Global Warming Pause May Disappear.

[AUDub 11,153]

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?

There isn't any. Your question would have been in the same context regardless of whether the graph was included or not.

He'll, of course, deny that, but I think it's more of a pride thing at this point.

[Strychnine 1,802]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

[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:

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?

OMG, you are so dumb. I can support something AND MOCK the extremists at the same time.

Maybe Jon Stewart and I are the only ones that can see that? I can and do support AGW, but i can also mock the idea that ABC Claiming NYC would be underwater by now.

[DKW 86 7,428]

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?

Why did you remove the graph?

Why did you change my original post?

[DKW 86 7,428]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

When was i ever asked a direct question that was not in response to a quote from myself?

The question was nonsensical unless the graph i was referring to is attached?

[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.

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.

Spencer's statement is clear as a bell written on the graph. It cannot be clearer.

[AUDub 11,153]

Spencer's statement is clear as a bell written on the graph. It cannot be clearer.

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

[DKW 86 7,428]

Spencer's statement is clear as a bell written on the graph. It cannot be clearer.

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

I do, i accept the one written right there on the graphs YOU USED. LIAR.

[AUDub 11,153]

Yet you continue to ignore these:

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.

[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?

Why did you remove the graph?

Why did you change my original post?

To clean up the post. I didn't feel they were necessary context for the question. The question stands alone without the need for any context.

The confusion was created by your response. (Which had no more context than my question, btw.)

[homersapien 11,388]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

When was i ever asked a direct question that was not in response to a quote from myself?

The question was nonsensical unless the graph i was referring to is attached?

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.

Spencer's statement is clear as a bell written on the graph. It cannot be clearer.

No so. Spencer's statements are what they are, regardless of whatever notes are on his graph. They are two different things.

You cannot use any information on the graph to reverse what he said. He made his statement with a purpose - to deceive. He is a denier that trades in deception.

[homersapien 11,388]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

When was i ever asked a direct question that was not in response to a quote from myself?

The question was nonsensical unless the graph i was referring to is attached?

See, this is the problem. That's the way you see it, but you are wrong. My question had nothing to do with the graph. After all, I should know since I asked it. Why can't you simply accept this? Why can't you say something like, Oh, I'm sorry. I miss-understood, I assumed you were referring specifically to the chart.

No one would hold an honest misunderstanding against you. But the shouting and personal insults that resulted from your own misunderstanding? Not so much.

This business about you refusing to admit you misunderstood the nature of my question is weird and disturbing. Even so, I am not angry with you - more like concerned.

But I don't like being called a liar because you insist on your own erroneous interpretation. I think you owe me an apology.

[DKW 86 7,428]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

When was i ever asked a direct question that was not in response to a quote from myself?

The question was nonsensical unless the graph i was referring to is attached?

See, this is the problem. That's the way you see it, but you are wrong. My question had nothing to do with the graph. After all, I should know since I asked it. Why can't you simply accept this? Why can't you say something like, Oh, I'm sorry. I miss-understood, I assumed you were referring specifically to the chart.

No one would hold an honest misunderstanding against you. But the shouting and personal insults that resulted from your own misunderstanding? Not so much.

This business about you refusing to admit you misunderstood the nature of my question is weird and disturbing. Even so, I am not angry with you - more like concerned.

But I don't like being called a liar because you insist on your own erroneous interpretation. I think you owe me an apology.

My quote THAT YOU INCLUDED IN THE POST was altered had absolutely nothing to do with AGW. It was about the graphs bens was using. You owe me an apology for referencing my own quote against a topic i was not speaking about and had in fact spoken against at some length.

[autigeremt 6,645]

You are WRONG!!!!!

[DKW 86 7,428]

You are WRONG!!!!!

Thanks for the reminder that this is completely out of hand and comical. In case you missed it ai am very pissed that a quote of mine was altered and was used against me on a topic i was not speaking about.

[AUDub 11,153]

My quote THAT YOU INCLUDED IN THE POST was altered had absolutely nothing to do with AGW. It was about the graphs bens was using. You owe me an apology for referencing my own quote against a topic i was not speaking about and had in fact spoken against at some length.

You owe him an apology for not bothering to read the question before answering, then calling him a liar.

And you should apologize for your behavior through this whole thread; flipping out without provocation, calling us liars, idiots, saying that we "snort our own body waste," etc.

I'm getting exhausted with your hair trigger temper lately, DKW.

[autigeremt 6,645]

All the name calling has got to stop. We ARE better than that. All of us (except you trolling bammers).....

[homersapien 11,388]

I have never thought of direct questions, that can be answered simply with yes or no, as needing context.

When was i ever asked a direct question that was not in response to a quote from myself?

