Whatever happened to "Global Warming"?

[AceTracer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk
............

[Patt]

What ever happened to global warming ?? ---- simple ----------------- AL GORE.

[Gecko]

If they had only started out calling it climate change we wouldn't have all the dim bulbs out there wondering why things don't keep getting hot in the winter.

[Patt]

Calling it anything (other than bunk) won't change the fact that scientists did actually try and make the data fit a preconceived notion based on political ideology and then proceeded to try and silence those who didn't accept their assertions as settled science.

That's rather difficult, nay impossible, to overcome.

[Gecko]

Calling it anything (other than bunk) won't change the fact that scientists did actually try and make the data fit a preconceived notion based on political ideology and then proceeded to try and silence those who didn't accept their assertions as settled science.

That's rather difficult, nay impossible, to overcome.

Some of the scientists did. Not all. Don't pretend like it was.

[Patt]

Some of the scientists did. Not all. Don't pretend like it was.

I didn't say 'all the scientists involved' because I didn't mean 'all the scientists involved'. Ergo, I wasn't pretending anything and you shouldn't attempt to twist my statement into something it never was intended to be.

With that warning given, however, let me then state:

Enough were involved so that the IPCC said that the entire operation was flawed. Rather admitting that the head of the snake was indeed infected to begin with thus rendering the entire body suspect. One cannot obtain consensus with such a flaw endemically in place.

[Gecko]

I didn't say 'all the scientists involved' because I didn't mean 'all the scientists involved'. Ergo, I wasn't pretending anything and you shouldn't attempt to twist my statement into something it never was intended to be.

With that warning given, however, let me then state:

Enough were involved so that the IPCC said that the entire operation was flawed. Rather admitting that the head of the snake was indeed infected to begin with thus rendering the entire body suspect. One cannot obtain consensus with such a flaw endemically in place.

Do you have a link from the IPCC on that?

[Patt]

Do you have a link from the IPCC on that?

Here is a good review of the latest problems found in the IPCC reports: New errors in IPCC climate change report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html)

And here is the IPCC admitting they've got problems, big problems.

www.ipcc.ch/.../inf04_p32_review_ipcc_proc_proced_notes_informal_t ask_group.pdf

THIRTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE IPCC Busan, 11-14 October 2010
IPCC-XXXII/INF. 4
(27.IX.2010)
Agenda Item: 5
ENGLISH ONLY

REVIEW OF THE IPCC PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES
Notes on the Informal Task Group on Procedures
(Submitted by Mr Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of Working Group I
on behalf of the IPCC Chair, Vice-Chairs and Co-Chairs)

[Limbo]

If they had only started out calling it climate change we wouldn't have all the dim bulbs out there wondering why things don't keep getting hot in the winter.

So to you, what is the most compelling scientific evidence that the current warming trend is caused mostly by CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans?

Cite and scientific paper you like. The IPCC is a political organization that is part of the United Nations, and the reports it produces are ultimately written by politicians and bureaucrats, so are outside of true science in my opinion.

[Rec]

So to you, what is the most compelling scientific evidence that the current warming trend is caused mostly by CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans?

Cite and scientific paper you like. The IPCC is a political organization that is part of the United Nations, and the reports it produces are ultimately written by politicians and bureaucrats, so are outside of true science in my opinion.


Even theory can be wrong or questionable in the scientific sense, it took thirty years for Einstiens theory to become acceptable to all the world of science. Even with our measurement technology we can still be in errror. JMO

[Limbo]

Even theory can be wrong or questionable in the scientific sense, it took thirty years for Einstiens theory to become acceptable to all the world of science. Even with our measurement technology we can still be in errror. JMO

I spent years looking into global warming science. Because of the complexity and random chaotic nature of interactions that take place in the atmosphere, no straightforward mathematical model can be produced to describe it. That's why they rely on computer modeling so heavily, models that are forced to make many simplifying assumptions and models that are loaded with hacks and kludges to keep the output from getting crazy, especially as they look out 5, 10, 20 years and more.

There isn't much besides the computer models that is used to prove the warming we have experienced is caused by human CO2 emissions.

They have looked for "proxies" that can be used to determine past temperatures. Tree rings are an example because trees grow faster when it is warm. They've used the proxies to try and prove that the warming in the last 100 years is unprecedented in the history of the earth. A lot of this science has been crap, and has come out out the CRU at Hadley in the U.K. (remember the emails that were leaked about "hiding the decline" and keeping contrary studies out of research journals with sneaky tactics?).

[Rec]

I spent years looking into global warming science. Because of the complexity and random chaotic nature of interactions that take place in the atmosphere, no straightforward mathematical model can be produced to describe it. That's why they rely on computer modeling so heavily, models that are forced to make many simplifying assumptions and models that are loaded with hacks and kludges to keep the output from getting crazy, especially as they look out 5, 10, 20 years and more.

There isn't much besides the computer models that is used to prove the warming we have experienced is caused by human CO2 emissions.

They have looked for "proxies" that can be used to determine past temperatures. Tree rings are an example because trees grow faster when it is warm. They've used the proxies to try and prove that the warming in the last 100 years is unprecedented in the history of the earth. A lot of this science has been crap, and has come out out the CRU at Hadley in the U.K. (remember the emails that were leaked about "hiding the decline" and keeping contrary studies out of research journals with sneaky tactics?).

I know Limbo and although the computer is wonderful as far as the speed and the astounding information it can process, it still has to be loaded with information that is formulated by the human mind with viables from our limited knowledge and past incomplete records.........what we have now is what we can see in effects, NOT the principles that caused it etc. Nature is NOT uniform, it is not determistic, it cannot be so and be such a creative entity. As a believer that does color my lens that I look through to a certain extent. To think that we can fathom ALL the mysteriumn that abounds is just out of the question. That does NOT mean that with our great minds we should NOT keep exploriing the world and universe. But at the bottom line we are really limited to a environment that was evidently prepared for us, that expected there to be observers of the nature around and within us,,,,why else would we have the ability of conceptual thought that places ius as different KIND than any mind in this world?

And we control nothing about nature, other than in the slightest degree,,,,,look at Australia and Brazil and the floods etc. and the next catastrophe,, some are related to our poor stewardship, granted and can be improved, but how much and just how can we stop a cause that is supposed to make us run for our lives in fear?????? We are finite and very proud, but limited nonetheless! JMO

[Limbo]

Who can forget this catchy little tune...


http://vimeo.com/11124841

Apparently Gecko has forgotten about "climategate" and still thinks the "consensus" is legitimate. LOL

[Patt]

Gecko has some truly off the wall Hugo Chavez thoughts. I'm thinking he wants to rule the world. However...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST86JM1RPl0&feature=related

[Carrot]

Patt, you completely polarise anyone you don't agree with.

I wonder if you do it consciously or not.

[Patt]

Patt, you completely polarise anyone you don't agree with.

I wonder if you do it consciously or not.

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.



To polarise [sic] Truly, to polarize: to draw a sharp distinction between opposing viewpoints as in politics.

From polarity: the presence or manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies.

Now, having a contrasting viewpoint is nothing more than disagreeing and drawing the distinction between the different, i.e. polar, opposites. There is nothing whatever wrong with doing that. There is also nothing wrong with you pointing out that it is what I do. Perhaps you aren't as comfortable as I am with bare bones facts being pointed out, but that isn't my problem to deal with. It's yours. After all, you are the one that is uncomfortable with the stark contrast that is alluded to.

I see no reason to beat around the bush regarding the view points I hold specifically as to politics. I also see no reason whatsoever to adhere to some politically correct belief that I need to soft sell those differences that exist so that some yahoo doesn't get his little feelings hurt. I've long adhered to the following idiom when it comes to politics and I see absolutely no reason to change that stance now.

Rocks are hard. Water is wet. That's just the way it is.

Now, if I go on a tear, as many of those on the left that I disagree with tend to do, and engage in character assassination of the person I oppose, over discussion on the subject itself, then you have a rightful complaint. Until that time, any need you might find to call me out for not being all warm and fuzzy toward another poster's stated view simply makes no impression on me at all. Views are up for discussion, debate and down right dissemination. It harms no one personally.

Now as to my comment regarding Gecko - he has offered views that Hugo Chavez also has voiced. Hugo Chavez does indeed wish he could rule the world - and says so openly. Ergo, my statement. Now tell me, how is that polarizing Gecko?

That's right, it isn't as one cannot "polarize" another.

And now, back to the topic of the thread:


Warmest-Year Claim Refuted as ‘Politics, Not Science’

Global warming alarmists have pointed to the claim that 2010 was the hottest year ever as proof that the earth is warming and nations must take steps to reduce carbon emissions.

But a website that has taken a prominent role in downplaying global warming fears is refuting that assertion.
“The global warming establishment and the media are crowing about 2010 being in a tie for the ‘hottest year,’” an editorial on the Climate Depot site declares.

“Everyone from Senator John Kerry to [noted climate scientist] Joe Romm are screaming that this is ‘proof’ the planet is burning up in a CO2-induced hell — and it’s your fault!”

The site pointed to a Jan. 13 story in Britain’s Telegraph headlined: “Hottest year confirms global warming, say experts,” which cited “new figures from NASA that experts say confirm the case for man-made climate change.”
Climate Depot responded: “This is pure politics, not science. The ‘hottest year’ claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science.

