What is a climate scientist?

[Crick]

You cannot converse correctly and you don't have the ability to learn simple things. It is straight forward. Do you honestly sit in a pub with a mate and when you reply, you start splitting up and repeating what he/she said with your silly comments between them? Bizarre.

It is a very handy way to have discussions. If you make a post with a single point, I do not need to take such measures. If you make one with multiple points that need to be addressed, this is a convenient manner to address them all without you or the audience having to figure out to WHAT I'm actually responding. It makes it slightly more difficult for people I'm debating to pretend I didn't say something with which they do not want to deal.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It is a very handy way to have discussions. If you make a post with a single point, I do not need to take such measures. If you make one with multiple points that need to be addressed, this is a convenient manner to address them all without you or the audience having to figure out to WHAT I'm actually responding. It makes it slightly more difficult for people I'm debating to pretend I didn't say something with which they do not want to deal.

So if we were sat in a pub and I spoke giving 4 points, when you reply do you repeat my first point, then you reply, then repeat my second point, and then you reply, and so on?

But I know what I said, what makes you think I need to re-hear/re-read it again? Just do a reply, I can cope, can you not.

Suffice to say, if you multi-quote me, three things happen; I don't read it, you don't get a reply, and you wasted your time. If someone here loves that conversation style, then knock your pan in with them.

 

[Crick]

So if we were sat in a pub and I spoke giving 4 points, when you reply do you repeat my first point, then you reply, then repeat my second point, and then you reply, and so on?

But I know what I said, what makes you think I need to re-hear/re-read it again? Just do a reply, I can cope, can you not.

Suffice to say, if you multi-quote me, three things happen; I don't read it, you don't get a reply, and you wasted your time. If someone here loves that conversation style, then knock your pan in with them.

We're not sitting in a pub. We're on the internet having a debate via text.

If you can't cope with this method, just don't respond to me.

 

[Captain Caveman]

We're not sitting in a pub. We're on the internet having a debate via text.

If you can't cope with this method, just don't respond to me.

Pretend you're still in a pub and try that pub normal conversation via text on the internet, no reason to fuck it up. I will continue to respond to your replies, but not the butchered up multi quote replies. If you want your replies read by me and possibly a reply, simply don't butcher my quotes. Less complicated than the weather, isn't it!!

If you want to waste your time, carry on in the retard fashion.

 

[Crick]

Pretend you're still in a pub and try that pub normal conversation via text on the internet, no reason to fuck it up. I will continue to respond to your replies, but not the butchered up multi quote replies. If you want your replies read by me and possibly a reply, simply don't butcher my quotes. Less complicated than the weather, isn't it!!

If you want to waste your time, carry on in the retard fashion.

As I said before, I do not find conversations with you sufficiently valuable to alter my normal methods. Skip whatever you want to skip.

 

[Captain Caveman]

As I said before, I do not find conversations with you sufficiently valuable to alter my normal methods. Skip whatever you want to skip.

Ditto, when you're asked what you base your conclusions and opinions on, I just get hot air statements. If you make a claim or opinion, asking folk to use Google to find the evidence is well below valuable, in fact, it's in deficit territory. Little graphs of a century or two compared to nothing is wasting every ones time.

So questions, if 440ppm co2 is dreadful, why do produce growers pump co2 into greenhouses to 1,200ppm? If you say we need to eliminate cattle production to save co2, what percentage of agricultural co2 is from cattle? I know the figures because I know scrapping meat agriculture is retarded. So what figures do you base your conclusion on?

 

[Crick]

Ditto, when you're asked what you base your conclusions and opinions on, I just get hot air statements.

You get more links from me - and to reliable sources - than from any other poster on this forum.

If you make a claim or opinion, asking folk to use Google to find the evidence is well below valuable, in fact, it's in deficit territory. Little graphs of a century or two compared to nothing is wasting every ones time.

I'm sorry you don't understand basic (very basic) science.

So questions, if 440ppm co2 is dreadful, why do produce growers pump co2 into greenhouses to 1,200ppm?

Because their greenhouse is not the planet.

If you say we need to eliminate cattle production to save co2, what percentage of agricultural co2 is from cattle? I know the figures because I know scrapping meat agriculture is retarded. So what figures do you base your conclusion on?

I've never made such a claim. Eliminating cattle production doesn't "save co2". It would reduce emissions. Anything we can do to reduce emissions would be helpful.