3 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

WMDs in Iraq??

Dont be stupid.......theres  no such place as Iraq everybody knows that

11 minutes ago, kannot said:

It doesnt take an expert to  look at that graph to see that temps have been way higher, way faster, way longer  than the current "shock story" also similar for Co2 a  virtual "demonized" gas now............hysterical, the graph shows it very clearly.

 

I'm sorry but I think it does take an expert to interpret the graph, mostly it takes an expert to ensure the graph and it's data has integrity. At the tip of that iceberg I imagine an expert would want to look closely at the sources of that data and perhaps overlay known events onto the graph to try and determine influencing factors and as an expert, a whole host of other things, in order to ensure the graph he/she was trying to interpret was correct. But if you and others are happy to pick up a chart from somewhere and base your entire contrarian theory on an interpretation of it, good for you, just don't expect me to endorse your conclusions.

 

Now, on your other post you wrote, " BUT IT IS if they are barking up the wrong tree", to which I replied, " Tell me, if you know that to be fact, why don't the cumulative brains who are studying this issue know also?". You then seem to backtrack and no longer regard what you said was fact by saying, " I dont know if its  fact or  not but "consensus" can be wrong", hmm! So which is it, is it fact or is it not, it's a binary answer? Or are you really saying that just because a consensus has been wrong previously (as in your distraction argument) they could be so again, if so that's hardly a counter argument of substance that's worth betting the planet and the future of mankind on, don't you think!

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

 

I'm sorry but I think it does take an expert to interpret the graph, mostly it takes an expert to ensure the graph and it's data has integrity. At the tip of that iceberg I imagine an expert would want to look closely at the sources of that data and perhaps overlay known events onto the graph to try and determine influencing factors and as an expert, a whole host of other things, in order to ensure the graph he/she was trying to interpret was correct. But if you and others are happy to pick up a chart from somewhere and base your entire contrarian theory on an interpretation of it, good for you, just don't expect me to endorse your conclusions.

 

Now, on your other post you wrote, " BUT IT IS if they are barking up the wrong tree", to which I replied, " Tell me, if you know that to be fact, why don't the cumulative brains who are studying this issue know also?". You then seem to backtrack and no longer regard what you said was fact by saying, " I dont know if its  fact or  not but "consensus" can be wrong", hmm! So which is it, is it fact or is it not, it's a binary answer? Or are you really saying that just because a consensus has been wrong previously (as in your distraction argument) they could be so again, if so that's hardly a counter argument of substance that's worth betting the planet and the future of mankind on, don't you think!

That Graph was done by "your experts"  if you care to  look at the source its widely available and seeing as you want to defer to them....

Do you know they are barking up the right tree ?  Science has been wrong before on some  big issues which is NOT a distraction.

Once again you are  putting words into my mouth I have never said ANYTHING about "facts"

Just now, kannot said:

That Graph was done by "your experts"  if you care to  look at the source its widely available and seeing as you want to defer to them....

Do you know they are barking up the right tree ?  Science has been wrong before on some  big issues which is NOT a distraction.

Once again you are  putting words into my mouth I have never said ANYTHING about "facts"

To be clear, I don't have any experts, also, I didn't see the source of the graph you supplied, did I overlook it or did you not supply it?

 

And no, I don't know if they are barking up the right tree, that is almost irrelevant in this exchange. What I do know is that experts being experts are more likely to be barking up the right tree as opposed to those who are urinating on the base of the tree!

 

Finally, when you shout, " BUT IT IS if they are barking up the wrong tree" with such conviction, I now understand you are not stating fact but instead setting out your opinion or thoughts,  it will help enormously in going forward in this debate if you can be clear in future about whether you are reciting fact or opinion.

4 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

To be clear, I don't have any experts, also, I didn't see the source of the graph you supplied, did I overlook it or did you not supply it?

 

And no, I don't know if they are barking up the right tree, that is almost irrelevant in this exchange. What I do know is that experts being experts are more likely to be barking up the right tree as opposed to those who are urinating on the base of the tree!

 

Finally, when you shout, " BUT IT IS if they are barking up the wrong tree" with such conviction, I now understand you are not stating fact but instead setting out your opinion or thoughts,  it will help enormously in going forward in this debate if you can be clear in future about whether you are reciting fact or opinion.

