Remember me
▼ Content

IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data, so we do not accept IPCC's position


IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data, so we do not accept IPCC's position22-02-2016 04:05
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
That is all.
22-02-2016 13:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That is all.

Global Warming is racism. It fears China.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-02-2016 20:55
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That is all.


This thread is a lie.

One of the chief scientific editors is from China (Dahe Qin)

One of the AR5 drafting sessions was held in China

One of the IPCC meetings was held in China

Two of the people who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers were from China (Shilong Piao and Dahe Qin). They also helped to write the Technical Summary.

Yihui Ding helped write the Summary

Part of Chapter 2 (Atmospheric Observations) was written by Panmao Zhai which included a lot of Chinese data and 48 references to Chinese papers

Part of Chapter 3 (Ocean Observations) was written by Fan Wang

Part of Chapter 4 (Cryosphere Observations) was written by Jiawen Ren, Tingjun Zhang, and Lin Zhao

Part of Chapter 5 (Paleoclimate) was written by XueMei Shao

Part of Chapter 6 (Carbon Cycle) was written by Shilong Piao

Part of Chapter 7 (Clouds and Aerosols) was written by Hong Liao and Xiao-Ye Zhang

Part of Chapter 8 (Radiative Forcing) was written by Jianping Huang and Hua Zhang

Part of Chapter 9 (Models) was written by Hongmei Li and Zong-Ci Zhao

Part of chapter 10 (Attribution) was written by Yongyun Hu

Part of Chapter 11 (Prediction) was written by Hui-Jun Wang

Part of Chapter 12 (Long-term climate) was written by Xuejie Gao

Part of Chapter 13 (Sea level) was written by Cunde Xiao

Part of Chapter 14 (Regional Climate Change) was written by Tianjun Zhou, Xiaolong Chen, Ping Huang, Renping Lin, Lixia Zhang, Xiaotong Zheng, and Liwei Zou

All these chapter reference Chinese data and had lots of references to Chinese data and analyses.

You should really get your facts straight before making outlandish claims like this.
24-02-2016 00:44
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Probably only here because his countrymen banned him from all the talkboards he could find.
24-02-2016 03:35
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
spot wrote:
Probably only here because his countrymen banned him from all the talkboards he could find.


Very Good!
24-02-2016 15:42
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote:
spot wrote:
Probably only here because his countrymen banned him from all the talkboards he could find.

Very Good!

It's good to presume that? Great! I'll presume that you are here because your countrymen banned you from all the talkboards you could find.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-02-2016 16:41
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
spot wrote:
Probably only here because his countrymen banned him from all the talkboards he could find.

Very Good!

It's good to presume that? Great! I'll presume that you are here because your countrymen banned you from all the talkboards you could find.


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit
24-02-2016 20:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
spot wrote:
Probably only here because his countrymen banned him from all the talkboards he could find.

Very Good!

It's good to presume that? Great! I'll presume that you are here because your countrymen banned you from all the talkboards you could find.


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit

You went beyond demonstrating falseness when you started spewing stuff about his being banned. Both you and spot and at fault here. It is one thing to present a counter argument. It is quite another to make stuff up, especially when it is used to denigrate someone.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 20:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
so precious about it no I don't know he got banned however he would get banned by any site with effective moderation as would you.
24-02-2016 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
so precious about it no I don't know he got banned however he would get banned by any site with effective moderation as would you.

Still here last time I looked, dude. Never been banned from anywhere either. I have seen others get banned from here, though.

You cannot determine who gets banned. Making stuff up like this has a name. It's called 'libel'.

You want to ban people? Go build your own forum.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2016 22:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Right libel, good luck finding a court that will hear that case, what would be the dammages some toenail clippings and belly button fluff?
25-02-2016 00:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Right libel, good luck finding a court that will hear that case, what would be the dammages some toenail clippings and belly button fluff?


Are you trying to justify libel?


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2016 01:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote: Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

Well, I didn't "lay into him" but I jokingly threw a sarcastic barb about Global Warming fearing China. I believe I was pretty quick to do so.

Keep in mind that he was commenting, true or false, about the IPCC whereas you and spot decided to just lie about him. If I were a moderator on this site I would have given you a polite warning to knock it off and to stick to the topic at hand.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 03:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I think a jury would find that me calling him a clueless goon would come under fair comment.
25-02-2016 03:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
I think a jury would find that me calling him a clueless goon would come under fair comment.

Are you trying to justify the usefulness of name calling without any argument?


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2016 12:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Never claimed what I am doing is useful. You know everything and do your own research so look up Mark Twain's advice on arguing with idiots. If I wanted to do something useful I would not be talking to you.
25-02-2016 12:58
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit

You went beyond demonstrating falseness when you started spewing stuff about his being banned. Both you and spot and at fault here. It is one thing to present a counter argument. It is quite another to make stuff up, especially when it is used to denigrate someone.


No, I never mentioned the word "banned" that was someone else
25-02-2016 13:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote: No, I never mentioned the word "banned" that was someone else

You did not make the proposal but you sure as hell seconded the motion.

You are one completely dishonest SOB.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 14:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Gosh speculating that some anonymous user of a talk board that makes nonsensical posts on an issue might well have had issues on other talk boards has really got you pair annoyed.
25-02-2016 15:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spot wrote: Gosh speculating that some anonymous user of a talk board that makes nonsensical posts on an issue might well have had issues on other talk boards has really got you pair annoyed.

You are of course free to speculate in your own cynical, disingenuous way that is not conducive to the development of any of this forum's topics. I have never said otherwise. You are not required, in any way, shape or form to make any sort of positive contribution to this forum. Don't let anyone pressure you into feeling that you are.

It was DRKTS who, for some reason, attacked me for not having "laid into him" for having created a wacky thread. Why DRKTS cannot be content to simply not participate in a thread he finds to be based on misinformation is beyond me, but then again it would raise the question as to why he can't make a video that isn't completely based on misinformation.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 15:36
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
spot wrote:
Gosh speculating that some anonymous user of a talk board that makes nonsensical posts on an issue might well have had issues on other talk boards has really got you pair annoyed.


Still cannot bring yourself to criticize a thread that is completely untrue ... a downright out and out lie ... even in the face of evidence that you can check for yourself to if I am right or wrong.

Please answer this question: is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"?
25-02-2016 15:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote:Please answer this question: is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"?

Please answer this question: Do I represent the IPCC or can I speak for them?

I suspect that the IPCC, like any church, wants to grow the flock all over the world and doesn't have anything against China.

China, on the other hand, is rather anti-religion and probably is not very accommodating to the IPCC.


That is just my perception. I speak for no one but myself.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 16:34
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:Please answer this question: is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"?


You avoid a perfectly simple question by trying to introduce a completely irrelevant question.

This is a test of your intellectual honesty: Is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"

If you cant bring yourself to answer a simple question like that, it demonstrates you have no intellectual honesty which explains many of your posts.

Consequently nobody should give anything you say any credibility in the future (and past).

.
25-02-2016 17:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: Gosh speculating that some anonymous user of a talk board that makes nonsensical posts on an issue might well have had issues on other talk boards has really got you pair annoyed.

You are of course free to speculate in your own cynical, disingenuous way that is not conducive to the development of any of this forum's topics. I have never said otherwise. You are not required, in any way, shape or form to make any sort of positive contribution to this forum. Don't let anyone pressure you into feeling that you are.

It was DRKTS who, for some reason, attacked me for not having "laid into him" for having created a wacky thread. Why DRKTS cannot be content to simply not participate in a thread he finds to be based on misinformation is beyond me, but then again it would raise the question as to why he can't make a video that isn't completely based on misinformation.


.


Development of this forums topics, that's a joke right?

Can changes in CO2 concentration theoretically affect temperature?

Can things be measured

Lets all look in a dictionary for definitions of climate and religion

That's basically all you talk about, stop pretending it's a discussion it's not a discussion because you don't want a discussion you just want to insult people.
25-02-2016 18:31
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
This forum perfectly presents the whole climate debate, like a rudderless cruise ship full of overfed (data) tourists, drifting somewhere midway the Pacific, without any means to signal mainland.

Some here would even be a good running mate of Donald Trump.

By the way: What is Trump's opinion about climate change?
25-02-2016 19:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You avoid a perfectly simple question by trying to introduce a completely irrelevant question.

This is a test of your intellectual honesty: Is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"

If you cant bring yourself to answer a simple question like that, it demonstrates you have no intellectual honesty which explains many of your posts.

Consequently nobody should give anything you say any credibility in the future (and past).

.


When did I ever write this?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 19:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spot wrote: Development of this forums topics, that's a joke right?

