
Originally Posted by
_Inquisitor_
He said "Nope...".
It does not mean that he does not want facts. It does not mean that he wants only rhetoric. It does not mean that is in danger to be flooded by the rising sea levels.
What it does mean is that neither you nor anybody else has submitted reasonable or at least equally valuable objections to his post, - but just an empty rhetoric and exorcizes in British English, or in English British instead.
These are facts. But you do not want the facts.
Zealosy and malice of AGW has been exposed again. One does not have to be a scientist to understand facts.
Bowerbird offered to expose the misinformation in the original post. If Merc had been interested in debate, he should have responded something like "I would be willing to consider". I have wasted to0 much time here explaining to posters their fallacy in logic and their misinformation only to have them stick their head back in the sand and ignore facts and logic and shout "GORE, GORE, GORE" and "CONSPIRACY"
And from previous interactions with you, I will not let you waste my time arguing with anti-science conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by
_Inquisitor_
"Scientists are just disgusting. CO2 increase leads to increase of food supplies, to better harvest but scientists do not care about people starving around the world all they care is about their pockets, about their agenda "
1. The Scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.--Luntz Research
Bookmarks