, still posting shit, still complaining, still not paying out.
And that, frankly, is why nobody else has bothered answering your question.
Because there’s no point to doing so.
-
Bloody hell, this retard has a serious ego problem.
-
slightest courage
What on earth are you wibbling on about, idiot?
The Royal Marines don’t test the mettle of their new recruits by asking them to answer a question.
The problem is your humongous ego that thinks that any pronouncement from you is going to be earth-shatteringly incisive and change the world forever.
Look at the bloody “Siegfried & Roy” -esqu song and dance about the entire sorry idea.
-
When I said “the only question is, are you man enough to accept the challenge?” that was NOT the question.
That is a question you asked.
If you meant a different one, you should have asked it.
But I guess you’re running off to the rest of the call centre group to find out if anyone has a zinger they can get you to ask here.
-
PS: the answer to that question would be “Yes”.
-
“The only question is:
Are you that person with half a brain?”
That certainly reads like you’re saying it’s your question.
-
What is it with retired engineers and astronauts?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html
Need Another Seven Astronauts didn’t teach them that they better look for problems rather than paper over them and hope for the best?
-
Will this cause anyone in power to listen, though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos
-
Tim, the above 8 comments are what your blog looks like without me. An earnest monologue by a total wowser.
-
Blundering Keystone dribbled:
Tim, the above 8 comments are what your blog looks like without me. An earnest monologue by a total wowser.
Yawn.
-
@Lionel, yeah, tell me about it.
-
@Lionel, do you reckon Wow even knows how soporific he is? I’ve often had cause to question his level of insight.
-
I must admit, his actual question was very much a let-down.
After the bloody drum-roll before it, you’d have thought he’d gotten at least a relevant query.
-
Maybe the newest troll idiot has been busy over here:
-
Meanwhile on warming here is something that even Duff should be able to grasp: Climate Outlook for 2013 with Jeff Masters and Others. Pay particular attention to the section starting at 3:54.
-
Well you’re in luck Wow because (as was obvious to everybody on this website but you) I HAVEN’T ASKED IT.
-
Here’s an announcement I know many of you have been waiting for, especially Wow, even if nobody around here in the past 4 hours had the courage-of-their-convictions to accept this Challenge personally.
Therefore, out of boredom, I’m just gonna throw it open. I’ll put it out there and see who first responds.
Here ya go, the free-for-all edition of the Money Where Your Mouth Is Challenge!
Now, as many of you seem to think you know, I’m a “serial denialist.”
If you haven’t met me, let me give you some idea of where I am on the climate-debate spectrum.
Al Pacino (or was it Tim Ball?) once said, “Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!” If I were the yelling type, I think that’d be an eminently defensible viewpoint to yell.
@bill put it a bit like this, I think: “you’re a fucking anti-environmentalist serial denier!”
(Lol! No, bill, seriously—we love ya.)
With me so far? I’m what the median deltoid would call a “serial denialist”, OK?
However, the people who call us that kind of name are delusional religious fanatics who have no idea anymore what they’re talking about.
How do I know this?
Because the first believalist who submits an answer to my Challenge is gonna get it wrong.
So, what is the big question/challenge/test?
Since youse are fond of telling me I’m a serial denialist,
************************************
name a “series” of (3 or more) different scientific theories that I deny.
************************************Yes yes, I know, I put it in the imperative, not the interrogative, so save your breath if you were planning on being “smart” and saying “That’s not a Dead Easy Fast Money Question, it’s a Dead East Fast Money Command!” (Yeah, I know that. Shut up.)
In view of the uncontrolled litigiousness of certain commenters, THE ALL-BINDING “FINE” PRINT is as follows:
* (Only) the first answer y’all come up with counts. Whoever of y’all nards up first is y’all’s representative, champion or what not.
(So if you know you don’t know, don’t ruin it for everyone else by guessing! Then all y’all losers will lose, like the losers y’all are! Nah, just kidding. In all seriousness, I’ve met several a good human being at deltoid, even among the true believers. They know who they are.)
* The prize is: Whoever the responder is, if they get it right, I’ll recuse myself from wasting any more time at Tim’s blog!!
