Re: OT: betting against global warning

"Bob T."

What makes you think that YOUR actual post wasn't rude?

Because it obviously wasn't. Here is the entire thing:

Wrong post ... but it does not really matter.

It's the right post - that is the exact post to which you responded
with derisive laughter.

That was the "funny" one, not the rude one. I just thought it was funny.
Maybe you are right, it wasn't funny at all.

Your thesis is that the
"global warming stuff" is a crisis that needs immediate and significant
attention and anyone that thinks otherwise is not serious about science
and
there is no need to talk about it any more. That is rude.

Now you're being silly. I do think that GW is a crisis that needs
immediate and significant attention, but I have never said that you
were not serious about science, nor that there is no need to talk
about it any more. You are accusing me of being "rude" for something
that I never said! Not only that, but the post you were actually
responding to was really quite polite and non-confrontational. I was
merely pointing out the difference between Nuclear Winter models and
Global Warming models.

But you do seem to align yourself with those people do you not? Maybe I am
thinking about someone else that thinks there is no need to discuss the
model and how unpredictable what it is trying to predict might be. No, I
think I have that correct ... for you say that it is a crisis that needs
immediate and significant attention. I suppose that you will redefine
"crisis" in some way that does not provoke a hysterical reaction in those
that believe that we need to save the world and anyone who disagrees is a
moron (defined as someone who just does not "get it").

Yes and no. We don't really know what will happen to the atmosphere
in a nuclear war, so we can't confidently predict the long-term
climate effects. Global warming is more complex, as you say, but we
have a lot more relevant data to inform our predictions."

Please, oh dear Pickle, point out which part of that is "rude".

That part is not rude, it is just a poor comparison. That was the funny
part. It is the assumption that you are "right" and everyone who
disagrees
is wrong that is presented in a rude fashion.

Ah, so if you think I made a "poor comparison" (I disagree), then you
are justified in laughing at me. Tell me, does that behavior go over
well with your friends and family?


I said I now agree that it was not funny at all. Please accept my apology.


One liners are often rude. They directed to the rude.

Your one liner was rude and obnoxious, my own post was straightforward
and factual.

Rude is as rude is perceived.

Pickle, if you seriously believe that my post was as rude as your
derisive laughter, then you are deceived by your own defensiveness.
There is an objective standard for rudeness.

I did not think there was anything derisive about my comment that I thought
your comparison was funny. And I might have meant "funny" in the "unusual"
sense rather than the "ha ha" sense. I really did not know there was an
objective standard for rudeness ... ... oh, wait a minute ... that's funny,
right?

You obviously do not know my views on Global Warming (whatever you
actually
mean by the term) as you continue to misrepresent them. When someone
questions your snarky comments about someone else's comments, you get
"insulted." If you cannot take it, don't dish it out.

My coment was not snarky, yours was. If _you_ cannot take it, don't
dish it out. If you have nothing to say but a condescending one-
liner, perhaps you should consider keeping your stupid mouth shut.

Ah, we digress to schoolyard taunts. Nothing rude there.

Of course telling you to keep your stupid mouth shut is rude - I am
responding to your rudeness and trying to draw attention to my
offense.

Ah, that's it. I get it now. Sorry again.

I continue to
find those (not just you) that present the "global warming stuff" as
already
figured out so "there is nothing left to discuss" very rude. When it is
pointed out to them that their conclusions have escaped the data ... they
get rude.

Pickle, if you had chosen to point out, in a non-rude way, that you
disagreed with my point, I would not have gotten offended. Instead,
you chose the snide laughter of the bully.

Me, a bully! Now you really mean that to be funny ... right?

Additionally, it seems like you have become hyper-sensitive about this
global warming issue. You jump into every thread on the topic, and
you make snide comments and rude jokes in reponse to sober and
thoughtful posts. You are personally responsible for degrading this
thread away from reasoned discussion and towards name-calling.

This is funny too ... right? I never respond to "sober and thoughtful
posts" with anything but careful consideration. I cannot accept the
responsibility that you want to put off on me. I just try and point out the
flaws. There are many in the "global warming as crisis debate."

And BTW, do you know who started this subthread ... the one that you find
degrading ... you.

...............................................................................
Yeah, whatever happened to that Acid Rain bull***? I never hear about it
anymore. Did they finally sit the *** down and shut the *** up about
it?
Wonder what it will be when they finally get sick of this Global Warming
nonsense. What will they yap about next? I never notice them voicing any
alarm about the ever-growing size of government, which is REALLY the chief
threat to our well-being.

Hey, whatever happened to that Nuclear Winter bull***? Boy, those
left wing scientists sure were proven wrong about _that_, weren't
they! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
.....................................................................................

Whodathunkit. There is nothing wrong with starting a whole subthread about
something as silly as the original comparison of nuclear winter with global
warming to get a thread back on course.


I have my opinions and you have yours, Bob. Sometimes, you profess
your
opinion as fact. This
often brings out a response from me that you do not like. You do not
like
anyone pointing out your own insulting posts.

I do not like it when people I am friendly with make snide,
condescending one-liner responses to my serious posts. I have had it
with you, Pickle. You are needlessly obnoxious.

Sorry that you feel that way, Bob. I will continue to be as polite as I
can
when faced with what seems to me to be overreaching. I apologize if my
mild
admonition of your simplification of what I think is a overwhelmingly
complex problem was "funny." I continue to believe that you are sincere
in
your beliefs. I think that you are just incorrect. I also will continue
to
believe that your position would be better maintained without the resort
to
calling names ... even when chided a little.

I think you should understand that superior condescending laughter is
at least as offensive as name calling. If you have something of
substance to say, by all means say it. But if all you want to do is
snicker, why don't you take it somewhere else.

Yeah, I guess I should apologize again for bringing up all this nuclear
winter as compared to global warming bull*** in the first place.
(snicker)

<snip>

I think that the position that there is something to be gained by saying
that nuclear winter will solve the global warming problem is as silly as
saying that they are both complex but we have more data on the latter.

They are both complex, and we do have more data on the latter. It's
not silly, it's true.


I think that both models are too complex to be believed at the present time,
Bob.

<snip>

It is my belief that people who believe the data we have suggests that we
are in a average global warming trend are correct. I believe that people
who believe that we are facing a crisis and must "do something" now to
save
the world are engaging in political hype to promote an agenda that has
nothing to do with science. It is always better to go back to the
beginning
every now and then.

I know you believe that, Pickle. As you know, I disagree. There is
nothing to be gained by reiterating your point every single time the
subject comes up, and there is certainly nothing to be gained by
snickering condescendingly at the people who disagree with you.


Again, that is not what was funny (or not funny depending on where we are
right now). And again, it was you that started this subthread, not me.


People who say everything written about global warming has nothing to
support it are just wrong. They can get very rude.

So now you're justifying your rudeness to me by pointing out that some
people who agree with me on GW can get very rude.

Not trying to justify anything, Bob ... can you get off this train?

People who say we know
that man made global warming is a crisis and we must do everything we can
tomorrow morning or the world is in "danger" of dire consequences are not
making legitimate conclusions from the scientific data available.

And here you make the same mistake you have made over and over: you
conflate those of us who believe that GW is serious with those who
have specific and drastic plans for changes that must be made right
away. I am not Al Gore (less money, less fat) - why do you pretend
that I am responsible for everything he has claimed?


If you mean that you think Al Gore is a fat rich guy that is trying to hype
something with pseudo science and flat out lies and has nothing useful to
say on the subject of global warming, then we are in perfect agreement and
can stop right now.


But that is just my opinion, Bob. You have yours and I have mine. No
need to become
more than just agreeing to disagree. I have friends that would justify
killing an abortion doctor to save a fetus (unborn child) from being
murdered. If I can talk to them, I should be able to talk to you.

Do you snicker at these friends whenever the topic of "babies" comes
up?


No, do you?


We'll be laughing at this global warming hysteria as the next ice
age
approaches ... and I mean the "we" in the most general and
inclusive
way.

