Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[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.

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.

See, now that's just silly. Homer's question was concise. It makes perfect sense. That you answered in the negative without bothering to read it is your problem, not his.

[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.

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

There are no known biases in the data. Here we go with the mindless PC crapola...sheesh!

[AUDub 11,153]

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?

How many times do I have to beat you over the head with my response before you quit calling me a liar?

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.

There are no known biases in the data. Here we go with the mindless PC crapola...sheesh!

Yes, there are.

[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.

See, now that's just silly. Homer's question was concise. It makes perfect sense. That you answered in the negative without bothering to read it is your problem, not his.

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

[homersapien 11,388]

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.

"crazed misquote" ?

So now you think I am lying about why I asked the question? My question, as intended, does not have anything to do with the graph.

[AUDub 11,153]

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

[DKW 86 7,428]

ben, you posted up graphs that clearly say one thing and then try and say they say something completely else. That is lying. PERIOD.

homer takes a year or more worth of posts i made, throws them all out in one post where he drops half or more of what is said and i am the one that is unreasonable?

[homersapien 11,388]

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.

There are no known biases in the data. Here we go with the mindless PC crapola...sheesh!

Then you need to read the paper in question. The whole purpose of adjusting the data was to account for certain biases in specific measuring methods.

And I fail to see what this has to do with "PC crapola" whatever that means. :-\

[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.

"crazed misquote" ?

So now you think I am lying about why I asked the question? My question, as intended, does not have anything to do with the graph.

I know, the graph was deleted and therefore makes the quesion totally without context. I answered with the graph, in context, as i should have.

Your question is meaningless with out the graph. It has no context whatsoever.

[AUDub 11,153]

ben, you posted up graphs that clearly say one thing and then try and say they say something completely else. That is lying. PERIOD.

I quoted Spencer in the next post directly supporting my assertion.

[homersapien 11,388]

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.

"crazed misquote" ?

So now you think I am lying about why I asked the question? My question, as intended, does not have anything to do with the graph.

I know, the graph was deleted and therefore makes the quesion totally without context. I answered with the graph, in context, as i should have.

Your question is meaningless with out the graph. It has no context whatsoever.

The question did not require context. The question, without context, reflected exactly what I was asking. I ought to know, huh?

And to be honest, I didn't remember any of your statements supporting AGW. I was referring only to this particular thread.

[AUDub 11,153]

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.

There are no known biases in the data. Here we go with the mindless PC crapola...sheesh!

Then you need to read the paper in question. The whole purpose of adjusting the data was to account for certain biases in specific measuring methods.

And I fail to see what this has to do with "PC crapola" whatever that means. :-\

It's funny because he should realize the UAH data has been adjusted too.

[DKW 86 7,428]

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

The very idea that you state i have contradicted myself proves that you are indeed a liar. I did not contradict myself once. You had to manufacture a situation where the basic foundation has to be removed for you to even make a sliver of sense.I answered and asked questions in context with supporting AGW for some time. homer modifies my post and then asks a question completely out of context. homer goes off the deep end with some random paper that now wipes out years of data and that is okay by the simpletons in the PC World.

[DKW 86 7,428]

ben, you posted up graphs that clearly say one thing and then try and say they say something completely else. That is lying. PERIOD.

I quoted Spencer in the next post directly supporting my assertion.

You also quoted Spencer on the graphs. maybe you are the one that needs to decide on a consistent source?

[AUDub 11,153]

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

The very idea that you state i have contradicted myself proves that you are indeed a liar. I did not contradict myself once. You had to manufacture a situation where the basic foundation has to be removed for you to even make a sliver of sense.I answered and asked questions in context with supporting AGW for some time. homer modifies my post and then asks a question completely out of context. homer goes off the deep end with some random paper that now wipes out years of data and that is okay by the simpletons in the PC World.

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.

That is contradictory.

