Yeah, I think that it is pretty obvious that different standards apply here based on political beliefs. You have certainly conducted yourself much better than many here but your political views are unforgivable to those less tolerant. Fortunately, thanks to Wes and Scott, the main sports forum is not conducted/moderated in that fashion.
Geez, man, you're bringing a little tear to my eye making me think about how mean and horrible we've been to you. Yet, when I go back and review your post history, I find that reality doesn't really jibe with your victim narrative.
The first thread on AGW that you started (to which anyone replied) was titled "Yale Study Shows Climate Skeptics are smarter than AGW alarmists: Skeptics are more scientifically and numerically literate
So your very first thread sets up the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. A broad stroke insult against anyone who bothers to argue against your point-of-view.
Newfs first response in this thread was a completely dispassionate review of the paper you linked, arguing that you misinterpreted the conclusions, not that the paper argued what your thread title suggested. No insults. Your response to him was: Oooh, looks like this one struck a nerve, eh?
and an assertion that peer review is worthless. Not an insult but not exactly indicative of someone with a great deal of interest in discussing the matter intellectually.
When Newf makes another long defense of the merits of peer review including references to multiple papers, and TCUSA responds calling Newf a parrot.
You chime in:
You didn't answer my question. Why do you not have a problem with the IPCC passing off journalistic opinions from environmental wackos as "scientific evidence" in their reports (Amazongate, Glaciergate, etc.)? You can't begin to defend this so I suspect it will be time for another tobacco rant instead.
If Mann's hockey stick is such a great piece of science then why did the IPCC pull it from it's last report (AR4) after displaying it prominently in at least 5 places in the report before that? Actions speak louder than words my friend. And frankly, if you don't know that you can't calculate binomial confidence intervals on severely overlapped data, as you have already shown, then you are in no position to judge any paper that involves even basic statistics.
As for the Yale study showing that finally proves what I have long suspected - that climate skeptics are more scientific and numerically literate than AGW Koolaid drinkers, I think a blogger at Jo Nova's site put it best:
So I count four separate ad hominem insults and/or preemptively undercutting comments in response to a post that tried with excruciating detail to offer the alternative point-of-view.
Newf's response had two marginally snarky responses, one saying your use of -gate suffixes for your various controversies was cliched and that you were arguing in circles.
From there, the whole thread devolves into a massive snark/insult fest, of which you fully and willingly participate.
So as I read it, you hurled the first insults, responded to the first several attempts to legitimately respond to your argument with more insults, and generally got what you wanted when the thread degenerated into a school-yard pissing contest.
Yes indeed, you are clearly the victim.
Your next thread is "New Yearís Resolutions For Climate Scientists" which lists a bunch of claims as to various flaws in the AGW theory and a sole comment:
I think that is a pretty good list. What are the odds that the holy practiticoners of the Pagan Religion of Global Warming will make good on any of these resolutions?
Again, a broad insult for anybody involved with or agreeing with the science. No one took your bait this time.
A month later, you and Whisky continued the same tack:
No doubt history will see this as another false climate 'crisis' perpetrated by liberal redistributionists, just like the false global cooling crisis of the 70's.
The UN doesn't even disguise their motives behind its bogus IPCC 'climate science' policy group:
Translation: Rich countries like the US must be punished and we (the UN) will do whatever it takes to accomplish this goal, even if it means creating false 'crises' like the global warming hoax in order to relieve the US of its ill-gotten capitalist wealth.
Again no one bit on this, because no one wanted to get into the absurdity of the conspiracy theory expressed, but the whole point was to demonize anybody who dares disagree with you as Godless communists.
And shall we review your last few posts directed to me and Newf?
... I decided to drop the gloves and treat you like the snotty elitist liberal you are. Oh, excuse me, snotty, elitist, and mathematically incompetent liberal you are.
Once again you [Craig James]/ume wrong and show your stupidity.
Pretty bold assessment coming from someone who is too lazy or incompetent (likely both) to do his own research, preferring instead to frantically cut and paste irrelevant google searches to arguments he is losing. So man up for a change and defend your comments with verifiable facts - or just p*ssy out like you usually do.
It really does sadden my heart how we have victimized you. I really am deeply, deeply sorry ...