Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[AUDub 11,153]

OMG! Do yall really think anyone with a brain could get that quote that wrong? I clearly state AGW is a problem facing mankind and that we need to do something about it and you expect any sane hperson to actually think that yall translated that to mean that I meant the exact oppposite? Yall really do need help.

Homer asked you directly:

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

and you answered:

Hell no...You need real help.

And here I am providing posts contradicting you.

DKW, I have no idea what the hell has gotten into you lately, but you are an intellectually dishonest, angry, raging hypocrite of late. The unnecessary confrontational nature of your behavior is really starting to grate my nerves. Rudely jumping ICHY's case earlier in the thread when he asked you a tangentially related question sealed it for me.

You should step away for a bit and get your bad attitude under control.

As for the graphs, you've ignored my response.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore? Was made clearly referencing the graphic misquotes bens was lying about.

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

This remark above is mocking how incredibly freakin stupid you can be in getting my statements, made in a post WITH THE TRUTHFUL QUOTES CIRCLED IN RED SO INCREDIBLY WRONG.

[AUDub 11,153]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

Hell no...You need real help.

Yes. That's exactly what we're talking about.

[Strychnine 1,802]

DKW, I have no idea what the hell has gotten into you lately, but you are an intellectually dishonest, angry, raging hypocrite of late. The unnecessary confrontational nature of your behavior is really starting to grate my nerves. Rudely jumping ICHY's case earlier in the thread when he asked you a tangentially related question sealed it for me.

You should step away for a bit and get your bad attitude under control.

I have noticed this as well. He used to reserve this kind of venom almost exclusively for Tex, but it is now targeted at anyone that disagrees with him and regardless of the manner in which they do so. I have always respected DKW, and it disappoints me.

[DKW 86 7,428]

bens, you lied about Spencer's comments using your own freakin graphs. YOU LIED.

I pointed it out. Homer then drops the graph out of my comments and replies with half of the post missing. It is clearly meant to be misleading. CLEARLY.

I was clearly NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I was mocking your incredibly misleading, hell, LYING about Spencer's comments that were clearly written on the graphs you supplied.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Hey, if you two are okay with just posting up anything and clearly lying about it, go right ahead.

This entire thread was pointing out how ridiculous the PCers are on a daily basis and how reality doesnt matter anymore.

Hey, we have years and years worth of real world data showing a pause in AGW. Screw it, throw it out!

If facts dont agree with your crazy theories, screw facts! Throw the facts out!

[DKW 86 7,428]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

Just for posterity's sake. This is how homer's reply/quote should have looked.

WITH THE FREAKIN GRAPH, WITH THE QUOTES CLEARLY CIRCLED IN RED.

[AUDub 11,153]

bens, you lied about Spencer's comments using your own freakin graphs. YOU LIED.

I pointed it out. Homer then drops the graph out of my comments and replies with half of the post missing. It is clearly meant to be misleading. CLEARLY.

I was clearly NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I was mocking your incredibly misleading, hell, LYING about Spencer's comments that were clearly written on the graphs you supplied.

Don't accuse me of being a liar when in the next post I quoted him directly dismissing the models in their entirety.

[DKW 86 7,428]

bens, you lied about Spencer's comments using your own freakin graphs. YOU LIED.

I pointed it out. Homer then drops the graph out of my comments and replies with half of the post missing. It is clearly meant to be misleading. CLEARLY.

I was clearly NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I was mocking your incredibly misleading, hell, LYING about Spencer's comments that were clearly written on the graphs you supplied.

Don't accuse me of being a liar when in the next post I quoted him directly dismissing the models in their entirety.

YOU DO NOT QUOTE HIM. YOU SUPPLIED SPENCER'S QUOTES IN YOUR GRAPHS AND THEN PROCEED TO LIE ABOUT WHAT THE MAN SAID IN THOSE VERY SAME GRAPHS YOU SUPPLY.

YOU ARE IN FACT A DAMN LIAR. I AM POINTNG IT OUT WITH THE GRAPHS YOU SUPPLIED IN THIS THREAD.

[AUDub 11,153]

YOU DO NOT QUOTE HIM....

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

Oh, for heaven's sake:

Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably.

