"Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud - Part of The Vast Leftist Conspiracy By The Liberal Controlled Media To Undermine Conservative Ideology."

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 1, 2009, 8:52:31 AM12/1/09

to

"Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud - Part of The Vast Leftist
Conspiracy By The Liberal Controlled Media To Undermine Conservative
Ideology" - World Net Daily

When George Bush soundly defeated Algore in the 2000 election, who knew at the
time that a bitter gore would recruit the world's scientists, universities and
academic academies for a war on Conservative ideology and commonsense?

Many bloggers say that orthodox science has been a lie since day one and they
it they who are far more qualified to keep us informed on how to spot the big
left wing lies than the scientists are about science.

Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Monckton, said just the other day that this
scandal calls for the dissolution of the UN, to be replaced by the Heritage and
CATO institutes, and his Lordship of course.

The socialist Algore has turned his back on viable energy technologies like
oil, gas and coal; to sink a fortune into green technologies, possibly one of
the most anti-American innovations ever designed. He's made $billions, proving
that it's all a giant socialist money making conspiracy.

The Muslims who we depend on for oil are up in arms because green technologies
reduce demand for oil and the price goes down.

Scientists Are Eggheads Wearing Thick Glasses and White Coats Who Speak In
Tongues As If Possessed By Evil Spirits or Bad Bodily Humors - They Are of No
Use If They Tell Us Things We Don't Want To Hear" - Prominent Conservative
Think Tank

Universities are breeding grounds for leftist thought so higher education
should be shunned and avoided at all costs. Limbaugh and Hannity were high
school dropouts, and we unanimously agree with everything that they say, so
education is of no value at all. The latest Rasumussen poll says that the
average education of a Fox News Network viewer is sub-G. E. D., most left
school as soon as it was legal.

David Horowitz and Karl Rove were right!

Karl Rove said that education is the enemy of Conservatism. David Horowitz
wants universities to be shut down because he says that higher education
produces too many Liberals. If everyone just listend to Fox News and Rush every
day, we wouldn't need to blow all that money on schools.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66889

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 1, 2009, 12:31:05 PM12/1/09

to

msbanana whimpered self-righteously:

>
> "Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud

That's odd, considering that science has no political ideology..

> Failed Political Ideology - World Net Daily

But, Whirled Nuts Daily does..

> When George Bush soundly defeated Algore in the 2000 election

You meant "When George W. Bush was appointed President..

--Just pointing out your obvious lies again.. *>LOL!<*

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 1, 2009, 1:55:25 PM12/1/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf3jsl$hta$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> msbanana whimpered self-righteously:
>>
>> "Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud
>
> That's odd, considering that science has no political ideology..

Apparently GW does have an ideology. And areligion. I think al gore is the
Pope.

>> Failed Political Ideology - World Net Daily
>
> But, Whirled Nuts Daily does..

Who? Nothing I've reproduced has come from that website. Most of what I';ve
posted has come from England.

>> When George Bush soundly defeated Algore in the 2000 election
>
> You meant "When George W. Bush was appointed President..

Ah, a delusionist.

> --Just pointing out your obvious lies again.. *>LOL!<*
>

Take your meds and go back to bed.

--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.

Don Albasani

unread,

Dec 1, 2009, 2:15:15 PM12/1/09

to

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD48DA8D6DC0We...@216.196.97.142...

Standard Wings Party crapfest.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:00:33 AM12/2/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently at:

>
> Men_of_Mind wrote:
>>
>> msbanana whimpered self-righteously:
>>>
>>> "Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud
>>
>> That's odd, considering that science has no political ideology..
>
> Apparently GW does have an ideology

Then I take it that you are prepared to present your thorough
and objective analysis of this supposed ideology? Lets see it..

> And areligion.

I think that your unsupported 'conclusion' is but the
delusions expressed by an ambitious ignorant fool who
imagines that his lack of knowledge somehow dictates
the laws of physics throughout the entire universe..

F'rinstance..

> I think al gore is the Pope.

How quaint.. First you presuppose that the study of
the Earth's climate, and the rigorously tested methods
for collecting temperature data amount to some kind of
'religion', then you name former Vice President Al Gore
as the "Pope" of this hypothetical 'religion'..

Apparently, your inobjectivity disqualified you, again..

>>> Failed Political Ideology - World Net Daily
>>
>> But, Whirled Nuts Daily does..
>
> Who?

Whirled Nuts Daily.. You know, that supposed "news"
source that had to pay a $165 million settlement for
"libel, defamation, false light and conspiracy" about
Al Gore campaign for Vice-President in his home state.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/graphics/wndlawsuitdocs/jonessuit.pdf

>Nothing I've reproduced has come from that website

Indeed, you've posted precisely nothing to substantiate
your initial claims, as well..

> Most of what I';ve posted has come from England.

Well, not that it's helped your suppositions any, too..

>>> When George Bush soundly defeated Algore in the 2000 election
>>
>> You meant "When George W. Bush was appointed President..
>
> Ah, a delusionist.

Ahh, a so-called "conservative".. All blather, but
nothing to substantiate or counter-argue your opinion.

>> --Just pointing out your obvious lies again.. *>LOL!<*
>
> Take your meds and go back to bed.

You're again projecting the sociopathy of your own failed
political ideology, and misrepresenting your deliberate
ignorance as somehow more factual than what an experienced
scientist has observed, first hand..

Please take this an invitation to humiliate your tiny
minded self with further misadventures into logic and
critical reasoning..

--Feel up to it, punk?

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:05:20 AM12/2/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:

> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
> any warming and they don't know why

How would you know? Are you in possession of those
e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's
word for it?

> Ah, another true believer.

Yes, that would the best description of your self..

--Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:37:08 AM12/2/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf4vq2$b9a$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

OK whiney. Please present the original unadulterated data on which the theory
of global warming is based. You know all those temp readings that don't show
any temp increases in the last 30 years.

I have to have something to debunk so when you provide this data I will
debunk it. Alas as has been admitted by Jones and Mann the original data was
err, umm deleted. Or maybe the dog ate it, we're not sure.

In any case there wouldn't seem to be any actual physical, real,
unadulterated evidence that proves GW, let alone MMGW. But go ahead and post
what you've got.

I'll be waiting right here. And don't start off with any snide adhominems.
This is a one time offer. Provide the data or admit it doesn't exist. One or
the other.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:38:52 AM12/2/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf5032$bvl$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>
>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>> any warming and they don't know why
>
> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's
> word for it?

Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails. Would you like me to email
them to you or provide the link?

>
>> Ah, another true believer.
>
> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>
> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>

--

z n b o o

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:41:16 AM12/2/09

to

Absolutely!

Climategate, Read All About It

December 2 2009

Christopher Monckton writes the first book(let) on Climategate, the greatest
scientific scandal in our lifetime.

The summary:

The whistleblower's data file revealed, for the first time, the innermost
workings of the tiny international clique of climate scientists, centered on
the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, that has been the prime mover in
telling the world that it is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that
humankind is responsible. He had revealed what many had long suspected:

? A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific politicians
with whom they were financially and politically linked, were responsible for
gathering and reporting data on temperatures from the palaeoclimate to today's
climate. The "Team", as they called themselves, were bending and distorting
scientific data to fit a nakedly political story-line profitable to
themselves and congenial to the governments that, these days, pay the bills
for 99% of all scientific research.

? The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at
least $20 million in "research" grants from the Team's activities.

? The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN's
climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results
from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel's conclusions
for political rather than scientific reasons.

? The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit
what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the
UN's climate panel to report.

? They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and
errors.

? They had emailed one another about using a "trick" for the sake of
concealing a "decline" in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

? They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their
predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine
years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was "a travesty".
This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the
present decade is the warmest ever, and that "global warming" science is
settled.

? They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on
journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review
their papers.

? They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers
reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

? They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal's editor, solely
because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for
political purposes.

? They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

? Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy
computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external
researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their "research" was
either honest or competent.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_read_all_about_it/

Warmest Regards

B0n oz

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 1:47:38 AM12/2/09

to

grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
news:Xns9CD510C975B2AWe...@216.196.97.142:

> Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf5032$bvl$1
> @sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>>
>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>
>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's word for it?
>
> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails. Would you like me to
> email them to you or provide the link?
>
>>
>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>
>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>
>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>>
>
>
>

Oh and BTW, East Anglia has acknowledged the emails are in fact genuine.
Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to investigate the person who hacked them.

And George Manbiot of the UK Guardian, a dedicated MMGW believer has
acknowledged that they are real and devastating.

Phil Jones director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
quit over them and Micheal Mann is being investigated. Something about fraud
and federal grant money being dispersed under false pretenses. Penn State is
throwing him under the bus to protect thier pot of government money.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 10:23:42 AM12/2/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently at:
>
> Man_of_Mind was castigating the presumptions of guilt posted by:

>>
>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>>
>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>
>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's
>> word for it?
>
> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails.

I've found alleged copies at..

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

> Would you like me to email them to you or provide the link?

A link would suffice, however I have my doubts as to the veracity
of your claims as to how these purloined e-mails somehow disprove
the overall conclusions regarding how the world's climate has
been warming considerably..

>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>
>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>
>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails.
There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention
of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand
plan to ï¿½get rid of the MWPï¿½, no admission that global warming
is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no
ï¿½marching ordersï¿½ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian
overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers
also being in on the plot though."

--Comments?

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 10:31:11 AM12/2/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently:
>
> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> posted, in haste:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing, at the expense of:

>>>
>>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>>>
>>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>>
>>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's word for it?
>>
>> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails.

So, that makes you an accessory, after the fact..

>>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>>
>>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>>
>>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>
> Oh and BTW, East Anglia has acknowledged the emails are
> in fact genuine.

What you allude to is that this is a complete collection of
those e-mails, un-edited and indisputable proof that AGW
is somehow falsified by this alone..

Got some bad news for you, sport..

That's not how science professional do their work, and all
your failed political ideology allows you to do is suggest,
infer, insinuate and imply that which you cannot hope to
dispute in a factual manner..

> Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to investigate the person
> who hacked them.

To wit..

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

"Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact
and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the
monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively
to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and
agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times
about details and engaging in ï¿½robustï¿½ discussions; Scientists
expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work
in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it
wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of
their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this
should be shocking."

--Comments?

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 10:43:04 AM12/2/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:
>
> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:

I see that you've again avoided my prior counter-arguments..

Nice of you to admit that you have precisely NOTHING..

> Please present the original unadulterated data

What do you consider "unadulterated data", because I know
that you'll try to use that later on when I bring out the
web-sites and cites therein which point to this data..

And don't forget the 'proxy' information, where similar
studies were referenced and compared, several dozen times
over. Granted, you're limited to just making false
generalizations because you clearly suck at math..

> I have to have something to debunk

*>LOL!<* You've again inferred something that you
don't have to prove, and then dishonestly expect me
to accept your false premises.

> Alas as has been admitted by Jones and Mann the original data
> was err, umm deleted.

False premise, false conclusion. Imagine my surprise at that.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv

Anything else you'd like to lie about?

> In any case there wouldn't seem to be any actual physical,
> real, unadulterated evidence that proves GW

Well, you're again completely wrong, and I attribute it to
the usual right-winger's "mathorexia"..

--Better luck next time.. *>LOL!<*

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 10:47:16 AM12/2/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf60pv$ts5$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently at:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind was castigating the presumptions of guilt posted by:
>>>
>>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>>>
>>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>>
>>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's word for it?
>>
>> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails.
>
> I've found alleged copies at..
>
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>
>> Would you like me to email them to you or provide the link?
>
> A link would suffice, however I have my doubts as to the veracity
> of your claims as to how these purloined e-mails somehow disprove
> the overall conclusions regarding how the world's climate has
> been warming considerably..

TEll you what, just do a web search for FOI2009.zip, that way you can't say I
had anything to with it and you can choose a source you find reliable. The
www.mininova.org location seems broken but the other 20,100 hist on Googgle
should provide somethingusable for you.

