Fake New York Post on Climate Change

[questioner]

What would have been appropiate Q, would for you to have apologised. If you had not meant deliver constant low level insults, you could have said so and then apologised for any misunderstanding, surely that would not hurt. But you seem unable to do so, which makes you come across as arrogant and churlish - not nice traits to have I am sure you agree.

Changing the subject to my personality is an attempt to divert the discussion from the science, to the regime of personal insults, where you are more comfortable.

[ceyda]

What would have been appropiate Q, would for you to have apologised. If you had not meant deliver constant low level insults, you could have said so and then apologised for any misunderstanding, surely that would not hurt. But you seem unable to do so, which makes you come across as arrogant and churlish - not nice traits to have I am sure you agree.

Changing the subject to my personality is an attempt to divert the discussion from the science, to the regime of personal insults, where you are more comfortable.

Interesting point of view, when you seem to be very good at both yourself. That is, launching low level insults and knowing when you can blind someone with science. Are you ready now to apologise to the people you have perhaps unknowingly offended? Or are you not big enough to do that?

[questioner]

Interesting point of view, when you seem to be very good at both yourself. That is, launching low level insults and knowing when you can blind someone with science. Are you ready now to apologise to the people you have perhaps unknowingly offended? Or are you not big enough to do that?

I have not insulted any poster on this thread. I have called specific arguments foolish and explained why the were foolish, citing facts references and logic. That is a different thing.

You and Davis on have called me a hypocrite and accused me of dishonesty, without even replying to the points that I made.

I don't need an apology from anyone. I do not feel hurt or threatened by being called names. I ust want them to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner. The insults are more of a reflection on their ability to do this, and hurt the person who voices the insult.

I don't owe any apologies, because I criticize arguments and do not label people themselves as fools or hippocrites. I don't label arguments as dishonest or hypocritical either, implying that the person stating them is unethical.

[questioner]

Interesting point of view, when you seem to be very good at both yourself. That is, launching low level insults and knowing when you can blind someone with science. Are you ready now to apologise to the people you have perhaps unknowingly offended? Or are you not big enough to do that?

I have not insulted any poster on this thread. I have called specific arguments foolish and explained why the were foolish, citing facts references and logic. That is a different thing.

You and Davis on have called me a hypocrite and accused me of dishonesty, without even replying to the points that I made.

I don't need an apology from anyone. I do not feel hurt or threatened by being called names. I ust want them to discuss the subject in a reasonable manner. The insults are more of a reflection on their ability to do this, and hurt the person who voices the insult.

I don't owe any apologies, because I criticize arguments and do not label people themselves as fools or hippocrites. I don't label arguments as dishonest or hypocritical either, implying that the person stating them is unethical.

[ceyda]

Not this thread , but other threads stop distorting.

If you cannot be bothered to admit you are less than perfect, that's your problem. I personally think your confused and ignorant to the facts about your behaviour. Please note the use of two of your favoured lower level insults.

[Mike Davis]

I personally would be happy to discuss the natural variations in climate with a reasonable person. I have no problem discussing this issue with all but Q. I believe that there is a consensus on this site that Q is being unreasonable. Of course this is based on real world experiences and not based on computer models so the possibility of an equipment error leading to corrupted results in the research is always possible.

[questioner]

I personally would be happy to discuss the natural variations in climate with a reasonable person. I have no problem discussing this issue with all but Q. I believe that there is a consensus on this site that Q is being unreasonable. Of course this is based on real world experiences and not based on computer models so the possibility of an equipment error leading to corrupted results in the research is always possible.

You are correct in your belief. The reason is simple. I disagree with almost everyone who post here including yourself. The fact that you and others consider me unreasonable should come as no surprise.
The feeling is mutual.

That is different from saying that I am probably a paid shill or that I am dishonest, or a hypocrite.

You are not likely to have a problem with people who agree with you, and nod at every word you say.

[Stephen Wilde]

Questioner,

How do you find the time and motivation to continue here ?

I cannot see any post from you where you show an open minded attitude to anything that questions the accuracy of the AGW diagnosis.

Some sceptic points might be inaccurate, false or misleading but there really are many doubts about AGW and many here have expressed those doubts in reasonable terms but instead of answering the scientific point in scientific terms you just defer to authority and/or abuse the poster.

As an example of an AGW believer you are a great advertisement for the sceptical cause.

Do carry on.

[questioner]

Questioner,

How do you find the time and motivation to continue here ?

I cannot see any post from you where you show an open minded attitude to anything that questions the accuracy of the AGW diagnosis.

Some sceptic points might be inaccurate, false or misleading but there really are many doubts about AGW and many here have expressed those doubts in reasonable terms but instead of answering the scientific point in scientific terms you just defer to authority and/or abuse the poster.

As an example of an AGW believer you are a great advertisement for the sceptical cause.

Do carry on.

You are mischaracterizing and disparaging my arguments. In fact, I present a lot of scientific arguments to refute arguments made by sceptics. This is always the first line of argument I present. What eventually happens is that the so called "sceptics" charge the scientists who performed the research with fraud and dishonesty. Mike Davis and Ceyda do this repeatedly.
It is then I point out the lack of qualifications of most of the people behind the arguments of the sceptics and the fact the 97% of active researchers in the field accept AGW as a valid theory.

[bertatlarge]

..... What eventually happens is that the so called "sceptics" charge the scientists who performed the research with fraud and dishonesty.

In the light of recent events those "so called sceptics" may feel they are somewhat vindicated.