Bravo! As usual very selective quoting, which is a wingnut staple. No, make that "neccessity." When you lie, well, what is left out is key. You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101.

Randy's and mine are solid. Yours on the other hand are biased wingerville paid for shills by naysaying industry lobbyists. How pathetic.

The colateral field I have is in Environmental Biology and the 18 unit speculation is actually 85. it's on my transcript. I'm a GS-5 professional series fishery biologist just finished a stint with the BLM. Look it up. Right wing Idaho hired me. I guess you have no influence there huh Roper?

What you've composed here is called an ad hominem circumstantial. Well it failed, because of context and truth. You had little of either. Just the grain of truth necessary for your diatribe. Keep running coward. That's your style.

Those reviews, hardly literary legends. Amateurs like you two.

Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 10:32 PM

And one final thing you lying sack of fertilizer. You deleted nothing from me stronger than the word "Ass." This inference you keep making that I cussed you out and violated your pious virgin ears is a bald faced lie.

Posted by Mark York at November 12, 2005 10:41 PM

York, you have turned on moderation and effectively banned a number of my friends who went to your blog to leave comments. Yet, you feel free to come here and say anything you want, without a single backup by way of argument other than pointing to realclimate. I'm sure, when those folk see you for your behavior, they will ban you too. as for your "ad hominim circumstantial" (which I noticed you misused at XLRQ also) please note this:

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Posted by GM at November 12, 2005 11:26 PM

York --

Only a coward deletes non-profane, qualified comments because he disagrees with their content.

You are just like the rest of the pathetic, whiny little communist losers of the left, you feel it's okay to bray your trollish, anemically reasoned comments(hell, every point you make to try to justify the ignorance behind your alleged beliefs is anemic) at other blogs, but the minute anyone disagrees with you at your own blog, you delete their comments.

You, sir, are an inconsequential organism of a calibre well beneath plankton.

Posted by Seth at November 12, 2005 11:31 PM

GM&Woody, is that a threat that marky-warky-puddin-head posted somewhere? The bit where he says he would get his hands around someone's throat?

Wow. He should be more careful than to post threats online....especially when a simple google search shows where his dumbass lives in Sunland, Ca.

You know what? I am only about half an hour away from Sunland. In fact, I have friends that live there in Sunland, and a nice drive over to visit my friends would be a great way to spend a day.

Mayeb I should stop by Mark's and bring him a nice Hallmark Greeting card to celebrate the upcoming season of peace and forgiveness eh?

After all, isn't part of the reason for the season to remember the lessons that Jesus taught? And Jesus did teach us to turn the other cheek.

Mark? Buddy? Wanna get together for some coffee? Oh wait....HOT drinks might contribute to global warming.

How about some ice tea?

Dammit. Not only does making ice cause global warming, but if we selfishly use that ice we take away it's ability to counter some of that global warming.

Mark? Wanna meet for a room temperature glass of some environmentallly friendly liquid refreshment?

Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 01:50 AM

Now, guys, be nice. Nobody else will play with the pathetic little creature, so he's got to come here to display his ignorance. He's got nowhere else to go, poor thing.

My suggestion would to be to toss it a scrap occasionally for entertainment value, but to otherwise ignore it and leave it to wallow in its irrelevance.

But then, of course, this isn't the sort of... creature... I would allow in my house, either. I'd keep it chained up outside, so it wouldn't soil the carpet.

-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat

Posted by Romeocat at November 13, 2005 06:29 AM

Some things never change.

In elementary school when someone yelled "FIGHT!", nearly everyone dropped what they were doing and ran to watch. I must admit to having retained a certain unwholesome interest in confrontations - although my interest has migrated from fisticuffs to verbal pugilism (how sophisticated, eh?).

I am especially pleased to see that my guy is winning - BIG.

Posted by too many steves at November 13, 2005 07:06 AM

York: "You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101.

Randy's and mine are solid. Yours on the other hand are biased wingerville paid for shills by naysaying industry lobbyists. How pathetic."

Lets parse this bon mot for it's meaning. First York says qualifications are immaterial to his sources and that is (apparantly) from journalism 101. Then, he contradicts himself and says his are solid while mine are biased and paid for in wingerville.

Is York saying his credentials are solid or his sources are solid? If it's his sources, he is only producing sources material of THEORY stating that some of the information are facts and that is true, there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for example(it has gone up from 270 ppm to 370 ppm a tiny, tiny almost infitesimal amount but that is the subject of another post) on the other hand, it is the EFFECT that we are talking about and that, on his part, is speculative theory and while it may be proven eventually (though all inidcations are that it won't) it is still theory. If he is saying his credentials are solid.. well, he did graduate from CSUN....

Posted by GM at November 13, 2005 07:23 AM

"York: "You know Rope- a- dope our qualifications are immaterial to our sources: journalism 101."

Ah, so that explains why you couldnt distinguish between theory and fact. You "education" is in journalism. I guess my previous point was indeed correct that "Mark York was never taught scientific principles, or was asleep the day the subject was taught"

Posted by M Harn at November 13, 2005 09:45 AM

Is that a theat Kender? Because I've saved it for future reference. If you can't handle opposing arguments then go back to the cave, no one's forcing you to read my posts.

As for rejecting mine and Randy's evidence I'd say you have to. Realclimate; NASA; Union of Conmcerned scientists and a host of others say you are wrong. Flat-out wrong. So what do you do? Discredit the source. Well that doesn't fly on merit. They aren't biased, they're real. Here's the real kicker: your sources are. They're paid for shills and we've documented that FACT. Ignore if you must.

Deriding a my resume is the last refuge of a scoundrel just like your faux patriotism, and is indeed an ad hominem circumstantial. It says I have a vanity press book so I couldn't know anything, yet I work for the Bush administration in science-- environmental science. How could this be? I'm not going to continually refute the same fallacies over and over with people claiming I'm biased, or visitors calling me an idiot for being valid.

Saying you feel like ringing someone's neck is different than claiming to come to their house for an unfriendly visit. Remember that because the LAPD will be very interested should that happen.

Do yourself a favor: call off the hounds.

Posted by Mark York at November 13, 2005 10:36 AM

No puddin' head, that wasn't a threat. The line you wrote about breaking someone's neck is a threat.

Ididn't say anything about your sources. I amteasing you about the whole GW thing. As for your credentials? Yes, you have credentials. Whether they are valid in the GW arena is another matter entirely. CSUN is such a prestigiuous school.

BTW, I have been reading excerpts from your "books", and I must say, my GF is an editor and here is her opinion: You need an editor, a better story, some writing skills and a subject matter that people will care enough to read about".

I notice that you keep dissent off of your site. That's fine. I tried to be civil over there, but you would have none of it. For a man that averages about 40 hits a day one would think that any visitors you would have stop by would be treated with some amount of hospitality.

Let me tell you. You are a sad little man, with a big bulbous head and a receding hairline, but that is a good thing, as it will give you a more aerodynamic outline and make trudging through the hills in search of endangered fish easier, because twigs wont get stuck in the hair on your big bulbous head.

Face it puddin head. Your "books" suck, your "blog" sucks, your "career" sucks and YOU suck. You are living a sad little life, wailing against the big bad BusHalliburton machine, never realizing that the policies you wish for would destroy your country and your way of life.

Now, I never said I was coming over for an unfriendly visit. In fact, I said I was gonna bring you a hallmark card, and maybe go out for some coffee.....but nooooooo. Your paranoid delusions make everything out to be a threat.

Call the LAPD Mark....now that they have solved all crime in LA I am sure they will be happy to rush right over and handle yoru paranoid delusions....maybe they will get you a room and some meds.

Last note. We aren't the hounds puddin head. If anything, we are the attack dawgs.

Posted by kender at November 13, 2005 11:07 AM

"a better story, some writing skills and a subject matter that people will care enough to read about"."

Well that settles it. Your girl friend, as everyone surely knows, at least in some circles, is the final literary authority. Whatever. Amateurs amateurs amateurs. My sources as any journalist and scientist will verify are impeccable, as is my hairline, so this sort of thing is just a sad ad hominen. Pardon me if I don't interpret your Hallmark as friendly.

And from what I can tell all of your blogs suck, you're a movie grunt, not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm a SAG member myself, and are an unusually combative ideologue. Nothing unique about that. Stay home.

