Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Please do not attribute quotes to me that I didn't make whether or not I agree with the quotes.

Where did I do such, please?

Your response here refers to my post N°3707764:
- the first quote is exactly what you wrote, at least my monitor,
- same with the second part where I clearly quoted a quote from your above named response. ("double quote")

Sorry, if this happened before.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

When you enclose something as a quote with my name on it and omit the actual author, it appears to be my statement.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Sorry, I didn't intend to do such.

My lame excuse is that I just did it the way I did it here since since seven years now.
I'll try to remember to change this bad and incorrect habit.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Thank you.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Chastising Walter Hinteler, Foxfyre wrote:

When you enclose something as a quote with my name on it and omit the actual author, it appears to be my statement.

Huh? It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own.

Cat puke!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own.

Cat puke!

Please be more specific, ican. I can't read your mind.

1 Reply

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee166/puffyfish50/gore-c.gif

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming

Even if man isn't causing global warming it doesn't mean man isn't causing global shitbust.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming

Even if man isn't causing global warming it doesn't mean man isn't causing global shitbust.

I didn't write that Spendi and you make it look like I did. It was in fact the headline some editor put on a Tim Ball essay.

Going back to the other scientist in dispute here, he is of the opinion that humankind is affecting the climate and Ball doesn't entirely concur with that. I don't have a clue which of them is right.

But both are in 100% agreement that the global community should not be implementing policy, especially policy that confiscates our property and takes away our choices, freedoms, opportunities, and options by using only that scientific opinion which supports their justification for doing that. Both believe that whatever policy it implemented, we should have assurance that it will not do more harm than good and the basis for any policy adopted should be based on honest evaluation and presentation of ALL scientific research, data, and opinion.

And that would include evaluation of the effect and consequences of the policy implemented and reasonable expectations for results achieved from it.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Ok!

The falsity of your statement to Foxfyre, "It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own," is as repugnant as cat puke.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Ok!

The falsity of your statement to Foxfyre, "It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own," is as repugnant as cat puke.

Are you saying it bothered her? Then why did she do it?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Ok!

The falsity of your statement to Foxfyre, "It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own," is as repugnant as cat puke.

I posted some quotes from one of my writings the other day and, while I did give the proper credit when I gave the presentation in real life, I failed to pick that paragraph up in my post. I was alerted that Debra had accused me of plagarism. My explanation of the error was not sufficient apparently. He is fond of following me around to each and every thread I regularly post on and accusing me of all sorts of things in a most uncivil and hateful manner which is why I have had him on ignore for some weeks now. I can't tell you how much more pleasant that has made my A2K experience. Glad to hear the old coot is alive and kicking though and I wish him all the best.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I didn't write that Spendi and you make it look like I did. It was in fact the headline some editor put on a Tim Ball essay.

I'm sorry then. I assume people are reading the thread and would know it was a headline in a thing you quoted--which was mindless bullshit from first to last.

I had no intention to make it look like you said it.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume that posters are reading the thread. It's something we do in England and it is ignorant of me to blithely assume that they do it in America too.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I didn't write that Spendi and you make it look like I did. It was in fact the headline some editor put on a Tim Ball essay.

I'm sorry then. I assume people are reading the thread and would know it was a headline in a thing you quoted--which was mindless bullshit from first to last.

I had no intention to make it look like you said it.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume that posters are reading the thread. It's something we do in England and it is ignorant of me to blithely assume that they do it in America too.

Well I had to be consistent. I had just gotten on Walter's case for doing the same thing so I couldn't very well be consistent if I gave you a pass. Smile

But mindless bullshit? Please explain why.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But mindless bullshit? Please explain why.

It seemed to be about nothing else but what a clever dick the writer is and the methods by which he goes about proving it.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
But mindless bullshit? Please explain why.

It seemed to be about nothing else but what a clever dick the writer is and the methods by which he goes about proving it.

I accept that it seemed that way to you and that's cool, though I would have been more comfortable if you had made that point along with your emphatic statement. But I wonder if you have anything to back up your observation other than you don't want to believe the message that Dr. Ball is putting out there? Otherwise, I'll have to believe that a PhD in climatology who has been closely involved with this whole process and has written extensively on it probably will be able to support a better case for his opinion. I have already acknowledged that Dr. Ball and Dr. Ross do not entirely agree, and I don't have any idea which is correct. But both have come up with very good arguments for their respective points of view.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Ok!

The falsity of your statement to Foxfyre, "It never bothered you before to take someone else's exact words and thoughts and present them as your own," is as repugnant as cat puke.

