World class pedantic dickweedery
-
Post 300 in this thread. Voted for goldmine.
-
301+
-
Don't start with XKCD jokes or Edward Scissorhands Tranny Edition will blow another fuse.
-
@joe.edwards said:
301+
*golf clap* Well done.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I do like watching dogmatic minds incapable of critical reasoning being exposed to facts.
Like the CDC facing irrefutable evidence of the Morgellons pandemic. Fools.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
Pretty clever, I admit, but it doesn't matter, since you'll be 2,6 degree off.
Wha?
Behold my epic math skillz. Sorry.
@Maciejasjmj said:
It's decimal, which means converting between multiples/fractions of units reduces to moving the decimal point.
Why do people think this is some benefit? Do you find yourself converting between units a lot? "Yep, just measured the distance to work.. it's two million millimeters! Now, to convert to kilometers.. man, I'm so glad we use SI around here!"
You have to tile a 5x5m floor using 20x20cm tiles. Or, you have measured 700m to the first crossroads, 600m to the second and 1,3km from there to work - how far are you from your office? Or, you know, anything math- or physics-related.
@Maciejasjmj said:
You have to admit, it's confusing for someone not raised with them.
People don't come pre-programmed with any measurement systems. They're all confusing unless you're taught them.
It's easier to remember "here's the list of prefixes, every next one is the previous one times ten" than having a different multiply for each unit.
@Maciejasjmj said:
And it's not like you're never converting between the two. In fact, I do it all the time - since you Americans insist on using the imperial system all over the Internet.
This would be like me going to a Polish message board and loudly complaining that nobody's speaking English. I mean, that's exactly the kind of shit I do, but you don't want to be like me, do you?
But I wanted to be just like you when I grow up!
(and it's not that I'm complaining, it's that both systems are pretty much equally used)
@Maciejasjmj said:
Unless your existence consists largely of running naked around your neighbourhood, I'd say it's tolerable.
shudder Thank God I don't have to live there. I turn on the heater if it drops below 60.
Wait, I didn't mean keeping 0F inside...
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
You have to tile a 5x5m floor using 20x20cm tiles.
What about if you have to tile a 4.68x4.68m floor with 17cm tiles?
Metric works well with a calculator, but if you're working without a calculator Imperial is much, much easier - that's the way it evolved/was designed to work. It's all about factors, making mental arithmetic easy.
Of course, it would be daft to mix the two systems, so paving a 5mx5m floor in 8 inch tiles wouldn't work too well, but imagine it was 16ftx16ft. Eight inches is two-thirds of a foot. 16ft divided by two thirds is 24. You need 24 tiles per side. Easy.
Really, I'm surprised so many geeks have trouble with Imperial, given that it's all based around powers of two and three - but mostly two.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Really, I'm surprised so many geeks have trouble with Imperial, given that it's all based around powers of two.
12 is not a power of 2. 36 is not a power of 2.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Really, I'm surprised so many geeks have trouble with Imperial, given that it's all based around powers of two and three - but mostly two.
@Ben L. said:@TDWTF123 said:
Really, I'm surprised so many geeks have trouble with Imperial, given that it's all based around powers of two.
12 is not a power of 2. 36 is not a power of 2.
Is that some joke I'm not getting?
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Is that some joke I'm not getting?
1) You said "powers" and not "multiples".
2) Even though it was obvious what you meant, BenL is being a pedantic dickweed and "correcting" you to get pedantic dickweed tickets which he can later turn-in at Chuck E. Cheese for a koosh ball. Or he's just an asshole.
-
-
Nominated for the koosh ball.
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
Just to be clear, you say it's cherry-picked because the data comes from 2 weather balloons and 4 satellites?
No, I say it's cherry-picked because what Spencer lists as "observations" are the only subset of the available data that supports his preconceived position. A couple of folks took the time to write sensible replies to his blog post here and here, though you have to dig through the usual ream of self-congratulatory denier high-fiving to find them.
-
@flabdablet said:
No, I say it's cherry-picked because what Spencer lists as "observations" are the only subset of the available data that supports his preconceived position.
Yes, like I said, you don't know what you're talking about.
@flabdablet said:
A couple of folks took the time to write sensible replies to his blog post here and here, though you have to dig through the usual ream of self-congratulatory denier high-fiving to find them.
Ah yes, Glen Tamblyn, one of the "SkepticalScience" chuckle heads. It's cute to see people still trying to rationalize the output of these awful models. If they'd just admit that they're wrong and work on trying to make them work, it'd be one thing. Their bitter clinginess is pretty pathetic, though.
-
@blakeyrat said:
1) You said "powers" and not "multiples".
That still doesn't make sense. He trimmed off 'and threes'. 12 is two squared times three. 36 is two squared times three squared.
-
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
Just to be clear, you say it's cherry-picked because the data comes from 2 weather balloons and 4 satellites?
No, I say it's cherry-picked because what Spencer lists as "observations" are [a] subset of the available data
That's what I said. So... yes.
-
-
@blakeyrat said:
to get pedantic dickweed tickets which he can later turn-in at Chuck E. Cheese for a koosh ball. Or he's just an asshole.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
You have to tile a 5x5m floor using 20x20cm tiles.
But that's not hard with inches and feet, either.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Or, you have measured 700m to the first crossroads, 600m to the second and 1,3km from there to work - how far are you from your office?
Who's going to measure out 700m? I mean, if I need to know how far something is, I would just set the tripometer and drive there.
@Maciejasjmj said:
It's easier to remember "here's the list of prefixes, every next one is the previous one times ten" than having a different multiply for each unit.
giga = mega * 10 Hmm.. apparently SI is more difficult to remember than I thought.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Wait, I didn't mean keeping 0F inside...
Yeah, but even outside, that's frigid. Not all of us can walk outside, kill a bear and put on it's still-warm pelt.
-
@Ben L. said:
12 is not a power of 2.
It is in base 6.
@Ben L. said:
36 is not a power of 2.
Too lazy to figure out.Left as an exercise for the reader.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
You have to tile a 5x5m floor using 20x20cm tiles.
But that's not hard with inches and feet, either.
YMMV - for me it's easier to multiply by 10 than by 12. While this was a pretty easy example, consider another - you measured your bath tub and it's 60x30x20 inches. How many gallons of water can you pour into it?
@Maciejasjmj said:
Or, you have measured 700m to the first crossroads, 600m to the second and 1,3km from there to work - how far are you from your office?
Who's going to measure out 700m? I mean, if I need to know how far something is, I would just set the tripometer and drive there.
Why not? I often use such estimates when planning a trip.
@Maciejasjmj said:
It's easier to remember "here's the list of prefixes, every next one is the previous one times ten" than having a different multiply for each unit.
giga = mega * 10 Hmm.. apparently SI is more difficult to remember than I thought.
Okay, from kilo upwards and mili downwards it's times 1000, if you ever need to measure your traveling distance in megameters. There, all the difficulty with converting units is to remember where you start multiplying by 10^3 instead of just 10.
Yeah, but even outside, that's frigid. Not all of us can walk outside, kill a bear and put on it's still-warm pelt.
Eh, come on, bears are easy kills. Wolves, on the other hand, put up one hell of a fight.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
YMMV - for me it's easier to multiply by 10 than by 12. While this was a pretty easy example, consider another - you measured your bath tub and it's 60x30x20 inches. How many gallons of water can you pour into it?
I'm sure it is easier to multiply by ten - that part of decimal/metric is easier. Our ancestors (sensibly) used base twelve because it has better factors.
The bath raises an interesting point. Imperial doesn't have the volume measurements correspond to units of length the way metric does, although it does have correspondence with units of weight. Why? Because, I'd guess, liquids are usually stored in round/curved containers, which means that pi is involved and any calculation is only an approximation. A gallon is close enough to a sixth of a cubic foot - our degenerate friends from across the Atlantic will protest at that - that it makes no difference. If you want to know exactly, measure it by pouring liquid in. Most of the time, by eye, or rough approximation by measurement, is good enough.There's no doubt in my mind that metric's better if you want to calculate exact volumes and precise loads, because you're doing engineering or some such. In that decimal mindset the eights and sixteenths of Imperial seem like an archaic inconvenience. When you're working with them, though, and you convert from one to another by doubling, it makes a lot more sense.
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
While this was a pretty easy example, consider another - you measured your bath tub and it's 60x30x20 inches. How many gallons of water can you pour into it?
