sci.energy

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:55:48 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

>Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> >Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
>> >> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Lloyd wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > altheim wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > What do the modellers (ipcc) do about this inadequacy? Surely
>> >> >> >> >> > > they don't just ignore it?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > The IPCC simply ignores anything that is inconvenient or tends to weaken their
>> >> >> >> >> > political cause.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No, the black helicopters take people like you away.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You're pathetic.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> After your unfounded claim about the IPCC, Graham? What do you
>> >> >> >> expect? That kind of attack is itself pathetic.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Are you claiming that (very undemocratic) political change isn't an aim of the AGW
>> >> >> >lobby.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm saying that you wrote without justification or knowledge and you
>> >> >> earned the retort you got.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, are you claiming that (very undemocratic) political change isn't an aim of the AGW
>> >> >lobby.
>> >>
>> >> You were speaking without justification or knowledge about the IPCC
>> >> and you earned your retort.
>> >>
>> >> Now you are disingenuously shifting the discussion to the "AGW lobby."
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >So, are you claiming that (very undemocratic) political change isn't an aim of the AGW
>> >lobby.
>>
>> Graham, are you this unable to read what I write?
>
>I read that you would prefer not to answer a simple question. I'm beginning to suspect you're in
>favour of undemocratic political change based on pseudo-scientific dogma.

Why should I answer a question where you changed the object? I had
addressed myself to your comment about the IPCC. You switched this to
"AGW lobby," disingenuously I think. And posed a new question about
which I have no opinion. I don't discuss, nor do I care to, your "AGW
lobby," whatever that might be. Mostly, because I've no idea what you
are talking about.

If you find that difficult to understand and worse if you try and make
something BIG about that, then you are really, seriously having some
mental trouble I probably cannot help you with.

>> >Your refusal to answer a simple question is very telling.
>>
>> I am focused on only one thing. Read my words.
>
>I can only assume you're focused on avoiding my perfectly reasonable question.
>
>Let me ask you one last time.....
>
>Are you claiming that (very undemocratic) political change isn't an aim of the AGW lobby.

I can't claim anything about some group where I have no idea the folks
you are talking about. Why should I care to?

You really have a problem, Graham. You should look to yourself for
your answers.

Jon