It will be actual news when any insurance company takes the stance that Climate Change won’t be as bad as predicted, that we can live with it by making minor adjustments.
Fun Game: $500 billion would solve the threat of Climate Change, according to the Gates Foundation. That’s only about 10% of the global economic output in one year, so we could easily get it done over about 10 years time, using 1% of economic output per year.
Tell me why liberals won’t buy in.
I think you have some errors in your post there, you can’t possibly mean 500 billion.
Here’s something interesting on the topic of efforts to combat climate change that I would actually support (I will never support carbon credits or leftist methods)
They can only remove 1 million tons per year, but it’s pretty cool nonetheless, and the cost would be $1 a liter, which is basically competitive with summer gas prices where I live. They could probably make it more cost competitive over time.
Maybe throw up a thousand of these in each of the top 15 global economies, and you’ve reduced output by 15 billion which is a pretty hefty amount compared to global releases.
However, the cost according to their own site to purify one ton of atmosphere is $100-$150, so the low end cost would be 1.5 trillion to remove that much, if this tech works out.
That’s actually not too terrible. From a business stand point I’ll take the jobs and economic throughput that it would create as well, as this would cost 1.5 trillion sure, but it would be in the consumer market, at a price somewhat similar to what we pay now. If it makes sense economically for me, I’m all for it, and if it isn’t some leftist hogwash, same thing.
This is what I don’t think the moderates here seem to understand about true conservatives, as to what our concerns are. They are too busy making us into villains who can’t be taken seriously to listen to what we add to the conversation.
Can’t trust a guy to make sound analysis on this science when he can’t do basic math or see his numbers on something like this are way off. Good thing you’re in sales and not someone who analyzes risk.
It’s funny when someone comes in and says someone isn’t credible due to numbers, but doesn’t point out specifically which of the numbers are wrong, and then uses titles to make the argument.
If you’re talking to me, and not Craig, who definitely did have the $500 billion number wrong, (and that one is obvious due to him stating the percentage of the world economy) then what in my post is wrong?
So he definitely didn’t have the numbers right, but I’m in the wrong. Ok. You can’t do percentages and don’t invite what averages are so you fit into that category too, even before the lies, misquotes, and saying people say things they didn’t say.
“So he definitely didn’t have the numbers right, but I’m in the wrong. Ok”
I said if you were talking to me.
” You can’t do percentages and don’t invite what averages are so you fit into that category too, even before the lies, misquotes, and saying people say things they didn’t say.”
Yes, I can, and just did. You can’t use a general statement to state my numbers now are incorrect. They are correct. I do not lie and misquote, it would be called wrong when that happens. Also, you’re the one who for months claimed I wanted to murder Muslims, and that is saying I said something I didn’t. It is around the same time you got in trouble here. Don’t even try with me UW, you know I won’t give you an inch of this nonsense you keep parroting.
October 3, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
My bet (though I could be wrong) is you were looking for me to be wrong, and misread this statement:
“Maybe throw up a thousand of these in each of the top 15 global economies, and you’ve reduced output by 15 billion which is a pretty hefty amount compared to global releases. ”
1000 of these products, in each of the top 15 global economies. You probably said “that doesn’t match up with the rest of his numbers!” and it doesn’t, because YOU read it wrong, and rather than questioning it for a second and trying the alternate route, (which is 1,000 in each country TIMES 15, not 1,000 total) that actually matches the rest of my numbers precisely. You’re right, basic math dictates that 1,000 * 1,000,000 is absolutely not 15 billion. Do you know what is? 1,000 * 15 * 1,000,000. That also matches up with the 1.5 trillion, which is 1,000 * 15 * 1,000,000 * 100. If you think I can’t even do that basic of math, the problem is you are extremely ego intensive, and look down on everyone.
Maybe you need to take a second to digest what people say instead of jumping to conclusions that make no sense based on the fact that you hate their politics, and as you said before: You agreed violence could be used as a means to civil discourse. If I recall correctly, you were temporarily banned for it, and were enraged that it happened. This relates in the following way: If you are so prone to misread people, maybe you shouldn’t take the position that violence can be justified. Maybe that is the very reason violence is never justified. You have a lot of growing up to do.
Nope. The reason is in the data, and in the falsification of data by ‘Climate Scientists’ intent on enforcing their opinions which are NOT substantiated in the least by data or unbiased analysis.
Disclaimer: I am referring to MAN-MADE Climate change.
Polar, did you see the last article from NASA who has satellites giving them information that the sun is in minimum cycle and we are entering a period of cooling. So much for the settled science saying the earth is warming. Hoaxers still say it is getting hotter. They better get their heavy coats ready.
Are you still this uninformed about climate change where you only believe it is global warming? We have discussed the issue you choose to ignore with your arguments that climate change refers to the changing climate. There are periods of heating (global warming) and cooling (global cooling). Now, you can say that the experts are falsifying data, but if you dig into the research most statically significant data supports climate change. I know you have an issue finding statistically significant data (from my experience it stems from your lack of knowledge about statistical significance in general on topics regarding anything science).
And right now, the argument from the left including the NOAA is that the vast array of warming is caused by humans and we are about to have mass flooding.
There is nothing wrong with Agent’s assertion above on global warming on a wording basis, he didn’t use the wrong word, even though you’re now arguing semantics.
Now on his comment about whether humans are the primary factor, I think it’s plainly obvious there is no consensus that we are capable of being a primary factor in any catastrophic way. I went over this with UW in the past, even his studies, the 97% agreed we had an impact on climate change. I believe if I recall correctly, some 40-50% thought we could have a large level of impact. I’m wording this carefully, more than that thought we were the current largest factor. It may have even been less than that I’ll have to find it. Then UW switched gears, and said all he was saying is that humans contributed, and I said no, you aren’t, you’re claiming there is a disaster occurring that is catastrophic or you wouldn’t be taking the argument at all.
What is more dishonest, claiming that 97% of scientists agree we will cause disaster in the world, or, saying global warming when all of them happen to be talking about global warming, instead of saying climate change?
You’re way off base.
October 3, 2018 at 2:13 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I’m googling it now, and will find the info when I have time.
The amount of scientists who think we will have a catastrophic level of impact was very low.
The issue behind this, and I showed UW at the time, is also, that many scientists came out and said that these studies misrepresented their work and what they said. The issue is not in disbelieving scientists, it is in disbelieving the few consensus studies that have come out, which many scientists themselves deny reflect their work, and are being pushed by government folks and by people whose funding are reliant on it.
This is even disregarding that I have already showed that the NOAA combines several different oceanic monitoring methods combined into one, and includes unreliable ones with less locations from when we had less monitoring, and made an equation to make up for the margin of error. This is quite literally making a margin of error equation on a theory of how much off they probably were compared to non existent locations they didn’t have, guestimating, and then it makes the ocean temperatures in particular have an absolutely huge margin of error. Even NASA’s surface temperatures include oceanic by the way, I went over this with everyone here that it was nearly impossible to find temperatures for just land surface data, and there is a reason for that. A narrative was then clearly pushed that oceanic should be combined, but the data for oceanic is god awful.
This is partially for you but partially for J.S. Believing authorities doesn’t make sense. Believing data does, and I’m all about data. Everything I have seen shows there is no way the left should be believed on this, and the risks are too high to give them power. Any solution, especially like the one I put above, should be implemented with minimal governmental control, or cost.
And if any of you on the left take issue with that, there is a serious problem with your logical structure.
October 3, 2018 at 2:19 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Literally. I even showed that templets labeled “surface data” now included oceanic “surface” temperatures. This was the very thing that ticked me off.
Ultimately, it came down to confused saying who should we trust? And I said if someone is making a statement without matching data, not them. We don’t trust people, we trust data.
I had to link a section in which the NOAA said that sharing their data or linking to it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and they would prosecute anyone that did it. I kid you not.
There were constant broken links, which news articles referenced that I used as sources, and confused attacked that, saying I should have looked at the source data. The news article didn’t know the sources would break when the NOAA changed them. I think we can question the NOAA more on that, not my news source, especially when I show that no one can find the data, and asked confused to go ahead and do so and come back (he never did come back with the data, I did, and when I did I showed there were threats of lawsuits).
So on one end, a government funded entity is threatening to sue you if you source certain aspects of their source data, Bernie Sanders is threatening to bring climate change deniers to justice (and we recently saw here that a company was being charged for making a worst case scenario if climate change was real and the government funding them for having a private separate growth chart). So you’ll be brought to justice, but the source material that you are supposedly denying is real you can’t use in court to defend yourself can you? After all, it’s illegal. What we have seen is scary, and it is clear the Marxist left is involved in the extreme measures on climate change and believe they have found something to gain control.