Why would I ever need to do this? In my head, no less??
@Maciejasjmj said:
Why not? I often use such estimates when planning a trip.
You estimate by the meter?
@Maciejasjmj said:
Eh, come on, bears are easy kills. Wolves, on the other hand, put up one hell of a fight.
You are my new favorite You're-a-peein.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
A gallon is close enough to a sixth of a cubic foot - our degenerate friends from across the Atlantic will protest at that...
A US gallon is approximately the volume of ejaculatory material produced by the average American male upon climax. That's why we had to change it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Maciejasjmj said:
While this was a pretty easy example, consider another - you measured your bath tub and it's 60x30x20 inches. How many gallons of water can you pour into it?
Why would I ever need to do this? In my head, no less??
Your water pipes burst, you want a neat, comforting bath, and you need to know how many bottles you have to give your woman to take to the well. For example.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Why not? I often use such estimates when planning a trip.
You estimate by the meter?
Using meters doesn't imply the precision of 1 meter.
@Maciejasjmj said:
Eh, come on, bears are easy kills. Wolves, on the other hand, put up one hell of a fight.
You are my new favorite You're-a-peein.
I'm so going to print this post out and hang it on the wall.
-
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
Cherry-picked bullshit as per usual.
Just to be clear, you say it's cherry-picked because the data comes from 2 weather balloons and 4 satellites?
No, I say it's cherry-picked because what Spencer lists as "observations" are [a] subset of the available data
That's what I said. So... yes.
I wasn't willing to assume as much bad faith as it would take to present that case using just two balloons and four satellites. I'd assumed that when he mentions "datasets" he is speaking of independent sets of data gathered via large numbers of balloons and satellites.
-
@boomzilla said:
It's cute to see people still trying to rationalize the output of these awful models. If they'd just admit that they're wrong and work on trying to make them work, it'd be one thing. Their bitter clinginess is pretty pathetic, though.
The only bitter clinginess I'm seeing here is from self-described "skeptics" who reserve all their skepticism for data they refuse to look at.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
It's cute to see people still trying to rationalize the output of these awful models. If they'd just admit that they're wrong and work on trying to make them work, it'd be one thing. Their bitter clinginess is pretty pathetic, though.
The only bitter clinginess I'm seeing here is from self-described "skeptics" who reserve all their skepticism for data they refuse to look at.
Tell us more about the Thetans, L. Ron..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
It's cute to see people still trying to rationalize the output of these awful models. If they'd just admit that they're wrong and work on trying to make them work, it'd be one thing. Their bitter clinginess is pretty pathetic, though.
The only bitter clinginess I'm seeing here is from self-described "skeptics" who reserve all their skepticism for data they refuse to look at.
Tell us more about the Thetans, L. Ron..
Oh come on, now you're just phoning it in. You're never going to win an argument with a lukewarm insult like that. Why not try calling me a man-child again? That was super-convincing last time.
-
@flabdablet said:
You're never going to win an argument with a lukewarm insult like that.
So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth
Revelation 3:16
-
@Maciejasjmj said:
While this was a pretty easy example, consider another - you measured your bath tub and it's 60x30x20 inches. How many gallons of water can you pour into it?
How far up, which length, is the overflow hole? And isn't it one of those with a sloping back where people can lie down comfortably?
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
It's cute to see people still trying to rationalize the output of these awful models. If they'd just admit that they're wrong and work on trying to make them work, it'd be one thing. Their bitter clinginess is pretty pathetic, though.
The only bitter clinginess I'm seeing here is from self-described "skeptics" who reserve all their skepticism for data they refuse to look at.
So, which data am I refusing to look at that matches the predictions of climate models? The guys being paid to build and run the models would love to hear from you, because they aren't looking at that data, either.
-
@boomzilla said:
So, which data am I refusing to look at that matches the predictions of climate models? The guys being paid to build and run the models would love to hear from you, because they aren't looking at that data, either.
No climate model is going to match the data perfectly, and nobody except a denialist's straw man would expect them to. But they match a hell of a lot better than Spencer's misleading graphic suggests they do, because Spencer has cherry-picked his temperature datasets.
