No one and nothing could ever pry Paul Alsing's hands off his Kool-Aid.

On 10/3/19 4:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Which source is a lie?

In short: YOU.

You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push
your anti-science agenda.
I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

While my first response to this was correct (your claims have been
trivially debunked) you are coming from the wrong angle he it is not
the job of others to debunk your every absurd claim. If you say the moon
is made of cheese, or the Earth is flat, or man never made it to the
moon, or man-made global climate change is a grand hoax pushed by tens
of thousands of scientists from different countries and disciplines and
through different funding, or whatever, it is not the job of the reader
to prove you wrong (though each of those is clearly and obviously wrong)
it is your job to offer a theory BETTER than the current one.

To do this you have to show evidence of understanding the current
theories and then show your theory is better.

You have failed at that. Horribly.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2019-10-03 5:30 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/3/19 4:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Which source is a lie?

In short: YOU.

You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push
your anti-science agenda.
I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

While my first response to this was correct (your claims have been
trivially debunked) you are coming from the wrong angle he it is not
the job of others to debunk your every absurd claim. If you say the moon
is made of cheese, or the Earth is flat, or man never made it to the
moon, or man-made global climate change is a grand hoax pushed by tens
of thousands of scientists from different countries and disciplines and
through different funding, or whatever, it is not the job of the reader
to prove you wrong (though each of those is clearly and obviously wrong)
it is your job to offer a theory BETTER than the current one.

To do this you have to show evidence of understanding the current
theories and then show your theory is better.

You have failed at that. Horribly.

this is completely cheesey

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi, Fran, Pandora » these are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.

On 2019-10-03 5:48 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

here's the gerk proving once again how well his mark % read works for
him , even when he blocks me he replies that'd be your freakin owned
right there

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

here's the gerk proving once again how well his mark % read works for
him , even when he blocks me he replies that'd be your freakin owned
right there

Sometimes I get my Gerk and Cornhole socks mixed up.

--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi, Fran, Pandora » these are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.

On 2019-10-03 6:01 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

here's the gerk proving once again how well his mark % read works for
him , even when he blocks me he replies that'd be your freakin owned
right there

Sometimes I get my Gerk and Cornhole socks mixed up.

they're interchangeable anyway

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:09:35 -0700, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03 6:01 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

here's the gerk proving once again how well his mark % read works for
him , even when he blocks me he replies that'd be your freakin owned
right there

Sometimes I get my Gerk and Cornhole socks mixed up.

they're interchangeable anyway

Yup, and it's bedtime here at Sunset Chateau so good night all.
Pleasance, here comes your Big Boy!

--
Yours Truly, Sir Gregory

Nadegda, kensi, Fran, Pandora » these are easily
ignored misandrists and anti-American, leftist liars.

On 2019-10-03 6:14 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:09:35 -0700, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03 6:01 p.m., Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019, % wrote:

...

this is completely cheesey

You mammy gimme good crotch cheese.
LOL

here's the gerk proving once again how well his mark % read works for
him , even when he blocks me he replies that'd be your freakin owned
right there

Sometimes I get my Gerk and Cornhole socks mixed up.

they're interchangeable anyway

Yup, and it's bedtime here at Sunset Chateau so good night all.
Pleasance, here comes your Big Boy!

and here comes a fresh sock

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:46:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread)

Global warming is not "unsupported".

Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*.

You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out.

Here is where it started:

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

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way
of life changed forever, however.

They always do.

Not at this current rapid timescale.

A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always
seem to "forget".

Please give me data.

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

Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale"
was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell
me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you
have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical.

Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the
one and only planet, that we have."

You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will
be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And,
unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are
contained in the document.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/
or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht

It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is
worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in
climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption
yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole
leftist agenda conspiracy theory...

His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical)
examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK
for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know
my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's
what matters, right?"

The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart.
Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart.

The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the
argument from authority bias here.

At least you read it, and replied. That makes you stand out from the
crowd. Thank you.

The point is that it doesn't support your position: that climate science is
flawed. It simply regurgitates a left wing agenda conspiracy theory with no
evidence. Which again isn't your position. You've always said the
conspiracy was all about the money. At least you did until i pointed out
that the IPCC is funded directly by national governments and NGOs and that
its budget was a tiny fraction of the oil companies' lobbying budget in the
U.S. alone.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit
wrote:

I bet you won't read that either.

Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over.

Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge
about SCIENCE?

Oh.

Because you seek to DENY science.

What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is
rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on?

Of course it matters. I certainly wouldn't trust anything published in the
Daily Mail. Scientists think very hard about where they publish, as the
perception is that it reflects on their work.

Ignoring where something is published is dumb.

It is a
very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate
the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered
scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes.

That is true. Credibility is hard to gain and easy to lose. How you get us
through thorough editorial standards, veracity and transparency.

Innuendos,
unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade.

Correct. Which is where all science skeptic blogs fail.

Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not
point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been
shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong
(it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And
you keep pushing it.

Which source is a lie?

