How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CapelDodger]

He actually works on the subject, you know...

And seeks the opinions of biologists on the ramifications of the physics. There's not a climate model in existence that includes a polar-bear module. Arctic ice is in there, at an approximation (a rather under-stated approximation going by the evidence) but nothing to do with the life-cycle of your average polar-bear. Which has little or no influence on climate.

Well, you're known for not seeing much

He's better known for seeing things he's directed towards. Randi knows all about that subject, as do mhaze's puppeteers. mhaze, well, not so much.

 

[a_unique_person]

Translated: We need to ignore the actual science because we just can't seem to win discussing science with these darn skeptics.

Real science.

Interesting. He quite clearly states that this is only a hypothesis that needs a lot more work, but you are already more convinced than the author it's more than that.

I have a fried who is a climate researcher into global warming. He chides me when I mention debates on the internet, as he tried a doing that yearse ago. He concluded quite rationally that you can't win a discussion with the 'skeptics' based on the science, they already have made their minds up and any debate is a complete waste of time, so don't even bother. He's a lot smarter than me, I have to admit.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Lucy's thread didn't die for want of our support and attention. Nor, I'm sure, would mhaze's, should he choose to launch one.

This thread's dramatically superior robustness is down to its original premise, which has a great deal of substance. Unlike Lucy's. As to mhaze's, well, that's pure speculation.

My reference to a new thread that mhaze might start was, of course, a swipe at Lucifuge's thread . It was such a weak rip-off of mine and when asked to provide a mere 4 examples, he came up with 4 examples of something else. Oh, well...

Actually, I think the HTBAGWS 2008 "model" might have some staying power. It was based on copious amounts of "data" on GWS behaviour, coupled with a "theory" of GWS behavioural "forcings". I expect it will still accurately "model" GWS behaviour in 2018 and 2028, with only minor adjustments as the relative strength of the "forcings" changes.

 

[CapelDodger]

My reference to a new thread that mhaze might start was, of course, a swipe at Lucifuge's thread . It was such a weak rip-off of mine and when asked to provide a mere 4 examples, he came up with 4 examples of something else. Oh, well...

Perhaps we need another thread : "What an AGW Believer appears to be, please correct us if we're wrong". I could start the ball rolling with "An AGW Believer hangs on Al Gore's every word". Then there's "An AGW Believer shies away from Science". I'm sure "worship" came up recently, but I can't remember if that was regarding Al Gore or Hansen. I think it was Hansen.

Actually, I think the HTBAGWS 2008 "model" might have some staying power. It was based on copious amounts of "data" on GWS behaviour, coupled with a "theory" of GWS behavioural "forcings". I expect it will still accurately "model" GWS behaviour in 2018 and 2028, with only minor adjustments as the relative strength of the "forcings" changes.

It's what I was waiting for, without knowing it. When science comes up in other threads we can take the behavioural stuff over here, and concentrate on the science. That leaves (or would, if some people would just leave it alone out there) the opposing camp horribly exposed.

An obvious "forcing" on the denialist "model" is the simple passage of time. Will "warming stopped in 2000" be replaced by "warming stopped in 2015"? Who can say. One thing we can be sure of is that the former argument won't be referred to very often.

Looking to how the "model" has performed in the past, well, Fred Singer has progressed from "it won't happen" to "it was bound to happen because there's a cycle driven by natural forces unknown, which I didn't know about, but now I do", via a number of Stations. He's probably come to rest there since his cycle is 1500 +/- 500 years, which should see him out. I recall predicting that in general terms (going by the model), as, I think, did aup. We also predicted the "It's too late now anyway, sauve qui peut" that's creeping in now.

Based on the "model", I predict that the coming up-phase in the solar cycle will be latched onto as an explanation for warming, in the short-term. Hey, it happened last time.

 

[CoolSceptic]

So I was supposed to prove a negative? Whatever, your examples didn't address the point.


Chose? Why would that be?

You really like being offensive, don't you? That is not true of CD or me; it is, however true of just about every GWS utterance we see, here and elsewhere.

Are you deliberately missing the point? McIntyre appears to spend all his time searching for climate-related articles and trying to find holes in them.

Why would he not apply his microscope to TGGWS?


Are you saying that TGGWS requires any in-depth analysis? Are you also claiming that McIntyre is a scientist?