4 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Don't divert, that's not the discussion.

Its  fact  ( noticed I used the word fact not  opinion there)that science has made some big errors previously which Ive shown you one example  in the  Luminiferous Aether many of the then current scientific "experts"  believed this  and I  would say its totally relevant to the discussion on AGW now.

 By  showing science has made some big  blunders has very relevant meaning to the point that  they may be now   making another one . Thats my opinion ( note opinion) but shock horror " I dont know"

Hence the "BUT IT IS"

Fact ( note  fact) its been way  hotter way  longer way faster. ( see link below assuming you trust NOAA)...............I would like to know "why" if  you find the information post it as I cant find  it

Here this is NOAA they are pro agw even they say they dont know  where all the Co2 came from

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

 

During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.

It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet.

Like nothing we’ve ever seen

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. In our next Q&A, then, we’ll tackle this same question on a more Homo sapien-scale time frame: What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

 

 

48 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

To be clear, I don't have any experts, also, I didn't see the source of the graph you supplied, did I overlook it or did you not supply it?

 

And no, I don't know if they are barking up the right tree, that is almost irrelevant in this exchange. What I do know is that experts being experts are more likely to be barking up the right tree as opposed to those who are urinating on the base of the tree!

 

Finally, when you shout, " BUT IT IS if they are barking up the wrong tree" with such conviction, I now understand you are not stating fact but instead setting out your opinion or thoughts,  it will help enormously in going forward in this debate if you can be clear in future about whether you are reciting fact or opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

This graph is pretty widespread on numerous sites youll have to scroll down to it

12 hours ago, kannot said:

Its  fact  ( noticed I used the word fact not  opinion there)that science has made some big errors previously which Ive shown you one example  in the  Luminiferous Aether many of the then current scientific "experts"  believed this  and I  would say its totally relevant to the discussion on AGW now.

 By  showing science has made some big  blunders has very relevant meaning to the point that  they may be now   making another one . Thats my opinion ( note opinion) but shock horror " I dont know"

Hence the "BUT IT IS"

Fact ( note  fact) its been way  hotter way  longer way faster. ( see link below assuming you trust NOAA)...............I would like to know "why" if  you find the information post it as I cant find  it

Here this is NOAA they are pro agw even they say they dont know  where all the Co2 came from

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

 

During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.

It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet.

Like nothing we’ve ever seen

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. In our next Q&A, then, we’ll tackle this same question on a more Homo sapien-scale time frame: What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

 

 

 

OK I see your graph on wiki although I'm not necessarily convinced wiki is a wholly reliable source of fact but let's not dwell on that - I do however accept NOAA as a reliable source of fact.

 

Let me remind you again of what my point is and my position on climate change: I do not know what the cause is because I'm not an expert and neither do I intend to try and become one, but I do know that temperatures are rising and I am concerned. I'm equally concerned by the attitude of people who think they are expert on this subject and who publicly find fault with the work of experts, without necessarily being qualified to do so.

 

Now, you can present whatever you wish to support your claim that the experts are wrong and I will try and be polite and say thank you for that, after which I will ignore it and probably you also after while. It's not that I dislike you or want to be impolite, it's simply that I don't feel you are better qualified than the experts on this subject. An example of this is something you posted above where it is said, " During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.)". As a non-expert I would expect that 55 million years ago the conditions on earth were very different from today and that a completely different set of factors were at play, for that reason I try not to take small pieces of a particular picture in isolation and make facts out of them, I expect an expert on the subject would put those things into context and present a much larger and complete picture.

 

i believe it has started to affect the fruit growing cycle

i have a grapevine years ago  it would hibernate

loose its leaves in cold weather  then warm weather grow and produce grapes

the last few years it is confused  knowing what to do

losing half its leaves the grows now no fruit

as it is not going through is normal growing cycle

3 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

OK I see your graph on wiki although I'm not necessarily convinced wiki is a wholly reliable source of fact but let's not dwell on that - I do however accept NOAA as a reliable source of fact.

 

Let me remind you again of what my point is and my position on climate change: I do not know what the cause is because I'm not an expert and neither do I intend to try and become one, but I do know that temperatures are rising and I am concerned. I'm equally concerned by the attitude of people who think they are expert on this subject and who publicly find fault with the work of experts, without necessarily being qualified to do so.

