Sorry, Al, but it's the only explanation I have. Most others would have understood the points I made here, and some reacted against your original post exactly the way I did. This means you're bad at expressing yourself and suck at reading comprehension.
Of course, it could be that those two are separate issues but that would be arguing semantics, really.
The way I see it there are other very equal possibilities. I have expressed one already. The kneejerk "He did not outright support all instances of climate change and therefore he must be a climate change denier".
That is one. Another (and why I thought Meowsy was Scrap) is I rather thought with such a poor understanding of what I said, that they did a Scrap (which is to extrapolate a base reading from what is such without really reading through things. Scrap still hits the mark as often as not but that is as much him being him as me writing long posts). There may be some priming "Al is arguing again, let's tune out" or perhaps "I think Odeons positions are so readonable that I will not care to understand a contesting or alternate point of view" or perhaps "Let's show solidarity here because we do not like the way this looks to be going" or "Al is just arguing for the sake of arguing and is not worth reading"
Could be many more possibilities too. Listing what YOU consider faults of mine do not matter at all.
It does not address a single claim you say and as I said, this is your chance to address it here. You made the claims and now you evidence them not with disapproval for HOW I said what I said but rather what I DID say.
You may have well not liked how I said something but your claims were not about disliking how I said things. They are rather about what you claims I was saying and for that you need to show that the claism are correct or not. I have given you some clear sign posts. You have not addressed them and we know why you cannot. I did not claim what it is you said I claimed.
You lied, as you do. You were wrong as you hate admitting you are.
At the very easiest measure of proof:
What scientific claims specifically have I said were not true?
Which scientifically proven man-made climate change have I said are incorrect (and be specific)?
Have I said at any stage that Man made climate change is not real?
Which Scientist have I disputed (be specific)?
whether or not I actually made claims that deny man-made climate change exists at all?
Let's face it for climate change denialism, these above are about the easiest standards I or anyone could foist on you to evidence, and you cannot do it. At this point ANY rational thinking person would raise their hand and admit they had nothing, never did and that their claims were stupid and dishonest, doubling down was even sillier and more dishonest.
Yet you don't. THAT is NOT on me. Not in the slightest. THAT is your reason for being here.
You CAN choose NOT to resolve it here in its proper setting and in its proper setting. (I think that best) I can choose to indignantly NOT keep it unresolved here and this may start feuding all over the board again. On this freedom of expression, combative forum it is a gentleman's rule that we keep feuding in call out and a gentleman's rule that one has to back themselves. I do think both are best but not essential.
Make the claim? Then back the claim when called out on it.