In short: YOU.

You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push
your anti-science agenda.

I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

How can we falsify a position that keeps shifting? And one that requires, a
frankly ridiculous position given today's politics, a well-organised,
consistent and global conspiracy to suppress any dissent. Only the "brave
bloggers " are able uncover the "truth". Really?!



Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy.

Your name is not Ozymandius, but ...

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:47:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit
wrote:

I bet you won't read that either.

Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over.

Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge
about SCIENCE?

Oh.

Because you seek to DENY science.

What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is
rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on?

Of course it matters. I certainly wouldn't trust anything published in the
Daily Mail. Scientists think very hard about where they publish, as the
perception is that it reflects on their work.

I didn't say anything about trust. The word I used was 'scientific'.
You won't read Watts Up With That as you regard it as not a
'SCIENTIFIC' site. It's not a question of trust. It's not
'SCIENTIFIC'. Presumably if you read the same information on one of
your favourite sites it would then be 'SCIENTIFIC'. I have to say that
that's a slightly bizarre way of filtering your information

Ignoring where something is published is dumb.

Ans so too is using that information alone to decide whether or not
the information can be trusted.

It is a
very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate
the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered
scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes.

Thinks! - Now how can he determine the quality of a site if he never
reads it?

That is true. Credibility is hard to gain and easy to lose. How you get us
through thorough editorial standards, veracity and transparency.

There is always that list in Wikipedia to help you.

Innuendos,
unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade.

Correct. Which is where all science skeptic blogs fail.

You are not qualified to say 'all'. Certainly there is little of that
on Watts. There is certainly much more on that site I was directed to
to read about Dr Roy Spencer.

Notice you point to a blog run by an anti-science whacko. You do not
point to peer reviewed journals. And on that specific one you have been
shown where it was debunked -- the very premise of that article is wrong
(it assumes fewer sources of data than are accurate). It is a lie. And
you keep pushing it.

Which source is a lie?

In short: YOU.

You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push
your anti-science agenda.

I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

How can we falsify a position that keeps shifting? And one that requires, a
frankly ridiculous position given today's politics, a well-organised,
consistent and global conspiracy to suppress any dissent. Only the "brave
bloggers " are able uncover the "truth". Really?!

Hell! They only have to read the actual documents but you turn your
nose away refusing to even read the quotes and references.



Evil, selfish *******s. History will **** on your (our) legacy.

Your name is not Ozymandius, but ...




--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:46:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread)

Global warming is not "unsupported".

Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*.

You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out.

Here is where it started:

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

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way
of life changed forever, however.

They always do.

Not at this current rapid timescale.

A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always
seem to "forget".

Please give me data.

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

Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale"
was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell
me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you
have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical.

Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the
one and only planet, that we have."

You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will
be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And,
unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are
contained in the document.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/
or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht

It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is
worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in
climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption
yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole
leftist agenda conspiracy theory...

His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical)
examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK
for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know
my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's
what matters, right?"

The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart.
Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart.

The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the
argument from authority bias here.

At least you read it, and replied. That makes you stand out from the
crowd. Thank you.

The point is that it doesn't support your position: that climate science is
flawed. It simply regurgitates a left wing agenda conspiracy theory with no
evidence. Which again isn't your position. You've always said the
conspiracy was all about the money. At least you did until i pointed out
that the IPCC is funded directly by national governments and NGOs and that
its budget was a tiny fraction of the oil companies' lobbying budget in the
U.S. alone.

It certainly supports my position on the way both the science and the
politics has been corrupted on too many occasions. Here is another
example:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gj16lgvhff...0Rort.pdf?dl=0

I dare you to read and then tell whether or not I'm wrong.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 10/3/19 5:37 PM, % wrote:
On 2019-10-03 5:30 p.m., Snit wrote:
On 10/3/19 4:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Which source is a lie?
Â*
In short: YOU.

You simply lie non-stop, and push absurd logical fallacies. All to push
your anti-science agenda.
I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

While my first response to this was correct (your claims have been
trivially debunked) you are coming from the wrong angle he it is
not the job of others to debunk your every absurd claim. If you say
the moon is made of cheese, or the Earth is flat, or man never made it
to the moon, or man-made global climate change is a grand hoax pushed
by tens of thousands of scientists from different countries and
disciplines and through different funding, or whatever, it is not the
job of the reader to prove you wrong (though each of those is clearly
and obviously wrong) it is your job to offer a theory BETTER than the
current one.

To do this you have to show evidence of understanding the current
theories and then show your theory is better.

You have failed at that. Horribly.

this is completely cheesey

Like cheddar, my writing can be sharp.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:36:22 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:46:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 06:40:45 -0500, chrisv
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

I would never ask anyone to prove a scientific or technical matter. I
do ask people to not make unsupported claims, (snipped, unread)

Global warming is not "unsupported".

Sheesh, you right-wingers are *amazing*.

You haven't been following. You just react - and kick out.

Here is where it started:

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

Sure humanity will likely survive. Millions of humans will have their way
of life changed forever, however.

