:eek: Oh, don’t ever say that to a Doper! Where would the Dope be if we all followed that advice?!
Ah. Well, see here.
BrainGlutton.
Total Global Domination.
Ashur, Nineveh, Babylon, Persepolis, Ctesiphon, Seleucia, Baghdad, Istanbul, or Mosul, depending on period and definition of “capital.”
Well, one hopes that not all of the Dopers would follow this advice. 
Coloured me puzzle. Am I supposed to figure it out or something? Is there a prize?
Well, if you will enjoy watching me eat humble pie, then yes – there’s your prize for finding the supposed misquote.
Anyway, 100+ posts now and as expected, nobody’s produced this supposed misquote. Just a paraphrase which omitted a qualifier, but I had responded to the qualifier anyway.
Keep up the good work, folks.
You have pr oven once again you are a silly ass. I hope you weren’t expecting anymore from this thread.
As to the misquote word being used, you are just being obtuse. You exaggerated my prior statement to try an make a point and I called you on it and more importantly this all happened 14 months ago. While it was not technically a misquote as Daniel pointed out, it was either a lie or at least a bending of the truth.
That is your debating style anyway. Twisting and churning and talking points. You play a game and get upset when others don’t play by your rules and apparently you cannot see that it just makes you look petty and childish.
Does that make any sense to you at all? Simple question by the way, just say Yes or No.
I wish I know this earlier. He likes to redefine terms when called out on it.
OK, got one, now what?
Anyway, 100+ posts now and (as expected) you’re so stupid you haven’t noticed nobody supports you.
Or likes you.
That’s nonsense, since as noted above, if had been inventing some strawman, I would not have responded to the qualifier, which I clearly did in Post 233. You have been caught and now you are trying to weasel and nitpick your way out of it by first claiming that a non-quote is actually a quote, and now claiming that there was someting nefarious about my paraphrase. Which there clearly wasn’t.
But I’m glad you finally admit that I did not misquote you.
Here’s another challenge:
You claimed in that thread (in post 222) that I had promoted misinformation. Please QUOTE this supposed misinformation.
As noted above, if somebody shows me some fact I have gotten wrong, I will thank them for correcting me, just as I have done elsewhere.
Of course. I believe you are essentially wrong, but I understand the accusation you are making.
Now please, QUOTE my supposed misinformation in the Al Gore thread.
Nonsense aside, why do you capitalize the word QUOTE every time you write it? Is it an emphasis thing?
Give him a break, he’s typing with STAINLESS STEEL HOOKS.
EXACTLY!
I recall a Gahan Wilson cartoon set in some kind of bizarro world where everybody is plodding around, wearing no clothes but a kilt and shoes and some kind of plunger-cup cap with a stick projecting from the crown, dangling a carrot on a string right in front of the wearer’s eyes. One of them has actually reached out and grabbed his carrot and is eating it. Another says, "So, what are you going to do now?!"
:rolleyes:
:mad:
Or even :(:eek:.
:);)?
:p:D?
:dubious::smack:?
Sell it on eBay?
I don’t think anyone needs to quote anything. Your’re Brazil84, the “anti-Global-Warming-guy.” Posting misinformation is what you do.
The AGW case has been made, scientifically; it’s over. Fighting it can only be done with actual science – new science – science that has not (to date) been conducted. Merely forwarding the already-discredited misinformation deliberately produced by corporations with a financial interest in confusing the issue and slowing down the response to AGW is, by definition, posting misinformation.
Even posting “Wait a minute, I am an actual climate scientist and here are my results refuting AGW!” won’t work, here, because the Straight Dope (or any message board) is not where a reputable, peer-reviewed climate study would be published. In short, nothing anyone can post on a message board will effectively refute AGW; it’s a fool’s errand.
Simply put, you are arguing the equivalent of a flat earth theory.
I’ve always thought What Exit’s characterization of you as “astroturfing” was really on the mark – it seems like a paid campaign. You manage to post here, so you couldn’t simply be stupid.
But now I admit I am reconsidering my position.
It depends on exactly what you mean by “AGW.” If you mean that mankind’s CO2 emissions have the potential to cause surface warming, then you are probably right.
If by “AGW,” you mean that CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to rise, which will cause water vapor levels to increase, which will cause temperatures to rise further, and so on, and so on, resulting in a parade of horrors, then no, it’s not over scientifically.
This is an absolutely critical distinction.
No, I’m arguing against a compound hypothesis. If someone were to claim “The Earth is round AND Santa Claus lives at the North Pole,” I would tell them that their claim is wrong. But doing so is not the equivalent of arguing for a flat earth.
A third possibility is that you don’t fully understand my position or the issues involved. But I’ll tell you that I’m not paid to advocate against CAGW.
I’ve always been fascinated by hoaxes and moral panics, I’ve studied the issues carefully, and I’m satisfied that CAGW falls into this category.