“The ‘hottest year’ claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA’s James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the ‘hottest year’ rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than two-hundredths of a degree F (that’s 0.018F).”

Hansen admitted on Jan. 13: “It’s not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record.”

Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the “hottest year” rankings in light of Hansen’s admission that it is “not particularly important” which year was declared the hottest. “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings,” Maue demanded in a Jan. 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com.

The “hottest year” claim falls apart even further when you look at longer time periods, Climate Depot notes.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels told USA Today on Jan. 12: “If you draw a trend line from the data, it’s pretty flat from the 1990s. We don’t see much of a warming trend over the past 12 years.”

Climate Depot concluded: “The declaration that we are experiencing a tie for the ‘hottest’ year is purely a political statement because these claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differ by only a few hundredths of a degree.”

[AceTracer]

Patt, you completely polarise anyone you don't agree with.

I wonder if you do it consciously or not.
A couple days ago I posted a question here asking why she personally attacks everyone she disagrees with. It happens without fail; you can set your watch to it. She readily admits she doesn't subscribe to any rules of civility, and it's most probably why she's been banned from other forums.

Then I deleted it because I didn't want to waste my time arguing with her about it again. If that's how she wants to spend her free time, so be it.

[Carrot]

A couple days ago I posted a question here asking why she personally attacks everyone she disagrees with. It happens without fail; you can set your watch to it. She readily admits she doesn't subscribe to any rules of civility, and it's most probably why she's been banned from other forums.

Then I deleted it because I didn't want to waste my time arguing with her about it again. If that's how she wants to spend her free time, so be it.

It's funny. In her post she actually says any view that disagress with hers is the a polar opposite.

I was reffering to the fact that because gecko thought we had the right to own guns, but because they woudn't be that effective in a 2nd amendment sitaution patt says he wants a tyrant to take over, wants to rule the world and is like hugo chauvez.

Then after my post there's an entire essay about how she doesn't have to be pc (which this really isn't about at all, or even her political views), and that "one can't polarise another" it's how she percieves what someone says.

Guns wouldn't really help in a 2nd amendment situation - You want a tyrant to take over and rule the world.
America has a high crime rate - You're just anti american.

[Patt]

A couple days ago I posted a question here asking why she personally attacks everyone she disagrees with. It happens without fail; you can set your watch to it. She readily admits she doesn't subscribe to any rules of civility, and it's most probably why she's been banned from other forums.

Then I deleted it because I didn't want to waste my time arguing with her about it again. If that's how she wants to spend her free time, so be it.

And yet here you are going straight for the character assassination.....

Note your own hypocrisy there Junior. :D

I see it clearly.


Now, if I go on a tear, as many of those on the left that I disagree with tend to do, and engage in character assassination of the person I oppose, over discussion on the subject itself, then you have a rightful complaint. Until that time, any need you might find to call me out for not being all warm and fuzzy toward another poster's stated view simply makes no impression on me at all. Views are up for discussion, debate and down right dissemination. It harms no one personally.

Vindicated yet again. Sigh.

[Patt]

It's funny. In her post she actually says any view that disagress with hers is the a polar opposite.

I was reffering to the fact that because gecko thought we had the right to own guns, but because they woudn't be that effective in a 2nd amendment sitaution patt says he wants a tyrant to take over, wants to rule the world and is like hugo chauvez.

Then after my post there's an entire essay about how she doesn't have to be pc (which this really isn't about at all, or even her political views), and that "one can't polarise another" it's how she percieves what someone says.

Guns wouldn't really help in a 2nd amendment situation - You want a tyrant to take over and rule the world.
America has a high crime rate - You're just anti american.

Read this again, Carrot:


Now, having a contrasting viewpoint is nothing more than disagreeing and drawing the distinction between the different, i.e. polar, opposites. There is nothing whatever wrong with doing that. There is also nothing wrong with you pointing out that it is what I do. Perhaps you aren't as comfortable as I am with bare bones facts being pointed out, but that isn't my problem to deal with. It's yours. After all, you are the one that is uncomfortable with the stark contrast that is alluded to.

Being all PC doesn't benefit anyone. Besides, just because the left decides what the rules will be doesn't mean that the right must agree to those rules.

Why try and hold me to something you yourselves don't do?

[Carrot]

Read this again, Carrot:


Being all PC doesn't benefit anyone. Besides, just because the left decides what the rules will be doesn't mean that the right must agree to those rules.

Why try and hold me to something you yourselves don't do?

This has nothing to do with being pc.

Better to address points someone actually makes, than...polarising what they're saying.

Case in point.

I say you're polarising geckos views.

