Yes I know Bonmot, I promised myself I would not bother with you, but I can't help myself, I feel sorry for you.

It must be awful, knowing deep down that you are wrong, & have been conned.

It must be even worse to know you have no choice but to follow the path, even knowing it leads to failure.

Still, it was nice of you to admit you have no intention of reading anything that could weaken that desperate hold you have on that unrealistic hypothesis of global warming.

Do be careful. We have just seen that even an ocean liner can appear to be still afloat & sound, long after the disaster is well established. Thus is it with AGW, & those who have bet their careers on it.

Delusions of grandeur, Hasbeen?

Where did I admit that I “have no intention of reading anything that could weaken that desperate hold you have on that unrealistic hypothesis of global warming.” (sic)

Fake sceptics often make stuff up, distort and misrepresent what other people say.

To be clear;

A whole lot of emails were "hijacked" and a premeditated campaign of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation and character assassination followed. Despite multiple investigations showing the science of global warming valid, the fake sceptics did it all again - without anything substantively new to add, I must add.

How do I know this?

Let me make it simple for the simple minded, Hasbeen … I have read some of the emails, on WUWT.
Which should lay to rest the lie that I don’t read anything from another point of view. Real sceptics do but going by your comments, you don’t. You appear to wear the fake sceptic tag with pride, Hasbeen.

I digress. Yes, Anthony Watts – the bastion of fake scepticism.

Examples:

Watts & Co tried to blame ‘global warming’ on bad station siting. Turns out he is wrong.

Watts & Co tried to blame it on ‘dropout’ of reporting stations. Turns out he is wrong.

Yep, Watts & Co could hardly contain their worship for the Berkeley (BEST) team to investigate global temperature estimates – even funded by some notable fake sceptics. Yep, they were all ‘cock-a-hoop’ the new estimates would prove that the ‘other’ estimates were fraudulent.
Reading this, rummer?

Well, Watts even proclaimed that he would accept whatever the BEST results showed, even if it contradicted him.

It did, and Watts & Co do the fang-dango … twisting and turning, refusing to accept BEST’s conclusions and even launching into multiple tirades to discredit the new BEST effort.

The rest is history and just shows how weak the fake sceptic position is.

Hasbeen, your last back-handed slur to a most tragic event is no different to runner trying to tarnish all climate scientists to the despicable actions of that wine researcher – typical actions of those in denial.

bornmute quote..""and that today’s organisms
evolved from ones..living in the past..(the theory*..of evolution).""

mate lets begin at the beginning

please name..the first life
[what species...what genus*]

please name what *new genus..it evolved into

see mate the thing is..without proof..ya just got facts[opinion/theo-ry]

that yet others
have blind faith in..

see..if you cant explain
you take it on trust..[to wit ya got..*'faith']

so please name/names
what signle mutation..created a [any]..new genus

but its only too easy
to say..you got proof..when ya got nuthin

""Even as these..[proofs?]..are overwhelmingly accepted""
as proved..can you provide
your own proof..lol

no you cant
you will set-up some kiddie site and say here...lol

but mate..lets just have the names
name names...then explain!..this first eviloootion

lol..""by the scientific community""

run by exclusive all knowing..[lol]..peers[lol]

just like the priest hoods..except they
judge things they dont know..[via measures/process they cant comprehend..]..

science is a general lable..not a specific proof
its a talisman..ignorant use
to take credit from god..

we KNOW one thing..for sure
science never evolved!..any new genus..EVER*

that natural/selection..isnt..a science method
that survival..of the fittest..isnt science

[its clever buzzwords..use
just like the warming hoax/spin words

""fame still awaits anyone..who
could show these theories""..lol
..""to be wrong.""

state ya theories
present..YOUR proofs

i will demolish ya theory..
when ya give..some actual..definitive PROOF!

""Science is NOT..a faith based religion""

lol
no its a general lable..[that prooves nuthin]
just like "religeon's"..just like warming/cooling hoaxes

be specific

please
name what 1st..what 2de

how hard can it be to give ya sci-ence proof
if its science..its repeatable..[having random facts..isnt proof]

join the dots
ya got nuthin

every genus..has huge gaps
not one is coverable..in a micro evolution

what is..the half warmblood/half cold blood..genus named

ya got nuthin

Perhaps one should behave like a real sceptic and explore some real science journals, for example:

Journal of Evolutionary Biology, or

Molecular Biology & Evolution, or

Evolution, or

Genetics, or

Royal Society of London (Series B), etc.

Perhaps then, one could then learn how to;

. Not write gibberish

. Form an argument

. Critique a hypothesis

. Understand science without one's faith based dogma

ps & btw oug,

you may even try to distinguish the difference between scientific evidence (as opposed to ‘proof’) and philosophy

Bonmot for what it is worth, I found your first post well put and logical. Frankly I couldn't have said what you have better.

It is a shame that you find yourself boxed in, in the religious lather of a few stone-agers.

If one was to pinpoint the most berserk and obscene attempt at fraud in the guise of science, you would have to identify intelligent design theory. Religion's way of combating the facts.

merci beaucoup, thinker 2

However, I do not feel "boxed in".

On the contrary, it is the 'god-botherers' of the world that are boxed in. Ergo, it is impossible for them to think that they are complicit in destroying God's creation, hence their fervent denial.

I totally agree with your interpretation of 'intelligent design' - not science at all, imho.

Nevertheless, it raises an important issue - I have much respect for the science of one well known, and genuine, sceptic (in the scientific sense). However, he has much 'inner' stress because he fervently believes in 'creationism' - his religious leanings 'influence' his scientific bias. Sad, really.