They always do.

Not at this current rapid timescale.

A key fact that these stupid, ignorant, right-wing assholes always
seem to "forget".

Please give me data.

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

Far from arguing that your claim about "this current rapid timescale"
was unsupported, I assumed it was and that you would be able to tell
me the basis of your claim. I think you are now telling me that you
have no basis for that claim and to question it is heretical.

Deny, deny, deny. "It's all a giant conspiracy. Let's F$CK over the
one and only planet, that we have."

You won't have the courage to read the following but those who do will
be better able to assess whether or not it is a conspiracy. And,
unlike your claims, references to sources and accurate quotes are
contained in the document.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/...se-corruption/
or https://tinyurl.com/y5xwnrht

It is an interesting thesis which is backed up by selected quotes. It is
worth highlighting that nowhere does he point out the flaws (if any) in
climate science research. He alleges there's some noble cause corruption
yet without any evidence of it actually occurring. Then there's the whole
leftist agenda conspiracy theory...

His analogy to the police is fine except we have many, many (historical)
examples of police being guilty of NCC - the Birmingham six case in the UK
for example - yet none for climate science. There's no one saying "i know
my methodology is deeply flawed, but, hey I'm saving the planet. That's
what matters, right?"

The police convictions only need a little scrutiny and they fall apart.
Climate science is heavily scrutinised and doesn't fall apart.

The author may be a very eminent physicist, but I'm not falling for the
argument from authority bias here.

At least you read it, and replied. That makes you stand out from the
crowd. Thank you.

The point is that it doesn't support your position: that climate science is
flawed. It simply regurgitates a left wing agenda conspiracy theory with no
evidence. Which again isn't your position. You've always said the
conspiracy was all about the money. At least you did until i pointed out
that the IPCC is funded directly by national governments and NGOs and that
its budget was a tiny fraction of the oil companies' lobbying budget in the
U.S. alone.

It certainly supports my position on the way both the science and the
politics has been corrupted on too many occasions. Here is another
example:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gj16lgvhff...0Rort.pdf?dl=0

I dare you to read and then tell whether or not I'm wrong.

How can i check whether your essay is wrong when there is no evidence
presented? Where are your references and data? There is no "wrong" here as
it could all be a figment of your imagination. For example, where's the
evidence supporting the NZ forestry story, and how do you define the
Russian models as being "more accurate"?

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 07:47:23 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:03:59 -0700, Snit
wrote:

On 10/3/19 1:35 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:42:36 -0700, Snit
wrote:

I bet you won't read that either.

Did and responded to it. You want to play the same games over and over.

Why don't you look at actual SCIENTIFIC sites to get your knowledge
about SCIENCE?

Oh.

Because you seek to DENY science.

What starnge mental process is it that makes you think knowledge is
rendered scientific (or not) by the site it is published on?

Of course it matters. I certainly wouldn't trust anything published in the
Daily Mail. Scientists think very hard about where they publish, as the
perception is that it reflects on their work.

I didn't say anything about trust. The word I used was 'scientific'.
You won't read Watts Up With That as you regard it as not a
'SCIENTIFIC' site.

I've read enough of it to know it's full of one-sided comments and posts.
Often intentionally misinterpreting the science.

It's not a question of trust. It's not
'SCIENTIFIC'. Presumably if you read the same information on one of
your favourite sites it would then be 'SCIENTIFIC'.

If the blog posts made it into a reputable, peer-reviewed journal then,
yes, I'd be more likely to accept them.

The blog posts are not science as they don't present science. Where are the
methodologies or results? They're opinion pieces with occasional data
hacking.

I have to say that
that's a slightly bizarre way of filtering your information

Ignoring where something is published is dumb.

Ans so too is using that information alone to decide whether or not
the information can be trusted.

No one uses that alone, but once you get to know a publisher, site or
editor then you can make assumptions.


It is a
very peculiar, but not uncommon, view of things. If you want to relate
the two it makes much better sense to say that a site is rendered
scientific (or not) by the knowledge it publishes.

Thinks! - Now how can he determine the quality of a site if he never
reads it?

That is true. Credibility is hard to gain and easy to lose. How you get us
through thorough editorial standards, veracity and transparency.

There is always that list in Wikipedia to help you.

Innuendos,
unsupported opinions and personal attacks do not make the grade.

Correct. Which is where all science skeptic blogs fail.

You are not qualified to say 'all'.

Every science skeptic blog I've read has the same theme. Very little
substance and plenty of hyperbole.

I take it you cannot falsify or even throw reasonable doubt on any
part of the sources I have relied on. Otherwise you would have done
so.

How can we falsify a position that keeps shifting? And one that requires, a
frankly ridiculous position given today's politics, a well-organised,
consistent and global conspiracy to suppress any dissent. Only the "brave
bloggers " are able uncover the "truth". Really?!

Hell! They only have to read the actual documents but you turn your
nose away refusing to even read the quotes and references.

I think you have me confused with someone else.