How the GW myth is perpetuated

[taxslave]

it's clear you, taxi and daBear have absolutely no interest in conversing on the GW/AGW/CC subject... because you can't; you haven't the basic wherewithal to do so. Instead, we get you chuckleheads forever dropping into threads and recycling your nothingness! Clearly, you don't like your lil' clubhouse ruffled! :lol:

Actually we have pretty much discussed the issue to death. Just that you are a johnnycomelately that refuses to read past posts before regurgitating much of what has already been discussed. Now if you could come up with some new ideas on cutting emissions/cleaning up the environment that does not include destroying our economy or involve massive transfers of wealth from have to have not countries we would be much more interested

 

[waldo]

Actually we have pretty much discussed the issue to death. Just that you are a johnnycomelately that refuses to read past posts before regurgitating much of what has already been discussed.

ah yes... your fav go-to! It's where you guys perpetually play out your preconceived notions... which, apparently, no one can actually question/challenge... cause "it's all been discussed to death"... says you! :mrgreen:

 

[CDNBear]

it's clear you, taxi and daBear have absolutely no interest in conversing on the GW/AGW/CC subject... because you can't; you haven't the basic wherewithal to do so. Instead, we get you chuckleheads forever dropping into threads and recycling your nothingness! Clearly, you don't like your lil' clubhouse ruffled! :lol:

And yet I've been conversing with Ton about it for quite sometime.

It would appear the problem is at your end.

whaaa! "Gish Gallop"!!!

Yes, Gish Gallop.

I guess it's for you to play that silly-card then actually address my reply, hey!

There was nothing of any substance to address. Just two cut-n-pastes and your opinion about meme's and stuff. Woohoo! Good stuff.

 

[waldo]

They do. C&P f-ckwads come and go. Your just the latest.

you still smarting from your big-time glacier melting blow-up... you know, where your sources blew-up on you, real good!

There was nothing of any substance to address. Just two cut-n-pastes and your opinion about meme's and stuff. Woohoo! Good stuff.

a linked paper, quotation from it... and a related graphic! And, preceding that, a high-level assessment on the state of mainstream media limitations in properly conveying scientific information to the layperson. Nothing of substance, hey? :mrgreen: Rather... substance you choose not to address because it messes with your pre/misconceptions!

of course I could have chosen to play your silly-buggar routine... I could have responded to your initial post with some juvenile taunt and declared your post "nothing of substance". I didn't do that... no, I respected your post and replied to it with a meaningful contribution... whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not!

 

[petros]

you still smarting from your big-time glacier melting blow-up... you know, where your sources blew-up on you, real good!

1745 papers on alpine glacial fluctuations but you ignore everything scientific and C&P tripe from the IPCC bible.

I wouldn't expect more from a drywaller.

 

[waldo]

1745 papers on alpine glacial fluctuations but you ignore everything scientific and C&P tripe from the IPCC bible.

your first linked paper blew up on you with a direct attribution to atmospheric warming... from there you chose to link to an earlier paper (from the same authors, no less), thinking it gave you "sunspot cover". Unfortunately, for you, that paper also blew-up on your claim. Now, if you persist in your backpedaling cya act here, I will take great pleasure in quoting you from 3 papers from those same authors... yes, 3! I'll add you in one of my own that I found. The summary findings from your chosen authors will reinforce that your nonsensical "sunspot theory" has nothing to do with the relatively recent warming of the last century, with particular attention to the last ~50 years or so.

 

[CDNBear]

Nothing of substance, hey?

Correct, nothing of substance.

:mrgreen: Rather... substance you choose not to address because it messes with your pre/misconceptions!

What pre/misconceptions would those be?

That's a serious question, as it goes hand in hand with many allegations you've made.

of course I could have chosen to play your silly-buggar routine...

You mean you aren't playing silly bugger, what we see here is your natural state?

Wow.

I could have responded to your initial post with some juvenile taunt and declared your post "nothing of substance".

It was nice of you to stop doing that. It has become a bit boring and all.

I didn't do that... no, I respected your post and replied to it with a meaningful contribution...

You spelled meaningless wrong.

whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not!

I acknowledged it, and gave it the lack of respect it warranted.