* I’ll also throw in, in case anyone cares:
$75 if Wow is the answerer and gets it right. (Mates’ rates. Sorry all you non-Wows.)
$25 if anyone else answers instead and gets it right.
If you’re the Answerer…
* you can’t name theories (like “just above the ionosphere is a Unicorn Layer”), which you yourself don’t believe.
* to put it another way, you gotta name 3 theories you yourself don’t deny. Like what? Well, like continental drift. (I don’t deny that either—it’s just an example.)
* in other words, you have to be willing to publicly stand by the theories you name, just so the whole Internet can see that you actually believe in them. And then, if I say the theory is wrong, I’m a denier of it, and that’s 1 point for you!
* as implied above, you need to get 3 or more points to win the Challenge.
* you can’t win multiple points by naming *clearly related* theories or subtheories of the same theory—so for instance, there’d be no point in parsing the theory of the carcenogenicity of tobacco into component “theories,” like this…
1. smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma of the left lung.
2. smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma of the right lung.
3. smoking greatly increases the risk of never-detected carcinoma of one or both lungs which leads to a “met” in another organ.Etc. etc.
… because a manoeuvre like that is NOT worth more than one point.
(You wouldn’t actually win any points for that example, because I agree with all of those statements. I reckon tobacco pushers should share a cell with Mann.)
* having said that, parsing a single theory into its component “theories” as in the example I’ve just given is fine if you need to clarify what a theory you name actually entails. (Mind you, if I don’t know what the heck one of the theories you name means, I’m probably not a denier of it, am I?)
* surely you’d agree that we Denialists have a proud and rich culture, with diverse interests which oughtn’t just be stereotyped as “climate denying.” That’s reductionist and, frankly, a little offensive. There’s so much more to us as human beings than climate contrarianism! So only 1 point (total) is available for any and all climate-change-based guesses. You can think of other stuff, surely.
* you can guess more than 3 theories if you want, but don’t just randomly name a whole list of them, because if you name more than 3, you’ll LOSE 1 point for every wrong guess. (Fair, right?)
* Second last, not to put pressure on you or anything, but this is the first and best opportunity your faith-group has had to collectively nard up, as it were, and SUBSTANTIATE the idiotic tenet about “serial deniers.”
* Lastly, for all the jibes I’ve aimed at you losers collectively over the last few days, the person who actually has the guts to be the answerer of the challenge will thereby earn some serious R.E.S.P.E.C.T. from me for attempting, for the first time in Internet history, to actually subsantiate the myth of “serial denialism”… whether or not I otherwise think much of said person.
In other words, I am NOT going to be a denialist meanie to whichever of y’all has the guts to try to pass the Challenge.
-
Godspeed, and
… Go!
-
Well you’re in luck Wow because (as was obvious to everybody on this website but you) I HAVEN’T ASKED IT.
How the hell would we know???
You spent ages doing fuck all then proclaimed grandly: I will make it an open question. Ready… Steady…
Then your next post ends with a question.
Apparently you don’t know what you’re doing any more than the rest of us do.
-
“name a “series” of (3 or more) different scientific theories that I deny.”
Why 3?
-
BK What a prolix load of bollix.
Yawn. Zzzzz.
-
More education for the Duffers: Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices
-
It’s a pretty pathetic question, isn’t it.
CO2′s effects on ocean acidification
CO2′s effects on the climate
climate changes’ effects on human civilisation -
@Wow,
THOSE AREN”T THEORIES, they’re phrases, so I’m gonna be extremely charitable and ignore that attempt.
So the challenge is STILL OPEN, everyone—and I suggest that the next person NOT be like Wow.
I suggest that the next person think before typing.
-
@Wow, to help you along, a THEORY would be something like:
“THAT climate change HAS effects on human civilisation.”
Is that what you meant?
I’m happy to take that as a valid attempt (right or wrong) if that’s what you meant.
But as a general rule of thumb for you Wow, if you can’t put it as a clause starting with “THAT”, it probably isn’t a theory, dude.
-
@Wow, I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but in retrospect, did my examples of theories confuse you?
For instance when I called this a “theory”:
“smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma”
I was talking about the theory THAT smoking greatly increases the risk of carcinoma.
Is this a bit clearer now?
Likewise, when I referred to “the theory of the carcenogenicity of tobacco”, this was shorthand for “the theory THAT tobacco IS carcinogenic.”
Making sense?
-
I’m happy to help you out (and I genuinely see that there are all sorts of opportunities for misunderstanding, which doesn’t make you stupid or anything like that) because the LAST thing I want is for you to lose the challenge on some silly technicality.
I want you to lose because you’re hopelessly deluded when you call people “denialists.”
Not because you missed some little technical nuance or rule!
-
“THOSE AREN”T THEORIES, they’re phrases”
You have to use phrases to state a theory.
Without them, you have grunts and pointing.
Which is about your level.
But one thing is for certain, you didn’t fuck off like you said you would.
-
“I want you to lose because you’re hopelessly deluded when you call people “denialists.””
You’re hopelessly deluded.
And still here.
-
Y’know folks, I’d guess if invasive stinkweed could talk or type, it would come across a lot like Brad here.
“Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!”
Hmmm, how many degrees of separation from CEI there?
-
From Wow’s link, Lord Stern, saying that in retrospect he underestimated the risks of a four (or even five) degree rise in his earlier report says “Do we want to play Russian roulette with two bullets or one? These risks for many people are existential.”
The new president of the World Bank – an organisation that is anything but a bastion of dirty leftie pinko greenie latte drinking vegan save the whale types – said “action was needed to create a carbon market, eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies and “green” the world’s 100 megacities, which are responsible for 60 to 70% of global emissions”. And he wasn’t talking about action over the next five years, not waiting until we get more data or more certainty.
But wait, wait…wasn’t one of our resident trolls proclaiming just the other day that no-one believes there’s a problem any more?
-
“But one thing is for certain, you didn’t fuck off like you said you would.”
Because you didn’t even name three theories, Wow.
Also, I’m sorry for being so harsh on your attempt.
Attention, World Wide Web.
Whatever imperfections Wow may have as a person, he/she certainly does not suffer from a deficit of intellectual courage, as far as I can tell from the present encounter. Wow had the guts to try to answer the question, when nobody else did (or while they were still thinking—we’ll never know, I guess.)
Wow, I expect you’ll think I’m disingenuous here, but I really am interested in your answer, so please take a couple of minutes to REPHRASE your guesses properly, AS THEORIES, and when you do so I’ll be happy to confirm/deny, in full view of the entire web, the theories you’ve named.
-
It’s not that he underestimated the risks of 4+C warming but that the risk of 2C warming was underestimated so that it became moot and therefore he should have
a) been a lot firmer and blunter about the risks
b) moved on to the risk of 4C, since a 2C rise was pretty much moot. -
Hmmm, how many degrees of separation from CEI there?
I’m more concerned about the separation from reality.
Which makes his challenge all the more amusing – if he’s actually in denial of a theory (to himself as well as to other), and given that he spends most of his time veering from disingenuous through outright mendacious to flat-out lying and back again, why would anyone think he would own up to being in denial?
-
@chek,
““Michael Mann should go straight to fucking jail!””
I said this to remove any suspicion that I might be a, I dunno, faux denier or something. Just to make you utterly sure that I wasn’t planning to say: “Aha! I believe all the things you people believe, I was just posing as a climate apathist for lolz!”
I really really AM on the opposite side of the climate debate.
I’m glad you don’t need any further convincing on that count.
-
Worse is the World Foods CEO who opined that AGW was not as bad as it seemed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/18/whole-foods-ceo-climate-change-bad
And it may be that nincompoop that Lord Stern was aiming at.
Mind you, the stupid barnturd “has form” for Randian self-serving asshattery:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/us-news-blog/2013/jan/18/whole-foods-john-mackey-fascist
He’s fine, so damn everyone else.
-
Erk, sorry for the unclosed bold tags!
-
“why would anyone think he would own up to being in denial?”
If you name a theory I think is BS, I’m hardly going to pretend I agree with it, @Lotharsson.
