re: #264 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, I would now sincerely like to make peace and form a detante.

I was deeply offended by a number of things you wrote. I have made it clear why I was offended. I apologize for losing my cool with you when I was offended.

I did not handle it well.

In the mean time, I would appreciate that if you must critique, you use clearly defined points on the actual science, rather than making blanket claims about its veracity.

Great, I just saw your #264, that is all I have ever asked from you Ludwig. I am perfectly happy to debate my actual points in detail, that is why I participate. I also include extra disclaimers for your behalf.

If you refrain from insults and anger then we could make progress in understanding our respective positions. For my part, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that I understand your position. I also believe (perhaps incorrectly) that you do not understand mine.

re: #273 LudwigVanQuixote

Charles too has pointed out that you are lying about the satellite data… Care to comment?

Charles said AJ is “misrepresenting” the data, you said Lied. Yes, misrepresentation can be lying, if done intentionally, however, often the other party is simply wrong or biased.

I know in my case I never intentionally lie, I just do not do that. I may be incorrect or confused or biased, but I do not lie and consider that inflammatory.

Now, may I respectfully request that you take this AGW discussion back to the thread it was being discussed on?