I mean really, how on earth did you miss those conversations here? How did you miss this in general? When someone says the sky is falling, you best question it and fact check it.
“Yeah but it’s not pro-rape or supportive of White supremacy so the site deletes it.”
What you just said above wasn’t not substantive and wasn’t related to the debate.
It was an attempt to say I only read from dumb sources, an untrue statement. You yourself did admit in our argument that you never claimed that the majority of scientists were saying humans could cause catastrophic climate change. You then tried to say that I slid the goal posts, I remember this one quite well, and you then called me a liar when I said why would I even argue about climate change at all, or you, if the argument was that humans didn’t harm the planet? I said you were indeed trying to push the narrative that humans were causing catastrophic levels of change. I beat you so hardcore in that argument you lied and said you never made that claim, yet I bet here you are, about to make it again, aren’t you?
Also, this site is not pro-rape or pro white supremacy. I don’t know why they even allow you to post here, you are insane. No one here supports those positions. While above you said that I put words into people’s mouths, NO ONE HERE HAS SAID WHITE PEOPLE ARE SUPERIOR AND NO ONE HAS SUPPORTED RAPE. So this is you as usual calling people out to deflect. Do we really want to do this again? I’m actually glad you’re here. Now helping will see why the conservatives here are so jaded. They all had to deal with you, and he didn’t get to see much of it.
October 4, 2018 at 1:04 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Something tells me when the earth continues to warm you won’t care about the sun stages, which was debunked like 15 years ago. Did you see the more recent study where the Trump administration said we are in for even more warming than previously predicted?
I’ve never made this argument about sun stages. Agent has. You blur who is who, and what you just said didn’t even address what my concerns were, you just stated them for me. You’re again doing what you said I do.
I already made my points above. I don’t need to add to it, and I certainly don’t need to defend something I have never argued.
October 4, 2018 at 2:17 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Did you see the more recent study where the Trump administration said we are in for even more warming than previously predicted?”
This could be a substantial add, if it weren’t for the fact that you so clearly are yet again trying to say who says something matters more than what was said.
To me who says what doesn’t matter. It matters what the data says. I did see the report, but I did not completely read all the charts (and let’s be honest, neither did you) So I pulled it up now. When reading this, it is clear the same mistakes are made. I see at least one section mentioning oceanic data when mentioning global surface temperatures. I see a chart that says surface data, but does not clarify if the oceanic data is added. I see charts and charts and claims of increased temperatures from 1986-2005, but no source data, which makes me believe this is likely NOAA data, all of this looks very similar to what they say, and the NOAA data, as I showed before, they issue a legal disclaimer that they will prosecute anyone who shares the source data and numbers as opposed to the charts. You might not remember this, as you may have left the debate by the time I showed this, but I’m more than certain Confused does. In fact, as I’m reading more here, I am reading through this, and in the sources section, there is simply an unbelievable amount of NOAA source data. So this is not “Trump”‘s report.
This isn’t even Trump as it is. This is why you on the left need to grow up. This is the NHTSA, the EPA, and the DOE, reporting on info that the NOAA (mostly, there are others) compiled.
It has the same issues as what I debated before.
You’re being wildly misleading, as are the liberal media stations reporting on it. They know you won’t go through it, and that you’ll just say “Even Trump agrees!”. These are the same sources, the same data, and have the same issues I debated about before. You didn’t add anything new to this conversation, yet again. And since I wrote this as reading it, you can see where I first gave you credit that possibly you added something with this (if it were meant as data instead of how you used it) but now after reading it, I see you did not add anything. What specific facts in here are new? Can you point me to them?
It’s that simple to disprove you. Now you’ll go off tangent and will say how I’m not credible or fit to review percentages or science, like you underwriters are apparently me being a lowly salesman (ego and you said that once here already) and will refuse to answer won’t you?
October 2, 2018 at 8:52 am
J.S. says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Yay! More uninformed political comments on a scientific question>
“Dog Bites Man.”
It will be actual news when any insurance company takes the stance that Climate Change won’t be as bad as predicted, that we can live with it by making minor adjustments.