Sometimes I think you don’t know me at all.
*sad*
-
In comments at SkS, H. Leighton Steward, spokesperson for
the “NASA scientists” (“many of whom have Ph.D.s” – which means that some of them are definitely not research scientists!) is identified as a director of the company formerly known as Enron which famously defrauded consumers by manipulating energy markets.And comment #14 has a link to Ridley via an argument similar to one Ridley used in the WSJ.
-
Yeah, Whole Foods is a pretty great store (although it’s nickname of “Whole Paycheck” is well deserved), but if I still lived in the US I’d think twice about shopping there whilst that dickhead is CEO.
-
If you name a theory I think is BS, I’m hardly going to pretend I agree with it, @Lotharsson.
And if you think there are three accepted scientific theories that you are in denial of, you could just name them instead of playing the Drama Queen.
And as I implied, evidence strongly suggests that asserting that you are right about something even in the face of strong counter-evidence is far more important to you than being right about it. Acknowledging you are in denial of a well accepted theory is acknowledging that you are most likely wrong, so I don’t think it very likely that you would be honest about that.
Almost all of your interactions here are disingenuous and/or apparently designed to appease an overwhelming need for attention, any attention – and yet you (apparently) wonder why people aren’t interesting in playing your games.
-
Et tu Lotharsson?
I half-thought you’d be the one with the balls to answer the challenge.
Not for the first time, I’ve overestimated you.
-
Over an hour later, none of you contemptible worms (with the exception of Wow, who doesn’t know what a theory is), has the courage to answer a simple fucking question.
Having spent years calling non-catastrophists “serial deniers of science”, you’re now expending hundreds of words chickening out of telling me WHAT SERIES OF SCIENTIFIC IDEAS I DENY.
You people (with the exception of Wow) are sad little liars, aren’t you?
-
You demanded an answer to the question. No research was necessary you said.
Then you’d fuck off, you said.
But you didn’t.
Did you.
Because you’re a compulsive liar.
-
D’oh! Forgot to add the LOLZ…
Dear alarmist readers, please insert the following addenda wherever you see fit in the preceding message in which I mocked your risible religion….
:-]
-
So you’re in denial about denial.
figures.
-
The interesting thing about the (unspecified this time round) “NASA scientists” is that the ‘arguments’ are the same old same old easily refuted nonsense. H. Leighton Steward must be quite the salesman, with the denier store being as threadbare as it is.
-
“You demanded an answer to the question.”
ZOMG…
So answer it, retard!
THREE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES fitting the conditions of the challenge!
I knew you’d flail around pitifully like a victim of St Vitus’ Dance, but I badly underestimated your stamina!
You guys are true dancing queens.
lol…
-
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.
Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions or effects.
Has no disagreement with a consensus from evidence being scientific.
Has no disagreement with the world’s science academies who have made statements on the evidence for AGW being conclusive of its reality.
Has no problem with sea level rise being a fact or a result of AGW and melting of the land ice.
Has no problem with the evidence of acidification of the oceans.
Has no problem with the increasing melt of the north polar ice, nor its ties to AGW warming.
Has no disagreement with the MWP not being global, nor the LIA being long past and recovered.
-
“THREE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES fitting the conditions of the challenge!”
And I answered it.
You even agreed it was answered.
But still you’re here.
So, like you said, you’ve demonstrated to the entire internet that you’re a lying denialist weasel.
-
I’m not a denier of science, and your decorticate seizures when asked a straight question are eloquent proof that you know you’re caught.
LOL.
So this is how cults end!
-
You have no disagreement with Mann’s paleoclimate reconstruction.
No grief with the Hockey Stick.
No avowed disagreement with the global climate models predictions.
No stated issue with the requirements to change the future course of AGW.
-
“I’m not a denier of science”
We called you, correctly, a DENIER.
-
Sorry, lying denialist weasel.
(it is necessary not to use just “weasel” as this is a mortal insult to weaselkind)
-
Sigh… I should get paid for schooling you Wow. You’re really stretching the goodwill I conceded to you for having the balls, if not the brains, for the challenge.