 

Now, you can present whatever you wish to support your claim that the experts are wrong and I will try and be polite and say thank you for that, after which I will ignore it and probably you also after while. It's not that I dislike you or want to be impolite, it's simply that I don't feel you are better qualified than the experts on this subject. An example of this is something you posted above where it is said, " During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.)". As a non-expert I would expect that 55 million years ago the conditions on earth were very different from today and that a completely different set of factors were at play, for that reason I try not to take small pieces of a particular picture in isolation and make facts out of them, I expect an expert on the subject would put those things into context and present a much larger and complete picture.

 

you can find that graph on many reputable websites which are pro global warming, that  information  shows its been a lot warmer in Earths  entire history just as quickly  ( if  you read the link i sent you recently mentioned 2014 I think) and its  been hotter than now for MOST of Earths entire history. Not a bit  hotter a LOT hotter

I havent said they are wrong or right but Id err on the side of caution as 3-4  billion years is  a  long time and when talk on tv and the like is such as  in the papers  like "hottest since records began" well  just look at whats being said....records began lets  be kind and say 200 years ago,related to 3-4  billion years its "nothing" and temps this high with Co2  this high are also are  not in fact "high"  at all taken in the entire Earth history.

BTW  55 million years is  not a LONG time either, the chart shows half a  BILLION years and look at those temps, up and down like a yoyo with various reasons  unexplained  fully  as to "why" not only that but the rate of  climb in the charts

Yes theres  continental drift, Milankovitch cycles etc etc but they still dont know where the huge release of Co2  came from last time.

Still brings me back to the Luminiferous Aether where  they all agreed "consensus" was there must be a medium for light to travel in............. consensus now is all scientists agree and Co2 and man is the problem...............Ive done my bit to save the planet have you?...........no kids!

Mankind gone  off the planet probably do it the best favour its  ever  had although nearly all creatures that ever  lived have gone extinct and we'll be no different.

i  hope  im  alive  to  see the  result of maybe another reason,if there is  one, but at best ive got 40 years I guess and the Luminiferous Aether went on for a  long  LONGGGGGGGGGGGGg time 150+ years I recollect...from all the scientific experts..............todays experts  will  look like tomorrows  idiots in a 100 years anyway...what were they thinking>>>

Temperatures are rising,  and you are concerned, Im not, its been way  hotter, way longer and  a recent study showed it happened just as fast ( link i sent you)

 

 

Just spent a few weeks in Thailand with the Mrs and if this is climate change I'm all for it! As for the science, just look who's funding the pro climate change scientists and that will pretty much answer that question.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

7 hours ago, opalred said:

i believe it has started to affect the fruit growing cycle

i have a grapevine years ago  it would hibernate

loose its leaves in cold weather  then warm weather grow and produce grapes

the last few years it is confused  knowing what to do

losing half its leaves the grows now no fruit

as it is not going through is normal growing cycle

Agreed, I see similar in  our trees, confused is the right word.

i hear people growing grapes

now have to pour ice water on the ground around the vines 

trying to simulate and trick the grape  into no climate change just b/s

 in many places now

The only thing about the "just drill another well" mentality….the ground water is being depleted at an alarming rate. 

2 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

The only thing about the "just drill another well" mentality….the ground water is being depleted at an alarming rate. 

 

Queue the denier who will quote that 55 million years ago the ground water was also very low!

11 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

Queue the denier who will quote that 55 million years ago the ground water was also very low!

Stupid words  like "denier"  really arent necessary, quit with the attacks f u cant keep it civil, or  do u just want a slanging match? cuz  Im  happy  to play that game if  u want such as "spelling police "

 

"cue" the denier

Edited February 6, 20179 yr by kannot

12 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Agreed, I see similar in  our trees, confused is the right word.

 Romans grew Grapes in North England 2000 years ago

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22040-tree-rings-suggest-roman-world-was-warmer-than-thought/

11 hours ago, opalred said:

i hear people growing grapes

now have to pour ice water on the ground around the vines 

trying to simulate and trick the grape  into no climate change just b/s

 in many places now

Thailand  doesnt have the best climate for growing grapes, assuming you are  talking about grape growing in Thailand

43 minutes ago, kannot said:

Stupid words  like "denier"  really arent necessary, quit with the attacks f u cant keep it civil, or  do u just want a slanging match? cuz  Im  happy  to play that game if  u want such as "spelling police "

 

"cue" the denier

Don't go taking it personal kannot, that was satire not a personal attack.