You reply that
- liberals don't want other views (I'm assuming I'm a liberal?)
- I have a problem
- I'm not comfortable with facts
- You don't need to be PC
- I'm telling you to be warm and fuzzy

as for this


he has offered views that Hugo Chavez also has voiced. Hugo Chavez does indeed wish he could rule the world - and says so openly. Ergo, my statement. Now tell me, how is that polarizing Gecko?

That's almost the definition of polarising. (not to mention how you responded in the guns/2nd amendment thread)

Some views coincide, then you attribute the rest. Do you believe in one god, genesis and an after life? You must be a backwards mormon/religious terrorist!

And what happens if any liberties at all are taken on the other end?



I didn't say 'all the scientists involved' because I didn't mean 'all the scientists involved'. Ergo, I wasn't pretending anything and you shouldn't attempt to twist my statement into something it never was intended to be.

With that warning given...

I think I've made my point, I won't go into it any further.

[Patt]

I can't say you make a whole lot of sense, because you don't, in my opinion. To me it's a rant - nothing more, nothing less.

I didn't say anything whatever concerning what I think your particular beliefs are. Not one thing. Anything you wrote above is your interpretation of what I meant to say - not what I did say.

Again though, you're using the wrong word - polarizing doesn't mean what you want it to as you're using the word out of context - perhaps you should choose something else to better define your position.

[bullfighter]

what was this post about..things warming up..while stick around awhile they will..time will till you the truth..

[eyeonyou]

I will guess and say he thinks you are too hard on people Patt.

Well that's NOT so, especially in this case. I have been posting around Patt for quite a while and if she wants to tell you about your ass, she will do it and you will know it.

Had either one of us wanted to be hard on Gecko we would have been. I thought we were rather cordial considering he kept using the wrong meaning for the 2nd Amendment completely and never got close to what it means.

This he posted sums up his position,
I stand behind my premise. In the modern world the second amendment is defunct. Small arms do nothing to defend average civilians from tyranny. They serve only as a security blanket to help convince us we have some sort of control over things and that at any time we can reign in the powers that be because we have a 9mm in the closet.http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150697#post150697The 2nd really isn't about small arms or Tyranny. It is about A well regulated militia, (The Guard) and our rights to own arms. He stands by his incorrect opinion that the 2nd is defunct, to which I posted,
We will happily send the authorities to your house to remove all weapons from your house tomorrow. You advocated for NOT having the right to own firearms, so you no longer can have any. You destroyed the 2nd amendment, you have no say in the matter.

Case closed.http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150698#post150698

Now as to polarizing him, seriously? I could have seriously polarized him because he never was close to what the 2nd means, NEVER close. People try to destroy my Constitution, and that is how this type of ignorance happens, with people who don't have a clue what the words mean and try to get laws changed to suit what they think they mean. Then as in the example I gave him where he said
The second amendment is no longer valid. Military weapons have rendered it uselesshttp://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150618#post150618.He was totally wrong. It continues.
An EMP really? Now you are talking fantasy.http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150622#post150622

Then he posted,
No argument that they are real, but to suggest that they would be a viable strategy against a predator drone completely ignores the collateral damage from one. You would do more harm to yourself than the drone ever could. That was what I meant when I said it was fantasy. It would not be a viable strategy and in no way validates the second amendment's purpose of providing us with guns to protect us from tyranny.http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150627#post150627
And now they are real? Look at his last line, validates the second amendments purpose? My signature below proves he knows NOT of what he posts. It gives the States the right to have a militia and me and everyone else the right to have arms.
Polarize him? Why, he did it to himself. Most of his posts in that thread were wrong, period. He was correct in that it would be bad as to our military attacking their own citizens.
My
The Second Amendment is no longer valid? Only non-Americans say that. Don't think because it speaks of right of the militia or any reason that it isn't valid, because it is. You are totally wrong as it is still and always will be in my Constitution.
http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7773-A-Sad-Day-for-America&p=150643#post150643
His
Only in far right revolution fantasy is the second amendment still a viable option to fight back against tyranny.
So then he tries to wiggle his way out of being wrong by bringing up Tyranny a couple of times? I was talking about the 2nd and He brings up Tyranny. It doesn't matter at all. The second 1/2 of the sentence stands alone just as the first 1/2 in the 2nd Amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People are citizens and NOT be infringed means we can.
So how was he polarized when he kept telling people they were wrong when everything he posted almost was wrong but he continued to argue it? There comes a time in a debate when someone keeps telling you that you are wrong over and over when they obviously are the one that is wrong, that they must be told about their ass. He didn't even get told about his even though he was rambling on about the 2nd Amendment meaning and being totally wrong according to the document and the Court system of the United States in every ruling since it was written.



