Posted: Apr 28, 2010 1:26 pm
Luis Dias wrote:FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
So the scientists who stated the 95% confidence are dumber than you are, is that it? I rather think that's an unlikely situation.
Me too. Much more probably, they never stated the way you did, they just let you state it the way you are because it's "simpler" to the masses, and convincing.
Nobody's "letting me" state anything. My statement is my interpretation of what's set forth in Chapter 10 of AR4. If you wish to study that chapter and if you come to a different interpretation, please do so.
Luis Dias wrote:They've been at this for 20 years, how long have you been at it? They know exactly what the characteristics and attributes are of their analytical basis and they understand their veracity.
Argument from authority? Already? Man that was easy.
It's this kind of condescending retort that turns me off of anything you have to say. You need an attitude adjustment.
My comment is a simple statement of fact based on my study of AR4 and especially chapter 10. Go read it yourself, don't whine to me about so-called "arguments from authority," which only sidesteps and avoids the facts of the question, something you are far too adept at doing, not to mention your obfuscating commentaries.
I commented earlier and will repeat it here that you appear to think you know better how all this should be done than the professionals who are actually doing the work. In that light, what would you propose as a better means of projecting future trends or events or expressing them or describing them? Or are you of the mind that we ought to just give it all up and stop trying?
That's a pretty straightforward question that you should be able to answer. Typically, you avoided it last time round, so how about stepping up this time and telling us what you think.
As for the rest of it, I'm passing on your commentary because I don't think you have an appropriate attitude to be in this discussion. In a word, you're too smart for your own or anyopne's good and too snarky and condescending to be worthy of reply or rebuttal. To be blunt, I don't like you, your commentaries have never been attractive or convincing or compelling nor have they gone much beyond arrogant expressions of one upsmanship and snide cheap shots ... and that's not anything I'm interested in. No offense mind you, just the plain truth, which you have earned over a very long period of time.