Re: Global Warming Alert

On 8/16/2026 2:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/16/26 11:01 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/16/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/16/26 6:54 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2026 4:26 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/26 11:46 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/15/2026 1:03 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2026 12:39:24 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't count the number of times you've called me a liar. And 
>>>>>>>> near as I can tell it's only because:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. I've been wrong about something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. You don't agree with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice try asshole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one cares when you say that, Noah. It does not make you look 
>>>>>> tougher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither of those two things are a lie. And I can absolutely 
>>>>>>>> state that I've never deliberately lied on this ng or any other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>> lies are not opinions or ideas, or notions, or guesses, or innocent.
>>>>>>> lies are deliberate, you might not know when you are reciting
>>>>>>> propaganda, but you should, you are smart enough to know better, but
>>>>>>> you do not.  I am not inclined to be forgiving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even if love says you are limited by your ideological 
>>>>>>> commitments. You
>>>>>>> are still smart enough to know better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sitting up there on your throne of beliefs, surveying and passing 
>>>>>> judgement on the benighted plebs that surround you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm reciting propaganda but am not smart enough to know better, 
>>>>>> that's not lying. And if it's a case of not being smart enough, it 
>>>>>> can't be deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> nah, when ur deliberately cherry-picking when to accept evidence vs 
>>>>> reject it based on trying to fit that evidence to ur preferred 
>>>>> narrative ...
>>>>
>>>> Using discernment to see what seems to fit reality best, deciding 
>>>> what makes sense.  Versus swallowing whole everything told to you.
>>>
>>> my dumbass retarded nigga, ur doing it with _with the same body of 
>>> evidence_ ... ei magically accepting it when the evidence suits ur 
>>> stupefyingly denialist narrative, and rejecting it when it doesn't
>>>
>>>> Yeah I can see how that's confusing for you.
>>>
>>> it's not confusing, ur just willfully lying because due to refusing 
>>> to take responsibility for the godshit u preach
>>>
>>
>> You're always free to refute what I say with actual facts, rather than 
>> regurgitating the regime narrative bolstered by your usual insults & 
>> semi-delusional rants.
>>
> 
> you haven't even bothered to refute the paleoclimatic facts yet u 
> dumbass. if they are wrong, there should be some reason to not believe 
> than, and such reason has not been provided ...
> 
> ofc we both know u don't even remotely have the technical skill to do 
> that. the gptslop you dumped out in lieu of actual ability was 
> disgustingly pathetic
> 

You called some of the papers I did cite bogus, and couldn't even follow 
the logic of why I interpreted one the way I did. As it's apparently 
beyond you, why should I bother?