Originally Posted By jonvn The answer you got is that you are a liar. You claimed I said something in a thread, I put in every word I said on that topic. You are simply a liar.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You can call me every name in the book, but that doesn't change the fact that you'd rather be insulting than enlightening. Please don't blame me because you can't answer honest questions, or engage in honest debate.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You can call me every name in the book" I am not calling you every name in the book. Just a truthful description of what you are. You claimed I was saying something, then went on to state I don't use facts. Well, I supplied facts here, and showed you to be a liar. And you can now try and shift gears and change the subject, and all, but the fact remains that you are simply a liar, and will lie in any manner you can in order to further your false statements. You're statements are simply dishonest. And you can say whatever you want, but your words are that of a liar. I've just shown this to be the case directly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh What you showed is that you are insulting to anyone who questions you, and that you don't answer honest questions.
Originally Posted By jonvn What I showed is that you are a liar. You lied about what I said, and now are trying to worm out of it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, please don't blame me because you can't answer honest questions, or engage in honest debate.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Again, please don't blame me because you can't answer honest questions" Again, you're nothing but a liar, and it has nothing to do with your questions, which are not honest, either. You claimed I said something, I didn't. You lied. You continue to lie by trying to change the subject. You're a liar.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Again, please don't blame me because you can't answer honest questions, or engage in honest debate.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070220/OPINION/702200314/1004" target="_blank">http://www.thedesertsun.com/ap ps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070220/OPINION/702200314/1004</a> >>Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of science."<< >>Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true? A: No. It's absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually that they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't want anybody to dig any deeper. It's very, very far from settled. In fact, that's the real problem. We haven't been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup. There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they've reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time. Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC's report - or the summary of the report? A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down. They couldn't do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public's back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that's the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, "If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control." Unfortunately, you've got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process. Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists - how can you not accept what they say? A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? … You've got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that's going on.<< >>Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause? A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don't talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can't possibly do that. Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it? A: That's a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn't care about the children or the future or anything else. Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company? A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn't have to drive a '92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.<<
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn Ok, so now you just say the same things over again, as if that has anything to do with what was said. You're simply lying more. You made claims I was saying something, dragged me into this by lying about what I was saying. You never asked an honest question. You're just a liar, and now, you just keep repeating the same junk, because you don't have the intelligence to say anything else.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Regarding post 282. Sorry, Jon, but I'm afraid that's what you're doing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That I have a life is why it took me several hours to get back here. What do you expect me to do? Get so mad I storm off in a huff? Call you names so I get banished? Sorry, that's not my style. I'm going to stay here, and when you say something I don't agree with, or that I think is misleading, or that I think can't be supported by evidence, or that is wrong, I'm going to say so. And I'm going to do it with respect and courtesy.
Originally Posted By jonvn You might want to take note that I've stopped reading your posts after about the first sentence. I couldn't care less what you have to say. You are dishonest and a waste of my time.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Could somebody please repeat whatever the question originally was? 100 posts of back and forth have gone by since then, and I honestly would like to remember what it was.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh What is the consensus of climate scientist regarding global warming?
