Banned from Skeptiko until 15 Feb

[Laird]

There is nothing to stop you letting them know you've responded to their SF post on psiencequest.net - by posting a link to Psiencequest in the SF thread, (or perhaps by SF direct message - to avoid future moderation of outgoing links by David/Alex).

As long as you don't actually respond on SF... that should relieve your urge 

Heh. Fair enough Max. Perhaps I simply have too many urges that need relieving.

[Laird]

Another way of putting that: in some respects, there are propaganda wars going on over on Skeptiko - and if you don't respond efficiently and effectively to propaganda, it... well, propagates. And responding offsite to propaganda is neither efficient nor effective, and simply plays into the hands of the propagandists.

Of course, you might very well question whether I or anybody else should care about the propagandists on another forum...

I don't quite get what you mean, Steve.  Are you actually (subtly) applying this to me ? That I believe I know enough to think I'm smart ? But not enough to know I'm wrong ? 

I can't tell a pig from a dog in a forest at three hundred meters....and therefore I can't tell a veridical out of body experience from a parietal lobe stimulated, subconsciously confabulated delusion, with added on additional lucky guesses ? Or have I got the wrong end of the fishing pole, again ?

You got the wrong end of the fishing pole.
But average people making up their own minds about an extremely complicated thing, climate change, typically makes them look foolish. Jim is foolish for having an opinion unsupported with facts.

[Ninshub]

Just an idea: if you want to respond to something written over there, quote and respond to it here (and invite those people over if they want to), with no danger of banning!

[Laird]

OK. I will take the suggestions of Max and Ian, and respond here to posts in the thread which led to my banning.

From post #1,424:

Rather than directly engaging the issue or just losing the issue. The argument goes like this....

I admit a mistake or even if I didn't, therefore I am wrong about everything.

This is a form of logical fallacy.

Uh, no. The argument is this:

You have proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate. Therefore, you are unqualified to post scientific commentary in this or any other thread.

Just like if somebody flunked out of med school, I would have no interest in their medical opinion, I have no interest in (and nor should anybody else) your opinion as a scientific illiterate on climate science.

Not only have you proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate, you have proven yourself to be:

1. So illiterate that you failed to realise and correct it for pages and pages of a thread on this forum, even though plenty of people were patiently explaining to you your error.
   
2. So illiterate that even when you did realise it, you continued to assert related scientific misunderstandings, not realising that your scientific illiteracy is utterly bedrock.
   
3. Rude and arrogant in your illiteracy, vehemently declaring that everybody else was wrong.
   

You don't do all of that and then get to downplay it with a little "I admit a mistake". No, you didn't just admit your mistake. It took pages and pages of pointing it out to your very belligerent self before you admitted that mistake, and, even then, you continued to make related mistakes.

From post #1,430:

Settled science?

350 Papers Published Since 2017 Subvert The Claim That Post-1850s Warming Has Been Unusual, Global

In the last 35 months, 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published containing documented evidence that undermines the popularized conception of a slowly-cooling Earth followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped recent uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.

https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/26...t-...al-global/

Steve001 provided the appropriate response to this load of nonsense: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scient...ming-myth/

From post #1,431:

how many people on this site are "qualified"? you?

You need to read a little more closely. You don't need to go back more than a page or two to be able to answer that last question in my own words.

From post #1,432:

Can you reference any of his discourteous remarks that were worse than he received?

Bingo. He can't. I stated only the fact of LoneShaman's proven scientific illiteracy - that's not discourteous in the context of a discussion which depends upon scientific literacy; it's entirely appropriate. I didn't, as LoneShaman did of me, call him a "cry baby", suggest that he was "triggered", tell him he was "bitch[ing] and moan[ing]", etc etc.

From post #1,434:

Malf, if you want to use this source as a place to campaign, you may find yourself sharing Laird's fate, but since you have contributed far less than he has, your ban might be a little longer

These are the words of a hypocritical autocrat. All along, you have been urging me to respond to the (supposed) evidence in this thread, yet when malf asks you a totally legitimate question which calls upon you to provide an evidence-based answer, you dodge the question, and threaten - with utterly no cause - to ban him as you have me.

[Laird]

(and invite those people over if they want to), with no danger of banning!

Consider them invited...

Specifically as this applies to Lone Shaman, he knows enough to think he is smart but not enough to know he is wrong. It applies to David Bailey too.

My favorite Lone Shaman fail was the Moon Landing discussion thread where he didn't understand how acceleration worked.  

Linda

[Ninshub]

Since the topic is global warming, maybe the best thing would be to move that part of the thread to the appropriate sub-forum though?