The second law, and the atmospheric greenhouse effect

[phaedrus]

Since Sylas has complained about me using his real name, I thought I would respond again to this post of HIS. He can't even recall that he revealed his identity and has complained about me using his real name. He thinks he can tell people what public information he wants them to use.

What's the big freaking deal? I thought you were rising to bigger things and going beyond the petty arguing to smell the roses. This sort of behaviour does not smell like roses. I get it, you don't like sylas. Move on.

[Roy]

Hey moron,

My first ever post* on TWeb was an objection to Socrates undeservedly writing "Glenn Moron". While I still don't think Glenn is a moron, my respect for him has diminished to the extent that if his posts then had been like his posts now, I doubt I'd have cared.

Roy

*IIRC.

[Augustine2004]

Glenn, it looks like you are being vindactive toward Sylas. Care to explain why?

[rogero]

Glenn, it looks like you are being vindactive toward Sylas. Care to explain why?

[wise guy mode=on]

What is "vindactive"? It sounds like some sort of enzyme additive in wine-making. I know emotions have been "fermenting" around here lately, but do have to so arcane with the neologisms?

[wise guy mode = still on]

[grmorton]

Glenn, it looks like you are being vindactive toward Sylas. Care to explain why?

If I explained why themod would send to another forum

First. i am a very rebellious Person. i hated being told what to do or what to believe. secondly. The rules had always been in the past that privacy was there so long as you yourself didnt reveal it. Maybe the ruleshave changed. ETA: if I suddenly told the powers that be that i didnt want people knowing who I was after I clearly have revealed who I am. You all would have a right to think me nuts. But somehow that doesnt apply to Sylas

. Sylas claimed he wanted his privacy but he himself revealed his identity. I was merely showing the powers that be that I violated no privacy. I was merely showing the facts in my defence. If one can not present evidence contracharge made against you then this is no place I want to be.

Maybe you all are corect tbat I have littlte to contribute anymore. But as i have said many times. Idont give much of a darn what people think of me. Never did. If i had. I never would have believed yec nor left it.

Roys proclamation of his lack of respect for me is not new on his part Roythe impact of those statments diminishes with the square of the usage.

I cant figure out how to go back and edit this on my iphone. Fat finger typing may leave some typos above

Now if people dont like what I did I frankly cant figure out why. I merely quoted the guy

[lao tzu]

Now if people dont like what I did I frankly cant figure out why. I merely quoted the guy

No you didn't. You used the quote as an opportunity to engage in the same reckless disregard for the truth that has characterized nearly all of your posting on climate science for the past few years. And has become typical of your posting since your health crisis, you make no distinction between recklessness in science and recklessness in characterizations of scientists.

Since Sylas has complained about me using his real name, I thought I would respond again to this post of HIS. He can't even recall that he revealed his identity and has complained about me using his real name. He thinks he can tell people what public information he wants them to use.

There's nothing there that's true, with the exception of the complaint.

He obviously does recall he's posted his name before, in the context of his published work. He has asked you not to use his name, rather than telling you not to. And it is clearly because he asked you not to that you've chosen to continue to do so, most likely out of spite ... because you can't answer his scientific objections to your endless rehashing of bonkers climate denialism.

People in serious discussions naturally object to trolls. It's not at all mysterious. Stop making your facts up, and you won't have to worry about how much respect you engender.

As ever, Jesse

[sylas]

\ETA: if I suddenly told the powers that be that i didnt want people knowing who I was after I clearly have revealed who I am. You all would have a right to think me nuts. But somehow that doesnt apply to Sylas.

Untrue. There's no comparison. What I actually said is that I want to maintain some distinction between my life online and my private life; and I do this by using a pseudonym. My identity is not really a secret; and I have said this to Glenn before, explicitly. In msg #45 I gave a quote from Dec 2010 where says exactly that.

I'm happy if most people are completely unaware of my name, but I am relaxed that it is easy to find for those who want to look for it. I'm not relaxed about someone insisting on bringing my own name into every discussion.