Now as to this Global warming shit. We have had hotter cycles and colder cycles throughout Earth's history according to the research. Many times over and over. We warm, we cool, rinse and repeat. Now that is an absolute fact by any scientific standard. Guess what, after this little warm up, it will cool off in the next cycle, but will any of us see it? Who knows and it doesn't matter anyway because it will do it with us, or without us. Just as it always has.

Oh 1 more thing on polarizing someone, Carrot, you and Ace Tracer were for sure doing it. Ain't it a bitch to call someone out and you are doing what you accused them of? Oops!

So was eye doing it? LOL I think I was more polarizing the global warming freaks by helping y'all hijack this thread. But for that part I will apologize, but this where the polarizing was happening!
http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/Jumbo_Emoticon_263.gif

[Patt]

Jeebus - am I going to be forced to pick a word for you people that actually FITS?

[eyeonyou]

Jeebus - am I going to be forced to pick a word for you people that actually FITS?

I don't want one. http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/EmoticonSC_451.gif

[Patt]

I don't want one. http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/EmoticonSC_451.gif

Well then you don't get one. :)

[Carrot]

Oh 1 more thing on polarizing someone, Carrot, you and Ace Tracer were for sure doing it. Ain't it a bitch to call someone out and you are doing what you accused them of? Oops!


Well, I have my answer.

Definately unconsciously.

[eyeonyou]

Well, I have my answer.

Definately unconsciously.

NOT a problem. As any can see, nearly all of us do it! LOL

[Carrot]

NOT a problem. As any can see, nearly all of us do it! LOL

I wasn't agreeing with you. Just remarking that I had my answer.

[eyeonyou]

NOT a problem. As any can see, nearly all of us do it! LOL


I wasn't agreeing with you. Just remarking that I had my answer.

NOT a problem either as I wasn't asking for agreement, just stating fact.

[Patt]

I predict a terse reply will show up.

[eyeonyou]

I predict a terse reply will show up.

Could be, it's fine. I don't mind someone having a polarized viewpoint. He has a different opinion, so he has a polarized viewpoint according to definition. Damn I'm good at truth tonight! http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/th_keith.gif

[bullfighter]

dah and glob warm has to do with what..

[Carrot]

Could be, it's fine. I don't mind someone having a polarized viewpoint. He has a different opinion, so he has a polarized viewpoint according to definition. Damn I'm good at truth tonight! http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/th_keith.gif

One of my flaws is a difficulty in letting certain things go.

I might think liverpool is a good football team, you might think they're a bad team. Different opinions.

If you say you don't like liverpool, then I accuse you of calling liverpool the worst team in the world and that they don't deserve to be in the premiership, then I would be polarising your viewpoint in my interpretation. (Your opinion wouldn't be changing, I would be adding on extra things I didn't agree with, arguing against an extreme version in the opposite direction of my opinion).

Polarisation, whereby the moderate, middle viewpoints get shut out, and it's black or white.

For example:
Support gun ownership/support tyranny.
Support capitalism/support communism/socialism.
Love america/hate america.

It's a very simple concept. And one I couldn't stand to have you self congratulatory patting each other's backs over, having grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick.

Hell, even read up on the social science sections on polarisation in wiki if you're having difficulty with the concept between having a different opinion and polarised opinions.

And now I'm done. I literally cannot make myself any clearer than I just did, so if not then I'll really have no choice than to let it go because there's nothing I could possibly say.

[vulcan]

Al I am looking for that a... he made a million dollar just talking pseudoscience. The last time I checked outside I had 0 degree of temperature. ANY and all scientists in this Planet, Knows the planet and the life in it experiences cycles. Is true a large human population will create some negative effect in the planet, but we have cycle of hear and cold weather since day one. Al just got an opportunity to sound Intelligent, Where in the world Al got an Science Degree? I want to know, not the Honorary one he got. I am tired of people talking garbage people without the knowledge make statements and the rest of the population follows... OH Lord...

[Patt]

Carrot - for the final time here....

polarize - verb - to cause polarization in - NOT an individual, an EVENT.
polarized - adjective - of or pertaining to a medium that exhibits polarization - NOT an individual, a PERCEPTION.
polarization - noun - a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions - NOT an individual, a GROUP.

Again, One person cannot be polarized. It's virtually impossible.

[LedZap]

One person cannot be polarized. It's virtually impossible.

Wait just one minute....what if I get sent to the North Pole ?

[Carrot]

Carrot - for the final time here....

polarize - verb - to cause polarization in - NOT an individual, an EVENT.
polarized - adjective - of or pertaining to a medium that exhibits polarization - NOT an individual, a PERCEPTION.
polarization - noun - a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions - NOT an individual, a GROUP.

Again, One person cannot be polarized. It's virtually impossible.

