Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Doesn't work that way.
If you are making a point, spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free episodes:
If you are making a point, spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You seriously don't know?
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Your question is irrelevant.
If you are making a point, spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Try to avoid rhetorical questions.
If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
YOU are making my point LOL!
Wow. This is amazing.
Wow. This is amazing.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I couldn't make this up. Let me get this straight. You really don't know? Seriously. And you don't feel it is a big deal that you don't know?
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Try to avoid rhetorical questions.
If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I'm going to give you all night to think about it son.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Nope, doesn't work that way. Show what you know, Pixel. No one-liners. No putting tasks to others. You do your own work.
That begins with: trying to avoid rhetorical questions.
If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
You don't know the very most basic fundamentals of the science. How could you possibly NOT know about CO2 requirements for plant life to exist, what pre industrial levels were and what they are now... as well as what prehistoric levels were.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
This explains a lot. You have your cart before the horse son.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
As stated: If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
Take a risk, Pixel. Show us what you know. Lay it out for us. Dazzle.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
It looks like you are unable to make your point, spelling it out explicitly, using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I am not trying to make a point. I am asking you a very very simple basic question that anyone seriously involved in this subject would know. If you expect us to believe you know when CO2 levels are too high then we expect you to know what levels are to low.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
It looks like you need to go back to basics Tyger. You have no clue what the foundation of CAGW is about. I didn't think it would be this easy to show everyone how little you understand this science. I thought it would take at least 6 questions. You couldn't answer one. Thanks for engaging tho.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
No one is expecting anything, old girl. Poor thing.
You go, girl. Keep trying to mask your inability to articulate your views. We all suspect it's because it's hard for you to write at length - more than 1 or 2 sentences at a time.
Remember: Try to avoid rhetorical questions, and if you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
If you start doing the above - proving you have a coherent grasp of the science - it's possible you will get people to interact with you sensibly on the topic. Otherwise, my dear, I fear you must be satisfied with being alone in the playbox.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Why not just say you don't know or google it? Could it be you are now seeing you are wrong?
I think everyone here now sees you do NOT understand the basics and you fear losing face and credibility.
I think everyone here now sees you do NOT understand the basics and you fear losing face and credibility.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I have no interest in engaging you in conversation about climate change science. Full stop.
Wrong about what? I post links that interest me and seem relevant to a topic. No right or wrong about that.
Rather than a description of me, I think it's a description of you, Pixel. Fear of 'losing face and credibility' are your issues - not mine. What a sad comment on a life if 'face' and 'credibility' are all one has, and on an internet chat site, no less. You have my sympathy.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I really appreciate your attempt at showing your understanding of the climate topic. You ALMOST engaged in a discussion about it. Sadly one basic question stumped you and showed your true knowledge. When you have a basic understanding of the fundamentals we should try again.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Example of your inability to read and interpret text accurately.
Where? When? With you? Here? Unlikely.
Remember: Try to avoid rhetorical questions. If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence. Please do not rely on other posters to do your intellectual heavy lifting for you and then harass them for being uncooperative with your silly game. It's embarrassing for you.
If you are making a point, then spell it out explicitly, preferably using clear and well defined claims of evidence.
What should be clear to everyone watching this idiocy is - this has nothing whatever to do with what it appears to be about. At this point this is about having the last word, the appearance of dominance. There is nothing of substance being communicated by Pixel. This is his thread so if wishes to clog it up with this kind of nonsense, I will oblige until the cows come home.