Weather Banter - View Single Post

Dawlish · February 4th 10, 05:31 PM posted to uk.sci.weather

On Feb 4, 4:59*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
...
Hi Dawlish,

Hi Crunchy,

Bad move.

You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete
misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions.

This is hardly news to me. *To make it perfectly
clear, I agree with you here. *Further, I read Latif's
own public statement on the matter.

I
find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent
global temperature rises at all.

My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work.
Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

By Latif, Svensmark and all the
others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler
over the last 2 years. It didn't.

Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. *Further, you seem
completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon
paper on water vapor. *Further, I agree with you to the extent
of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years.

Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your
misguage of my position in the climate science debate.

Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual
background -

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL -

a) my late father was a psychiatrist
b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University
* * in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who
* * was brilliant and world famous.
c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free

So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate
but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons -

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre...

CLIMATE SCIENCE

I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but.
All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. *

I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back
the same, if you don't mind.

I have said the same on usenet once in a while.
Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science
debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy
is necessary in conversation.

*Best not to **tell* people to "discuss"
your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they
address you as Sir Crunchy.

Bogus.

You got

a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. *

I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It
wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph
confirms my judgement.

Bad move; call me David, please. *Further, respectfully,
you need to review your flawed judgement.

Once God helped me stabalize

the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited
me, remember?

Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have
a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me.

You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for
quite a number of years. *This is the way we talk. *So,
with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on.

Further, you are not entirely truthful here. *Recently, you
mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather
without crossposting.

In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

*You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you
Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh?

Excuse me, you are using bad psychology.

Forget about me personally for the moment.

If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people,
to co-operate with other climate scientists, such
a person must be polite and informative.

So, in the case of the climate science debate, as
I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

Bye Crunchy.