Fun Game: $500 billion would solve the threat of Climate Change, according to the Gates Foundation. That’s only about 10% of the global economic output in one year, so we could easily get it done over about 10 years time, using 1% of economic output per year.
Tell me why liberals won’t buy in.
I think you have some errors in your post there, you can’t possibly mean 500 billion.
Here’s something interesting on the topic of efforts to combat climate change that I would actually support (I will never support carbon credits or leftist methods)
http://carbonengineering.com/about-a2f/
They can only remove 1 million tons per year, but it’s pretty cool nonetheless, and the cost would be $1 a liter, which is basically competitive with summer gas prices where I live. They could probably make it more cost competitive over time.
Maybe throw up a thousand of these in each of the top 15 global economies, and you’ve reduced output by 15 billion which is a pretty hefty amount compared to global releases.
However, the cost according to their own site to purify one ton of atmosphere is $100-$150, so the low end cost would be 1.5 trillion to remove that much, if this tech works out.
That’s actually not too terrible. From a business stand point I’ll take the jobs and economic throughput that it would create as well, as this would cost 1.5 trillion sure, but it would be in the consumer market, at a price somewhat similar to what we pay now. If it makes sense economically for me, I’m all for it, and if it isn’t some leftist hogwash, same thing.
This is what I don’t think the moderates here seem to understand about true conservatives, as to what our concerns are. They are too busy making us into villains who can’t be taken seriously to listen to what we add to the conversation.
Can’t trust a guy to make sound analysis on this science when he can’t do basic math or see his numbers on something like this are way off. Good thing you’re in sales and not someone who analyzes risk.
It’s funny when someone comes in and says someone isn’t credible due to numbers, but doesn’t point out specifically which of the numbers are wrong, and then uses titles to make the argument.
If you’re talking to me, and not Craig, who definitely did have the $500 billion number wrong, (and that one is obvious due to him stating the percentage of the world economy) then what in my post is wrong?
So he definitely didn’t have the numbers right, but I’m in the wrong. Ok. You can’t do percentages and don’t invite what averages are so you fit into that category too, even before the lies, misquotes, and saying people say things they didn’t say.
“So he definitely didn’t have the numbers right, but I’m in the wrong. Ok”
I said if you were talking to me.
” You can’t do percentages and don’t invite what averages are so you fit into that category too, even before the lies, misquotes, and saying people say things they didn’t say.”
Yes, I can, and just did. You can’t use a general statement to state my numbers now are incorrect. They are correct. I do not lie and misquote, it would be called wrong when that happens. Also, you’re the one who for months claimed I wanted to murder Muslims, and that is saying I said something I didn’t. It is around the same time you got in trouble here. Don’t even try with me UW, you know I won’t give you an inch of this nonsense you keep parroting.
My bet (though I could be wrong) is you were looking for me to be wrong, and misread this statement:
“Maybe throw up a thousand of these in each of the top 15 global economies, and you’ve reduced output by 15 billion which is a pretty hefty amount compared to global releases. ”
1000 of these products, in each of the top 15 global economies. You probably said “that doesn’t match up with the rest of his numbers!” and it doesn’t, because YOU read it wrong, and rather than questioning it for a second and trying the alternate route, (which is 1,000 in each country TIMES 15, not 1,000 total) that actually matches the rest of my numbers precisely. You’re right, basic math dictates that 1,000 * 1,000,000 is absolutely not 15 billion. Do you know what is? 1,000 * 15 * 1,000,000. That also matches up with the 1.5 trillion, which is 1,000 * 15 * 1,000,000 * 100. If you think I can’t even do that basic of math, the problem is you are extremely ego intensive, and look down on everyone.
Maybe you need to take a second to digest what people say instead of jumping to conclusions that make no sense based on the fact that you hate their politics, and as you said before: You agreed violence could be used as a means to civil discourse. If I recall correctly, you were temporarily banned for it, and were enraged that it happened. This relates in the following way: If you are so prone to misread people, maybe you shouldn’t take the position that violence can be justified. Maybe that is the very reason violence is never justified. You have a lot of growing up to do.
So, not that I agree with this estimate, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an estimate of only 500 billion.
https://www.wnd.com/2017/01/climate-change-fight-bill-100000000000000/
What a waste of shareholder time.
Donald J. Trump has repeatedly said climage change is FAKE
Issue resolved, right?
Which is just as ludicrous as Obama saying it was “settled science”.
Nope. The reason is in the data, and in the falsification of data by ‘Climate Scientists’ intent on enforcing their opinions which are NOT substantiated in the least by data or unbiased analysis.
Disclaimer: I am referring to MAN-MADE Climate change.
Some of these sceientists will blame the Tsunami caused by an earthquake on man.
Some agents will capitalize ‘tsunami’ when it shouldn’t be.
Polar, did you see the last article from NASA who has satellites giving them information that the sun is in minimum cycle and we are entering a period of cooling. So much for the settled science saying the earth is warming. Hoaxers still say it is getting hotter. They better get their heavy coats ready.
Agent,
Are you still this uninformed about climate change where you only believe it is global warming? We have discussed the issue you choose to ignore with your arguments that climate change refers to the changing climate. There are periods of heating (global warming) and cooling (global cooling). Now, you can say that the experts are falsifying data, but if you dig into the research most statically significant data supports climate change. I know you have an issue finding statistically significant data (from my experience it stems from your lack of knowledge about statistical significance in general on topics regarding anything science).
And right now, the argument from the left including the NOAA is that the vast array of warming is caused by humans and we are about to have mass flooding.
There is nothing wrong with Agent’s assertion above on global warming on a wording basis, he didn’t use the wrong word, even though you’re now arguing semantics.
Now on his comment about whether humans are the primary factor, I think it’s plainly obvious there is no consensus that we are capable of being a primary factor in any catastrophic way. I went over this with UW in the past, even his studies, the 97% agreed we had an impact on climate change. I believe if I recall correctly, some 40-50% thought we could have a large level of impact. I’m wording this carefully, more than that thought we were the current largest factor. It may have even been less than that I’ll have to find it. Then UW switched gears, and said all he was saying is that humans contributed, and I said no, you aren’t, you’re claiming there is a disaster occurring that is catastrophic or you wouldn’t be taking the argument at all.
What is more dishonest, claiming that 97% of scientists agree we will cause disaster in the world, or, saying global warming when all of them happen to be talking about global warming, instead of saying climate change?
You’re way off base.
I’m googling it now, and will find the info when I have time.
The amount of scientists who think we will have a catastrophic level of impact was very low.
The issue behind this, and I showed UW at the time, is also, that many scientists came out and said that these studies misrepresented their work and what they said. The issue is not in disbelieving scientists, it is in disbelieving the few consensus studies that have come out, which many scientists themselves deny reflect their work, and are being pushed by government folks and by people whose funding are reliant on it.
This is even disregarding that I have already showed that the NOAA combines several different oceanic monitoring methods combined into one, and includes unreliable ones with less locations from when we had less monitoring, and made an equation to make up for the margin of error. This is quite literally making a margin of error equation on a theory of how much off they probably were compared to non existent locations they didn’t have, guestimating, and then it makes the ocean temperatures in particular have an absolutely huge margin of error. Even NASA’s surface temperatures include oceanic by the way, I went over this with everyone here that it was nearly impossible to find temperatures for just land surface data, and there is a reason for that. A narrative was then clearly pushed that oceanic should be combined, but the data for oceanic is god awful.
This is partially for you but partially for J.S. Believing authorities doesn’t make sense. Believing data does, and I’m all about data. Everything I have seen shows there is no way the left should be believed on this, and the risks are too high to give them power. Any solution, especially like the one I put above, should be implemented with minimal governmental control, or cost.
And if any of you on the left take issue with that, there is a serious problem with your logical structure.
Literally. I even showed that templets labeled “surface data” now included oceanic “surface” temperatures. This was the very thing that ticked me off.
Ultimately, it came down to confused saying who should we trust? And I said if someone is making a statement without matching data, not them. We don’t trust people, we trust data.
I had to link a section in which the NOAA said that sharing their data or linking to it was a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and they would prosecute anyone that did it. I kid you not.
There were constant broken links, which news articles referenced that I used as sources, and confused attacked that, saying I should have looked at the source data. The news article didn’t know the sources would break when the NOAA changed them. I think we can question the NOAA more on that, not my news source, especially when I show that no one can find the data, and asked confused to go ahead and do so and come back (he never did come back with the data, I did, and when I did I showed there were threats of lawsuits).
So on one end, a government funded entity is threatening to sue you if you source certain aspects of their source data, Bernie Sanders is threatening to bring climate change deniers to justice (and we recently saw here that a company was being charged for making a worst case scenario if climate change was real and the government funding them for having a private separate growth chart). So you’ll be brought to justice, but the source material that you are supposedly denying is real you can’t use in court to defend yourself can you? After all, it’s illegal. What we have seen is scary, and it is clear the Marxist left is involved in the extreme measures on climate change and believe they have found something to gain control.
I mean really, how on earth did you miss those conversations here? How did you miss this in general? When someone says the sky is falling, you best question it and fact check it.
Did that match The Farmers Almanac too?
Do you even have anything productive to say?
“Yeah but it’s not pro-rape or supportive of White supremacy so the site deletes it.”
What you just said above wasn’t not substantive and wasn’t related to the debate.
It was an attempt to say I only read from dumb sources, an untrue statement. You yourself did admit in our argument that you never claimed that the majority of scientists were saying humans could cause catastrophic climate change. You then tried to say that I slid the goal posts, I remember this one quite well, and you then called me a liar when I said why would I even argue about climate change at all, or you, if the argument was that humans didn’t harm the planet? I said you were indeed trying to push the narrative that humans were causing catastrophic levels of change. I beat you so hardcore in that argument you lied and said you never made that claim, yet I bet here you are, about to make it again, aren’t you?
Also, this site is not pro-rape or pro white supremacy. I don’t know why they even allow you to post here, you are insane. No one here supports those positions. While above you said that I put words into people’s mouths, NO ONE HERE HAS SAID WHITE PEOPLE ARE SUPERIOR AND NO ONE HAS SUPPORTED RAPE. So this is you as usual calling people out to deflect. Do we really want to do this again? I’m actually glad you’re here. Now helping will see why the conservatives here are so jaded. They all had to deal with you, and he didn’t get to see much of it.
Something tells me when the earth continues to warm you won’t care about the sun stages, which was debunked like 15 years ago. Did you see the more recent study where the Trump administration said we are in for even more warming than previously predicted?
I’ve never made this argument about sun stages. Agent has. You blur who is who, and what you just said didn’t even address what my concerns were, you just stated them for me. You’re again doing what you said I do.
I already made my points above. I don’t need to add to it, and I certainly don’t need to defend something I have never argued.
“Did you see the more recent study where the Trump administration said we are in for even more warming than previously predicted?”
This could be a substantial add, if it weren’t for the fact that you so clearly are yet again trying to say who says something matters more than what was said.
To me who says what doesn’t matter. It matters what the data says. I did see the report, but I did not completely read all the charts (and let’s be honest, neither did you) So I pulled it up now. When reading this, it is clear the same mistakes are made. I see at least one section mentioning oceanic data when mentioning global surface temperatures. I see a chart that says surface data, but does not clarify if the oceanic data is added. I see charts and charts and claims of increased temperatures from 1986-2005, but no source data, which makes me believe this is likely NOAA data, all of this looks very similar to what they say, and the NOAA data, as I showed before, they issue a legal disclaimer that they will prosecute anyone who shares the source data and numbers as opposed to the charts. You might not remember this, as you may have left the debate by the time I showed this, but I’m more than certain Confused does. In fact, as I’m reading more here, I am reading through this, and in the sources section, there is simply an unbelievable amount of NOAA source data. So this is not “Trump”‘s report.
This isn’t even Trump as it is. This is why you on the left need to grow up. This is the NHTSA, the EPA, and the DOE, reporting on info that the NOAA (mostly, there are others) compiled.
It has the same issues as what I debated before.
You’re being wildly misleading, as are the liberal media stations reporting on it. They know you won’t go through it, and that you’ll just say “Even Trump agrees!”. These are the same sources, the same data, and have the same issues I debated about before. You didn’t add anything new to this conversation, yet again. And since I wrote this as reading it, you can see where I first gave you credit that possibly you added something with this (if it were meant as data instead of how you used it) but now after reading it, I see you did not add anything. What specific facts in here are new? Can you point me to them?
It’s that simple to disprove you. Now you’ll go off tangent and will say how I’m not credible or fit to review percentages or science, like you underwriters are apparently me being a lowly salesman (ego and you said that once here already) and will refuse to answer won’t you?
Yay! More uninformed political comments on a scientific question>