a poem for Al Gore

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

90 % of global climate scientists, 90% of economists, 90% of all experts
everyone agrees, all the experts agree
noone can argue, noone can disagree
the science is settled, the debate is over
everyone recognizes

the language of dishonest shallow minded group speak employed by Spence, Obama and Gore, Reid and Nasty Pelosi on a daily basis, if you have to frame your arguements by declaring that "everyone" agrees with you and anyone that does not represents a tiny agendized minority, you are standing on shaky ground and most lkiely about to tell a Whopper if a Lie....

but...if this is true and everyone agrees and it so overwhelmingly obvious..then what's the F-ing hold up...

seems to me that everywhere these folks have claimed complete agreement on both their declaration of a problem or crisis and their hairbrained solutions there is utter chaos....

there is little if any honesty and integrity left in libterd land....

Global Warming

Calgary beats record set in 1893
Dominic Terry, Radana Suk, Kelly Turner and Lisa Grant 2009-12-14 20:02

Calgary has beaten a weather record set more than 100 years ago.

At about 7:00 Monday morning, Calgary dipped to minus 32.4 degrees beating the old record by .2 degrees.

And at least twelve low temperature records have been broken, with the coldest being Sundre coming in at minus 41.6C.

Question, are you intentionally working to reinforce RIROCKHOUND's point, or do you really not know much beyond what you'd heard pundits say and read on blogs?

As for the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, my wife works with developmentally disabled kids and adults. I'll be sure to have her ask if any are liberals.

-spence

[scottw]

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

Maybe Spence had it right.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

File this one under:

some "witty quip" or random insult that generally doesn't make sense.

Here are a few reasons why you aren't even beginning to support your opinion.
-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) about how global warming doesn't exist and is completely fabricated by liberals just so they can spend money. In another, global warming exists but is a natural occurrence not caused by humans.

There are some valid arguments on both sides of the coin for or against human-induced global warming (HIGW). However, I think you don't really understand any of the science on either side of the argument.

I think you've decided that everyone who agrees with the HIGW argument must be a liberal and as such, you're going to argue vehemently (whether it makes sense or not) to try and prove them wrong.

Hmmm... this also makes me think that you don't really understand what a liberal is either. You know that the definition of a liberal isn't "Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

File this one under:


Here are a few reasons why you aren't even beginning to support your opinion.
-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) about how global warming doesn't exist and is completely fabricated by liberals just so they can spend money. In another, global warming exists but is a natural occurrence not caused by humans.

There are some valid arguments on both sides of the coin for or against human-induced global warming (HIGW). However, I think you don't really understand any of the science on either side of the argument.

I think you've decided that everyone who agrees with the HIGW argument must be a liberal and as such, you're going to argue vehemently (whether it makes sense or not) to try and prove them wrong.

Hmmm... this also makes me think that you don't really understand what a liberal is either. You know that the definition of a liberal isn't "Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

And maybe some of the biggest promoters and crisis advocates of Global Warming/ Cooling/ Change/ Whatever are also not helping by being the biggest hypocrites. I'm not saying they are wrong, just not ready to sell the farm yet.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

And maybe some of the biggest promoters and crisis advocates of Global Warming/ Cooling/ Change/ Whatever are also not helping by being the biggest hypocrites. I'm not saying they are wrong, just not ready to sell the farm yet.

Agreed. The above post *is* Al Gore. Today, he's nothing more than the Michael Moore of global warming - someone with too much money that makes films, while probably having some scientific basis, are slanted to further their opinion.

Your post does apply to the other side of the argument as well though.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

File this one under:

-You find a random collection of snapshots in time of locations to use as an argument and then choose to ignore global trending data. (See Equation Two)
-You choose random excepts from articles or quotes from people you think can be used to completely debunk the entire argument as opposed to posting a link for people to get the full context.(See Equation One)
-In one thread, you'll argue (well not argue, copy/paste something) .

"Everyone who disagrees with my narrow-minded view of the world" right?

JD...your constant whining about "cut and paste" and "sources" is really absurd, you will dismiss any "cut and paste" or otherwise that does not agree with your remarkably informed world view regardless of the source....the source will also be dismissed if it does not meet your "standards" (and honestly, who the bleep are you?)...so who is narrow-minded? Nothing more than another way for a libterd to say "shut up".

Merry Christmas (hope that's not offensive)

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

JD...your constant whining about "cut and paste" and "sources" is really absurd, you will dismiss any "cut and paste" or otherwise that does not agree with your remarkably informed world view regardless of the source....the source will also be dismissed if it does not meet your "standards" (and honestly, who the bleep are you?)...so who is narrow-minded? Nothing more than another way for a libterd to say "shut up".

