Re: GW loses more credibility (again)


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3b32m4p6o3d0h9r04a5gjacv7pc0cuo6pe@xxxxxxxxxx
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9ig1m41qlehvhc0gi17748dfv8gkdt62hp@xxxxxxxxxx
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uaa0m4pr2ibffp9vlureo85jqtcg7rsgfp@xxxxxxxxxx
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <ptkvl4dqel74hr9459gdrpp75i1pbatbhv@xxxxxxx>,
Mickey <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:77uul41je14fr7ne0s5hc6ds5cs06b8qtm@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Ends+Year+at+Same+Level+as+1979/article138
34.htm

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

One year changes nothing.

On a global time scale, neither does 30 years, really.

Fluctuations are expected and predicted. The
fact that the fluctuations are so much more severe is proof alone
of
the
global climate instability we are facing and which gets worse every
year.
FWIW we are having yet another incredibly warm winter here in
SoCal.

"One year changes nothing. "

On a global time scale, neither does 30 years, really...

Be careful, Misc, or you'll get a hands-on-the-knees talking to by
Professor Paul who will dismiss everything you say out of hand because
you used the word "global" instead of "geological".

Well it does sort oif underscore my argument about your rather limted
credentials. And you did start this thread so tough beans, fella.

Paul


Paul, I never claimed any credentials other than I can read, and I
understand basic science.

I very much dispute that. What do you define as "basic" science? Yes you
can read. The trouble is you don;t seem to read much of anything that you
know challenges your preconceived notions.

Incorrect. "Know thy enemy". ;-)

So your enemy is people who know more than you do? Bit paranoid if you ask
me.


For example your continued
references to volcanism as being a greater contributor to GW than uis itsy
bitsy humans. And any scientist who says anything that disputes your
opinion is shot down as a greedy money grubber.

You really must stop making these global statements. They're not true.
Besides that, you're projecting. Anyone who says anything that
disagrees with your preconceived opinions is automatically in the pay
of ExxonMobil.

And when you do a Google search on them you find that is exactly the case.
Perfectly verifiable. And it is not just Exxon, they all fund the naysayers
to the tune of a couple hundred million a year. There is big money to be
made being a naysayer. Yet curiously there is hardly a dime to be made
being an advocate. And that would be being an advocate in a profession that
is probably the most intensely competitive and cut throat I can imagine.
You are quickly shot down in flames in the science field if anybody can
successfully challenge your work. Yet all we see every year are more and
more scientists coming into the fray and not leaving it.

I'm *still* waiting for my check.

Don't spend it till you get it.

Not exactly the most open
of minds, dude.


Because of my experiences and personal
interests, I probably know more about physics and chaotic systems than
your average man on the street.

Not much of a credential by US standards.

See my earlier statement about "credentials".

To dispute the work of those more learned is to say you are more learned
than they are. So why should I listen to you? Heck, take some self study
courses. Anything. Until then don't expect anything more than to be
dismissed any less quickly than say a person who says they can cure your
cancer because they know more about medicine than your average chucklehead
on the street.

Paul


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GW loses more credibility (again)
    ... Paul, I never claimed any credentials other than I can read, and I ... understand basic science. ... I very much dispute that. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Sure indication of a scientific imposter
    ... explanatory of *all* of the evidence. ... Hmm, no. Science fiction is not testable, nor is it falsifiable. ... Nobody has been able to dispute it *scientifically*. ... That's because you have left out all the science in your manifesto, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: A More Reasonable Interpretation of the Evidence
    ... reasoning would not work in a court of law or in science. ... What literature did I, supposedly, not read. ... is beyond dispute. ... My thinking is consistent with all the evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Evolution of man
    ... Not a follower of Paul or of Peter or of John or of James. ... Again, no one can ascertain if that was what Jesus actually believed, or what the author of that verse thought. ... There's nothing that demands that you acknowledge the existence of science, ... please note that I'm not the one causing divisions between Christians. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Appology to Chris Thompson over the facts surrounding his
    ... educational credentials in post signature then we would not ... ignorance and you have a great grasp on the history of science. ... presented here at Talk.Origins is not the one Darwin presented. ...
    (talk.origins)