View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 11:15 am Post subject: The Ten Commandments |
|
|
Our new rules... _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010 Posts: 376
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amen, Brother! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MULLDE102f
Joined: 15 Jun 1997 Posts: 131
|
Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Way to go, Steve |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rigitrite
Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 520 Location: Kansas City
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome! Now we have a handy numbering system that we can use to outline the errors in everyone of Isobars screeds. _________________ Kansas City |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9134 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
A few characters here use #2 quite regularly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20936
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rigitrite wrote: | Awesome! Now we have a handy numbering system that we can use to outline the errors in everyone of Isobars screeds. |
If you find errors in my posts, let me know and I'll gladly correct them.
So far my rate of substantive errors has run below 0.03%. How's yours?
In well over 20,000 posts, I've:
1. Misinterpreted a wet suit temp range chart last year.
2. Forgot to subtract business expenses in a taxation comment a couple of years ago.
3. Misattributed a comment to Harry Reid a few years ago.
4. Used quote symbols in 2009 in a debatable manner Chandler wasn't aware is valid.
5. Worded a comment in a manner the Pulluted Puffin, then MTVNewsguy, misinterpreted back in the mid-90s, to his everlasting disgruntlement.
6. Treated several hard core lefties as adults.
You, OTOH, have stated the following mistruths and inanities, and more, in just 157 posts:
1. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=205791&highlight=#205791
2. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=205780&highlight=#205780
3. Many cases of baseless ad hominem, such as throughout the Gun Nut thread and at
http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=195318&highlight=#195318 .
4. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=192630&highlight=#192630
5. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=181208&highlight=#181208
6. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24432&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=10
7. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=180654&highlight=#180654
8. http://www.iwindsurf.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=175274&highlight=#175274
9. 99.9% of iwindsurf is neither lazy, bloated, or drives an SUV.
Dood, yer topping 5.7% ... 200 times my screwup rate. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Fick-shun wrote: |
So far my rate of substantive errors has run below 0.03%. How's yours?
Blah, blah, blah........
Dood, yer topping 5.7% ... 200 times my screwup rate. |
Hmm. I'd say you're violating Commandments 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Also maybe #1.
More or less.
But, who's counting?
And who really gives a rat's ass, when it comes to you?
What I enjoy most about your posts is your serious investment of effort to defend your fruitcake positions or, even more, to find fault with someone else. You invest more on a serious basis than I ever did on a whimsical basis with Brucie's repartee. This work obviously keeps you off the street and away from little kids.
You sure are funny, Mikey.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
windoggi
Joined: 22 Feb 2002 Posts: 2743
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, iso can't see my posts, but he can see my topics...I'm confused. _________________ /w\ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17772 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course he ignores here the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the interview with one of his climate change denial sources, Fred Singer. Skimming an article and then cherry-picking a quote, particularly one that is inconsistent with the actual statement, is a favorite. When I got Mike in that one he essentially stopped giving citations and "plonked" me. What a guy!
Here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html is his original citation, and a few things that Singer actually said.
Quote: | For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide.
I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. Much less. And I think it will be barely detectable. Perhaps it will be detectable, perhaps not. And it certainly will not be consequential. That is, it won't make any difference to people. After all, we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years? |
and a bit later:
Quote: | Well, as I mentioned earlier, I have no doubt that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to some increase in global temperatures. The question is: How much? We do have some way of getting a handle on this problem, because carbon dioxide levels have already increased by 50 percent since the beginning of the industrial era--let's say, in the last hundred years. So where is the temperature increase from this? Why don't we see it? This is the way to ask the question. |
Singer is a denier, but with academic credentials. I agree with him that the models probably exaggerate because they don't account for evaporation and cloud cover, and disagree on CO2. But he says, very clearly, that "as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming"--the exact opposite of Isobars summary. Liar or stupid, you be the judge. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|