Walking In A Wingnut Wonderland
Yesterday’s snow storm was the occasion for one of the increasingly rare appearances at America’s Shittiest Website™ by climate-change denialist and oil-industry welfare recipient Iain Murray. So when I saw his post, I was expecting to read something like this:
Bite Me, Al Gore [Iain Murray]
Blizzard in March. Blar blar har har ffpt. Seven inches of snow in Central Park in March! Blarty blart blart blart sniff snort blar har har har eleventy-one!!! Climate change is obviously another liberal lie. Snorf snort snorf har har. Like evolution and that stupid story about the frog in the kettle. With a knick, knack paddy whack, give a wingnut a stipend!
03/02 05:05 PM
But CEI doesn’t give Iain Murray the big bucks just for plain old wingnuttery. No, they expect peak, no, epic wingnuttery, and Iain, well, he brings it home with this post responding to Kathryn Jean Lopez’s awe-struck wonder at the recent technological marvel called telecommuting.
Re: Snow Day [Iain Murray]
The simple answer, Kathryn, is that technology has successfully “disintermediated” severe weather. It’s a great example of adaptation to severe weather enabled by two things: a) innovation and b) access to affordable energy (the tech is useless without electricity and of only marginal usefulness if just the rich have access to it). So it is odd, to say the least, that climate alarmists say that if severe weather increases, we should reduce access to affordable energy…
03/02 05:05 PM
Iain thinks that by sticking in (and misusing) a big word like “disintermediated,” it won’t occur to anyone that the cost of telecommuting on your laptop for eight hours is about a nickel, or slightly more than Murray spends annually on toothpaste. The cost of energy could be increased twenty times and telecommuting would still be cheaper than the cost of actual commuting.
But, hey, what else can you expect from a guy who walks into the Hair Cuttery with a picture of Conan O’Brien and says “Make me look like him”?
ha!
Snort.
My garden is smarter than Ian Murray.
The Iron Law of Institutions “the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution ‘fail’ while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to ‘succeed’ if that requires them to lose power within the institution.” Jonathan Schwarz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_institutions)
The Conservatives obstruct the agenda of the Democratic party at every opportunity because their power within our political institution wanes with each successful passage and implimentation of a Democratic policy initiative.
Remember, ‘Government is the problem’. It can never be overtly seen as competent. As the solution.
The Corporistas undermine public opinion for Administration policies because, if implimented as designed, those policies threatens the position of power Corporations and their Oligarchic owners have in our social and economic institutions.
Remember, only ‘deregulation, privatization and an end to entitlements’ can bring prosperity. And freedom.
In order for Conservatives/Corporations to maximize their positions of power within our institutions, they must see the Democrats must fail in their attempt to stabilize the U.S. economy.
Even if that means maximum economic pain, social displacement and political unrest for the rest of the world.
It really is us or them.
I can’t count how many times I’ve asked this question of wingnuts and never, ever gotten a reply:
Do you think that global warming means that wherever you live, it always has to be as warm or warmer today as it was yesterday?
They *never* answer that. Ever. I think it may be because they really *do* think that.
Now, for my next trick, I will prove that the ‘Obama recession’ doesn’t exist because the Dow Jones was up one day last week.
Snowing in winter is fucked up, 92 degrees in Austin last Thursday was totally normal. I fart on your Grizzly Adams beard, Algore!
And I think Murray looks like Steve Forbes after getting a Crispin Glover Special at Supercuts.
Is that you Scott Farkus?
Iain, we don’t want to shut off the electricity to everyone’s laptop. Just yours.
Mm-m-m, “disintermediation.” Now I’m all wet down there!
What is Iain Murray doing in Buffalo?
Is he saying evolution is real?
Kathryn Jean Lopez said,
…Now I’m all wet down there!
Ewwwwwwww……
Interesting. The Blizzard of 1888 is believed by some to have been the most powerful March storm ever in the history of the nation.
Yesterday’s storm was a piker by comparison.
By their own warped and twisted logic, global warming must have accounted for the amelioration of the weather we experienced in the Northeast and along the east coast!
Epic wingnuttery? Close, but needs more fadging.
The foundational antecedent, Kathryn, is that the ubiquity of electronic mechanization has fain well “disintermediated” Islamofascist climatological phenomenæ.
Wait, so his argument is that the severe weather (maybe caused by climate change, but maybe not) is okay because people can telecommute? Isn’t that like arguing that smoking in bed is okay if you have a smoke alarm?
Plus, it looks like that demon solar keeps getting cheaper… http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4306443.html
I bet his teeth are that color from sucking on Big Energy’s ‘exhaust pipe’.
Isn’t that like arguing that smoking in bed is okay if you have a smoke alarm?
More like smoking in bed is OK because it sells smoke alarms, but yes.
Even if that means maximum economic pain, social displacement and political unrest for the rest of the world.
It really is us or them.
Yes, it really is.
And you cannot ‘negotiate’ with folks who want you dead.
The puke ‘trope’ on climate change is to pretend they don’t understand the difference between “weather” and “climate.”
I. Am. Stunned.
His argument is either:-
1. Severe weather is the only cause of increased CO2 because I don’t use gasoline at any other time – or the gas I use when the temperature is above zero is CO2 free (new physics and chemistry there! Could be a Nobel in the offering).
OR
2. The amount of CO2 produced by coal-fired electricity on one or two days a year when I get snowed in completely offsets the gas I burn in my Hummer every other day.
So if the CO2-induced-climate-warming increases the number of days above zero so I don’t spend so many days telecommuting and therefore the increased CO2 causes fewer sub-zero days …….
[hell I’m lost in the contradictions, I’ll just wing it]
…. CO2 is the both the cause and the cure!!!! (double bonus Nobel for anyone who explains this)
I’ve heard the mark of genius is recognizing counter-intuitive truths, but ……. this guy is a genius for the ages. Can we get him a sinecure anywhere? Oh he’s got one.
Innovation and cheap energy would surely be the cure to any conceivable ill brought about by climate change, were it real, because it’s not like severe weather could ever affect power generation or transmission.
Plus, it looks like that demon solar keeps getting cheaper…
Awesome! Soon all that will stand in the way of the solar social-ist revolution is homeowners’ associations that say the panels are too ugly.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Dammit.
Could I see your badge?
“disintermediated”
Pfft. That’s sooooo Web 1.0. Time to party like it’s 1996.
That’s just stupid.
Here in Cali we’ve been having some of the warmest weather I can remember for this time of year, consistently. The thing is, I get that this alone is no determinant of whether the earth is in an overall warming trend or not, unlike our wingnut friends who were scoffing about the cold snap that hit the rest of the country a month ago.
I tend to trust these guys seeing as how, I dunno, they can observe the damn thing happening from OUTER SPACE.
Unicode Police?
Every ligature œ does is magic
Every little code just turns me on
Even my comments before were é-less
Now I know my lüv 4 it goes on ‽
Dude.
Now I know my lüv 4 it goes on ?
Ummm, partial fail? (No, really, I haven’t a clue about such matters).
OT…Oh brother:
Seriously. Does the White House need to outfit all of these traders with blankies every day?
partial fail?
I hope not. I had to break the & out in order to get it to look like that.
LOLS, it showed up correctly in my post. I guess the old adage rings true once more: “From failure comes success.” TYWP.
I hope not. I had to break the & out in order to get it to look like that.
Oh. Nevermind.
/Emily Litella
OK, whatever.
BTW Sadlies, how’s that Obama economy doing?
Hope and change, yessiree! Workin’ out just great, huh? Yeppers, that Obama is a humdinger ain’t he?
Yeehaw!!
C’mon, the guy is trying to do his bit for alternate energy. His has corn growing in his mouth.
Sure beats having the dry drunk in charge.
Slightly Shorter Iain Murray,
You know, it’s really comfortable down here at the bottom of this hole. So, it’s pretty odd that anti-Morlock alarmists keep telling me to stop digging.
Sept 11, 2001: almost 8 months after Bush takes office; Clinton’s fault.
March 3, 2009: less than 2 months after Obama takes office; Obama’s fault.
Nice delusional mindset you’ve got there, wingnut. It’d be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Technically, this was starting about 2 years before Obama took office, and was rooted in the Bush policy decisions of 2001.
Sept 11, 2001: almost 8 months after Bush takes office; Clinton’s fault.
March 3, 2009: less than 2 months after Obama takes office; Obama’s fault.
Also ,the first 40% of the 50% DJIA drop took place during the Bush Administration. So trolls, get back to me when the DJIA is 80% off its peak. Then, given that Presidents Bush and Obama would have presided over the same numerical and percentage losses in the DJIA, I might care about your financial wisdumb at that point.
But maybe not, so don’t get your hopes up.
Nice delusional mindset you’ve got there, wingnut. It’d be a real shame if anything were to happen to it.
Not to worry – nothing will.
Clearly the lousy Ford numbers are Obama’s fault. Yesterday? Obama’s fault AIG is in the shit.
Like a true conservative, Iain Murray is now contracting out his fadgetaculations.
Disinter
mediating and revivifying? When they said that Reaganomics was “Voodoo Economics” I didn’t think it meant zombies – but then again the followers of the supply-side God certainly act like something’s eaten their BRAINZZZZZzzzz.It should be mentioned that the word in question is not disintermediated, but rather “disintermediated”, which is a full two characters longer.
