CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:38 am
 


eureka eureka:
I would give you the same challenge. Make some argument and we can see who is close (sic) minded.


This sounds almost like something I'd hear on a playground.

$1:
Yeah? Sez who?


Cut your losses and stop this. You've managed to unify the key AGW proponents and sceptics on this site in the one conclusion that you're irrational. Keep this up and you'll attract the attention of the moderators, too. Charming as they all are, they have the combined patience of a thrown rock. And don't say no one told you so.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:50 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
I would give you the same challenge. Make some argument and we can see who is close (sic) minded.


This sounds almost like something I'd hear on a playground.

$1:
Yeah? Sez who?


Cut your losses and stop this. You've managed to unify the key AGW proponents and sceptics on this site in the one conclusion that you're irrational. Keep this up and you'll attract the attention of the moderators, too. Charming as they all are, they have the combined patience of a thrown rock. And don't say no one told you so.


If you think this irrational, then why do you not provide some evidence of the irrationality?

I doubt that your moderators will object to anything I am posting. I am giving you nothing but what the science says and what the scientists say. Or is there an aversion to truth?

The fact is, that there is no counter argument to what I have posted. Don't you think I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong? I am not happy to see this Planet heading for destruction while our political leaders fiddle and certain business interests increase their wealth with no concern for the devastation that will follow their behaviour.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21310
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:47 am
 


eureka eureka:
You might like to look at this for a thorough debunking of Lindzen's flawed analysis of climate sensitivity. You will also find reference to the consensus that it is 3 and a link to the papers that show that. There is uncertainty but it is far less than you seem to think and 3C is a pretty accurate figure since there is little disagreement and then only for small degrees.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm

You will see from this that I do take note of those who disagree. I also question why they disagree and what is their logic or support. I spend a great deal of time on reading the materials.


You have a bad habit of proving my point, eureka. :lol: Trenbeth's paper, the one that "debunks" Lindzen's, actually concludes that the level of uncertainty is much higher than Lindzen allows for. Or, as your blog puts it:

$1:
Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes.


Which sums up my difficulty with climate sensitivities estimates quite nicely! High uncertainty, and high sensitivity to small changes.



$1:
I take exception to your "horrible" statement. When all the science says that AGW within climate change is real and is happening and there is no contradictory evidence, what else is a scientist who claims that it is not happening? He is a denier. I could, btw, post some of the comments by actual scientists who are less forgiving of the frauds in their professions than I am
.

Questioning is the essence of science. I just don't know what else to say here. I really don't.

$1:
Members of the public who agree with the deniers are also deniers but there is some excise for them. It is a psychological problem. Lay people without the training or analytical skills have to overcome the beliefs of thousands of years and accept the latest science. It took time for the theory of evolution to gain acceptance and there are still those who deny that. Most of us would not hesitate to call then deniers.. It will take time for climate change, too. Most people don't want to believe.


People aren't stupid. They are perfectly capable of assembling data and assessing risks. And they've done so. They agree, overall, that AGW is a problem and have demanded their governments do something about it, but not too much. I'm not happy with it either. I would regulate more strongly and be putting a lot more effort ino a resilient energy policy to carry us through the next fifty years. But my take on it is that people don't really think in terms of fifty year windows. And politicians most certainyl don't!

$1:
I an surprised that you would recommend visiting Watt's Blog. A Weather presenter with no more credentials than the majority of the population. Not even a degree in meteorology to give some credence to his "charlatanism," Several years later we are still waiting for his promised paper proving that measuring stations in the US are distorting the record (It has been shown that they do, very slightly, but in the opposite direction to Watts claim).


I'm just saying you should try visiting blogs that don't just reinforce your own point of view. I'm an AGW proponent myself but I like to visit Watt's site, as well as Climate Audit to challenge my own views. They are both very technical sites (though like all blogs, the writers are subject to ocassional pissiness). Skeptcial science isn't bad either--thanks for that link.


