Inflating post count? Who gives a ratzazz about a post count? Often times I barely have time to post one line.
Fair enough - but you post a whole series of one liners within a matter of minutes. So you have time for that. Anyway, looks odd and makes one wonder what's up with you. That's all.
Posting lots of bullshit doesn't make it true... Like CO2 being a pollutant. Lol
Quite. But you don't ever bother to flesh out your thoughts. When you do bother, it's a series of links. But it's also clear there is a double standard here because while you can flood posts with links (when you decide to 'explain' your views), no one else can or should. How's that go?
Did it ever dawn on you that the first three people on this forum were Gene, David then myself? Lol. That would tend to give me a few posts. That really does help me understand you better tho.
It would sure give you a few posts but it also starts to rack up those posts if you take five one-line posts sent within minutes of each other to convey one thought, more-or-less. Since you say very little of substance except to make low-grade statements - usually rude - about your 'opposition' in the debate, it's dawned on me that it's post count you're interested in. I am on another chat site that makes a big deal of the way a poster posts so I am perhaps more alert to the signs than most.
(BTW - totally by-the-by - I appreciate the freedom here on this chat site regarding the posting count - I don't get why the other site is so nitsy about it - especially as it's
humongous site, with over 70,000 members and close to 2 million posts. Though maybe I do understand now that I think of it. They actually have moderators that will consolidate successive posts from one poster - like all your one-liners would be merged into one post and you'd be warned. Pretty intense but now that I think about it, with over 2 million posts and a fairly high profile reputation in the genre covered, they aim for the post count total to represent substantial feed. That must be it. I think the chat site is actually used by writers and journalists as a source. Maybe it has something to to with forum size, too?)
If you are so concerned about carbon and CO2 then do the right thing and stop your toxic emissions for just 20 minutes to help save the planet because according to recent studies from your "camp" you are a carbon based CO2 emitting useless eater.
'Deniers' have a set of formulaic catch-phrases I am noticing (like a religion, in fact). This weird CO2 'toxic emissions' overblown rhetoric is an example. There is a site that supplies rejoinders - with the science. I've linked you to one such site. I've even quoted from the site on the very issue - but it's like I've said nothing. Given your most recent posts it's clear that you don't even bother to read the links, or even the quoted portions within the posts. If you had you would realize - I assume but I may be over estimating your ability to compute information - that your catch-phrases are simply ignorance.
But enough said. Most posters have withdrawn because it appears that the only kind of 'debate' you understand is far away from respectful - and you do dominate a thread once you come on - with tons of one-liner posts. Is that the equivalent of 'yelling'? You appear to use ideas like a hammer to bludgeon. Good luck with that. I'm not here to change you. I'm not even here to change anyone's views - though I would listen to opposing, well thought out expositions for sure, and do.
This and other threads have debated the issue. Plenty good back-and-forths present that you could go back and read. In answer to all your questions just go back into the thread to read the responses to you by others who supplied a lot of intelligent back-up. (That you never supplied with your one-liners btw). You take up a person's time, Pixelsmith. It's not worth going over the same ground with you again and again. It's clear you don't really listen or read the links - or understand what you are reading. I don't know what the problem is, but I do know that you come across very much like a religious fundamentalist, who are impossible to have a debate with because the belief system is so rigid and fixed. You come across the same way.
Anyway, I accept that whenever I post an article here vis-a-vis global warming you will be the bull to the red flag and charge with some useless (and rude) one -liner. How you respond to these things tells me that you are not really very savvy regarding the scientific mode of debate. Your video link is a perfect example of that, too. The 'warmer' as you call him was making significant points but I fear it floated above your head because you were down in the pit enjoying the mud-wrestling amongst the hosts and 'denier' (who btw is paid to be a denier - you do know that?).
All the pointed and directed questions have been answered. If you cannot figure out where those answers are that's your issue, not mine. I am reminded of the devise one is taught in school - to answer the question: "Why are school busses yellow?", the proper formula must be: "School busses are yellow because...." Good luck with that. It's a bit more subtle than that. If you can't figure out the answer to the CO2 toxic issue you keep hammering away at, there is very little more I can say to help you out of what I can only surmise is an intellectual lack, if not a willful blindness or game playing with words.