My freezer is still showing the same temperature. It’s part of the “globe” ain’t it? Therefore there is no such thing as global warming and all science has done is managed to prove that Al Gore is fat and has a big house.
If these people had teabags, it would have been all over the news.
Too bad there was only a couple thousand of them. What can you expect for a Monday?
They already pulled that trick by blaming Clinton for the first WTC Bombing which took place in February of 2001, while absolving Bush of 9/11. Clinton had enough time (entire weeks!) and Bush had only just had time to take the shrink wrap off the Presidential seal soaps in the Oval Office bathroom.
It is actually a fairly convincing admission that somewhere they know Clinton is smart and Bush is a moron. They grade according to expectations, not results.
Quick! Throw Derbyshire a life raft! He’s going under for the third time!
It is actually a fairly convincing admission that somewhere they know Clinton is smart and Bush is a moron. They grade according to expectations, not results.
I think that’s really a lot of the bias in political reporting. That a Republican is a moron is pretty much a given, so they grade on a curve, either consciously or not. That’s how a discussion of marginal tax rate changes gets treated at the same intellectual level as “the more you cut taxes the more revenue you get!”.
V. funny, Tintin, thanks for the laugh.
They already pulled that trick by blaming Clinton for the first WTC Bombing which took place in February of 2001
You meant 1993, but your point still stands. I specifically remember a local RW radio guy stating something to the effect that the bombing was clear evidence that Clinton was politicizing the FBI and said effects were already bearing fruit. Astounding logic then, sweet irony these many years later.
Oh, how I love the sound of moonbats whining in the morning.
See, you guys did this same kind of blame game with Bush for eight years. How does it feel to be on the receiving end? Refreshing, isn’t it?
Get used to it, my petulant children, because more is on the way! LOL
From Daily KOS, Limpaw speaks:
LIMBAUGH: Make no mistake, my friends. This so-called tax cut that President Obama is selling is a sham. It is a sham because I am not getting one, and if I am not getting one then America is not getting one. And so I am calling today on all true patriots to tear up your tax rebate checks. Rip them up and throw them in the fire. These tax cuts are un-American and it is time we sent a message to the Democrats in Washington about where Republicans stand on tax cuts. Go to your window, throw it open, and shout, “I’m mad as hell, and you’re not going to cut my [redacted] taxes!”
Get used to it, my petulant children, because more is on the way! LOL
File this under the “Nobody could have predicted” category.
OT. Those new OLC memos? The ones that said “Preznit is God” until January 15, 2009 when they said “Oopsies, Preznit is not God”. Check out the footnote to end all footnotes.
IOW: Ummm, these legal opinions may have been wrong – but no one is responsible for them. These legal opinions “just happened”.
See, you guys did this same kind of blame game with Bush for eight years.
See, the difference is that Bush really was a fuckup. Y’all have to move the goalposts a couple of miles in order to score points on President Obama. Leave them in the same place y’all wanted them to be for President Bush, and President Obama’s a freakin’ saint.
It is a sham because I am not getting one, and if I am not getting one then America is not getting one.
L’Etat, c’est moi! Thanks, Louie the Blarteenth!
I posted this in the last, troll-infested thread already, so myapologies, but thi i really fucking funny.
ABC News discovers the “Go Galt” Movement:
I’ve seen a lot of dumb news reports in my life, but I’m not sure anything can quite match this one from ABC News. The premise of the report is this: Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000, so the reporter has gone and found people who earn a little more than that sum who plan to decrease their income so that they come in underneath the magic line.
Now, the obvious objection here is that the tax code doesn’t work that way. A tax increase affects the marginal dollar that a person gains. That’s means only every dollar over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate. Obama is not proposing a tax system whereby somebody who goes from $249,999 to $250,000 suddenly becomes poorer. Nobody has ever enacted a tax hike like that in the history of the United States.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/03/03/wealthy-idiots-meet-idiot-reporter.aspx
Word to wingnuts: tonguejack my shitbox.
CA, don’t trumpet that too loudly. I can hardly wait for the collective cry of outrage when the nutters decide to increase their charitable donations in order to come in below the magic figure (laughing) and they realize that campaign donations to Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin don’t count.
And so I am calling today on all true patriots to tear up your tax rebate checks. Rip them up and throw them in the fire.
Alternatively, wingnut radio fans, if you could just endorse them over to me…
ABOVE: Iain Murray
“Do I make you horny, baybee? Shagadelic!”
And so I am calling today on all true patriots to tear up your tax rebate checks. Rip them up and throw them in the fire.
Yeah! More money for the gov’t to give to black people and Mexicans and fund abortions!
What about the gay Islamofacists? You’re leaving them out!
What about the gay Islamofacists? You’re leaving them out!
They’re first in line for govt handouts, so they’re taken care of before the refund checks are cut.
but then again the followers of the supply-side God certainly act like something’s eaten their BRAINZZZZZzzzz.
Don’t look at me. I prefer mikey’s food blog.
I prefer mikey’s food blog.
Who doesn’t. I’ve always used lemon juice for sweetness and tang in tuna salad, but coleslaw dressing certainly sounds like it’s worth a whirl.
And so I am calling today on all true patriots to tear up your tax rebate checks. Rip them up and throw them in the fire.
I hereby call on all true patriots who don’t want their tax rebates, and all state governors who don’t want any gov’t stimulus money, to send it all to me. I promise not to have any abortions and I will purchase only american-grown marijuana (for purely medicinal purposes, of course).
Thank you.
ca, I was just about to post that link myself. Highfuckingsterical, that is.
What clods. What moroons.
Dear S,N! Advisor,
Can I fake the islamo part of islamofascist? I need the money. I’ve got fascist cred from my years as a librul, and the gaybortionist thing I’ve got down pat; it just comes naturally for me. Teh islamo part though, makes me hesitant for a couple reasons. One is that Allah sucks gigantic putty balls . He would if he existed, that is. Also, do I have to grow a beard? I look horrible with a beard which I can barely grow in the first place. And those muslimites have zero fashion sense so that’s an issue.
PeeJ,
re: the beard thing
What you need to do is to tell other Mooslims that you’re about to blow up a plane any day now, and that you shaved your entire body in preparation for your entrance into heaven.
And those muslimites have zero fashion sense so that’s an issue.
Nonsense! Just look at what you have to choose from:
http://www.starscarves.com/
http://www.thehijabshop.com/
http://welovehijab.com/
ca,
You forgot the burqini.
http://www.starscarves.com/
http://www.thehijabshop.com/
http://welovehijab.com/
Ooh, baby baby.
Nice tie. Is that ‘salmon,’ or just ‘pink?’
you shaved your entire body in preparation for your entrance into heaven.
Ahhh, that will explain everything.
I also hadn’t considered the jelqing. I wouldn’tr mind that part.
Nice tie. Is that ’salmon,’ or just ‘pink?’
The tie is pink, the cologne is salmon.
The fashion sense problem doesn’t seem to be an issue for some of the more avant garde Muslims:
Take for example, this guy.
mikey
No that really does look like Salmon fillet. Man, those rich folks, what’ll they do next?
Gaddafi is looking so much like Bob Dylan! I don’t think Dylan has ever gone in for the Golden Robes bit but it could explain some of the more “elliptical” statements form the Lion of the Desert in past years.
No that really does look like Salmon fillet.
It’s a tie AND breakfast!
My fashion advice is to wear a hagfish around the neck. They tie themselves in a knot, which saves a lot of trouble in the morning when the coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
If you wear an octopus, Smut, you don’t have to change ties all week.
Hi! Is this the thread for tentacle pr0n?
Gotta love the SadlyNaughts reliably turning to the ichthyological and teuthological puns.
Truly exsquidic humour
If you wear an octopus, Smut, you don’t have to change ties all week.
Like this, you mean?
But Clyde – the slime, the slime.
Gotta love the SadlyNaughts reliably turning to the ichthyological and teuthological puns.
You wouldn’t want us jumping the shark, would you?
Cut it the hake out, PeeJ.
Hah! My pelagic is unassailable!
My pelagic is unassailable!
I see what you did there.
You’ll be singing a different tuna when this is all over.
We can’t be violating the social morays of the place, after all.
As the Dolphin of France, Louis, once said “L’etat, c’est mora”
For the last time, Troofie, weather isn’t climate.
Now go serve some more fries.
A whole winter’s worth of cold and it doesn’t count.
It doesn’t. Period.
Since this thread is already on its last legs, gasping for air, as it were, I’m going to throw some chum to the chump. Just this once, I promise.
You’re a fekking idiot. Under most climate scenarios, some places will become consistently colder. You swallowed OB’s bait hook, line and sinker.
[I’m *trying* to keep it topical]
And Troofie?
I don’t give a fucking rat’s ass…that includes your husband’s…what you do for a living or not. I really don’t. All I give a good goddamn about when it comes to you is watching your Aperger’s laced comments fly by like so much shit thru a goose, and laughing at you.
PeeJ,
Not just that, he’s trying to show that there’s no global warming because winter is colder than summer!
*snort*
[I’m *trying* to keep it tropical]
Do I have to fix everything around here?
I picture Troofie as the pointy-haired boss from the Dilbert Comics.
only not nearly as successful or with it.
Troofie, every time you say that, you let me know precisely how badly I’ve shown you up.
That’s all you ever have to say to me, and I know how pwned you really are.
I swallow the jism that is spit out by GOP Congressmen after they finish off Rush.
Nope.
You don’t get off that easily. You have failed to respond substantively to the question put to you; this is something that clearly aggravates you when it is done to you, so I shall hold you to the same standard.
To complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
Please stop feeding the trolls. Particularly the unemployed ones, or they’ll never go away.
It really undercuts your “merit based” argument to say stupid shit like that.
Global warming means there is more energy in the total system. More hurricanes, wider variations (both hot and cold), etc. etc. The Gulf Stream will get weaker, so England will become a hell of a lot colder, as a result of global warming.
Again you display a lack of understanding of systems (economic, social and now meteorological). That’s Aspberger’s, baby.
I wonder what Troofie makes of this chart, which clearly shows that this winter isn’t even CLOSE to being the coldest in Chicago history. Not even in the top twenty five.
Sorry, tintin.
I could really care less if you answer one of my questions. I will just ask the question again as if you didn’t answer it. If that fails, I will just ask a different question.
You liberals are tooooo easy.
I could really care less if you answer one of my questions. I will just ask the question again as if you didn’t answer it. If that fails, I will just ask a different question.
It is indeed a shame that you can’t rise to the standard of forthrightness and honesty that you demand in others.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Once again, you may begin now.
Hey, to have Asperger’s is NOT to be as insufferable as Troofie Troofie Two-by-Four. I, for instance, am slightly less so.
Wow, that cephalopod streak had me thinking this was PZ’s joint.
Hey, to have Asperger’s is NOT to be as insufferable as Troofie Troofie Two-by-Four. I, for instance, am slightly less so.
Hey, Asperger’s is one thing, Troofie has the similar, but more annoying Assburger syndrome.
I probably should say “unmanaged Aspberger’s” or some such. I’ve got more than a dab myself, but I try to catch it.
Troofie has the similar, but more annoying Assburger syndrome.
Assmuncher’s Syndrome, you mean.
I lick my own ass! From the inside!
Was there a streaking cephalopod? HOT!
I don’t see any refutation of the idea that “coldest winter in Chicago in eight years” is somehow evidence against “global warming.” There is a word for denying your lying senses against a pre-determined set of beliefs.. hmmm…. if I think about it I am sure it will come to me.
It is indeed a shame that you can’t rise to the standard of forthrightness and honesty that you demand in others.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Once again, you may begin now.
Now, when I see evidence that a major city experienced its coldest winter in a decade, and top 20% coldest in a century, that seems to be evidence that the globe is not, in fact, getting warmer. If you want to argue that it means the global weather is getting less predictable, you may have a discussion point. But I don’t really see how you can convince me the globe is getting warmer when our lying senses tell us it is actually quite, um, cold.
So, in your mind, “a major city” == “globe”?
Please take a look at this chart. Do you see a trend? Does the fact that in a given year, the mean global surface air temperature may be lower than the previous year mean that the trend does not exist? (And if your answer to that is “yes,” then I suppose the Dow Jones Industrial index did not trend upward over the past century, did it?)
Here is what I think global warming is:
“Global warming” == “Globe getting warmer”
The *globe,* as a whole, *is* getting warmer.
Now, when I see evidence that a major city experienced its coldest winter in a decade, and top 20% coldest in a century, that seems to be evidence that the globe is not, in fact, getting warmer.
It is nothing of the sort. This is what I and others have tried to tell you; that you apparently do not have a good grasp of statistics. You are trying to take a single data point (one city, one winter) and generalize a set of global conditions from it. I do not know what you do for a living, but I certainly hope that it does not involve any amount of mathematics whatsoever. In any event, you have failed to show your work, and have instead shared only your guesswork and supposition.
If you want to argue that it means the global weather is getting less predictable, you may have a discussion point. But I don’t really see how you can convince me the globe is getting warmer when our lying senses tell us it is actually quite, um, cold.
Again, a single data point (one city, one winter) does not = “globe.” This is the key error in your assumptions.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Hey! I didn’t know green teeth could sparkle.
So, in your mind, “a major city” == “globe”?
Well, you see, he has this miniature slow globe he bought while on a class trip to Boise. He gets confused.
OB-GYN, ask him to tell us what he thinks evolution by means of natural selection means.
Hey! I didn’t know green teeth could sparkle.
Iain brushes with Leprident.
The dew on the lichen is reflecting the sunlight.
