James T. Conklin: Should Covert Hostility & Dishonesty Be Used Against Global Warming Crisis Infidels?
I believe I am openly hostile and sign my work -- please indicate where I have been covert. I haven't even simply been deleting your work, but annotating it.
I believe it is you who use untrue statements, many long since shown to be untrue. So who is the dishonest one?
I believe it is you who use untrue statements, many long since shown to be untrue. So who is the dishonest one?
.
I'm not sure of what you two are talking about. But i thought i would give my input to try and be more active on this forum 
.
I see many posts in which Rpenner has edited for the better, and has picked out mistakes accurately.
I also see a lot of global warming propaganda floating around the internet where (although perhaps there is global warming, i don't know enough to either agree or disagree) it does seem some "facts" are unfairly biased towards one end. Biased to such a point that the facts don't really support the claim, but are sometimes just coincidental.
Rpenner is good at picking out errors, and while i do not post much, i read everything. It doesn't take a scientist to "google" his corrections, and double check to see if he is actually right in correcting the original post. In every case so far that i have read, he hasn't been wrong.
I think that his corrections should be taken as constructive criticism. No need to be offended, although as people deny these corrections and continue to post nonsense, i do notice a change in tone with the corrections
. A simple solution could be to just listen to what Rpenner is saying?
.I see many posts in which Rpenner has edited for the better, and has picked out mistakes accurately.
I also see a lot of global warming propaganda floating around the internet where (although perhaps there is global warming, i don't know enough to either agree or disagree) it does seem some "facts" are unfairly biased towards one end. Biased to such a point that the facts don't really support the claim, but are sometimes just coincidental.
Rpenner is good at picking out errors, and while i do not post much, i read everything. It doesn't take a scientist to "google" his corrections, and double check to see if he is actually right in correcting the original post. In every case so far that i have read, he hasn't been wrong.
I think that his corrections should be taken as constructive criticism. No need to be offended, although as people deny these corrections and continue to post nonsense, i do notice a change in tone with the corrections
. A simple solution could be to just listen to what Rpenner is saying?