APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"

[Good Luck]

LOL

Yes, the chronology of posts in this debate indeed shows what is going on. TaiChi makes claims about AGW. He does not support those claims with actual scientific studies, though he does link to articles which make the same kinds of unsupported conclusions. They are fact because Tai Chi, lord of all, declares them to be fact, because it is "logical" to assume so.

I'd bet he doesn't even know which method of logic he is using, let alone why it is not valid.

Scientific studies are posted, showing that CO2 concentrations at levels below 50,000 ppmv (current levels are below 400 ppmv) do not show any measurable greenhouse effect. The study also shows the same conclusion for CH4 and all GHGs which AGW claims are a problem: they would have to be found in concentrations WAY WAY higher than have been measured to show any green house activity - INCLUDING those produced by human activity.

Another scientific study is posted showing that solar flux measurements not only thoroughly account for the measured increase in mean global temperatures found through the 1990s, but also account for similar mean global temperature increases found throughout the solar system.

But genuine scientific studies make no difference to TaiChi. FACTS (because HE says they are facts?) are FACTS. They don't NEED to be proven because they are FACTS.

THEN he wants to call me an asshole, and a liar?

What a twinkey. Sponge cake for a head, with creamy filling where his brains should be. All I ask for is ONE link to ONE actual, verifiable scientific study demostrating that CO2, CH4 and CFCs are actual forcers in mean global temperatures at measured concentrations. Just one. Not an article that simply CLAIMS GHGs are responsible for increases in mean global temperatures after proving GHGs are on the rise. We all know GHGs are on the rise. No one has disputed that GHGs are on the rise, yet all we see is article after article saying GHGs are on the rise.

How about a study PROVING that GHGs are actually DOING what you CLAIM they are doing? How about a study that has actually proven that air with 300 ppmv CO2 and 1500 ppbv CH4 retains less heat over time than air with 390 ppmv CO2, 1750 ppbv CH4 and 0.5 ppbv CFCs. That SHOULD be easy to demonstrate, should it not? So why is it so hard to find a study doing exactly that?

I have posted a study which does the experiments needed to demonstrate the green house effect from these GHGs. Yet, somehow, the data comes out that the current atmosphere does NOT retain heat any more than the atmosphere of 100 years ago.

Ya up for it, Twinkey? Just one actual study.

As an aside, and as is TYPICAL of TaiChi's "debate" (and I use the term loosely) style, he comes up with the idea that because I do not follow AGW theory (and again I use the term loosely) into the intellectual shitter, then I am just fine with the other issues of deforestation, industrial pollution, etc. And on that strawman accusation, I call him either the biggest fucking idiot on the planet without any reading comprehension skills what so ever, OR the biggest LYING ASSHOLE on this entire BBS.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL Whenever these neocon parrots cannot disprove or refute a point made, they start off with these faux hysterics to indicate a condescending attitude....then they just repeat the lies and distortions and disproven points as they have for several preceding posts. All one has to do is see how GL dodges and ignores what points I just put forth in this post

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=549252&postcount=238

And you get an idea of just how dishonest (or delusional) his mindset on this particular discussion is. I won't even bother reading his revisionist rehash below....it's all been done before in various forms in the preceding posts. Like I said folks, follow the chronology the posts and see what this joker is all about. But GL must have the last word because in his mind, telling the lie as many times as possible will make it come true. So be it...I leave him to his folly.

Yes, the chronology of posts in this debate indeed shows what is going on. TaiChi makes claims about AGW. He does not support those claims with actual scientific studies, though he does link to articles which make the same kinds of unsupported conclusions. They are fact because Tai Chi, lord of all, declares them to be fact, because it is "logical" to assume so.

I'd bet he doesn't even know which method of logic he is using, let alone why it is not valid.

Scientific studies are posted, showing that CO2 concentrations at levels below 50,000 ppmv (current levels are below 400 ppmv) do not show any measurable greenhouse effect. The study also shows the same conclusion for CH4 and all GHGs which AGW claims are a problem: they would have to be found in concentrations WAY WAY higher than have been measured to show any green house activity - INCLUDING those produced by human activity.

Another scientific study is posted showing that solar flux measurements not only thoroughly account for the measured increase in mean global temperatures found through the 1990s, but also account for similar mean global temperature increases found throughout the solar system.

