Please proceed. Your characterizations are false.
"Please proceed. Your characterizations are false."
Sure. From my post #180:
“…Deceptive piece of work there on that overlay on the graph bar for "Changes in solar irradiance" of the "Natural" section of the IPCC graph. You also completely eliminated the "Total Anthropogenic" section of the actual IPCC graph that was at the very bottom that put in perspective the minute contribution of what you pretend is significant. Quite dishonest.”
I also said:
‘To do with climate change, you keep presenting the same debunked material. No sense in continuing debate. Also, as is on record, you have no credibility for your disingenuous and dishonest debate presentation. Not even an "Ooops" from you.’
Citations of which:
From the Thread The Amazon And Global Warming Post #41
‘You provided an “abstract” as though it represented the position of a co-author of the article, Doerr, as though he held a position against AGW. I gave you a direct quote of Doerr, and a link the source of the quote, that was in direct contradiction too your false giving a link to the source of your “abstract” to even verify its true author.’
‘You said Royal Society’s article against AGW was peer-reviewed. By who? The Royal Society? I gave you source information as to the lack of credibility regarding the society’s “peer” review process. I refuted what you said and you can’t counter by refute with anything that proves your claim of independent peer review as you implied.’
From the Thread What, me worry? Post #136
Gee, I don’t get the same figures as you. I’m looking at a frequency list that covers your same period that says something different. In terms of severity, I used Cat5 hurricanes, the most severe. Your graph line barely increases, mine would go up twice as much from 10 for 1980-1999 to 20 for 2000-2019. Your frequency graph line goes down, mine, again, nearly doubles from 74 for 1980-1999 to 146 for 200-2019. Your numbers don’t add up. In fact, you don’t have numbers. Just a graph. Just about anything can be done with a graph to make it appear slight or radical.
And Post #149
You said:
“The numbers were easily identifiable in the graph linked at #133.”
Then I said:
“No, they weren’t. And you can’t say what those numbers are. An example of your being disingenuous and evasive. You are a slippery one.”
With both of those threads, I withdrew from the debate due to your disingenuousness and prevarication, as I now do with this thread.
"No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured."
Marcus Aurelius