User talk:CO2-Lord Of Creation

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. RexNL 11:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to be pre-emptive in these matters. But William took the unscientific attitude that he didn't deem it necessary to bring evidence forward for his contentious views. I'd be happy just to confine myself to the discussion pages. But if this is the sort of anti-scientific pro-propaganda attitude that is going to be displayed then one might want to force matters. This is important. And we ought not be misleading the public just to go with the flow of bullshit momentum.CO2-Lord Of Creation 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack
Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. It would do you well to review this policy. Guettarda 12:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm happy to refrain from these attacks. But I retain the right to retaliate. As you know William had a shot at me first. Calling me a troll. Totally unacceptable and I hope he's been warned too. In fact it would have been better to inform me that he'd been warned. The other thing I found unacceptable is earlier when he tried to pretend David Bellamy wasn't a scientist.CO2-Lord Of Creation 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you don't have the right to retaliate. As for David Bellamy being a scientist, obviously he was one, but is there any evidence that he is still active in some field of science?  Does he have any recent journal publications, or evidence of an ongoing research programme?  Guettarda 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, your personal attacks are unacceptable. This includes edit summaries.  If you continue engaging in personal attacks you make be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Guettarda 02:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For whatever reason, you seem unable to refrain from personal attacks. Take a break from Wikipedia, calm down, and try again tomorrow.  Guettarda 02:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are these personal attacks that you speak thereof?CO2-Lord Of Creation 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The latest ones are all across the next section on this page. Guettarda 11:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Just so you know, this is your warning re WP:3RR, should it prove necessary William M. Connolley 18:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fine. But don't be changing it back. Since no question its inaccurate to claim that the current warming is TOTALLY human-induced. And remember I've got two more edits up my slave and will have three more tommorrowCO2-Lord Of Creation 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that three reverts is the most allowed - it's a limit, not an entitlement. Edit-warring is frowned upon.  You need to support your position with convincing logic and reputable sources, not insults and name-calling.  Guettarda 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what the others aren't doing. You seen to be only pointing your evil eye one way here fellaCO2-Lord Of Creation 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are arguing for a change to the article which is not supported by other editors active on the article. Guettarda 02:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So what?......And? .... What was your argument again????? Perhaps these other editors can be called upon to explain their dishonesty in this regardCO2-Lord Of Creation 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the other editors are clearly trying to mislead the public. As you are right now when you are blocking my very well reasoned explanationCO2-Lord Of Creation 02:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some liar, and there is no nodubt whatsoever that this is lying, keeps changing the wording to imply that he knows WITH TOTAL CERTITUDE that the ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE RECENT WARMING is human-induced. Asking lunatics like this for evidence, with all working out shown, appears to be pointless. The other thing is the campaign against warmer winters for Siberians appears to be self-contradictory. If the entire amount of warming was human-induced that would mean we would have been cooling or on a tightrope to cooling but for the human-influence..... But elsewhere they deny this. So there is no doubt the attempts to edit me lately have been motivated by pure dishonesty. And lets be fair here. My editing is only to do with obvious and known dishonesties. And its incredibly minimalCO2-Lord Of Creation 02:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda. I have a question for you. I won't diss you again. And I didn't mean to diss you in the first place. But tell me this? Who first contacted YOU SPECIFICLY to deal with me. Because whoever it was doesn't respect you man. These blokes who want to maintain their ideology no matter what it takes are playing games. They get a righteous man. They get someone based on that man's character. They specifically select you based on your fine character, to come to CLASH with me. But I don't think they are showing you any respect man. Not by a long shot.

Who contacted you to intervene in this dispute first. That man. He is a man who does not respect you.CO2-Lord Of Creation 14:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No one contacted me. Global cooling is on my watchlist, has been for a long time.  Also, it had nothing to do with my taking your comments personally - I didn't read them that way at all.  Attacks aimed at other editors are unacceptable here.  "Play the ball, not the man", as they say.  Since you persisted after two warnings, I decided that the best way to get the point home to you was with a short block, give you a chance to calm down.  If you continue to act in a manner which is so uncollegial, you probably won't last very long here - people don't appreciate disruption.  That isn't meant as a threat, by the way - I have no intention of blocking you permanently - it's meant to warn you.  I would be happy if you would make a contribution to the project, but sometimes the best place to start is on a topic that you don't feel so strongly about.  Try something less controvertial, get a sense of how things work here.  And then try your hand at more controvertial topics.
 * As for the edit that you are fighting over - the wording you are reverting does not say "100% of warming is human-induced". What is implies is that most of the warming is human-induced, an idea that has strong and deep support within the scientific community.  Your alternative wording won't stand because it implies the opposite - that the general consensus is that most warming is not human-caused.  An appropriate caveat would reflect the balance that most people see most of the warming as human-caused.  The current wording may not be perfect, but it's closer to accurate than is the wording you are proposing.  For the sake of readability, I think the current wording should stand - if people need a more nuanced understanding, they can always just follow the link.  Guettarda 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is not right. And the entry must be changed back. I never implied that most of the warming wasn't human induced or that most of the warming was human-induced. This is not what the argument was about.

You see if it WAS....... that would have been a reasonable argument. That's probably why you have tried to characterise it in this way. Many arguments have a little bit of promise on either side. This is not one of these arguments. My opposition knows full well that they are lying. That is why they don't debate me directly. The wording should be that it is not all human-induced and not all non-human induced. I didn't have a problem with that. It is the liars who had a problem with that.

Look I know you wanted to make some sense of it by assuming that we are all reasonble people and that there was a reasonable explanation. But you don't know this crowd. I do. And they were just lying. Or trying to pick a fight. BY THE WAY I just checked. And as of RIGHT NOW.... the wording is perfect!!!! Good news.CO2-Lord Of Creation 17:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)