YOU LEAVE CONAN ALONE! CONAN FRIEND! YOU BAD MAN!
You cannot even correctly interpret a simple graph. But at least you were polite. You always have that going for you.
But at least you were polite. You always have that going for you.
That, and my brilliant career in the position of my dreams: I am the bidet in the men’s room at the Heritage Foundation.
The wingtards don’t seem to notice that scientists have been tracking volcanic ash after eruptions for more than a hundred years, to understand global weather patterns and the effects of decreased sunlight (and therefore increased sunlight as well). What do these f*ckwads have to gain from being denialists for the petro industry.
My occupation is that of an assistant crack whore.
Hs anyone guessed my job yet? Its an inspector of underwear for anal leakage from synthetic fat. That’s why its “results oriented”. While my job doesn’t have much dead wood, there are a lot of fallen logs.
I miss having the Chimporer branding my ass with a soldering iron.
What do these f*ckwads have to gain from being denialists for the petro industry.
It pisses off the sane people. That is our sole purpose in life.
Less crack, more whore please.
Please, please stop feeding the trolls, particularly unemployed losers like The Authentic, who has nothing to do but troll blogs and apparently never leaves his house since all his comments, 24/7, come from the same residential cable account.
Nor does the cherry picked data Dan presented, which shows swings of both positive and negative overall change in global temperature.
I am not discussing anyone else’s data with you. I am discussing *your* data — or lack thereof — with you. Your data consists of a single data point, and is therefore not supportive of your conclusions.
Asked and answered. It means the globe is getting warmer.
Non-responsive. You need to explain, in the specific, what “the globe getting warmer” means. You still have not defined that; all you have done is exchanged one vague and indefinite answer for another vague and indefinite answer.
Observers should see a steady warming trend on a wide variety of indicators.
This is exactly what is seen by observers. A steady, overall warming trend demonstrated by a wide variety of indicators.
Instead, we see inconsistent indicators, including measurements of the coldest winters on record.
Incorrect. Your single data point has been considered and rejected. A single data point does not confound or refute a trend, no matter how much you might like for it to.
I linked to a Chicago Tribune article that stated Chicago has experienced the coldest winter in almost a decade. You want to dispute their numbers, knock yourself out.
Your single data point has been considered and rejected. A single data point does not confound or refute a trend, no matter how much you might like for it to.
Which I have done, politely and consistently.
Incorrect. You have been rude and condescending.
That’s far better than the treatment my ideas get here, by the way
Incorrect. You deserve to receive no better than you give.
when they conflict with your liberal dogma.
Your ideas do not receive special treatment simply because they are yours.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
I have neither commented nor speculated on your mental and emotional state. Please stay on topic.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Poor Troofie. So pwned it’s stopped being funny and is careening towards pathetic.
Enjoy your Assburner’s Syndrome, Troof!
Given that we know this ain’t happenin’, the whole procedure’s kinda a waste of time and effort, no? Which is what trollie wants, no? And since I’m not sure the rest of us really need expositions on global warming–is there some point here I’m missing?
Given that we know this ain’t happenin’, the whole procedure’s kinda a waste of time and effort, no?
I don’t, but that’s just me.
Which is what trollie wants, no?
No, I think that trollie wants to demonstrate pwn3rship over t3h libruls. If he can’t support his own claims, then he isn’t demonstrating pwn3rship. It frustrates trolls when others will not respond or adhere to to their jibes, their taunts and their rhetorical frames. And frustrated trolls are less disruptive, since they either start behaving themselves or else leave in disgust. Either of which would be desirable, no?
And since I’m not sure the rest of us really need expositions on global warming
Respectfully, if — as you say — “this ain’t happenin,” then are we truly likely to receive such expositions? I would submit not. If, OTOH, we do get such expositions, then clearly, counter to your first question, ‘it done happened.’
–is there some point here I’m missing?
A troll’s greatest weakness is that they cannot stand fire. More specifically, they cannot abide having their feet held to it.
Let’s look at this from a slightly different angle. We’ll stick to facts and I’ll courteously ignore all the insults slung at me.
Do you think it is true that scientific theories need to be falsifiable? If that’s so, what do you think would be a falsifiable test of the theory of global warming?
I think that will make for a good start.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Hm, OBI doesn’t want to discuss what a falsifiable test for global warming would look like. I wonder why that is.
Hm, trollie doesn’t want to answer questions about his positions. I wonder why that is. Troll, your questions will not be considered until you have finished giving full, complete and *sourced* replies to the questions before you.
You will begin now, please.
Hey, what do you call that when you believe something on faith, won’t submit it to scientific tests, and act outraged when someone questions it? Hmm, if I think about it I am sure it will come to me…..
