Hi - It's clear that this guy Steve's only intent is to confuse, disrupt
and interrupt decent discussions. It's hard to do at times, but I
think the best is to just ignore, act like he didn't even respond and
go on. Dealing with him just drags all of us down, saps our energy.
I'm sure that many do not post or discuss because they don't want
to have to face this. You can even put a filter on most email
programs that will just delete any messages for so and so before
you ever even see them.
Mike
> Dear Folks, how would you like to be off and on a list for over two years,
> and each time that you post a sincere message on a topic, you have a reply
> coming back from the same person on the list, 99 times out of 100, in
> disagreement. I am not the only one....I wrote a message to Benjamin about
> global modeling, and I get a rebuttal from you know who....
>
> But look at this:
>
> Steve:
> >As for the longer time series of my data, it is as I have noted before,
> >reconstructed data from proxy sources. It is the data that is used by
> >James Hansen in his predicitions of global warming. Thus, if John's
> >criticisms are actually true, that the data has been cooked, it means the
> >predicitions form Hansen, et. al. are also wrong. ROFLMAO!!"
>
> I had no idea that on November 28, 2000, that Steve would actually take
> the time and think about what I had pointed out regarding his data set.
> That possibly the data was 'proxy' data. That it was actually not possible
> to measure irradience outside the atmosphere in 1900. So to save face, he
> finally after 2 years of constant sniping and barbs, indicates that well I
> may have been correct.
>
> But you know Folks, he has forgotten my little lesson and is now
> contradicting himself. It was okay to use proxy data when it proved his
> point, but then when proxy data was not useful for proving his point,
> then he does not like it because it is proxy data.
>
> Here is what he said, December 18, 2000:
>
> >Given the lack of actual data and the reliance on considerable amounts of
> >proxy data the models that predict out for over 100 years should be taken
> >not only with a grain of salt, but a canister.
>
> Way too funny....anyway Folks I could not help myself. Yes way too funny.
> A person that only argues for argument sake never convinces anyone. And it
> was William James that said that in "Principles of Psychology". "Arguments
> never convince anyone". Honest I am not trying to 'goad him' but rather
> point out the contradictions in the 'arguments' ....which if I am on this
> list for two more years will be identical in style as they were four years
> previously.....
>
> chao,
>
> john foster
>
>
|