Merry Christmas (hope that's not offensive)

Nice selective deletion.

Thank you for emphasizing my point - along with pointing out quite a bit of your own hypocrisy - by addressing one abstract part of a post (or two words in this case), ignore the rest and then declare victory.

My dismissal of you're "copy/paste" method of proving a point is because you don't add anything to it, nor give anyone the opportunity to look at the article by posting what the source is. Many of your 'points' are essentially "Read this..... see, you're wrong," with nothing added to it. Add in a couple backhanded insults and that sums up about half your posts.

I dismiss sources when they're commentaries, due to being opinions filled with little supported fact. I don't believe I have blindly dismissed *actual data* as you like to do.

When you get a chance, you're welcome to address the rest of that post, as opposed to just two words within it.

[scottw]

maybe I'll dismiss your commentary due to it being opinions filled with little supported fact....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

maybe I'll dismiss your commentary due to it being opinions filled with little supported fact....

You'd make a good politician. Ignore and deflect.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

I wrote l-i-b-t-"e"-r-d-s.."terds"....couldn't wait to pounce though...could ya???.......

so predictable

Perhaps you just spelled it wrong...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...-pagliuca.html

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps you just spelled it wrong...

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...-pagliuca.html

-spence

nope, spelled it twice as intended this morning....#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& referred to the voters of Mass. who display diminished mental capacity, brought on by the spread of liberalism and evidenced in their continuing to vote for the most loathsome people on the planet to represent them....

libterd, which you improperly referred to refers to a liberal who demeans and impunes the intelligence and motivations of those who disagree with them and attack the knowledege and comprehension of others while displaying little of their own...

both are scientific terms and neither is directed toward "developmentally disabled kids and adults", but don't let that stop you from making the inference, hope you were equally offended by Obama's callous Special Olympic's reference...

I asked your wife...she told me that she's married to a terd...

I know the difference between an a and an e...you appear to be struggling

you should refrain from quoting someone, then changing the spelling of one of their words, then taking them them to task for your new spelling...it's very dishonest...it's like manipulating climate data...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& referred to the voters of Mass. who display diminished mental capacity, brought on by the spread of liberalism and evidenced in their continuing to vote for the most loathsome people on the planet to represent them....

libterd, which you improperly referred to refers to a liberal who demeans and impunes the intelligence and motivations of those who disagree with them and attack the knowledege and comprehension of others while displaying little of their own...

By using "tard" you are in fact behaving as a "terd".

This is of course using your own definitions.

Sounds pretty hypocritical and inconsistent, which fits JD's analysis of your opinions on climate change.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

By using "tard" you are in fact behaving as a "terd".

This is of course using your own definitions.

Sounds pretty hypocritical and inconsistent, which fits JD's analysis of your opinions on climate change.

-spence

I would never claim to be above some hypocricy or inconsistency as I would never assume to be smarter than the next guy ...that's for the terd's although I'm happy to poke fun at the guy who claims to be both...

My reference to the Mass. voters (and I should include RI for sending and/or returning the the likes of Patrick Kennedy and Sheldon Whitehouse) was based on the result of their voting record and the demonstrably despicable people that they put into office, I even offered them the liberals favorite excuse for bad behaviour which was the ability to claim victimhood from some invented disease....

a terd would have dismissed them as ignorant and uneducated and possibly suggested that they not be allowed to vote until they passed a competency test.....sound familiar? the terd goes far beyond poking fun, the terd need to completely discredit you and generally not based on your arguments but by cornering you as a racist, bigot, denier, truther, etc........or worst of all ..a conservative...

I don't claim to have all of the answers regarding climate change/global warming...I do have a lot of questions and a healthy skepticism for the arrogant pukes who have decided that there is no debate and it's their way or the highway...

this has become familiar and is repeated here, in Washington and with the Climate questions....one side has decided that it's their way and there will be no debate, the terd bristles when his world view is challenged and to do so illicits some very vicious attacks, the libterds currently operate as thugs...they have to operate this way because it's the most efficient way to carry the constant promotion of their propoganda and lies, manitaining lies is hard work, time is showing their world view to be quite faulty but they are in so deep that they can only ratchet up the rhetoric.....it will be interesting to see how it plays out....not going so well in Copenhagen or Washington at the moment despite the "we are right and everyone else is lying" approach....

JD's analysis....that's funny...lot's of assumptions there as well...but maybe I just don't understand

[scottw]

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.