"a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions"

The group - patt and gecko
The division (as per patt's definition) Support guns/support tyranny.
Pretty sharp division right there.

Yeah.....I simply cannot make it any clearer.

But I agree, an individual incomplete isolation with absolutely no opposition cannot be said to have a polarised viewpoint by definition.

Thanks for making me laugh though. Loved the attempt.

I mean, If you're still struggling with the word I''l just remind you of what happened.

Gecko says - we have the right to have guns, and I want to keep my guns, but they wouldn't be that effective in preventing tyranny (it's irrelevant is that's right/wrong, that's his standpoint).
Patt says - you support tyranny and want to rule the world.

Whatever word you want to use for that, that's what you do.

When was the last time gecko posted by the way? I suppose he was just overwhelmed with rational arguments.

And NOW I'm done. Should've known better really.

[Carrot]

Wait just one minute....what if I get sent to the North Pole ?

Hypothetically, metals experience greater effects of polarisation away from the poles. But don't quote me on that.

[eyeonyou]

Well, I have my answer.

Definately unconsciously.


NOT a problem. As any can see, nearly all of us do it! LOL


I wasn't agreeing with you. Just remarking that I had my answer.


NOT a problem either as I wasn't asking for agreement, just stating fact.


Could be, it's fine. I don't mind someone having a polarized viewpoint. He has a different opinion, so he has a polarized viewpoint according to definition. Damn I'm good at truth tonight! http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/th_keith.gif


One of my flaws is a difficulty in letting certain things go.

I might think liverpool is a good football team, you might think they're a bad team. Different opinions.

If you say you don't like liverpool, then I accuse you of calling liverpool the worst team in the world and that they don't deserve to be in the premiership, then I would be polarising your viewpoint in my interpretation. (Your opinion wouldn't be changing, I would be adding on extra things I didn't agree with, arguing against an extreme version in the opposite direction of my opinion).

Polarisation, whereby the moderate, middle viewpoints get shut out, and it's black or white.

For example:
Support gun ownership/support tyranny.
Support capitalism/support communism/socialism.
Love america/hate america.

It's a very simple concept. And one I couldn't stand to have you self congratulatory patting each other's backs over, having grabbed completely the wrong end of the stick.

Hell, even read up on the social science sections on polarisation in wiki if you're having difficulty with the concept between having a different opinion and polarised opinions.

And now I'm done. I literally cannot make myself any clearer than I just did, so if not then I'll really have no choice than to let it go because there's nothing I could possibly say.

Carrot, read all the above quotes. The red ones from our last two posts specifically. Also reread this post. http://www.bullshit.com/showthread.php?7779-Whatever-happened-to-Global-Warming&p=150947#post150947

His quotes,
I stand behind my premise. In the modern world the second amendment is defunct.
The second amendment is no longer valid.
Only in far right revolution fantasy is the second amendment still a viable option to fight back against tyranny.
As I said, he was wrong.

The only pat on the back was that I posted pure 100% truth about the Second Amendment as his opinion was totally wrong regarding said amendment per all the legal rulings in the United States court system and nothing else matters. So was he polarized because he was wrong or are you trying to polarize me because I was right.

For one I cannot be polarized because I was factually correct, and I wasn't polarizing him because he was wrong. If someone is being polarized for an opinion, that is wrong, but this was all about fact NOT opinion.

I wasn't truly involved in the tyranny debate, as a matter of fact I agreed if it were to happen it would be bad.

I will use these as examples.

Fact=This is red. It is NOT up for debate or an opinion as it is true red.
Opinion=I think this is brown. This could be debated since it is an off-shoot of brown.

So don't add if you don't want to, but I don't understand what you are talking about? There is fact and there is opinion. I posted fact, he posted an incorrect opinion regarding the 2nd Amendment which is NOT open for opinion. Opinions are a veiwpoint, truth is NOT. The truth is NOT up for debate at all. The only way he could make his incorrect opinion truth is to sue the US government and take it to the courts. He will lose as have all others who tried too and it will still be his incorrect opinion.

In disagreement, I agreed we agreed as to the disagreement.

[LedZap]

When was the last time gecko posted by the way? I suppose he was just overwhelmed with rational arguments.



Actually , Gecko and Patt debate stuff all the time...just not on this forum.

[eyeonyou]

actually , gecko and patt debate stuff all the time...just not on this forum.

lol!!!!!!!!

[Carrot]

He has a different opinion, so he has a polarized viewpoint according to definition.

Ben thinks football is ok, joe doesn't really like football. <- not polarised.

Ben loves football and thinks it's the best sport in the world and the only one worth playing, dan thinks anyone who plays football is unathletic faggot and wants the sport abolished. <- polarised.

