Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 09:19am PT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2014 - 08:49am PT
Oh man, I come over here to read the latest on AWG, and look what the cat dragged in.


(1) I showed how you distorted what I said. I wrote a very long post detailing how you distort what I say. Right below is more proof of your distortions:

More of the same from K-man. It's always "I already addressed that.... in a long post". But we never see the post. Funny how that works out.

Now, you're saying "Right below is more proof of your distortions:" but there's nothing there. WTF?

(2) I quoted your opinion already. You said your post was "trollery." Forget that exchange? You are distorting the truth and what I have written. Do I need to spend time finding the post, all so you can ignore it again? F*#kin' stop your lies.

Again, with the "I've quoted your opinion already".

BULLSH#T!

And about my saying an individual post was trollery, you twisted it into "it's where you claimed you were nothing but a troll". Is this what you mean by purposely misrepresenting someone?

(3) You posted a five-year old OpEd. You even apologized because you posted the wrong one.

That doesn't change the fact that your impication that I presented it as a reasonable study was BS. You were still wrong.

We have been over this Sketch. I thought you said you would stop.

Right. But today, you said "Show where I've made up crap."

Did you already forget about that?

You said that I keep bring it up. But you lie, it's you who keeps bring this up, after I do my best to address directly your questions and claims.

I wrote a long post explaining where I got my opinion on why I believe you didn't believe the "current studies." It's my opinion and I explained in detail how I got my view.

Really? Where is it?

I do recall you posting a long post, where you repeatedly claimed to answer my questions. Unfortunately, you didn't include the questions, which made it nearly impossible to know what questions you were answering.

Here, again:

The cartoon had nothing to do with exaggerated media claims. It was a direct denouncement of the conclusions of the WAIS studies. I showed why, and I said that your posting of that cartoon was one reason why I said you didn't believe the current studies.

That's not my opinion, which you said you would quote.

It's you making interpretations that were different from my stated interpretations and claiming I endorsed your interpretation.

Quote my opinion.

Is anybody else tired of Sketch's bullsh#t? What will make him stop. I am beginning to feel stalked.

Sketch, do me a favor: Shut up when you talk to me.

Save us the silly "I'm a victim" drama. I pointed out your hypocrisy.

Did you ignore my single sentence post? Or did you return fire?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jun 4, 2014 - 09:20am PT
Look in the mirror rick. It is quite well documented, but like I said you need to be more discerning as to which documentation you chose.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2014 - 09:41am PT
Sketch, today you said this:

2) You've not quoted any of my opinions.


Back on May 28, I quoted your opinion on AWG (at least you said it was your opinion):

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2418930#msg2418930


Now please stop the nonsense.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jun 4, 2014 - 09:42am PT
sketchy's lip syncing <br/>
sketchy's lip syncing

Credit: Wade Icey
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:00am PT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2014 - 09:41am PT
Sketch, today you said this:

2) You've not quoted any of my opinions.

You left out the next sentence: "If I'm wrong, please re-post my opinions."

Back on May 28, I quoted your opinion on AWG (at least you said it was your opinion):

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2418930#msg2418930

Now please stop the nonsense.

Let's not overlook that two weeks passed between your initial declaration and the above post, which addressed an opinion I had to tell you about.

What's so pathetic about your reply, is you reached new levels of illogical stupidity trying to defend yourself.

Dumb.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:21am PT
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:34am PT
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for May 2014 has just been published, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 years since September 1996 is zero

Sketch breathlessly rushes here to regurgitate what Lord Monckton has fed him at WUWT. Including the typo! But Sketch coyly does not mention his source.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:40am PT
Coy.

Ouch.

Nice burn, Chiloe.

Is the graph incorrect?

No warming for 17 years and 9 months?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:45am PT
I think Sketch is sure to point out that he posted the plot and quote without offering his opinion about that plot and quote...

He's trolling as usual, so while he doesn't say what his point is, it is rather a transparent effort to produce some drama.

He has primarily offered drama (quantifiable, the the number of words where he states his actual viewpoint to the total number if words he's posted)
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:56am PT
I hooked Ed and Chiloe in less than 25 minutes.

Yee Haw!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:57am PT
He's trolling as usual
Yeah I think we've all noticed that. He's got nothing.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:05am PT
Love the self-righteous posturing, boys.

The important thing is you cared enough to whine about my post.

Cheers.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:29am PT
Simple way to look at the Climate change argument
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-plus-epa?g=2&c=ufb3
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep from atop the Hill
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:33am PT
SKETCH....


You Bastard!!!!


Keep up the good work.





And these guys, Chiloe, EDH, KMAN etal, all supposedly have a professional PhD life.


No wonder they want gov't to get bigger.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:38am PT
The important thing is you cared enough to whine about my post.

at last, a concise summation of your views.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
Is the graph incorrect?

No warming for 17 years and 9 months?

Incorrect.

Lord Monkton doesn't believe the warming oceans count towards GLOBAL warming.

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Incorrect.

Lord Monkton doesn't believe the warming oceans count towards GLOBAL warming.

How is the graph incorrect?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
Already explained Sketch.

Focus on the word GLOBAL.

Does one interpretation of satellite data for lower troposphere a good representation of global warming?

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
How about this one?



#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00161212 per year
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Simple way to look at the Climate change argument

Simple, but wrong. For my analysis, I have the following postulates, all of which I personally agree with

1. Global climate change is real, and human activity forms one of its drivers;

2. If the sorts of climate change that occurred over the last, say, 100 years continue, there will be catastrophic consequences for humanity, including but not limited to widespread economic and political instability, famine, disease and an accelerated inability of the earth to sustain its human population.

These still do not justify his conclusions, because he fails to attach probabilities to his likely outcomes. Instead, he assumes that we have infinite risk aversion. By that I mean that we prefer doing whatever it takes to mitigate the worst case at any cost -- regardless of the expected value of the range of actions we could take.

In a way, it reminds me of a time when one of my former law partners wanted to hire a blasting contractor to blast some holes through the hardpan for some trees he wanted to plant near his house. (This was a common practice here because we have a layer of hardpan soil that needs to be penetrated for the proper growth of large trees). When he was talking to the contractor, he asked what was the worst that could happen if something went wrong.

The contractor replied that he really couldn't speculate what was the worst that could happen, but he'd be happy to tell my former colleague what was the worst disaster his own work caused. My partner said to go ahead.

The contractor said he'd been hired to blast out a large tree stump. The contractor sawed through the stump, and then put a small charge under it, intended to shatter the soil around the stump (and, of course, the hardpan around it) so that they could remove the remaining pieces easily. Unfortunately, the stump was not completed cut apart, and the blast acted like a mortar charge, propelling the stump into the air and over the owner's house, where it crashed through the roof, the second story, the first story, and then landed in the basement. The contracted finished "Now do you still want to hire me?"

My partner asked the contractor "How many blasting jobs have you done near residences?" the answer was "About 5,000." "How many times was there an accident?" "That once."

"Go ahead."

Probabilities matter.

John
Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 25963 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews