Originally posted by humyYou are a liar and calling me one without merit is not going to make it so.
I said no such thing. I said wiki is sometimes wrong; That doesn't mean to say wiki isn't right for about 99.99% of the time. I would say that makes it reasonably reliable. So you lie again.and now you cite that very unreliable source as your so called proof?????
Firstly, wiki's word isn't absolute proof and I never claimed it was.
You mu ...[text shortened]... e long thus you admit you were lying all along and I was telling the truth all along; thank you.
Find another source of info. I suspect you cannot do that, which explains why you keep going back to wikipedia. You have no idea what it takes to be a climate scientist. If you could have proved anything you would have by now. All you had to do is show that all climate scientists are climatologists to prove your assertion right. You have failed miserably to do that despite your best efforts.
Your deception is transparent.
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy should I? what is wrong with using wiki as my source? You claimed you did albeit falsely. You have yet to show any science link showing any creditable evidence of the contrary to my claim.
Find another source of info.
I suspect you cannot do that, which explains why you keep going back to wikipedia.
So what if wiki is the only source of the relevant info? -all the more reason to use wiki as the source, moron.
Since wiki isn't your source of that info, what is the source of your info that NOT all climate scientists are climatologists?
How did you come to believe/conclude this?
-I showed my source; it is wiki.
I will trust wiki's word on science over your ignorant word on science any day and that includes wiki's words that clearly imply all climate scientists are climatologists.
So you admit, in effect, you lied; wiki was never your source of your claim but was my source all along of my contrary claim that all climate scientists are climatologists. Thank you.
Originally posted by humy"my contrary claim that all climate scientists are climatologists. Thank you."
Why? what is wrong with using wiki as my source? You claimed you did albeit falsely. You have yet to show any science link showing any creditable evidence of the contrary to my claim.I suspect you cannot do that, which explains why you keep going back to wikipedia.
So what if wiki is the only source of the relevant info? -all the more reaso ...[text shortened]... source all along of my contrary claim that all climate scientists are climatologists. Thank you.
Such an easy claim to prove with or without wiki as your source.....if you were right. Once again you call for me to prove a negative. Prove your positive.....moron!
It is obvious to all on here you are lying. You have failed to prove it. LIAR!
Originally posted by Metal BrainMoron that in a moment....
"my contrary claim that all climate scientists are climatologists. Thank you."
Such an easy claim to prove with or without wiki as your source.....if you were right. Once again you call for me to prove a negative. Prove your positive.....moron!
It is obvious to all on here you are lying. You have failed to prove it. LIAR!