$1:
I repeat that Mann has never been discredited, and neither has Hansen. All those hundreds of Blogs you say do so, are simply denial blogs with no scientific credibility. There is not one. Every paper of Mann - and his co-authors, who seem to escape some of the denial wrath - has been peer reviewed, accepted, and confirmed in other studies. As with Hansen.

There has never bee any debunking of either and disagreements are only in degree.


And again I go back to the same point: Your point of view--your stated point of view--is that anyone who questions the science is a denier, deniers have no credibility and therefore need not be recognized. You've created a perfect spherical, unassailable argument, I'll give you that. :lol:


Offline
Newbie
Newbie
Profile
Posts: 3
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:02 am
 


eureka eureka:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
I would give you the same challenge. Make some argument and we can see who is close (sic) minded.


This sounds almost like something I'd hear on a playground.

$1:
Yeah? Sez who?


Cut your losses and stop this. You've managed to unify the key AGW proponents and sceptics on this site in the one conclusion that you're irrational. Keep this up and you'll attract the attention of the moderators, too. Charming as they all are, they have the combined patience of a thrown rock. And don't say no one told you so.


If you think this irrational, then why do you not provide some evidence of the irrationality?

I doubt that your moderators will object to anything I am posting. I am giving you nothing but what the science says and what the scientists say. Or is there an aversion to truth?

The fact is, that there is no counter argument to what I have posted. Don't you think I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong? I am not happy to see this Planet heading for destruction while our political leaders fiddle and certain business interests increase their wealth with no concern for the devastation that will follow their behaviour.



Your mutations please us in the conspiracy....


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:37 am
 


The Force is strong in this one. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:41 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The Force Farce is strong in this one. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:58 am
 


eureka eureka:
If you think this irrational, then why do you not provide some evidence of the irrationality?


Zipperfish is already doing just fine in that regard without my help. He's also far more diplomatic than I am so I'll defer to him as a matter of decorum.

eureka eureka:
I doubt that your moderators will object to anything I am posting. I am giving you nothing but what the science says and what the scientists say. Or is there an aversion to truth?


The moderators tend to get tweaked when someone, like yourself, ignores arguments on the basis of an irrational belief system. Zipperfish (who is an avowed AGW proponent, btw) has amply underlined your similarites to a cult member and so far as that aversion to truth thing of yours goes...dude, have you looked in a mirror lately?

eureka eureka:
The fact is, that there is no counter argument to what I have posted.


In my opinion, there is. But where you're not even bothering to read things before you dismiss them there's not much point in engaging you with facts since you dismiss any facts that don't support your belief. Which makes you what I call an AGW cultist and not a follower of science.

eureka eureka:
Don't you think I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong?


No, I think you'd wet yourself and throw a tantrum like Al Gore does when confronted with an inconvenient fact.

eureka eureka:
I am not happy to see this Planet heading for destruction while our political leaders fiddle and certain business interests increase their wealth with no concern for the devastation that will follow their behaviour.


I would not be happy to see the world fritter away our wealth and prosperity in order to pursue a totalitarian collectivist agenda driven by the needless scare tactic of imagined climate doom.

The world is warming. I agree. It's been doing so for about 20,000 years and we're now at the end of an ice age.

Myself, I'm perfectly content to live in a warm period because it means that I can enjoy a lovely English claret now that grapes can once again be grown in abundance in the United Kingdom. I'm also fond of wines from the Okanagan region that just as recently as maybe 8,000 years ago was still glaciated. I'm also content to live in a time when world agriculture is prospering due to the blessings that a warming climate can bestow upon crops.

It certainly is far more advantageous to live in a period of increasing warmth as opposed to a period of increasing cold. Were the world cooling right now, as the doomsayers once predicted it would, we'd be faced with the challenges of trying to feed seven billion people with shorter and shorter growing seasons diminishing crop yields.

