Quote :

"^ Who cares what you think, man? I only attacked you fuckers about your appearance because you did it to me first"

where have I EVER attacked your appearance? I have NO IDEA what the fuck you look like. you steadfastly refuse to show your face

Quote :

"and I must've really hit a nerve with you, though. You've been howling like a fucking scalded cat about it."

im happy with my appearance. my wife is still married me, and my kid thinks im superman. and Bridget thinks im "good looking" ... i do like that "scalded cat" comment though. thats pretty rich. i may use it sometime

Quote :

" I also made you an offer to stop all ad homs, but you refused. Shall I post the PM? "

why do you feel compelled to announce every time we exchange a PM? its kind of weird. i dont care what you post. i have nothing to hide.

Quote :

" And I don't troll ANYBODY, goddammit!"

youre one of the biggest passive-aggressive trolls here. the only thing that keeps you from being Troll of the Year, is that you are so easily trolled yourself.

Quote :

"There is not one person here that is important enough for me to follow from thread to thread harassing. Some users continually clash in TSB threads simply because of their opposing sociopolitical viewpoints. I can assure you that it's nothing more than this to me."

maybe our idea of trolling is different. i never said you were a stalker. i certainly dont post stalk anyone. some people run into each other more often than others.

Quote :

"Having posted that, I don't like getting personally attacked any more than the next person. So, I often respond in kind--what of it?"

you are often (usually) the instigator. you however, can't take it like you give it, so you immediately start playing the whiney victim everytime someone lets you have it.

Quote :

"Stop whining all the goddamned time, man."

i aint whining. im challenging. as in, calling you out. put your goddamned picture up. im tired of you attacking people for their appearance, yet too scared to show your own face.

Quote :

" It's [old]--just as you often refer to me, am I right?"

ive never once made fun of your age. I'm the *LAST* person who will make fun of anyone's age here. i have questioned the accuracy of it, only because you choose to remain conspicuously anonymous, and i have a hard time believing anything you say at this point.

until you put a picture up, you could be 12 or 50 for all i know.

5/23/2007 4:06:43 AM

^ You are damned tiresome. I'm sorry, but I can no longer fuel your obsession with me.

This is NOT a free thread. Posts here should be related to global warming, Al Gore, or An Inconvenient Truth.

5/23/2007 4:22:24 AM

for Fuck's sake, BACK ON OT PLEASE!

5/23/2007 2:44:18 PM

piss off. can't you see im busy pwning hooksaw here.

5/23/2007 4:02:01 PM

REMEMBER GUYS, ONLY TREETWISTA10 FUCKS UP SOAP BOX THREADS

5/23/2007 4:03:43 PM

^^hey I'm being bipartisan in saying both of you are being dipshits in this thread right now

5/23/2007 7:48:34 PM

Quote :

"piss off. can't you see im busy pwning trolling hooksaw here."

joe_schmoe

Fixed it for you. And you wish--it does take all of your concentration for you to even attempt to pwn me, doesn't it? I've pwn-ed you so many times that I should have a file cabinet full of ownership titles to you.

5/23/2007 10:29:24 PM

Quote :

"hey I'm being bipartisan in saying both of you are being dipshits in this thread right now"

TKE-Teg

Because you're above it all, right? Did you even read my previous post?

Quote :

"This is NOT a free thread. Posts here should be related to global warming, Al Gore, or An Inconvenient Truth."

hooksaw

5/23/2007 10:33:44 PM

Yes, I saw your quoted material. Doesn't mean you wouldn't come back with something else!

5/24/2007 1:20:35 PM

Quote :

"Blind Hate Quote : "^says the alias with no pictures in his gallery" TreeTwista10 LOL! This was the perfect response. "

It was? I haven't made any comments about anyone's appearance in this section, so me not having pictures in my gallery is irrelevant.

5/24/2007 1:29:59 PM

You havent?

Quote :

"For those that don't want to read all this, I'll summarize: "I am too much of a pussy to show my face to this website.""

5/24/2007 2:04:29 PM

goddammit Twista, quit trolling. you're always fucking up threads with this back-and-forth nonsense. cant you stay on topic for once????///

5/24/2007 10:32:09 PM

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Quote :

"[May 15, 2007] Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice PresidentAl Gore, the United Nations and the media driven 'consensus' on man-made global warming. The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

Quote :

"The composition of the Senate going into the 2008 election will include 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who both caucus with Democrats). Of the seats up for election in 2008, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008



[Edited on May 26, 2007 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2007 1:16:42 AM

Marc Morano...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano

This is from a Limbaugh-cronie and a guy who equated environmentalists with Nazis. That's rich.

So.... just because a few scientists question the global warming paradigm (not even entirely) compared to the vast majority of scientists that do accept global warming.... then the science proving global warming must be bogus. OH SHIT!

5/26/2007 1:40:59 AM

When one predicates a movement on a "consensus" and make absolutist statements about the support
for man-made global warming then one invites such criticism. An overstated case is easy to debunk.

[Edited on May 26, 2007 at 11:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/26/2007 11:08:22 AM

To "debunk" the assertion that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept climate change, you're going to have to supply us with a whole lot more than 12 names

(not to mention the fact that your list of 12 included an economist, a botanist, a mathematician, and a guy's whose specialty appears to be wildlife management)



OMG CALL CNN; CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BEEN DEBUNKED

5/26/2007 11:59:02 AM

pwnt

5/26/2007 2:15:04 PM

anthro gw is FACT...we've PROVEN IT...only EXXON STOCKHOLDERS DONT BELIEVE

THERE IS NO DEBATE

5/26/2007 8:32:02 PM

If only anyone were arguing that, your response wouldn't suck

5/27/2007 12:15:49 AM

twista sometimes you're amusing, but mostly you just suck at this.

Global Warming is a fact.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a fact.

the basic substance of these two things are not debatable.

however, the correlation between the two is still being studied.

we know that a rapid, sustained increase in average global temperatures is going to have significant impact on human lives worldwide.

and evidence indicates that at least some of the global warming is athropogenic. how much is some? thats the debate.

personally, ive noticed that people who wish to dismiss the debate out of hand, have some serious emotional issues. its like a pathologic aversion towards or fear of science.

so what exactly is your hangup? did an environmental scientist touch you inappropriately when you were young?

5/27/2007 1:42:41 AM

^ and here, while I'm at it, I'll just save Twista some time right now. he can thank me later.

Quote :

"you said A is true, and B is true, therefore you think A is caused by B. durr look at the liberal enviro-wackos. they are so stoopid. :roll : [ /TreeTwista10 ] "

5/27/2007 5:26:34 AM

i see you can troll me without even needing my reponses

5/28/2007 2:03:14 AM

it doesnt take much. you're completely predictable.

your entire arguments involve twisting someones words around so you can construct a strawman that never existed in the first place, then pat yourself on the back after you knock it down and show everyone how clever you are.



[Edited on May 28, 2007 at 2:28 AM. Reason : ]

5/28/2007 2:24:51 AM

you enjoying talking to yourself?

5/28/2007 3:06:39 AM

you enjoy answering people who talk to themselves?

5/28/2007 5:07:52 AM

from what i gather, if all you do is troll a stupid stoner, then you're even dumber than that stupid stoner...gg you seattle homosexual, please, continue fighting for gay marriage in the state of washington

[Edited on May 29, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : "I moved away from North Carolina to get away from people like you!" [/loser homo hippie crybaby]]

5/29/2007 1:11:57 AM

^ stalk much?

5/29/2007 2:49:52 AM

wtf is your faggot ass talking about? you're talking about how you post-stalk me? stick to the topic you homo hippie

5/29/2007 11:39:45 AM

I just want some scientist to tell me how the SUV I'm driving is heating up all the planets in our system and not just earth. Truly amazing stuff!

5/29/2007 1:17:33 PM

I just want some scientist to tell me how the cigarettes we are smoking are giving nonsmokers lung cancer and not just us smokers. Truly amazing stuff!