Dan is a vegetarian, giles eats freerange meat. <- not polarised.

Dan thinks all animals should have the same rights as humans, giles thinks we should kill animals just for fun. <- polarised.

Anyway, if actually read my posts I didn't defend his position anywhere in this thread, because it's a completely seperate issue as to whether he was correct or not (along with the PC angle). And you weren't arguing against a polarised version of his argument, I didn't accuse you of it either.

[Patt]

lol!!!!!!!!

Gee, ya think? LOL

AGAIN - dum dum dum dauuuuuummmmm ---- viewpoints, positions, opinions, and the like can be 'polarized'.

Individuals cannot be.

Sheesh - hard head, soft ass.....

[Carrot]

Actually , Gecko and Patt debate stuff all the time...just not on this forum.

I stand corrected then.

[Carrot]

Gee, ya think? LOL

AGAIN - dum dum dum dauuuuuummmmm ---- viewpoints, positions, opinions, and the like can be 'polarized'.

Individuals cannot be.

Sheesh - hard head, soft ass.....

Just incase you missed it.

"a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions"

The group - patt and gecko
The division (as per patt's definition) Support guns/support tyranny.
Pretty sharp division right there.

Yeah.....I simply cannot make it any clearer.

But I agree, an individual incomplete isolation with absolutely no opposition cannot be said to have a polarised viewpoint by definition.

Thanks for making me laugh though. Loved the attempt.

I mean, If you're still struggling with the word I''l just remind you of what happened.

Gecko says - we have the right to have guns, and I want to keep my guns, but they wouldn't be that effective in preventing tyranny (it's irrelevant is that's right/wrong, that's his standpoint).
Patt says - you support tyranny and want to rule the world.

Whatever word you want to use for that, that's what you do.

[eyeonyou]

This is the Second Amendment. It was the topic of the dude being totally wrong. You added,
The division (as per patt's definition) Support guns/support tyranny. The 2nd Amendment was the topic.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There can be no polarization because it is total fact and is NOT subject to debate. So there can be No Opinion!

He said over and over that it no longer applies. Truth and fact prove him wrong. That is fact too.

In yet you are still trying to bash Patt for her knowing he was wrong. Quit polarizing her. LOL

[eyeonyou]

Better to address points someone actually makes, than...polarising what they're saying.

((((Remainder deleted as it had no bearing))))

I think I've made my point, I won't go into it any further.

Points someone makes.................Read your own quote and you go against that. Gecko and Patt's debate was about points, your involvement is polarizing and it doesn't have shit to do with the points they were debating.

[Patt]

Just incase you missed it.

"a sharp division, as of a population or group, into opposing factions"

The group - patt and gecko
The division (as per patt's definition) Support guns/support tyranny.
Pretty sharp division right there.

Yeah.....I simply cannot make it any clearer.

But I agree, an individual incomplete isolation with absolutely no opposition cannot be said to have a polarised viewpoint by definition.

Thanks for making me laugh though. Loved the attempt.

I mean, If you're still struggling with the word I''l just remind you of what happened.

Gecko says - we have the right to have guns, and I want to keep my guns, but they wouldn't be that effective in preventing tyranny (it's irrelevant is that's right/wrong, that's his standpoint).
Patt says - you support tyranny and want to rule the world.

Whatever word you want to use for that, that's what you do.

Ahem - two people who are on opposite sides of an issue - ARE NOT A GROUP !!!!!!!! To be a Group, you must agree with one another !!

Patt says strongly to Carrot - will you finally get your shit together and understand the word polarize and how to use it in a sentence??

Patt all but screams - If you can't, then don't use the fucking word !! Your logic is non existent in this instance.

And - Gecko does in fact want to rule the world.

[MrRee]

He won't get it Patt.
could you say it without the sweetness ?

[Carrot]

Holy shit, you people are idiots.

[Rec]

Holy shit, you people are idiots.

Are you seriously attempting to polarize these folks??? lol

[Carrot]

I must be, since I reffered to a group NOT an individual :rolleyes:.

[eyeonyou]

Holy shit, you people are idiots.

Now that is funny. Supports your incorrect argument well. If you want to debate a word with Patt, that is your call, but I was right in my facts. Good one. http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/Jumbo_Emoticon_27.gif



I proved my side of the argument with fact. Gecko proved his side of the 2nd Amendment with Tyranny? Where in the fuck does it say shit about Tyranny in the 2nd Amendment?

Oh, in peoples opinions and interpretations....I get it.....Incorrect opinions and interpretations trumps fact. It is a fucked up world people have created I forgot! Seems some people will believe any damn thing somebody who is wrong posts.

This is still the whole 2nd and it doesn't say shit about Tyranny. This is how it was ratified by the States......In my signature it is how Congress passed it.

