First,
Read your post. It accomplishes everything you claim I am doing. You claim I am trying to divert the topic (I am really trying to address your person

Second,
You claim I do not give any references while you do. Your references are crap websites and YouTube videos that prove nothing but show someone else with the same opinion as you have. I don't need to give references, I am claiming the standard mainstream commonly accepted theories are true. It is up to you to present qualified peer reviewed papers that disrupt the facts. I looked and could not find them so the ball is in your court.

Third,
We are all tired of you Posting your list of debate tactics - (is this the fifth or sixth time we see this in the last year?).
We are all impressed with your new find. Now move on.

He keeps leaving the same note on his refrigerator.

 

He keeps leaving the same note on his refrigerator.
View attachment 125936

He does such a good job executing the actions he attribute to me. Fascinating.

(Let's see Trump finish with 4-syllable one-word sentance like that!)

 

He does such a good job executing the actions he attribute to me. Fascinating.

(Let's see Trump finish with 4-syllable one-word sentance like that!)

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

1, 2, 4, 8

Same as always. Easily defined predictability and nothing of value.

 

1, 2, 4, 8

Same as always. Easily defined predictability and nothing of value.

I disagree on your assignments. Try again.

 

@GopherT

Assignments?

 

@GopherT

Assignments?

You ask about my post "assignments" but you do t look at my quoted text from TCMTech where he is trying to assign my posts to some decoder ring he found on the Internet? That's not worth a question?

Curious but unmotivated. Weird.

(Oops, back to Trumpian one-syllable one-word final sentences.)

 

I disagree on your assignments. Try again.

1 or 3.

You ask about my post "assignments" but you do t look at my quoted text from TCMTech where he is trying to assign my posts to some decoder ring he found on the Internet? That's not worth a question?

Curious but unmotivated. Weird.

(Oops, back to Trumpian one-syllable one-word final sentences.)

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

4 and 8.

Pretty sad that a 'decoder ring' can determine and categorize your responses so perfectly every time.
Even worse that there are so many liberals who are so predictable in their defences and acquisitions that a reliable 'decoder ring ' could be made to begin with.

Also I think the term you wanted was 'Flowchart', not 'Decoder ring'.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/flow_chart

7 or 9? Maybe?

 

1 or 3.





4 and 8.

Pretty sad that a 'decoder ring' can determine and categorize your responses so perfectly every time.
Even worse that there are so many liberals who are so predictable in their defences and acquisitions that a reliable 'decoder ring ' could be made to begin with.

Also I think the term you wanted was 'Flowchart', not 'Decoder ring'.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/flow_chart

7 or 9? Maybe?

1, 3, 7, 8 and 9!

I Got BINGO!

 

1, 3, 7, 8 and 9!

I Got BINGO!

Now that was funny!

 

 

1, 3, 7, 8 and 9!

I Got BINGO!

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

2, 3, 6, 8, 10.

Impressive you can fail so much with so little.

True mastery of one's own ignorance.

 

2, 3, 6, 8, 10.

Impressive you can fail so much with so little.

True mastery of one's own ignorance.

 

It's simple:

 

It's simple:

And that right there is the #1 stumbling point behind AGW/CC. Not much of anything that was claimed or has been done with the money spent (and it was a lot so far) ever came anywhere close to matching what reality actually did and keeps doing.

Certain people can scream, fuss and whine all they want plus go into raging protest about whose data is right or wrong, but the cold hard fact is, whomever's data closest matches what reality has and is doing is the correct one regardless of what credentials, affiliations, group following or money they got paid.
If Joe Nobody (Who probably leans conservative when he votes. ) made a prediction, and did it for free at that, and it came out nearly right then that makes him an dhis predicting abilities more correct than everyone else who got it wrong no matter who they were, where they were or who was paying them when they did it.

BTW here is a rather impressive collection of accredited scientists who have published peer reviewed papers against AGW/CC so when certain members here claim there are none, Bullshit! You lying illiterate lazy assess.
It can be found through multiple past links I have posted, and in more than just this thread too, which shows just how bad and biased your reading skills really and truly are.

