Page 45 of 97 FirstFirst ... 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ... LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,125 of 2415
  1. #1101
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I'll go through your points.

    "The KIA/Volcanic Eruptions paper covers the period from about 1750 to the early 1900s. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

    -When are they ending the "early 1900s"? The warming lasted until mid century.

    "The PAGES 2k Consortium paper breaks the industrial era warming into two distinct periods, both with large warming trends. According to the paper early twentieth century pre-1950 warming, “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

    -Based on the graph from that paper I don't see how they can make the bolded conclusion, and at the same time conclude that the warming post 1950 was globally synchronous at multiple decades. Also we have this quote on the Neukom paper: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed."


    "The temperature trends during these two industrial-era periods are outside the range of pre-industrial variability in which strong warming trends after volcanic cooling do not occur. All instrumental 51 year trends starting in 1948 or later exceed the 99th percentile of reconstructed pre-industrial 51 year trends."

    -By two industrial-era periods they mean early 1900's-1940's and post 1970's right?



    I didn't post the right graph. Should be this one which shows ~.5'C pre 1950 warming after smoothing:

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    If I am using it wrong, then you were using it wrong to support your Neukom paper.

    I think you said you had read the paper. Can you copy/paste the chart description?

    I know what your point is. My point is there is a lot of other research that suggests the MWP did produce warm temperatures at a global scale for multiple decades.

    Is there anything more cherry picky than using one paper (maybe 2?) that is reliant on modeling as the basis for your statement? I link the papers not to say that they are all better papers, but to show that there is a lot of research on the MWP that suggests otherwise. You need more evidence than what you are presenting to state such a thing as fact. A more appropriate statement would be that new research suggests that 1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years etc, etc.
    Just as another example, this paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe and some areas were cooling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0504133207.htm
    1 - There was a natural warming period following a series of volcanic eruptions beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatial-climate variability. The paper focuses on the, “last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions” which happens to overlap with the start of the industrial era.

    2 - Then, per your chart, there's a brief cooling trend until about 1915 followed by a warming trend through the 1940s, which “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including (some) anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

    3 - After that, from about 1975 to the present we see the, "warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century."

    4 - I never used the chart. You used the chart, and incorrectly.

    5 - The text you quoted from my post is the description of the chart.

    6 – Yes, there are other papers on the MWP but they are using a more limited data set and even a random sample of the ones you posted don’t support your claims. In fact, your sources keep misrepresenting the scientific literature.

    7 – I’ve been referencing three, not two, papers and now I’m referencing four papers. Your paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe for most of the twentieth century, until the second half of the twentieth century.

    Prior to 1950 there is lots of warming/cooling spatial-variability. Then, the cooling spatial-variability slowly goes away as time moves towards the present with a warming period affecting the whole planet. The paper reinforces this fact by stating that after 1950 multidecadal variability cannot be separated well from the warming trend.

    Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the point:

    Name:  spatio-variabilty.png
Views: 163
Size:  43.9 KB

    You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover the entire planet, all of which is described in the paper.

  2. #1102
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,136
    Things each side gets wrong:

    libs: Don't appreciate the fact that developing world incentives run contrary to goals of west in terms of efficiency/waste reduction. Even full compliance by the developed world will be offset by a quickly growing & economically limited developing world.

    cons: Ignore the fundamental responsibility to not do wasteful shit when more efficient & clean methods are readily available. Generally not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior.

  3. #1103
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Things each side gets wrong:

    libs: Don't appreciate the fact that developing world incentives run contrary to goals of west in terms of efficiency/waste reduction. Even full compliance by the developed world will be offset by a quickly growing & economically limited developing world.

    cons: Ignore the fundamental responsibility to not do wasteful shit when more efficient & clean methods are readily available. Generally not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior.
    One of the costs of combating climate change will be for the rich countries to pay for carbon free development in the poor ones. I've long thought that it takes a lot of chutzpah for Northern Hemisphere countries that long ago cut down most of their forests to be lecturing Brazil and other rain forest countries about cutting theirs. If we want Brazil to stop cutting and burning we should be paying for it.

  4. #1104
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Things each side gets wrong:

    libs: Don't appreciate the fact that developing world incentives run contrary to goals of west in terms of efficiency/waste reduction. Even full compliance by the developed world will be offset by a quickly growing & economically limited developing world.

    cons: Ignore the fundamental responsibility to not do wasteful shit when more efficient & clean methods are readily available. Generally not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior.
    There's a tendency for humans to embrace narratives—scientific or not—that back arguments, ideologies, and conclusions that are core elements of their point of view.

    Putting people into boxes is much easier than understanding their point of view. It's not so much "not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior" as it is a perception that liberals are using climate change as a trojan horse to enact social justice or even a Chinese hoax to topple existing hierarchies.

    I don't think Ron is a Russian plant or a troll or any of the other ad hominems, I think he's sincere, because a lot of what he's saying is more or less in alignment with the worldview of maybe half the population. Ron even seems reasonable once it becomes clear that there's a passionate and sincere segment of the population that believes decreasing carbon emissions is not only wrong but that instead we should be increasing emissions because all life on earth depends on CO2.

  5. #1105
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,382
    There's a deep religious undertone in the resistance and denial crowd. They're so quick to call the movement towards lowering carbon emissions a religion followed by fanatics. All the while, they believe changes of this magnitude happening globally can only be caused by and controlled by God. Hence, at every turn and new pool of data and analysis pointing the finger at us, they scoff and insist it's either false, imaginary, or purely natural AKA God's work.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  6. #1106
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    "Slow, intense and unrelenting: The science behind Hurricane Dorian’s most dangerous qualities"

    The science connecting climate change to hurricanes like Dorian is strong. Warmer oceans fuel more extreme storms; rising sea levels bolster storm surges and lead to worse floods. Just this summer, after analyzing more than 70 years of Atlantic hurricane data, NASA scientist Tim Hall reported that storms have become much more likely to “stall” over land, prolonging the time when a community is subjected to devastating winds and drenching rain.

    But none of the numbers in his spreadsheets could prepare Hall for the image on his computer screen this week: Dorian swirling as a Category 5 storm, monstrous and nearly motionless, above the islands of Great Abaco and Grand Bahama.

    Seeing it “just spinning there, spinning there, spinning there, over the same spot,” Hall said, “you can’t help but be awestruck to the point of speechlessness.”

    After pulverizing the Bahamas for more than 40 hours, Dorian finally swerved north Tuesday as a Category 2 storm. It is expected to skirt the coasts of Florida and Georgia before striking land again in the Carolinas, where it could deliver more life-threatening wind, storm surge and rain.

    “Simply unbelievable,” tweeted Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society. “I feel nausea over this, and I only get that feeling with a few storms.”

    The hurricane has matched or broken records for its intensity and for its creeping pace over the Bahamas. But it also fits a trend: Dorian’s appearance made 2019 the fourth straight year in which a Category 5 hurricane formed in the Atlantic — the longest such streak on record.


    Shocking though the storm has been, meteorologists and climate scientists say it bears hallmarks of what hurricanes will increasingly look like as the climate warms.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...rainbow&wpmm=1

  7. #1107
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    There's a tendency for humans to embrace narratives—scientific or not—that support arguments, ideologies, and conclusions that are preexisting elements of their worldview.

    Putting people into boxes is much easier than understanding their point of view. It's not so much "not giving a faak about 2nd, 3rd order effects of behavior" as it is a perception that liberals are using climate change as a trojan horse to enact social justice or even a Chinese hoax to topple existing hierarchies.

    I don't think Ron is a Russian plant or a troll or any of the other ad hominems, I think he's sincere, because a lot of what he's saying is more or less in alignment with the worldview of maybe half the population. Ron even seems reasonable once it becomes clear that there's a passionate and sincere segment of the population that believes decreasing carbon emissions is not only wrong but that instead we should be increasing emissions because all life on earth depends on CO2.
    I disagree. Ron is a paid troll. He follows the Americans for Prosperity playbook exactly. He posts too much, and has too many denier bullshit talking points at his fingertips to be just a sincere "knuckle dragger" who believes we need to increase CO2.

    We have all seen this before on here. Attack anyone who disagrees with you. Say things like, "why don't you believe in science?" or "Why don't you trust the IPCC?" to get people to argue obscure, untrue points. The goals are to confuse and create doubt. This is the denier playbook.

  8. #1108
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    on the banks of Fish Creek
    Posts
    1,392
    Why don’t you believe in science?

  9. #1109
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,665
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I disagree. Ron is a paid troll. He follows the Americans for Prosperity playbook exactly. He posts too much, and has too many denier bullshit talking points at his fingertips to be just a sincere "knuckle dragger" who believes we need to increase CO2.

    We have all seen this before on here. Attack anyone who disagrees with you. Say things like, "why don't you believe in science?" or "Why don't you trust the IPCC?" to get people to argue obscure, untrue points. The goals are to confuse and create doubt. This is the denier playbook.
    Maybe. But if you read the comments section of sites Ron posts a lot of the people are saying the same thing as Ron. It seems un-economical for paid trolls to be saying the same thing to each other on obscure websites. It seems possible that they've sincerely, and maybe subconsciously, embraced their worldview regardless of how it came about.

  10. #1110
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Maybe. But if you read the comments section of sites Ron posts a lot of the people are saying the same thing as Ron. It seems un-economical for paid trolls to be saying the same thing to each other on obscure websites. It seems possible that they've sincerely, and maybe subconsciously, embraced their worldview regardless of how it came about.
    I don't go to any of the websites he shares as they are known denier sites whose points have all been debunked, so I haven't read any of the comments there. I don't read any of his posts arguing about the science either. But I do know this is the denier playbook, and he posts too much and his replies are too long to just be some random dude on here, especially when he clearly isn't here for the skiing or snowboarding chatter.

  11. #1111
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,136
    The productive approach imo is to reorient the focus from catchphrases to sound principles like systematically reducing waste & improving efficiency. Something all religions (lib & cons) can agree on. If you go down the dogmatic approach you just stir up emotions that sides will never part with.

    Effective vs. theoretically ideal...

  12. #1112
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    That’s because it is a warming rate you moron. Not the amount of warming. The rate of warming and its expressed as something other than degrees per year. This is why no one should listen to you. You lack basic understanding of scientific and mathematical concepts. You use your ignorance to latch onto individual points and miss the forest for the trees; you don’t grasp the concepts. Just like when you claimed the ocean was rising at linear rates and not accelerating. You were too stupid to understand a line graph.

    What training do you have in science? Math?
    I know its not a graph reconstructing temperature. What is so confusing about it is why it is set up like a temperature reconstruction. You would expect a graph of warming and cooling 51 year rates to be in bar graph form. It looks like they are showing the warming and cooling rates for every single year of the past 2000 years. I'd love to know how they think they have enough data to attempt something like that.

    Enough with the sea level rate thing. I didn't look closely enough at the graph you had linked because of the confirmation bias I saw from the 3.1mm/year acceleration listed in the top right, which is what I was expecting to find.

  13. #1113
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    1 - There was a natural warming period following a series of volcanic eruptions beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatial-climate variability. The paper focuses on the, “last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions” which happens to overlap with the start of the industrial era.

    2 - Then, per your chart, there's a brief cooling trend until about 1915 followed by a warming trend through the 1940s, which “was shown to originate from a combination of forcings including (some) anthropogenic forcings and internal multidecadal variability of the climate system.”

    3 - After that, from about 1975 to the present we see the, "warmest multidecadal peak of the Common Era occurring in the late twentieth century."

    4 - I never used the chart. You used the chart, and incorrectly.

    5 - The text you quoted from my post is the description of the chart.

    6 – Yes, there are other papers on the MWP but they are using a more limited data set and even a random sample of the ones you posted don’t support your claims. In fact, your sources keep misrepresenting the scientific literature.

    7 – I’ve been referencing three, not two, papers and now I’m referencing four papers. Your paper finds that modern global warming hasn't been uniform across the globe for most of the twentieth century, until the second half of the twentieth century.

    Prior to 1950 there is lots of warming/cooling spatial-variability. Then, the cooling spatial-variability slowly goes away as time moves towards the present with a warming period affecting the whole planet. The paper reinforces this fact by stating that after 1950 multidecadal variability cannot be separated well from the warming trend.

    Figure 3 from your paper illustrates the point:
    Name:  spatio-variabilty.png
Views: 163
Size:  43.9 KB

    You can see from your own source how the bands of warming expand and merge to cover the entire planet, all of which is described in the paper.
    I don't think we are going to get anywhere further with this discussion. I believe this is far too strong of a statement to make on the research as a whole:
    1. Average global temperatures in the 20th century are higher than ever before in at least 2,000 years
    2. A warming period is now affecting the whole planet at the same time for the first time
    3. And the speed of global warming has never been as high as it is today.

    Your main source justifying these statements has only been out for about a month. I remain very hesitant to accept these overarching statements when the studies are comparing current instrumental records with imprecise past proxies. 20th century proxy records do not show the same level of warming as the instrumental record.

  14. #1114
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinnikinnick View Post
    So Ron Johnson,

    In some sense you’re right, statistically speaking we have a data set of 1. Our reality on a single earth in a single solar system. And without you know a 30-40 or more data sets we can’t mathematically predict with a high degree of confidence what’s going to happen.

    But that said, what course of action do you think is prudent?:

    A) to act cautiously and plan for the worst

    B) ignore it and take whatever comes


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    One of main main points I've made in this discussion has been that there isn't anything that can actually be done with our current tech. If 100% non carbon renewables were able to replace our current energy system at a reasonable cost then by all means, go for it. The problem is they can't. Trying to force a 100% non carbon renewable energy system on the US would be economic suicide and do virtually nothing to combat rising CO2 levels. The only way to make this happen is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the entire world to adopt.

    In the meantime, we're better off saving the money for adaptation.

  15. #1115
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    "Will Tuvalu Disappear Beneath the Sea? --
    Global warming threatens to swamp a small island nation"

    Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...neath-the-sea-
    My uneasiness is stoked by dire pronouncements that Tuvalu’s leaders have been making for more than a decade. The planet’s fourth-smallest nation, they say, faces extinction because of climate change. Rising seas and deadly storms have reportedly started to swamp the islands, and fears are growing that Tuvalu will be uninhabitable or may vanish entirely within a few decades. Prime Minister Saufatu Sapo’aga told the United Nations last year that the global-warming threat is no different from “a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.” Independent scientists also offer a grim forecast. “Because of its location and physical nature, Tuvalu is particularly susceptible to the adverse impacts of climate change and in particular rising sea level,” concludes a 1996 scientific study coauthored by the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the government of Japan.

    Unlike other current or predicted environmental catastrophes, Tuvalu’s problem is one that people worldwide are believed to create by burning fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. In that sense, my habit of leaving lights on around my house, in Washington, D.C., a neighbor’s of constantly driving his large SUV to go just a few city blocks and another neighbor’s preference for a toasty house in winter would play a role in Tuvalu’s fate. In fact, Tuvalu threatened in 2002 to sue the United States and Australia for excessive carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, some Tuvaluans are getting ready to abandon their homeland. “Islanders Consider Exodus as Sea Level Rises,” the British newspaper The Guardian reported last year.
    Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...8CHsDOsYewF.99

  16. #1116
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    I don't go to any of the websites he shares as they are known denier sites whose points have all been debunked, so I haven't read any of the comments there. I don't read any of his posts arguing about the science either. But I do know this is the denier playbook, and he posts too much and his replies are too long to just be some random dude on here, especially when he clearly isn't here for the skiing or snowboarding chatter.
    Wow, I knew you were close minded but didn't know it was that bad. You admit you refuse to listen to anything from someone that disagrees with you on something, thats pretty special.

    I guess the IPCC is now a denier site seeing as you are back to posting hysterical hurricane articles.

  17. #1117
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,840
    Comrade gettin paid

  18. #1118
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    9,295
    If the earth were getting cooler, would it be better or worse than getting warmer?
    Other than for skiing and other winter sports.
    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  19. #1119
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    If the earth were getting cooler, would it be better or worse than getting warmer?
    Other than for skiing and other winter sports.
    The problem is the unprecedented rate of change. Species can't adapt to such rapid change.

  20. #1120
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Timberridge View Post
    If the earth were getting cooler, would it be better or worse than getting warmer?
    Other than for skiing and other winter sports.
    Not to be confused with water sports.

  21. #1121
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    The greatest strength of science is also its weakness when things start getting political. Science works by continuing testing and revising theories, continually searching for, analyzing, and incorporating new data. Climate scientists don't just publish once and then retire and play golf. The keep working, keep collecting data, keep reassessing. Which means that antiscientists like climate deniers can easily find something a scientist published that has had to be changed or is refuted by new evidence. This is then used to discredit the scientist and the science. It's much much easier if you just write some shit down, claim god said it, and then stick with it for a few thousand years. It may be total BS but there are no inconsistencies to attack.

    RJ may not be spouting religious nonsense but he's certainly using the strategy--argue minor points and then claim that if such and such a minor point turns out to have been wrong on further study the whole scientific edifice of global warming must be wrong. And if there isn't anything wrong with the data, cherry pick some data that does agree with the overall trend and claim it refutes the entire edifice of global warming theory.

    One of the most effective tactics of the deniers is stratification after the fact. Good science defines subsets based on analysis of previous work and then testing the subsets. Bad science takes a lot of data that doesn't show anything or which shows the opposite of what you want to prove and creates artificial subsets that seem to make their point. Now it's valid to search the data for subsets that seem to behave differently, but then you have to collect new data that shows the same behavior in that subset. Just by chance there will always be outliers; the question is whether or not those outliers are consistent over time.

  22. #1122
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,382
    ^^^It's called poison the well.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  23. #1123
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,847
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    ^^^It's called poison the well.
    Different tactic--claim that any source that disagrees with you is biased. Find one mistake the source has made and claim it invalidates the source. A weakness of good journalism, when things turn political, is that reliable media acknowledge and correct their mistakes which makes them vulnerable to attack. Unreliable sources just double down on their mistakes.

    RJ has a point though about WMD not reading RJ's sites. Now I think I'll go check out Daily Stormer to see what they have to say about race relations.

  24. #1124
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,874
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Well, you have been using the PAGES paper as a confirmation of your position, so I think its fair for me to use it. In any case, the Neukom paper is not public so I can't see anything other than the abstract, but I did find this link with two graphs from the paper: https://desdemonadespair.net/2019/07...000-years.html The top graph is extremely odd as it shows 1.5'C of warming from ~1975 to 2000 from instrumental data which is more than double the warming I've seen from any record for that period. What is the Y axis supposed to mean? '51-year warming rate ['C per century]'?

    The bottom graphs appear to show that early 20th century was a global phenomenon, and quote: "Neukom and colleagues using 700 climate records from around the world covering the last 2,000 years demonstrate that the Little Ice Age and the Mediaeval Warm period were localised climatic events. Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has change synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98% of the surface of the Planet has warmed." So it looks like the warming pre 1950 was global in nature according to this paper. And according to the PAGES temperature record, the pre 1950 warming is very similar to the post 1950 warming.

    In any case the point remains that you cannot unequivocally state that this is the only time the earth has warmed this quickly and synchronously in the past 2000 years. There are hundreds of studies at odds with these two papers:

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...9008193601&z=2

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/...edieval-times/
    No Trick Zone, wow, just wow.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/40...rming-is-myth/

    The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

    Claim
    Hundreds of papers published in 2017 prove that global warming is a myth.

    Rating

    False

  25. #1125
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,193
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    RJ has a point though about WMD not reading RJ's sites. Now I think I'll go check out Daily Stormer to see what they have to say about race relations.
    Clarification: I did review his points and sites for a while, but they are all well known denier sites with false and debunked information, aka bullshit or lies. I no longer look because I refuse to waste my time on that crap. So I did look, found that it was full of false information that has been proven to be incorrect, bad science, and / or cherry picked, and now no longer waste time on it.

    If we all view his points and his sites we are helping to further his credibility, and he should have none. He knows he is wrong but can win by creating doubt. He does not deserve our attention.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •