Sorry, I don't play silly absurd games with grammer, and I do not respond to or get ticked off by insults, having a rather strong belief that those who use them have by doing so lost the argument.
My goodness. Insults? I did express frustration with people who make straw man arguments, who evade pertinant questions with red herrings, rhetoric and sophistry but I bent over backwards to allow for the possibility that you weren't one of those people.
From the tone of your response affecting insult on behalf of those who lie, evade and distort the truth it seems that you even know that you're one of those people.
I mentioned my frustrations with such behaviours simply to make it clear how your actions could be construed as evidence of deliberate deceit. This was in order to motivate you towards offering an alternative explanation which I was eager to accept. I now understand that you identify yourself as one of these people I described as "mendacious onanists." Had I known you would so publicly identify yourself with that group obviously the membership agreement would have forbidden me from saying that about you. It's too late for me to go back and edit that but I now retract it. People who deliberately tell lies are simply that. If you're admitting to being one of them then it's enough for me to know that everybody witnessed that you're a self confessed liar. They can add their own private lewd epithets if they feel the same way about liars as I do.
From yet another missed opportunity for you to respond to repeated requests that you substantiate where you apparently read the argument that all warming is caused by CO
2 it seems like you're tacitly admitting that this was a straw man argument that you made up rather than encountered anywhere.
It appears to me now that you know that what you did was dishonest, which is why you took offense when I berated dishonest people who make up arguments exagerating the claims of their opposition. If you were honest you could have simply demonstrated that such arguments are being made, that you didn't make them up. However if you were one of the dishonest people who make up arguments exagerating the claims of their opposition, that would not be an option for you. That makes you a liar. I mean no insult by that just a statement of fact relavent to the discussion at hand. We must take special care to be skeptical about statements made by a self confessed liar.
From this missed opportunity to explain why you mangled the IPCC's statement to missrepresent it's meaning along with subsequent further misrepresentations of the statement's meaning, it appears that you're tacitly admitting that this was a deliberate quote mine. If you were honest you could have simply explained what your motivation was in taking the extra effort to rearrange that quote. I might accept your interim excuse that you were ignorant of the word's meaning and unaware of the effect of removing it if you offered a reason motivating the extra effort required to re-edit what should have been a simple cut and paste job. If your motivation however was deceit then that would not be an option for you. That makes you a liar. I mean no insult by that just a statement of fact relavent to the discussion at hand. We must take special care to be skeptical about staements made by a self confessed liar.
As such I can't even take seriously your claim that you didn't understand the relavence of the word. Ignorance I can accpet and with your cooperation my efforts at education might have been of some benefit. Who knows with further discussion you might have opened my eyes to convincing evidence that migth have changed my mind. However there's no hope of constructive debate with a liar.
Has your attempt at creating a little flame war squabble now failed?
Not at all. I have no intention of creating a flame war and even if I did your admission that your initial agument was a straw man is marks an end to it.
That admission could have been as simple as "yes I did exagerate for rhetorical effect but..." and then we could have continued the discussion in a fair and civil manner.
I wanted honest debate if you persist in taking offense at barbs directed at liars then I must lose any hope that you'll engage is such debate with any degree of honesty.
Again why should it be of interest whislt you're identifying with the sort of liars who evade criticism when they're caught in a lie by throwing in Red Herrings? Is it even relavent to the conversation we're having?
Last, I should note you chose to ignore in #42 among other items, this:
net radiative imbalance (1.60) = (almost exactly equals) = CO2 forcing (1.66).
To carry this further, calculate the warming that would occur from such and such a radiative imbalance and compare it with the actual warming of the planet over your choice of timeframe. Interesting results.
Indeed I did, I wondered at the time if this might be a red herring. If you perhaps already knew that the following two statements are in no way incompatible with one another.
Modelling suggests that the overwhelming proportion of warming could come from the greenhouse effect.
Direct observation evidence leads us to a greater than 90% confidence level that >50% of today's warming comes from the greenhouse effect.
Neither however imply that all warming comes from CO
2
Now that you've tacitly confessed to being a deceitful denialist obviously I was right not to bother with a detailled exposition on this. It seems you've no desire to learn this and every desire to deny it in the face of all logic and evidence.
Maybe if you turn over a new leaf and commit to honest pursual of truth forsaking the deliberate propagation of misrepresentations, evasiosn and lies then it might be worth further discussion but I can see that to do so now would be a waste of my time.
