The irony, it burns once again. I started this thread precisely because the only thing I was seeing on the “skeptic” side (in the latest GD thread that I linked to, but this of course has been a long-time thing here) was “The emotional, self rightous rhetoric, etc. etc.” Thus the pitting was exactly a result of the nonsensical repetitive horseshit that was constantly being shoveled GIGO’s way, and I finally got sick and tired of it and decided to call you assholes on it all. He gives you jerkwads cite after cite, and all you do in return is engage in your endless mindless sophistry. Your hyprocisy it seems knows absolutely no fucking bounds; it’s the deniers who are engaging in these tactics, not the AGW proponents, and have been for years here. Pitting is the end result of all this horseshit, not the beginning-it’s when you at long last realize that nobody on the denier side is engaging in good faith, and decide to let them have it, all barrels.
I would guess that you have blinded yourself to the misconduct of people on your side of the debate as well as to the constructive conduct of people on the side against you.
As the best minded dopers, even conservative ones, are supporting me, your delusion knows no bounds, so as I said before it is fine with me that you put me on ignore, it demonstrates only that you are just a willful ignorant.
Starting off with a blanket insult, illogical emotional rhetoric, and accusing your “enemies” of doing what you just did, it makes you look like an idiot.
Not that anyone needs this pointed out, but hope springs eternal.
I actually went and read the Mann thread, and nothing in the OP here is justified. I see skeptics actually trying to pin down Gigo, and his twisting, turning and dodging is quite obvious.
Onward to irrelevance for you, the evidence also shows that the other few scientists that allowed their political ideology to triumph over science go that way.
Even after the previous resignation was also touted as the end of the consensus or the beginning of the end of the theories behind AGW, we all know how that turned out.
And the idiot, glad he put me on ignore, just refuses to point at the evidence that show I posted erroneous things, such delusion of even what he thinks is a great point is hilarious.
DiFool, in this thread you accuse me of being a “hypocrite” in the GD thread. Please explain exactly what I said in that thread which is hypocritical or which discloses hypocrisy. Please supply quotes.
If the blindness had been invented by Al Gore you should had a point, unfortunately it was discovered more than 100 years a go and the modern understanding of the mechanisms was found 60 years ago.
Too much blind people as the result, that is the ones that are blinded by the science.
As the scientists are not shutting up, one should pay attention to them, not a bloke like me on the internet, of course that point still fries over these deniers, the reality is that they are the ones running away from the experts and the evidence, and this should be about politics, but as it was already demonstrated, most do get their erroneous talking point myths from partisan sites.
Find a person who thougth I was lying of omission? Nothing
Give a personal opinion? Nothing
I imagine how it must be a GB’s job.
“Hey, GB, who wins tonight? Philly or Buffalo?”
GB: “Well, accoriding to this website there a 43.67% chance of Philly winning if they score a running TD after an opponent’s 3-and-out, but this site says that if Buffalo has fewer than 4 punts in thr first half their chance of winning by more than 5 points increase by 23.4%”
““Dude, Philly or Buffalo, it’s for the office pool””
“No, it’s an unsicentific way of determining probabilites. Look I have this chart with meta-anaylises from 68 experts that clearly states that there is a high varibility of results with teams that have had losing records in games played in prime-numbered weeks on a Fibonacci series day”
“Man, if oyu don’t want to play, just say so.
No. You are an agent for Big Pool, rejecting clear science”.
Oh I see you are whining, sorry if I thought you were admitting that you were not doubling down on telling others that your cites are great and reliable and that you are not a chump from bringing them in.
Believe that you are not lying is ok, that we know that your sources lied, that is the important lesson.
And those whining questions are not important to the lesson at hand, you have demonstrated a gross ineptitude on recognizing good sites from the bad, if you insist they are the greatest thing after seeing the evidence to the contrary then you are lying in my book if still claim they show what you are right. What is important that even higher ups decided to put even a supporter of yours in a tread titled in part “hypocritical deniers” It was not my idea and if you want to ignore what even thoughtful conservatives are saying, then I have not much problems, as you are getting irrelevant and infamous.
First, the question is will her plate really fall? Why would a vibrating table lead to the plate migrating to the edge of the table? A skeptic might ask that question. Or, even better, say, “Stop kicking the fucking table”, rather than focusing on just her plate. And why wouldn’t everything on the table end up on the floor? Why just her plate? Is this really about the plate?
The question about which side would end up where is not the issue. Not in the real world. Your analogy is fail.