Now you have shed your "I am skeptical of the global warming
hysteria"
pretense and come right out that you stand four-square with the
renouned scientist Sean Hannity, and declare your certainty that
global warming concerns are laughable. Frankly, Pickle, we're
laughing at you, and I mean "we" in the most general and inclusive
way.

I did not know that you would move to this, Bob, but it is not at all
snarky
to point it out. It is the "hysteria" that is laughable. It has
nothing
to
do with global warming measurements. And when you move on to the
"renouned"
Sean Hannity ... well that is funny. Sometimes you really are funny,
Bob.

Well, you see that was _meant_ to be funny. I was making fun of you,
Pickle, because you pissed me off. I hope I got your goat.

The funny part was the misspelling of "renowned" ... and that was just
childish humor, I will admit. My desire is not to piss you off, Bob, but
to
ask that you question "the science" just a little bit. Just a little.

I was in Baton Rouge last week and they had a record cold snap. It was
not
being predicted even hours before it happened. I am pretty sure "global
warming" had something to do with it in some people's minds (not yours)
and
that is the sort of thing that happens when people are so sure of an
impending crisis. They lose their common sense sometimes. But our
inability to model even "today's weather" ought to at least raise the
slightest flag that our ability to model the climate in a hundred years
just
a little suspect.

Should the model be predicting things that are measurable? It does not
seem
to be doing that very well. Each year there is new data and the model
changes. Changing a model to fit the observed data does not prove that
the
model was correct when it predicted something that did not occur.

I have found that people with poorly grounded quasi-religious beliefs
are
often insulted when one questions even one card of their house of
cards.
Sometimes they are also funny.

Sometimes, Pickle, you're kind of a prick. But I like you anyway,
though less than I used to.

I hope to regain some of your affection, Bob. I don't try to be a prick.
It is not a behavior, it is genetic. We must accept each other for who
we
are. I like you too, Bob. I tend not to view liking as a zero sum game,
however. I think we can like someone as much as we can like them ...
based
on the balance of the mutual and repulsive parts.

Because we have a personal acquaintance, Pickle, I treat you with a
certain respect that I do not grant to Vegas Vic, Travel, and others.


It always helps to know that those with whom you disagree on the internet
are not the monsters that you might otherwise think ... as a matter of fact,
I bet VV and Travel and others, Orange or OPG or Irish Mike or BillB ... the
list goes on and on ... might have a lot going for them that we never really
see on the internet.

I try and grant everyone at least some respect. I think I grant you a lot
because I believe you are very sincere in your beliefs. I am sorry that
when I joke a little on you, you seem to take it so hard. I really believe
that you do not think you present your side of this discussion in as
"seriously condescending" a manner as you think that I do.

This means that, no matter how stupid the things you say are, I try to
refrain from laughing and pointing.


This is good to know. Don't try so hard, it is good to laugh. (You might
review the above statement for the characteristics of which you accuse me.)


While I feel free to disagree
with you on any topic, I restrain myself in the tone of my posts when
I am replying to you.


I have not noticed any such restraint. You must be a tiger when you let
loose.


It does not seem that you afford me the same respect.

Au contraire, my friend, I go out of my way to support all the reasonable
and rational things that you post and I defend you from others who would
wish you harm.

It is particularly aggravating to be debunking a ridiculous
claim by some right-winger (e.g., Travel and his "global warming is a
myth" nonsense) and have you jump in and pretend that when I claim
that global warming is not a myth, I am actually saying that we should
all give up the internal combustion engine immediately.


There again, I would let Travel defend his own version of what he means and
how he expresses himself. Often, I think that what he posts veritibly drips
with sarcasm. As such, perhaps he does not wish to be treated with respect
or to have a reasonable discussion. That is for him to decide.

And I think he was talking about Beldin when he went all snarky ... not you.


If you want to regain some of my affection, Pickle, don't make snide
and condescending replies to my posts.


I cannot promise that I will not slip into snark from time to time, Bob.
(BTW, I really like what you do to your hair! My wife is envious.) [Was
that too much?]


.

Loading