Finally, I see you and your fellow travelers for what you really are: a bunch of leftist charlatans who are hijacking climate science in order to pursue your real agenda which, as you reveal in your last sentence, is the end of economic freedom and, ergo, freedom itself.

Because people like you can't tolerate the idea of people like me being free to ignore people like you.

Your kind has come and gone a million times and the one thing that comforts me is that when your type does achieve the power they lust after they rarely die a natural death.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:00 pm
 


nah bart, the mods won't do anything administrative about him....they may however start ridiculing Cardinal Eureka for his ecumenical views.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:34 pm
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
eureka eureka:
You might like to look at this for a thorough debunking of Lindzen's flawed analysis of climate sensitivity. You will also find reference to the consensus that it is 3 and a link to the papers that show that. There is uncertainty but it is far less than you seem to think and 3C is a pretty accurate figure since there is little disagreement and then only for small degrees.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm

You will see from this that I do take note of those who disagree. I also question why they disagree and what is their logic or support. I spend a great deal of time on reading the materials.


You have a bad habit of proving my point, eureka. :lol: Trenbeth's paper, the one that "debunks" Lindzen's, actually concludes that the level of uncertainty is much higher than Lindzen allows for. Or, as your blog puts it:

$1:
Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes.


Which sums up my difficulty with climate sensitivities estimates quite nicely! High uncertainty, and high sensitivity to small changes.



$1:
I take exception to your "horrible" statement. When all the science says that AGW within climate change is real and is happening and there is no contradictory evidence, what else is a scientist who claims that it is not happening? He is a denier. I could, btw, post some of the comments by actual scientists who are less forgiving of the frauds in their professions than I am
.

Questioning is the essence of science. I just don't know what else to say here. I really don't.

$1:
Members of the public who agree with the deniers are also deniers but there is some excise for them. It is a psychological problem. Lay people without the training or analytical skills have to overcome the beliefs of thousands of years and accept the latest science. It took time for the theory of evolution to gain acceptance and there are still those who deny that. Most of us would not hesitate to call then deniers.. It will take time for climate change, too. Most people don't want to believe.


People aren't stupid. They are perfectly capable of assembling data and assessing risks. And they've done so. They agree, overall, that AGW is a problem and have demanded their governments do something about it, but not too much. I'm not happy with it either. I would regulate more strongly and be putting a lot more effort ino a resilient energy policy to carry us through the next fifty years. But my take on it is that people don't really think in terms of fifty year windows. And politicians most certainyl don't!

$1:
I an surprised that you would recommend visiting Watt's Blog. A Weather presenter with no more credentials than the majority of the population. Not even a degree in meteorology to give some credence to his "charlatanism," Several years later we are still waiting for his promised paper proving that measuring stations in the US are distorting the record (It has been shown that they do, very slightly, but in the opposite direction to Watts claim).


I'm just saying you should try visiting blogs that don't just reinforce your own point of view. I'm an AGW proponent myself but I like to visit Watt's site, as well as Climate Audit to challenge my own views. They are both very technical sites (though like all blogs, the writers are subject to ocassional pissiness). Skeptcial science isn't bad either--thanks for that link.


$1:
I repeat that Mann has never been discredited, and neither has Hansen. All those hundreds of Blogs you say do so, are simply denial blogs with no scientific credibility. There is not one. Every paper of Mann - and his co-authors, who seem to escape some of the denial wrath - has been peer reviewed, accepted, and confirmed in other studies. As with Hansen.

There has never bee any debunking of either and disagreements are only in degree.


And again I go back to the same point: Your point of view--your stated point of view--is that anyone who questions the science is a denier, deniers have no credibility and therefore need not be recognized. You've created a perfect spherical, unassailable argument, I'll give you that. :lol:


You seem to miss Trenberth's meaning. He says that it (climate sensitivity) can be tweaked if you cherrypick the start and end dates. That is what Lindzen has done. It is a criticism not an agreement.

Questioning is the essence of science. On that we agree. We simply disagree about who is qualified to do the questioning. You say Watts and McIntyre (at Climate Audit). I say that scientists are. None do other than those who are paid to question by interests who profit from denial and a few non researching scientists.

People may not be stupid but I disagree that they are capable of assembling data and assessing risks. That takes considerable knowledge of the question. People, though, except on this continent where political denial is the guide, do accept the scientific consensus. The latest survey shows that a great majority of Europeans accept the reality and that 68% favour Carbon Taxes as a replacement for other taxes.Why would I visit Watts and McIntyre. Both have been proved to be fraudulent anti-science. McIntyre was the chief instigator of the infamous Climategate where, incidentally it was shown that he could not understand the code.

Try Wotts up with that which specialises in debunking Watts who never has a valid contradictory contributor. I have visited them all for years> I no longer visit either Watts or McIntyre. They would not know science or truth.

where do I say that anyone who questions the science is a denier. I say that those who question the science with no supporting scientific research are deniers. What else could they be called? Who actually questions the science among current credible scientists who do research. Spencer, Christie. But all their questioning has been more than answered. Spencer got so desperate that he faked a graph, was caught out and publicly apologised for doing so.

And still there has been no criticism of Mann, Jones and Bradley that has stuck. It has all been blown away. McIntyre, particularly, has earned the contempt of the scientific world for his mischievous and malevolent attempts to persecute Mann.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:49 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
eureka eureka:
If you think this irrational, then why do you not provide some evidence of the irrationality?


Zipperfish is already doing just fine in that regard without my help. He's also far more diplomatic than I am so I'll defer to him as a matter of decorum.

eureka eureka:
I doubt that your moderators will object to anything I am posting. I am giving you nothing but what the science says and what the scientists say. Or is there an aversion to truth?


The moderators tend to get tweaked when someone, like yourself, ignores arguments on the basis of an irrational belief system. Zipperfish (who is an avowed AGW proponent, btw) has amply underlined your similarites to a cult member and so far as that aversion to truth thing of yours goes...dude, have you looked in a mirror lately?

eureka eureka:
The fact is, that there is no counter argument to what I have posted.


In my opinion, there is. But where you're not even bothering to read things before you dismiss them there's not much point in engaging you with facts since you dismiss any facts that don't support your belief. Which makes you what I call an AGW cultist and not a follower of science.

eureka eureka:
Don't you think I would be delighted to be shown to be wrong?


No, I think you'd wet yourself and throw a tantrum like Al Gore does when confronted with an inconvenient fact.

eureka eureka:
I am not happy to see this Planet heading for destruction while our political leaders fiddle and certain business interests increase their wealth with no concern for the devastation that will follow their behaviour.


I would not be happy to see the world fritter away our wealth and prosperity in order to pursue a totalitarian collectivist agenda driven by the needless scare tactic of imagined climate doom.

The world is warming. I agree. It's been doing so for about 20,000 years and we're now at the end of an ice age.

Myself, I'm perfectly content to live in a warm period because it means that I can enjoy a lovely English claret now that grapes can once again be grown in abundance in the United Kingdom. I'm also fond of wines from the Okanagan region that just as recently as maybe 8,000 years ago was still glaciated. I'm also content to live in a time when world agriculture is prospering due to the blessings that a warming climate can bestow upon crops.

It certainly is far more advantageous to live in a period of increasing warmth as opposed to a period of increasing cold. Were the world cooling right now, as the doomsayers once predicted it would, we'd be faced with the challenges of trying to feed seven billion people with shorter and shorter growing seasons diminishing crop yields.

Finally, I see you and your fellow travelers for what you really are: a bunch of leftist charlatans who are hijacking climate science in order to pursue your real agenda which, as you reveal in your last sentence, is the end of economic freedom and, ergo, freedom itself.

Because people like you can't tolerate the idea of people like me being free to ignore people like you.

Your kind has come and gone a million times and the one thing that comforts me is that when your type does achieve the power they lust after they rarely die a natural death.


Almost lyrical, Bart, until it descended into that irrationality you want to be familiar with.But a few points.

What is this irrational belief system that you see? Are the 15,000 scienttists worldwide who are behind the things that I post all members of some cult with an irrational belief system?

If you think that there is a counter argument then, by all means, show it. It would make this far more interesting.

The world has not been warming for twenty thousand years. It warmed for a couple of thousand years following the last Ice Age and has had a fairly stable temperature for the last eight thousand.

Until now when it has increased in a few decades to a temperature that has not been seen since the peak of the last Interglacial period. And, within a couple of decades it will be warmer than that. And, before the end of this century it will reach a temperature that has not been seen for more than three million years.
And, not too long after that it will be warmer than it has been in tens of millions of years.

That is certain unless there is action very soon.

By the way, that peak 3.3 million years ago produced sea levels 25 metres higher than they are today - just a couple of degrees hotter than it is now.

What makes you think that world agriculture is prospering? Have you looked at the price of food lately. Crop failures are becoming more and more frequent. They will become worse with increasing numbers and areas of drought and floods.

The rest of your screed is not worth response. I won't comment on it.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:01 pm
 


eureka eureka:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
eureka eureka:
You might like to look at this for a thorough debunking of Lindzen's flawed analysis of climate sensitivity. You will also find reference to the consensus that it is 3 and a link to the papers that show that. There is uncertainty but it is far less than you seem to think and 3C is a pretty accurate figure since there is little disagreement and then only for small degrees.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen ... tivity.htm

You will see from this that I do take note of those who disagree. I also question why they disagree and what is their logic or support. I spend a great deal of time on reading the materials.


You have a bad habit of proving my point, eureka. :lol: Trenbeth's paper, the one that "debunks" Lindzen's, actually concludes that the level of uncertainty is much higher than Lindzen allows for. Or, as your blog puts it:

$1:
Essentially, one could tweak the start and end points to obtain any feedback one wishes.


Which sums up my difficulty with climate sensitivities estimates quite nicely! High uncertainty, and high sensitivity to small changes.



$1:
I take exception to your "horrible" statement. When all the science says that AGW within climate change is real and is happening and there is no contradictory evidence, what else is a scientist who claims that it is not happening? He is a denier. I could, btw, post some of the comments by actual scientists who are less forgiving of the frauds in their professions than I am
.

Questioning is the essence of science. I just don't know what else to say here. I really don't.

$1:
Members of the public who agree with the deniers are also deniers but there is some excise for them. It is a psychological problem. Lay people without the training or analytical skills have to overcome the beliefs of thousands of years and accept the latest science. It took time for the theory of evolution to gain acceptance and there are still those who deny that. Most of us would not hesitate to call then deniers.. It will take time for climate change, too. Most people don't want to believe.


People aren't stupid. They are perfectly capable of assembling data and assessing risks. And they've done so. They agree, overall, that AGW is a problem and have demanded their governments do something about it, but not too much. I'm not happy with it either. I would regulate more strongly and be putting a lot more effort ino a resilient energy policy to carry us through the next fifty years. But my take on it is that people don't really think in terms of fifty year windows. And politicians most certainyl don't!

$1:
I an surprised that you would recommend visiting Watt's Blog. A Weather presenter with no more credentials than the majority of the population. Not even a degree in meteorology to give some credence to his "charlatanism," Several years later we are still waiting for his promised paper proving that measuring stations in the US are distorting the record (It has been shown that they do, very slightly, but in the opposite direction to Watts claim).


I'm just saying you should try visiting blogs that don't just reinforce your own point of view. I'm an AGW proponent myself but I like to visit Watt's site, as well as Climate Audit to challenge my own views. They are both very technical sites (though like all blogs, the writers are subject to ocassional pissiness). Skeptcial science isn't bad either--thanks for that link.