Lighten up guys.

 

@opalred, the. topic you started on alien life was closed by.......Rimmer 555555

 

 

5 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Don't go taking it personal kannot, that was satire not a personal attack.

without skepticism of scientific  consensus there would have been no advances at all, denier is not a  polite word for anyone who disagrees and in fact I think some leading scientists "pro agw" have already said its not useful and have stopped using  it............

Phlogiston (That not a country near Afghanistan or Pakistan) is another example of science gone awry which went on for about 100 years and it was only as recent as the 1920 that science thought the Milky Way was the entire universe, major blunders considering the   current theory of  the size of the Universe...............you think the science is  settled ( so does Obama) but Im not convinced 100% and its a  good  job that other scientists in the cases I mentioned Luminiferous Aether, Phlogiston etc went against the "consensus" of the  day................equally of course many things have been proven correct by science and I fully  support it as the only real way to get to the truth

 I dont think its "settled" at all but only time will tell and I expect Ill be dead by then........

Satire requires this this  or this 

People harping on about (im guessing) its  warmer in Chiang Mai than usual, I havent mentioned  that down by me  Prachuap its been MUCH  cooler this  year and MUCH wetter than the last 3-4 years  which were exceptionally dry, this time of year my lake (1  rai) is  normally already down by 12 inches or so but this year still full to the very top early morning temps are  around 20c  now but about 5  years ago we had 13c  one morning.

Edited February 7, 20179 yr by kannot

1 hour ago, kannot said:

without skepticism of scientific  consensus there would have been no advances at all, denier is not a  polite word for anyone who disagrees and in fact I think some leading scientists "pro agw" have already said its not useful and have stopped using  it............

Phlogiston (That not a country near Afghanistan or Pakistan) is another example of science gone awry which went on for about 100 years and it was only as recent as the 1920 that science thought the Milky Way was the entire universe, major blunders considering the   current theory of  the size of the Universe...............you think the science is  settled ( so does Obama) but Im not convinced 100% and its a  good  job that other scientists in the cases I mentioned Luminiferous Aether, Phlogiston etc went against the "consensus" of the  day................equally of course many things have been proven correct by science and I fully  support it as the only real way to get to the truth

 I dont think its "settled" at all but only time will tell and I expect Ill be dead by then........

Satire requires this this  or this 

People harping on about (im guessing) its  warmer in Chiang Mai than usual, I havent mentioned  that down by me  Prachuap its been MUCH  cooler this  year and MUCH wetter than the last 3-4 years  which were exceptionally dry, this time of year my lake (1  rai) is  normally already down by 12 inches or so but this year still full to the very top early morning temps are  around 20c  now but about 5  years ago we had 13c  one morning.

"Satire requires this this  or this "

 

No, not really, satire requires a sense of humour and some intelligence, emotions are not a prerequisite at all.

14 hours ago, chiang mai said:

"Satire requires this this  or this "

 

No, not really, satire requires a sense of humour and some intelligence, emotions are not a prerequisite at all.

another  insult, obviously as  a  denier I  have  no intelligence or  humour

1 hour ago, kannot said:

another  insult, obviously as  a  denier I  have  no intelligence or  humour

Come on Kannot, it's not an insult and wasn't intended as one, it's a simply factual statement.

40 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Come on Kannot, it's not an insult and wasn't intended as one, it's a simply factual statement.

u obviously  dont understand satire 

10 minutes ago, kannot said:

u obviously  dont understand satire 

I wrote the book on it! But I didn't say my remark was satire, I merely said it was a simple factual statement.

 

I think we're done here, it's not productive any longer.

Edited February 7, 20179 yr by chiang mai

4 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I wrote the book on it! But I didn't say my remark was satire, I merely said it was a simple factual statement.

 

I think we're done here, it's not productive any longer.

 

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I wrote the book on it! But I didn't say my remark was satire, I merely said it was a simple factual statement.

 

I think we're done here, it's not productive any longer.

were talking about my comment not  yours  though

On 2/4/2017 at 10:26 AM, nisakiman said:

Of course the climate is changing. It always has, and it always will. We've had ice ages, global tropics, mini ice ages, the medieval warm spell etc etc. That's the way this planet works.