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
“The science” is not a theory.
But no.
Score: -1
Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.
I don’t disagree with ANY data.
I’m not even sure it’s neurologically possible to disagree with data.
You’re really struggling to name a THEORY, aren’t you Wow?
(Remember the rule of thumb I gratuitously gave you?)
I’ll be nice and not count this particular guess.
“Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions”
Could you be a bit vaguer? Your wording isn’t quite weaselly enough either.
“or effects.”
Of AGW? Is that what you’re struggling to say?
No, I “agree with” [?!] the effects! Which are warming of the globe, and, er, decrease in coolness of the sphere, thawing of the orb….
what else….
hmm.
Anyway, so far: -2 points.
“Has no disagreement with a consensus from evidence being scientific.”
Again….
that isn’t a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?
ROFL!
“Has no disagreement with the world’s science academies who have made statements on the evidence for AGW being conclusive of its reality.”
No, I agree that those academies. I mean, I agree that they who have made. I mean, I agree that they academies, who have made statements, are statements that the …
ah, fuck it, you’re going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.
This is one Wally about whose where I know not.
I’ll even wait til you transform it into a well-formed response to the challenge before I take away a point for being wrong.
“Has no problem with sea level rise being a fact or a result of AGW and melting of the land ice.”
No, I’m not aware of having such a problem.
Score: -3
“Has no problem with the evidence of acidification of the oceans.”
No.
I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.
Happy?
You shouldn’t be, because you just lost another point.
Score: -4
Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?
Do you realise that you’ve lost 4 points on a section of the challenge that was worth, at absolute maximum, ONE POINT?
Now THAT”S impressive.
You’ve already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.
Lol.
Wow, is it really necessary to finish this humiliation of you?
-
It’s not necessary to apologize to the mustelidae, Wow, because they can’t read what you wrote about me.
I, on the other hand, do have a metaphor I should apologize for drawing.
It was ableist, insensitive and IQ-supremacist of me to call you “a retard,” and I retract it without reservation, since many retards can read and would rightly feel short-changed.
-
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
“The science” is not a theory.
But no.
No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?
Because you haven’t disagreed with the science behind AGW, have you?
If so, where?
And I didn’t call “the science” as the theory. I called the science behind AGW is the theory.
And therefore are you saying no to something that you don’t know about?
If so, how do you know it’s wrong, when you don’t even know what it is?
So score: -3 to you.
I don’t disagree with ANY data.
Really?
Then you should learn about how to do an experiment and analyse the results.
Score: -4 to you.
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.
Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions or effects.
Being responded with:
Could you be a bit vaguer?
Score -5 to you.
And a ROFL.
that isn’t a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?
Who’s talking about a theory about nature?
Not me.
I’m talking about the science of AGW that you have never yet stated disagreement with any part of it.
Score -6 to you.
you’re going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.
Repeat failure to read. Score -7.
Never said that the agreement was a scientific theory.
It’s a fact, not a theory.
Do you know what the difference is between facts and theories?
Apparently not.
Make that score -8 to you.
No, I’m not aware of having such a problem.
Score: -3
So I get a -1 score for saying something you agree with???
Score -9 to you.
I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.
Is that the royal “we” or the schizoid nutter multiple-personality “we”?
And again, you need to read up on how to do an experiment and draw conclusions from it.
Score -10 to you.
Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?
What fine print?
I’m just summing up the facts.
You have not stated disagreement or refusal to acknowledge the items listed above.
Score -11 to you.
You’ve already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.
I’m not trying to make a scoring point, Brat.
Score -12 to you.
And one of those “lost points” is one point lost for saying something you just agreed with, so is actually 3 points lost.
Score -13 to you.
Pretty poor score. And possibly an unlucky number, too.
-
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
“The science” is not a theory.
But no.
No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?
Because you haven’t disagreed with the science behind AGW, have you?
If so, where?
And I didn’t call “the science” as the theory. I called the science behind AGW is the theory.
And therefore are you saying no to something that you don’t know about?
If so, how do you know it’s wrong, when you don’t even know what it is?
So score: -3 to you.
