darthtang aw
Active Member
Just saw the article and thought it was interesting. You say it's inaccurate, show proof.
I said it was inaccurate? in what language?
darth (stop listening to the voices) Tang
Just saw the article and thought it was interesting. You say it's inaccurate, show proof.
I said it was inaccurate? in what language?
darth (stop listening to the voices) Tang
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432622
I said it was inaccurate? in what language?
darth (stop listening to the voices) Tang
You discredited the article simply because in your words "It was from some leftit blog site". So you're saying the information contained in the article is factual?
Bionic(you're fooling no one) Arm
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432622
I said it was inaccurate? in what language?
darth (stop listening to the voices) Tang
You discredited the article simply because in your words "It was from some leftit blog site". So you're saying the information contained in the article is factual?
Bionic(you're fooling no one) Arm
darthtang aw
Active Member
seriously dude?....If winning the most liberal blog award discredits the info...that is not my fault..do some research into your blog site. I didnt say either way as to the content. as i do not place much credence in any blog site. blog pages are just that. blogs.
darth (if you can scoff at foxnews links...i can scoff at a blog that won an award for being liberal)) Tang
darth (if you can scoff at foxnews links...i can scoff at a blog that won an award for being liberal)) Tang
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432666
seriously dude?....If winning the most liberal blog award discredits the info...that is not my fault..do some research into your blog site. I didnt say either way as to the content. as i do not place much credence in any blog site. blog pages are just that. blogs.
darth (if you can scoff at foxnews links...i can scoff at a blog that won an award for being liberal)) Tang
I am serious DUDE. What does it matter where the content was posted? Look at the statistical data shown in the article, and disprove it if you believe it's false. People like you immediately just ignore facts simply based on the URL where the information is provided. "Oh that can't be true. It's posted on some leftist blog site," I get this excuse on other forums that I post on that have political discussions. "That article came from Wikipedia, or MSNBC, or the LA Times, blah, blah, blah. Therefore it has no merit." Based on that theory, why believe anything that's posted online? There's biased reporting on practically every site out there. However, that doesn't mean all the content posted on those sites are innacurate. I reference articles from FoxNews all the time when debating issues. I use it as "ammo" when I post something from MSNBC, and a Right Wingnut comes out and says "Who believes that coming from that Liberal news site." So I go find the exact same article on FoxNews and post that link. Dead silence normally ensues afterwards.
Bionic (Darth will only believe it's true if you bring the actual person or information straight to his house) Arm
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432666
seriously dude?....If winning the most liberal blog award discredits the info...that is not my fault..do some research into your blog site. I didnt say either way as to the content. as i do not place much credence in any blog site. blog pages are just that. blogs.
darth (if you can scoff at foxnews links...i can scoff at a blog that won an award for being liberal)) Tang
I am serious DUDE. What does it matter where the content was posted? Look at the statistical data shown in the article, and disprove it if you believe it's false. People like you immediately just ignore facts simply based on the URL where the information is provided. "Oh that can't be true. It's posted on some leftist blog site," I get this excuse on other forums that I post on that have political discussions. "That article came from Wikipedia, or MSNBC, or the LA Times, blah, blah, blah. Therefore it has no merit." Based on that theory, why believe anything that's posted online? There's biased reporting on practically every site out there. However, that doesn't mean all the content posted on those sites are innacurate. I reference articles from FoxNews all the time when debating issues. I use it as "ammo" when I post something from MSNBC, and a Right Wingnut comes out and says "Who believes that coming from that Liberal news site." So I go find the exact same article on FoxNews and post that link. Dead silence normally ensues afterwards.
Bionic (Darth will only believe it's true if you bring the actual person or information straight to his house) Arm
darthtang aw
Active Member
Bionicarm quote, "What NRA web site did you steal that from? "
Darth (cricket, cricket) Tang
darthtang aw
Active Member
When the weatherguy gets a week long forecast correct, I might be more inclined to listen to century long forecasts.............
And I never claimed the numbers were wrong...I just pointed out every blog this guy has done is environment related on the extreme side in most cases.
Darth (doppler radar says) Tang
And I never claimed the numbers were wrong...I just pointed out every blog this guy has done is environment related on the extreme side in most cases.
Darth (doppler radar says) Tang
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432714
I am serious DUDE. What does it matter where the content was posted? Look at the statistical data shown in the article, and disprove it if you believe it's false. People like you immediately just ignore facts simply based on the URL where the information is provided. "Oh that can't be true. It's posted on some leftist blog site," I get this excuse on other forums that I post on that have political discussions. "That article came from Wikipedia, or MSNBC, or the LA Times, blah, blah, blah. Therefore it has no merit." Based on that theory, why believe anything that's posted online? There's biased reporting on practically every site out there. However, that doesn't mean all the content posted on those sites are innacurate. I reference articles from FoxNews all the time when debating issues. I use it as "ammo" when I post something from MSNBC, and a Right Wingnut comes out and says "Who believes that coming from that Liberal news site." So I go find the exact same article on FoxNews and post that link. Dead silence normally ensues afterwards.
