APP - British Inquiry: Climate data NOT manipulated

taichi is so stupid he thinks business passing on taxes into the cost of their products and services is corrupt!!

:palm: And can you quote me saying this, you lying SOS? I DARE you to produce the quote of me stating what you claim in no uncertain terms. If you can't, then once again you've demonstrated what a dishonest coward you are.

He believes business should keep prices the same any increase in costs for their service or product should be absorbed by shareholders in the form of reduced return on investment. Can you imagine this guy's grades in econ 101? LOL what a total idiot

It's amazing how you expand on your lie as if it's the truth......I suggest you losen up the tin foil hat. The chronology of the posts will always be your undoing.
 
But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.


Ice melt is not unprecedented. that's the problem ching chong. You are going by IPCC data. You better check the accuracy of anything the IPCC says BECAUSE THE IPCC DOESN'T FACT CHECK!!!!

:palm: As the chronology of the various posts and threads shows, the IPCC is NOT the only source of evidence regarding climate change. That is this numbskull's main problem...he just ignores any and all information that isn't part of the pro-corporate talking points.

Thing is the fool doesn't realize that while parrot squawking about the sudden change in the trend, he's automatically acknowledging an unprecedented rate of melting in that region. HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY...but he'll scamble like a rat in a maze to find some blogger's supposition and conjecture that suits his needs.

Once again, the tin foil hat wearing crank lives up to his name.
 
When this asshole starts referring to himself in the 3rd person, folks...you KNOW he doesn't have a logical or rational leg to stand on.

Bottom line: as the chronology of the posts shows, these corporate ass kissers made a claim to which I provided evidence to the contrary. Cornered, they use any excuse NOT to actively engage in an honest debate by REFUSING to read ANY of the material sourced. Given the amount of time they have wasted stalling and bullshitting, they could have read EVERY article listed on the linked site several times over! They could have chosen any one of the articles that is pertinent to the current discussion for review and debate.

But as the record shows...these neocon clowns can't think independently...so unless there's a ready made response available for them, they avoid honest discussion like the plague.

I leave Southie to repeat his bullshit ad nauseum...typical of the intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.

Great, so what is your argument?
 
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



:palm: I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

Here's the quote where taichi says that if a business is passing costs onto customers they're corrupt.

He fricken wrote it in bold too!
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
.....so unless you're into pollution, what is your whole point anyway?



I "get" the fact that you're just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who relies heavily on one or two talking points while denying and ignoring all else.

All your cut & paste are OP-Ed pieces and blogs that favor your position...yet you scurry like a roach at any information that contradicts your beliefs or references. Case in point with my response to your buddy Southie. http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Clean+Air+Act

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

But like the good little neocon asswipe, you just IGNORE any logical challenge to your blatherings. Case in point....you deny unprecedented ice melt, then dance with glee when there's a sudden shift in the trend. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, GENIUS.

So I ask you again...What's your problem anyway? You're not an owner or investor in any of the corporations who fight not to have their waste and exhausts regulated.

Here's the quote where taichi says that if a business is passing costs onto customers they're corrupt.

He fricken wrote it in bold too!

:palm: Pay attention, mastermind, I'll use an example to paint a picture for you:

On Long Island, New York the now defunct Long Island Lighting Company (the power company) built the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, financed by shareholders and investors (no vote was put to the general public)....but it did NOT go on-line due to the inability to come up with a real emergency evacuation plan (plus numerous exposed faults and corruption involving various component constructions). In a last ditch effort, Shoreham fired up a low level test in a bid to insure it's operation....they failed.

AS A RESULT, THE COST OF THE CLEAN-UP AND VARIOUS RECONSTRUCTIONS TO SHOREHAM WERE PAST ON TO THE GENERAL TAXPAYERS, AND NOT THE RESPONSIBLITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND INVESTORS.

Look it up if you don't believe me.

THAT is what I'm talking about......the general public being made responsible for the PRIVATE financial screw-ups of companies. Capice? It's akin to the Wall St./bank bail outs that we're now suffering through.
 
You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?
 
Quote:
The Committee found that the "evidence patently fails to support" the claim that these words reveal a conspiracy to hide evidence that does not fit with global warming, and that CRU Director Professor Phil Jones has "no case to answer".

Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it...its the old "if you don't believe me, just ask me", defense....

my kids used to try that bullshit on me when they were teenagers...
It didn't work then and it ain't gonna work now.

__________________
 
I just can't understand people like cypress shouting SCIENCE! as he ignores the blatant deeds revealed. They fucking replaced the proxy data with REAL TEMP READINGS

proxy data : error margins of 1 degree C
Real temps : error margins less than .5 degree C


the proxy derived temps from the tree rings since 1960 and beyond don't show the same trends that are expected and thus were said to diverge and need correction.

Can you imagine any other science where you can use a method for one portion of the representive data, and when the method no longer yields results that support the scientists' theory, THE SCIENTIST SIMPLY USES DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE OF THE PORTION OF DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT HIS THEORY


Please tell me of any other science in which this takes place?
 
You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?

:palm: Stop playing dumb or pay attention to what's recently transpired.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=632401&postcount=66

The discussion was about climate data that shows a sudden reversal of an unprecedented melting of an ice region....at one point you REFUSED to examine information I provided that contradicts certain assertions made by you and supported by your compadres. Then you made a false statement about my following point:

Thing is, you're on record about bitching and moaning against the very idea of "global warming" and "climate change" BEFORE Gore's cop-out proposal....so spare us the faux whining about YOU paying carbon credit taxes...because it's the CORPORATIONS that would be doing so. And if they are passing the costs onto YOU and NOT their shareholders, that is further demonstration of how corrupt they are....but being a good little dupe, you'll just bend over and take while asking for more.

You ranting and jeered that the underlined part of this excerpt wasn't true....so I gave you a perfect example that it was. So instead of conceding a point, you now try to pretend that the chronology of the posts doesn't exist in order to allege that I'm not making sense.

Stop acting like a freaking stubborn little kid....acknowledging facts that don't support your beliefs and contentions won't kill you. This is why I keep reminding you genius neocon parrots why the chronology of the posts is so important...so you won't make an ass of yourself trying to bluff around being proved wrong.
 
You cite a single example totally unrelated to global-warming-fighting-CO2-taxes, the subject of my post..

WTF does it have to do with the argument, dumbass?

Are you surprised ? Its the same MO over and over....
Get pwned ...then change the subject and conveniently forget about getting pwned....
 
I just can't understand people like cypress shouting SCIENCE! as he ignores the blatant deeds revealed. They fucking replaced the proxy data with REAL TEMP READINGS

proxy data : error margins of 1 degree C
Real temps : error margins less than .5 degree C


the proxy derived temps from the tree rings since 1960 and beyond don't show the same trends that are expected and thus were said to diverge and need correction.

Can you imagine any other science where you can use a method for one portion of the representive data, and when the method no longer yields results that support the scientists' theory, THE SCIENTIST SIMPLY USES DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS IN PLACE OF THE PORTION OF DATA THAT DOESN'T FIT HIS THEORY


Please tell me of any other science in which this takes place?

Political science.
 
Back
Top