Originally posted by C HessI read your posts and read them well. If you want to clarify something then do so, but don't say you are going to do it when you have the time and not do so at all. You do that too often. Cowards do that.
Now I know you're not reading my posts. I'm done with you.
You are just a coward that has nothing to offer. You have done nothing but troll though this whole thread. You are clearly a simpleton aspiring to be somebody and not doing a very good job of it. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Originally posted by Metal Brain"I think I explain myself pretty well."
"I see in your postings, best Metal Brain, that you very often write "I didn't say that", or in this case "I never argued that at all." Why is that?"
Because I didn't say that, it is that simple. If you really believe I have anything that can be easily misinterpreted show me what it is. I think I have been very up front about my views. If you choose t ...[text shortened]... ou don't deserve it. Facts are all that matter here. If you won't work with facts then piss off!
Then why are people misunderstanding you all the time? I think you can be clearer. When you are, people doesn't misunderstand you, and the debate will be clearer. This advice is a general one, not only toward you. To avoid misunderstandings, then rephrase clearer.
"I'm not here to make friends."
Then don't be surprised that you make enemies. Around you there are many conflicts, many hard words. Is this the way you like it, then it is exactly that you have got.
"I'm not arrogant at all. You just perceive that because you disagree with me strongly."
Well, you are not humble. I hope that by 'you' you mean people generally. And to that I agree. I don't discuss climate with you, there is no point. I study rhetorics and you happen to be my favorite study object.
Think once more about what advice I've given you. That's only my thoughts. You don't have to defend your own person. Just give it a thought.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by Metal BrainMe: You argue that co2 is only one factor among many
I read your posts and read them well. If you want to clarify something then do so, but don't say you are going to do it when you have the time and not do so at all. You do that too often. Cowards do that.
You are just a coward that has nothing to offer. You have done nothing but troll though this whole thread. You are clearly a simpleton aspiring to be somebody and not doing a very good job of it. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
You: No, it is alarmists that are obsessed with co2, and can't see it is only one factor among many
You're an idiot.
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas"When you are, people doesn't misunderstand you, and the debate will be clearer."
"I think I explain myself pretty well."
Then why are people misunderstanding you all the time? I think you can be clearer. When you are, people doesn't misunderstand you, and the debate will be clearer. This advice is a general one, not only toward you. To avoid misunderstandings, then rephrase clearer.
"I'm not here to make friends."
Then don't be ...[text shortened]... you. That's only my thoughts. You don't have to defend your own person. Just give it a thought.
Seriously? People "doesn't" misunderstand you? This is how you lecture people? 🙄
Originally posted by C HessHumy did the same thing and googlefudge corrected him. You won't call him an idiot though. It isn't because he is not arrogant though. Arrogance is okay with you if you agree with his feeble opinion.
Me: You argue that co2 is only one factor among many
You: No, it is alarmists that are obsessed with co2, and can't see it is only one factor among many
You're an idiot.
When I say 97% of climate scientists agree that man has an influence on climate but don't agree with your alarmist myths do you believe me or are you in denial of it? Do you have such a hard time accepting facts that you insult the messenger?
That fact was always there. I merely shed light on it and exposed the myth. If that makes me a heretic I'm proud to be one. Now I know how Galileo felt.
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou, sir, are no Galileo.
Humy did the same thing and googlefudge corrected him. You won't call him an idiot though. It isn't because he is not arrogant though. Arrogance is okay with you if you agree with his feeble opinion.
When I say 97% of climate scientists agree that man has an influence on climate but don't agree with your alarmist myths do you believe me or are you in ...[text shortened]... d exposed the myth. If that makes me a heretic I'm proud to be one. Now I know how Galileo felt.
7 edits
Originally posted by SoothfastI am afraid it is much worse than that:
You, sir, are no Galileo.
Here we have a person with no science credentials, that has already demonstrated from his idiotic posts that he doesn't understand science methodology, arrogantly making out he understands science better than ALL of us here that DO have science credentials with many of us having actual science degrees and yet he accuses US of being both ignorant of science and arrogant! And he, with no physics degree, arrogantly thinks he understands more about physics that all the top physicists here! How incredibly arrogant is that! And now he arrogantly thinks he is another Galileo!? Well, I guess that just about tops it. He has unlimited delusions of grandeur. Despite the scientists here, I doubt that anyone else here but him thinks he is another Galileo. Obviously, I don't! And yet I understand far more about science than he ever will and with qualifications to prove it.
1 edit
Originally posted by humy"And he, with no physics degree, arrogantly thinks he understands more about physics that all the top physicists here! How incredibly arrogant is that!"
I am afraid it is much worse than that:
Here we have a person with no science credentials, that has already demonstrated from his idiotic posts that he doesn't understand science methodology, arrogantly making out he understands science better than ALL of us here that DO have science credentials with many of us having actual science degrees and yet he accuse ...[text shortened]... d yet I understand far more about science than he ever will and with qualifications to prove it.
You are not a climate scientist yet you arrogantly think you understand climate change better than Fred Singer! How incredibly arrogant is that!
Here is Singer's email address. You should write him and show him how much more you know about climate change. LOL!!!!!!
singer@sepp.org
Let us know how badly you embarrass him. 🙄
Originally posted by SoothfastWhen I say 97% of climate scientists agree that man has an influence on climate but don't agree with alarmist myths do you believe me or are you in denial of it?
You, sir, are no Galileo.
Funny how nobody wants to answer this simple question. You all know I'm right. It just pains you to admit it.