 

[petros]

your first linked paper blew up on you with a direct attribution to atmospheric warming... from there you chose to link to an earlier paper (from the same authors, no less), thinking it gave you "sunspot cover". Unfortunately, for you, that paper also blew-up on your claim. Now, if you persist in your backpedaling cya act here, I will take great pleasure in quoting you from 3 papers from those same authors... yes, 3! I'll add you in one of my own that I found. The summary findings from your chosen authors will reinforce that your nonsensical "sunspot theory" has nothing to do with the relatively recent warming of the last century, with particular attention to the last ~50 years or so.

I posted the NRC link. Did you miss it while C&Ping from the IPCC bible?

 

[waldo]

What pre/misconceptions would those be?

you know... the one's in the graphic you tried to flog as being "mainstream scientific findings"... those ones! Of course, you're wildly distracting from that now since I chose to single out one of your misconceptions... "the 70s Global Cooling meme".

I posted the NRC link. Did you miss it while C&Ping from the IPCC bible?

within the exchange in question, I didn't quote a thing from the IPCC - why fabricate? Again, your own chosen authors/papers negate your sunspot claim... clearly, you should have actually read what you linked to and quoted from, right?

I wouldn't expect more from a drywaller.

hey now... didn't you get your pee-pee slapped for this juvenile play of yours? Are you willing to go there, yet again? Is that your regular go-to fall-back when your're so flustered?

 

[CDNBear]

you know...

No I don't.

So what are my pre/misconceptions?

I won't address the rest of your post beyond pointing out it's simply more or your imagination and lacking any substance.

 

[captain morgan]

what's laughable is you thinking my azz has been handed to me...

There are more people on these boards that have handed you your a s s so often, you'll be needing a surgeon to reattach

I just provided an example of the 'evidence' you're speaking to; in this case 'evidence' that addresses the item singled out... the fallacy of the "70s Global Cooling meme". Nice distraction with your attempted labeling derail.

The huge irony here in the fallacy of the 1970s global cooling theme is that is exactly what we are seeing.

The greentards go it right back then, albeit for all the wrong reasons... Now, your cult is adrift in the oceans of logic and don't know where to turn anymore

 

[waldo]

So what are my pre/misconceptions?

in the context of your original post that set this most immediate discussion forward... already asked and answered; again:

you know... the one's in the graphic you tried to flog as being "mainstream scientific findings"... those ones! Of course, you're wildly distracting from that now since I chose to single out one of your misconceptions... "the 70s Global Cooling meme".

 

[waldo]

There are more people on these boards that have handed you your a s s so often, you'll be needing a surgeon to reattach

no - none to-date... no matter how hard you try to make shyte up!

The huge irony here in the fallacy of the 1970s global cooling theme is that is exactly what we are seeing.

no - there is no "global cooling"... no matter how hard your denier-self keeps insisting there is.

 

[CDNBear]

in the context of your original post that set this most immediate discussion forward... already asked and answered; again:

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[CDNBear]

no matter how hard you try to make shyte up!

Something else, though you employ it ad nauseum, you don't have a patent on.

 

[waldo]

I did? Are you saying the NRC didn't publish a viable paper?

I don't recall the specific paper you're speaking to... enlighten me? More pointedly, you trot out these fringe plays as if they hold weight/substance/dominance in the real world. Your pet theories are exactly that... your pet theories.

 

[petros]

It's the one you keep going off about being a fail.

 

[CDNBear]

nobody?

In your defence, I care what you have to say, albeit in a mildly entertaining manner while I wait for the likes of MHz, Goreby and other assorted nutters to come online. So ya, you do have a place, way way way down the list.

 

[SLM]

I'd ask you how you believe/interpret me to be dishonest... but why bother, I could give a shyte what you think!

And yet you continually reply to post after post after post. Claiming in your very arrogant way to be somehow "better" than those around you yet you play the same "games" you continually malign others for playing. That makes you hypocritical as well as contemptible. And that is before we even touch upon the vanity inherent in slapping up some C&P graph and a snarky reply in response to a genuine question from a forum member. You are no more interested in discussing the topic as those with whom you constantly whine and complain aren't here to discuss the topic. You're nothing more than a bandwagon fan boy who goes on the net to "talk" about global warming because it's "the hip thing to do".

Because people see through your bull doesn't make it any less bull.

And by the way, if I wanted to do a 'drive by', you wouldn't be getting up from it. :roll:

 

[waldo]

You obviously do. So much so you're willing to lie to get my attention.

getting your attention is to showcase you're just another denier who refuses to engage in real meaningful discussion/debate... who can't speak to any actual issue related to GW/AGW/CC... or policy extensions of same.