Not at all. I take it you don't understand how message boards are supposed to work.

spot wrote: Can changes in CO2 concentration theoretically affect temperature?

Any response is possible when you don't know how to articulate your question.

Do you believe there is a direct relationship between CO2 quantity and temperature?

spot wrote: Can things be measured

Yes. Are there things that cannot be measured accurately enough?

spot wrote: Lets all look in a dictionary for definitions of climate and religion

You should hook up with Earthling(-1). Just cite a dictionary definition and he'll let you bend him over.


spot wrote: That's basically all you talk about, stop pretending it's a discussion it's not a discussion because you don't want a discussion you just want to insult people.

I'm here to discuss science. It's rather disingenuous for you, who has no intention of contributing or discussing anything but only to bully others into submitting to your religion, to imply that those who do not submit to your bullying somehow aren't interested in "discussing."

I certainly don't mind insulting morons like yourself, and it's certainly easy. I'll have one of my kids give you a science lesson right after you ask me if I'd like a side of fries with my order.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-02-2016 21:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit


You went beyond demonstrating falseness when you started spewing stuff about his being banned. Both you and spot and at fault here. It is one thing to present a counter argument. It is quite another to make stuff up, especially when it is used to denigrate someone.


No, I never mentioned the word "banned" that was someone else

Yes, you did, by supporting that someone else (spot). You decided share his use of the word.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2016 21:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
spot wrote:
Gosh speculating that some anonymous user of a talk board that makes nonsensical posts on an issue might well have had issues on other talk boards has really got you pair annoyed.


Are you defending libel?


The Parrot Killer
26-02-2016 12:13
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You avoid a perfectly simple question by trying to introduce a completely irrelevant question.

This is a test of your intellectual honesty: Is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"

If you cant bring yourself to answer a simple question like that, it demonstrates you have no intellectual honesty which explains many of your posts.

Consequently nobody should give anything you say any credibility in the future (and past).

.


When did I ever write this?


.


You seconded it

Global Warming is racism. It fears China.


Now answer the question: Is the following statement true or false "the IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data"?

On that question I am still hearing lots of crickets.

If it is true why was I able to find so many Chinese authors and references to Chinese data and analyses in the most recent IPCC report?

If it a false (which it patently is) why did you not do one of your usual critical hatchet jobs on it which you have done on so many other threads?

Is it the end justifies the means? Any lie is ok to use provided it undermines the science of global warming. As I said its all about demonstrating your intellectual honesty and consistency. So far I have seen no demonstration of either.
26-02-2016 12:18
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit


You went beyond demonstrating falseness when you started spewing stuff about his being banned. Both you and spot and at fault here. It is one thing to present a counter argument. It is quite another to make stuff up, especially when it is used to denigrate someone.


No, I never mentioned the word "banned" that was someone else

Yes, you did, by supporting that someone else (spot). You decided share his use of the word.


From the time that Spot mentioned "banned" to the time you accused me of using it and then supporting its use. I had posted no comments.

So once again your accusation is an out and out lie. Please appologize
26-02-2016 13:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote: As I said its all about demonstrating your intellectual honesty and consistency. So far I have seen no demonstration of either.

Well, let's see, it appears I have two options.

1. I can defer to your judgement or
2. I can acknowledge that you're the new Ceist and that nothing honest will come from you.

Which one should I choose? Hmmm, I'll get back to you. Keep holding your breath, though.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2016 14:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Why should I apologize what he said is untrue being Chinese he knows it's untrue and I suspect he is trolling us. I think he would be banned from other talkbords if he behaves like that.
26-02-2016 16:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
spot wrote: Why should I apologize.

You shouldn't. Instead, let people know you take pride in what you wrote.

spot wrote: what he said is untrue

...therefore we absolutely should apply ad hominem and lies about him personally, as you did. Well done. You didn't hesitate either. Bonus points.

spot wrote: being Chinese he knows it's untrue

It doesn't matter at all that he's Chinese. He spreads heresy. He does not conform to Global Warming dogma. He therefore knows that everything he says is untrue until such a time as he accepts the Word of Global Warming as ordered.

spot wrote: and I suspect he is trolling us.

...and your suspicion is sufficient to make it true. How could he not realize he was being so transparent?

spot wrote: I think he would be banned from other talkbords if he behaves like that.

