To Max Green

Before you storm off the topic because it's beneath you now and you're bored of it. (A tactic of a divisive narrative in of itself). Consider what I told you about before on preaching to the choir. For reference I made the comment on Saturday, 14 December 2019 5:44:26 AM. It's the third post on page 98 of this discussion.

The main point to repeat is this:

"The issue here is for being able to bridge the gap and be able to talk to the other side, instead of only talking to your own side, while harassing the other side or at the very least spreading the distance between the two sides."

You can leave the topic for any reason or any excuse, or leave it without announcing a reason of distaste. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you were doing anything except preaching to the choir of your own group (I think Belly and Paul are the only ones left still engaged in the topic that agree with you, in your choir,), while at the same time you're driving hard to increase the distance between you and anyone who's a "denier." If you leave thinking anything more this this then It almost sounds reasonable saying to Josephus and Mhase that they did not listen to you, or respond to you. But the truth is this would be a double standard. Because from what I've read neither have you listened to them or responded to their points. What's happened is the issue of talking past each other, not to each other, and not really listening or caring to listen to the other's side of things. In other words all your doing is preaching to the choir (Belly and anyone else who already agrees with you) and only listening to them and their pats on the back for agreeing with you.

That said, this topic is gone on far enough to leave it. Nothing more said is going to change anything, and it's not like anyone is actually talking to the other side anyways.

NOT NOW SOON,

I actually tried to discuss the points MHAZE raised. The only person you saw me 'talking passed' was Josephus, because he was - as I always say - "not debating but rotating".

AT LEAST MHAZE HAD THE MANNERS TO TRY AND DISPROVE THE POINTS I WAS MAKING! (But he left with his tail between his legs because the science conclusively disproved many of his Dunning-Kruger assertions.)

JOSEPHUS didn't even seem to COMPREHEND anything 'sciencey' he posted, and when I replied with the peer-reviewed answer rather than debate it he just moved on to the next point. He didn't even BLINK when I raised his behaviour with him! Because I find that kind of trolling so annoying I just decided to imitate it, just to illustrate for him how annoying it is. He posted one thing, and then I'd just post "Disprove this" and link to some other completely random climate fact. It was for illustration purposes only. I don't know if he got it.

So don't lecture me pal, have a look at the behaviour of your own team! As I always say (continued next post...)
______________________________________

Dogmatic deniers don't debate, they rotate. They have links to spurious, easily debunked papers, and they KNOW they're easy to debunk. So they fire them off like so many artillery shells. Assertion 1 is loaded.

FIRE 1: "It's not us, it's the sun!" they assert and post a link to a dumb website like WUWT. But will they read the replies? Will they debate the peer-reviewed science? Were they ever considering learning anything? Don't be so naive! Before they even read the reply they're loading shell 2!

FIRE 2: "It's just computer models and I don't trust computer models". Assertion and links posted. People who respect climate science try to answer, but they're wasting their time. While the answers come in, the tinfoil-hatter is already loading 3!

FIRE 3: "It's a conspiracy to tax the world and create a world government." Blah blah blah, on and on they go, never once being interested in an actual adult conversation about what the science says. They don't even realise their opinion has been bought for them, paid by the Koch brothers! http://youtu.be/IaKm89eVhoE

They don't debate, they rotate, from red herrings to straw-men to cherry-picking. Don't waste your time with tinfoil hatters like these.

NOT NOW SOON: as I remember it, you didn't answer some of the sciency questions I put to you? You're just ignoring the science and then coming in lecturing me on my conversation tone? Sorry dude, you just don't get to be that patronising without having something REAL to discuss. I love how many Deniers are so out of touch with the climate science they hate that they quickly move to Bulverism, to psychoanalysing WHY I'm wrong without proving that I'm wrong! It's childish, really. Oops, I said childish, you better lecture me....

Anything but discuss the science! ;-)

Max Green.

We've discussed the science. I still hold that there are no reliable sources for the global warming narratives. On that point you've stepped away from that point to patronize me about listening to the media instead of the science. Honestly I don't care for the tactics you try to pull. And believe me, science is not your main points. It's trying to press buttons and do the same thing that "your team" does, ridicule ridicule ridicule.

I left the conversation regardless of any questions because I saw the discussion spinning in it's wheels. There was nothing left to contribute. You've ignored the points given to you, (unless you argue that insults as legitimate comebacks and deserving points, I'd say you drove away the people your talking to). (Or am I now context kid now that I bring it all up? ). Honestly, if you want to win this discussion. Leave now. There is no "winning." That should be as plain as it can be from the length to these crap shoot discussions on global warming as often as they come up. If you want to defend your points, then do better then you've done. Again lecturing on what are actual points and what are sidestepping them for raising the bar in shoveling dung, might be a lecture they should've provided in your education.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the rotating points. I know how you feel. I've gotten that from a different subject matter, trying to bury any response with a different new complaint. Best I can give for you is to try to address the points that can, or let it go. You're not on trial here even if you want to defend the cause of global warming. If you can't do that, then what's going to occur is you get sucked away from anything of value and instead respond emotionally and defensively against the people, instead of towards the topic. Often those rotating points come from somewhere and won't go away until they are properly addressed. (Again there's a difference between actually addressing the issues, versus being defensive or aggressive towards the issues.

Ignore my lecture or don't. I wanted to give you a reality check before you leave triumphantly as if the discussion is beneath you now. The elitist stance does not help you or anyone on your "team." Neither by saying how dumb "deniers" are, not by trying to act superior in any other farce jab. By your actions are how you will be responded back. So believe it or don't, but you and your "team" needs a good lecturing.

NOT NOW SOON
>We've discussed the science.

No we haven't, we've discussed your subjective opinions of the science.

>And believe me, science is not your main points.

Rubbish. Remember me posting how few papers in the 1970's predicted an ice age, how the original authors recanted in a few years, and MOST predicted warming? You retreated from the science into your memories and had a long 2 post rant about your memories of the media.

>It's trying to press buttons and do the same thing that "your team" does, ridicule ridicule ridicule.

The subject is THE SCIENCE, and YOU'RE THE ONE that keeps pleading and whining that we should really be discussing your impressions.

>You've ignored the points given to you,

OK, once again, let's discuss the science of those points. What EVIDENCE do you have that climate change isn't real?

>Ignore my lecture or don't. I wanted to give you a reality check before you leave triumphantly as if the discussion is beneath you now.

Oh cry me a river! Whine whine whine. "Reality check"? You mean more like internal psychodynamic unrelated stream-of-consciousness check? Why don't you just tell us about every sad thing that ever happened to you as a child? Here's a comfy lounge for you. I'll just get my monocle and notebook. There, I'm ready.

Whine away!