The direct link this time so the simple minded illiterates can't possibly miss it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

As for anticipated rebuttals from the 'simple kids' I expect between 4 and 8 of these to be covered in one way or another. (possibly even a black out 'Bingo' with bonus points for future outright personal attack stupidity for at least one of them. )

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and or 10. would be my best guesses. (plus the 'big dummy' bonus point direct personal attack on me in some idiotic way.)

If nothing get's said or done then I will also consider that a win too.

 

And that right there is the #1 stumbling point behind AGW/CC. Not much of anything that was claimed or has been done with the money spent (and it was a lot so far) ever came anywhere close to matching what reality actually did and keeps doing.

Certain people can scream, fuss and whine all they want plus go into raging protest about whose data is right or wrong, but the cold hard fact is, whomever's data closest matches what reality has and is doing is the correct one regardless of what credentials, affiliations, group following or money they got paid.
If Joe Nobody (Who probably leans conservative when he votes. ) made a prediction, and did it for free at that, and it came out nearly right then that makes him an dhis predicting abilities more correct than everyone else who got it wrong no matter who they were, where they were or who was paying them when they did it.

BTW here is a rather impressive collection of accredited scientists who have published peer reviewed papers against AGW/CC so when certain members here claim there are none, Bullshit! You lying illiterate lazy assess.
It can be found through multiple past links I have posted, and in more than just this thread too, which shows just how bad and biased your reading skills really and truly are.

The direct link this time so the simple minded illiterates can't possibly miss it.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

As for anticipated rebuttals from the 'simple kids' I expect between 4 and 8 of these to be covered in one way or another. (possibly even a black out 'Bingo' with bonus points for future outright personal attack stupidity for at least one of them. )



1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and or 10. would be my best guesses. (plus the 'big dummy' bonus point direct personal attack on me in some idiotic way.)

If nothing get's said or done then I will also consider that a win too.

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

 

Peer review is not about ensuring the accuracy of a paper ....

from http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/m254p001.pdf
Its primary aim is to evaluate the procedures adopted for producing new research results and their interpretations, and to assist in quality improvement.

Here is the whole Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)

Peer Review ... a short tutorial ....

The climate data is sound .....

or is it?

And one from CNN ...

The climate is changing .....

but not as exaggerated as published. It's all about the benjamins.

 

One more ,,,

 

Peer review is not about ensuring the accuracy of a paper ....

Absolutely true, there was 'Peer review' of that complete BS emdrive paper. The review was about 'scientifically' valid tests, measurements and calculations not conclusions and interpretation of that data.

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8198/full/

Peer approval? Several media organizations explained that peer review is only peer review. At National Geographic, Nadia Drake and Michael Greshko, who formerly wrote for Inside Science news service at the American Institute of Physics, reminded readers that peer review “doesn’t guarantee that a finding or observation is valid.” Similar reminders and explanations appeared from theEconomist, Discover, the Christian Science Monitor, the Daily Caller, the Inquisitr, Forbes, and Wired.

The fact-checking site Snopes.com, recognizing the public importance of the peer-review factor, published a clarifying articleunder the headline “Results of ‘impossible’ EmDrive propulsion experiment published in peer-reviewed journal.” Snopes concluded, “The fact that they were able to publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal is a great leap forward for the team, but the peer review process does not mean the results are necessarily valid.”

 

You ask about my post "assignments" but you do t look at my quoted text from TCMTech where he is trying to assign my posts to some decoder ring he found on the Internet? That's not worth a question?

Maybe TCM is on JJ's ignore list?

 

Peer review is not about ensuring the accuracy of a paper ....



Here is the whole Richard Feynman on Scientific Method (1964)

Peer Review ... a short tutorial ....

The climate data is sound .....

or is it?

And one from CNN ...

The climate is changing .....

but not as exaggerated as published. It's all about the benjamins.

Yeah, Yeah.
I almost peed my pants when I picked one at random and it turned out to be a looser.
Maybe I should have looked at one about the effects of warming on penguins or something.