Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Primarily Tom,the other and wrong side knows only the party line dogma and established techniques of shutting down debate. Some are well versed in the mechanics of "the science/religion", others just idiotic boosters for big green. You'll never get anywhere in reasonable debate, even if they were covered in continental glaciation tomorrow they would still blame it on CAGW.
On another note Tom; i've heard you mention Claire Mearns name a few times, she is in need of friendly support as her husband recently passed away.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
blah blah sir,
you mention The Economist as your answer to the question of what source that you use
for "fact checking"
yet The Economist is decidedly not a fact checking mechanism, it is largely opinion
I happen to read The Economist and agree with their strong capitalist viewpoints
but I don't understand the problem you seem to have Snopes, which was created to factually research and verify or dispel "urban myths" and then branched out through time to do the same with for example internet email spam, mistruths, outright lies, etc etc
what could possibly be objectionable about this to you personally?
do have the same distain for political fact checkers such as factcheck.org or politifact.com?
and if so, why?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Thanks for furthering my point.
Your welcome! I am not sure what your point really is though.
You are obviously one of the skeptical trolls and you never say a bad word against the other skeptical trolls.
The problem with this thread is that there are not a single skeptic that is not a skeptical troll because none of the skeptics in this thread is interested in a discussion.
So my point is really. Why should anyone be nice to people like you, rick and the chief when your usual response when people try to discuss anything with you is to sling insults and almost never trying to participate in the discussion?
The best response is of course to just ignore the skeptical trolls idiotic trolling but I have an understanding that people just sling insults back. What is the problem with calling a stupid idiot a stupid idiot?
Many people have tried to discuss things with the skeptical trolls at one time or another with the same results 99.9% of the time.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Lots of people here know my complete last name - I've climbed with them. Ask one of them to do the search.
From what I can tell, you choose to be anonymous. But you are googling my name?
So what if am? Remember what you wrote:
Oh no! Please don't tell Meg that I tattled on her! (It was Carly at the time.)
Maybe I really was going to tell Meg!
But settle down, I just checked the USPTO records to see what patent or patents were issued in the name of a "David Kos." Just idly curious--it's not every day I (a patent and intellectual property lawyer for nearly 20 years) gets lectured on patents. If "Kos" isn't your last name, you're anonymous as far as I'm concerned.
I can tell you don't think much of my advice (that's fine), but the counselor in me can't help but note that it's probably not a great idea to put in writing that your patent is almost certainly unenforceable and to call into question the entire patent program of your employers. I don't mean because you care if your patent is found to be unenforceable (you probably correctly conclude that it will almost certainly never be litigated, and even it it is, it's not really your problem).
I just wouldn't think it would look good to a potential future employer.
As an astute observer of human nature, I think you would agree that there are some things that lots of people do, but few admit to, especially in writing. Fraud on the PTO may be one of those things!
By the way, I'm not defending the patent system at all--totally different issue--and I'm also not disputing that corporate patent filing incentives may lead to the type of behavior that you describe.
Norton--The Economist is mostly news, with some editorials thrown in. I'm sure it exhibits bias in the same way virtually every news source does.
What I don't like about Snopes and other so-called "fact checkers" is that they trick certain gullible people (like you, perhaps?) into thinking that they are some sort of objective, above-the-fray, source of uncontrovertible "facts," when at least some of their stuff is just spin.
There's nothing wrong with having an opinion--it's just the deception I don't like.
It was a smart marketing move for people to start describing themselves as "fact checkers"--I can't resist the temptation to call myself that from time to time.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
This ^post^ reeks of blind ignorance. Seriously.
Not at all. I know that you are a stupid troll that thinks that you are clever.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Norton--The Economist is mostly news, with some editorials thrown in. I'm sure it exhibits bias in the same way virtually every news source does.
What I don't like about Snopes and other so-called "fact checkers" is that they trick certain gullible people (like you, perhaps?) into thinking that they are some sort of objective, above-the-fray, source of uncontrovertible "facts," when at least some of their stuff is just spin.
fair enough blah blah
but you said that you depended on The Economist for your own information and consequently saw no personal need for a snopes (example), to paraphrase yourself
all I asked you, very nicely, was what problem you have with internet fact checking web sites and if you also were negative on politifact.org, etc
you answered by saying that such web sites "trick' certain gullible people, like me, into thinking they are objective
why suggest that I am "gullible"? you get that from my posting here, I am gullible?
really? how so?
I guess we will differ on the accuracy of fact checking, blah, blah, without my inferring in return anything derogatory about you personally, as I cross the accuracy of those web sites constantly with extensive media sources to verify, and have seen quite few inaccuracies, cannot remember any on Snopes and only a few on the political sites
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
More name calling.
Tsk, tsk.
What to do... what to do?
Yes, like you often does. Why do you care so much when other people do the same as you do?
Why do you care that people many people don't say that for example fort mental should stop his attacks on the chief when you never say that the chief should stop his attacks on almost everyone?
It is more and more obvious that you are only a bad troll with very limited knowledge about the subject that some people try to discuss in this thread.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Definitely not hiring blabelblah to do a patent search.....
A lot of that work has been outsourced to India! (and typically isn't done by lawyers anyway, although they use the results in assessing patentability such as to attack the validity of a patent and in some cases in evaluating whether to file a patent application, although lots of patent filers have a "no search" policy for probably some of the reasons Kos mentioned.)
I don't actually write and prosecute patent applications now, although I did for years, and so (I'd like to think) my views on the subject are somewhat more informed than just, for example, having passed the patent bar (which was harder back when I took it!). It's very much an "it's a living" type of job--often a pretty good living financially, but there's more to life than money.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Great post mono.
This is how it will play. Millennials are aging,as are boomers .
Soon they,[your kids ] are going to be calling the shots.
Change is gonna come.
Palm Oil,sustainable and does a share of mitigation.
Just Saying.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
chuffer of nuts:
Oh yeah, where is that citation/ref to back up this dumbass made up claim of yours...
smart and sexy said:
Driest year in over 400 years... totally normal.
hahah.... what a stupid fuk you are... it was from the link YOU posted.
http://news.msn.com/in-depth/scientists-past-california-droughts-have-lasted-200-years
Already, the 2013-14 rainfall season is shaping up to be the driest in 434 years, based on tree ring data, according to Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at UC Berkeley.
|
|
Yak-Chik
Trad climber
Phoenix
|
|
All I can think of is those ice road truckers up in Canaduh
are some happy people this winter eh?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Not if they're driving across a frozen lake that isn't quite frozen.
But then that isn't a problem this winter.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
Oh,see those open lakes.
It was near 50f today,and it felt like 65f.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
What does that say about you?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
thats gross wade. although very 2014.
re: climate change.
Redistribution of wealth is the goal.
Facts, truth, data, science, honesty, honor have nothing to do with the U.N. or any of the Climate Change, Global Warming, CO2 kills cult.
Low information voters are the enabling force they use.
Keep up the pressure, the AGW liars are now in fail mode.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
What would any of us do without chuff's outstanding wealth of knowledge and dutiful reposting of conversations that happened just pages ago?
Driest year in over 400 years... right chuff? Just curious, can you read? If so, why not repost where I said anything about drought?
I love it when idiots learn the technical details of something (like drought) and ASSume they just learned something the experts didn't know... then conjure up a wild fantasy world where they are right and the experts are wrong. Completely incapable of metacognition .
But nothing NEW to record because the driest months on record don't really need to be recorded... unless you mention 1982-83. Not only does 1982-83 have to be recorded... it has to be mentioned in every discussion of climate or the claims are part of a vast conspiracy.
Unless something suggests conditions worse than the worst suggested by proxy data, or anti-AGW claims, there is really nothing at all to record or discuss. Hey chuffnuts, may we ascertain that you are now a firm believer in the validity of climate proxies?
1995 had the wettest January ever recorded. I hereby declare any and all climate data invalid without mention of January 1995.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Okay, prove how bad my reading/typing comprehension is and show me where I ever said anything about a current drought.
Actually, the only thing I had to do to get my PhD was look up the definition of drought. It really is THAT easy!!! Maybe you geniuses should ask for yours... you are clearly qualified.
chuff, I didn't post any sources... I simply reposted the "sources" you provided.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!