Re: "big fat ignorant liar"

On 6/12/25 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
>
There are no words.
>
/Flibble

>
Can you show me wrong?
>
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?

>
What about this paper that I wrote?
>
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>

>
Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove".

>
What specifically do you believe is not proven?

>
The article makes no attempt to prove anything.

>
That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.

>
On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
a proof?
>

 Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?

Since your "fact" hasn't been verified, but debunked, because it is based on a bit fat category error, and unsound logic, you are showing your stupidity.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with
verifiable facts

Nope, "Proven" in this context is a bridge too far, at least for the level you are claiming.

 You are not going to be able to glance at a couple of
words of that paper to artificially contrive a fake
rebuttal without looking ridiculous.
 The paper conclusively proves that the recent atmospheric
increases of CO2 are caused by humans.