The bottom line is simple. They've admitted the data didn't fit ther theory
so they deleted or adjusted the data to fit the theory. No one can produce
original, unaltered data that supports the theory.

As far basck as 2005 there were people warning about this.
http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/breaking_the_hockey_stick.html

I heard on Minday that the interpetation of the tree ring data, aside from
the flaws in collection, don't really say what they think it does. A person
who is a recognized expert on tree rings disagreed with the climate
"scientitst" interpetation. I heard this in the car and did not write
anything down so I am still looking for specifics on this.

However:
Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-
treering proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. Note: Figure 1
data are available in a CSV file.

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global
temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies. Energy &
Environment 19(1): 93-100. Note: Supplemental data are available in a ZIP
file.

Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent
temperature changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are
likely to be adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate
histories are commonly reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice
cores, tree rings, and sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for
recent centuries, tend to dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to
believe that tree ring data may not properly capture long-term climate
changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that
were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a
30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by
subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series
was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite
coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and
Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3�C
warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

Copyright � 2007 by Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article posted on this website with permission.

The complete study os available at
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

Even were it (global warming) true there is no longer any reproducible,
unimpeachable data available to prove it. Even less os is evidence that man
is causing it, especially given the recent reports on sunspot activity and
how it relates to global climate/tempratures.

There really does not appear to be anything to substantiate the claim guy,
even the "hockey stick" was broken.

>>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>>
>>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>>
>>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

And it seems as if the comments are a little, I don't know, skeptical? Maybe
becuase it'as the same cabal, "climate scientitst", trying to make excuses
for the inexcusable.

>
> "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails.
> There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention
> of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand

> plan to �get rid of the MWP�, no admission that global warming

> is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no

> �marching orders� from our socialist/communist/vegetarian

> overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers
> also being in on the plot though."
>
> --Comments?
>

Since I do not subscribe to any of those theoris, no.

Perhaps instead of attacking people and thier motives one should focus on the
science. It would seem to need the attention.

leona...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 11:28:26 AM12/2/09

to

On Dec 1, 8:52 am, mrbawana2u <mrbawan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud -
> Part of The Vast Leftist Conspiracy
> By The Liberal Controlled Media To Undermine Conservative
> Ideology" - World Net Daily
>
> When George Bush soundly defeated Algore in the 2000 election,
> who knew at the time that a bitter gore would recruit the world's
> scientists, universities and academic academies for a war on
> Conservative ideology and commonsense?
>
> Many bloggers say that orthodox science has been a lie since day one and they
> it they who are far more qualified to keep us informed on how to spot the big
> left wing lies than the scientists are about science.

•• We are not dealing with "orthodox science"
here we are talking about criminal fraud on
a massive scale

>
> Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Monckton, said just the other day that this
> scandal calls for the dissolution of the UN, to be replaced by the Heritage and
> CATO institutes
>

> The socialist Algore has turned his back on viable

> energy technologies like oil, gas and coal, (even
> though his inheritance is largely comprised of oil &
> mining assets) to sink a fortune into green

> technologies, possibly one of the most anti-
> American innovations ever designed. He's made
> $billions, proving that it's all a giant socialist
> money making conspiracy.

> The Muslims who we depend on for oil are up in
> arms because green technologies
> reduce demand for oil and the price goes down.
>

> Universities are breeding grounds for leftist thought.

•• Yes the universities are run largely by fascists
who welcome the islamo- fascists and all other
leftist entities, and who bar freedom of expression
in on their campus.

•• IPCC is not a scientific body, rather it is a political
body of a fascist nature.

--- ---
Global warming is a myth and does not exist. On
the other hand "Climate Change" is functioning
as it has for 5 million years or more.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 2, 2009, 11:40:40 AM12/2/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf61ui$366$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

It's not luck, it's the facts.

Answer this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away
much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming
are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said
to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA�s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss
following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then
adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The
revised figures were kept, but the originals � stored on paper and magnetic
tape � were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and
received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU�s director. In them he discusses
thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: �We do not hold the original raw
data...

Um, yeah so how do we know what the original data showed? Take thier word for
it?

--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.

"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:26:22 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:
>
> Man_of_Mind noted the evasions, lies and obfuscations posted by:

>>
>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently at:
>>>>>

>>>>> Men_of_Mind was laughing at the primate posturings posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> msbanana whimpered self-righteously:
------

Okay, here's the facts. The "original data" that was 'discarded'
because it was on magnetic tapes (9-track, 1" format?) and the
punched cards is archived elsewhere on this planet..

Had you even looked at East Anglia's CRU web-site, you'd
already know that what you've presented next is completely
false and utterly without merit..

> Answer this:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>
> From The Sunday Times
> November 29, 2009
> Climate change data dumped
> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
>
> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
> predictions of global warming are based.

*>LOL!<* Yet, even their 'emergency server' shows *PRECISELY*
where the original data is sourced from, where it was originally
published and still stored..

Your 'sound science' isn't so sound, is it? *>LOL!<*

> It means that other academics are not able to check basic
> calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature
> over the past 150 years.

It seems? Wow, and here I thought you were talking about
something factual, for a change, instead of regurgitating
your anti-Climate Change bovine scatological-based rhetoric..

> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world
> and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they
> were collected.

I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
in it's original formats and unaltered states, and where all
that data is archived.. I'll pass on two clues for you to
ponder the overall significance of.

1.) You won't find it using Google..

2.) You'll have to have some academic credentials..

Your imagination and blindly repeated lies won't work..

Example follows..

> The revised figures were kept, but the originals ï¿½ stored
> on paper and magnetic tape ï¿½ were dumped to save space

Wow, paper tapes. Waiting for Baudot again? *>LOL!<*

> In a statement on its website, the CRU said: ï¿½We do not hold
> the original raw data...

That's correct. You're never going to figure out where it's
being stored, in the "original raw data" format either. Talk
about hiding in plain sight, OMFG..

> Um, yeah so how do we know what the original data showed?

So, how do we know that by casting aspersions, trying to
create doubt and uncertainty, that you're not just a paid
shill for the Pollution Lobby, instead of a gullible, small
minded right-wing retard, desperately clutching to a failed
political and economic ideology?

To the point, which I know that you will avoid..

http://yubanet.com/usa/Climatic-Research-Unit-Update.php

"The publication of a selection of stolen data is the
latest example of a sustained and, in some instances,
a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to
distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the
urgent action which world governments must consider to
mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.

We are committed to furthering this debate despite being
faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal
breach of our security systems and our concern to protect
colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who
have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the
publication of personal information."

--So, keep telling on yourself, little right-wing extremist..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:59:11 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled disgustingly when:
>
> Man_of_Mind refuted the tawdry insinuations inferred by:

>>
>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently at:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was castigating the presumptions of guilt posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:
>>>>
>>>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>>>
>>>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>>>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's
>>>> word for it?
>>>
>>> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails.
>>
>> I've found alleged copies at..
>>
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>
>>> Would you like me to email them to you or provide the link?
>>
>> A link would suffice, however I have my doubts as to the veracity
>> of your claims as to how these purloined e-mails somehow disprove
>> the overall conclusions regarding how the world's climate has
>> been warming considerably..
>
> TEll you what, just do a web search for FOI2009.zip

I don't do bit-torrents, but I hope you enjoy having your
personal computer being, shall we say, 'compromised'..

> the other 20,100 hist on Googgle should provide somethingusable

You mean, like a virus? FYI, I seldom use Google, simply
because I usually know what I'm looking for. Probably
something to do with being around computers since the '60's..

And now, for your next false premise, which clearly points
out both how dishonest *YOU* are, and how little you know
about science conducts itself in order to be taken seriously..

> They've admitted the data didn't fit ther theory
> so they deleted or adjusted the data to fit the theory

Nope, it wouldn't have even made it past peer-review if that
had actually taken place. Getting basic scientific concepts
published requires more integrity than you're capable of..

Example follows..

> No one can produce original, unaltered data

How much money would you like to lose on a wager about that?

I'm looking at a site that has over 6TB of these original
data files, dating all the way back to 1847. And all you
can do is lie, insinuate and falsely suppose all sorts of
right-wing 'conclusions' to be drawn your deliberate ignorance..

> I heard on Minday that the interpetation of the tree ring data,
> aside from the flaws in collection, don't really say what they
> think it does.

I was first introduced to the basic concepts involved with
the tree rings and carbon-dating back in 1990 at an physics
conference. I suggest that you spend a little more time
reading the basic scientific premises before you make an
ass of yourself again..

Example follows..

>>>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>>>
>>>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>>

>> "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails.
>> There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention
>> of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand

>> plan to ï¿½get rid of the MWPï¿½, no admission that global warming

>> is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no

>> ï¿½marching ordersï¿½ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian

>> overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers
>> also being in on the plot though."
>>
>> --Comments?
>

> And it seems as if the comments are a little, I don't know,
> skeptical?

Oh, now where would you get the idea that you frightened,
ambitiously ignorance, right-wing zealots were being made
fun of?

> Maybe becuase it'as the same cabal, "climate scientitst"

*>LOL!<* Or, maybe it's natural for your intellectual
superiors to laugh in the face of such tawdry excuses
for pseudo-scientific efforts to discredit global warming,
as instigated by those who easily twist your thoughts
and emotions to suit their greed and insolence..

> Since I do not subscribe to any of those theoris, no.

Since you don't have any "theoris" upon which to base
your hope-for "conclusions", I suggest that you thee
hence to a college-level physics classroom and try to
catch up, before someone takes advantage of you again..

> Perhaps instead of attacking people and thier motives
> one should focus on the science.

You first..

--As I find your pathetic mewlings to be laughable..
>

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 1:04:19 AM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind was still laughing at the over-ripe ego diaper worn by:

>
> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently:
>>
>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> posted, in haste:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was again laughing, at the expense of:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Host <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:

-----

*>cricket.wav<*

http://yubanet.com/usa/Climatic-Research-Unit-Update.php

"The Climatic Research Unit holds many data series, provided
to the Unit over a period of several decades, from a number
of nationally-funded institutions and other research organisations
around the world, with specific agreements made over restrictions
in the dissemination of those original data. All of these individual
series have been used in CRU's analyses. It is a time-consuming
process to attempt to gain approval from these organisations to
release the data. Since some of them were provided decades ago,
it has sometimes been necessary to track down the successors of
the original organisations. It is clearly in the public interest
that these data are released once we have succeeded in gaining
the approval of collaborators. Some who have requested the data
will have been aware of the scale of the exercise we have had
to undertake. Much of these data are already available from
the websites of the Global Historical Climate Data Network
and the Goddard Institute for Space Science."

--g'night, little neophyte..

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 9:19:37 AM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf7i5u$h6k$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

>>> --Better luck next time.. *>LOL!<*
>>
>> It's not luck, it's the facts.
>
> Okay, here's the facts. The "original data" that was 'discarded'
> because it was on magnetic tapes (9-track, 1" format?) and the
> punched cards is archived elsewhere on this planet..
>
> Had you even looked at East Anglia's CRU web-site, you'd
> already know that what you've presented next is completely
> false and utterly without merit..
>
>> Answer this:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>>
>> From The Sunday Times
>> November 29, 2009
>> Climate change data dumped
>> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
>>
>> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
>> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
>> predictions of global warming are based.
>
> *>LOL!<* Yet, even their 'emergency server' shows *PRECISELY*
> where the original data is sourced from, where it was originally
> published and still stored..
>
> Your 'sound science' isn't so sound, is it? *>LOL!<*

Apparently sound science means different things to different people. The
quote was in a British newspaper quoting those involved. Let's see, should I
believe that or some anonymous fanatic? Hmmmm.

>> It means that other academics are not able to check basic
>> calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the
>> past 150 years.
>
> It seems? Wow, and here I thought you were talking about
> something factual, for a change, instead of regurgitating
> your anti-Climate Change bovine scatological-based rhetoric..

