Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
SO it is my fault now that you won't answer a simple question.
|
Well, I can only predict your future actions based on your past ones, and given your posts in response to mine on this exact issue back when the emails first came out, there's no point in answering is there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Saying that someone has lied IS calling them a liar. Like saying that someone stole something is the same as calling them a thief. It goes hand in hand.
|
Not really no, the word liar could refer to someone who's told one lie (in that case everyone is a liar), or it could refer to someone who habitually tells lies. Because it's ambiguous (I don't know if this guy is a habitual lair or not, likely not) I chose to refer to the statement itself rather than the individual.
See, this is the kind of nonsense that makes a reasonable discussion impossible. Here's the chain of reasoning: Saying that a statement is a lie is apparently name calling, supposedly a common tactic among AGW zealots, implying that name calling is negative and shouldn't be done. So what do you do when someone DOES lie? You can't say so because it's name calling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Way to obfuscate photon.
|
Not really no, it wasn't obfuscation it was misrepresentation. You don't like when it happens to you, but seem unable to refrain from doing it yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
You posted that he lied at 1:30 of the video and I asked you what exactly. This is now 3 posts in which you have not answered.
|
So?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
It would be very strange that a AGW believer would lie (on video in front of an audience) about evidence bringing the science that supports his position on AGW into disrepute. That simply defies logic.
|
I would really like you to explain this.[/QUOTE]
I watched the rest of the video and the whole thing is a lie or a misunderstanding of what data was used and why. You are right it does defy logic, all his claims about what data is used and why are explained fully in the sources. Maybe he just didn't read the papers and listened to too many people who thought the emails were a smoking gun? Who knows, ask him, I can't explain someone else's motivations.