Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,14:53) | quote "and for some people and places that will be too late"
nuf said.
I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them. They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel. But you right about that point. I would suggest that you start adding some substance.
Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein. Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy. Go ahead, convince me. I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me). So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears. Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science.
There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment. |
Obliviot,
So my comment (which you have dishonestly snipped from context btw) that the results of technological research that will mitigate the "negative" effects of climate change will arrive too late for some people and places equates to "climate change will kill all life on earth". Wow! Way to struggle to fit the data to your prejudices!
Interesting. Try reading it in context next time, with basic reading for comprehension also. So no Obliviot, not 'nuff said.
I see you think it's MY fault that YOU are a subintellectual moron. Excellent. Bar lowered by you again Obliviot. Well done, you never fail to conform to type. Here we go, I'll answer this once and for all (again):
1) Too long? Frequently guilty as charged (a fact I have admitted many times). Guess what? I couldn't give a shit. I find umpteen poster's posting styles here annoying, jejune, pointless or a combination of all three and vastly more. Guess what again? I don't really care too much. Why? Because I care more about what they are saying than how they are saying it. Felicity of style is something we all need to improve. Some are better at it than others. Frankly, if dishonest, tiresome shitbags like you didn't make the process of communcating an idea nigh on impossible with your demonstrable ignorance and dishonesty, posts in general (mine included) would be a lot shorter.
Take the thread where you were asked to defend your claims (again you failed to even attempt this) as an example: if you'd bothered to read what people (not just me) wrote, the thread could have been a whole lot shorter. We didn't pass beyond the "Intro to Philosophy" A-level stage (that's high school Junior level to you Yanks). You couldn't even grasp the basic elements of context, let alone any subtle epistemological distinctions. Sorry the universe is slightly more complex than can be described in a soundbite for your miniscule attention span.
2) Redundant? How would you know? You never read them (I'd also dispute this utterly btw, I try not to repeat myself. I also try not to repeat myself). Repetition only occurs when some idiot fails to grasp some simple point and creates some prejudice derived strawman out of it. Hmm sounds familiar.
3) Full of drivel? Easy to say, yet hard to prove. Point me to one concrete refutation of my "drivel", Obliviot. Just one. You've certainly never actually done it. Even with that in hand, yet again I've conclusively demonstrated the drivel comes only from YOUR mind Obliviot. How? You don't know what I think (drivel or otherwise) because you don't read what I write (or anyone else writes for that matter). A fatc you yourself admit! You seem to know what someone has written without reading it! Well done, please apply for the $1million JREF prize! You are the epitome of clueless ignorance and severely sub-par intellectual competance.
As I've said before, you only argue with the voices in your head. You create a strawman to beat up (even that is done ineffectually) and then insist that your strawman is what someone is saying, even when they go to great pains to point out that it isn't.
Onto part 2:
Climate change tipping points: as usual you don't even know what my views on the subject are (and I've yet to state them) yet you attack what you THINK are my views without any basis for thinking this to be the case. I'm trying (and have been for a while) to get you to defend your own claims rather than pick spurious holes (usually very erroneously) in what you think are other people's claims. See the difference?
So why don't you think there are tipping points in the various systems under examination in climate science?
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