The question was nonsensical unless the graph i was referring to is attached?

See, this is the problem. That's the way you see it, but you are wrong. My question had nothing to do with the graph. After all, I should know since I asked it. Why can't you simply accept this? Why can't you say something like, Oh, I'm sorry. I miss-understood, I assumed you were referring specifically to the chart.

No one would hold an honest misunderstanding against you. But the shouting and personal insults that resulted from your own misunderstanding? Not so much.

This business about you refusing to admit you misunderstood the nature of my question is weird and disturbing. Even so, I am not angry with you - more like concerned.

But I don't like being called a liar because you insist on your own erroneous interpretation. I think you owe me an apology.

My quote THAT YOU INCLUDED IN THE POST was altered had absolutely nothing to do with AGW. It was about the graphs bens was using. You owe me an apology for referencing my own quote against a topic i was not speaking about and had in fact spoken against at some length.

Well it never occurred you would so vehemently defend Spencer as presenting accurate claims while at the same time believing in AGW. But you had every opportunity to clear that up and you didn't.

And really, you call me a liar after I explained my own motivation and intent and now you think you are the one who is owed an apology?

Now that's chutzpah! :-\

AND PLEASE STOP SHOUTING. IT'S NOT HELPING YOU.

IN FACT, JUST THE OPPOSITE.

[homersapien 11,388]

"....really pissed that a quote of mine was altered and used against me...." :-\

I suggest you take a print out of this thread if you ever seek therapy. It will save time.

[DKW 86 7,428]

"....really pissed that a quote of mine was altered and used against me...." :-\

I suggest you take a print out of this thread if you ever seek therapy. It will save time.

There is only one here needing therapy. I will give a hint. he has to use emoticons on every post because he is sssooo incredibly insecure.

[DKW 86 7,428]

For the record here. I have supported AGW for some time. I do not know how homer can say he did not know. bens even went back and posted some of my old comments from months ago, yet homer STILL says he honestly has never seen even one post from supporting AGW. I do not believe him at all.

The question homer asked had a quoted post of mine attached to it. That post was altered by homer. he then asked a question that had nothing to do with the conversation that was ongoing and indeed had nothing at all to do with AGW. I answered the question in context with my quote that was included in his post. Looking back, it LOOKs like i was answering his crazy completely detached from the conversation question, BUT i was in my mind following along in the conversation about the previous post.

That sums it up. My post was altered and a crazy, detached, out of the blue, change in the conversation was somehow appended to the altered quote of mine that actually had ZERO to do with the question.

Back to the original conversation. Bens has presented a graph in the thread that had comments embedded in the graph. He then directly misquotes the graphs and i pointed it out to him. He presented other evidence to back up his misquotes, but he still misquoted his own material. So, in fact he ultimately has two separate references that directly contradict each other. IE one of them is a lie. Either Graph quote is a lie or website quote is a lie, but one quote is a lie. They both cannot be true.

I have had it with the simpletons on my side of the aisle. Well on both sides of the aisle. An educated, well read man can see both sides of any issue. He can share that with his friends and acquaintances. But on this forum there are two sets of folks, The Sewing Circle PC Loons and the Righty Tighties that just cant seem to get away from the simplest of talking points.

You know them both:

Right: Blame Obama! ACA is Evil! Cops are always right! FOX NEWS! Repeal the ACA!

Left: AGW is sacred dogma and can never be questioned by anyone! Even when John Cook and SkS are caught red handed counting Deniers as supporters of AGW in the 97% Claim, the 97% is religious dogma and must be true!!!! Blame Bush! MSNBC! TPM! ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER! blah blah blah.

Now me: Fox is a nuthouse but Bret Baier is a good anchor. MSNBC is a nuthouse too, but i do watch Morning Joe while at the gym. The ACA was implemented by lying to the American Public, but it has been an overall blessing. The ACA has problems that need addressing, but it will never be repealed. AGW is a valid advocacy point, but some of the dogma folks, John Cook being one of them is nutz. Spencer was one of the foremost advocates of AGW for a while but now says his data (the latest most accurate data we have) does not support some of the shrillest advocates. The Left demonize Spencer and others for just disagreeing with the ACA most extremist Supporters. The ACA supporters after being embarrassed for years with the apparent pause that lasted possibly as long as 15 years has essentially just decided to add fudge factors and make that data fit their models.

I support AGW but i can clearly see that altering the data, sounds just like what happened at UEA btw, is very very suspicious. I have dared to question the AGW crowd and therefore, must now be lashed to the whipping post for my heresy and have people declare months if not years of support just did not exist or that they cannot (conveniently) remember them.

I will still soldier on. God knows someone needs to fill the divide between the two sides here. I guess i had part in creating the right side so many years ago. So i will do my part to fix what i broke.

[AFTiger 282]

Why do Homer and Bigbens turn every topic into personal attacks on those who disagree with them?

[AUDub 11,153]

Why do Homer and Bigbens turn every topic into personal attacks on those who disagree with them?

Really?

Go back and count the personal attacks.

[AUDub 11,153]

There is only one here needing therapyI will give a hint. he has to use emoticons on every post because he is sssooo incredibly insecure

[AUDub 11,153]

For the record here. I have supported AGW for some time. I do not know how homer can say he did not know. bens even went back and posted some of my old comments from months ago, yet homer STILL says he honestly has never seen even one post from supporting AGW. I do not believe him at all.

He said he didn't remember any off hand. It was a fair question asking for clarification.

The question homer asked had a quoted post of mine attached to it. That post was altered by homer. he then asked a question that had nothing to do with the conversation that was ongoing and indeed had nothing at all to do with AGW. I answered the question in context with my quote that was included in his post. Looking back, it LOOKs like i was answering his crazy completely detached from the conversation question, BUT i was in my mind following along in the conversation about the previous post.

It was a direct question, regardless of the conversation at hand. That you didn't bother to read it before answering is your problem, not ours

That sums it up. My post was altered and a crazy, detached, out of the blue, change in the conversation was somehow appended to the altered quote of mine that actually had ZERO to do with the question.

He chopped out the picture and asked you a direct question. Not exactly a "crazy, detached, out of the blue" change in topic

Back to the original conversation. Bens has presented a graph in the thread that had comments embedded in the graph. He then directly misquotes the graphs and i pointed it out to him. He presented other evidence to back up his misquotes, but he still misquoted his own material. So, in fact he ultimately has two separate references that directly contradict each other. IE one of them is a lie. Either Graph quote is a lie or website quote is a lie, but one quote is a lie. They both cannot be true.

Wrong. I didn't "misquote" anything. I commented on Dr. Spencer's dismissal of the models in their entirety with his bastardized comparison in his graph and his words. He basically said "look at this. The vast majority of the models are wrong, therefore all of the models can be dismissed."

I have had it with the simpletons on my side of the aisle. Well on both sides of the aisle. An educated, well read man can see both sides of any issue. He can share that with his friends and acquaintances. But on this forum there are two sets of folks, The Sewing Circle PC Loons and the Righty Tighties that just cant seem to get away from the simplest of talking points.

Rarely do I see you jumping the right's case like ours recently. "Sewing circle" and "PC crowd" are your stock insults now."

You know them both:

Right: Blame Obama! ACA is Evil! Cops are always right! FOX NEWS! Repeal the ACA!

Left: AGW is sacred dogma and can never be questioned by anyone! Even when John Cook and SkS are caught red handed counting Deniers as supporters of AGW in the 97% Claim, the 97% is religious dogma and must be true!!!! Blame Bush! MSNBC! TPM! ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER! blah blah blah.

I see strawmen.

Now me: Fox is a nuthouse but Bret Baier is a good anchor. MSNBC is a nuthouse too, but i do watch Morning Joe while at the gym. The ACA was implemented by lying to the American Public, but it has been an overall blessing. The ACA has problems that need addressing, but it will never be repealed. AGW is a valid advocacy point, but some of the dogma folks, John Cook being one of them is nutz. Spencer was one of the foremost advocates of AGW for a while but now says his data (the latest most accurate data we have) does not support some of the shrillest advocates. The Left demonize Spencer and others for just disagreeing with the ACA most extremist Supporters. The ACA supporters after being embarrassed for years with the apparent pause that lasted possibly as long as 15 years has essentially just decided to add fudge factors and make that data fit their models.

That's ridiculous. Dr. Spencer's dishonesty has been demonstrated repeatedly here. And there has been no pause.

I support AGW but i can clearly see that altering the data, sounds just like what happened at UEA btw, is very very suspicious. I have dared to question the AGW crowd and therefore, must now be lashed to the whipping post for my heresy and have people declare months if not years of support just did not exist or that they cannot (conveniently) remember them.

Climategate has long sense been debunked as a manufactroversey. A bunch of out of context e-mails and mined quotes. There was no wrongdoing.

Funny that you ignore the fact that Spencer's UAH data has seen adjustments as well. Why do you think there are currently 10 versions of it? Still waiting for Spencer and Christy to finish with their v6.0. It was due a decade ago.

I will still soldier on. God knows someone needs to fill the divide between the two sides here. I guess i had part in creating the right side so many years ago. So i will do my part to fix what i broke.

Well you're doing a terrible job casting yourself as some sort of centrist here. The worst of your vitriol is reserved for the likes of Homer, Tex, ICHY, and me it seems.