Are you reading my post or someones else's? When is it science when the
results can't be reproduced by any competent 3rd party?

>
>> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world
>> and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were
>> collected.
>
> I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
> in it's original formats and unaltered states, and where all
> that data is archived.. I'll pass on two clues for you to
> ponder the overall significance of.

In a dumpster someehere in England I gather or in a landfill. ut that's just
based on British reporting.

> 1.) You won't find it using Google..
>
> 2.) You'll have to have some academic credentials..
>

The raw data was collected using public funds. The public is being asked to
maje major chnages in thier lifestyles based on conclusions drawn from that
data. If it is not publicly available I have to ask why?

> Your imagination and blindly repeated lies won't work..

Climate change fanatic.

> Example follows..
>
>> The revised figures were kept, but the originals - stored
>> on paper and magnetic tape - were dumped to save space

>
> Wow, paper tapes. Waiting for Baudot again? *>LOL!<*

>> In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the

>> original raw data...
>
> That's correct. You're never going to figure out where it's
> being stored, in the "original raw data" format either. Talk
> about hiding in plain sight, OMFG..

You sir are an obmoxious asshole. I am relaying wht the Brit papers and East
Anglia are reporting. If you have ohter information you are welcome to post
it here, otherwise you are just another fanatic.

>
>> Um, yeah so how do we know what the original data showed?
>
> So, how do we know that by casting aspersions, trying to
> create doubt and uncertainty,

Um, isn't science about resolving dubt and uncertainty

> that you're not just a paid
> shill for the Pollution Lobby, instead of a gullible, small
> minded right-wing retard, desperately clutching to a failed
> political and economic ideology?

Bingo, now I know you're a political hack. Yes you have found me out I work
for the pollution lobby. Working hard to restore dirty air and foul water to
reseidential areas near you!

My God you are stupid.

>
> To the point, which I know that you will avoid..
>
> http://yubanet.com/usa/Climatic-Research-Unit-Update.php
>
> "The publication of a selection of stolen data is the
> latest example of a sustained and, in some instances,
> a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to
> distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the
> urgent action which world governments must consider to
> mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.
>
> We are committed to furthering this debate despite being
> faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal
> breach of our security systems and our concern to protect
> colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who
> have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the
> publication of personal information."
>
> --So, keep telling on yourself, little right-wing extremist..

I never heard of YubaNet and therefore I have no way of knowing how accurate
it is. However that seems to fly in the face of everything else I've read so
far, that in fact the emails do contain damning material. Even Monbiot of the
Guardian, a climate change loon of the first order agrees that the emails
make them bad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-
climate-leak-crisis-response

So, save the snarky bullshit for whoever wants to listen to it, but if you're
going to come back to me on this have some facts.

The "hockey stick" is broken.

The tree ring data was manipulted fudged and does not mean they say it means.

You're done.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 9:27:55 AM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf7k3f$lg4$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

So you've not looked at the emails and don't intend to, even though East
Anglia, who have, says they are real?

>> They've admitted the data didn't fit ther theory
>> so they deleted or adjusted the data to fit the theory
>
> Nope, it wouldn't have even made it past peer-review if that
> had actually taken place. Getting basic scientific concepts
> published requires more integrity than you're capable of..

Perhaps you should read some of the emails regarding the peer review process.

> Example follows..
>
>> No one can produce original, unaltered data
>
> How much money would you like to lose on a wager about that?
>
> I'm looking at a site that has over 6TB of these original
> data files, dating all the way back to 1847. And all you
> can do is lie, insinuate and falsely suppose all sorts of
> right-wing 'conclusions' to be drawn your deliberate ignorance..

Well then why don't you post a link 'cause even the folks at East Anglia seem
to think it's gone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away
much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming
are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said

to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA�s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss

following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then

adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The
revised figures were kept, but the originals � stored on paper and magnetic
tape � were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 9:29:49 AM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf7kd3$mb8$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

>> about details and engaging in �robust� discussions; Scientists

Never heard of YubaNet.

You ever hear of the Times Online UK?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

* 466 Comments

Recommend? (582)

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away
much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming
are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said
to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA�s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss
following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then
adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The
revised figures were kept, but the originals � stored on paper and magnetic
tape � were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
Related Links

* The great climate change science scandal

* EU figurehead says climate change a myth

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and
received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU�s director. In them he discusses
thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: �We do not hold the original raw
data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.�

Now, who should I believe?

--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.

"Hide the Decline"

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:23:19 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the confusion exhibited by:
>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:

>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind noted the evasions, lies and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>

>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently:
-----

>>>>> Alas as has been admitted by Jones and Mann the original data
>>>>> was err, umm deleted.
>>>>
>>>> False premise, false conclusion. Imagine my surprise at that.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
>>>>
>>>> Anything else you'd like to lie about?
>>>>
>>>>> In any case there wouldn't seem to be any actual physical,
>>>>> real, unadulterated evidence that proves GW
>>>>
>>>> Well, you're again completely wrong, and I attribute it to
>>>> the usual right-winger's "mathorexia"..
>>>>

>>>> --Better luck next time.. *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> It's not luck, it's the facts.
>>
>> Okay, here's the facts. The "original data" that was 'discarded'
>> because it was on magnetic tapes (9-track, 1" format?) and the
>> punched cards is archived elsewhere on this planet..
>>
>> Had you even looked at East Anglia's CRU web-site, you'd
>> already know that what you've presented next is completely
>> false and utterly without merit..
>>
>>> Answer this:
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
>>>
>>> From The Sunday Times
>>> November 29, 2009
>>> Climate change data dumped
>>> Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
>>>
>>> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
>>> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
>>> predictions of global warming are based.
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Yet, even their 'emergency server' shows *PRECISELY*
>> where the original data is sourced from, where it was originally
>> published and still stored..
>>
>> Your 'sound science' isn't so sound, is it? *>LOL!<*
>
> Apparently sound science means different things to different people

Hrmm, well having a degree in science does give one a
more complete perspective of the democratic processes
involved with peer-review and critical reasoning..

Which you apparently lack..

> The quote was in a British newspaper quoting those involved

I see, so you believe what that newspaper published, instead
of a fully peer-reviewed published scientific study?

Let's see, should I believe the peer-reviewed published
scientific studies, and review the on-line data myself,
or should I just take the word of some anonymous fanatic?

Hrrrmmm, that's maybe something you should consider..

>>> It means that other academics are not able to check basic
>>> calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature
>>> over the past 150 years.
>>
>> It seems? Wow, and here I thought you were talking about
>> something factual, for a change, instead of regurgitating
>> your anti-Climate Change bovine scatological-based rhetoric..
>
> Are you reading my post

Yes, and replying to it, in case you'd not noticed it yet..

> When is it science when the results can't be reproduced
> by any competent 3rd party?

So far, you've not indicated who the "competent 3rd party"
is, much less their qualifications, CV or credentials,
so I have no obligation to refute your empty rhetoric..

>>> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world
>>> and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they
>>> were collected.
>>
>> I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
>> in it's original formats and unaltered states
>

> In a dumpster someehere in England I gather or in a landfill.
> ut that's just based on British reporting.

Indeed, that's not factual enough a basis to be taken seriously..

Now, as I was saying..

>> I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
>> in it's original formats and unaltered states, and where all
>> that data is archived.. I'll pass on two clues for you to
>> ponder the overall significance of.
>>

>> 1.) You won't find it using Google..
>>
>> 2.) You'll have to have some academic credentials..
>>
> The raw data was collected using public funds

So? It's still archived, in it's original state as
'raw data' at several sites located around the planet.

What your counter-argument falsely presumes is that you're
somehow entitled to access it and present your presumption
based 'conclusions' as having the same merit and validity
as peer-reviewed and published scientific studies..

I've got some bad news for you on that..

> The public is being asked to maje major chnages in thier
> lifestyles based on conclusions drawn from that data.

Not as yet. Did you have some other straw-man arguments
you'd like to make yourself look foolish with?

> If it is not publicly available I have to ask why?

So unreasoned right-wing zealots, like yourself, don't
go brandishing the collected work of professionals in
the field of climate study as if you knew something
about it, past your usual regurgitated pabulum..

>> Your imagination and blindly repeated lies won't work..
>>

>> Example follows..
>>
>>> The revised figures were kept, but the originals ï¿½ stored
>>> on paper and magnetic tape ï¿½ were dumped to save space

>>
>> Wow, paper tapes. Waiting for Baudot again? *>LOL!<*
>>

>>> In a statement on its website, the CRU said: ï¿½We do not hold

>>> the original raw data...
>>
>> That's correct. You're never going to figure out where it's
>> being stored, in the "original raw data" format either. Talk
>> about hiding in plain sight, OMFG..
>
> You sir are an obmoxious asshole.

Thank you, and I prefer that to being stupid, like you..

> I am relaying wht the Brit papers and East Anglia are reporting

Gosh, and they know so much more about the democratic
processes of peer-reviewed publishing of science, eh?

Nope, didn't think so..

> If you have ohter information you are welcome to post it

I have, and it easily refutes your questionable comprehension
of the background science, much less your tawdry misrepresentations
of the facts, to suit your agenda of dismissing the consequences
of our planet's climate being altered by poor stewardship by
the corporations who have the most to lose..

>>> Um, yeah so how do we know what the original data showed?
>>
>> So, how do we know that by casting aspersions, trying to
>> create doubt and uncertainty,
>
> Um, isn't science about resolving dubt and uncertainty

Yes, the matters that you are trying to create doubt
and uncertainty about have been resolved by many kinds
of peer-reviewed and published scientific studies..

As I was saying, in my original context..

>> So, how do we know that by casting aspersions, trying to

>> create doubt and uncertainty, that you're not just a paid

>> shill for the Pollution Lobby, instead of a gullible, small
>> minded right-wing retard, desperately clutching to a failed
>> political and economic ideology?
>
> Bingo, now I know you're a political hack

Nope, I'm degreed in physics and engineering. I do help
out with the local Democratic Party on a volunteer basis,
but in comparison to yourself, the person who has exhibited
being the 'political hack' is yourself..

Example follows..

> Yes you have found me out I work for the pollution lobby

*>LOL!<* More empty boasting from such an empty, easily
beguiled zealot. You really should stop acting so stupid..

Oh, it's not an act? Go figure..

>> To the point, which I know that you will avoid..
>>
>> http://yubanet.com/usa/Climatic-Research-Unit-Update.php
>>
>> "The publication of a selection of stolen data is the
>> latest example of a sustained and, in some instances,
>> a vexatious campaign which may have been designed to
>> distract from reasoned debate about the nature of the
>> urgent action which world governments must consider to
>> mitigate, and adapt to, climate change.
>>
>> We are committed to furthering this debate despite being
>> faced with difficult circumstances related to a criminal
>> breach of our security systems and our concern to protect
>> colleagues from the more extreme behaviour of some who
>> have responded in irrational and unpleasant ways to the
>> publication of personal information."
>

> I never heard of YubaNet

Your lack of knowledge is not mine to resolve..

> and therefore I have no way of knowing how accurate it is

Well, we both know how much you care for 'accuracy'..

*>chuckling<*

> However that seems to fly in the face of everything else
> I've read so far,

Without a doubt it "flies in the face of everything else'
you've read, because you've been misled as to what the data
presented, and you're just knee-jerking pathologically to
the tune of the right-wing anti-science propagandists..

>> --So, keep telling on yourself, little right-wing extremist..
>

> [..] in fact the emails do contain damning material.

I doubt that entirely, and I find it amusing that you're
so easily misled about this by dissembling minutiae..

> Even Monbiot of the Guardian, a climate change loon of
> the first order

Hrmm, he's even more of a loon than you? Funny how his
vanity web-site doesn't seem to indicate a background
in science. Why should I take his word, or yours, for
that matter, over what I've studied and learned about
the physical sciences over the past two decades?