But genuine scientific studies make no difference to TaiChi. FACTS (because HE says they are facts?) are FACTS. They don't NEED to be proven because they are FACTS.

THEN he wants to call me an asshole, and a liar?

What a twinkey. Sponge cake for a head, with creamy filling where his brains should be. All I ask for is ONE link to ONE actual, verifiable scientific study demostrating that CO2, CH4 and CFCs are actual forcers in mean global temperatures at measured concentrations. Just one. Not an article that simply CLAIMS GHGs are responsible for increases in mean global temperatures after proving GHGs are on the rise. We all know GHGs are on the rise. No one has disputed that GHGs are on the rise, yet all we see is article after article saying GHGs are on the rise.

How about a study PROVING that GHGs are actually DOING what you CLAIM they are doing? How about a study that has actually proven that air with 300 ppmv CO2 and 1500 ppbv CH4 retains less heat over time than air with 390 ppmv CO2, 1750 ppbv CH4 and 0.5 ppbv CFCs. That SHOULD be easy to demonstrate, should it not? So why is it so hard to find a study doing exactly that?

I have posted a study which does the experiments needed to demonstrate the green house effect from these GHGs. Yet, somehow, the data comes out that the current atmosphere does NOT retain heat any more than the atmosphere of 100 years ago.

Ya up for it, Twinkey? Just one actual study.

As an aside, and as is TYPICAL of TaiChi's "debate" (and I use the term loosely) style, he comes up with the idea that because I do not follow AGW theory (and again I use the term loosely) into the intellectual shitter, then I am just fine with the other issues of deforestation, industrial pollution, etc. And on that strawman accusation, I call him either the biggest fucking idiot on the planet without any reading comprehension skills what so ever, OR the biggest LYING ASSHOLE on this entire BBS.

See Above statement.

 

[Good Luck]

Just ONE actual scientific study proving greenhouse effect of CO2, CH4 and CFCs at atmospheric concentrations. Just one.

Can't do it, can you?

 

[Lowaicue]

Just ONE actual scientific study proving greenhouse effect of CO2, CH4 and CFCs at atmospheric concentrations. Just one.

Can't do it, can you?

Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.

He's not even dealing with the information in the context that it was given. In fact, he's ignoring the information presented and using the usual myopic viewpoint that all defenders of the status quo do when confronted with common sense assessments.

What I don't understand is just what the hell are folks like GL trying to defend? Pollution of the air and water? urban sprawl? I mean, do they truly understand that it's just not about not letting the "lib'rals" win? Or is it the old industry vs. the new green industry?

 

[Lowaicue]

He's not even dealing with the information in the context that it was given. In fact, he's ignoring the information presented and using the usual myopic viewpoint that all defenders of the status quo do when confronted with common sense assessments.

What I don't understand is just what the hell are folks like GL trying to defend? Pollution of the air and water? urban sprawl? I mean, do they truly understand that it's just not about not letting the "lib'rals" win? Or is it the old industry vs. the new green industry?

From what I can see it is ONLY about not letting lib'rals win. There can be no other explanation.

 

[Good Luck]

Why are you looking for reasons not to participate in the global responsibility for the planet? Anyone can argue about the minutiae of something. There are no 'smarts' in that.
The climate of the earth is changing. Human presence is a factor in this. Whether it be CO2, or Fox news really is of little significance.
Find reasons to help not excuses to pollute.

Where have I defended pollution? Show me just ONCE where I have defended polluting this planet.

OTOH, I am not going to run around following you chicken littles just because so many oithers are. Yes, the global climnate is changing. It is ALWAYS changing. It hasx been going throough change constantly for the 4+ billion years this planet has had an atmosphere. As such, I suggest the better move is to prepare and adapt to the coming changes, not make falsified finger pointing at human activity like a bunch of children afixing blame for a natural process.

I am also not going to let hubris and shady science redefine what comprises pollution. CFCs are most definitely pollution. Sulfur compounds are also pollution. Heavy metals, too. But CO2 is NOT. THAT is what the data is saying.

The reason for looking at this so closely is naming CO2 as a POLLUTANT, using false conclusions, limits how we can respond to other problems, such as dependency on imported petroleum. We have the ability to significantly reduce our dependency on petroleum imports, but not if we follow the chicken littles in false panic.

We can drill for our own petroleum, use technologies like liquifaction of coal, etc. The advantages to the economy are enormous, and the fact that US drilling companies and refineries are held far more accountable is better (though admittedly not perfect) for the environment. Liquifaction of coal for fuel would further reduce our dependency on imported petroleum, and is als better for the environment as the fuel derived is cleaner than petroleum derived fuels, and is also cleaner than burning the coal because the liquifaction process removes most of the pollutants.

In short, I want to reduce pollution. But I also want to do it in a way that does not cause unnecessary hardship to the economy, or to individuals. The science is indicating that naming CO2 as an industrial pollutant was a misnomer. Therefore energy alternates that are based solely on reduction of carbon footprint are unnecessarily restrictive.

But the accusation that I am of the opinion that pollution is OK is a flat out lie. Tai Chi knows it is a lie, but he cannot help but be a liar. It is simply his way of debate.

 

[Lowaicue]

Where have I defended pollution? Show me just ONCE where I have defended polluting this planet.

But I am also not going to let hubris and shady science redefine what comprises pollution. CFCs are most definitely pollution. Sulfur compounds are also pollution. Heavy metals, too. But CO2 is NOT. THAT is what the data is saying.

The reason for looking at this so closely is naming CO2 as a POLLUTANT using false conclusions limits how we can respond to other problems, such as dependency on imported petroleum. We have the ability to significantly reduce our dependency on petroleum imports, but not if we follow the chicken littles in false panic.

We can drill for our own petroleum, use technologies like liquifaction of coal, etc. The advantages ot the economy are enormous, and the fact that US drilling companies and refineries are held far more accountable is better (though admittedly not perfect) for the environment. Liquifaction of coal for duel would further reduce our dependency on imported petroleum, and is als better for the environment as the fuel derived is cleaner than petroleum derived fuels, and is also cleaner than burning the coal because the liquifaction process removes most of the pollutants.

In short, I want to reduce pollution. But I also want to do it in a way that does not cause unnecessary hardship to the economy, or to individuals. The science is indicating that naming CO2 as an industrial pollutant was a misnomer. Therefore energy alternates that are based solely on reduction of carbon footprint are unnecessarily restrictive.

But the accusation that I am of the opinion that pollution is OK is a flat out lie. Tai Chi knows it is a lie, but he cannot help but be a liar. It is simply his way of debate.

Stop being so silly. We all need to clean up our act. America more than anywhere. There is, was and never will be a chicken little (it was a fairy story, right?) It looks to me, quite seriously, as if you are just looking for excuses. You are trying to justify doing bugger all. I really despair of Americans. What do we have to do to make you accept your responsibilities?
Anyway, you clearly have no intention of doing anything substantial and prefer to argue semantics.
OK. The rest of us are sufficiently concerned and we cant exclude you from any good that may be done, so I guess you get a free ride. Enjoy.
Don't accuse people of lying unless you can prove that it is a lie and not an opinion you do not share. It is very immature.

 

[Taichiliberal]

From what I can see it is ONLY about not letting lib'rals win. There can be no other explanation.

Yeah...here's what the fools are in denial about...along with the other stuff I put forth.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

 

[Good Luck]

Yeah...here's what the fools are in denial about...along with the other stuff I put forth.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

And once again you link an article that proves CO2 concentrations are increasing, with implications that human activity are partially responsible for the increase.

Fine. No argument there. I have not once said CO2 is not increasing, nor have I said that human activity is not involved in at least some of the CO2 increase.

But you still have not shown CO2 is linked as a cause of global warming.

All I ask is for ONE scientific study that shows air with CO2 at 380 ppmv has a greater greenhouse effect than air with CO2 at 280 ppmv. Is that so hard to provide?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Stop being so silly. We all need to clean up our act. America more than anywhere. There is, was and never will be a chicken little (it was a fairy story, right?) It looks to me, quite seriously, as if you are just looking for excuses. You are trying to justify doing bugger all. I really despair of Americans. What do we have to do to make you accept your responsibilities?
Anyway, you clearly have no intention of doing anything substantial and prefer to argue semantics.
OK. The rest of us are sufficiently concerned and we cant exclude you from any good that may be done, so I guess you get a free ride. Enjoy.
Don't accuse people of lying unless you can prove that it is a lie and not an opinion you do not share. It is very immature.

Well aren't you mister glittering generality. Who could be against cleaning up an act?

We don't need energy totalitarianism and taxation based on propaganda instead of science.

 

[Lowaicue]

Well aren't you mister glittering generality. Who could be against cleaning up an act?

We don't need energy totalitarianism and taxation based on propaganda instead of science.

You are right. We need a sense of global responsibility. We need to accept that this problem or potential problem is not simply the job of governments and political parties to solve, but that each individual on the planet can make a contribution. Your contribution might be not to purchase products that use certain raw materials or not to discard plastics which might get into the marine life food chain and kill by poison or injury, sea birds and sea creatures. My decision, for example, was to get rid of my car. Partly because I was bored shitless after forty five years of driving and partly as a small contribution which might develop into the movement of a butterfly's wing (I hope you understand the analogy).
But, once again, if you decide we are all wrong and you wish to continue to pollute then carry on. After all there are, in all walks of life, leaders, followers and laggards.
You can make you own decision. You are just one of six billion people. Can you just imagine what sort of difference to the general quality of life for ALL species six billion people could make if they tried?

 

[Kamala Trump]

You are right. We need a sense of global responsibility. We need to accept that this problem or potential problem is not simply the job of governments and political parties to solve, but that each individual on the planet can make a contribution. Your contribution might be not to purchase products that use certain raw materials or not to discard plastics which might get into the marine life food chain and kill by poison or injury, sea birds and sea creatures. My decision, for example, was to get rid of my car. Partly because I was bored shitless after forty five years of driving and partly as a small contribution which might develop into the movement of a butterfly's wing (I hope you understand the analogy).
But, once again, if you decide we are all wrong and you wish to continue to pollute then carry on. After all there are, in all walks of life, leaders, followers and laggards.
You can make you own decision. You are just one of six billion people. Can you just imagine what sort of difference to the general quality of life for ALL species six billion people could make if they tried?

Stfu, you tired piece of propaganda.

Imagine the impact i could have on your bloated pasty face with my asscrack.

 

[Lowaicue]

Stfu, you tired piece of propaganda.

Imagine the impact i could have on your bloated pasty face with my asscrack.

And posters on this forum wonder at my attitude towards America.
Thank you for illustrating the trouble with your country more succinctly than I could ever have.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well aren't you mister glittering generality. Who could be against cleaning up an act?

We don't need energy totalitarianism and taxation based on propaganda instead of science.

Notice how he puts the majority of the blame on the US; but doesn't address that little fact of China causing more pollution with all the coal they use.
But then, his Chinese masters tell him what to post; so I guess it's not really his fault.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah...here's what the fools are in denial about...along with the other stuff I put forth.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html

And once again you link an article that proves CO2 concentrations are increasing, with implications that human activity are partially responsible for the increase.

Once again, you don't comprehend what you read: the link gives scientific evidence that when you remove and/or reduce the elements that exchange CO2 for oxygen and then add man's artificial contribution, you have an increase in CO2 that can and is detrimental to the environment.

Fine. No argument there. I have not once said CO2 is not increasing, nor have I said that human activity is not involved in at least some of the CO2 increase.

Ahhh, there lies the rub. You state this here, but then in previous posts you try to diminish the ramifications of deforestation and urbanization and man made pollutants, because according to you, they're negligible and thereby render they're role in CO2 exchange/production negligible. As I and others and scientist have pointed out time and again, that is an absurd notion that requires a total denial of how things work on this planet. You can't acknowledge something on one hand and then dismiss it on the other, as you are doing.

But you still have not shown CO2 is linked as a cause of global warming. Sure I did, as did the article pointing to the science that you demanded...YOU are just in denial, and use the convoluted logic based on your myopic viewpoint to justify your stance. That is just plain illogical on your part.

And you still are trying to split a hair.....if you

All I ask is for ONE scientific study that shows air with CO2 at 380 ppmv has a greater greenhouse effect than air with CO2 at 280 ppmv. Is that so hard to provide?

Never has been...I just like seeing pro-industry advocates like you paint yourselfs into a corner. All my previous information renders this myopic and redundant question of yours moot. But you just ignore what you don't like and then move on to another similar question in hopes of keeping your disproved beliefs alive. Evidently, literal translation is all you understand. Observe and learn, because these guys really go at it...and the conclusions (if you read them all and thoroughly) are not exactly in your favor:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

 

[Good Luck]

Never has been...I just like seeing pro-industry advocates like you paint yourselfs into a corner. All my previous information renders this myopic and redundant question of yours moot. But you just ignore what you don't like and then move on to another similar question in hopes of keeping your disproved beliefs alive. Evidently, literal translation is all you understand. Observe and learn, because these guys really go at it...and the conclusions (if you read them all and thoroughly) are not exactly in your favor:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

On CO2: when human activity burns millions of tons of fossil fuels, they are going to end up adding to the total amount of CO2 of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a big "Duh".

However, when men cut down trees and, for the most part, replace the deforested lands with agricultural lands, there is NOT going to a significant change in the carbon cycle. The fact that deforested lands themselves account for a very small percentage of photosynthetic activity on the planet also means the effects of deforestation on the carbon cycle are vastly overstated.

IOW, effects on the carbon cycle, and contribution to the increase of atmospheric CO2 are two different issues.

Too bad you are so caught up in your chicken little rhetoric you cannot recognize this basic fact without it being pointed out to you. It really gets tiring pointing out simple things like this. Makes one think you are not nearly as intelligent or educated as you like to pretend.


And, no, not ONCE have you proven that forcing is taking place at current GHG concentrations. You have certainly supplied many articles making the same unsupported conclusion that such is the case. But not once have you provided scientific evidence of that conclusion.

What you have provided is: "We have measured an increase in CO2 concentrations, and since man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, that means man is contributing to global warming." Seems OK, except the last part is NOT SUPPORTED. It is an ASSUMPTION that CO2 is a contributive CAUSE.

To support these conclusions you keep referencing, a STUDY is needed that directly compares the heat retention of air at lower CO2 concentrations, and air at higher CO2 concentrations. Only then will you have actual scientific evidence that the amount of CO2 in the air actually makes a difference to the climate. (Except you WON'T find it, because the studies actually done on this point the opposite direction than you want it to point. I linked you to two of them, which you deny.)

Now you can read anything you like into this, because that is obvious how you "think" (and I use the term loosely) You want to claim this means I am OK with pollution, and "pro industry" well, you "think" whatever you want to "think" - just make sure your political masters pre approve it.

Meanwhile I have made my case for anyone with two connected neurons and a microgram of honesty to see. If it makes you feel like the better person to lie about what I have said, and lie about what it means, then more power to your pathetic little POS life you lead. I care not one whit what a dishonest, ring-through-the-nose partisan little shit like you opines about me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Never has been...I just like seeing pro-industry advocates like you paint yourselfs into a corner. All my previous information renders this myopic and redundant question of yours moot. But you just ignore what you don't like and then move on to another similar question in hopes of keeping your disproved beliefs alive. Evidently, literal translation is all you understand. Observe and learn, because these guys really go at it...and the conclusions (if you read them all and thoroughly) are not exactly in your favor:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nhouse-effect/

On CO2: when human activity burns millions of tons of fossil fuels, they are going to end up adding to the total amount of CO2 of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's a big "Duh". Oh Jeez, here we go again folks. GL is going to waste a lot of space and time to repeat the same long disproven contention he's been doing all along....trying to state that a combination of mankind's CO2 contribution PLUS deforestation and urbanization has little to no effect on the environment, because the CO2 is just not that important with regards to climate change. Essentially, he's just being insipidly stubborn....but here he'll delude himself into thinking that he can repeat my points to trivialize and/or distort them, ignore EVERYTHING I've previously sourced and then give a revisionist take on what's transpired. Pity for him the previous post exist to dispel this...

However, when men cut down trees and, for the most part, replace the deforested lands with agricultural lands, there is NOT going to a significant change in the carbon cycle. The fact that deforested lands themselves account for a very small percentage of photosynthetic activity on the planet also means the effects of deforestation on the carbon cycle are vastly overstated.

Yeah, because destruction of 2/3 of the Brazilian rainforests isn't all that significant? Must be that new math I keep hearing about. And of course, the saplings that were stomped into the ground to replace forest with century of trees and eco-system will just get right up to snuff in less than 30 years, right? I already posted a link with valid, documented facts that throws this BS of Good's out the window...but he said that link didn't matter. Now suddenly, he's telling us it does...but through his interpretation. Like all industry apologist and nay-sayers, GL is just running into himself on spin cycle.

IOW, effects on the carbon cycle, and contribution to the increase of atmospheric CO2 are two different issues. Only if you by into a schizoid mentality that says flora and fauna are important in the CO2/oxygen exchange on the planet...until someone points out that more CO2 gets put into the atmosphere when you remove flora and fauna in great swaths, and then exponentially increase the amount of artificial CO2 and other pollutants, you affect the enviroment detrimentally (global warming). Then suddenly, it's not connected, and not all that important?

Too bad you are so caught up in your chicken little rhetoric you cannot recognize this basic fact without it being pointed out to you. It really gets tiring pointing out simple things like this. Makes one think you are not nearly as intelligent or educated as you like to pretend. See above responses....your bluff and bluster impresses no one but you....which more to pity.

And, no, not ONCE have you proven that forcing is taking place at current GHG concentrations. Either You're a liar or you didn't read the links thoroughly. The chronology of the posts prove me out on this. When proven wrong, you just move on to another aspect of the discussion....hoping no one will notice your folly when you repeat yourself. Wake up....it's a recorded printed medium. You have certainly supplied many articles making the same unsupported conclusion that such is the case. But not once have you provided scientific evidence of that conclusion. Again, you lie....all articles supplied give the credentials of those who give statements. To date, you haven't stated, "this person is wrong because...." All you've done is just give YOUR version of what transpired...which is always distortion. Then you repeat your original contention. That's BS on your part...as the thread shows.

What you have provided is: "We have measured an increase in CO2 concentrations, and since man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, that means man is contributing to global warming." Seems OK, except the last part is NOT SUPPORTED. It is an ASSUMPTION that CO2 is a contributive CAUSE.

Again, you lie...as the link shown in the quoted post above explains in details.

To support these conclusions you keep referencing, a STUDY is needed that directly compares the heat retention of air at lower CO2 concentrations, and air at higher CO2 concentrations. Only then will you have actual scientific evidence that the amount of CO2 in the air actually makes a difference to the climate. (Except you WON'T find it, because the studies actually done on this point the opposite direction than you want it to point. I linked you to two of them, which you deny.)

Again, you lie....because within the links I provide (like the last one) are referenced studies by reputable scientific groups to prove the contentions of the author. YOU just pretend they don't exist...but others who actually read the linked information completely see your folly.

Now you can read anything you like into this, because that is obvious how you "think" (and I use the term loosely) You want to claim this means I am OK with pollution, and "pro industry" well, you "think" whatever you want to "think" - just make sure your political masters pre approve it.

Again, you lie....I have been VERY specific about critizing what you say and how it relates to the previous posts. I find it fascinating how you think you can pass of this BS of yours when the recorded posts are there for all to see.

Meanwhile I have made my case for anyone with two connected neurons and a microgram of honesty to see. Of which I've deconstructed and disproved numerous times from different aspects. That you remain isipidly stubborn is of little consequence to the truth. If it makes you feel like the better person to lie about what I have said, and lie about what it means, then more power to your pathetic little POS life you lead. I care not one whit what a dishonest, ring-through-the-nose partisan little shit like you opines about me.

Grow up, GL.........the recorded posts trump your delusional and revisionist blatherings. And the sheer absurdness of your contradictions, denials and convoluted logic are plainly evident for all to see. As I said to Low...I wonder what you actually think you are defending with this myopic bullhorn of yours ... because the various industries that are quite happy profiteering off of "business as usual" sure as hell are NOT going to let you enjoy the fruits of their unregulated labors without paying through the nose for it. But like all happy parrots, you'll be here again and again to tell me how worthless it is to respond to my poking holes in your hot air balloon. Logic and ALL the facts have a way of unnerving folk like you. You may have the last predictable, repetitive word, as it's plainly evident you've got nothing else.

 

[tinfoil]

To date, you haven't stated, "this person is wrong because...."

I did in fact provide the analysis which shows the misuse of statistics to justify alarmism.

Do you even understand the science?

 

[Good Luck]

No, he does not understand science. All he understands is what his political masters tell him to believe. My 7 Y.O. grand niece is studying the difference between fact, opinion, and fiction. Perhaps TaiChi should audit her 2nd grade reading class and learn something.

He is right on one thing: the posts speak for themselves. It's amazing the level of extreme self delusion he indulges in.