Words do mean something, at least they do to me. I sure wish you would learn to read properly!





Where did I say that deforestation is no big deal? I only said that there are "more" trees than there used to be when referring to water vapor, the main greenhouse gas. I am sorry your comprehension level is so low. I do feel sorry for you.







And global warming isn't happening because if it were, we would be seeing more than 1 record high temp every 200 days! Thats right - rodney proved global warming wrong just like that!



Again, a failure to be able to read and comprehend. I have about a dozen reasons I don't believe in global warming, and none to make me believe it does. I clearly stated that this is yet another reason that tends to make me believe this. How do you equate that this "tends to make me believe" with "proves"?

Again, a serious comprehension problem.



And of course we all remember that global warming happens mostly at night



The statement was, that "the temperature readings that some global warming alarmists say indicate global warming are increasing "most" at night and during the winter." This isn't my data, it is data from global warming alarmist. And isn't that exactly what you and Frank have been arguing when you were unable to understand my statistical analysis regarding heat waves? That the lower temps, and the mean temps rising are more important than high extremes? So, first, high temperatures are unimportant as far as global warming is concerned, it is the lows and medians rising that matter, now it is lows aren't going up? So let's see, now we have a serious comprehension problem again, but this time it is combined with hypocrisy.



And that the majority of all scientists don't believe in global warming! Thats right - rodney found two unrelated surveys, compared them and Ta-Dah! Made his proclomation.



Wrong again, I said most scientist don't believe in global warming, and the liberal media shouldn't refer to it as fact, when it hasn't been proven. The media should refer to it as a theory, since that is all it is. Then you complained about my using the term "most". I countered with two petitions, one that was started in the scientific community as the result of the other petition started by global warming alarmists. NEWS FLASH!!When something is the result of, or caused by something else, that means they are related! This does not mean they are totally unrelated! You didn't like this evidence, so I gave you multiple polls that said the same thing. You then tried to discredit those polls by quoting "Gallup's randomness rules" without even realizing the polls you tried to discredit were made by gallup! And now you are trying to ignore those polls and concentrate on the petitions! More inability to comprehend, but an amazing ability to misrepresent!



Of course, we know from rodney that the entire global environmental movement may well be a Communist plot too! Thats right kids, he actually said that



Again, a total misrepresentation. I said I heard someone talking about this from an article they read in a major new magazine many years ago, and wanted to know if anyone else had evidence of this. After all, it makes sense. Radical environmentalism would be an excellent weapon for the Soviet Union to use against the U.S. during the cold war, to devastate our economy, since we produced so much compared to the rest of the world back then. What better weapon to use against an economy than something as anti-business as this? I also clearly stated that I didn't know if this was true, and that is why I was looking for the original article or credible evidence of this. Again, a comprehension problem on you part. Pick out a very minor point, and totally eliminate all the important points. I once had a gyroscope that couldn't spin as fast as you!



(Sorry for all the bold type fonts, but I do that to try and get people like pulatus to emphasize certain words they read so they can't misrepresent what I have said. Unfortunately, even this doesn't seem to help!)



I won't bother to go back and provide the links again (like I have done 4 time before) to prove that you are lying about all these issues once again, and that what I am saying is totally accurate.



I can't figure out if you are a compulsive liar, a historical revisionist, or if your inability to comprehend things leads you to delusional conclusions. I'm pretty good at problem solving, but I can't figure this one out.



Just curious, are you still beating your wife like you said you used to? (since you repeatedly lie about what I said, I can do the same. The difference is, I only do it to demonstrate your outrageous behavior. I would never do so without pointing out that it is indeed a lie.)



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]