dwar0123

All these British sitcoms being mentioned, just thought I'd through a shout out for my favorite, Red Dwarf.

I can't believe I bothered to respond, utterly pointless, I really should just ignore you. You use sources that filter national and peer reviewed data using sleight of hand. Hardly the same thing. Hadcrut3 raw data 2011 - 0.35 2010 - 0.50 2009 - 0.44 2008 - 0.31 Hadcrut3 data as represented by your graph 2011 - 0.32 2010 - 0.47 2009 - 0.43 2008 - 0.31 Using the 2008 data point to calibrate where the positions of the other 3 data points should have been. source - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

I seriously doubt any of them are posting in this thread.

FYP

How skeptical are you of AL and his flawed data and arguments? Both sides have people who are guilty of this, pretty much all of human discourse is steeped in nonsense on both sides. If after you filter all the information and nonsense through your own personal lenses, if you not concerned by climate change, yet still post opinions on it frequently, I think that would classify you as a denier. Right, like everything AL spews isn't guilty of the same from the opposite point of view. Back to the first point, both sides do this, its human nature, I suppose because it often works. And every cold wave is used as further proof that climate change isn't happening. I am not here to convince you that Sandy means anything with respect to climate change, it doesn't. I doubt any serious scientist would suggest otherwise. It is very easy to pick apart the climate change argument when you only attempt to refute the weakest positions put forth.

I identified as a Republican up until Bush's invasion of Iraq. The ensuing years and the frequent 'doubling down on stupid' have only furthered my disgust. I did not hold my nose, I vomited violently and voted democratic. I feel much better getting all that sickness out, but I would still feel even better if the Republican party started to appeal to sensible conservatives, though at this point I would personally be a very hard sale.

Perhaps its a matter of perspective. To me, the question you ask is offensive, accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, and as I would never concede the point(absent family biases) it never occurred to me that merely saying 'of course I would flame them just as bad', would suffice as an answer. Thus any answer would require evidence, hence the relevance of that evidence. If your perspective is that it is entirely reasonable and honorable for someone to level such vitriol only at someone from the opposite camp. Then I can understand you missing my point, however that leaves me confused as to why you would ask the question to begin with.

Pretty sure a secret partner has never been a reason for someone to stand down, here or anywhere or even any-when. That's the advantage of keeping it secret.

Fair enough, my mistake in word choice. It still evades my point that it is very base to ask him to prove a negative without any evidence. Prove that you didn't rob a bank. You can't, so I am just going to be suspicious that you have.

It is very base to assume someone is unfair in their methods when they have had no opportunities to prove they are fair. Hence the relevance. You are demanding he prove a negative in a vacuum of data. I get from this latest post that you concede he might 'flame' people he agrees with for the methods they use but that you still think that the level of vitriol here is far beyond anything he would use against these people he agrees with. I am not sure how that exactly answers my point, it evades it. How do you know he wouldn't level the same amount of vitriol against someone he agrees with on some level about the methods they use, especially if they spam it constantly for years in the face of constantly ignored counter points. You don't, so stop assuming he wouldn't.

You suspect that he reserves the harsh vitriol only for the intellectually dishonest people he disagrees with but you don't see how a lack of intellectually dishonest people he does agree with isn't relevant to whether or not he would flame them as well? Boggle.

It is by definition a sex scandal. A scandal where sex played a key part. I think the better question is if they should have made such a scandal out of it. But that point is moot with respect to your question, they did and it is.

Do they post here? Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

There is a difference between the previous falls of civilizations due to climatic changes and the proposed current one. A difference that makes it very relatable to the mass killings. We are causing it.

Another good one http://www.smbc-comics.com/

The girl from Gigi? Heh, I am not a big fan of musicals but Gigi is a huge exception, that movie is awesome. Did they put her in blackface or something? Actually I just looked it up and apparently they turned her into a young French woman, which for Leslie isn't a stretch at all.

The Postman was my favorite story as a kid/young adult. I was super excited about the movie but it turned out to be a totally different story. I was so pissed that regardless of how good the movie may actually have been, I absolutely hate it. Still a great book though, even if it is no longer my favorite.

I plead guilty to being an American and still using the backwards Fahrenheit scale. I should still probably say if, but I am hardly the only one guilty of that crime here.

Ugh, so in your fantasy world, do you think everything lost can never be found again?

Well Burma is easy, the government that instituted the change is not fully recognized by many nations, including the USA and UK. I would imagine Bombay/Mumbai has to do with the city being very well known by those slow to adopt its new name. Familiarity breeds resistance to change, but honestly I think many British resent the name change. Not their right to change the name, just that they would.

I am not sure where you think we disagree. Unless you are under the impression that adaption is free?

I am honestly impressed by your tenacity. In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer and millions have died, I am sure you will still believe just as strongly then as you do now. Your mind has a wonderful way of warping reality.

I am with Barmar on this one, any name that isn't our name(or at least an honest attempt to pronounce our name) is openly offensive. Spelling isn't as relevant as getting it phonetically as close to right as reasonable. Now countries that change their name I am far more meh about.

I always assumed every countries leaders called their own country the greatest. Perhaps your perception is biased by the uncomfortable belief that this may be a little more true here than for most other leaders.

Actually the argument works on both ends. If you believe strongly in predetermination, than nothing matters. At all. If you believe strongly in free will, than you believe people should be able to make all the stupid choices they want and face the consequences as they come.