Absolutely. No board should allow anti-Global Warming blasphemy/hate-speech misinformation.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2016 18:43
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: As I said its all about demonstrating your intellectual honesty and consistency. So far I have seen no demonstration of either.

Well, let's see, it appears I have two options.

1. I can defer to your judgement or
2. I can acknowledge that you're the new Ceist and that nothing honest will come from you.

Which one should I choose? Hmmm, I'll get back to you. Keep holding your breath, though.


.


Still cannot bring yourself to admit that the thread you supported with your first comment is based on a lie and you know it.
26-02-2016 21:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
DRKTS wrote:Still cannot bring yourself to admit that the thread you supported with your first comment is based on a lie and you know it.

How did I support it? My comment was not supportive of either the OPM or the subject of the thread title.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-02-2016 22:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:


Why did you not lay into him for putting up a thread that is totally and demonstrably false?

You seem to like criticizing other peoples threads why not this one. I just proved (and you can check that I am right by looking at the IPCC reports yourself).

Apparently you did not even bother to check whether the statement was factual. I did with just a couple of clicks of the mouse.

But not a critical peep out of you? Why? Or is your hypocrisy hat on?

Perhaps you should change you online name to IbDhypocrit


You went beyond demonstrating falseness when you started spewing stuff about his being banned. Both you and spot and at fault here. It is one thing to present a counter argument. It is quite another to make stuff up, especially when it is used to denigrate someone.


No, I never mentioned the word "banned" that was someone else

Yes, you did, by supporting that someone else (spot). You decided share his use of the word.


From the time that Spot mentioned "banned" to the time you accused me of using it and then supporting its use. I had posted no comments.

So once again your accusation is an out and out lie. Please appologize


I will NOT apologize. I mean what I say and I stand by it. If you want to call it a lie that is your problem.


The Parrot Killer
28-02-2016 07:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: As I said its all about demonstrating your intellectual honesty and consistency. So far I have seen no demonstration of either.

Well, let's see, it appears I have two options.

1. I can defer to your judgement or
2. I can acknowledge that you're the new Ceist and that nothing honest will come from you.

Which one should I choose? Hmmm, I'll get back to you. Keep holding your breath, though.


.


Still cannot bring yourself to admit that the thread you supported with your first comment is based on a lie and you know it.

I doubt Tai died Chen, IBAwesome and Into the Dark will ever admit to the constant stream of lies they post on internet forums like this.

It's possible that they are so ignorant and delusional that they actually believe the junk-science crap and lies they post on internet forums. Perhaps they are so ignorant about the science involved, that they are too ignorant to even know just how ignorant they are.

However I suspect that IBAwesome and Into the Dark may have underlying mental health problems. In my opinion, IBAwesome posts like a pathologically lying narcissistic manipulative sociopath with far-right 'libertarian' ideological beliefs, and Into the Dark posts like he is on the Autism spectrum, has delusional and rigid thinking processes, and deeply held conservative religious and political beliefs. It looks like he has been hanging around as IBAwesome's sidekick for so long he tries to copy some of IB's nasty manipulative style but is not nearly as skilled at it. They both also regularly engage in extreme irrational conspiracy ideation.

Tai died Chen's posts seem more like those of a run of the mill bored idiotic ignorant troll.

The only interest this forum holds for me at all anymore is observing the bizarre pathological behaviour. When I want to engage in a rational informed discussion about climate change, I go elsewhere.



Edited on 28-02-2016 08:52
29-02-2016 01:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Ceist wrote: It looks like [Into the Night] has been hanging around as IBAwesome's sidekick for so long he tries to copy some of IB's nasty manipulative style but is not nearly as skilled at it.

Aha! Vindication! [smirks at Into the Night]

It looks like the verdict is in and I retain the belt. What were you thinking? ...that you were going to somehow waltz in here and unseat the champ? I don't think so. I am the nastiest and most manipulative, and I always will be.

Ceist, thanks for supporting me on this. Into the Night needs to learn that there's only room for one of us up here at the top and he's far too forgiving, patient, rational and polite, for example, to kick your ass all around this forum like I do. He's way out of his league.

It looks like the trophy won't be coming down from my shelf anytime soon:


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data, so we do not accept IPCC's position:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Data Mine28419-07-2019 04:56
Early IPCC Reports908-07-2019 07:48
Climate Data Gaps?125-06-2019 13:28
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact