Darc Knight
Investor not Trader
- Joined
- 28 February 2015
- Posts
- 1,211
- Reactions
- 607
Perhaps provide some substance.
You do not show others courtesy by your continued trolling. You will be shown the same respect you afford others.
To quote post 393,"Do you actually know what science is?"
That was clearly a question to which either a yes, or a no, response could amply suffice, and as such did not appear to be seeking my definition of the word science.
In pointing this out, I wish to emphasize that I am not seeking to insult you, and I respectfully ask that you accord me the same courtesy.
Rather than continuing with the gratuitous insults, wouldn't it be preferable that you take the time to explain what you actually mean when you use the word "science"?Your posts in this thread show a gross ignorance of science.
I believe we are in agreement on this.Irrespective of the thread title, nothing prevents anyone from presenting a position which is actually based on science.
Excuse me? What exactly are you saying here? To which concept do you refer and what is your basis for holding such an opinion?However, that concept eludes you.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you here, but,in an earlier post, did you not claim to have read this thread in its entirety (or words to that effect)?However, while consensus is not science per se, to propose the consensus is fictitious ("fake") would require evidence showing that the scientific claims made by the multitude of climate scientists who publish on climate matters, are deficient. Exactly where is that evidence?
It just so happens that there are already several climate threads. Experience has shown that issues pertaining to one can often have relevance to many (sometimes all) others, precipitating the repetition of content across multiple threads.I realise some here suggest just one thread for "climate change". But the specific focus of this one requires that those who support the title can show that the scientists have simply gotten it wrong.
Aha!So here we are at page 20 and there is nothing of merit from the deniers of climate science.
So from your stated sentiments, I presume, you will have no cause for complaint when someone responds to yourself with a level of comtempt commensurate with that which you have so amply demonstrated....
You will be shown the same respect you afford others.
So from your stated sentiments, I presume, you will have no cause for complaint when someone responds to yourself with a level of comtempt commensurate with that which you have so amply demonstrated.
Since you hold such a low opinion of myself, my demeanour, and my contributions, I strongly recommend that you avail yourself of this forum's "ignore" facility.
Rather than continuing with the gratuitous insults, I think you are conflating how I have explained that you present nothing of merit here and appear to be scientifically inept. wouldn't it be preferable that you take the time to explain what you actually mean when you use the word "science"?<your comments are below, with my responses in red>
I presume you are referring to the following (and/or other posts of that ilk):You started trolling me way back when you started the continued "Lucifer" and "repent" comments. Geez, I've provided more Science than you, the self appointed expert, trolling others.
Why aren't you prepared to spend a bit more just incase human induced global warming is real?
Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?
I presume you are referring to the following (and/or other posts of that ilk):
If that's how you define trolling, then I no longer consider your accusations offensive, but I would like to reiterate my previous suggestion, namely that you avail yourself of this forum's ignore feature.
Careful @rederob , debating Cynic in this thread is more akin to debating a Scientologist.
Hope it's better than your previous arguments. I am always prepared to listen to reasonable arguments. Problem is "the deniers" don't seem to be able to mount a reasonable one - probably why countless Governments are onboard as believers too.
I was privately warned you like to troll. You don't disappoint
Cynic's trolling is generally viewed as an annoyance. A coward getting his jollies from behind a keyboard. The emotion this time around is amusement.
On the contrary, don't think I''ve ever "bagged" any U.S. person on here except for Trump. The other day I was highlighting their new stealth sub, quoting Vince Lombardi etc.
But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.
Wow. You ask him for his definition of Science, then criticize him for asking you for yours.
You love this keyboard warrior stuff don't you!
Splitting hairs now are we. To quote your post: "would me knowing what science is, make so much as a single iota of difference to you?", in response to his post 393.
You love asking questions (trolling) but providing no substance.
It's a poor excuse for a Human who takes pleasure in taunting others. It's a poor excuse for a Man who does it from behind a keyboard. But that's you!
Perhaps provide some substance.
You do not show others courtesy by your continued trolling. You will be shown the same respect you afford others.
Cynic logic: "don't insult me but I'm allowed to insult you", "I can ask you a question but you aren't allowed to ask me a similar one".
You started trolling me way back when you started the continued "Lucifer" and "repent" comments. Geez, I've provided more Science than you, the self appointed expert, trolling others.
Your trolling of this thread, of both myself and others has been continuous - far greater than you deceitfully try to claim now. You are unfortunately a person who appears to enjoy taunting others, from behind a keyboard.
Spoken like a true "climate scientist".
That's the great thing about religion! One doesn't need to heed one's critics! All one needs do, is promptly dismiss them via accusations of heresy, and thereafter pay such heretics no mind!
But then again your tendency to twist facts and figures was pointed out in the property thread by a few people recently.
Doubt it Knobby: there was no word salad to regurgitate.There you go again, invoke religion when you are the one with "faith" and no science. I know I am just feeding the troll.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I illustrate the behaviour of a genuine Troll.
He inflames, irritates and adds virtually no value to any thread with this sort of behaviour.
This is is the sort of behaviour that can derail a thread and drive it into flaming arguments and name calling which so distress Joe and the other intelligent people here. If you have no respect for others DK, at least have some respect for Joe.
Specific links to climate science articles or directly about climate science since page 19 inclusive are found at the following posts"Should this thread be closed, or perhaps the last couple of pages deleted? There is nothing of substance being posted here any more.
I would hope not Junior. I think it is important to see Trolls in action and how they can cause problems and encourage poor quality posts from people who follow the Troll.Should this thread be closed, or perhaps the last couple of pages deleted? There is nothing of substance being posted here any more.
I haven't read all the comments but agreed in principle that yes anyone should call out bullying and that should be done no matter who the bully is.Wherever I see bullying, online or IRL I'll call it out, as should others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?