Like GM says of me, you came and insulted me with foul language right off. That's a bad start, so say goodnight, this party's over.

Posted by Mark York at November 13, 2005 12:07 PM

I think York is a hoot. He ot only is incapable of rational argument, check this out: On his blog I state his name as Yorky and castigate him for "banning" people when he gripes about being banned so often. In the very next comment York starts off with "Use my real name you friggin snake."

Up above however, he doesn't call me Roper or GM or GM Roper, he calls me a "And one final thing you lying sack of fertilizer." In a prior comment, he calls me "Rope-a-dope..." and that doesn't even include his "friggin snake" comment.

In the real world, as opposed to the one inhabited by York, we call that hypocracy. York, can you say HY-PO-CRITE?

Posted by gmroper at November 13, 2005 01:08 PM

Paul goes on to say “here’s a little something about their source� and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didn’t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of York’s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.

First of all don't call me Paul. That's my last name. You know my first name. I have never referred to you as anythoing other than GM or Woody.

You referenced the National Center for Public Policy Research and who is their president for The Science & Environmental Policy Project and their source on global warming: S. Fred Singer, so you did reference him. If you'd dug a little deeper you'd have found that out. Please don't blame me for having done so.

As for my qualifications, hey I never claimed to be an expert. I'll gladly defer to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American Institute of Physics, The Air & Waste Management Association, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and any number of other credible organizations on the subject. You're welcome to stick with your right-wing think tanks and your purchased experts (S. Fred Singer), or Woody who claimed tthe following on my blog:

(In fact, something I've never revealed, is that I once had a short science show on educational television.)

One wonders why someone would "never reveal" such a relevant fact or make the claim without supplying anything in the way of proof.

One wonders why people who call themselves conservatives show such contempt for those who want to conserve environment. Richard Nixon (who created the EPA) and Teddy Roosevelt are probably spinning in their graves as I write this.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 01:37 PM

Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guys… the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.

Amortized over the course of ten years it's not that much. It's $1,828 per per person based on a population of 280,000,000 over the course of ten years totaling $15 per person.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 02:58 PM

That's $15 per person per month for ten years.

Posted by Randy Paul at November 13, 2005 03:11 PM

Thank you GM for trolling these boobs so skillfully. It is amusing to watch.

Please please tell me they are not registered Democrats.

Posted by The Ugly American at November 13, 2005 06:27 PM

They should start a band:

"Paul-York and the Bolsheviks"

Posted by Seth at November 13, 2005 09:23 PM

Actually puddin head, my GF is a fine editor, and my prose bugs her to death, but I won't let her touch it, as it then loses my flavor.

As for movie grunt? Yeah...hhmm...I was listed as a grip once....other than that it has been horse wrangler, stunt coordinator and associate producer....but only because I secured the costuming, extra's, location, props, set painters, SFX guys and played go between with the crew and location owners. I only was given grip because I helped load the truck when we wrapped.

Your credentials as a scientist SUCK MELONHEAD!!!! CSUN SUCKS....I have known too many lib dolts that have gone there, and still do, as I live about 3 miles from that sucky assed campus.

Your "credentials" as a "journalist", not to mention a "writer" are even worse, and your book, (the excerpt I read, I wouldn't buy it to wipe my a-- with) was the most boring thing I have read since I found directions on using laquer and was bored enough to read them. At least the directions were written by a PROFESSIONAL!!!

I didn't start out insulting you, melon head, but now that I have started, you gutter-slug, it is kinda' fun. I know that you will read this, and won't allow comments at your blog, so I wont leave you unkind words there, Quark, but I will leave them here, knowing that I am pissing you off.

How do you see through those beady little eyes anyway? Is there any chance that you will go back to alaska to chain yourself to a bull dozer when they start to rip up anwr? Boy, I bet you just cry in your granola over that don't ya nature boy?

All those caribou out there wailing in the cold north wind while big effin machines tear up the earth. I hear caribou is good eating. Maybe I should call my congressman and have 'em toss in a rider so the oil workers can get special dispensation to go hunting on their off time eh?

OKokokok.......I'm done....for the moment anyway puddin head. Well, almost done.

Have you considered renting out that enormous cranium for a billboard? You could probably fit two or maybe three ads on your forehead alone.

OK....now, I'm done.

But if you do rent out that giant scully your totin around, I want ten percent for giving you the idea. For twenty percent I'll even secure the ads.

Oh...alomst forgot. You get a pitiful 40 hits a day....you should be thanking GM and Woody for bringing you traffic. I have never seen a site with so few hits actually put up google ads.......you may as well beg at that point.

Posted by kender at November 14, 2005 01:02 AM

York isn't worth the time to read -- too few ideas or proposals.

I suggest you note that in the future -- though no future mentions may be best.

I believe in CO2 increases; a gas tax should be instituted to stabilize the prices, and the price increases, and encourage different behavior. The first 10 cents/gal should go for Katrina/ Wilma/ Fed disaster relief/ recovery.

Posted by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 14, 2005 06:51 AM

Am I a liar or is Randy Paul a psycho?

Randy Paul wrote in response to "...I once had a short science show on educational television.: "One wonders why someone would 'never reveal' such a relevant fact or make the claim without supplying anything in the way of proof."

Posted by Woody at November 14, 2005 10:11 AM

Time for Cooler Heads

As I went through this thread, I realized that Civil Truth was staying out of the fray and, thereby, showing good sense. As I went futher into the Global Warming entry two down, I noted Civil Truth's comments about bringing some civility (appropriately) back to the discussions. He wrote, "The Golden Rule is still a good law to follow." While I'm speaking for myself, I agree with that and with him, and I suspect that G.M. agrees, also.

We didn't start the attacks. We were attacked ourselves, in fact blindsided. and defended ourselves rather than let untruths go unanwered. Calling me a liar doesn't prove global warming claims by the left. In light of that and other false claims, I don't consider our responses to this point inappropriate.

I genuinely appreciate everyone who came to the defense of G.M. and myself and who exposed the other side and their weak arguments. Your support is heart warming. Also, I realize that some of the arguing was in good fun, even if some of it was not. In any event, now that the points have been made, it may be time to move along to more constructive commentaries.

However, this doesn't preclude us from discussing the merits for or against global warming--and that ought to continue as part of our learning process.

I don't expect Randy Paul or Mark York to agree to be civil, maybe they will; but, we can rise above them and not let them drag us further into their mire--and, possibly, just possibly, we can pull them up, too.

It's been interesting and enlightening, and maybe a little humorous, but I'm going to try to follow the advice that Civil Truth offered. It is not only right, but will certainly make for more educational and interesting reading.

Thanks again to everyone for supporting us and for being part of our cyber-family.

Posted by Woody at November 14, 2005 10:59 AM

You should see Al Gores latest rant about global warming as being worse than terrorism.

Posted by rick at November 14, 2005 04:20 PM

test

Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 04:59 PM

2nd test with security code only

Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 05:01 PM

test with security code and authentication via type key

Hey, is this some kind of coded spam?

W

Posted by G M Roper at November 14, 2005 05:04 PM

You know Woody, you got me to thinking.

I enjoy argument for argument's sake, in some ways similar to how some people enjoy playing cards. I don't take it personally, even when I feel that I've lost the argument. My life doesn't depend on winning and losing, and the topic isn't usually materially affected by the outcome of the argument. In sum, arguing is fun and intellectually stimulating.

Which is to say that I feel some pity toward those whose sense of self worth and life purpose (apparently) is determined by their opinions and positons on the issues of the day.

How else would you interpret the illogical, vitriolic, and profane rantings of these folk?

Posted by too many steves at November 14, 2005 07:43 PM

Too many steves, you made me think about why we do this. I, too, enjoy the intellectual stimulation of taking different sides of issues and discussing them. As is the case here, it's unlikely that minds are changed, but occasionally I will learn something different and modify my views, which is another benefit.

However, like the card game analogy that you offered, some people take it too seriously and throw their cards, accuse the other side of cheating, and turn over the card table. This isn't important enough to do that and it discourages the learning process. In school, the kids who disrupted the class got sent to the principal's office. You would have hoped that everyone would have grown above that.

I quit visiting some sites because they were contentious. We never want anyone to stop visiting here for that reason. All sides are welcome and encouraged to comment. All we ask is civility in the exchanges.

Posted by Woody at November 15, 2005 08:34 AM