BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Your second post is post #3. It says NOTHING like that. You’re a goddamn liar.
Look at this sequence of posts:
What the fuck is “pre-replied?”
Moron. Animal. Hombre incapaz y ignorante.
This kind of discussion happens because there are many posters who apparently believe that if they concede error on any point, the penalty is having a hot poker shoved up their rectum.
Yes, there are two points in play: the relatively minor one I’m harping about, and the major point of the thread, which is that conservative groups are funding anti-climate-change activities (although to a much lesser dollar figure than the OP claims.)
I’m happy to discuss either one – except I don’t contest the second point. The first point remains in hot contention, though, because GIGOBuster, fearing the hot poker penalty, won’t simply say he was wrong to unreservedly endorse the OP. He slipped in a soft backpedal about how there was some "exaggeration,’ and now wants to just put that aside and not discuss it.
Nothing would stop this as quickly as GIGOBuster manning up and saying, clearly and unambiguously, “Yes, I was wrong to endorse the $1 billion claim.”
When I’ve been wrong, I have had no problem clearly, completely, and unreservedly saying so.
But he won’t. And no, I won’t let it go. I grant it’s a minor point, but it’s bullshit for a guy who cloaks himself in the accuracy of science to refuse to clearly admit to error. And unless he does, I won’t stop reminding him of it.
Or, it might just be that you insist on pursuing the minor, even insignificant, point because its the one you think you will win. You tend to be a wee bit competitive, Counselor.
So, rather than attempting to address the report that conservative groups are funding AGW dissention, the local righties are instead quibbling over how much those groups are spending? Wow.
Does calling me ignorant first make you right?
Let’s start with the SciAm citation, can you explain to me, in your own words, exactly why CO2 in the atmosphere causes the temperature of the entire atmosphere to increase?
“A rather straightforward calculation showed that doubling the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere… which would arrive in the late 21st century if no steps were taken to curb emissions… should raise the temperature of the surface roughly one degree C.”
I’ll give you 10,000 ppm (1%), should make the straightforward calculation even easier.
Be careful using Vyvanse for your ADHD symptoms, it’s know to cause sudden death in some patients .
Yes.
The OP’s focus is not the fact that funding exists – certainly liberal groups fund pro-AGW activities. The OP’s focus is that a billion dollars is being spent to push the anti-AGW agenda. That’s not true, and is worthy of correction.
Why “wow?”
An error about a billion dollars should go unremarked, in your view?
It doesn’t need to be a long discussion – a simple acknowledgement of the truth, and the topic is closed.
So, all those scientists are mathtards? You passed Calculus 101? Therefore, they should just shut the fuck up and take it from you?
It’s the only point I dispute. I never denied that conservative groups fund anti-AGW studies. I only entered the thread to point out that the study that claimed $1 billion was fatally flawed.
So, yes, I’m pushing this point because I think I will win it. Why else?
OK, I’ll start! On this piddling point, this insignificant quibble, you are totally, one hundred percent right! Hands down, no question, nailed it!
(C’mon, guys! Its Christmas, what the heck…join in!)
You really don’t know, do you?
Thanks – but the person refusing to acknowledge this is not you. It’s GIGOBuster. He’s the one who claims he’s all about the facts, the science, the numbers – it’s for this reason that his dodges on this point are significant. Your concession, while appreciated, is not nearly as meaningful – especially since you never took up a contrary position in the first place. You were never wrong about this; you’re not conceding your own error now.
Ho, ho, ho!
“Fatally” does not mean what you think it does.
Here is what I said before you made it your show:
And that leads to:
Who who is doing the bullshit here?
I therefore apologize for assuming that you and magellan would be smart enough to realize that I was not endorsing the 1 billion claim.
Ugh christ what is wrong with you people.
Fatally flawed as to its claim of $1 billion. “Fatal” in this case means utterly wrong.
And you agree that it’s wrong in that claim, don’t you?
Why don’t you quote your earlier posts? Answer: because your earlier posts unreservedly accept the $1 billion as fact:
Why does my “show” start at a place that conceals what really happened? I asked you a simple question, pointing out the flaw in the $1 billion number:
Your reply? Here:
THAT is what you should be quoting – I asked you straight up about the billion dollars.
Didn’t I?
And you said you thought the criticism was not valid. Didn’t you?
Yes, or no?
This quote bears repeating!
You say that you were not endorsing the 1 billion claim. That’s an absolute lie. Look:
There it is.
Liar.