5/29/2007 2:00:30 PM

^so you're saying that anthro CO2 on earth is causing other planets to heat up

5/29/2007 2:04:48 PM

As a scientists, I will let you in on an age-old secret: the poison is in the dose. Second hand smoke provides a tiny dose of the unhealthy compounds.

As such, it is not surprising that inflicting someone with 1/100th the dose of a drug or poison will have far less impact upon the individual's health.

So, it is not that second hand smoke is safe; merely that the negative effects are so tiny as to be rendered undetectable. Are we supposed to make a big deal out of an effect that we cannot detect?

5/29/2007 2:06:19 PM

^^ I never said anything about second hand smoke

5/29/2007 2:08:38 PM

The News & Observer printed a two-sided debate concerning global warming in Sunday's edition. If nothing else, the article is evidence that there is still debate--no matter what the argumentum ad ignorantiam crowd says.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2660/story/589532.html

(Note: Click "The science of warming is far from settled" by Patrick J. Michaels and "We are responsible for Earth's past - and future" by Rob Jackson for both sides of this debate.)

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 4:08 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2007 4:05:03 AM

^interesting read.

6/4/2007 10:04:21 AM

^^do most "leading scientists" work for the cato institute?

6/4/2007 11:51:08 AM

Even the Cato guy accepts anthropogenic climate change, he just calls to our attention that we don't know how great an impact it will have on the environment.

When a Cato guy has moved past the issue of whether or not human activity is causing climate change, I'd say it's safe to say that anyone who matters has also moved on.

6/4/2007 12:36:29 PM

always easy to tell which people studied science and which people read articles and watch movies

6/4/2007 12:44:32 PM

like al gore

6/4/2007 12:59:35 PM

Quote :

"always easy to tell which people studied science and which people read articles and watch movies "

the people who agree with you vs. those who don't? i never see you criticize idiotic things people have said in this thread challenging anthropogenic climate change.

6/4/2007 1:01:42 PM

specifically the people who dont understand the inherent skepticism needed in science in order to make new strides by challenging supposed truths...for example 100 years ago we had an answer for many things related to science...what causes what, and so forth...but people challenging those ideas have often yielded information that initial hypotheses were incorrect...sometimes completely off base...but the inherent skepticism and curiosity allows science to grow and expand its base of knowledge...so its pretty easy to tell when someone hasnt studied science when they are so quick to accept things as fact based selective disinformation

6/4/2007 1:02:57 PM

...ellipsis mothafucka...do you speak it?...

6/4/2007 1:07:11 PM

Quote :

"The News & Observer printed a two-sided debate concerning global warming in Sunday's edition. If nothing else, the article is evidence that there is still debate--no matter what the argumentum ad ignorantiam crowd says. "

Is it still a debate when a small handful of people are disagreeing with the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community? Does a handful of white supremacists mean there is an ongoing debate on racial inferiority?

6/4/2007 1:17:07 PM

LOL @ overwhelming consensus of the scientific community

6/4/2007 1:49:42 PM

lol @ overwhelming consensus of global cooling 30 years ago

6/4/2007 2:03:22 PM

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Quote :

"The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

US National Academy of Science

Quote :

"In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf

Joint Science Academies

Quote :

"We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

American Meteorological Society

Quote :

"The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. The IPCC was established ... to fulfill the critical role of providing objective scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. IPCC assessment reports are prepared ... by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

lol

6/4/2007 3:13:20 PM

Quote :

"Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there are, in reality, a strong scientific consensus"

or leave the impression that the scientific community has as strong consensus, where there are, in reality, differing opinions

lol

6/4/2007 3:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam ("argument to ignorance"): This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true."

6/4/2007 3:33:07 PM

^ What's the logical fallacy for asserting that something is false, while ignoring evidence that suggests it's true?

6/4/2007 3:36:13 PM

whats the logical fallacy for interpreting a majority opinion as a fact so definitively true that "there is no debate"?

6/4/2007 3:46:49 PM