Any answer to that?

> So, save the snarky bullshit

You first, little right-wing zealot.. You first..

> but if you're going to come back to me on this have some facts.

I *DO* have 'some facts", and you're just attempting to
create doubts and uncertainty about a huge collection of
scientific data that makes it clear that you are wrong..

> You're done.

*>LOL!<* You've just been spanked, again, and keep trying
to cast aspersions where no doubt exists, at all..

Meanwhile, anecdotally, I had to mow my lawn last weekend.
I can't recall when I still had such yard work to do by
the beginning of December, much less the grass still is
green, all up and down the block of my neighborhood. My
folks out northwest of here have noted some unusual species
migrations too. So, you can keep on blowing smoke out
your perforated privates, if it makes you feel more secure.

--It simply doesn't mean shit to a tree..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:06:07 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and bleated at:
>
> Man_of_Mind was again eliciting pathological knee-jerks from:
>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled disgustingly when:

>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind refuted the tawdry insinuations inferred by:
>>>>

>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently at:

>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was castigating the presumptions of guilt posted by:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impotently:

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the emails don't say that there hasn't nbeen
>>>>>>> any warming and they don't know why
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you know? Are you in possession of those
>>>>>> e-mails? Or, are you simply taking someone else's
>>>>>> word for it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why yes, yes I am in possession of those e-mails.
>>>>
>>>> I've found alleged copies at..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>>>
>>>>> Would you like me to email them to you or provide the link?
>>>>
>>>> A link would suffice, however I have my doubts as to the veracity
>>>> of your claims as to how these purloined e-mails somehow disprove
>>>> the overall conclusions regarding how the world's climate has
>>>> been warming considerably..
>>>
>>> TEll you what, just do a web search for FOI2009.zip
>>
>> I don't do bit-torrents, but I hope you enjoy having your
>> personal computer being, shall we say, 'compromised'..
>>
>>> the other 20,100 hist on Googgle should provide somethingusable
>>
>> You mean, like a virus? FYI, I seldom use Google, simply
>> because I usually know what I'm looking for. Probably
>> something to do with being around computers since the '60's..
>>
>> And now, for your next false premise, which clearly points
>> out both how dishonest *YOU* are, and how little you know
>> about science conducts itself in order to be taken seriously..
>
> So you've not looked at the emails

Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?

>>> They've admitted the data didn't fit ther theory so
>>> they deleted or adjusted the data to fit the theory
>>
>> Nope, it wouldn't have even made it past peer-review if that
>> had actually taken place. Getting basic scientific concepts
>> published requires more integrity than you're capable of..
>>

>> Example follows..

>
> Perhaps you should read some of the emails regarding the
> peer review process.

Perhaps you should reconsider telling a degreed scientist
how the democratic process of peer-review works.. It does
seem ironic that you know so little yet pompously posture
as if you did. OF course, once you realize your faux pas,
you'll retreat to your usual regurgitated pabulum about
how I can't possibly understand because I don't share your
limited grasp of physics, much less the altered context
of the e-mails and texts that were stolen..

To wit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

"According to the University of East Anglia, the stolen
documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately
to undermine the strong consensus that human activity
is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially
dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective
publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out
of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine
attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way"

Example follows..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0

"In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil
Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate
statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a
technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline"
in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show
a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960,
but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show
a rise in temperatures is continuing."

>>> No one can produce original, unaltered data
>>
>> How much money would you like to lose on a wager about that?
>>
>> I'm looking at a site that has over 6TB of these original
>> data files, dating all the way back to 1847. And all you
>> can do is lie, insinuate and falsely suppose all sorts of
>> right-wing 'conclusions' to be drawn your deliberate ignorance..
>
> Well then why don't you post a link

I have no obligation to cooperate with your dishonest agenda..

> 'cause even the folks at East Anglia seem to think it's gone.

Oh, the paper tape/cards and magnetic tape are gone, but that
data came form several other sources, and still exists. Sadly,
you're too stupid (eg ambitiously ignorant) to realize that..

Example follows..

> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
> throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
> predictions of global warming are based.

You've been fooled again, Gay Goats..

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006548.shtml

"The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT
provides a record of surface temperature trends and
variability since 1850. A new version of this data set,
HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent
improvements to the sea surface temperature data set
which forms its marine component, and from improvements
to the station records which provide the land data."

Sadly, because of the actions of your fellow right-wing
zealots, I can't download that original data-set and
the statistical details through the usual ftp servers..

So much for your 'stand for science', simpleton zealot..

>>> I heard on Minday that the interpetation of the tree ring data,
>>> aside from the flaws in collection, don't really say what they
>>> think it does.
>>
>> I was first introduced to the basic concepts involved with
>> the tree rings and carbon-dating back in 1990 at an physics
>> conference. I suggest that you spend a little more time
>> reading the basic scientific premises before you make an
>> ass of yourself again..
>>

>> Example follows..
>
> A differing opinion.

That's nice. Did you understand any of the basic premises?

Outline them for me in the form of an abstract, using your
own words and understanding. Or would you prefer a nice
cold glass of STFU?

>>>>>>> Ah, another true believer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that would the best description of your self..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Try not to dwell too much on the self-evident, m'kay?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>>>>
>>>> "More interesting is what is not contained in the emails.
>>>> There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention
>>>> of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand

>>>> plan to ï¿½get rid of the MWPï¿½, no admission that global warming

>>>> is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no

>>>> ï¿½marching ordersï¿½ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian

>>>> overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers
>>>> also being in on the plot though."
>>>>
>>>> --Comments?
>>>
>>> And it seems as if the comments are a little, I don't know,
>>> skeptical?
>>
>> Oh, now where would you get the idea that you frightened,
>> ambitiously ignorance, right-wing zealots were being made
>> fun of?
>>
>>> Maybe becuase it'as the same cabal, "climate scientitst"
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Or, maybe it's natural for your intellectual
>> superiors to laugh in the face of such tawdry excuses
>> for pseudo-scientific efforts to discredit global warming,
>> as instigated by those who easily twist your thoughts
>> and emotions to suit their greed and insolence..
>>
>>> Since I do not subscribe to any of those theoris, no.
>>
>> Since you don't have any "theoris" upon which to base
>> your hope-for "conclusions", I suggest that you thee
>> hence to a college-level physics classroom and try to
>> catch up, before someone takes advantage of you again..
>>
>>> Perhaps instead of attacking people and thier motives
>>> one should focus on the science.
>>
>> You first..
>>
>> --As I find your pathetic mewlings to be laughable..
>
> Well, I see more adhominem and persoanl attacks

Yes, would you like for me to cite your own now?

> more references to secret stores of data

More like 'historical archives', which you apparently
didn't understand due to your poor reading skills..

Or, were you again blinded by your failed political and
economic ideologies, such that you deliberately ignored
how you're being played for a fool by those who easily
manipulate your passionate emotions for their own gain?

> that only the annointed have access to

Right now, being accredited would be the way to obtain
the records that you artificially contend don't exist.

It's been that way for quite a while, in case you didn't
know from first-hand experience, because you aren't in
any of those areas of academic efforts, are you?

And this latest 'manufactured crisis' justifies it, too..

> Has it ever occured to you thta people are not going
> to be convinved by your snarky comments.

Oh, I've a long history of debunking science-illiterates,
such as yourself, stretching back over twenty years now.
Did it ever occur to you that I don't have to convince
you that you are wrong, wrong-headed and simply being
an impotent fool so as to bolster your self-image?

Meanwhile, as I spank you and your fragile ego-diaper
in front of more reasoned people on several open forums
around the planet, your conceit is being exposed as your
failed political and economic ideologies continue to
say you're a contemptible fraud, and not a scientist.

--You'd better go get your ego diaper changed now..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:18:41 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and whined on command:
>
> Man_of_Mind commented, again:

>>
>> Man_of_Mind was still laughing at the over-ripe ego diaper worn by:
>>>

>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> posted, in haste:
----

>>>> Oh and BTW, East Anglia has acknowledged the emails are
>>>> in fact genuine.
>>>
>>> What you allude to is that this is a complete collection of
>>> those e-mails, un-edited and indisputable proof that AGW
>>> is somehow falsified by this alone..
>>>
>>> Got some bad news for you, sport..
>>>
>>> That's not how science professional do their work, and all
>>> your failed political ideology allows you to do is suggest,
>>> infer, insinuate and imply that which you cannot hope to
>>> dispute in a factual manner..
>>>
>>>> Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to investigate the person
>>>> who hacked them.
>>>
>>> To wit..
>>>
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>>>
>>> "Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact
>>> and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the
>>> monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively
>>> to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and
>>> agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times

>>> about details and engaging in ï¿½robustï¿½ discussions; Scientists

Your intentional ignorance is not mine to resolve..

> You ever hear of the Times Online UK?

Yes, but I don't recognize it as a peer-reviewed science
publication. So why should you, unless you're just a
desperately confused soul clinging to a failed political
and economic ideology, like a religion of sorts..

> Climate change data dumped

It was on paper tape/punched cards and magnetic tape, both
of which are perishable media, in case you'd forgotten..

> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world

Yes, and are still stored at their place origins, in case
you'd deliberately tried to overlook that inconvenient truth..

> The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails

Which were deliberately selected to try and discredit the
background information, data analysis and scientific
methodologies used to conclude that the global climate
is indeed changing, for the worse..

> Now, who should I believe?

Let's see, you have a newspaper with no scientific background,
spouting sensationalist headlines that easily deludes you into
believing that you somehow understand a set of phenomena better
than hundred of educated scientists who had studied the subject
for decades.

Then you have as your other choice an entire set of data,
experiments, analysis by independent research facilities
and a democratic process of peer-review for publication..

--That must a very hard choice for you to make, hunh?

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:35:24 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Hrmm, well having a degree in science does give one a
> more complete perspective of the democratic processes
> involved with peer-review and critical reasoning..
>

Another fool who confuses education for common sense.

Another internet braggart. Anyone can claim anything on the net. Providing
some proof is generally regarded as a requisite.

Boast of science degree dismissed.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:36:45 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I see, so you believe what that newspaper published, instead
> of a fully peer-reviewed published scientific study?
>
> Let's see, should I believe the peer-reviewed published
> scientific studies, and review the on-line data myself,
> or should I just take the word of some anonymous fanatic?
>
> Hrrrmmm, that's maybe something you should consider..

I would except that the emails suggest rather strobgly some corruption in the
peer review process such as shutting out anyone who disagrees with the theory
from the review process. Seems a bit one sided. And dishonest. And
unscientific.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:38:15 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> So? It's still archived, in it's original state as
> 'raw data' at several sites located around the planet.

Then you should have no rpoblem telling us wher it is and the bonafides that
guarantee that the data has not been adjusted as is now clearly the case
CRU's and NASA's data.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:39:00 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> So unreasoned right-wing zealots, like yourself, don't

> go brandishing the collected work of professionals in
> the field of climate study as if you knew something
> about it, past your usual regurgitated pabulum..

And educated men with facts on thier side don't usually speak like this.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:39:48 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

>> I am relaying wht the Brit papers and East Anglia are reporting

>
> Gosh, and they know so much more about the democratic
> processes of peer-reviewed publishing of science, eh?
>
> Nope, didn't think so..

So now you are claiming East Anglia doesn't know what the peer review process
is?

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:43:41 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8l57$1ls$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> I have, and it easily refutes your questionable comprehension

> of the background science, much less your tawdry misrepresentations
> of the facts, to suit your agenda of dismissing the consequences
> of our planet's climate being altered by poor stewardship by
> the corporations who have the most to lose..

The only data I saw had no attribution or proof that it was unaltered.

As to consequences, a scientist would be aware that climate has varied
greatly over the millenia even before man made his appearance. "Climate
change" is hardly a new phenomenem nor is it demonstrably bad.

What is bad is scientitsts cooking thier numbers and sacrificing the hoonest
process and tarnishing science in general.