I don’t disagree with ANY data.
Really?
Then you should learn about how to do an experiment and analyse the results.
Score: -4 to you.
So Brat agrees (or doesn’t disagree) with the science behind AGW.
Doesn’t disagree with the data showing it.
Doesn’t disagree with the conclusions or effects.
Being responded with:
Could you be a bit vaguer?
Score -5 to you.
And a ROFL.
that isn’t a THEORY ABOUT NATURE, IS IT, YOU IMBECILE?
Who’s talking about a theory about nature?
Not me.
I’m talking about the science of AGW that you have never yet stated disagreement with any part of it.
Score -6 to you.
you’re going to have to tell me where the scientific theory is in that one.
Repeat failure to read. Score -7.
Never said that the agreement was a scientific theory.
It’s a fact, not a theory.
Do you know what the difference is between facts and theories?
Apparently not.
Make that score -8 to you.
No, I’m not aware of having such a problem.
Score: -3
So I get a -1 score for saying something you agree with???
Score -9 to you.
I hereby declare, in view of the entire world wide we that comfortable with all forms of evidence.
Is that the royal “we” or the schizoid nutter multiple-personality “we”?
And again, you need to read up on how to do an experiment and draw conclusions from it.
Score -10 to you.
Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?
What fine print?
I’m just summing up the facts.
You have not stated disagreement or refusal to acknowledge the items listed above.
Score -11 to you.
You’ve already LOST 4 points in an attempt to gain ONE.
I’m not trying to make a scoring point, Brat.
Score -12 to you.
And one of those “lost points” is one point lost for saying something you just agreed with, so is actually 3 points lost.
Score -13 to you.
Pretty poor score. And possibly an unlucky number, too.
-
“No to you do disagree with it, or no to AGW not being a scientific theory?”
No to I do disagree with it. No, I don’t disagree with it.
AGW IS a theory.
With which I don’t disagree. So yes, it wouldn’t be true to say I didn’t agree with it.
That’s where you lost your point.
The first one.
Before haemorrhaging another three points. Why, why didn’t you listen to Tropic Thunder, Wow?
Oh, and speaking of your theory (which I can honestly say is genuinely novel, and I hope the Nobel Prize committee is reading this site) that every assertion magically implies an assertion to the contrary…
Would you mind doing another quick whine about how you’re not now, nor have you ever been, a Full Retard?
Why?
Oh, no reason. Just my private amusement.
-
@Wow, getting desperate now, says:
“Wow, did you read THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT?
What fine print?”
The fine print that followed the bit where I said “here follows THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”.
Or do you DENY seeing it?
Do you DENY the existence of the “ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”, which I labeled as such (i.e. as THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”)?
Are you in denial, poor diddum?
-
And Wow, it doesn’t make a third of a turd’s difference whether you read the fine print following the line that said “here follows the ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”,
because even under the Full-Retard-friendly terms ABOVE the fine print, you still failed comically to get the necessary points.
(Remind me, did you even score one positive point? Did you get a single thing right?)
-
The fine print that followed the bit where I said “here follows THE ALL-BINDING FINE PRINT”
So not even you can find the fine print you put there.
-
“No to I do disagree with it. No, I don’t disagree with it.
AGW IS a theory.
With which I don’t disagree. So yes, it wouldn’t be true to say I didn’t agree with it.
That’s where you lost your point. ”
So when I said you didn’t disagree with AGW, I lost a point.
But then that means losing points means I was accurate.
So losing 4 points means accurate four times.
-
What necessary points?
The points I made were all the points of how you’ve never disagreed with the IPCC, climate science, or the evidence for AGW.
Why do I need to win points here?
-
If for whatever reason there’s any ambiguity or borderline-ness to your answer (and there’s no reason why there should be if you know what you’re talking about) or if I’m cowardly, pathetic and disingenuous enough to try to hem and haw my way out of acknowledging your correctness, we can argue about all that later, off the clock.
So argue off the clock.
For which I choose: nowhere.
Now shut up, lying weasel denier.
-
Well, Jeff had a sort of a go at answering my question as to why CO2 emissions had gone steadily up but global temps had not. His answer was:
“because of temporal lags in cause-and-effect relationships due to the scales involved. This means that lags between emissions and global temperatures can take 10-20-30 years to be realized or even longer.”
Slight technical and logical problem there, Jeff. You see the **increases** in CO2 emissions have been virtually constant in their steady **increase** from 1965 = 11689.4 up to 2011 = 34032.7.
As you would be the first to say, correlation is not causation but given that global temps appeared to be constantly on the up into the ’90s it would certainly justify a hard look for a definite causation. But alas, for the last 15 years temps have flattened but emissions have continued to rise.
Nothing is certain in this irritating world of ours, as you are finding out the hard way. All we can do is continue gathering the information and trying to draw some sound conclusions. I don’t even mind if there are some highly speculative conclusions – just so long as they are labelled as such!
I will end – you will be relieved to see – by offering you a ray of hope. Almost certainly global temps will rise again because that, you see, is their nature – they are constantly up and down like a whore’s drawers. I **suspect** – I can put it no firmer – that we are now entering a cooling period, but don’t worry, that will end in due course and then we’ll be back to warming.
But, please, please, next time don’t make such a fuss about it.
-
Sorry, duff, but since your maths is incapable of even simple division, your assertions have no basis in reality.
Please try using real things, not imagination.
-
Emitted CO2 has gone from 365ppm in 1998 to 390ppm in 2011.
That is not a one third increase.
-
I beg to differ Lotharsson,
by your own definition you definitely did a flounce.
You even complained to the umpire when you changed courts.
It would be like Murray moving off to another court and serving at an empty space and then claiming victory.
For Wow’s edumication that was me developing an analogy by way of a simile.
BTW Lotharsson, this looks very different to your comment when I drew attention to the amount of time & energy you expend here.
You finally have an adversary who is happy to play semantics with you.
What’s your problem?
BTW, cheap shot on the Climate4you info.
No evidence Lotharsson!
Just making a sneering comment is just making a sneering comment. -
again, chubby, your track record of seeing what you’d like to be there rather than what is ensures your opinion on objective reality remains unreliable at best.
-
PS just because climate4you is a crank site, extremely easy to verify AS a crank site and indeed fairly REVELS in being a crank site, pointing this out is not a cheap shot, merely an extremely easy factual statement.
But you don’t like those facts.
Just imagine them away, chubby.
-
Wow,
Try to actually discuss the issue rather than being totally obtuse.
One minute you make totally ridiculous assertions and the next you’re nitpicking and deliberately conflating someone else’s simple posts.
IOW you’re only interested in being a smart alec.
I think you’re doing way more to help what you would call ‘deniers’.
Are you sure you’re not a self employed undercover agent for ‘the other side’ ? -
Yes, exactly, imagine those terrible facts out of the way and all will be well with you.
Everyone else will think you’re a nutter, but sanity is a one-trick pony, isn’t it, whilst if you’re nuts, the sky is the limit, right?
Mind you, amusing that you complain about not discussing the topic (what topic? you had none), being obtuse (yeah, professional opinion, practically) or wanting solely to be a smart alec (dear, being smarter than you IS a criminal act, isn’t it, ducky).
Awww.
-
Go on, click your heels together and chant:
There’s no place like WUWT
There’s no place like WUWT
There’s no place like WUWT -
Goodness me Wow!
I have got you pictured all tangled up in knots in front of an overheating computer.
What on earth are you trying to say?
It is very clear that you don’t like being questioned about either your comments or statements of belief.
Your use of words/phrases/assertions like ‘crank site’ are spectacularly meaningless unless you provide EVIDENCE.
This site also gets called a ‘crank site’ Wow.
That is also meaningless.
Mind you, your tendency to spray irrelevancies and invective could earn you (as in the entity Wow who comments at deltoid) the title of a ‘crank blogger’.
Your assertion that
a) Climate4you REVELS in being a crank site and
b) That people chant ditties about WUWT
are both pretty crank like
January 27, 2013
January 27, 2013
January 27, 2013
January 27, 2013
January 27, 2013
January 27, 2013