Originally posted by humyClimate models have been a dismal failure.
I am afraid it is much worse than that:
Here we have a person with no science credentials, that has already demonstrated from his idiotic posts that he doesn't understand science methodology, arrogantly making out he understands science better than ALL of us here that DO have science credentials with many of us having actual science degrees and yet he accuse ...[text shortened]... d yet I understand far more about science than he ever will and with qualifications to prove it.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
You must know more than Fred Singer though, after all you have qualifications to prove it. 🙄
Dr. Singer serves on the editorial advisory board of Regulation. He has appeared many times in peer-reviewed journals, including the following since 1996:
Singer, S.F. 1996. Climate debate. Nature 384: 522–523.
Singer, S.F. 1999. Human contribution to climate change remains questionable. Also, Reply. EOS: Transactions, American Geophysical Union 80 (33): 186–187 and 372–373.
Singer, S.F. 2000. Climate policy—From Rio to Kyoto a political issue for 2000 and beyond. Essays in Public Policy 102. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Singer, S.F. 2001. Global warming: An insignificant trend? Science 292: 1063–1064.
Singer, S.F. 2001. Disparity of temperature trends of atmosphere and surface. Paper presented at 12th Symposium on Global Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, Albuquerque, NM.
Singer, S.F. 2002. Statistical analysis does not support human influence on climate. Energy and Environment 13:329–331.
Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B., and Singer, S.F. 2004. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B.D., Singer, S.F., Knappenberger, P.C., and Michaels, P.J. 2004. Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: new evidence. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L13207, DOI:10.1029/2004GL020212.
Douglass, D.H., Christy, J.R., Pearson, B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society). DOI:10.1002/joc.1651.
Singer, S.F. 2010. Viewpoints and technical communications: a response to “The climate change debates,” Energy & Environment.
Loehle, C. and Singer, S.F. 2010. Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 47:1327–1336.
Singer, S.F. 2011. Lack of consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends. Energy & Environment 22: 375–406.
Singer, S.F. and C.W. Monckton. 2012. Overcoming chaotic behavior of climate models. In R. Ragaini (Ed.) International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies - 44th Session: The Role of Science in the Third Millennium. World Scientific Publishing Company.
Singer, S.F. 2012. IPCC exercise in curve-fitting to prove anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Energy & Environment 23 (4).
Singer, S.F. 2013. Inconsistency of modeled and observed tropical temperature trends. Energy & Environment 24: 405–413.
Originally posted by Metal BrainOf course people misunderstand me. And when they do I know that I have been unclear and therefore I have failed. I have to try again to explain, this time in a much clearer way. It's never others fault if they misunderstand me, that's always my fault.
"When you are, people doesn't misunderstand you, and the debate will be clearer."
Seriously? People "doesn't" misunderstand you? This is how you lecture people? 🙄
If I, as a lecturer, is unclear in my teaching, then my students will fail the exam, and my bosses will blame me for that.
On the other hand, if people don't want to understand me correctly, then it is no point to explain further. What's the point explaining things to them? Then I should give up. And this is one difference between fundamentalists and others - fundamentalists never give up, someone even take weapons as a mean to convince people that they are right and the people is wrong.
If you don't understand me, because you don't want to, then why should I continue to explain to you my results in my studies? But you will still be my object of my studies.
But if I notice that you want to understand and yet fail, then it is my fault. I have to rephrase and start all over again. People are never stupid when they don't understand, never. If you call them stupid, then you are the one who have lost, not them.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by Metal BrainAgain you demonstrate how little attention you've paid to our back and forth. I'm clearly not an alarmist. What pisses me off is not that you got something wrong. We all do that. What pisses me off is that you're clearly not interested in reading, but only writing. You're coming here, talking about how co2 can't be the only factor. I link to a talk and an interview with credible scientists proclaiming that co2 is the main factor, and even make extracts from those links to save you the trouble of a click and view. Then you start ranting about how pliocene temperatures were higher with less co2, and how therefore current co2 can't explain recent warming (??). I point out that if anything this shows that the recent warming is mostly due to co2, and earlier warmings had many other factors playing in (as you've correctly stated). Then you demonstrate that you've clearly not understood my posts, and so I give you a chance to go back and re-read them, to which you state you have, and carefully. Well, if you read my posts carefully, and still make a mistake like that, then you are in fact an idiot. If I'm going to waste more of my time on this, I need you to either admit that co2 matches recent warming curves or show scientists wrong about that, and acknowledge that pliocene only helps demonstrate the point that co2 is the real culprit this time, or show me wrong about that. Trying to divert attention yet again won't work, but I have no problem with being shown wrong. It's how I came to my current position on climate change after all.
Humy did the same thing and googlefudge corrected him. You won't call him an idiot though. It isn't because he is not arrogant though. Arrogance is okay with you if you agree with his feeble opinion.
When I say 97% of climate scientists agree that man has an influence on climate but don't agree with your alarmist myths do you believe me or are you in ...[text shortened]... d exposed the myth. If that makes me a heretic I'm proud to be one. Now I know how Galileo felt.
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainUnlike you, I don't think I understand climate change better than the vast majority of climate scientists. The vast majority of climate scientists don't agree with Fred Singer. In every profession you get a minority few that goes against the principles of their own profession and science is no exception. In fact, I guess most climate scientists would call him a "moron". Of course, any moron, but especially someone with no science credentials, that just happens to agree with what he says, wouldn't call him a moron.
You are not a climate scientist yet you arrogantly think you understand climate change better than Fred Singer!