By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Sqrl 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.

 

 

2) Yes as I said the first graph was flawed, I explained why I used it on the fly and I also apologised for not vetting it better...what more should I have done to make up for the mistake or am I not allowed to err?

As for the NYT, if you want to claim they are biased you'll have to site something beyond opinion like in the case of Wikipedia. Your point in #7 that you still accept wikipedia despite proof that they have problems would neccessitate you to find something equally or more objectionable about the NYT coverage or it would be quite fair to say you are practicing intellectual dishonesty.

3 & 4) "What you can tell" is hardly sufficient for you to make a blanket statement about several people. Honestly your position is far more arrogant than mine every was even when I let my annoyance get the better of me. Aside from that you infer a whole lot about me and then assume that its true based on nothing more....I hardly see how I'm the one being arrogant here.

I would also ask you why you don't think people who disagree with you are wrong? If you're not wrong and their not wrong then how does that resolve itself? Based on your post in the thread you started you quite clearly support GW and yet you claim you don't believe those who disagree with you are wrong...how does that even work? You think they are right and you are wrong? I'm honestly confused at this point.

7) As I said about the NYT, you will need to show why you distrust the NYT and it honestly needs to be something worse than the issues wikipedia shows or you are simply being intellectually dishonest and selectively allowing sources simply based on whether they agree with you or not. You'll note I accepted the Wikipedia source (despite my dislike of it) until I had a legitimate and recorded reason not to. Simply disliking a source is not sufficient grounds to ignore it, you can rebutt it if you wish but to just ignore it without a recorded cause is selective listening.

8) So by clearly stating my level of knowledge and declaring it to be of no authority I am arrogant? I honestly don't know what to say...at this point I'm beginning to believe you're just a troll, but I'm willing to play this out to another response before I decide for sure.

11) In what way have I taken your post out of context, and for what reason do you doubt that I read it twice? It is a common practice of mine to read a post multiple times before responding to ensure I don't miss anything (I still miss things occasionally). I have treated you extremely fairly so far considering your remarks towards me and how inflammatory and unsupported they were..perhaps you could shed some light on your positiona and actually site some instances of my transgessions before you continue?

 
To Each Man, Responsibility