Sylas claimed he wanted his privacy but he himself revealed his identity. I was merely showing the powers that be that I violated no privacy. I was merely showing the facts in my defence. If one can not present evidence contracharge made against you then this is no place I want to be.

I reveal my identity when it is directly relevant. If you look at the OP, you can see that I was asked about a paper by Gerlich and Tsheuschner in another thread, and in particular whether there had been any published rebuttal. It turns out there has -- and I am one of the authors. I would consider it unethical to fail to acknowledge my own direct involvement in discussing this.

In cases like this, I declare my involvement plainly.

Similarly, I have written some brief biographical material or introductory materials in some places where I indicate my name and also that I write using a pseudonym. I don't want to become some great internet mystery, as is sometimes the case with a pseudonymous writer. People who actually want to be unknown generally have some personal professional concerns; I don't have any concerns on that score.

Glenn became in violation of conventional norms of decency and respect when he repeatedly disregarded polite requests for how I would like people to refer to me in the thread. It's not at all unusual for people to dislike a particular form of address and to ask to be addressed in some particular form.

Glenn continued to ignore this request; and I asked again more forcefully, saying that I would in future ask the moderators to handle the matter.

And then when Glenn STILL persisted, I reported him. My understanding of the decorum is that it makes no difference whether or not my name is common knowledge. Perhaps one could quibble about whether I have "outed" myself in threads like this one -- something I have never forgotten or denied, and will do again when it becomes directly relevant -- but it looks to me that the intent of the decorum is that personal information, including personal names -- whether generally known or not -- must not be introduced into threads without permission.

Now if people dont like what I did I frankly cant figure out why. I merely quoted the guy

It's really hard to believe that you can't see the problems with what you did. Quoting me in this thread has not got you into trouble with moderators, and I have no major objection to it either, except only that I find this topic of discussion irrelevant to the thread topic. If you can figure that out, then you may also figure out the rest.

You also apparently have an aversion to writing in the Psychotherapy room, which I have noticed before today. Be that as it may, that is where this thread of discussion would have been more appropriately posted.

Finally, I agree that over the last several years Glenn's behaviour has gone from bad to worse; from merely irascible to outright mean. His substantive content has become significantly worse, and very sloppy indeed, and so riddled with sarcasm and aggression that any attempt to engage the substance is off the rails almost before it begins.

He shows no sign anymore of his much vaunted willingness to acknowledge mistakes. He often complains that other people don't acknowledge mistakes as they should -- but other people engaged in the discussions frankly don't MAKE mistakes to anything like the same extent. His complaints about others acting like YEC is at present merely ironic.

As you can see, I carry a load of contempt and disgust which runs a risk of poisoning exchanges with Glenn. I'd avoid him altogether, if it were not for the fact that he and I continue to be perhaps the most prominent posters on the subject of global warming, which has wide interest with other readers.

I do think I can get past that and continue to give a substantive focused engagement with the actual topic at hand, if anyone is able to take that approach as well. Sarcasm, over the top similes, generic slams and invidious comparisons all help derail actual consideration of the subject where many readers are unsure what to think and genuinely interested in the subject matter itself. The subject matter, not the persons, is my main interest.

Cheers -- sylas

[shadowmaster]

I got an infraction for calling someone by his real name after he changed it.
I too did not know that was against the rules.
But I took like like superhero should.

Glenn , on the other hand, prides himself on his pissy attitude.
As pissy attitudes go, this current one is as good as any.
Be a man about it.

SM

[grmorton]

I got an infraction for calling someone by his real name after he changed it.
I too did not know that was against the rules.
But I took like like superhero should.

Glenn , on the other hand, prides himself on his pissy attitude.
As pissy attitudes go, this current one is as good as any.
Be a man about it.

SM

Thanks for bucking me up with a dutch uncle talk

[Augustine2004]

Glenn, won't it be better if you did care a bit more about what others think of you?