$1:
I repeat that Mann has never been discredited, and neither has Hansen. All those hundreds of Blogs you say do so, are simply denial blogs with no scientific credibility. There is not one. Every paper of Mann - and his co-authors, who seem to escape some of the denial wrath - has been peer reviewed, accepted, and confirmed in other studies. As with Hansen.

There has never bee any debunking of either and disagreements are only in degree.


And again I go back to the same point: Your point of view--your stated point of view--is that anyone who questions the science is a denier, deniers have no credibility and therefore need not be recognized. You've created a perfect spherical, unassailable argument, I'll give you that. :lol:


You seem to miss Trenberth's meaning. He says that it (climate sensitivity) can be tweaked if you cherrypick the start and end dates. That is what Lindzen has done. It is a criticism not an agreement.

Questioning is the essence of science. On that we agree. We simply disagree about who is qualified to do the questioning. You say Watts and McIntyre (at Climate Audit). I say that scientists are. None do other than those who are paid to question by interests who profit from denial and a few non researching scientists.

People may not be stupid but I disagree that they are capable of assembling data and assessing risks. That takes considerable knowledge of the question. People, though, except on this continent where political denial is the guide, do accept the scientific consensus. The latest survey shows that a great majority of Europeans accept the reality and that 68% favour Carbon Taxes as a replacement for other taxes.Why would I visit Watts and McIntyre. Both have been proved to be fraudulent anti-science. McIntyre was the chief instigator of the infamous Climategate where, incidentally it was shown that he could not understand the code.

Try Wotts up with that which specialises in debunking Watts who never has a valid contradictory contributor. I have visited them all for years> I no longer visit either Watts or McIntyre. They would not know science or truth.

where do I say that anyone who questions the science is a denier. I say that those who question the science with no supporting scientific research are deniers. What else could they be called? Who actually questions the science among current credible scientists who do research. Spencer, Christie. But all their questioning has been more than answered. Spencer got so desperate that he faked a graph, was caught out and publicly apologised for doing so.

And still there has been no criticism of Mann, Jones and Bradley that has stuck. It has all been blown away. McIntyre, particularly, has earned the contempt of the scientific world for his mischievous and malevolent attempts to persecute Mann.



I have hundreds of bookmarked links to every facet of this issue. Indeed, once when I got bored with the feeble efforts at contradiction on an American site, I gave the "opposition" references to some of the slightly credible contrarian sources.

As I said somewhere. I have been researching this and been actively engaged in educating some in several countries.

Because, it is now getting desperate. There is a fairly broad scientific consensus is that we must eventually get back to no more than 350 ppm cO2 for a sustainable climate that is conducive to human habitation.

At 450 ppm, then we will unavoidably reach that 2C warmer that will start runaway warming.

We are now at 393 and growing by 2 to 3 ppm annually. The calculation is quite simple to see where catastrophe kicks in.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:07 pm
 


Image


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14139
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:53 pm
 


LOL Shep. Yeah, the whole carbon credit thing never made sense. So if I pay to emit CO2, that means my CO2 is atmospherically friendlier than the guy who doesn't pay? [huh]


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1244
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:07 am
 


No, P.A. It means that you will find ways to emit less. To, on the broad scale, stop using fossil fuels altogether and find substitutes. There are ways but they are not those of the political paymasters.

Isn't it funny how the deniers try to make the foolish "religious" belief slur against acceptance of science. It is mainly the religious Right that denies AGW. The scientists are, in the great majority, not religious.

Tactics that came from where?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42160
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:17 am
 


Seeing as you are the one dictating who is or is not a scientist based on your warped interpretation of scientific research, that's like having a scientologist commenting on psychiatry and pharmacology. But again, there are a lot of similarities between your views and scientology.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.