On Aug 8, 11:51 am, Nobody wrote:
> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 6:03 pm, Nobody wrote:
>>> Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>>> On Aug 7, 7:50 am, Nobody wrote:
>>>>> Try this one. It can't get much
>>>>>
simpler.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wik
>>>>> i/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variatio ns.png Temperature
>>>>> variations during the preceding 12000 years. Note that present
>>>>> day is placed at the left hand side.
>
>>>> Yo. Idiot. The claim was that temperatures were warmer 1000
>>>> years ago.
>
>>> Did you actually LOOK at the graph I posted? You CAN understand
>>> the graph, can't you?
>
>>>> Care to state that again?
>
>>> No, you are a clueless git as usual.
>
>>>> Learn to read a graph, retard.
>
>>> I am not the one having the trouble. I don't have any issue with
>>> EASILY seeing the earlier warmer temperatures.
>
>>>>> If you continue to be this dumb, your mom is going to cut you
>>>>> off her posting account...again.
>
>>>> I wasn't talking about that graph idiot, I was talking about
>>>> this one:
>
>
>>> I wasn't and you STILL can't seem to read the one I gave you.
>>> Funny that YOU are reading the WRONG graph and calling ME an
>>> idiot. You truly are a piece of work.
>
>> I referred to the other graph, idiot.
>
> I KNOW THAT dumbass. The point is, I am not talking about THAT
> graph.
Because it proves you wrong too.
>Why are you so thick? I asked if you could see the
> difference on the graph I gave.
>
>> You just snipped the information so you wouldn't look like an
>> idiot. Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that 1) I can just
>> restore it, like I have here. And 2) People can just scroll
>> upward to see what I really posted.
>
> Exactly why it doesn't matter that stuff gets snipped for brevity.
Funny how the stuff that gets snipped for brevity is the stuff that
proves you wrong.
Cowardly fuck, who appointed you to decide what to snip and what not
to snip? And don't bother. I'll just put back what you snip. Unlike
you, I have no fear of the facts.
> Why do you consistently show your ignorance about the obvious. Do
> you know anything about usenet at all?
I know intellectual dishonesty and cowardice when I see it.
>
>>>> which you cowardly rightards snipped. Which clearly shows
>>>> (like the one you posted) that temperatures were indeed cooler
>>>> 1000 years ago than today.
>
>>> The one I posted shows the opposite. You need to learn how to
>>> read a graph.
>
>> And you need to stop snipping the material which proves you wrong.
>
> Look dumbass, lets make it easy for you. Can you see the temp
> difference in THIS graph, yes or no. Don't post YOUR graph, just
> answer the questioon ans top acting like the kid you are.
Yes, I see it quite easily. I see the little arrow marked "2004" (my
previous reference to which you snipped again, like the cowardly fuck
you are), which shows the temperature NOW, which is well above the
temperature 1000 years ago.
Also, the original claim was that temperatures 1000 years ago were
higher than today. I don't know why you think that a graph going back
12000 years would give you a different conclusion than one going back
2000 years, considering they're both showing the same data. Oh wait,
I do know why, it's because you're a retard.
The original claim was that the temperature 1000 years ago. But in
typical rightard fashion, when proven wrong about something, you try
moving the goalposts.
And still lose. The little arrow marked 2004 is still higher than
anything 1000, 2000, or 10000 years back. Looooooosssssseeeerrrrr....
>
>> You think you're actually fooling anybody, retard?
>
> I am not trying to. Why are you so scared?
LOL! Scared, right. Intellectually, you're about as threatening to
me as Woody Allen is to Hulk Hogan.
>
>> Here's what I said:
>
>> Yo. Idiot. The claim was that temperatures were warmer 1000
>> years ago. Look at the small graph on the upper left. You know
>> the one which says "recent proxies"?
>
> I know what you said you moron. You ran from the graph I posted and
> came up with one of your own to evade the question.
>
>>>> I can hardly wait for you to try to quibble your way out of
>>>> this one. We're still laughing at you for the way you tried to
>>>> wiggle out of being proven wrong on the Israeli house
>>>> demolitions issue.
>
>>> WTF are you on about now? I don't know anything about any
>>> Israeli demolitions. Are you on drugs again/still? You DID know
>>> that there are THREE people using the nobody name here, didn't
>>> you?
>
>> Oh, is that how you're dealing with being humiliated? By
>> pretending to be somebody else?
>
> Why do you 'pretend' to be your mom by using her account to post?
LOL! I see, when the truth fails, make up lies. Typical rightard.
>
>> "Duh, it wasn't me, it was my other personality Joe"
>
> LOL, Nice try at evasion. I show you to be full of shit again and
> you just make excuses. It is quite obvious that you DIDN'T know
> there was more than one person now using my posting name.
You're right, I didn't know. I still don't. Got some proof that
those other two guys are not also you?
>It is that
> kind of slackard behaviour that make you look so stupid all the time.
> Learn how to read headers and you won't look like such a childish
> git.
Big fucking deal, all that means is that you're posting from different
computers. You're probably just posting from work/school as well as
home.
>
>> If it is somebody else, I can't believe they're all as stupid as
>> you are. For some reason the name "nobody" must appeal to
>> retards.
>
> Is that why you either post using your mom's account or feel the need
> to hide behind a woman's name?
How do you know I'm not a woman?
How do you know the name is exclusively female?
Do you often make allegations with no evidence?
