Given that I could not validate anything said by such a person, how would it help? A skeptic would sound equally credible.
-
-
If you do not have the knowledge do not pontificate on people being right or wrong. Also see how many experts agree: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't have the interest in bringing you up to speed with my opinions. You're on a different page.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Don’t be patronizing, Scott. If you can’t explain your thinking, that’s your failure.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
I can explain my thinking. I can't defend anyone's misinterpretation of it.
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
I can (and did) defend my interpretations of your statements. You have not.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robhon_ @ScottAdamsSays and
I declare Rob the winner. Scott has refused to acknowledge overwhelming evidence of GW, but clings to his small-sample kneeling conclusion.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_deep_donald @robhon_ and
False on both. I acknowledge that GW is a fact according to scientists, with plenty of evidence. And kneeling prediction = fun not science.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @the_deep_donald and
But that’s NOT what you say, Scott. You say, “How am I to determine what is right. Both sides...” blah blah blah.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robhon_ @ScottAdamsSays and
Quoting Scott in context can only lead to one thing: Him claiming you're hallucinating. (His Cog Diss tell).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Step 1: Quote Scott, Step 2: Misinterpret quote, Step 3: Blame Scott.
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.