That’d be a troll. And now it is time for you to submit your faith-based opinions to scientific examination, and to restrain your feigned outrage.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
As we saw here, Troofy’s not really good at getting up off the mat.
Repeated insults are non-responsive to the questions before you. If you will not politely and substantively reply to the questions before you, then you can have no reasonable expectation of receiving substantive replies to the questions you are attempting to ask.
I have not specified what I think is happening with respect to the global warming theory, therefore anything you have to say regarding my alleged “faith” is simply speculation on your part, and manifestly discussion in bad faith. Succinctly, you don’t know what I think. And if you will not respond to questions, you will never find out, either.
Once again, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
Obi, well-played, sir.
*polite golf clap*
As I observed elsewhere, the breathtaking stupidity of this troll makes it impossible to have reasoned discourse with him, thus we must make him see that unless he’s willing to adhere to rules of debate (e.g. defining terms) he will never ever get a response to his liking.
This is much like that episode of Star Trek where Kirk gets Nomad all riled up because he runs logical rings around him
Of course, with Troofie, a simple Chinese finger puzzle suffices.
Oh…did I hurt your feelings, my little pwned pet?
Fearful troll is fearful.
What’s reallty funny with Troofie is how he’s all “we’re this” and “we’re that” but no one ever agrees with him.
He is SO pwned.
1 – Global warming theorists propound that the Earth is warming
2 – Skeptics point out that certain places are actually getting colder
3 – Global warming theists become angry and keep repeating their mantras
The level of stupidity here is almost Rembrandtic.
As I’ve often said, Troofie is the Shamwow of Stupid. Just soaks it all up, to twenty times his weight.
Shrug. If he wants to engage in mutually respectful discourse, I’m all for that. However, there are a number of behaviors that he will have to dispose with, amend or simply start doing if he wants any sort of substantive replies from me:
1) Start answering questions. Not just *replying* to them, but actually responding in a prompt, polite and substantive manner, and also providing follow-up clarification when asked for it.
2) Cease with the insults and ad-hominem digs. He came *here,* so if he’s not getting along with the locals, getting snotty and rude isn’t the mark of someone who wants to have a civil and productive discussion. Rather, it is the mark of someone who’s looking for an argument.
3) Stop assuming that he knows what other people think. Rather than putting words into the mouths of others (myself included), he needs to spend some time figuring out what positions other people have (as opposed to shrieking about t3h librul orthodoxy at every turn)
4) Recognize that his ignorance of or failure to grasp existing science — or indeed basic scientific principles at all — does not constitute refutation. IOW, something isn’t false simply because he fails to understand how it works.
5) Recognize that replies to him are a courtesy, not an entitlement.
6) Act like an adult, okay?
Now then.
Once again, troll, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
1 – Global warming theorists propound that the Earth is warming
2 –
SkepticsIdiotspoint out that certain places are actually getting coldernaively assume that means everywhere must always be warmer if it’s true, failing to grasp the concept in any intelligent way.3 – Global warming theists [no, we’re scientists, not superstitious fools like troofie – Ed.] become
angry and keep repeating their mantrasamused by the stupidity of the troll and amazed by its bathos.As I’ve said before, Troofie’s density is in neutron star territory.
PeeJ, I am intrigued by your thoughts and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I just love reading this. Makes me smile every time.
Rusty, you mean to imply (or rather TinTin) that Troofie is, um, underemployed? Or possibly UNemployed?
Or possibly logging in from mommy’s basement?
“MORE JOLT COLA, MA!”
Or possibly logging in from mommy’s basement?
Maybe, but my money’s on frat house.
“MORE JOLT COLA, MA!”
Hey, man, don’t diss the Jolt. It got me through grad school.
I wouldn’t know, Obi. We had amphetamines in my day.
Mine, too (though coke was the overacheivers’ drug of choice in the 80s), but the Jolt was available over the counter.
Ah, the 80s, when drugs were plentiful, sex was safe, and disco was dead.
The Troll learned his “science” from the foot of the Creationists. He wants to argue:
1. Global warming is false.
2. The thesis of global warming is not scientific because it is non-falsifiable.
And he thinks he’s clever thereby.
Ah, the 80s, when drugs were plentiful, sex was safe, and disco was dead.
Well two out of three aint bad. Sex weren’t safe in the 80’s m’boy. Not at all.
Well, heterosex was, at least for a while.
But apologies. You’re right.
Troofie, answer OB’s question or crawl away, beaten.
To continue to have fun with OBI:
How does this constitute proof of global warming?
In the absence of evidentiary supporting proof (links, statistics and methodology included, plzkthx) I do not accept your conjectures as factual, rational or logical. In addition to the foregoing requirements for substantive reply, please provide evidentiary supporting proof for each claim you made in that post.
Once again, troll, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
The Troll employs the same argumentative strategy as the creationists who simultaneously proclaim that natural selection is unfalsifiable and false. The Troll also has a LOT of trouble with reading comprehension and does not seem to understand what an “analogy” is.
The Troll is squirming on Kenobi’s hook but is too dim to understand the straightforward question that has been put to him/her.
The other night, I was masturbating while thinking of Michelle Obama, when Bob Owens, who was in my house for a sleepover, caught me and told mommy on me. Now I have to sit in the corner. Waaaah.
In the absence of evidentiary supporting proof (links, statistics and methodology included, plzkthx) I do not accept your conjectures as factual, rational or logical. In addition to the foregoing requirements for substantive reply, please provide evidentiary supporting proof for each claim you made in that post.
Once again, troll, to complete your reply, you must tell us exactly what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
Global Warming Deniers: There is no truth whatsoever to the notion of global warming. Anthropogenic climate change is as impossible as evolution or gravity. There is no evidence in support of it whatsoever, unlike proven science like parthenogenesis, terracentric astronomy and phrenology.
Scientifically-Motivated Individuals: Okay, on what do you base that assertion? How do you define global warming? How have you operationalized your terms?
Global Warming Deniers: Blasphemy! How dare you ask me anything scientific! Your science is clearly biased against good old belief!
Scientifically-Motivated Individuals: No, if you’re going to assert that something doesn’t exist, you kind of need to define what it is you’re talking about. You know, before you wave your hands and declare it nonexistent. Maybe there’s some contrary evidence that you’re ignoring.
Global Warming Deniers: Fuck you, you unwashed, crunchy-chewy hippie shit-wits! You cannot refute my factless belief, therefore my belief disproves your facts, scienticians! Now I will insult you because you dare to treat my unsupported belief with the same academic rigor you used on your own theories!
Scientifically-Motivated Individuals: We don’t know what your problem is, but we bet it is hard to pronounce.
Global Warming Deniers: Since no one will accept my bait, I declare myself King of the Thread. All bow unto me. And fuck you, hippies.
You blindly embrace one and deny the other.
You have neither evidence nor first-hand knowledge of that, therefore, your claim is mere unsupported supposition on your part. If you will not provide substantive answers to questions that have been put to you, and if you continue to dishonestly and disingenuously attribute positions to me, then I will not answer any of your questions and I will not engage you in discussion.
If you want a discussion with me, then I have already laid out the course of action you must take.
Once again, troll, to complete your reply, you must tell us *exactly* what you think that global warming *means.* Please specify for us what processes *you* think take place (or don’t take place) in a global warming scenario, and also explain for us how present conditions do or don’t match up with those processes. You are required to show your work, so you will need to present statistics and links (preferably to peer-reviewed material) so that anyone here who wants to can review and critique the matter on which you base your arguments.
If you do not provide substantive and responsive replies to my questions on this topic, I will neither reply to your questions nor engage you on any other points. If your question — demand answer — followup methodology is good enough to be used by you, then it is good enough for you to respond to it.
Begin.
Me make poopie!
Ah, Tintin the Deleter. I agree; get rid of the Heretical Writings!
Because doubting global warming is Racist.
[Tintin adds: Authentic, shouldn’t you at least start looking for a job rather than trolling this board from your home account 24/7?]
Authentic, if you want some genuine discourse on the topic of global warming, you already have a how-to checklist above. Don’t come in here and piss all over the furniture — and then get outraged when one of your hosts tries to clean up you mess. You’re not coming across like some sort of fearless crusader; IMO you’re more of a colicky, incontinent baby with an ill-fitting didy.
If you want a real discussion, you can have it, and you’ve been told how several times. If, OTOH, you’re just here to snipe and snark and insult, then IMO you really only deserve to be banned.
Shrug.
Hey, Troofie?
It’s eighty degrees in Kansas City today.
I guess global warming IS real, even by your pathetically uninformed standards!
Have a nice HOT day, sucka!
(following an argument where his side is arguing against anecdotal evidence)
Yeah! And here is some more anecdotal evidence!
See other thread, Classic.
How’s it feel having your ass kicked, yet again and twice in one day, by Actor212?*
* a wholly-owned subsidiary of Actor212 Enterprises, a Cayman Islands corporation.
Troll-ass kicked?
Check!
Didn’t read the whole thread… it’s a few days after the last comment but I felt I had to say that snow in NYC in doesn’t prove anything at all. Winter doesn’t end in NYC until it snows on Easter in April. This is an old saying and quite true. And this year Easter is the second Sunday in April so there are still quite a few weeks when it can snow.