And that still completely ignores the fact that he fudges the numbers and only shows model runs for the most extreme scenario.

[DKW 86 7,428]

I AM STILL SIGHTING THE GRAPHS YOU SUPPLIED. THEY CLEARLY POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE LYING.

[AUDub 11,153]

I AM STILL SIGHTING THE GRAPHS YOU SUPPLIED. THEY CLEARLY POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE LYING.

And I am quoting the words from the associated article showing that I am not. Why are you yelling?

[homersapien 11,389]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

ONE MORE TIME. MY COMMENT HERE IS CLEARLY BEING TAKEN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.

I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I AM TALKING ABOUT BENS BATCRAP CRAZY STATEMENTS CONTRADICTING WHAT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THE GRAPHS HE SUPPLIED. I CIRCLED THE FREAKING COMMENTS IN RED AND REPOSTED THAT DAMN GRAPHS.

ARE YOU FOLKS REALLY THIS DAMN DENSE?

Calm down.

I am just trying to understand why you are so vehemently trying to defend the case being made by a global warming denier. (Not just a AGW denier, a warming denier.)

That doesn't really make sense logically if you accept AGW as true. You are arguing against the existence of AGW while claiming you accept it.

[homersapien 11,389]

Do you folks just refuse to live in reality anymore?

I'm confused. Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?

I am guessing that this is where you dolts got sssooo incredibly off track.

As anyone with two functioning brain cells in their head knows, I am referring to graphs that bigbens put up.

They clearly say ON THE FREAKIN GRAPHS that the results were for "X out of Y Models."

I circled them notes in red and reposted them so that anyone can clearly see them.

bigben then tried to post these ridiculous, absurd, over the top claims that Spencer never made.

I pointed out in IM and on the forum that bigbens was lying about what SPENCER WROTE CLEARLY ON THE FREAKIN GRAPHS!

You delusional batcrappers are now trying to say i said the exact opposite of what i said. I was clearly talking about bigbens' NOT AGW!!!

TO BE CLEAR, JUST SO YOU DOLTS CANNOT GET IT WRONG AGAIN: I BELIEVE AGW IS FOR REAL. I AM MAKING FUN OF THE CRAZY WAY YALL BELIEVE EVERY CRAZY THING THAT IS PUT OUT THERE. ben is CLEARLY misquoting Spencer here. There is zero doubt about that. It is clearly written on the graph. Bens says something completely opposite. homer comes along and agrees with bens crazy assertions that what is black is really white.

This entire discussion was started by this: The reworking of previously good data so that embarrassing gaps in the AGW EXTREMIST CLAIMS can be covered over.

There is a pause, a gap, a hiatus. Everyone knows that. We have some batcrappers on here now trying to rewrite FACTS. In doing so they take a comment i make on bens crazy graphs that blow up in his face and then try and twist and mangle that comment into being what it clearly was not about. IT WAS NOT ABOUT AGW. IT WAS ABOUT HOW BEN COULD LOOK AT THE GRAPHS HE SUPPLIED AND LIE ABOUT WHAT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN UPON THOSE SAME GRAPHS.

Exactly what "extremist claims" are being addressed by adjusting the data for known errors?

Can you explain that in one sentence?

[homersapien 11,389]

What in the name of hell are you guys talking about. I have agreed with AGW for some time. Where are you getting this crapola from?????

Yall need to get back on your meds.

They're going on about post # 263.

You too???? WTH! I never ever said that about AGW. I was CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT BENS ignoring what is clearly written on the graphs bens supplied.

sheesh!

In that case, perhaps you will accept a suggestion: When someone asks "Did you not say earlier that you thought AGW was real?", and you respond with "Hell no...You need real help.", you might consider that a reasonable person would conclude that you were answering a direct question in the negative.

Brilliant!

[DKW 86 7,428]

Because i am sick of the clearly intentioned lies by some on this forum.

I point out using YOUR graphs that you are lying.

homer jumps in, supposedly quotes me, but then DELETES OUT HALF OR MORE of my original post just to confuse matters even more.

[homersapien 11,389]

bens, you lied about Spencer's comments using your own freakin graphs. YOU LIED.

I pointed it out. Homer then drops the graph out of my comments and replies with half of the post missing. It is clearly meant to be misleading. CLEARLY.

I was clearly NOT TALKING ABOUT AGW. I was mocking your incredibly misleading, hell, LYING about Spencer's comments that were clearly written on the graphs you supplied.

No so. I am genuinely confused about your position for the reasons already stated.

I would never snip out anything in a quoted reference that is directly relevant to a question I am asking. That's obfuscation.

And while it's possible Ben could be mistaken, I don't think it's possible he would deliberately lie about his understanding of the research in question.

I agree that you need to take a break and consider you perhaps have some anger issues. This sort of self-imposed stress can damage your health. Participation in this forum is not worth that.

[DKW 86 7,428]

homer quoted a post of mine, but deleted half of the post that he was quoting. That is where some of you got confused. I answered the homer using the whole original post in context.

[homersapien 11,389]

Hey, if you two are okay with just posting up anything and clearly lying about it, go right ahead.

This entire thread was pointing out how ridiculous the PCers are on a daily basis and how reality doesnt matter anymore.

Hey, we have years and years worth of real world data showing a pause in AGW. Screw it, throw it out!

If facts dont agree with your crazy theories, screw facts! Throw the facts out!

There is no pause in AGW. Those who claim such are cherry-picking the data.

[AUDub 11,153]

Because i am sick of the clearly intentioned lies by some on this forum.

I point out using YOUR graphs that you are lying.

homer jumps in, supposedly quotes me, but then DELETES OUT HALF OR MORE of my original post just to confuse matters even more.

I'm not lying, and I'm getting tired of explaining why that's not case.

He edited out the picture, but he asked you a direct question regarding your position on AGW which you answered in the negative.

[DKW 86 7,428]

You mean your dropping half of my post out and then misleading the board about what i said, that is just okay then?

And as for your other ridiculous comments, PC Boy, i am having ab adult conversation with people that can understand that you can support something but not drop your brain out of your head at the same time. While AGW is valid, ignoring years worth of factual data is not. See, adults can understand and pay attention to the details. I can and do support AGW. I do not support some lame headed ignoring of inconvenient facts.

I suggest that if you cannot realize nor admit the latest fact screw over is not exactly that, an inconvenient fact dump, maybe you need to take the rest.

[homersapien 11,389]

Because i am sick of the clearly intentioned lies by some on this forum.

I point out using YOUR graphs that you are lying.

homer jumps in, supposedly quotes me, but then DELETES OUT HALF OR MORE of my original post just to confuse matters even more.

Then why didn't you simply point out you were talking about the notes on a graph. I asked a direct question and you gave a direct answer.

You can at least take responsibility for the confusion instead of accusing people of lying (Ben) or trying to obfuscate the discussion (me).

[DKW 86 7,428]

Because i am sick of the clearly intentioned lies by some on this forum.

I point out using YOUR graphs that you are lying.

homer jumps in, supposedly quotes me, but then DELETES OUT HALF OR MORE of my original post just to confuse matters even more.

I'm not lying, and I'm getting tired of explaining why that's not case.

He edited out the picture, but he asked you a direct question regarding your position on AGW which you answered in the negative.

I answered my quote in context as it was written. I did not answer homer's crazed misquote. Put the graph back in it when you read it and it makes sense. It makes no sense without the graph.

HOMERS' QUESTION MAKES NO SENSE WITHOUT THE GRAPH THERE IN FACT.

[homersapien 11,389]

You mean your dropping half of my post out and then misleading the board about what i said, that is just okay then?

And as for your other ridiculous comments, PC Boy, i am having ab adult conversation with people that can understand that you can support something but not drop your brain out of your head at the same time. While AGW is valid, ignoring years worth of factual data is not. See, adults can understand and pay attention to the details. I can and do support AGW. I do not support some lame headed ignoring of inconvenient facts.

I suggest that if you cannot realize nor admit the latest fact screw over is not exactly that, an inconvenient fact dump, maybe you need to take the rest.

That's not what is happening at all. They are adjusting certain types of data for known biases.

[DKW 86 7,428]

1) bens posted graphs here then denies what he posted. He lies about what is clearly on the graphs he posted.

2) Homer modifies a post. I answer the post in context and then i am turned into the one causing confusion?

WTH?