Strange, considering his knee-jerk criticisms of just about anything from the AGW "Team".

You are as guilty of double standards as he is.

Truesceptic, your analysis here is so far wide of the mark that I'm not even going to try and answer in detail, but explain to you in simple terms what is going on here.

TGGWS is not a scientific article, it is a TV documentary. As with most TV documentaries (I'm hoping this is observational for you, have you ever seen Panorama, for example?) it is a biased, one-sided discussion which cherry picks data to support its position. If you don't like this, then you might as well write off every second documentary ever screened. But this doesn't happen, because the producers of such documentaries are entitled to do this.

To people really interested in depth in the science, they won't give either TGGWS or AIT a second glance. Because there is nothing to learn here. These are highly distilled, one-sided propaganda pieces which try to convert the science into bite-size chunks for the layperson. Someone interested in the depths of climate science isn't really going to care too much about what goes on.

However, as with anything, there are two levels here. There are the facts in these documentaries - and there are conclusions drawn through interpretations of those facts. The facts are probably worth checking, although to check these takes time even in a field you are familiar with. The Hansen and Lebedeff graph is a good example. RMS didn't check to find out where the data had come from, and simply said NASA had never published such a graph. Of course, this was simply not the case. The graph data had indeed come from Hansen, who worked for NASA at the time. The graph contained an error on the x-axis, but this error is rather different in the details to the claim made by RMS. This nuance is important to Steve's post, and I appreciate you haven't quite grasped it yet.

You are right - you could make a quick statement dismissing TGGWS, but when you make a quick statement, you are likely to make the type of mistakes that RMS made above. Most people prefer to get things right the first time rather than having to correct their errors (although I doubt RMS ever corrected their errors, in the same way MBH98 have failed to correct most of their errors, in the same way IPCC AR4 failed to correct theirs; according to Steve's post, TGGWS corrected the error in this graph)

Okay, so checking the facts and getting it right is a little time consuming. To make a commentary on the interpretation of those facts is really a political posture. Different people are entitled to take a different view on the implications of data, and they are entitled to make TV programmes about it if they want.

So what do you want, a statement about the "facts" (which requires time and checking to get right) or a statement about the interpretations (which would be all about the politics, not the science)? And if we are talking about the former, why would Steve McIntyre want to spend large amounts of time on something which isn't even part of the scientific record, and why would you presume to know how he should best spend his time? If you're arguing that you can infer his motives from how he spends his time... well I'll leave that little fallacious appeal to motive in the "not worth considering" cylindrical filing cabinet.

Oh, and the irony about me being accused* of being "fixated" about the IPCC (who, given their remit, you would hope not to be biased) and your deep concern about a documentary (which, by its nature, is likely to be biased) and how particular individuals should be issuing statements about it is not lost on me.

* by CD, not by you.

Postscript: You'll note Steve's comments mainly focus on the temperature record (instrumental and palaeoclimate) when talking about TGGWS. This is because this is his area of expertise, and presumably that which he is likely to provide the most accurate input. If you look at his analysis of AIT, you'll find that his analysis is similarly restricted in the main to just these topics. Also note Steve has spent little time on AIT - a cursory check suggests both AIT and TGGWS get just seven posts each. The reason? Obviously we can only speculate, but my assumption would be that he is more interested in the science and will leave the bitching about documentaries to people on forums.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are right - you could make a quick statement dismissing TGGWS, but when you make a quick statement, you are likely to make the type of mistakes that RMS made above. Most people prefer to get things right the first time rather than having to correct their errors (although I doubt RMS ever corrected their errors, in the same way MBH98 have failed to correct most of their errors, in the same way IPCC AR4 failed to correct theirs; according to Steve's post, TGGWS corrected the error in this graph)

Science is usually a process of quality control by publishing. Scientists don't go back over and over one paper on one topic, Scientists tend to publish papers that supercede previous ones. It's a valid way of advancing knowledge and quality control.
McIntyre tends to go more for the jugular, making things personal and passionate, when science is supposed to be detached and objective. If I was one of the scientists he was pursuing, I wouldn't have given him the time of day either.

Postscript: You'll note Steve's comments mainly focus on the temperature record (instrumental and palaeoclimate) when talking about TGGWS. This is because this is his area of expertise, and presumably that which he is likely to provide the most accurate input. If you look at his analysis of AIT, you'll find that his analysis is similarly restricted in the main to just these topics. Also note Steve has spent little time on AIT - a cursory check suggests both AIT and TGGWS get just seven posts each. The reason? Obviously we can only speculate, but my assumption would be that he is more interested in the science and will leave the bitching about documentaries to people on forums.

He seems to be trying to raise the standard at CA, but falls back on cries of "where's waldo" every so often. I noticed he actually censors references to Lanscheidt, an astrologer.

What I do notice is that most of the AGW acceptors here haven't seen AIT, nor do the serious science sites refer to it as a source, nor recommend it. In contrast, TGGWS was all over the blogosphere, with pretty well uncritical accpetance. The same with such truly pathetic papers as "Falsification of CO2" and Becks paper on CO2 content in the atmosphere, and the work of Jawororski.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Science is usually a process of quality control by publishing. Scientists don't go back over and over one paper on one topic, Scientists tend to publish papers that supercede previous ones.

I disagree. Sometimes it works that way, but often it doesn't. Scientists often focus on disagreeing with a single, specific paper. Look at Foster vs. Schwartz, or Landsea vs. Webster, back-and-forths are quite common as well. Furthermore, McIntyre's work has been mainly criticised (sometimes with much vitriol) through blogs, not through the peer-reviewed literature - the von Storch and Huybers replies were the only ones of any merit in the first four years after McIntyre's first publication, and they addressed only minor details of McIntyre's original analysis. You can't reply to a blog through the peer-reviewed literature, so the only real way of responding to these is for McIntyre to blog himself.

NB: Wahl and Amman has been much discussed but was only finally published in late 2007 (a few months back), after being rejected from GRL. It adds nothing of note beyond the Huybers comment.

Sometimes science works more in the way you describe, sometimes it doesn't. Your statement is far too narrow a perspective. Furthermore, negative results can be very important indeed - the fact that we don't have sufficient information to do something can be more important than faulty attempts to achieve it, e.g. Heisenberg, Godel etc. etc.

McIntyre tends to go more for the jugular, making things personal and passionate

Yeah, all that linear algebra he produces, compared to Mann who just directly accuses McIntyre of dishonesty. Who is being personal again?

when science is supposed to be detached and objective.

I've witnessed far greater objectivity from McIntyre than I have from the scientists he is "pursuing". But then that is a value judgement anyway so I don't suppose we're likely to agree on that.

If I was one of the scientists he was pursuing, I wouldn't have given him the time of day either.

You mean you'd hide all your data from critics as well? Figures. Just like Phil Jones, you wouldn't want to give it to people who are trying to find errors in it. But seriously, this is exactly the sort of mindset that leads to bias in climate science, which is why Hans von Storch was so critical of this way of thinking in his testimony regarding the hockey stick.

He seems to be trying to raise the standard at CA, but falls back on cries of "where's waldo" every so often. I noticed he actually censors references to Lanscheidt, an astrologer.

He censors a lot of stuff which drags threads off topic, just like RealClimate, Tamino, Lambert etc. do. Otherwise the blog turns into a bunfight. It's an AGW thing. He does accept on-topic, scientific criticisms of his work - in fact, he will often repeat them as a full post (for example, Rob Wilson's comments on the Bristlecone Pines). You won't find that at any of the pro-AGW blogs I listed above.

As for the "where's waldo" is a tongue-in-cheek comment, it makes the writing less dry, and this type of thing is also found at all of three pro-AGW blogs above. I don't see the big deal about it; although a sense of humour may be necessary to appreciate this.

What I do notice is that most of the AGW acceptors here haven't seen AIT, nor do the serious science sites refer to it as a source, nor recommend it.

I've already explained why. For those interested in the detail of the science, why would they be interested in a one-sided documentary which tries to boil it down to bite size chunks?

In contrast, TGGWS was all over the blogosphere, with pretty well uncritical accpetance.

I don't follow the blogosphere in much detail. The quality of posts on most blogs are generally going to be quite low and heavily influenced by the owners views, so I follow some very specific ones which I consider to be of higher quality than the others. It seems pretty obvious to me that some blogs are going to contain dross. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if a number of blogs accepted it uncritically, and I suspect I could a blog post "uncritically accepting" AIT for every one you could find "uncritically accepting" TGGWS. But so what? All we'd prove is there are a lot of blinkered people blogging, we wouldn't discover anything about AGW.

