Well if you present nothing better than "but 97%, etc." or "Greta's gonna get ya," you simply don't have much of an argument. Not sure what a clarabellian argument is but "Greta's gonna get ya" or the tired old 97% B.S. which has been thoroughly debunked isn't going to cut it. Argue math, science and logic using math, science and logic. Not what some journalist who couldn't pass Algebra I from the NYT says. Drinking water is easier for the animal kingdom than understanding the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and the SBL.
Why don't you simply point out what is false in the
post?
No need for a source. Nothing in the post is incorrect. It just states how the 1st and 2nd Laws of thermodymics and the S-B Laws work in the frame of physics. In fact it's about the easiest to understand explanation I've seen.
What is pseudo science or false in the
post?