By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LetsAllMakeBelieve on 21 May 2008
Edit Thread
Sqrl said:
LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
A few points id like to make after reading this thread
1) PS360's argument was poorly backed up
2) sqrl's argument is arrogant and backed up through heavilly biased sources
3) neither side made a convincing argument
4) people have taken sqrl's side purely due to there anti-GW views, noone seems to have questioned the accuracy of his posts.
5) PS360 lost it after it became clear he was being insulted.
6) PS360 made several poor comments.
7) GW may not be fact yet, but the evidence on wikipedia and many news sites suggest its all but fact.
8) IMO sqrl needs to stop pretending to be Stephen Hawking's right hand man
9) IMO PS360 needs to do more research to back up his view
10) i know await my own falming and request for concrete evidence, which alas i cannot give, however if u read this entire post, u will note i say that i source several sites and say it is not fact, but the main theory at the moment.
11) Please Read my points before responding.

Few responses to the ones that are related to myself.

2) Care to cite some examples? I'd be glad to defend my position and potentially learn where I went wrong. My argument is hardly arrogant when I not only allow for myself to be wrong but I expect it on several of these issues as they are quite complex. Your already pointed out flawed graph, your extract from the new york times is also biased.

3 & 4) So you called me arrogant and then presumed to know why people agreed with me and further assumed that your take on the situation was correct and that everyone who disagrees with you is simply wrong. Interesting position to say the least. I would hope you have the credentials to back it up. From what i can tell, they merely used you to defend their own views on GW, your condescending remarks are incredibly arrogant and your posts suggest someone who thinks because of there education theyre better than others. If u read my post you would see at no point that i said people who disagree with me are wrong.

7) Wikipedia as a source has been called into question by the article posted in this thread (I can grab the link if you need). I hadn't actually seen that article before and honestly I don't know how much stock anyone can put in the ability of Wikipedia to be an impartial source of information on this subject considering that level of direct tampering...I personally had no idea it was to that extent and after looking about the discussion section of several CC/GW topics I'm satisfied to my own curiosity that it is not an isolated incident...what frightens me the most is that many of the people who seem to make these revisions have the power to delete comments from the discussion section as well. Wikipedia may not be perfect, but as it does for most of the media these days, it will do for me, also i think to ignore the many links on wikipedia is folly as many of them back up my view that GW is the main theory and IMO most likey one.

8) First Hawking is a cosmologist and not a climatologist. Second I've never claimed, pretended, or even attempted to act as an authority on the subject much less claim that I'm someone's "right hand man". I've claimed to have done a significant amount of reading in a casual setting which, while putting me ahead of most, hardly has me in the running for any position of authority on the matter. Again i refer to your arrogance.

10) Despite your inflammatory, defamatory, and baseless remarks about me, I have zero desire to flame you. I also made remarks about PS360, yet he has not attacked my post (yet). For why i made the remarks please read my responses and my post properly.

11) I have done so, twice. If this is true, which i doubt, then you took my post out of context and choose to ignore parts of it that you didnt like. Please do not attempt to treat me with the same contempt as PS360, as my points were much more balanced than his.