While not in sympathy with all that Steve says nor the way he sometimes
says it, I think it unfair to pick on him uniquely for criticism.
Thats all.
Regards Paul K
>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
>>
>>
|