Let's start by looking at a chart made by Christopher Monckton:
Now let's look at another chart from the same data from the SkS site, as a crosscheck:
It's clear that for the years where those two overlap, they're working from the same temperature data; so far, so good. Now let's scale Monckton's chart to match Spencer's, lag it by two and a half years to account for the fact that Spencer's chart is all five year rolling averages while Monckton's isn't, and overlay them:
This is a kindergarten-level reality check, but even so it makes a few things clear:
First: Spencer's measurements clearly disagree with HadCRUT4. Even arch-denialist Monckton has labelled his temperature chart with a rising trend at 1.14°C/century; a trend line through Spencer's measurements, by contrast, is virtually horizontal. It's crystal clear that those are but a small part of the available data, which makes presenting them as "the" measurements totally misleading, especially given that there's not an error bar to be seen anywhere.
Second: It's perfectly clear just by looking at the HadCRUT4 temperature data, even if you follow Monckton's lead and ignore all of it pre-1950, that there are multi-decade temperature variations overlaid on a general rising trend. Anybody deserving of the description "skeptic" should immediately conclude that Spencer's chart simply doesn't cover enough years to be used as the basis for any blanket condemnation of model quality.
Third: Spencer has just averaged the outputs of a whole bunch of models and calculated a big thick black line that's clearly supposed to suggest that this is what "the models" say, taken together. But he's provided no justification at all for doing this: the mean of multiple models, many of which are not even modelling the same greenhouse gas concentration scenarios, is no more what "the" models predict than his cherrypicked temperature data are what "the" measurements say.
In short: the "evidence" you linked in support of your claim that the models "are crap" is not very convincing. Climate models are not by any means perfect, and nobody but your shoulder aliens has ever claimed they are. But they're good enough to be useful, and a far better basis for policy decisions than any of the back-of-the-envelope linear-trend projection bullshit I've ever heard from Monckton.
-
@flabdablet said:
First: Spencer's measurements clearly disagree with HadCRUT4. Even arch-denialist Monckton has labelled his temperature chart with a rising trend at 1.14°C/century; a trend line through Spencer's measurements, by contrast, is virtually horizontal.
And this long term trend has what to do with predictive skill?
@flabdablet said:
It's crystal clear that those are but a small part of the available data, which makes presenting them as "the" measurements totally misleading, especially given that there's not an error bar to be seen anywhere.
Spencer presented the measurements that he's responsible for tracking (i.e., satellite data) plus those balloons. He's showing the part of the atmosphere that, according to theory, is supposed to show as a hotspot. So it's true he didn't include "everything," but took the stuff that's supposed to be very dramatic, according to theory.
@flabdablet said:
Second: It's perfectly clear just by looking at the HadCRUT4 temperature data, even if you follow Monckton's lead and ignore all of it pre-1950, that there are multi-decade temperature variations overlaid on a general rising trend. Anybody deserving of the description "skeptic" should immediately conclude that Spencer's chart simply doesn't cover enough years to be used as the basis for any blanket condemnation of model quality.
What the hell are you talking about? 1950 has no impact on whether the models predictions are correct. This is for the simple fact that it's not in the future. Any model results for 1950 are hindcasts. Poor hindcasting is enough to throw out a model, but is not enough to validate its predictive skill (With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.). Anyone interested in knowing the skill of the models would do well to ignore you, since you either have no idea what that means or you're dissembling to make them look better than they are.
@flabdablet said:
Spencer has just averaged the outputs of a whole bunch of models and calculated a big thick black line that's clearly supposed to suggest that this is what "the models" say, taken together.
Eh...that big black line is what IPCC types say, so he's accepting their nonsense for the sake of argument. He shows a whole bunch of plots there, in addition to the black line, which shows how far off the various models are. I already linked something that points out that the black line doesn't mean anything useful.
@flabdablet said:
many of which are not even modelling the same greenhouse gas concentration scenarios, is no more what "the" models predict than his cherrypicked temperature data are what "the" measurements say.
LOL. Even your beloved SkepticalScience will tell you that reality is as bad or worse than the official scenarios. A sane person would say that if the actual scenario was as bad or worse than they thought, but actual temperature stayed far below all models, the models do not have predictive skill.
@flabdablet said:
In short: the "evidence" you linked in support of your claim that the models "are crap" is not very convincing.
Is this because you don't understand the difference between the past and the future? Or the importance of a scientific theory being able to predict things?
@flabdablet said:
Climate models are not by any means perfect, and nobody but your shoulder aliens has ever claimed they are. But they're good enough to be useful, and a far better basis for policy decisions than any of the back-of-the-envelope linear-trend projection bullshit I've ever heard from Monckton.
When they actually predict something, I'll consider them worthy of using to think about policy. Right now they are simply toys, and no amount of red herrings will change that. Keep moving those goalposts, though.
-
@flabdablet said:
No climate model is going to match the data perfectly, and nobody except a denialist's straw man would expect them to.
Might be nice if they were at least close though.
-
@PJH said:
@flabdablet said:
No climate model is going to match the data perfectly, and nobody except a denialist's straw man would expect them to.
Might be nice if they were at least close though.But don't you get it?! MOCKTON'S EYES LOOK FUNNY!
-
@boomzilla said:
@flabdablet said:
Second: It's perfectly clear just by looking at the HadCRUT4 temperature data, even if you follow Monckton's lead and ignore all of it pre-1950, that there are multi-decade temperature variations overlaid on a general rising trend. Anybody deserving of the description "skeptic" should immediately conclude that Spencer's chart simply doesn't cover enough years to be used as the basis for any blanket condemnation of model quality.
What the hell are you talking about?
What I'm talking about is the scale of the peaks and valleys in the temperature record. If you look at Monckton's chart you see noise on a roughly ten year scale, which might lead you to believe that looking at a few tens of years worth of data would be enough to gauge the quality of the correspondence between model and observation. Look at the chart with information going back to 1900 and you clearly see departures from the overall trend that last a lot longer than that.
@boomzilla said:
1950 has no impact on whether the models predictions are correct.
Indeed, looking at old data won't tell you how well your models are doing, but it will give you an idea about how much disagreement can reasonably be allowed before you declare your model to be useless. But since you are among who claim that global warming isn't real because you can draw a flat trend line through some tiny portion of the temperature record, I'm not surprised at your failure to grasp this point.
@boomzilla said:
(With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.)
An epigram is not an argument.
@boomzilla said:
Anyone interested in knowing the skill of the models would do well to ignore you, since you either have no idea what that means or you're dissembling to make them look better than they are.
No, I'm objecting to Spencer dissembling to make them look less useful than they are, and drawing the conclusion from your appeal to his authority that your position on AGW has more to do with politics and posturing than intellectual honesty.
@boomzilla said:
A sane person would say that if the actual scenario was as bad or worse than they thought, but actual temperature stayed far below all models, the models do not have predictive skill.
And a numerate person would be less dogmatic about "actual temperature" and remember that observations come with error bars.
-
@flabdablet said:
Look at the chart with information going back to 1900 and you clearly see departures from the overall trend that last a lot longer than that.
So what? If you can't predict the "departures from trend," then your model isn't able to predict temperatures. These models are supposed to be based on known physics. But if they can't predict, then they are obviously missing some things. And it might get lucky and capture some of the variability of the actual system, but this means it doesn't have skill, and probably not for the reasons given.
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
1950 has no impact on whether the models predictions are correct.
Indeed, looking at old data won't tell you how well your models are doing, but it will give you an idea about how much disagreement can reasonably be allowed before you declare your model to be useless. But since you are among who claim that global warming isn't real because you can draw a flat trend line through some tiny portion of the temperature record, I'm not surprised at your failure to grasp this point.
It doesn't do anything of the sort. Do you understand that the model hindcasts don't get it as wrong as they have gotten their predictions? The models should not give you some sort of linear trend. If they do, then we can categorically reject them as unreality based, since that doesn't match observations at all.
I don't know where you got this straw man about me and drawing trends through time series data. I have never said that "global warming isn't real." I have said that our current best knowledge about the Earth and its climate does not point to CO2 having such a dominant effect on the temperature. Claims that it does are quite poor, as the output of the models show.
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
(With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.)
An epigram is not an argument.
Yes, thank you for showing off your mathematical ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills.
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Anyone interested in knowing the skill of the models would do well to ignore you, since you either have no idea what that means or you're dissembling to make them look better than they are.
No, I'm objecting to Spencer dissembling to make them look less useful than they are, and drawing the conclusion from your appeal to his authority that your position on AGW has more to do with politics and posturing than intellectual honesty.
Neither I nor Spencer are required to make the models look worthless. They are doing a fine job of that themselves. Here is your counterargument
@boomzilla's restatement of flabdablet's argument said:The models are quite useful. They do a reasonably accurate job of predicting current temperatures. You can tell that the errors are reasonable because historical temperatures, which the models do a pretty good job of hindcasting have quite a bit of variability in short term trends. Since they get the earlier short term trends pretty much right, it's OK that they get current short term trends wrong, because some of those earlier short term trends had bigger amplitudes than the current short term trends.
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
A sane person would say that if the actual scenario was as bad or worse than they thought, but actual temperature stayed far below all models, the models do not have predictive skill.
And a numerate person would be less dogmatic about "actual temperature" and remember that observations come with error bars.
Ah, going pedantic dickweed now. OK, measured temperature. Do you think our measurements are getting better or worse? Especially with satellite imaging of the atmosphere? "Error bars" and "confidence intervals" are the deus ex machinas of climate alarmists ("but the data is not statistically significantly inconsistent with..."). But abusing statistics does not good predictions make. Again, please point to someone, anyone, who claims that the models have done a good job of prediction. And remember that climate alarmism is pretty much entirely based on these models and their support of climate sensitivity values of 2.0C+.
-
I'm surprised this thread hasn't derailed like a GNER train.
-
@drurowin said:
I'm surprised this thread hasn't derailed like a GNER train.
Have you been following? Remember the discussion of 'gray' vs 'grey'? Or optimal CPU temp? Followed by Fahrenheit vs Celsius vs Kelvin, and the origins of each? That being said, it does seem to be wavering back and forth over at least semi related topics.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
That's the thing. It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
Have you been following? Remember the discussion of 'gray' vs 'grey'? Or optimal CPU temp? Followed by Fahrenheit vs Celsius vs Kelvin, and the origins of each? That being said, it does seem to be wavering back and forth over at least semi related topics.I'm surprised this thread hasn't derailed like a GNER train.
-
@drurowin said:
It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
The secret is to start a thread on a topic that's juicy flamebait. And keep poking the morons on the wrong side of the flamewar.
-
@drurowin said:
It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
Next stop, Purple Dildo Crossing! All passengers disembarking at Purple Dildo Crossing please collect your baggage!
-
-
@boomzilla said:
@drurowin said:
But this is what a climate change debate ALREADY looks like...It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
The secret is to start a thread on a topic that's juicy flamebait. And keep poking the morons on the wrong side of the flamewar.
[img]http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/train-wreck.jpg[/img]
-
@drurowin said:
@boomzilla said:
@drurowin said:
But this is what a climate change debate ALREADY looks like...It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
The secret is to start a thread on a topic that's juicy flamebait. And keep poking the morons on the wrong side of the flamewar.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@drurowin said:
@boomzilla said:
@drurowin said:
But this is what a climate change debate ALREADY looks like...It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
The secret is to start a thread on a topic that's juicy flamebait. And keep poking the morons on the wrong side of the flamewar.
Now that's warming!
-
@boomzilla's
restatement of flabdablet's argumentgrotesque straw man said:... Since they get the earlier short term trends pretty much right, it's OK that they get current short term trends wrong, because some of those earlier short term trends had bigger amplitudes than the current short term trends.
@boomzilla said:
@drurowin said:
It's making stops in stations like Crazytown and Hobo Junction, but it's not just jumping the rails like I'd expect (and every other thread here does).
The secret is to start a thread on a topic that's juicy flamebait. And keep poking the morons on the wrong side of the flamewar.
All of which makes it pretty clear that further participation in this thread would be time I should be spending on more interesting pursuits like, I dunno, maybe alphabetizing my CD collection.
Nice troll, well played.
-
@flabdablet said:
All of which makes it pretty clear that further participation in this thread would be time I should be spending on more interesting pursuits like, I dunno, maybe alphabetizing my CD collection.
Probably best for all involved. Someone might take you seriously.
![http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/train-wreck.jpg[/img]](http://bloggingblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/train-wreck.jpg%5B/img%5D){kind=link}