In article ,
Meteorologist wrote:

Just a second - my material comes from ACCUWEATHER
Global Warming Center editor. Ian Davis is making
his typical wild charges as to motivation... Yes; there
is a difference of opinion here between authorities. So,
usenetters should ask themselves what the truth is on
this specific point.


Ok.. lets investigate.. your article is

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...siderabl-1.asp

while mine is

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...e-1977669.html

Your article is a blog, and not a news report.. ergo it is derived from
news reports. Ergo I am closer to the source of the facts in my citation
than you are in yours. Your blog seemingly erred in being less than
academic in plagerising news sources it didn't cite, and in saying much
less than the news sources from which it was derived.

However both articles in there title clearly say that the water temperature
is rising considerably and that man-made climate change is to blame.

Yet you choose to focus on the least relevant part of either of these articles.

Accuweather

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/cli...siderabl-1.asp

"But, since about 2003, the rate of upper ocean warming appears to
have slowed to a crawl, and scientists aren't sure why."

David Christainsen


If you were a news reporter and saw a car crash that killed people the way that
global warming is killing species, would your news report focus on the fact
that the skid marks were interesting in being less black than expected part
of the skid distance? Are you really that moronic?

You presumably wanted feedback on your post. My article gave it.. you failed
to grasp that. Presumably that is because you didn't bother reading it. Its
final section reads:

"Peter Challenor, of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, said the
overall picture is clear - the oceans are warming up. "I'm convinced of that.
Everything is consistent with it. The slope is statistically significant,
whereas the levelling off in recent years isn't statistically significant,"
he said. "This study has removed many of the nagging doubts about the details.
It shows the warming is real."

So in answer to your presumed request for comment on why the temperature has
levelled off in recent years, if you'd bother to research the issue you would
have known as I did, "the levelling off in recent years isn't statistically
significant".

If you don't know what "statistically significant" means look it up on
wikkipedia.

Do you not now see that your original post was no more than trolling waters
for fish not worth catching?

No doubt D.C. wants to look smart, and he certainly likes to generate vast
quantities of direct and indirect posts, but he isn't even smart enough to
grasp that he only ends up making himself look stupid and in need of the
psychiatric care his wife and mother told him to seek years back now.

Bogus trash from Ian Davis that we have come
to expect.


Let us explore this claim of yours!

Do you deny that you seek to look smart? Do you deny that you like to generate
vast quantities of direct and indirect posts? Do you deny that you are not
smart enough to grasp that your posts only end up making you look stupid?
Or do you deny that both your wife and mother told you that you needed to
seek medical help for your mental condition many years ago now?

However, I will conceed that I erred in one minor detail. It was your mother
and sister who according to you were telling you to seek help for your
psychiatric condition years ago now. I imagine though I haven't confirmed
this that your wive would concur with this majority opinion, since she voted
her opinion on the matter later by divorcing you.

| In a family argument with Sister & Mother in the afternoon at home
| 55 year-older finally convinces them that he does NOT turn his symptoms
| on & off and does NOT need the services of a psychiatrist for
| Situational/Performance Anxiety with the administration of a
| Psychiatric Tranquillizer.

So either defend your claim that I write bogus trash, or validate it. You
claim counter to all the evidence that you are Quaker.. so show that you
a regard for truth.

He should take up a hobby that doesn't involve trying to prove that he is
smarter than he is. *If one can't read one shouldn't be writing.

Ian Davis is a cheap liar here.


Again let us explore this!

How do I lie? Is it bad advice to suggest that you should take up a hobby
that doesn't involve trying to prove yourself smarter than you are. And is
it not sage advice that if one cannot read one shouldn't write?

Please help stop his endlessly cross posting to soc.religion.quaker. *This is
an act of vandalism on his part perhaps motivated by his desire for revenge
in accomplishing the near impossible in being expelled from a Quaker meeting
for being disruptive during their prayer meetings a full five years. I
gently ask that others not cross-post to soc.religion.quaker merely because
D.C. *does.. he is a very poor example of usenet etiquette for others to be so
carelessly emulating.

Ian.

Yet, I have branded Ian Davis as morally unclean
with reference to his consistent behaviour on SRQ.


You are the oil well endlessly spewing your pollution all over SRQ. Go and
look at the record. Endless seepage of stuff from other newsgroups onto
SRQ because you are determined to turn the taps full on (just as Saddam Hussein
did in the gulf) and let the pollution from other news groups flow into SRQ
and flow and flow. My argument with you is a simple one.. you choose to
pollute SRQ with endless posts that are are of no interest or relevance to the
people who interact on SRQ and which all on SRQ appear to object to -- I
choose, because I have a concern for SRQ, to challenge you on this. If you
stopped being a major polluter of SRQ I'd be happy enough to live and let
live, but you have refused all reasonable requests to cease and desist your
destructive behaviour.

You have been the one creating enemies right left and centre David.. not I.
It is your behaviour which is selfish, destructive, callous, and presuming
you capable of morals "morally unclean". You are a troll. The only question
is whether this is by choice or by chemical imbalances within your brain,
which by reason of insanity, you cannot be held accountable for.

I would be well past kicking you out of SRQ as those in Wellesley kicked you
out of their meeting if such an option was open to me.

Also, usenetters should expect that this flame war here will
be fought to the finish, no quarter given.


That I very much doubt. I am strongly of the opinion that you are no longer
capable of doing much more than cutting and pasting. So I rather imagine that
you'd not be able to have an argument no matter how desperately you wished
to. Metaphorically David, you are a damp quib that will not light, you
are a pencil with no lead, and so I believe quite impotent to deliver on any
of either your threats or promises.

I think on balance I prefer Jon's posts. He at least shows some small if
perverted creativity in his words. There is something so terribly sad
about someone who can only cut and paste, and endless beg for dialog that
they can never actually contribute anything to. I would not wish to share
your hell David, but I can imagine it. You really should seek help you
know. How could you be any worse than where you currently stand?

Follow up set to alt.support.schizophrenia

Ian