Death knell for AGW

[CDNBear]

there's this red-coloured text at the bottom of each page... something about, "Off-limits: Personal attacks". What does that mean to you and the rest of "the gang" around here?

Ahhh yes, now comes the whiny posts.

So you don't use the term denier as a pejorative?

I just noticed this board has a post ratings option and you guys are certainly going to town

Do I win a prize?

You guys? More dishonesty? Or are you just trying to oversell your pumped up self importance?

Dishonesty gets a thumbs down. Maybe you should try being honest.

 

[waldo]

Ahhh yes, now comes the whiny posts.

So you don't use the term denier as a pejorative?

You guys? More dishonesty? Or are you just trying to oversell your pumped up self importance?

Dishonesty gets a thumbs down. Maybe you should try being honest.

that's right; I stated the label denier is simply a matter-of-fact label. I don't view it as a pejorative labeling. You clearly take exception to its use/attachment... for someone who claims not to be a denier.... oh wait, is that your claim? I can't really determine your position since you're in heavy avoidance of a most simple and basic request; this request: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change."

 

[skookumchuck]

there's this red-coloured text at the bottom of each page... something about, "Off-limits: Personal attacks". What does that mean to you and the rest of "the gang" around here?

I just noticed this board has a post ratings option and you guys are certainly going to town

Do I win a prize?



I took the time and made the effort to provide the graphic/explanation. It was I that received a rather curt dismissive response in return. I could care less what you interpret.

ooohhh! Poor baby!

 

[waldo]

ooohhh! Poor baby!

hey! Whatever makes you feel relevant to the discussion.

 

[SLM]

I took the time and made the effort to provide the graphic/explanation. It was I that received a rather curt dismissive response in return. I could care less what you interpret.

So someone takes the time to actually posit a question to you, you slap up some graph you copied off a website, and now you're complaining that his response was dismissive.

I get that you're in the basement and all, but poke your head up now and then and learn how to talk to people.

there's this red-coloured text at the bottom of each page... something about, "Off-limits: Personal attacks". What does that mean to you and the rest of "the gang" around here?

Hey, maybe you should report it. With any luck maybe the guy who doesn't have the wherewithall to worship your graph will respond.

I just noticed this board has a post ratings option and you guys are certainly going to town

Do I win a prize?

The Biggest Loser? I don't know, you have some stiff competition.

 

[CDNBear]

that's right; I stated the label denier is simply a matter-of-fact label. I don't view it as a pejorative labeling. You clearly take exception to its use/attachment... for someone who claims not to be a denier.... oh wait, is that your claim? I can't really determine your position since you're in heavy avoidance of a most simple and basic request; this request: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change."

tsk tsk, still using dishonesty to avoid conceding to your error.

who/what claims there is but "just one" driver of climate change?

We already have this thread for you to post your brand of idiocy in. Don't go messing up the board, ok, pumpkin?

 

[waldo]

I get that you're in the basement and all, but poke your head up now and then and learn how to talk to people.

pot meet kettle, hey!

 

[SLM]

pot meet kettle, hey!

Oh I know how to talk to people. Arrogant little pin heads like yourself not so much. Well, to be honest it's not that I don't know how, I just simply don't care.

 

[Colpy]

that's right; I stated the label denier is simply a matter-of-fact label. I don't view it as a pejorative labeling. You clearly take exception to its use/attachment... for someone who claims not to be a denier.... oh wait, is that your claim? I can't really determine your position since you're in heavy avoidance of a most simple and basic request; this request: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change."

Arrogant little p rick, aren't you??

Post 2472

 

[waldo]

tsk tsk, still using dishonesty to avoid conceding to your error.

you claimed I incorrectly labeled you as a denier. I've asked you repeatedly to assert your acceptance... to deny your denial. Instead you play this silly-buggar game claiming dishonesty. You've been given multiple opportunities to clear this up; again: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change"

 

[CDNBear]

you claimed I incorrectly labeled you as a denier. I've asked you repeatedly to assert your acceptance... to deny your denial. Instead you play this silly-buggar game claiming dishonesty. You've been given multiple opportunities to clear this up; again: "Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change"

That's not how this works.

It's your claim to prove, if you can't you're just a liar.

 

[SLM]

Arrogant little p rick, aren't you??

See!!! What was I just saying.

 

[waldo]

Arrogant little pin heads like yourself

Arrogant little p rick, aren't you?

as I said when I first came on board... the low-brow level of discourse on this board is quite significant. Your comments and your inability to control your abuse/insult is quite telling. But then again, deniers gonna hate!

