“I NEVER have had any regard for Michael Mann.”
That’s why you cited him in post 31 as a scientist who had changed his position on global warming. Because you had no regard for him.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Why cite him at all, if you hold him in such disregard? You destroyed your own case; never a good move. If you imagine that standing up for the ‘scientific’ side of the argument means descending to this level of invective, you lose the argument twice.
Neither does your over-the-top hostility. Are personal/ad hominem attacks a rational response to being challenged? I gotta tell you, it makes you look illogical at best. If you imagine that standing up for the ‘scientific’ side of the issue means descending to this level of personal invective, you lose the argument twice.
As I re-read this post I have been forced to conclude that the reason for your adherence to nonsense is that you cannot reason through a single thought from beginning to end.
I made it clear from the start that I had no regard for Michael Mann. That’s why I used the words “of ‘hockey-stick’ notoriety”. That was apparently too abstract for you. Why cite him - because he is a warmist! I have no respect for any of the warmist so called scientists, but the request was for one who had listened to the evidence, finally. You and he are of a cloth, both of you hold to views that are unsupported by any evidence, but abjure others with greater perception and understanding.
As for destroying my own case, I really have no “case”. YOU are the one advancing an ideology. I don’t have to justify my rejection of either yours or Michael Mann’s.
A pox on you both.