What is also bad are the madmen who wnat to fundementally alter our way of
life in order to consolidate power unto themselves and punish the previously
successful for thier success.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:44:50 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8od1$no7$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and whined on command:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind commented, again:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was still laughing at the over-ripe ego diaper worn by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> sniveled impatiently:
>>>>>
>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> posted, in haste: ----
>>>>> Oh and BTW, East Anglia has acknowledged the emails are in fact
>>>>> genuine.
>>>>
>>>> What you allude to is that this is a complete collection of
>>>> those e-mails, un-edited and indisputable proof that AGW
>>>> is somehow falsified by this alone..
>>>>
>>>> Got some bad news for you, sport..
>>>>
>>>> That's not how science professional do their work, and all
>>>> your failed political ideology allows you to do is suggest,
>>>> infer, insinuate and imply that which you cannot hope to
>>>> dispute in a factual manner..
>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise they wouldn't be trying to investigate the person who
>>>>> hacked them.
>>>>
>>>> To wit..
>>>>
>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>>>>
>>>> "Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact
>>>> and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the
>>>> monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively
>>>> to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and
>>>> agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times

>>>> about details and engaging in �robust� discussions; Scientists

Look all the nastiness you are spilling means nothing.

Prove AGW is real and is a danger to mankind. Or piss off.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:47:28 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8nlf$ij2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
> you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:
>
> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>
> I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
> likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
> into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?
>

Thanks for the URL. And your concern. But having been a computer guy,
programming and tech support for 25 years, no, no problems at all. But thanks
for asking.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:48:53 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8nlf$ij2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> Perhaps you should reconsider telling a degreed scientist

> how the democratic process of peer-review works.. It does
> seem ironic that you know so little yet pompously posture
> as if you did. OF course, once you realize your faux pas,
> you'll retreat to your usual regurgitated pabulum about
> how I can't possibly understand because I don't share your
> limited grasp of physics, much less the altered context
> of the e-mails and texts that were stolen..

And what is your degree in? And how can we verify that?

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:52:07 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context deleted by:

>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the confusion exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the evasions, lies and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently:

-------

>> Hrmm, well having a degree in science does give one a
>> more complete perspective of the democratic processes
>> involved with peer-review and critical reasoning..
>>

>> Which you apparently lack..

>
> Another fool who confuses education for common sense.

*>LOL!<* Your envy is glaringly self-evident, Goats..

> Another internet braggart. Anyone can claim anything

Yeah, like you claiming that the original data at East
Anglia was discarded and as result called into question
the entire data analysis. Never mind that you're too
incompetent, dishonest and uneducated to even begin to
prove that this is the case..

Never mind that you're just repeating lies and more lies
so you don't have to learn just how fscking stupid you
really are, or how easily manipulated by frightening
alarmist propaganda by your media masters..

--Or, didn't you say you were a paid industry shill?

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:56:05 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8nlf$ij2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
>

Ohh Wiki! A totally unbiased bit of net publication. Which BTW has locked the
article from edting after slandering teh rationalists.

Essentially an apolgetica. And noone can edit it. Some peer review process
they have.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:57:06 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8nlf$ij2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

>> Well then why don't you post a link

>
> I have no obligation to cooperate with your dishonest agenda..
>
>> 'cause even the folks at East Anglia seem to think it's gone.
>
> Oh, the paper tape/cards and magnetic tape are gone, but that
> data came form several other sources, and still exists. Sadly,
> you're too stupid (eg ambitiously ignorant) to realize that..
>
>

If you are a scientist then providing prrof is part of your job.

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:57:56 AM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the origianl text/context deleted by:

>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the confusion exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:

-----

>>>>> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world
>>>>> and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they
>>>>> were collected.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
>>>> in it's original formats and unaltered states
>>>
>>> In a dumpster someehere in England I gather or in a landfill.
>>> ut that's just based on British reporting.
>>
>> Indeed, that's not factual enough a basis to be taken seriously..
>>
>> Now, as I was saying..
>>
>>>> I bet you don't comprehend where that data is still gathered,
>>>> in it's original formats and unaltered states, and where all
>>>> that data is archived.. I'll pass on two clues for you to
>>>> ponder the overall significance of.
>>>>
>>>> 1.) You won't find it using Google..
>>>>
>>>> 2.) You'll have to have some academic credentials..
>>>>
>>> The raw data was collected using public funds
>>

>> So? It's still archived, in it's original state as
>> 'raw data' at several sites located around the planet.
>>

>> What your counter-argument falsely presumes is that you're
>> somehow entitled to access it and present your presumption
>> based 'conclusions' as having the same merit and validity
>> as peer-reviewed and published scientific studies..
>>
>> I've got some bad news for you on that..
>

> Then you should have no rpoblem telling us wher it is

Let's see, the CRU web-site was just hacked last week
and you think I have some obligation to tell you where
the original scientific data are located, as well as
detailed information verifying the data integrity..

--Never mind that it's hiding in plain sight.. *>LOL!<*

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:58:09 AM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8nlf$ij2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> You've been fooled again, Gay Goats..

>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006548.shtml
>
> "The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT
> provides a record of surface temperature trends and
> variability since 1850. A new version of this data set,
> HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent
> improvements to the sea surface temperature data set
> which forms its marine component, and from improvements
> to the station records which provide the land data."
>
> Sadly, because of the actions of your fellow right-wing
> zealots, I can't download that original data-set and
> the statistical details through the usual ftp servers..
>
> So much for your 'stand for science', simpleton zealot..

Your words betray you. You are no scientist. You are simply another fanatic
Democrat.

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:04:26 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored:

>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the confusion exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the evasions, lies and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently:

-------

>> I see, so you believe what that newspaper published, instead
>> of a fully peer-reviewed published scientific study?
>>
>> Let's see, should I believe the peer-reviewed published
>> scientific studies, and review the on-line data myself,
>> or should I just take the word of some anonymous fanatic?
>>
>> Hrrrmmm, that's maybe something you should consider..
>
> I would except that the emails suggest rather strobgly
> some corruption in the peer review process

Considering that the files stolen from the CRU server appear
to be selected to 'suggest' such, I'm not surprised at all..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

"According to the University of East Anglia, the stolen documents
and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong
consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in
ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a
statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails
and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot
be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in

a responsible way".

--This makes your side look very bad, by the way..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:09:19 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context deleted by:
>>

>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the confusion exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> groveled before:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind noted the evasions, lies and obfuscations posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled some more, because:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was eliciting knee-jerk reactions from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbb.com> sniveled impotently:

-------

>> So unreasoned right-wing zealots, like yourself, don't
>> go brandishing the collected work of professionals in
>> the field of climate study as if you knew something
>> about it, past your usual regurgitated pabulum..
>
> And educated men with facts on thier side don't usually
> speak like this.

And educated men with facts on their side usually don't
speak to over-zealous fanatics who talk trash about the
science involved with global climate conditions..

--So why do you condone the criminal act that started this?

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:14:57 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:

>> Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
>> you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:
>>
>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>
>> I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
>> likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
>> into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?
>
> Thanks for the URL. And your concern. But having been a
> computer guy, programming and tech support for 25 years

Henh! I doubt that entirely, and have 12 years more experience
than that, neophyte..

--Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:20:00 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>

>>> Well then why don't you post a link
>>
>> I have no obligation to cooperate with your dishonest agenda..
>>
>>> 'cause even the folks at East Anglia seem to think it's gone.
>> Oh, the paper tape/cards and magnetic tape are gone, but that
>> data came form several other sources, and still exists. Sadly,
>> you're too stupid (eg ambitiously ignorant) to realize that..
>
> If you are a scientist then providing prrof

And you keep proving that you're too incompetent to
even begin to understand the 'prrof' that I've posted..

--And dishonestly trying to delete your way around that fact..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:27:21 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context deleted by:

>> You've been fooled again, Gay Goats..
>>
>> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JD006548.shtml
>>
>> "The historical surface temperature data set HadCRUT
>> provides a record of surface temperature trends and
>> variability since 1850. A new version of this data set,
>> HadCRUT3, has been produced, benefiting from recent
>> improvements to the sea surface temperature data set
>> which forms its marine component, and from improvements
>> to the station records which provide the land data."
>>
>> Sadly, because of the actions of your fellow right-wing
>> zealots, I can't download that original data-set and
>> the statistical details through the usual ftp servers..
>>
>> So much for your 'stand for science', simpleton zealot..
>
> Your words betray you

Nope, that would be your own words, Goats..

> You are no scientist

You've demonstrated amply that you're not qualified to say..

--How's that failed political and economic ideology doing for you?

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:30:31 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind cheerfully restored the original text/context deleted by:

>> Perhaps you should reconsider telling a degreed scientist
>> how the democratic process of peer-review works.. It does
>> seem ironic that you know so little yet pompously posture
>> as if you did. OF course, once you realize your faux pas,
>> you'll retreat to your usual regurgitated pabulum about
>> how I can't possibly understand because I don't share your
>> limited grasp of physics, much less the altered context
>> of the e-mails and texts that were stolen..
>
> And what is your degree in?

Physics..

--Your attempts at requesting verification are unacceptable..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:33:17 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the text/.context cowardly deleted by:

> Ohh Wiki! A totally unbiased bit of net publication

More so than the "apolgetica" which you usually regurgitate..

--You really should get that ego-diaper attended to, neophyte..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 12:37:49 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and whined on command:
>

> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and whined on command:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind commented, again:
>>>>
>>>> Man_of_Mind was still laughing at the over-ripe ego diaper worn by:

-----

>>>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact
>>>>> and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the
>>>>> monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively
>>>>> to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and
>>>>> agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times

>>>>> about details and engaging in ï¿½robustï¿½ discussions; Scientists

>>>>> expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work
>>>>> in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it
>>>>> wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of
>>>>> their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this
>>>>> should be shocking."
>>>>>
>>>>> --Comments?
>>>>

Aww, did you rupture your frail little ego again?

> Prove AGW is real and is a danger to mankind

Already done, you're just trying to cast aspersions
and manufacture doubt and uncertainty where none exists..

--So, stick it innuendo, neophyte..

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 5:34:09 PM12/3/09

to

Men_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf8rmg$c9e$2
@news.eternal-september.org:

At what, butt scratching? You've haven't told us what scince it is you are
involved in and how to verify your claim.

These days, scientists have a credibility problem.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:29:46 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>
> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..

> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are
> involved in

Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..

--Especial with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:38:54 PM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf9vna$ugu$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

And you can prove this?

>
>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>
> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>
> --Especial with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..
>

The speculation seems to be it may have been an insider who was disturbed by
the unethical behavior he saw.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:40:42 PM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in news:hf9vna$ugu$1
@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:

I just checked my killfile. You little shit, name changing already?

Why don't you go backl to adjusting yuor data to prove gravity is bad for the
environment.

Lookout

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:49:05 PM12/3/09

to

The emails prove nothing other than good old fashioned debate.

Climate change and global warming are reality.

The thread is just more whining from the ignorant and therefore dead.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 10:57:18 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> bleated again on command for:
>
> Man_of_Mind continued exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

To you? *>LOL!<* Why would I be obliged to do that for
an ambitiously ignorant anti-science right-wing zealot
who can only insinuate and cast negative aspersions like
a poorly paid industry shill?

>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>
>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>

>> --[Especially] with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..

>
> The speculation seems to be it may have been an insider

So, what are you "inside" of?

--Besides some very speculative fictions?

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:01:37 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> bleated and admitted defeat to:
>
> Man_of_Mind was again exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:

>> --Especially with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..

>
> I just checked my killfile

I thought you said you had 25 years of experience with
programming computers? You must not be very good at it..

> Why don't you go backl to adjusting yuor data to prove

Why don't you learn how to use a computer to check your
spelling, as your command of the English language is
about as bad as your comprehension of the sciences..

--And you probably suck at math too..

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:17:18 PM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:hfa1at$3he$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

you are no scientist. I can't accept that an educated researcher would talk
like this.

A politcal hack? Absolutely.

Let me note you have yet to produce fact one, but you have produced lots of
personal attacks and adhominem.

A true sign of a worthless political hack.

I smell Liberal operative. Desperately trying to salvage the AGW hoax.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:18:09 PM12/3/09

to

Man_of_Mind <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:hfa1j1$4c3$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org:

Which is why I checked and saw that you did change your name.

Next time try cockroach, it's more fitting.

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:18:42 PM12/3/09

to

Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bj1hh5tg7tij7pk7g...@4ax.com:

> The emails prove nothing other than good old fashioned debate.
>
> Climate change and global warming are reality.
>
> The thread is just more whining from the ignorant and therefore dead.
>

Dead? Is that a threat?

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:45:58 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> bleated and groveled before:

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>
>>>> --[Especially] with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..
>>>
>>> The speculation seems to be it may have been an insider
>>
>> So, what are you "inside" of?
>>
>> --Besides some very speculative fictions?
>
> you are no scientist

How much money would you like to lose on a bet regarding that?

Keep in mind, the last right-wing hack lost $5,000.00 and
wasn't honorable enough to pay up afterwards.. *>chuckling<*

> I can't accept that an educated researcher would talk
> like this.

Welcome to the 21st century, little guy..

> Let me note you have yet to produce fact one

Oh, besides proving that your claim about the 'disappeared
data' was completely false (eg. HadCRUT #1)? That's okay
little computer dweebling, I accept your surrender..

*>LOL!<*

--See subject header for details..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 3, 2009, 11:49:18 PM12/3/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> whimpered and admitted defeat:

I changed servers too.. Didn't you want to complain
about that too, or were you still obsessing over how
I spanked your repeatedly for lying like a right-wing
zealot clinging to a failed political ideology..

--Besides not discussing the topic in the subject header..

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 1:12:40 AM12/8/09

to

In article <hf9vna$ugu$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

For someone with your alleged decades of experience you seem awfully
afraid of being hacked...

>
> --Especial with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..

You best jump right up and report him then ..
Or be an accomplice...

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 9:52:19 AM12/8/09

to

tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.25878e3...@news.bytemine.net:

He's just another Alinsky scumbag. Lacking facts, attack the messenger.

Frankly I really don't care any more. I think Gunner's Great Cull is going to
be sooner rather then later.

Programmers have credibility problems? As opposed to what Democrats,
Comgressmen, lawyers and Global Warming fanatics?

The image of the programmer as a hacker is a particularly stupid one. If we
all were, nothing would be working 'cause we could shut the world.

--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.

"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 10:32:11 AM12/8/09

to

"small carrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:

>>
>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and bleated at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was again eliciting pathological knee-jerks from:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled disgustingly when:

--------

Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..

> you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...

*>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?

Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..

--Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 8, 2009, 10:49:17 AM12/8/09

to

Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> bleated with:
>
> "small carrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> wrote in like a quisling:
>>
>> Man_of_Mind was heckling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:

>>>
>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:

----

>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>
>>>> At what,
>>>
>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>
>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>
>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>
>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience you seem awfully
>> afraid of being hacked...
>>

>>> --Especially with you in possession of the CRU e-mails..

>>
>> You best jump right up and report him then ..
>> Or be an accomplice...
>
> He's just another Alinsky scumbag. Lacking facts, attack the messenger.

The irony, hot and cold running..

> Frankly I really don't care any more.

Which is why you're still sniveling about it, unable to prove
anything that you've insinuated, inferred or alluded to about
how the CRU web-mails prove some "Left Wing Socialist Fraud"..

> I think Gunner's Great Cull is going to be sooner rather then later.

I think gummer's "great cull' dishonestly omits how you and he
are also subject to your own ineptitude and vulnerability to
the very 'doomsday' scenario you imagine yourselves above and
beyond..

Your initial plans won't survive the initial encounter..

> Programmers have credibility problems? As opposed to what

Being malignantly ignorant sociopathic right-wingers..

> The image of the programmer as a hacker is a particularly stupid one

Especially because "programmers' usually can't do higher
mathematics and extrapolate higher-ordered thinking, as
you've so generously demonstrated..

--Keep telling on yourself, goats..

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 9, 2009, 12:56:03 AM12/9/09

to

In article <hflrhq$98e$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

Sure you did..
Pardon me if I don't believe USENET claims grandure ...

>
> > you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...
>
> *>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
> to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
> via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?

Let me think a second..
Hmm, none...

>
> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..

It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...

>
> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..

I am on task..
The question is, do you know what it is ?

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 9, 2009, 1:05:19 AM12/9/09

to

In article <hf8qbn$5c5$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...
> Yeah, like you claiming that the original data at East
> Anglia was discarded and as result called into question
> the entire data analysis. Never mind that you're too
> incompetent, dishonest and uneducated to even begin to
> prove that this is the case..
>

That why...
"The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose
from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. The review will:

1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges
and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any
evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds
with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question
any of the research outcomes.

2. Review CRU?s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling,
subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings,
and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.

3. Review CRU?s compliance or otherwise with the University?s policies
and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act
(?the FOIA?) and the Environmental Information Regulations (?the EIR?)
for the release of data.

4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management,
governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity
and release of the data it holds."

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 9:26:44 AM12/10/09

to

"small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>
> Man_of_Mind says...
>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:

>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>
>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and bleated at:

--------

>>>>>>>>> So you've not looked at the emails
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
>>>>>>>> you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
>>>>>>>> likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
>>>>>>>> into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the URL. And your concern. But having been a
>>>>>>> computer guy, programming and tech support for 25 years
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Henh! I doubt that entirely, and have 12 years more experience
>>>>>> than that, neophyte..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>
>>>>> At what,
>>>>
>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>
>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>
>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>
>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>
> Sure you did..

Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..

> Pardon me if I don't believe USENET claims grandure ...

Pardon me if I don't share your delusions of adequacy..

>>> you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
>> to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
>> via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?
>
> Let me think a second..

Don't hurt yourself..

> Hmm, none...

What a sheltered life you have there, small carrier..

>> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
>> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
>> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
>> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
>> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
>> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
>> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..
>
> It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...

It is very obvious that you don't grasp how the physical sciences
work out differences of opinion. All your projections and blustering
to the contrary will not change the physics and peer-reviewed
publishing concerned with this subject..

>> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..
>
> I am on task..

That's doubtful, as you're still babbling your personal attacks..

Example follows..

> The question is, do you know what it is ?

Let's see..

Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear
as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda, and all
you can think of to support your false conclusion regarding
the democratic process behind peer-reviewed and juried science
publications is that I haven't read the e-mails?

I've got some really bad news for you on that..

The kinds of sputtering and muttering you right-wingers try
to pass off as 'critical thinking' isn't tolerated in the
science profession. It's a democratic process, the data
in this instance (HadCRUT1) was transferred from paper
cards/tape and magnetic media collected from decades of
research and station-related monitoring systems. The results
have been shared all over the planet, the conclusions have
been argued about by much better educated and experienced
people than anything or anyone your fascist right-wing
noise machine could ever hope to become like, and you
still think that because you can dismiss the details that
you clearly don't understand in their full context, that
this somehow entitles you to believe that these excerpts
from the overall discussions somehow prove that "Science
Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud"?

I doubt that you'll be able to step outside of your narrow
minded belief system to this, but just try to imagine how
silly this looks like from the perspective of someone who
has studied science, physics in my own case, knows just how
competitive peer-reviewed science publishing is and how fake
science gets put to rights before you can says "Pons-Fleishman"..

Thus, I'd say that your comprehension of global warming as
a scientific fact, and how that set of conclusions was reached,
is but the denials of a scientifically-illiterate person
who is clinging desperately to a failed 'status_quo' that
simply cannot continue to destroy the planetary ecosphere..

--Another 'status_quo' that may not survive, as well..

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 9:58:39 AM12/10/09

to

On Dec 10, 9:26 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>[yawn/flush]

Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists
scampering hither and thither in the face of
predatory evidence that they and their pet
theories may be doomed, I’m put in mind of
the behavior of hamsters who suddenly find
themselves trapped in a cage with a hungry snake.
The ensuing drama is instructive.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-hamster-effect/

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 10:19:04 AM12/10/09

to

In article <hfr0es$b1s$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

Certainly no one can stop you from making silly claims..

>
> > Pardon me if I don't believe USENET claims grandure ...
>
> Pardon me if I don't share your delusions of adequacy..

Ah but I not be the fellow with inflated opinions of his education

>
> >>> you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...
> >>
> >> *>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
> >> to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
> >> via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?
> >
> > Let me think a second..
>
> Don't hurt yourself..
>
> > Hmm, none...
>
> What a sheltered life you have there, small carrier..
>
> >> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
> >> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
> >> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
> >> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
> >> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
> >> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
> >> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..
> >
> > It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...
>
> It is very obvious that you don't grasp how the physical sciences
> work out differences of opinion. All your projections and blustering
> to the contrary will not change the physics and peer-reviewed
> publishing concerned with this subject..

Is discussing changing what "peer review standards are to prevent
disenting views from being published part of that scientific process ?

>
> >> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..
> >
> > I am on task..
>
> That's doubtful, as you're still babbling your personal attacks..
>
> Example follows..
>
> > The question is, do you know what it is ?
>
> Let's see..
>
> Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear
> as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda, and all
> you can think of to support your false conclusion regarding
> the democratic process behind peer-reviewed and juried science
> publications is that I haven't read the e-mails?

I would say you are failing to examine the evidence and dismissing the
issue.

Bravo !
Such a rant.

I can take comfort in your leaders continued squandering of the planets
resources while the policies you and your kinds impose on the common
person cause us harm.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 10:54:31 AM12/10/09

to

"small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>
> Man_of_Mind says...
>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and bleated at:

----------

>>>>>>>>>>> So you've not looked at the emails
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
>>>>>>>>>> you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
>>>>>>>>>> likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
>>>>>>>>>> into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the URL. And your concern. But having been a
>>>>>>>>> computer guy, programming and tech support for 25 years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henh! I doubt that entirely, and have 12 years more experience
>>>>>>>> than that, neophyte..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At what,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>>
>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>
>>> Sure you did..
>>
>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>
> Certainly no one can stop you from making silly claims..

Show where I made a "silly claim", small_terrier..

>>> Pardon me if I don't believe USENET claims grandure ...
>>
>> Pardon me if I don't share your delusions of adequacy..
>
> Ah but I not be the fellow with inflated opinions of his education

Yes, you're the "fellow with inflated opinions of his education"
and experiences such that you act like a nervously yapping chihuahua
as regards the e-mails between the science professional who were
discussing the issues regarding global warming..

That appears to still be quite beyond your grasp, so instead
of directly addressing the methods and data analysis, you've
again childishly assumed that attacking the messengers is
going to somehow disprove a scientific hypothesis..

Example follows..

>>>> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
>>>> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
>>>> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
>>>> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
>>>> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
>>>> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
>>>> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..
>>>
>>> It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...
>>
>> It is very obvious that you don't grasp how the physical sciences
>> work out differences of opinion. All your projections and blustering
>> to the contrary will not change the physics and peer-reviewed
>> publishing concerned with this subject..
>
> Is discussing changing what "peer review standards are to
> prevent disenting views from being published part of that
> scientific process ?

Is pretending that actually took place all you've got?

>>>> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..
>>>
>>> I am on task..
>>
>> That's doubtful, as you're still babbling your personal attacks..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> The question is, do you know what it is ?
>>
>> Let's see..
>>
>> Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear
>> as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda, and all
>> you can think of to support your false conclusion regarding
>> the democratic process behind peer-reviewed and juried science
>> publications is that I haven't read the e-mails?
>
> I would say you are failing to examine the evidence and dismissing

I said that your 'evidence' is lacking, and thus dismissed
as being utterly without merit. Your assumptions don't count..

*>LOL!<* I can see that you're closed-minded about this..

> Such a rant.

You're projecting your own sociopathy..

Example follows..

> I can take comfort in your leaders continued squandering
> of the planets resources while the policies you and your
> kinds impose on the common person cause us harm.

Your failed political and economic ideologies are no longer
being followed blindly, except by a few zealots and quislings
such as yourself..

--And I look forward to your next confused posting of pabulum..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 11:01:34 AM12/10/09

to

ms.banana was bravely running away from the words posted by:
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context posted previously:

>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:

----

> [yawn/flush]

I see that you again could not refute a single word..

--Your surrender is accepted, here's your own glass of STFU..

I M @ good guy

unread,

Dec 10, 2009, 6:00:57 PM12/10/09

to

Does that have anything to do with climate
science?

>> Pardon me if I don't believe USENET claims grandure ...
>
>Pardon me if I don't share your delusions of adequacy..
>
>>>> you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
>>> to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
>>> via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?
>>
>> Let me think a second..
>
>Don't hurt yourself..
>
>> Hmm, none...
>
>What a sheltered life you have there, small carrier..

How long have personal computers been
downloading infected files?

>>> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never
>>> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
>>> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
>>> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
>>> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
>>> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
>>> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..
>>
>> It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...
>
>It is very obvious that you don't grasp how the physical sciences
>work out differences of opinion. All your projections and blustering
>to the contrary will not change the physics and peer-reviewed
>publishing concerned with this subject..

How much money is made writing articles on
climate change? How much could be made saying
"no problem"?

>>> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..
>>
>> I am on task..
>
>That's doubtful, as you're still babbling your personal attacks..
>
>Example follows..
>
>> The question is, do you know what it is ?
>
>Let's see..
>
>Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear
>as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda,

Or maybe somebody seeking truth and wanting to share it.

>and all
>you can think of to support your false conclusion regarding
>the democratic process behind peer-reviewed and juried science
>publications is that I haven't read the e-mails?

Trying to prevent anybody from having papers
pass peer review is not "a democratic process", in fact,
I would frown on a referee rejecting a decent paper
because the author only had an eighth grade education.

>I've got some really bad news for you on that..
>
>The kinds of sputtering and muttering you right-wingers try
>to pass off as 'critical thinking' isn't tolerated in the
>science profession. It's a democratic process, the data
>in this instance (HadCRUT1) was transferred from paper
>cards/tape and magnetic media collected from decades of
>research and station-related monitoring systems.

Why would they have to transfer the data from
punch cards, those cards were only used to enter data
into the system before dumb terminals.

The data beginning by the 1960s should have
been on big "cake plate" hard drive platter stacks,
and there are probably some machines that can
read those.

>The results
>have been shared all over the planet, the conclusions have
>been argued about by much better educated and experienced
>people than anything or anyone your fascist right-wing
>noise machine could ever hope to become like, and you
>still think that because you can dismiss the details that
>you clearly don't understand in their full context, that
>this somehow entitles you to believe that these excerpts
>from the overall discussions somehow prove that "Science
>Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud"?

Not all of it is left wing, just the promotion
parts that seek new taxes.
Maybe some would call the efforts of Gore
more along right wing profit making.
But most is either personal opinions of
scientists or personal agendas of others.

>I doubt that you'll be able to step outside of your narrow
>minded belief system to this, but just try to imagine how
>silly this looks like from the perspective of someone who
>has studied science, physics in my own case, knows just how
>competitive peer-reviewed science publishing is and how fake
>science gets put to rights before you can says "Pons-Fleishman"..

And how did that get through, didn't the
reviewer know that lemon juice solutions can
peg milliamp meters?

>Thus, I'd say that your comprehension of global warming as
>a scientific fact, and how that set of conclusions was reached,
>is but the denials of a scientifically-illiterate person
>who is clinging desperately to a failed 'status_quo' that
>simply cannot continue to destroy the planetary ecosphere..

Or maybe he is aware of all the things that
could affect climate besides CO2.

>--Another 'status_quo' that may not survive, as well..

What? Are you talking about people freezing
to death? The increased supplies of natural gas
should help reduce the use of fuels containing more
carbon, and fuel efficient cars are being built now,
it was only 2 years ago that a new car show I went
to had mostly vehicles getting less than 14 MPG.

But CO2 is not capable of causing rapid
warming, or allowing the current plateau in
published temperature data.

There are things that can cause tens as much
effect on atmospheric temperatures;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png/350px-Mauna_Loa_atmospheric_transmission.png

People that don't have an agenda can read articles liked;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

and see how the various factors agree with the
current ongoing changes that do not match increased
atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There are documented cases of sulfur caused
cooling;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter

and even lightning caused forest fires might
have caused particulate levels that caused cooling
over the past 200 centuries that reduced the normal
climate optimum temperatures seen more than 8,000
years ago.

I would have expected 40 years of experience
to give a person more of an open mind rather than
a rigid agenda.

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 12:33:22 AM12/11/09

to

On 12/10/2009 5:00 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>
> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:

>>
>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> groveled and bleated at:

----------

>>>>>>>>>>> So you've not looked at the emails
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have, and I've even presented you a web-URL where
>>>>>>>>>> you could search the documents on-line, which is still at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find that preferable to downloading a 160Mb file, that
>>>>>>>>>> likely will compromise the personal computer it's d/l'd
>>>>>>>>>> into. Speaking of which, how's yours doing? Any glitches?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the URL. And your concern. But having been a
>>>>>>>>> computer guy, programming and tech support for 25 years
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henh! I doubt that entirely, and have 12 years more experience
>>>>>>>> than that, neophyte..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At what,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>>
>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>
>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>
>>> Sure you did..
>>
>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>
> Does that have anything to do with climate science?

Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
of global warming being real is?

Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?

I have *NO* obligation to download 160 Mb of stolen e-mails
when I can read them on-line, and there really isn't that
much to this, other than it discredits the 'denialists'
for being such dishonest and pompous liars..

For example..

>>>>> you seem awfully afraid of being hacked...
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Oh? And just how many personal computers have you had
>>>> to disinfect after the end-user downloaded something malignant
>>>> via a bit-torrent, or other P2P 'sharing'?
>>>
>>> Let me think a second..
>>
>> Don't hurt yourself..
>>
>>> Hmm, none...
>>
>> What a sheltered life you have there, small carrier..
>
> How long have personal computers been downloading infected files?

Does that have anything to do with climate science?

>>>> Not as many as I have, and there's another reason I've never

>>>> had the 'bear-share', 'napster', 'limewire' and 'bit-torrent'
>>>> applications installed on my work-stations.. Try and guess what
>>>> that is, since you've no intention of honestly discussing how
>>>> the hacked CRU web-mails failed to prove any kind of "left wing
>>>> socialist scandal'.. Come on, make something up, tell on your
>>>> pitiful lack of experience and pathetic right-wing gullibility..
>>>
>>> It is pretty obvious you havn't read the emails...
>>
>> It is very obvious that you don't grasp how the physical sciences
>> work out differences of opinion. All your projections and blustering
>> to the contrary will not change the physics and peer-reviewed
>> publishing concerned with this subject..
>
> How much money is made writing articles on climate change?

How much money is made writing anti-science rhetoric?

>>>> --Tell us how you're going to stay on-task this time, carrier..
>>>
>>> I am on task..
>>
>> That's doubtful, as you're still babbling your personal attacks..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> The question is, do you know what it is ?
>>
>> Let's see..
>>
>> Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear
>> as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda,
>
> Or maybe somebody seeking truth and wanting to share it.

Maybe the hacked e-mails show something far more democratic
and peer-reviewed than you could possibly understand or would
willing cooperate with, hence you cling to a failed political
and failed economic ideology that benefit only the few..

As I was saying, originally, in full context..

>> Someone hacked a set of e-mails, selected purposely to appear

>> as 'damaging' according to a failed political agenda, and all

>> you can think of to support your false conclusion regarding
>> the democratic process behind peer-reviewed and juried science
>> publications is that I haven't read the e-mails?
>
> Trying to prevent anybody from having papers pass peer review
> is not "a democratic process"

You've yet to quote, or cite, any particular instance of this
actually happening. Keep in mind, hear-say and insinuations
don't make the grade. As I understand the matter, the papers
in question were published. Can you dispute that with factual
cites and quotes of the particular paper(s) in question?

Didn't think so..

> in fact, I would frown on a referee rejecting a decent paper
> because the author only had an eighth grade education.

Well, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the physics lab..

>> I've got some really bad news for you on that..
>>
>> The kinds of sputtering and muttering you right-wingers try
>> to pass off as 'critical thinking' isn't tolerated in the
>> science profession. It's a democratic process, the data
>> in this instance (HadCRUT1) was transferred from paper
>> cards/tape and magnetic media collected from decades of
>> research and station-related monitoring systems.
>
> Why would they have to transfer the data from punch cards

Because they are perishable, as is magnetic tape..

> The data beginning by the 1960s should have
> been on big "cake plate" hard drive platter stacks,

Ever hear of MTBF? Those drives are long gone..

> and there are probably some machines that can read those.

Ever hear of 'tape backups'?

Now, as I was saying..

>> The kinds of sputtering and muttering you right-wingers try
>> to pass off as 'critical thinking' isn't tolerated in the
>> science profession. It's a democratic process, the data
>> in this instance (HadCRUT1) was transferred from paper
>> cards/tape and magnetic media collected from decades of

>> research and station-related monitoring systems. The results

>> have been shared all over the planet, the conclusions have
>> been argued about by much better educated and experienced
>> people than anything or anyone your fascist right-wing
>> noise machine could ever hope to become like, and you
>> still think that because you can dismiss the details that
>> you clearly don't understand in their full context, that
>> this somehow entitles you to believe that these excerpts
>> from the overall discussions somehow prove that "Science
>> Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud"?
>
> Not all of it is left wing, just the promotion parts

Oh, that's just more unsupported bullsplatter..

Show which pieces of legislation would put that into effect..

> Maybe some would call the efforts of Gore more along

More nonsense..

> But most is either personal opinions of scientists

Nope, that's would be another false dichotomy..

>> I doubt that you'll be able to step outside of your narrow
>> minded belief system to this, but just try to imagine how
>> silly this looks like from the perspective of someone who
>> has studied science, physics in my own case, knows just how
>> competitive peer-reviewed science publishing is and how fake
>> science gets put to rights before you can says "Pons-Fleishman"..
>
> And how did that get through

They intentionally skipped the review, and sought publicity
and funding in an overly optimistic way. See how that turned
out for them?

>> Thus, I'd say that your comprehension of global warming as
>> a scientific fact, and how that set of conclusions was reached,
>> is but the denials of a scientifically-illiterate person
>> who is clinging desperately to a failed 'status_quo' that
>> simply cannot continue to destroy the planetary ecosphere..
>
> Or maybe he is aware of all the things that could affect
> climate besides CO2.

I doubt that entirely.

>> --Another 'status_quo' that may not survive, as well..
>
> What? Are you talking about people freezing to death?

Stupidity can kill too..

Example follows..

> The increased supplies of natural gas should help reduce
> the use of fuels containing more carbon,

You seem rather ignorant of even simply chemistry.

Example follows..

> But CO2 is not capable of causing rapid warming

Yet, placing 30 billion tons of it into the troposphere does
indeed seem to be causing enough warming to affect the climate
of several regions upon the face of the Earth, as well as the
acidification of the oceans..

> or allowing the current plateau in published temperature data.

Your 'plateau' is imagined by using only a narrow set of
data, cherry-picked to suit your hope-for 'conclusion'..

> There are things that can cause tens as much effect

However, that isn't the case presently..

--See subject header for details, thanks for proving my point too..

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 1:36:19 AM12/11/09

to

In article <hfsliq$v6c$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
> of global warming being real is?
>

I find it amusing that someone championing science resorts to insults..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:35:57 AM12/11/09

to

"small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:

>
> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>

>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:

>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:

----------

>>>>>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At what,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>>>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure you did..
>>>>
>>>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>>>
>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>

>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>> of global warming being real is?
>>

>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>

> I find it amusing that someone championing science

Evasion noted..

Gray Ghost

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 9:21:39 AM12/11/09

to

tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.258b883be6b34880b32
@news.bytemine.net:

Makes one wonder what he really wants.

The computer model is invalid. As a programmer, knowing what they did and how
they did it. It has to be scrapped and redone with controls in place to have
any validity.

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 10:12:32 AM12/11/09

to

On Dec 10, 11:01 am, Man_of_Retarded_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> ms.banana was bravely running away from the words posted by:
>
>
>
>
>

> >Man_of_Retarded_Mind restored the original text/context posted previously:
>
> >> "small terrier" <paul.carr...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>
> >>> Man_of_Mind says...
>
> >>>> "small terrier" <paul.carr...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:

>[yawn'flush]

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 10:14:36 AM12/11/09

to

On Dec 10, 10:54 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds
<baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [tard turds flushed]

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 10:17:18 AM12/11/09

to

On Dec 11, 8:35 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 11:47:10 AM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was bravely running away from the words posted by:
>

> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context bravely avoided by:

>>
>> ms.banana was bravely running away from the words posted by:
>>>

>>> Man_of_Mind restored the original text/context posted previously:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>>>

>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
------

>> I see that you again could not refute a single word..
>>
>> --Your surrender is accepted, here's your own glass of STFU..
>

> [yawn/flush]
>
> [yawn'flush]

Evasion noted..

--See subject header for cruel irony..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 11:50:50 AM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was writhing in denials and sputtering because:
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the text/context deleted:

>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>

>>> Man_of_Mind continued laughing at the twaddle posted by:

>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>

>>>>> Man_of_Mind was laughing at thetwaddle posted by:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:

------

> [tard turds flushed]

*>LOL!<* The irony..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 11:54:01 AM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was again displaying the antics of a retarded right-winger:
>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:

> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Indeed, no one cares about your insignificant drivel..

mrbawana2u

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 7:26:34 PM12/11/09

to

On Dec 11, 11:47 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds<baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [drool,drivel, snivel of a retard flushed]

Bawana

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 7:31:11 PM12/11/09

to

On Dec 10, 11:01 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists

Bawana

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 7:32:50 PM12/11/09

to

On Dec 11, 8:35 am, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>

Baron_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:20:33 PM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was still writhing in denials, and deleted:

>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>

> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Indeed, you really shouldn't be talking about yourself like that..

Baron_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:24:08 PM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was wetting herself in delight after reading:

>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>

> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Yes, many have said that about you..

Baron_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:27:04 PM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was bravely deleting and bleating the usual because:

>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>

> [drool,drivel, snivel of a retard flushed]

Anything else you wanted say about yourself?

Bawana

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:51:38 PM12/11/09

to

On Dec 11, 8:20 pm, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]

Man_of_Licking_Behinds=large tard

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:54:35 PM12/11/09

to

In article <hfthrl$tq2$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

Evasion ?
Why should anyone take a person such as you who launches right into
insults of any who dare ask to look behind the curtain and see that the
Great Oz, is but a fraud.

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 8:54:36 PM12/11/09

to

In article <Xns9CDE5F3D37F44We...@216.196.97.142>,
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com says...

>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in news:MPG.258b883be6b34880b32
> @news.bytemine.net:
>
> > In article <hfsliq$v6c$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
> > baron.v...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
> >> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
> >> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
> >> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
> >> of global warming being real is?
> >>
> >
> > I find it amusing that someone championing science resorts to insults..
> >
>
> Makes one wonder what he really wants.

He hasn't the honesty to actually say.

>
> The computer model is invalid. As a programmer, knowing what they did and how
> they did it. It has to be scrapped and redone with controls in place to have
> any validity.

I nominate the unknown fellow who released the emails for next years
Nobel Peace prize.

Baron_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 9:40:21 PM12/11/09

to

"small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> changed the subject header:

Yup.. Will you address the subject, for once?

Bawana

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 10:47:49 PM12/11/09

to

On Dec 11, 9:40 pm, Man_of_Licking_Behinds <baron.von.m...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "small terrier"<paul.carr...@qwest.net>

[who cares about tard babbling?]

Baron_Mind

unread,

Dec 11, 2009, 11:04:20 PM12/11/09

to

ms.banana was still writhing in denials, deleted and bleated:

>
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>
>> ms.banana was still writhing in denials, and deleted:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings given to:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:

--------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At what,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>>>>>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure you did..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>>>>>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>>>>>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>>>>>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>>>>>> of global warming being real is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>>>>>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>>>>>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing that someone championing science
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted..
>>>

>>> [who cares what the tard is babbling??]
>>

>> Indeed, you really shouldn't be talking about yourself like that..
>

> Man_of_Licking_Behinds=large tard

Keep telling on yourself, cupcakes..

--See subject header for details..

s

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 12:31:23 AM12/12/09

to

In article <hfuvra$tk8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

I see, a nym shifting twit are you..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 12:36:29 AM12/12/09

to

ms.banana was stupid enough to delete and then bleat impotently at:
>
> Man_of_mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings bestowed upon:

>>
>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> changed the subject header:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:

------

>>>>>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>>>>>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>>>>>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>>>>>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>>>>>> of global warming being real is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>>>>>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>>>>>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing that someone championing science
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted..
>>>
>>> Evasion ?
>>
>> Yup.. Will you address the subject, for once?
>

> [who cares about tard babbling?]

*>chuckling<* I'll take that as a "no"..

Men_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 12:45:03 AM12/12/09

to

"small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled again:
>
> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk pathology exhibited by:

>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> changed the subject header:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:

----------

>>>>>>>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>>>>>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure you did..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>>>>>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>>>>>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>>>>>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>>>>>> of global warming being real is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>>>>>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>>>>>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing that someone championing science
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted..
>>>
>>> Evasion ?
>>
>> Yup.. Will you address the subject, for once?
>

> I see, a nym shifting twit are you..

I haven't changed 'nyms much, forgot the other machine hadn't been
reset to something that you'd have trouble comprehending either..

> Evasion ?

You're the one that bespoke something about "championing science"
and I'm simply stating that I have studied science (eg physics)
long enough to find your nonsensical blather to be quite silly..

You make all sorts of presumptions up to support your silly
claims 'conclusions', but can't honestly address a single thing..

And when that fails you, you resort to the very actions that
you've dishonestly accused others of..

Example follows..

> Why should anyone take a person such as you who launches
> right into insults of any who dare ask to look

Your metaphor is but the weak-minded imaginings of someone who
cannot hope to begin to dispute the studies and published data
except by making up false claims and inferred insinuations which
are abjectly and utterly without merit..

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 1:11:55 AM12/12/09

to

ms.banana was acting out like a sociopath, because:

>
> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> changed the subject header:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> whined like a right-tard:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled the usual pabulum:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the juvenile histrionics posted by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats <grey_g...@insightbbs.com> nervously bleated at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gay Goats<grey_g...@insightbbs.com> deleted and bleated at:

-------------

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Too bad you're so incapable of higher-ordered reasoning..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> At what,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tensor calculus, gravitation, radiometric data, etc..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've haven't told us what scince it is you are involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, these days, computer nerds, like yourself, have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult credibility problem because of malicious hacking..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For someone with your alleged decades of experience
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing 'alleged' about, little dweeblings.. I cut my teeth on
>>>>>>>>>> hexadecimal and 2's-compliment binary arithmetic in the mid-1960's..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure you did..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure did, and there's nothing you can say that will change that fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>>>>>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>>>>>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>>>>>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>>>>>> of global warming being real is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>>>>>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>>>>>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it amusing that someone championing science
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted..
>>>
>>> Evasion ?
>>
>> Yup.. Will you address the subject, for once?
>

> [who cares about tard babbling?]

I'll take that as a "no".. *>LOL!<*

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 12:12:25 PM12/12/09

to

In article <hfvakm$6kg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...

Uh huh, sure you "forgot"

>

Man_of_Mind

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 12:55:03 PM12/12/09

to

"small terrier"<paul.c...@qwest.net> dissembled again:
>
> Man_of_Mind was again amused by the knee-jerks exhibited by:

>>
>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> sniveled again:
>>>
>>> Man_of_Mind was amused by the knee-jerk pathology exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> changed the subject header:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "small terrier" <paul.c...@qwest.net> deleted and bleated when:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind was scolding the contentious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I M @ stupid guy was muttering the usual right-tarded pabulum:

--------

>>>>>>>>> Does that have anything to do with climate science?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah.. Did you have difficulties understanding what sorts
>>>>>>>> of histrionics Gay Goats and small terrier were resorting
>>>>>>>> to in order to avoid the discussion of how valid the science,
>>>>>>>> the computer models and the over all veracity of the idea
>>>>>>>> of global warming being real is?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or, did you lose track of the matter at hand by trying to
>>>>>>>> dismiss my disagreement that these 'hacked e-mails' somehow
>>>>>>>> disprove the entire global warming hypothesis?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it amusing that someone championing science
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evasion noted..
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion ?
>>>>
>>>> Yup.. Will you address the subject, for once?
>>>
>>> I see, a nym shifting twit are you..
>>
>> I haven't changed 'nyms much, forgot the other machine hadn't been
>> reset to something that you'd have trouble comprehending either..
>
> Uh huh, sure you "forgot"

Different machine at a different location, and somehow
I 'forgot' how impotent, er, "important" it is to you
that I somehow use the same 'nym all the time, while you
keep twisting in the wind over your evasions and insinuations
that have absolutely no scientific merit, as I have pointed out..

Example follows..

>>> Evasion ?
>>
>> You're the one that bespoke something about "championing science"
>> and I'm simply stating that I have studied science (eg physics)
>> long enough to find your nonsensical blather to be quite silly..
>>
>> You make all sorts of presumptions up to support your silly
>> claims 'conclusions', but can't honestly address a single thing..
>>
>> And when that fails you, you resort to the very actions that
>> you've dishonestly accused others of..
>>
>> Example follows..
>>
>>> Why should anyone take a person such as you who launches
>>> right into insults of any who dare ask to look
>>
>> Your metaphor is but the weak-minded imaginings of someone who
>> cannot hope to begin to dispute the studies and published data
>> except by making up false claims and inferred insinuations which
>> are abjectly and utterly without merit..

You 'forgot' to address this, did you? *>LOL!<*

tankfixer

unread,

Dec 12, 2009, 8:11:46 PM12/12/09

to

In article <hg0ldd$1a8$1...@sickpuppy.eternal-september.org>,
baron.v...@gmail.com says...
>
> >

> >>
> >>> Why should anyone take a person such as you who launches
> >>> right into insults of any who dare ask to look
> >>
> >> Your metaphor is but the weak-minded imaginings of someone who
> >> cannot hope to begin to dispute the studies and published data
> >> except by making up false claims and inferred insinuations which
> >> are abjectly and utterly without merit..
>
> You 'forgot' to address this, did you? *>LOL!<*

I ignore the bleatings of an apologist for fascism

"Emails Prove Science Is A Left Wing Socialist Fraud - Part of The Vast Leftist Conspiracy By The Liberal Controlled Media To Undermine Conservative Ideology." - World Net Daily

mrbawana2u

Men_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Don Albasani

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

z n b o o

Gray Ghost

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

leona...@gmail.com

Gray Ghost

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Men_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Men_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Lookout

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Gray Ghost

Men_of_Mind

Men_of_Mind

tankfixer

Gray Ghost

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

tankfixer

tankfixer

Man_of_Mind

mrbawana2u

tankfixer

Man_of_Mind

Man_of_Mind

I M @ good guy

Man_of_Mind

tankfixer

Man_of_Mind

Gray Ghost

mrbawana2u

mrbawana2u

mrbawana2u

Man_of_Mind