I posted some quotes from one of my writings the other day and, while I did give the proper credit when I gave the presentation in real life, I failed to pick that paragraph up in my post. I was alerted that Debra had accused me of plagarism. My explanation of the error was not sufficient apparently. He is fond of following me around to each and every thread I regularly post on and accusing me of all sorts of things in a most uncivil and hateful manner which is why I have had him on ignore for some weeks now. I can't tell you how much more pleasant that has made my A2K experience. Glad to hear the old coot is alive and kicking though and I wish him all the best.

It is not uncivil or hateful to point out your plagiarism. You might not like it, but you can't run from your own misconduct by claiming I'm a bad person. You're not a poor victim. You're dishonest, plain and simple. You did not quote your own writing. You explicitly presented another person's thoughts and words as your own:

Foxfyre the Plagiarizer wrote:

While I don’t think those who despise Christianity for whatever reason will much care, I would like to speak a bit in defense of Jesus of Nazareth and present some evidence of why we can believe that ‘he is the way’.

Where in the above paragraph does Foxfyre the plagiarizer give the reader any hint that she is presenting the thoughts and words of anyone other than herself? In particular, the Foxfyre the Plagiarizer stole the thoughts and words of Bill Muehlenberg. Muehlenberg wrote a book review of Professor Alvin Schmidt's book entitled, "How Christianity Changed the World."

Foxfyre the Plagiarizer wrote:

Secular critics of Christianity generally promote a thesis that Christianity has been a negative force in the world while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are superior. But if there had been no man called Jesus, I think we would inhabit a far more brutal and unpleasant world. An honest appraisal of history will show that despite its darkest moment, Christianity has overall been a force for good.

Compare to what Muehlenberg wrote:

Muehlenberg wrote:

One gets the impression from these secular critics that Christianity has been a negative force in the world, while non-Christian and non-religious alternatives are somehow superior. However, those conversant with the historical record know better. While Christendom has had its dark moments in history, over all, it can be credibly argued that it has been a force for good in the world.

In Kenneth Scott Latourette’s massive 7-volume history of the expansion of the Christian Church, the Yale historian concluded by noting just how much good this expansion had contributed to the world. More recently D. James Kennedy wrote a brief volume entitled What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? The world would be much worse off, he argued, if it weren’t for this man Jesus.

When you use another persons words, you're supposed to put those words in quotation marks and provide an attribution for the source. Foxfyre changed the words around a little to disguise her plagiarism, but it's still plagiarism.

How to Recognize Plagiarism

Word for Word:
http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/examples.html

Paraphrasing:
http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/example1paraphrasing.html

See the rest of Foxfyre's post, along with the complete article that she stole and presented as her own, here:

http://able2know.org/topic/133872-3#post-3697925

This is the most shameful act of plagiarism I have seen on this forum.

You hit rock bottom when you try to minimize your act in stealing the thoughts and words of another by claiming you forgot to give credit to the real author. You clearly presented the thoughts and words as your own. Several people praised you for your "excellent" post, and you remained silent. You are the lowest of the low.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

But I wonder if you have anything to back up your observation other than you don't want to believe the message that Dr. Ball is putting out there?

I don't know the actual figure for the quantity of fossil fuels that mankind has converted to his use since we discovered how to do it but it is vast. That vast quantity was laid down, locked up, over millions of years, hundreds of millions of years. It is, or was, derived entirely from the sun's energy over that period of time and whether it was a process designed by an intelligence or not it seems to me that the earth might not be able to sustain life had it not happened.

Such a conversion, for which a great number of very seedy politicians have tried to take the credit for, often successfully, taking place over no more than about 200 years, ignoring the odd bit from earlier dates, cannot possibly be having no effect on our environment. It is a vast quantity. World oil consumption is at 8O million barrels per day and probably rising. And coal figures I don't know but they are vast as well.

One of the spin-offs of this conversion has been the development of nuclear energy. Another is the ridiculous growth in population.

Your PhD expert, by concentrating on Co2, is being disingenuous and is encouraging complacency in the service of his career. He makes no mention of the issues I have mentioned which are the real issues we have to deal with.

Hundreds of millions of year's worth of sun energy locked up safely and then a 200 year long whoosh which, of course, media has a feeding frenzy on.

That's why I think the quote was mindless bullshit.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendi I think you didn't read the article.

Dr. Ball was protesting the IPCC conclusion that human generated CO2 is the primary (or sole) culprit in causing global warming--protesting how the data is being dishonestly presented actually. He has argued long and hard that there are many many other factors involved. And he most likely didn't write the headline that you quoted.

Dr. Ross is more convinced that humans do affect the climate than Dr. Ball is, but he takes the position that humans are part of intelligent design and therefore even their activity includes a balance--some stuff warms things up; some stuff cools things off--and while he thinks humans should be good stewards and take good care of the Earth, he believes government regulation of CO2 emissions will not have the advertised effect and will probably do more harm than good.

2 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know