• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Climategate needs a better name

Hallo Alfie

Banned
Hallo Alfie
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
10,691
I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?
Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.
 
Controversy that only idiots will jump on because they have no idea how the world works. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it succinctly describes the situation.
PS:
Show me the posts!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?
Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.
Click to expand...

:confused: What the hell-? Is this some specific incident you're talking about or just in general?

Anyway I agree it's pretty asinine regardless.
 
Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?
Click to expand...

climatefence
climatefirewall
climatejerky
climatewhothe****cares
hack the (warming?) planet
the holocaust part 2

Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.
Click to expand...

sheeple
enivro-wackjobs
disinfo agents
normal people
dumbheads
commie nazis
those pesky kids
 
Call it what it is...

The religious versus the atheists.

Have y'all really read any of these threads? Two sides trying to prove the unprovable (save your tripe, please, you can't prove it either way, and more to the point, I don't care) to each other. Chart! Graph! Peer review!! Hacked e-mail!! This guy says... That guy says... This website says... Yeah, but this guy says...

And so on, ad nauseum. You're not going to change each other's minds. Give it a rest, for the children. :)
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Call it what it is...

The religious versus the atheists.

Have y'all really read any of these threads? Two sides trying to prove the unprovable (save your tripe, please, you can't prove it either way, and more to the point, I don't care) to each other. Chart! Graph! Peer review!! Hacked e-mail!! This guy says... That guy says... This website says... Yeah, but this guy says...

And so on, ad nauseum. You're not going to change each other's minds. Give it a rest, for the children. :)
Click to expand...
We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.
 
GreyICE said:
We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.
Click to expand...


You obviously missed the bit where I said "save your tripe" and "I don't care".:D

People who post things in invisible text can shampoo my crotch.


You are assuming (in your invisible text) that one side has to be totally correct and the other must be totally wrong, which is also quite wrong.
 
Last edited:
GreyICE said:
We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.
Click to expand...

LolZ :D
 
GreyICE said:
Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a specific name for this logical fallacy? It's the opposite of the excluded middle. Damnit, I know there is some funny name for it.

It's kind of like, "Hammas wants to kill all the Jews. The Jews don't want to die. Therefore, we should let Hammas to kill half the Jews to be fair."
 
There's an old sating that a British is someone who says that if A thinks 2+2=4, and B thinks 2+2=17, the truth is surely somewhere in between.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom