Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[SSDD]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

 

[SSDD]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!

Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..

 

[Cosmos]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

No kidding? So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe?? Knock me over with a feather.

 

[Cosmos]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!

Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..

Ok. So if you were not a pinhead you should understand why they measure it on the top of Mauna Loa instead of next to a stockyard in Liberal, KS.

 

[SSDD]

Who said that man is responsible for any statistically significant part of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

No kidding? So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe?? Knock me over with a feather.

And yet climate science has been telling us for decades that it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere....of course that is what they used to say till they found out that it wasn't a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and true to the unfalsifiable hypothesis, they simply changed the narrative to suit whatever reality is.

 

[SSDD]

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!

Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..

Ok. So if you were not a pinhead you should understand why they measure it on the top of Mauna Loa instead of next to a stockyard in Liberal, KS.

Like i said.. the readings from on top of that volcano have been proven to be flawed...and rendered moot by the OCO-2 satellite...and again the actual published science says that we have a vanishingly small effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere...the alarmist narrative simply is not true...on any account.

 

[Cosmos]

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!

Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..

Ok. So if you were not a pinhead you should understand why they measure it on the top of Mauna Loa instead of next to a stockyard in Liberal, KS.

Like i said.. the readings from on top of that volcano have been proven to be flawed...and rendered moot by the OCO-2 satellite...and again the actual published science says that we have a vanishingly small effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere...the alarmist narrative simply is not true...on any account.

Well, you're mistaken. The measurements from Mauna Loa are perfectly valid. They use magic to avoid the outgassing. Amazingly there are people who are way smarter than you that figured out how to do this before you were born.

 

[Cosmos]

They measure it on the top of a volcano in Hawaii. It's been rapidly increasing. Faster than what natural processes can account for.

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

No kidding? So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe?? Knock me over with a feather.

And yet climate science has been telling us for decades that it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere....of course that is what they used to say till they found out that it wasn't a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and true to the unfalsifiable hypothesis, they simply changed the narrative to suit whatever reality is.

Certainly it will give information to improve their modeling. But it does not negate the Mauna Loa data. It corroborates it.

 

[SSDD]

Hell yeah....lets put our primary site for gathering information about the CO2 concentrations across the entire globe right smack dab on top of an active volcano...that will give us an accurate representation of CO2 concentrations across the globe...

They've been doing it over 60 years. Maybe you're the first two internet knuckleheads to think of that. Congrats!

Yep....they have been stupid for that long...the OCO-2 satellite has rendered mona loa moot...it's only purpose these days is to provide alarming numbers for hand waving alarmists...the satellite data has rendered it false, and obsolete...I provided a few pictures for you...care for some more?

Here is a video time lapse...very interesting to watch as the seasons go by....it is pretty clear that the earth itself is in charge of CO2 as seasons change and oceans outagas, and natural decay of organic materials speed up and slow down...

Here you go...deny away..

Ok. So if you were not a pinhead you should understand why they measure it on the top of Mauna Loa instead of next to a stockyard in Liberal, KS.

Like i said.. the readings from on top of that volcano have been proven to be flawed...and rendered moot by the OCO-2 satellite...and again the actual published science says that we have a vanishingly small effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere...the alarmist narrative simply is not true...on any account.

Well, you're mistaken. The measurements from Mauna Loa are perfectly valid. They use magic to avoid the outgassing. Amazingly there are people who are way smarter than you that figured out how to do this before you were born.

Sorry but they aren't....the readings from mona loa supported the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. The OCO-2 satellite proves beyond any doubt that simply is not true. And you don't hear much from the folks at mona loa these days...their talk of well mixed gas has all dried up...their claims that they knew what the actual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was have all been shown to be false....and your appeal to authority doesn't change that...not in the slightest...it only makes you an apologist for failed pseudoscience....

 

[SSDD]

Measuring concentrations on top of an active volcano where out gassing occurs.... who's brain child was that?

LOL! You're a moron. As I thought.

Actually, and no surprise, it is you who is behind the times...In case you didn't hear, NASA put a satellite up in space whose primary mission is to measure CO2 across the entire globe...They named it OCO-2 and oddly enough, it doesn't tell the same story as the site on top of a f'ing volcano.

Here are some images from the satellite showing the variation across the globe...by the way, climate science told us that one of the reasons we could believe in the greenhouse hypothesis, was that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...have you noticed they aren't saying that any more?

No kidding? So CO2 concentration is not exactly the same all over the globe?? Knock me over with a feather.

And yet climate science has been telling us for decades that it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and that the radiative greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being a well mixed gas in the atmosphere....of course that is what they used to say till they found out that it wasn't a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and true to the unfalsifiable hypothesis, they simply changed the narrative to suit whatever reality is.

Certainly it will give information to improve their modeling. But it does not negate the Mauna Loa data. It corroborates it.

The modeling is a failure because the physics that they are modeling are unphysical and a failure.

Here is the bottom line...in science..."real" science I mean, a single predictive failure is often enough to cause a hypothesis to be scrapped and work started fresh on a new hypothesis that won't suffer predictive failures...if a hypothesis suffers a predictive failure and it isn't scrapped, it is heavily modified in the hopes that it won't suffer any future predictive failures...in any event, more than a few failures and the hypothesis is given up for a failure and work starts back at the beginning, re-examining every aspect of the first hypothesis...

That isn't at all what has happened with climate science and the greenhouse effect hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, the AGW hypothesis....Those two hypotheses have literally littered the scientific landscape of the past 40 years with predictive failures occurring on a regular basis. You know what modifications have been made to the hypothesis? None...absolutely none. The only modification that has been made is a dramatic increase in the size of error bars...they increased the margin of error rather than look at why the model is failing...they increased the margin of error so as the models fail in a more spectacular fashion in the future, they can claim that they are still within the margin of error.

In real science, a single predictive failure is sufficient to falsify a hypothesis and prompt work on a new, more workable hypothesis...in pseudoscience however, any number of predictive failures are just fine, so long as the funding continues. Both the greenhouse effect hypothesis, and the AGW hypothesis have been falsified over and over and over and the only response mainstream climate science has made is to increase the margin of error and that is disgraceful....and people who apologize for that, and make excuses for that, and continue to spew the nonsense about consensus are nothing more than what climate scientists themselves call them...useful idiots...people who will continue the narrative even when it is crashing and burning...

 

[Cosmos]

the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere

You're the only nitwit I've ever seen who made that contention. I can do without the tap-dancing if you don't mind.

 

[SSDD]

the claim that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere

You're the only nitwit I've ever seen who made that contention. I can do without the tap-dancing if you don't mind.

You really don't have a clue do you? Perhaps among your fellow useful idiots, simply making it up as you go is acceptable, since you all just make it up as you go...it doesn't wash, however, when you talk to people who have actually taken the time, and put in the effort to actually look at the science and what an abject failure it is.

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

What is it like to be wrong on everything? Have you ever looked at a single scientific paper in your life? How could you not know that climate science as been claiming that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere for decades...even the stupidest, most ill informed hysterical handwaving fanatic knows that...how did you miss it? The only answer is that you have never looked at a scientific paper relating to the greenhouse effect....because the claim is ubiquitous in the literature...

For Pete's sake man...try to learn something before you die...making it up as you go is just stupid.....especially when you are talking to people who support their side of the argument with actual published science...how clueless can you possibly be?

Climate: Why CO2 Is the “Control Knob” for Global Climate Change | TIME.com

Clip:
CO2, however, is a well-mixed gas that just builds up in the atmosphere over time, which is part of the reason why carbon dioxide emitted today can have a warming effect that lingers for hundreds of years.

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

Clip:
Therefore, despite CO2 being a globally well-mixed gas, the IF to surface temperature is regionally very different, showing sensitive areas

https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis et al., 2010, Science.pdf

Clip:

CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con- dense or precipitate from the atmosphere.


https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...s-and-radiative-forcing---Grantham-Note-6.pdf

Clip:
Carbon dioxide is a very long-lived and well-mixed gas, though there are some spatial and temporal variations depending on the photosynthetic activity of plants and large centres of economic activity.

http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/learners/cc/readings/iscurrent.pdf

Clip:
Temperature is a more difficult variable to reconstruct than CO2(a globally well-mixed gas), as it does not have the same value all over the globe, so that a single record (e.g., an ice core) is only of limited value.


https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/5/2309/2012/amt-5-2309-2012.pdf

Clip:
CO2 is a well-mixed gas, and its VMR across the ray path is not expected to vary significantly.


https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2016/ee/c6ee00272b

Clip:
However, CO2 is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere, hence, tracing it back to its source regionally on a relatively rapid timescale is not yet well-established technically. Additionally, the annual changes of CO2atm are relatively small.

 

[Cosmos]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Take your apologies somewhere else...the fact is that climate science itself used to say that a radiative greenhouse effect was possible because it was a well mixed gas..apparenly you don't even know what that means...here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...it isn't and every paper that used the claim of a well mixed gas to support their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is falsified...easy as that...their papers were based on false claims...there defense of the greenhouse effect were based on false claims..the climate models of the greenhouse effect are based on false claims...well mixed means something very specific and it was very important to the claim, and the models still work on the basis of CO2 being a well mixed gas which is one of the reasons (among several others) that they have failed so spectacularly...

More evidence of climate science not altering the hypothesis, but just increasing the margin of error...politically, it is imperative that CO2 be demonized, even if it means flat out lying...

You have proven yourself to be completely ignorant on the topic of climate...you willingly make up, and say whatever you think is necessary to support your claims..you clearly have never even looked at a scientific paper beyond perhaps looking for a picture....so what possible validity do you think anything you have to say has?

 

[Cosmos]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

 

[SSDD]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

 

[Cosmos]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand. But you have absolutely no sense.

 

[SSDD]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand. But you have absolutely no sense.

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

 

[Cosmos]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand. But you have absolutely no sense.

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

 

[SSDD]

.here is a clue...indistinguishable concentrations from one part of the globe to the next...the same everywhere...

No stupid. That is not what that means. Of course the concentration can vary in both time and space. As I explained before, that is why Mauna Loa is a good sampling site. It is far from industrial or natural sources. As such it is a good index of how the average global CO2 concentration varies over time. Your babbling bullshit does not negate the greenhouse effect. You obviously know nothing about how it works.

So first you didn't even know that climate science has been claiming that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, and now you know what they mean by it? You really will just make up and say anything won't you? You know...people can only make up lies that they believe will fool themselves if they heard it...if that is the case, you must be on the way low side of the bell curve...

And the fact that it is me who is producing actual science to support my side of the discussion should indicate to anyone but a drooling cretin that in fact, I do understand how it works... You should just run along now, and make an effort to learn at least something, and look me up when you can hold up your side of the discussion in some way other than just making shit up because you think it sounds good enough to fool yourself...

You post mountains of bullshit you don't understand. But you have absolutely no sense.

The only one who doesn't understand the science here is you and a mewling logical fallacy is the best response you can come up with ...geez guy....aren't you embarrassed for yourself...this is a public board where people can actually see what you write and worst of all, it never goes away...it is here for all time...all people have to do is read your words to see how ignorant you are on the topic...usually when things are going badly, it is best to stop what you are doing...simply making it up as you go isn't working for you...try something else.

So I assume you're stopping now?

No....I am perfectly willing to keep mopping the floor with you...interesting....in addition to being ignorant, you are a masochist...