@FastBigDog Oh more name calling rather than specific disagreement. GW alarmists make themselves look bad by such anti-intellect tactics
@FastBigDog I have posed 2 question 2 begin discussion. U've ignored them, which I take to mean that U've no intention of honest discussion
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher I have every intention to have an honest discussion, do you? Honestly? I'll ask U my question again, R CO2 levels rising?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher I am happy to answer any questions you have - you keep referencing "previous questions" tho I am unclear on what you meanThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@DanaRohrabacher I have asked you a specific question. Now 3 times. Please answer it. I will be happy to do the same for you. -
@FastBigDog laid 2 issues on table, if U can't understand admit Ur lack of knowledge and we can move on to Ur questions. No more games. -
@DanaRohrabacher From your previous tweet, "tell me why warming baseline of 1850s acceptable." Is the big question 2 which U keep referring? -
@FastBigDog First question: predictions of huge temp jump never happened, and in fact temps stable last 16 yrs. Why still trust them? -
@DanaRohrabacher What you are missing here is the concept on consensus. There are always outliers in science and that often good, as this is -
@FastBigDog Ur refusal 2 comment on first items put up 4 discussion indicates Ur intent & Ur closed mind. I offered 2 engaged, U plaed games -
@DanaRohrabacher I'm not refusing to comment on it at all, my comment is that scientific opinion changes are more data becomes available. -
@FastBigDog U R dishonest. u had no intent of honest discussion. No need to waste time with such a poser - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.