“Ha ha ha! That is a magnificently lame attempt to dig yourself out of a hole. Ironic? Of course it was. Of course!”

Look fella I read this from the start:

“As I said before, the post you’re referring to was not written by me. I’ll demonstrate how stupid you look by insisting that it was me in my next two posts.

Posted by: Scientist | August 07, 2008 at 02:42 AM”

It is so easy to get you to be an asshole in the thread.You failed to consider the possibility that you were being led by the nose.Did you even noticed that I was stringing you out?

Remember this?:

“Actually I thought it scientist who wrote that B.S. But decided to play it up and expose his now predicable reply.He had posted 2 times in a minute.”

And this:

“I noticed right off that you posted twice in just a minute of time.I made that post just to bring out the “fucktard” B.S. I have come to expect out of you.”

Reading comprehension you say?

LOL

I did read it carefully and I did see that. But it’s what you made of it that I have an issue with – you trying to twist a clearly negative ‘feedback’ into a positive one.
How do you expect people to take you seriously when you apparently can’t even get something as fundamental as the sign of the feedback right?

“Good spot, Tommy. Especially since the Real Og links his identity to a URL, thereby allowing us to attach a direct reference point to him. Somehow, I think Scientist may have decide to post as og, but ignored that little factoid. Hard to believe, considering how anal he is about HTML links, but then, he only refers to those when he wishes to belittle others. I’m still waiting for him to post his credentials, like some many of his debate partners have been willing to do.”

Actually I thought it scientist who wrote that B.S. But decided to play it up and expose his now predicable reply.He had posted 2 times in a minute.

Og never writes like that at all.A give away.But Scientist writes like that a lot!

LOL

I never see this trolling foul mouthed troll in skeptical forums that are MODERATED.That is because he would be banned very fast.For his frequent bad mouthing.I would have banned this jerk within 24 hours at my forum.

Here he survives because there is no moderator.

“Scientist I think you just fell for a troll post.This is not the real og you have been sparring with.”

Scientist incredibly fails to discern the truth of my post.That it was ironic:

“Wow. You really are unbelievably thick. I made it spectacularly obvious that I was posting as ‘og’, to demonstrate how pathetically idiotic ‘og’ was for attributing to me a false post made under my name. Now you’ve topped even ‘og’s idiocy. Seriously, how old are you? You write like a backward 12 year old, and you obviously have significant comprehension problems.”

I noticed right off that you posted twice in just a minute of time.I made that post just to bring out the “fucktard” B.S. I have come to expect out of you.

You do not write like a scientist since you are a foulmouthed jerk.Who is so darn quick to spread the bile in replies to just about anyone.Who differs from you.

Your demonstration was demonstrably pathetic and so is your crappy reply to me.

LOL

Peter – read this statement carefully: it moves away faster than it would in a uniform gravitational field. As you are intellectually challenged I guess I have to say explicitly that nowhere in that statement is there anything which suggests that a comet is accelerating. Now how about thinking before you post next time?

Note that skeptics believe… – they all do, do they? And you speak for them, do you?
Come on man, you can do better than that. He is speaking in general terms. For example, Bush doesn’t care about black people. This does not mean ALL black people, Bush only means those who live in New Orleans and the greater USA area, not the ones in Africa and especially Saudia Arabia.

given the solar activity has been stable or slowly declining for at least the last thirty years, we can rule out the sun as a factor. Given that CO2 has been steadily increasing, it is rather obvious that it is a factor. Calculations show that it is the dominant factor.
If a stable or decline in Sun activity occurs at the same time as a CO2 rise, then they are related? Or is it the rise in CO2 which is suppressing the Sun, or maybe the decline in solar activity is causing recent cooling? Those calculations you speak of are obviously biased by the comfy funding of socialist governments. I can’t trust “Big Gov’t” funded studies to be true. Wait, I know, more “Big Gov’t” funding has led to a temperature increase. Correlation = Causation… weeee..e.e.e. hiccup…

I am a physicist. I have a PhD. What do you have?
A pack of sugar free gum, 3 quarters 2 dimes, 4 pennies (don’t you hate when they don’t give you a free penny), car keys, and some clothes.
and
Master’s degree in Computer Science and soon to be PhD in Computer Science. I focused on computer models and simulation, specifically complex systems and interactions.

++++

On an even lighter note, I think we should create legislation to ban ‘Scientist’. Those Man-made-global-warming deniers deniers are squashing our consensus. There are more of us in consensus than those “peer reviewed” scientists.

My initial urge was to call you hopelessly ignorant and to tell you to go back to school and not come back until you’ve learnt something, but I won’t.
My second urge was to make some flippant remark such as, “Wow, the guy’s discovered perpetual motion”, but I won’t.
Instead, I’m simply going to point out your glaring error: Comets do not accelerate away from the Sun, they merely decrease their rate of deceleration as they get further away. That’s reducing negative feedback in your analogy, not positive feedback.
If comets and other bodies, accelerated both on their approach to the Sun and as they moved away from it, they would have gotten faster and faster until the solar system flew apart, and we would not now be around to discuss it.

I am a physicist. I have a PhD. What do you have?