This has been my main point all along. If you want to learn something, you don't go to AIT or TGGWS. And the idea that an individual has a moral obligation to spend time analysing and criticising one (or both) of these documentaries is so naive as to be laughable.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Truesceptic, your analysis here is so far wide of the mark that I'm not even going to try and answer in detail, but explain to you in simple terms what is going on here.

No, you still don't get it.

TGGWS is not a scientific article, it is a TV documentary. As with most TV documentaries (I'm hoping this is observational for you, have you ever seen Panorama, for example?) it is a biased, one-sided discussion which cherry picks data to support its position. If you don't like this, then you might as well write off every second documentary ever screened. But this doesn't happen, because the producers of such documentaries are entitled to do this.

To people really interested in depth in the science, they won't give either TGGWS or AIT a second glance. Because there is nothing to learn here. These are highly distilled, one-sided propaganda pieces which try to convert the science into bite-size chunks for the layperson. Someone interested in the depths of climate science isn't really going to care too much about what goes on.

Spare me the patronising lecture, please. Who do you think you are, anyway?

However, as with anything, there are two levels here. There are the facts in these documentaries - and there are conclusions drawn through interpretations of those facts. The facts are probably worth checking, although to check these takes time even in a field you are familiar with. The Hansen and Lebedeff graph is a good example. RMS didn't check to find out where the data had come from, and simply said NASA had never published such a graph. Of course, this was simply not the case. The graph data had indeed come from Hansen, who worked for NASA at the time. The graph contained an error on the x-axis, but this error is rather different in the details to the claim made by RMS. This nuance is important to Steve's post, and I appreciate you haven't quite grasped it yet.

I grasped it perfectly, and you still do not. RMS were entirely correct in saying that the graph, as shown in the original TGGWS, was never published by NASA. Not only is this the case, but McIntyre admits (or clearly states- take your pick) that he was talking about the amended graph all along, and not the original. Even if RMS (and I) were wrong about A, McIntyre is talking about B. You can't have it both ways.

You are right - you could make a quick statement dismissing TGGWS, but when you make a quick statement, you are likely to make the type of mistakes that RMS made above. Most people prefer to get things right the first time rather than having to correct their errors (although I doubt RMS ever corrected their errors, in the same way MBH98 have failed to correct most of their errors, in the same way IPCC AR4 failed to correct theirs; according to Steve's post, TGGWS corrected the error in this graph)

RMS made no mistakes and neither did I. It was McIntyre who was hasty in jumping in and getting it wrong. Why did he even bother?

Okay, so checking the facts and getting it right is a little time consuming. To make a commentary on the interpretation of those facts is really a political posture. Different people are entitled to take a different view on the implications of data, and they are entitled to make TV programmes about it if they want.

They are not entitled to lie on UK TV unless there is balance, either in the programme itself, or in a follow-up.

So what do you want, a statement about the "facts" (which requires time and checking to get right) or a statement about the interpretations (which would be all about the politics, not the science)? And if we are talking about the former, why would Steve McIntyre want to spend large amounts of time on something which isn't even part of the scientific record, and why would you presume to know how he should best spend his time? If you're arguing that you can infer his motives from how he spends his time... well I'll leave that little fallacious appeal to motive in the "not worth considering" cylindrical filing cabinet.

I noted only that he spent some time attacking Ward and RMS and getting it wrong. Why would he do that?

Oh, and the irony about me being accused* of being "fixated" about the IPCC (who, given their remit, you would hope not to be biased) and your deep concern about a documentary (which, by its nature, is likely to be biased) and how particular individuals should be issuing statements about it is not lost on me.

* by CD, not by you.

Postscript: You'll note Steve's comments mainly focus on the temperature record (instrumental and palaeoclimate) when talking about TGGWS. This is because this is his area of expertise, and presumably that which he is likely to provide the most accurate input. If you look at his analysis of AIT, you'll find that his analysis is similarly restricted in the main to just these topics. Also note Steve has spent little time on AIT - a cursory check suggests both AIT and TGGWS get just seven posts each. The reason? Obviously we can only speculate, but my assumption would be that he is more interested in the science and will leave the bitching about documentaries to people on forums.

You seem hopelessly uncritical of McIntyre, but then that is only to be expected. He is streets ahead of most "sceptics" in his willingness to put the work in and not make idiotic claims.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Another nice example of GWS behaviour here

I did read the whole article, and I have no "crusade" against the idea of global warming.

Only against hysteria mongers using as an excuse for totalitarianism.

Of course, he refuses to discuss that and instead just insults anyone who asks.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Yeah, all that linear algebra he produces, compared to Mann who just directly accuses McIntyre of dishonesty. Who is being personal again?

You are too much. Are you saying that McIntyre is mathematically competent whereas Mann isn't?

And how about the fact that McIntyre's claim to fame (the so-called breaking of the Hockey Stick) depends entirely on the premise that Mann is incompetent or a fraud?

I've witnessed far greater objectivity from McIntyre than I have from the scientists he is "pursuing". But then that is a value judgement anyway so I don't suppose we're likely to agree on that.

Too bloody right. McIntyre is obsessed with attempting to discredit the work of climate scientists. He would get a lot more respect if he displayed similar tenacity in exposing the deceits of Singer et al.

 

[mhaze]

You are too much. Are you saying that McIntyre is mathematically competent whereas Mann isn't?

Duhhh......

A question that is answered by the mathematics produced by the individuals of which you speak.

On reflection, this isn't even fair. McIntyre is lightyears ahead of Mann in mathematical competence. Mann said to the Senate committee "I am not a statistician".

People have specialties.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, and the irony about me being accused* of being "fixated" about the IPCC (who, given their remit, you would hope not to be biased) and your deep concern about a documentary (which, by its nature, is likely to be biased) and how particular individuals should be issuing statements about it is not lost on me.

* by CD, not by you.

The irony is lost on me (and yes, I do do irony). Swindle was not a documentary, it was a propaganda piece, and its impact has been vanishingly small. It's a big fish in a small GWSceptic pond, and it's that pond which we're examining here, as visitors from a much, much bigger pond.

The IPCC, on the other hand, is part of the much bigger pond (aka the real world) where bias will be found out. It hasn't been. You should try visiting the big pond instead of imagining it from your small pond perspective. The IPCC is not a big fish in that very big pond. There is no Big Fish in that big pond. Not the IPCC, not the Hadley Centre, not the Royal Society, not the AAAS, not the Bush White House, not Al Gore, not the Chinese - it's life lived in the wild out here. It's far more complicated than small-pond life can easily imagine.

 

[mhaze]

propaganda ..... small GWSceptic pond, .... visitors from a much, much bigger pond.....much bigger pond .... visiting the big pond .... small pond perspective.....very big pond. .....that big pond..... small-pond life can easily imagine.

Coooooool ponds......Not alarming waaaaarming ponds.

 

[jsfisher]

Another nice example of GWS behaviour here

Of course, he refuses to discuss that and instead just insults anyone who asks.

Yeah, it is not like anyone attacked him first. No, wait....


Quote mine much?

 

[CapelDodger]

Duhhh......

A question that is answered by the mathematics produced by the individuals of which you speak.

It's a question directed to CoolSceptic, and it's presumptuous of you to think you can answer it for him.

On reflection, this isn't even fair. McIntyre is lightyears ahead of Mann in mathematical competence. Mann said to the Senate committee "I am not a statistician".

People have specialties.

Why else is there an et al to Mann et al? Congress may loom large within your limited horizons, as does one man facing it, but out here nobody gives a toss. It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?

People often appear before Congress with lawyers at their shoulders, but seldom with statisticians.

In '98, of course, Michaels just got up and lied like a trooper. He was addressing a small-pond audience after all, and they were never going to hear the clamour from the big pond. Even if they have to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "I can't hear you". As you (metaphorically) do.

When Mann says (truthfully) that he's not a statistician, you're all over it like a bad suit. The et al slips right past you, because in the small pond it's all about individuals, the big fish, such as McIntyre or Michaels. You project that perspective onto normal folk in the big indomitable pond, but that's not our perspective. Life's far more complicated out here, and we residents have grown to maturity in this environment.

 

[CapelDodger]

You seem hopelessly uncritical of McIntyre, but then that is only to be expected. He is streets ahead of most "sceptics" in his willingness to put the work in and not make idiotic claims.

McIntyre is still a weasel, though. Sowing seeds by snide sneering, saying sod-all substantial. Always with "plausible deniablity" in mind.

(Irony, metaphor, alliteration - is there anything I don't do ? I can even do humility when the occasion calls for it. Always with revenge in mind, of course.)

 

[Round Robin]

Duhhh......

A question that is answered by the mathematics produced by the individuals of which you speak.

On reflection, this isn't even fair. McIntyre is lightyears ahead of Mann in mathematical competence. Mann said to the Senate committee "I am not a statistician".

People have specialties.

I don't know much about the whole hockey-stick controversy so I won't get into that (that's OT anyway), but leaving that aside for the moment, I wonder if your criticism is fair.

My wife designs clinical trials for breast/colon cancer. It's a pretty big tent that includes, oncologists, pathologists, chemists, biologists, regulatory experts, etc. They work with the NIH, the NCI, the CDC, the FDA, etc. Not a one of them understands statistics adequately to analyze the data; all of the data are sent to the biostatistical center of the University of Pittsburgh for analysis. If you asked the lead authors of one of their trials to explain the statistics, none could, as expected.

Similarly, is a valid criticism of Mann that his is not a statistician? What was his role in this study, and was he qualified for that?

 

[mhaze]

Why else is there an et al to Mann et al? Congress may loom large within your limited horizons, as does one man facing it, but out here nobody gives a toss. It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al? People often appear before Congress with lawyers at their shoulders, but seldom with statisticians. When Mann says (truthfully) that he's not a statistician, you're all over it like a bad suit. The et al slips right past you....

Recommendation 3. (Wegman Report, Congressional Investigation of Mann).

With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.​

It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?

I leave it as your homework assignment to name them.

Not a one of them understands statistics adequately to analyze the data; all of the data are sent to the biostatistical center of the University of Pittsburgh for analysis. If you asked the lead authors of one of their trials to explain the statistics, none could, as expected. Similarly, is a valid criticism of Mann that his is not a statistician? What was his role in this study, and was he qualified for that?

Neither was he qualified nor did he seek the expert consultants or contributors which as you note in many fields is standard practice. Which of course is the reason his papers in question were so thoroughly rebutted by McIntyre.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Another example of GWS, taken from another thread to one more appropriate. Just follow the quotes and make up your own mind...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3526621&postcount=855

slimething: We're talking science here. Try to keep up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536521&postcount=900

Capel Dodger: Anthropology is a science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536592&postcount=904

slimething: Nope. Sorry. Just like medicine isn't a science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3537631&postcount=912

Me: Science is the study of nature. Anthropology is the study of humanity. Unless you want to claim that humanity is not part of nature, you are simply wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3549861&postcount=1047

Slimething: Amazing logic here. The study of anything that is natural is therefore science. Suddenly, I realize that religion, economics, politics and so on are sciences.

Why do I get the impression that you are either very young or not at all trained in science?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3549897&postcount=1051

Me: Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus? Oh, I know: from what you post!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3549953&postcount=1058

slimething: That's OK. No need to apologize for your mischaracterization of science. Indeed, that takes a lot of honesty and integrity to admit an error.

Be well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3550073&postcount=1063

Kindly define science for us.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3550919&postcount=1072

Why? You've already said that no one should listen to me. Kindly take that to heart and act on it.

IOW, buy a dictionary. You'll find it quite useful as you progress through high school.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3552001&postcount=1077

Me: I see. Instead of answering a simple question, you resort to pathetic insults.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3552003&postcount=1078

Me: You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3562098&postcount=1088

slimething: Oh, small one, I know perfectly well what science is. It's my livelihood. You're the one who thinks it means the study of any natural phenomenon. I advised you to buy a dictionary but perhaps even that is too advanced for you. Pick up a primer from last year and learn your ABCs first. Then you'll find that words in the dictionary are listed in bold starting with the a's then b's, c's and so on. The definitions follow in normal face after the pronunciation and the part of speech the word is. Now, look up science and let us know what you find.

Frankly, you have offered nothing but personal attacks. You have offered nothing of substance to this discussion. Nothing at all. Please point if out to me if I've missed it.

 

[jsfisher]

TrueSceptic, do you not see the irony in this?

...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3549897&postcount=1051

Me: Where do I get the impression that you are a dogmatic, narrow-minded ignoramus? Oh, I know: from what you post!

...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3552001&postcount=1077

Me: I see. Instead of answering a simple question, you resort to pathetic insults.

...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3552003&postcount=1078

Me: You're a scientist? You must be the most illiterate one on the planet!