Bionic (Darth will only believe it's true if you bring the actual person or information straight to his house) Arm
Oh you flaming hypocrite. You are telling someone else to prove your source is wrong after all the information YOU questioned in the gun thread?
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432714
I am serious DUDE. What does it matter where the content was posted? Look at the statistical data shown in the article, and disprove it if you believe it's false. People like you immediately just ignore facts simply based on the URL where the information is provided. "Oh that can't be true. It's posted on some leftist blog site," I get this excuse on other forums that I post on that have political discussions. "That article came from Wikipedia, or MSNBC, or the LA Times, blah, blah, blah. Therefore it has no merit." Based on that theory, why believe anything that's posted online? There's biased reporting on practically every site out there. However, that doesn't mean all the content posted on those sites are innacurate. I reference articles from FoxNews all the time when debating issues. I use it as "ammo" when I post something from MSNBC, and a Right Wingnut comes out and says "Who believes that coming from that Liberal news site." So I go find the exact same article on FoxNews and post that link. Dead silence normally ensues afterwards.
Bionic (Darth will only believe it's true if you bring the actual person or information straight to his house) Arm
Oh you flaming hypocrite. You are telling someone else to prove your source is wrong after all the information YOU questioned in the gun thread?
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432727
Bionicarm quote, "What NRA web site did you steal that from? "
Darth (cricket, cricket) Tang
And?
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432727
Bionicarm quote, "What NRA web site did you steal that from? "
Darth (cricket, cricket) Tang
And?
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432767
Oh you flaming hypocrite. You are telling someone else to prove your source is wrong after all the information YOU questioned in the gun thread?
The gun thread was a waste of space ( as usual). Every time one of those threads pop up, the gun fanatics on this forum whine and omplain about how their "freedoms" are being denied or restricted. You use the same arguments, the same analogies (more people are killed with alcohol than guns), and the same internet references to justify your opinion. Problem is, nothing has really changed. People are still able to buy firearms, still able to own practically any weapon they choose, and even get to carry them around anywhere they please. Yes, there are certain communities, cities, and states that have stricter gun laws than others. But I'll use Darth's little reference when I complain about restrictions in my city or state, "If you don't like the laws that are enacted where you live, you're more than welcome to move somewhere else where those laws don't apply."
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432767
Oh you flaming hypocrite. You are telling someone else to prove your source is wrong after all the information YOU questioned in the gun thread?
The gun thread was a waste of space ( as usual). Every time one of those threads pop up, the gun fanatics on this forum whine and omplain about how their "freedoms" are being denied or restricted. You use the same arguments, the same analogies (more people are killed with alcohol than guns), and the same internet references to justify your opinion. Problem is, nothing has really changed. People are still able to buy firearms, still able to own practically any weapon they choose, and even get to carry them around anywhere they please. Yes, there are certain communities, cities, and states that have stricter gun laws than others. But I'll use Darth's little reference when I complain about restrictions in my city or state, "If you don't like the laws that are enacted where you live, you're more than welcome to move somewhere else where those laws don't apply."
darthtang aw
Active Member
as usual, youcompletely missed the point. A mute has better chance at debating than you do.
darth (spike your comb over) Tang
darth (spike your comb over) Tang
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432979
The gun thread was a waste of space ( as usual). Every time one of those threads pop up, the gun fanatics on this forum whine and omplain about how their "freedoms" are being denied or restricted. You use the same arguments, the same analogies (more people are killed with alcohol than guns), and the same internet references to justify your opinion. Problem is, nothing has really changed. People are still able to buy firearms, still able to own practically any weapon they choose, and even get to carry them around anywhere they please. Yes, there are certain communities, cities, and states that have stricter gun laws than others. But I'll use Darth's little reference when I complain about restrictions in my city or state, "If you don't like the laws that are enacted where you live, you're more than welcome to move somewhere else where those laws don't apply."
And every time we post information to debunk your reactionary claims you question the validity of the information and ask "Which NRA site did you get that from". You even questioned the link I posted from the Brady Campaign which is on your side.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432979
The gun thread was a waste of space ( as usual). Every time one of those threads pop up, the gun fanatics on this forum whine and omplain about how their "freedoms" are being denied or restricted. You use the same arguments, the same analogies (more people are killed with alcohol than guns), and the same internet references to justify your opinion. Problem is, nothing has really changed. People are still able to buy firearms, still able to own practically any weapon they choose, and even get to carry them around anywhere they please. Yes, there are certain communities, cities, and states that have stricter gun laws than others. But I'll use Darth's little reference when I complain about restrictions in my city or state, "If you don't like the laws that are enacted where you live, you're more than welcome to move somewhere else where those laws don't apply."
And every time we post information to debunk your reactionary claims you question the validity of the information and ask "Which NRA site did you get that from". You even questioned the link I posted from the Brady Campaign which is on your side.
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432987
as usual, youcompletely missed the point. A mute has better chance at debating than you do.
darth (spike your comb over) Tang
Because 99% of your points are obtuse and make no sense.
Bionic (didn't know I needed to learn cryptography to discuss issues here) Arm
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3432987
as usual, youcompletely missed the point. A mute has better chance at debating than you do.
darth (spike your comb over) Tang
Because 99% of your points are obtuse and make no sense.
Bionic (didn't know I needed to learn cryptography to discuss issues here) Arm
bionicarm
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433006
And every time we post information to debunk your reactionary claims you question the validity of the information and ask "Which NRA site did you get that from". You even questioned the link I posted from the Brady Campaign which is on your side.
By the time you posted that link, I quit looking at them. The argument had gone completely South by then, and it wasn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall any longer.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433006
And every time we post information to debunk your reactionary claims you question the validity of the information and ask "Which NRA site did you get that from". You even questioned the link I posted from the Brady Campaign which is on your side.
By the time you posted that link, I quit looking at them. The argument had gone completely South by then, and it wasn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall any longer.
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433101
By the time you posted that link, I quit looking at them. The argument had gone completely South by then, and it wasn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall any longer.
Bull. You questioned how hard they were looking for gun crimes which is what made it even funnier.
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433101
By the time you posted that link, I quit looking at them. The argument had gone completely South by then, and it wasn't worth my time to argue with a brick wall any longer.
Bull. You questioned how hard they were looking for gun crimes which is what made it even funnier.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Because 99% of your points are obtuse and make no sense.
Bionic (didn't know I needed to learn cryptography to discuss issues here) Arm
they only make no sense to those that are ignorant.
darth (the rest of us speak english) Tang
N
nihoa
Guest
we dont get to cherry pick the smaller trends in data to prove points. there are spikes, valleys and flat areas on the graph but a trend line added to the entire set is upward. the flatter areas reduce the magnitude of the average, nothing else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432310
hold the phone. global warming...global coolin...climate change......are all the same thing.is there climate change....yes. i believe so. and you should to as well. you speak of faith and the bible. you believe this. Yet you still ignore the evidence of climate change within the very book you profess to believe. the bible inadvertently confirms climate change on this planet in various chapters throughout.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/80#post_3432310
hold the phone. global warming...global coolin...climate change......are all the same thing.is there climate change....yes. i believe so. and you should to as well. you speak of faith and the bible. you believe this. Yet you still ignore the evidence of climate change within the very book you profess to believe. the bible inadvertently confirms climate change on this planet in various chapters throughout.
the discussion is on if climate change is real.....and the evidence i see daily is that it is.
now, where this discussion has a disconnect are the majority of those that claim it is made up...you guys are mainly attacking it from a view point that man and our ways are the primary reason for this. you are against this view, as am I. we may account for 5%this of what is going on with the climates. the fairly stable climate from the 40s till the 80svery backs up my viewpoint. I am curious if anyone can see why I state before I am forced to explain.
mantisman51
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433405
we dont get to cherry pick the smaller trends in data to prove points. there are spikes, valleys and flat areas on the graph but a trend line added to the entire set is upward. the flatter areas reduce the magnitude of the average, nothing else.
I agree. The global warming hoaxsters just change data to keep that upward spike. A la NASA and NOAA's constantly changing "historical data"-which BTW, I posted.
Originally Posted by Nihoa http:///t/388817/climate-skeptic-changes-tune/120#post_3433405
we dont get to cherry pick the smaller trends in data to prove points. there are spikes, valleys and flat areas on the graph but a trend line added to the entire set is upward. the flatter areas reduce the magnitude of the average, nothing else.
I agree. The global warming hoaxsters just change data to keep that upward spike. A la NASA and NOAA's constantly changing "historical data"-which BTW, I posted.
darthtang aw
Active Member
we dont get to cherry pick the smaller trends in data to prove points. there are spikes, valleys and flat areas on the graph but a trend line added to the entire set is upward. the flatter areas reduce the magnitude of the average, nothing else.
yet for a 40 year period the average temp was quite stable and even cooled. so what did man do during this period to cause the cooling/temp stability?