 

[CDNBear]

as I said when I first came on board... the low-brow level of discourse on this board is quite significant. Your comments and your inability to control your abuse/insult is quite telling. But then again, deniers gonna hate!

Pointing out facts, isn't hate, nor does that make one a "denier".

SLM, nor myself are "deniers", and we hold a similar opinion of you.

The problem is entirely at your end.

 

[SLM]

as I said when I first came on board... the low-brow level of discourse on this board is quite significant. Your comments and your inability to control your abuse/insult is quite telling. But then again, deniers gonna hate!

So now we're both deniers Bear! Interesting isn't it?

Seriously waldo, do you really believe you're the first person to walk in here with the attitude that you were going to set everyone straight? Do you not clue into perhaps that being the reason for the reaction you're getting? No, of course you wouldn't. Because, as Colpy has already noted, you are an arrogant little pr*ick.

If you'd actually like to know how to converse with someone on this topic, I'd recommend paying attention to Grain or Tonnington. They don't seem to be getting the same reaction as you do. Hmmm, wonder why that is?

 

[waldo]

That's not how this works.

It's your claim to prove, if you can't you're just a liar.

unless you unequivocally state that you accept anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions as the principal causal tie behind global warming/climate change you are a denier... you have a degree of denial. Again, it's a label; one not intended as a pejorative. It's simply a matter-of-fact labeling. It's quite simple. SImply confirm your denial or assert your acceptance: :Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change:

 

[CDNBear]

unless you unequivocally state that you accept anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions as the principal causal tie behind global warming/climate change you are a denier... you have a degree of denial. Again, it's a label; one not intended as a pejorative. It's simply a matter-of-fact labeling. It's quite simple. SImply confirm your denial or assert your acceptance: :Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change:

LOL, now you set the standards?

Bwaaahahahaha. Your dishonesty and arrogance, know no bounds.

I was so right about you, you are entertaining as hell. Thank you!!!!

 

[waldo]

The problem is entirely at your end.

then clear it up! Quit your silly-*** game and answer the request repeatedly put to you. Assert or deny... simple stuff. If you aren't a denier and state so within your answer I will most certainly apologize for the incorrect labeling.

LOL, now you set the standards?

Bwaaahahahaha. Your dishonesty and arrogance, know no bounds.

I was so right about you, you are entertaining as hell. Thank you!!!!

the standard??? Just how many ways are there to claim acceptance of AGW? Why continue your charade?

 

[CDNBear]

then clear it up! Quit your silly-*** game and answer the request repeatedly put to you. Assert or deny... simple stuff. If you aren't a denier and state so within your answer I will most certainly apologize for the incorrect labeling.

I don't have to. You don't get to dictate how the process works.

You made a claim, you can either support it, or retract it.

I know how sensitive you are and how fragile your ego is. So I can only imagine you'd rather eat glass than do so.

the standard??? Just how many ways are there to claim acceptance of AGW? Why continue your charade?

What charade?

 

[waldo]

Seriously waldo, do you really believe you're the first person to walk in here with the attitude that you were going to set everyone straight? Do you not clue into perhaps that being the reason for the reaction you're getting? No, of course you wouldn't. Because, as Colpy has already noted, you are an arrogant little pr*ick.

please calm yourself. I had no "walking-in-tude" or any expectation of setting everyone straight. I've simply responded to the posts I've received. If you truly think those posts have been open, receptive and accepting, you're not being honest yourself. As I already stated, apparently, you expect anyone new to this topic/discussion to come in and not challenge the 'denier status quo' around here. Yes, that's right... I have yet to read anything in this thread (since I've joined) from anyone that speaks to any degree of acceptance of AGW. Funny that, hey!

I don't have to

good on ya for continuing your silly-buggar routine. For your continued refusal to simply state your position on AGW, global warming and climate change. You categorically refuse to confirm your denial or assert your acceptance. Instead you're so fixed in your routine you refuse to answer the very questions that would clear up any uncertainly or confusion. I've offered to retract the label denier if it doesn't fit the response you provide to the request you continue to avoid; this request:

unless you unequivocally state that you accept anthropogenic sourced fossil-fuel emissions as the principal causal tie behind global warming/climate change you are a denier... you have a degree of denial. Again, it's a label; one not intended as a pejorative. It's simply a matter-of-fact labeling. It's quite simple. SImply confirm your denial or assert your acceptance: :Why not settle out your own very overt emotional stance and simply state what your position is on AGW, global warming, climate change: