More ad homs?You cannot back up any of your claims and you expose how little you know of this subject, and are just following people that you don't truly understand. It's weird
I'm not going waste time proving I know a little about the subject to you specifically because I'm not going to change your mind. You can take that as an admission of some sort but I'm being genuine, I cannot be bothered doing something that is pointless.
Well, I'm not sure where I insulted you but I certainly didn't intend to. My apologies for whatever it was.Stop deflecting and ignoring questions by hypocritically leveling ad homs at me.
Again, I don't feel any need to answer your questions tbh. Why should I? What point will that serve? I've tried and you just call the science fake.
You are making claims in this thread and I'm going to rebut them in the laziest way possible and I'm not gonna hunt around googling for sources or whatever for this argument. There is no point with you.
But I'm not trying to change your mind. How many times do I need to say that?Well first you need to show that you actually understand what you're claiming, before you can even think of changing anyone's mind.
To all of that, no. They are red herrings that do nothing to prove your ice age hypothesis and aim ONLY to try and expose MY own ignorance. Not the fallibility of the AGW argument or even criticising the science behind it or backing up your claim. You're trying to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about as if that will disprove AGW but the debate is about climate change, not me.Are you going to comment on Mann vs Ball?
Are you going to give me the name of one climate scientist that you support?
Are you going to comment on the post above regarding denying poor children access to cheap energies which will result in their deaths?
You just focus obsessively on the proponent of an argument.