> Rev Turd Fredericks catholic.org> wrote in
> news:j%%U0i.478343$mJ2.144889@fe10.news.easynews.com:
>

>> Futureman wrote:

>>> Rev Turd Fredericks catholic.org> wrote in
>>> news:x%%S0i.258384$RF.179728@fe02.news.easynews.com:
>>>
>>>

>>>>>>>> So what are you trying say?
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I am trying to say: that it was never warmer for 50,000,000
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's your burden of proof to find the dead corals from 5000-8000
>>>>>>> years ago and those 1000 years ago. Don't come back until you
>>>>>>> have found

>>>>> your

>>>>>>> missing coral fossils.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> I'll come back when I feel like it. I'm not a climate scientist, I

>>>>> never

>>>>>> claimed I was.

>>>>> Your claim is irrelevent. You don't know anything about the science
>>>>> and have no qualifications to even form opinions on the subject.

>>>> You're right, but your reading comprehension problems seem to
>>>> prevent you from understanding what I wrote. I am in fact a
>>>> scientist. Not a climatologist, but I have a solid understanding of
>>>> how the science game is played.
>>>>

>>>>>> You aren't a climate scientist either, if you were, you
>>>>>> would have a healthy skepticism about global warming and wouldn't
>>>>>> be buying into the hype. Unless of course you were applying for
>>>>>> funding,

>>>>> in

>>>>>> which case you would have no choice.

>>>>> Neurotic skepticism is not healthy. You are insane. I know enough
>>>>> science to say that prisms prove infrared. Night-vision scopes
>>>>> prove it. Heat- seeking missiles proves it. Toasters and clothes
>>>>> driers and hair dryers prove it.

>>>> You don't know shit about science. If you did, you would be
>>>> skeptical of dogma.

>>>
>>> There's nothing to be skeptical about. In science the explanation
>>> that explains all the evidence can stand until some evidence debunks
>>> it.

>> No, that's not how it works. Only those permitted to perform the
>> science are in a position to provide evidence. If you don't get
>> funding you can't do science and produce evidence.

>
>
> There's a lot of science that was done and fully paid off before either
> one of us was born. The science remaining becomes increasingly cheap and
> commonly available.
>
> You are delusional about what constitues science.

>
>

>>> Your crowd cannot put up any explanation that isn't debunked in 5
>>> minutes. No wonder you are "skeptical" about lots of explanations
>>> which fall in 5 minutes.

>> Who exactly is my "crowd"?

>
>
> The scum you often chat amicably with and the scum you quote to support
> your bogosity.
>

>

>>> Only problem is there is an explanation that has stood and evolved
>>> for 150 years. You can't debunk it.

>> What are you talking about?

>
>
> Sorry. I find explaining basic facts to morons unfulfilling. Ask google
> for tutors for hire in your areas of deficiency.
>

>
>
>

>>> The explanation accepts all the modern discoveries.

>> See above.

>>> You are not a working scientist -- you are a stinking pile of shit.

>> I have about 10 peer reviewed papers and abstracts in highly respected
>> journals. How many do you have?

>
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rev%%20Turd%%20Fredericks&ie=UTF-8
> &oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1
> &sa=N&tab=ws
>
> Your search - Rev Turd Fredericks - did not match any articles.
>
>
> You lied. I caught you.
>

>
>
>
>

>>> What you don't do is be skeptical about explanations that fall in
>>> five minutes.

>> You seem to have a problem expressing yourself, you can get help for
>> that these days.
>>

>>> You are the one with the dogma.

>> From dictionary.com:
>>
>> dog·ma /ˈdɔgmə, ˈdɒg-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[dawg-muh, dog-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
>> Pronunciation –noun, plural -mas, -ma·ta /-mətə/
>> Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[-muh-tuh] Pronunciation
>> Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. 1. a system of principles or tenets,
>> as of a church. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively
>> laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
>> 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
>> 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.
>>

>>> You have no coherent explanation which fits the evidence, but you
>>> have a dogma that known crooks are your best pals. You are a fraud.

>> Is English your second language, because if it is, I may cut you some
>> slack, if not I will consider you mildly retarded.
>>

>>> Infrared lamps keep french fries hot at McDonalds. You can't debunk
>>> that because anybody reading this can go check it out.
>>>
>>> Infrared sensors track flying objects in heat-seeking missiles and
>>> anybody here can tune in the TV news to watch helicopters in Baghdad
>>> drop flares as decoys to keep from being hit by a heat-seeker. You
>>> can't debunk that.
>>>
>>> Anybody here can click this link and go look at satellite pictures
>>> taken with infrared sensors:
>>> http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/
>>>
>>> You can't debunk that.

>> I thought the Bush Govt. was suppressing this information. It shows
>> weather systems, so what?

>
>
> Sorry. I find explaining basic facts to morons unfulfilling. Ask google
> for tutors for hire in your areas of deficiency.
>
>
>

>>> Plans for making CO2 lasers are all over the internet. You can't
>>> debunk that.
>>>
>>> On and on and on the evidence keeps kicking the shit out of you
>>> Exxon- Republican hired liars.

>> I can't vote in the US, but if I could, I sure as hell wouldn't vote
>> Republican. I work at a top US University not Exxon.

>>> You can't make a skeptic out of somebody that has reviewed the
>>> evidence and there's plenty of people that have. The numbers increase
>>> all the time.

>> And a million monkeys with a million typewriters and an infinite
>> amount of time will eventually produce the entire works of William
>> Shakespeare.
>>

>>> There's no need to be neurotically skeptical, psychotically
>>> skeptical.

>> Also from dictionary.com
>> skep·ti·cal /ˈskɛptɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[skep-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> –adjective
>> 1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt: a skeptical young woman.
>> 2. showing doubt: a skeptical smile.
>> 3. denying or questioning the tenets of a religion: a skeptical
>> approach to the nature of miracles.
>> 4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to Skeptics or
>> Skepticism.
>>

>>> The truth is bad enough, but the Hell on Earth of not dealing with it
>>> is far worse. Being skeptical about facts proved by everyday
>>> experience is insanity. YOU ARE INSANE.

>> No, a human cause of global warming has yet to be proved, it is still
>> highly theoretical. Right now, it is a popular opinion by person's
>> unqualified to have an opinion such as yourself.

>
> I am qualified to have opinions about who I will trust. In medicine that
> usually is the doctor and sometimes the nurse. In prescriptions that
> would be the pharmicist.
>
> I trust my employees specialists to do the job they are trained for in
> most cases.
>
> We as a society have hired specially trained and skilled persons to watch
> for us on the frontiers for dangers and threats that they need to
> appraise us of in an early and timely fashion. Some of those highly
> skilled and trained employees have produced reports of threats which have
> been abundantly examined by a secondary tier of specialy trained and
> highly skilled employees. Because of the implications of the particular
> threat additional staff in large numbers have been set to the tasks of
> reviewing and verifying every single essential fact of the matter.
>
> They were hired in the first place because they were capable and
> trustworthy. There have been multiple redundant verifications of all the
> essential facts.
>
> I presonally have reviewed the most significant facts and verified them
> myself to my own satisfaction.
>
> I have an opinion based on this process, and I am entitled to have this
> opinion whether you wish me to or not.
>
> I have a much greater certainty of the facts of Global Warming than I do
> about a poster identifying himself as Rev Turd Fredericks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>> To the extent that you lack the science skills to follow all the
>>> science, than you have to accept it that you don't have what it takes
>>> to even form an opinion on the matter. Accept your limitations. You
>>> don't have any opinion because you lack what it takes to have an
>>> opinion.

>> Heh. And what do you do for a living? Let me guess, you work at the
>> quickie mart with Vendicar Decarian.

>
>
> I live for a living. Doesn't everyone? As I recall Albert Einstein was a
> clerk at a government office in Switzerland when he formulated his best
> ideas.
>
> A person's employment is not a signifier of their mental comprehension.
>
>
>
> Your tactic is well known. Annoy, harass, insult. Drive away people in
> anger and frustration.
>
> The facts of Global warming have been explained often enough in so many
> different ways that clerks at Quickie Mart can understand it, or at least
> understand that ttheir employees are doing the science job they were
> hired to do.
>
>
>
>

>>> You don't have arguments -- what you have is harassment of the
>>> designated Emergency Response Team hired by society to be our early
>>> warning system and appraise us of the nature and risks of dangers. If
>>> you were harassing firefighters trying to save lives and property at
>>> the scene of a blaze I would hate you no less than I hate you for
>>> harassing the hired employees specially trained and skilled we
>>> created to be our watchdog for this kind of emergency.

>> You keep calling me insane, this is a highly kookified rant if you ask
>> me, but I see you aren't asking, you're foaming.

>
> No. I'm not asking. I'm telling.
>
> It takes insanity to kill the planet and you are doing it for which I
> hate you.
>
>
>

>>> That you smear them and foul them with your innuendo makes you an
>>> object of hatred. They have earned a right to be respected by going
>>> through the lengthy and full educational process which you were too
>>> lazy to complete or too incompetent to pass. They have earned basic
>>> respect, and you have thrown shit at them because you are insane.

>> Nice projection dumbass. I am a scientist and you are a quickie mart
>> employee.

>
> Josef Mengele called himself a scientist too. You are that kind, if any,
> and I don't see any science from you to trust your brazen claim that you
> are employed in science.
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>> You have been observed creating a trail of archived posts generating
>>> unfounded and unsubstantiated suspicions, leaving your slime trail of
>>> a treacherous leech to suck the gullible blood of people who don't
>>> themselves know enough to recognize your venomous poison memes.
>>>

>> Like yourself perhaps?

>
> The archive trail followed to it's end shows that I give initial benefit
> of the doubt first, then let the attacker draw first blood. That's what
> any archive search of this exchange would produce.
>
> You are attacking my world. I am confronting you about it and informing
> you that there are ever higher prices to pay for each escalation of
> attack on your part. I understand that I am dealing with the insane and
> the insane are unpredictibly dangerous, but I have studied your kind of
> insanity in the literature. You are not exactly on the scale of Hannible
> Lector.