cpinsd wrote: But I finally came to understand what Leonard Cohen stated so elegantly:

"When you're not feeling holy, your loneliness says that you've sinned

To which I say 'hogwash' because I believe in neither the concept of "holiness" or "Sin". Both are artifacts of a brain which is a victim of its anterior cingulated cortex and temporal lobes. These create ideations that confer reality on

"sin" and make people think they can be "holy" as to simply being naked chimps with large brains. (Our DNA differs from the chimp by barely 0.0003%)

The problem is most people are crushing bores. When you engage them - at a party or whatever- the only thing they know how to tallk about is themselves, their own work, interests or whatnot. They can't (most of them) discuss concepts, or impersonal abstract issues at all.

Thus, I am quite happy mostly avoiding most people and not feeling "sinful" because I have done so.

Alkaline wrote: Go ahead and make all the noise you want, but remember that you are on the side that has credibility issues.

Well, said. I have shown in more than 388 posts-comments on salon.com (accessed by clicking on 'droogoy's other letters'

) that the CO2-global warming link is unimpeachable. That trolls and stooges like Unlovely liar don't or won't get it is nothing new, and a cursory look back will confirm he is merely the latest in a parade of anti-science flacks.

He claims I have "nothing" but if he expended at least halfg the energy he emits in posting nonsense, he could find 20 or more substantive comments I made showing how and why the evidence supports anthropogenic warming.

Those who have credibility issues like he does, will never confront the truth, because for them it is too traumatic. They mock those who have done the science and compare it to angels on the head of a pin or whatever, but they merely confirm they are useful idiots to the Rushbos of the world.

He gets no more from me, nada, until he can prove to me he at least is able to process and comprehend basic thermal physics. To answer him otherwise is to insult science and....casrt pearls before swine.

Liar wrote: I could reply more but ....

But nothing. Obviously, IF you could have replied you would have. You clearly don't possess the background to evne answer ONE of those questions - and since you don't- you would not have the background to appreciate any evidence I provided to show how and why the 800 AD "climate change" claim is specious.

First thing first, Sparky.

Show me you can even understand basic terminology and first (thermal) principles THEN I will give you all the answers you desire to any question.

Fuck, I will even lower the bar and just permit you to answer TWO of the questions for me (1, 2). I doubt you can even get those.

Let's see your answers, else,anything I provide is merely casting pearls before swine, all your caterwauling, excuse-making notwithstanding.