Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

That's exactly where it is, in the whole discussion of the Muller video.

I'm not precisely sure how you could miss you saying I never watched the video before commenting, or miss the screenshots I posted proving I watched it.

When I posted the Muller video

You said this 2 posts later.

I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.

So much for his credibility.

And I point blank asked you what was the lie at 1:30 of the video. And you never answered. You spent 4 or more posts running around the topic never answering that question and I surmised that you had not seen the video at all when you posted at #54 and were a stuck explaining your post.

So you say you did see the video. Fine. I am mistaken. You did see the video. Being mistaken about whether or not you viewing a video is NOT calling you a liar? Stop playing at being such a little victim. You are not. I made a genuine offer to make amends and explain any miscommunication and you slapped that away.

AND lastly.....you have still NOT stated what that BALDFACED lie was either.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

So you say you did see the video. Fine. I am mistaken. You did see the video. Being mistaken about whether or not you viewing a video is NOT calling you a liar?

This is what you wrote:

I surmise with conviction now: You had not seen the video when you posted that message.

I said I had seen the video, you said I had not but said I did. Being mistaken involves changing one's view when being told or shown otherwise, but you "surmised with conviction" that I lied about when I had seen the video.

And when I provided absolute proof, you still didn't change your belief. That's not being "mistaken".

Originally Posted by HOZ

Being mistaken about whether or not you viewing a video is NOT calling you a liar?

You said I hadn't watched the video when I'd claimed I had, lying is making a statement that is untrue, you accused me of making a statement that was untrue. It's very simple, that you are unable to see it is boggling.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Stop playing at being such a little victim.

I never played anything, you said I lied, I did not and I proved it.

Originally Posted by HOZ

you have still NOT stated what that BALDFACED lie was either

Give me a minute while I catch my breath from laughing.

I did so in the VERY NEXT POST after you "surmised with conviction".

So do you not understand it? Or do you just skip reading responses because your position is based on your beliefs and not on reality?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why waste your time?

I know I know, I have a problem.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by photon

I know I know, I have a problem.

Welcome to the club, we have had some jackets made up.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by photon

I know I know, I have a problem.

No. You are a shining example on how to think critically, and debate fairly.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by troutman

No. You are a shining example on how to think critically, and debate fairly.

I think Photon meant in relation to his continual debate with HOZ and disproving his assertions despite what he believes is evidence of stubbornness and HOZ's convictions of Photon being a liar, not the method of disproving.

[photon]

Exactly, I have this problem:

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by photon

Exactly, I have this problem:

Someone should change the caption to "A guy who demonstrates nothing but lame trolling attempts is trolling again!"

Can't we all get by this charade of his?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Someone should change the caption to "A guy who demonstrates nothing but lame trolling attempts is trolling again!"

Can't we all get by this charade of his?

The thing is you know and I know what Hoz represents but to let his positions go unchallenged, seems to say that Hoz's positions represents the majority's positions in this forum and encourage more of his ilk.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I surmise with conviction is honestly one of the best things I've ever read on 0calgaryPuck.

[Tinordi]

Seems we've reached rather optimistic levels of agreement that we are warming the planet. Next step is convincing people to support policy that address that warming.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

This is what you wrote:

I surmise with conviction now: You had not seen the video when you posted that message.

I said I had seen the video, you said I had not but said I did. Being mistaken involves changing one's view when being told or shown otherwise, but you "surmised with conviction" that I lied about when I had seen the video.

And when I provided absolute proof, you still didn't change your belief. That's not being "mistaken".


You said I hadn't watched the video when I'd claimed I had, lying is making a statement that is untrue, you accused me of making a statement that was untrue. It's very simple, that you are unable to see it is boggling.

The evidence doesn't support you.

Start with My post #52 which got the ball rolling
Your reply at #54. The post I am ALWAYS referring to when I am talking about when I state I don't think you saw the video. AS in when you typed #54 up you had not watched the video.
Post 89 Is when I first state I don't think you saw the video. And you don't reply.

You don't have anything. I would even surmise that you did not even watch the video when you posted this....

Quote:
I got one minute 30 seconds in before I heard an absolute bald faced lie.

So much for his credibility.

Post 126

1:30 of this video Photon. Don't hide behind the skirts of others and yelling squirrel. What was the lie from that AGW believer?

5 posts and counting an still nothing.

Just further proof that you never watched the video.

Now I will go look at Thor's vid.

Post 131

You said the man blatantly lied at 1:30 of the video. He was talking about the Freedom of Information Act and getting the raw data at that point.

I surmise with conviction now: You had not seen the video when you posted that message. You looked who was the poster (me) and went straight into Denier-Liar-No credibility mode.

And your reply showing you had seen the video at 132

After that I never said you had not seen the video EVER. From 133 on. My next post was at 199.

So stop playing victim.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Seems we've reached rather optimistic levels of agreement that we are warming the planet. Next step is convincing people to support policy that address that warming.

A decade of non-warming and we've reached an agreement that we are warming the planet. Most pathetic warming ever!

[Tinordi]

You're right plateauing at the warmest year ever recorded level is indication that we aren't warming.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You're right plateauing at the warmest year ever recorded level is indication that we aren't warming.

I'm just sayin' is all:

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observato...tandstill.html

[Tinordi]

Your just saying that an arbitrary 10 year slice doesn't prove warming. To show you how stupid this is all I could say is move that slice back 1 year, and wow, there you go, the warming is back. Most importantly is a longitudinal sample to splice out the temporal noise which you cling to. And that sample shows warming. Everyone agrees on that now, even the skeptical scientist quoted earlier.

Why is this so damn difficult? Oh I remember, because we're dealing with freaking idiots.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Your just saying that an arbitrary 10 year slice doesn't prove warming. To show you how stupid this is all I could say is move that slice back 1 year, and wow, there you go, the warming is back. Most importantly is a longitudinal sample to splice out the temporal noise which you cling to. And that sample shows warming. Everyone agrees on that now, even the skeptical scientist quoted earlier.

Why is this so damn difficult? Oh I remember, because we're dealing with freaking idiots.

The important word you left out was......WE.

A 10 year flatline gives rise to the questions...

1. ARE WE warming the planet?
2. If so how much?
3. When did humans start to drive the climate?
4. What is the climate suppose to be like then?

My Position 2 years ago
Hasn't changed much other than #5. Just so the strawman gets a reprieve from the beatings he is getting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

And you don't reply.

I did reply, I said you were entitled to your opinion (which is obviously an implicit way of saying your opinion is factually incorrect).

Originally Posted by HOZ

After that I never said you had not seen the video EVER.

So the way to admit that you were wrong and apologize for it when you said someone lied but are then shown to be wrong is to never mention it again?

Originally Posted by HOZ

So stop playing victim.

I'm not playing victim, you accused me of lying when I didn't. You accused me of not providing information when I did so in the very next post (and again six months later lol).

If I was playing victim I would actually be pointing these things out in order to justify manipulating you or justify abusing you in some way, when the reason I'm pointing these things out is because they are wrong and people who habitually present incorrect information must be stood up to.

Which is kind of funny, you actually DO some victim playing in this thread, where you accuse me of not watching the video and responding just because of who you are in order to undermine my opinion of the video.

Psychologist analyze thyself.

Did you figure out what the lie was yet?

[photon]

As for the 10 year thing, obviously temperatures go up and down with other factors in addition to level of CO2 in the atmosphere.. El Nino and La Nina are two that can have significant impact short term. Volcanoes too. When ice melts it takes heat to change phase but the ambient temperature stays the same until all the ice is melted. Etc.

That's why they try to consider and account for all those factors. Of course if you take a short trend you can show anything, just like if the Flames lose two in a row people are ready to trade Iginla.



You also have to consider more than just air temperature, heat is stored in the ocean too:



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL048794.shtml

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

the questions...

How about you show that you are capable of responding to questions posed to yourself before you ask the same of others?

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...13#post3353613

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...99#post3353899