 

The question is whether the minuscule amount (on a global scale) of carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere is going to cause cataclysmic change to the climate patterns, which are anyway chaotic. The 'climate scientists' have really no more idea than you or I, whatever they may say. They simply don't have enough data, nor knowledge of the mechanisms at work.

 

"Note to @BreitbartNews:

Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans"

 

 

 

"The Breitbart article – a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case – includes this statement: "The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare."

In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so.


"Temperatures over land give an incomplete picture of global-scale temperature.

Most of the planet – about 70 percent – is covered by water, and the land surface warms and cools more quickly than the ocean.

Land-plus-ocean data from the other two satellite groups, released after the Breitbart article, show that Earth’s lower atmosphere actually set a record high in November 2016. "

 

 

It may be reassuring to you and to the people who liked your statement, to believe this, but you are incontrovertibly wrong.

 

You are entitled to your own opinion.

You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

This statement and conclusion are based on facts:

"In fact, thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that greenhouse gases produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and will keep doing so."
 

Edited February 8, 20179 yr by JimmyJ

"So what is the goal of environmental policy?

'We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,' said Edenhofer."

 

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Edited February 8, 20179 yr by mesquite

On 2/4/2017 at 11:29 PM, nisakiman said:

What amuses me is the supporters of the current orthodoxy on climate change declaring that "The Science is Settled"; "There is Consensus"; "97% of Scientists agree" (which is actually BS, but leave that aside for now).

 

All those statements are the very antithesis of scientific method. Real science puts a theory (and climate change predictions are only that - unverifiable theory) out for open discussion. It doesn't try to shut down debate by labelling those that disagree as heretics.

 

In the 16th century, there was 'scientific consensus' that the Sun orbited the Earth. The science was settled. 97% of scientists agreed that yes, the Sun, beyond a shadow of a doubt, revolved around the Earth.

 

Galileo was labelled a heretic and a 'denier' for suggesting that in fact, the Earth was in orbit around the Sun.

 

Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial during his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[10] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism because of the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[10] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."[10][11][12] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[10] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

 

Note the part "...formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."

 

AGW has become a religion for many, and the very idea that someone might disagree with their worldview gives them fits of the vapours. Hence the vitriol and cries of "Denier!", and the attempts to personally discredit them. 'Climate Change' has become a cult which has no tolerance for dissenters. Inconvenient facts are buried and tenuous possibilities declared fact.

 

You imply that scientists called Galileo a heretic.

Galileo was called a heretic by the people who represent the antithesis of the scientific method - religious fundamentalists, and specifically in this case, the Roman Catholic church:

 

"We remember Galileo Galilei as the classic scientific heretic due to his 1633 trial by the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

He was convicted of being 'vehemently suspected of heresy' because he promoted the belief that the Earth moved through the heavens.

At the time, it was accepted that Earth was stationary and the Sun moved through the sky.

Galileo compounded his crime by insisting a moving Earth did not conflict with scripture. This was forbidden.

Only Vatican theologians were empowered to interpret the Bible.

His downfall has become a standard point of reference for discussing science versus authority."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/22078983

 

Science is supposed to keep making discoveries and changing based on new evidence.

There would be no more scientists if everything was known in the universe.

The example you give simply declares that science and the scientific method work.

 

The overwhelming evidence has demonstrated that climate change/global warming is real.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 20179 yr by JimmyJ

On 2/4/2017 at 10:26 AM, nisakiman said:

Of course the climate is changing. It always has, and it always will. We've had ice ages, global tropics, mini ice ages, the medieval warm spell etc etc. That's the way this planet works.

 

The question is whether the minuscule amount (on a global scale) of carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere is going to cause cataclysmic change to the climate patterns, which are anyway chaotic. The 'climate scientists' have really no more idea than you or I, whatever they may say. They simply don't have enough data, nor knowledge of the mechanisms at work.

 

"The 'climate scientists' have really no more idea than you or I, whatever they may say."

 

An astonishing statement.

 

It is basically declaring that facts - demonstrable facts - are irrelevant.

 

 

It is impossible to have an intelligent discussion on any subject if that is one's belief.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 20179 yr by JimmyJ