[DKW 86 7,428]

And to be honest, I didn't remember any of your statements supporting AGW. I was referring only to this particular thread.

:bs: :bs:

[homersapien 11,388]

ben, you posted up graphs that clearly say one thing and then try and say they say something completely else. That is lying. PERIOD.

I quoted Spencer in the next post directly supporting my assertion.

I think it might be useful to point out that whatever notes appear on the graph, Spencer's statement is deceptive, even if it just means he is a false conclusion from his own study.

He clearly is advocating a position that is not supported by the science, whether it be his own science or other's.

[AUDub 11,153]

You also quoted Spencer on the graphs. maybe you are the one that needs to decide on a consistent source?

Not really. Spencer is my source. Compare it to saying "these models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed."

[DKW 86 7,428]

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

The very idea that you state i have contradicted myself proves that you are indeed a liar. I did not contradict myself once. You had to manufacture a situation where the basic foundation has to be removed for you to even make a sliver of sense.I answered and asked questions in context with supporting AGW for some time. homer modifies my post and then asks a question completely out of context. homer goes off the deep end with some random paper that now wipes out years of data and that is okay by the simpletons in the PC World.

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.

That is contradictory.

It is only contradictory if you accept homer's modifying my post. I do not. Homer's question is idiotic.

[DKW 86 7,428]

You also quoted Spencer on the graphs. maybe you are the one that needs to decide on a consistent source?

Not really. Spencer is my source. Compare it to saying "these models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed."

Yea, just keep lying, you are getting good at it now...

[AUDub 11,153]

And to be honest, I didn't remember any of your statements supporting AGW. I was referring only to this particular thread.

:bs: :bs:

Quick with the liar card today.

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

The very idea that you state i have contradicted myself proves that you are indeed a liar. I did not contradict myself once. You had to manufacture a situation where the basic foundation has to be removed for you to even make a sliver of sense.I answered and asked questions in context with supporting AGW for some time. homer modifies my post and then asks a question completely out of context. homer goes off the deep end with some random paper that now wipes out years of data and that is okay by the simpletons in the PC World.

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.

That is contradictory.

It is only contradictory if you accept homer's modifying my post. I do not. Homer's question is idiotic.

Homer's question was clear. You contradicted yourself, whether you meant to or not.

[homersapien 11,388]

And to be honest, I didn't remember any of your statements supporting AGW. I was referring only to this particular thread.

:bs: :bs:

So now you claim to know my intent more than I do? :-\

If you believe the validity of AGW, why in the world are you supporting the position of a denier?

[homersapien 11,388]

Only if you ignore dozens of other posts over the last year....made by me supporting AGW.

Are you really going to hide behind being THAT dumb?

You're calling me dumb because you're the one contradicting yourself? LOL

The very idea that you state i have contradicted myself proves that you are indeed a liar. I did not contradict myself once. You had to manufacture a situation where the basic foundation has to be removed for you to even make a sliver of sense.I answered and asked questions in context with supporting AGW for some time. homer modifies my post and then asks a question completely out of context. homer goes off the deep end with some random paper that now wipes out years of data and that is okay by the simpletons in the PC World.

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.

That is contradictory.

It is only contradictory if you accept homer's modifying my post. I do not. Homer's question is idiotic.

Well, so much for the value of snipping out extraneous material from a thread of posts. :-\

DKW, my question was not "idiotic". It was a simple direct question. You provided a simple direct answer.

If you placed the question into a context I did not intend, that's your misunderstanding, not mine.

[AUDub 11,153]

You also quoted Spencer on the graphs. maybe you are the one that needs to decide on a consistent source?

Not really. Spencer is my source. Compare it to saying "these models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed."

Yea, just keep lying, you are getting good at it now...

If you won't accept direct quotes from the horse's mouth, I can't help you.

[homersapien 11,388]

I don't even understand the supposed relationship of my question with the charts at issue.

What is this presumed context he's talking about anyway?