Second Amendment –
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Not one fucking word about tyranny, but still no surprise I am being polarized for being right. The only thing I was wrong in was helping you and Ace Spam this thread after you insulted Patt. Excuse me, after you polarized her in this thread.

Yes, now you truly know how to polarize "you people." Good job! http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/Jumbo_Emoticon_29.gif

Patt, we done been "Polarized!" Aw Damn..............................LOL I know how you so hate to be polarized! Me, I find it positively vibrating.

I guess you for the word definition and the Tyranny thing with Chavo, er Gecko and myself, well me for just knowing what the Second Amendment means and standing up for it when Gecko didn't have a fucking clue even though it is only 27 words long.

What is scary is how many people don't have a fucking clue what The United States Constitution means.

[Patt]

The group - patt and gecko

Just in case YOU missed it Carrot:


Ahem - two people who are on opposite sides of an issue - ARE NOT A GROUP !!!!!!!!
To be a Group, you must agree with one another !!

Which results in:
Originally Posted by Carrot: Holy shit, I'm a big orange idiot.
Patt, we done been "Polarized!"

Don't polarize me, bro! http://smileys.chitchat247.com/smilies/17IMab_good_cut.gif

[Carrot]

So.

Dan thinks all animals should have the same rights as humans, giles thinks we should kill animals just for fun. <- definately NOT polarised in ANY shape or form whatsoever.

Dan and ben think all animals should have the same rights as humans, giles and mike think we should kill animals just for fun <- Polarised!

Ohokey dokey!

And I thought stoic got pedantic.

[MrRee]

Anybody make sense of that shit carrot just posted?????

[Carrot]

I doubt it.

[Patt]

He has brain freeze, Ree - he's polarized. :p

[Rec]

He has brain freeze, Ree - he's polarized. :p


Question, if the polar bears are from the North Pole, are they naturalized polarized or just natural in their habitat, and are they looked at as groups or singles" Can a polar bear be group polarized and singley polarized and keep his identity?

lMBO

[Patt]

Question, if the polar bears are from the North Pole, are they naturalized polarized or just natural in their habitat, and are they looked at as groups or singles" Can a polar bear be group polarized and singley polarized and keep his identity?

lMBO

Dunno really - you'll have to ask Carrot. My immediate response - it depends on how they're registered to vote. :p

[MrRee]

good question. another thing is are the people from Poland-polarized ???

[Patt]

good question. another thing is are the people from Poland-polarized ???

Wouldn't that be Polanderized? Geeze, so confusing. Carrot sure has a lot to answer for, doesn't he?

[YoDaddy]

....................

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oGsr-MkSj5o/S-ypBQAQeiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/RhPZhd7nT0I/s1600/gore-cartoon.jpg

[yee-haw]

....................

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oGsr-MkSj5o/S-ypBQAQeiI/AAAAAAAAAJc/RhPZhd7nT0I/s1600/gore-cartoon.jpg

Lmao!!!.......

[Patt]

OMG Yo Daddy and Haw - I about choked when I saw that - LMAO !!

[yee-haw]

OMG Yo Daddy and Haw - I about choked when I saw that - LMAO !!

That pretty much sums it up..does it not??lol

[freakazoid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk
............

Whatever happened to "Global Warming"? It cooled down (oops, says Al)...

http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg

[bullfighter]

ok then wait untill march 19th then see if the earth is affected by things out of our controll ,or the bull shit flows far and wide. some one should event flying bullshit suit.

[eyeonyou]

ok then wait untill march 19th then see if the earth is affected by things out of our controll ,or the bull shit flows far and wide. some one should event flying bullshit suit.

So what was the 19th? Super Moon? LOL

Now for a trip down memory lane. http://www.yourememberthat.com/media/14557/1974_Time_Magazine_Global_Cooling_Story/

1970s / 1974 Time Magazine Global Cooling Story

Although Richard Nixon was featured on the cover of the June 24, 1974 issue of Time magazine, from a historian's point of view the most interesting article within that edition was a doom-and-gloom story about the inevitable onset of global cooling. Yep, global cooling--not global warming. The article said, 'Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.' Hmm.

http://www.yourememberthat.com/files/d809d3700dbb7548.jpg

[hitekredneck]

Ain't it amazing just how acurate our scienctists are? They sure called this one!

[bullfighter]

yep,they all call wolf.and actualy i do to .when i think to see something that is very possible..i will find the flying bullshit suit. but what i thought about march 19 was ,happened earlier .so then was there just a preminition or thinking the strong moon has anything to do with the earth land movement.i guess that will go into the fuck who knows box..but one thing forsure there are many things happening more and more regular .. as i see it ..lets just see what happenins next ..any bets what and when....