[Dr Caleb]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

What really surprises me is how being firm with certain posters is flaming and yet they have such licence(flaming)---but no card.

Just curious....

Sorry Sasquatch, there is a big difference between calling someone a nazi, retard etc. and calling someone's posts a lie.

The only thing we frown on here is personal attacks. Monty believes you are misrepresenting the facts intentionally. He's not attacking you, but your interpretation of those facts. "this is a lie" is not the same as "you are a liar".

It's a very fine line, and if he crosses it, he'll get a finger wagging too. (being not smart enough to lie convincingly comes close <raises eyebrow>) But, IMO, it's not lying if you actually believe what you've written. That's where it crosses from debate to 'trolling' (not just for you, but for everyone).

You have been quite consistent in your position, and I don't see anything from anyone here that requires me to step in. But I am watching, as I always do.

[Diogenes]

Fishing, trolling, or bottom dragging (no not yours) the bottom, as in depth,
have all been done here some is only a way of blowing off steam some is silly and all evokes emotion. Now, how’s that for tautology?

Of all the "offences" committed here are the *inflexibilities* we stiff-assed hold

[sasquatch2]

$1:

"Science ... warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations."

--Thomas Huxley, 1860

[Dr Caleb]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Thomas Huxley Thomas Huxley:

"Science ... warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations."

--Thomas Huxley, 1860

N.N. Taleb N.N. Taleb:

In Nassim Nicholas Taleb's definition, a black swan is a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations. Taleb regards many scientific discoveries as black swans—"undirected" and unpredicted. He gives the September 11, 2001 attacks as an example of a Black Swan event. [1]

The term black swan comes from the ancient Western conception that 'All swans are white'. In that context, a black swan was a metaphor for something that could not exist. The 17th Century discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that the perceived impossibility actually came to pass.

Taleb notes that John Stuart Mill first used the black swan narrative to discuss falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

Don't limit your preconceptions believing it can't happen, just because it never has before.

[C.M. Burns]

Diogenes Diogenes:

I should be very care if I were you as to which yardstick you use for measurement lest it be used against you.

Accusations of lying are much like the lawyer trick questions that plant seeds of suspicion. Planting those seeds is every bit as much, if not more, abhorrent as accusations of lying.

Dio,

I am a big boy and don't need any lectures about how the world works, thanks.

Read the article in question and then measure my post by the same yardstick.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pageto ... 327393.stm

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

They did declare they didn't understand Svensmark's work!

That's a lie. Svensmark made the declaration.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

No need for a doctorate to dismiss that "prestigious" study by a bunch of students.

That's a lie. The paper is by Prof Sir AW Wolfendale, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Physics and Prof. T Sloan, Emeritus Professor, Physics Department, University of Lancaster. The article refers to the authors as Professor or team.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

This is just another declaration of faith.

That's a lie. It is an article about a scientific paper published in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters on 3 April 2008.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=5 ... 24001.html

You're not even clever enough to come up with good lies.

[C.M. Burns]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

In terms of dishonesty, there is little difference to misrepresentation and lying.
Dr Caleb in no way linked me to NAU. To so state is deceit.

But then deceit is a trait common to the GW alarmist crowd........

What really surprises me is how being firm with certain posters is flaming and yet they have such licence(flaming)---but no card.

Just curious....

Sasquatch,

You've done a fair bit of whining about my post but nothing to refute it.

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

They did declare they didn't understand Svensmark's work!

That's a lie. Svensmark made the declaration.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

No need for a doctorate to dismiss that "prestigious" study by a bunch of students.

That's a lie. The paper is by Prof Sir AW Wolfendale, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Physics and Prof. T Sloan, Emeritus Professor, Physics Department, University of Lancaster. The article refers to the authors as Professor or team.

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

This is just another declaration of faith.

That's a lie. It is an article about a scientific paper published in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters on 3 April 2008.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=5 ... 24001.html

You're not even clever enough to come up with good lies.

[sasquatch2]

Dr Caleb

$1:

Don't limit your preconceptions believing it can't happen, just because it never has before.

That is just another production of the argument---just because we can't prove it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it just in case.
This is really the lastest last refuge of CO2 AGW. Lame!
The EL NINO warming ended a decade back......

[C.M. Burns]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Dr Caleb

$1:

Don't limit your preconceptions believing it can't happen, just because it never has before.

That is just another production of the argument---just because we can't prove it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it just in case.

HI-larious! That's not at all what it means!

Somebody point me to the code for ROFL!!!

[Dr Caleb]

What Monty said. ^^

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Dr Caleb

$1:

Don't limit your preconceptions believing it can't happen, just because it never has before.

That is just another production of the argument---just because we can't prove it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it just in case.
This is really the lastest last refuge of CO2 AGW. Lame!
The EL NINO warming ended a decade back......

With Respect To your Huxley quote - Don't assume that Global Warming can't be caused by man just because it hasn't happened before. The same goes with global cooling. Or alien invasion.

There is evidence that our theory that it takes a system of planets millions of years to form may be incorrect after finding a planetary disk that is only a few hundred thousand years old - not millions of years old as we had theorized. We don't ignore the evidence that is staring us in the face just because it conflicts with our preconceptions of our own infallibility.

Keep your options open; Huxley demanded stronger evidence for those things that challenged the form of the world as he knew it - but he was still open to the possibility that they existed. That is the lesson of the Black Swan. Don't be the hillbilly who, looking at a giraffe in a zoo, says 'there ain't no such animal'.

The data says something. It may not say what we think it does and the cause may not be what we think it is, but the data is there for all to see.

[sasquatch2]

The problem begins with a unproven theory, which morphs into a political agenda.
When the theory remains without any substantiation and the alleged observations of it's veracity are ALL debunked, as well as a non-existant consensus, despite bitter personal attacks on the debunkers. The desperate last resort is the Black Swan.

[Diogenes]

"Dio,

I am a big boy and don't need any lectures about how the world works, thanks."

Well there's a warning sign for yourself to heed
I don't *"NEED"* no seenkin lectures either, But I'll tell ya this,
Over the years i've come to find out that what *I" think I need and what I've need vastly differ.

The very fact you saw a lecture is in its self telling, is it not?

[C.M. Burns]

Diogenes Diogenes:

The very fact you saw a lecture is in its self telling, is it not?

Yes, it is. I think it tells that I know what the word means.

Diogenes Diogenes:

I should be very care if I were you as to which yardstick you use for measurement lest it be used against you.

Accusations of lying are much like the lawyer trick questions that plant seeds of suspicion. Planting those seeds is every bit as much, if not more, abhorrent as accusations of lying.

<b>lecture</b> - noun
1 : a discourse given before an audience or class especially for instruction
2 : a formal reproof

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

Read the article in question and then measure my post by the same yardstick.

I notice you only did the part that requires spouting your opinion and avoids doing an actual analysis of the facts. Telling, indeed!

[sasquatch2]

Really your idiology is now reduced to declarations of faith and the "black Swan" gambit.....

No science....
No evidence.....
Lot's of proven fraud.....

That equals a HOAX!