On Nov 1, 7:46*am, "John M." wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:09 am, z wrote:





On Oct 31, 7:44 pm, Claudius Denk wrote:

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that's the last thing they
want.

Oh that's simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? *And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

it's a plot to make you waste your time posting here all the time, and
you've fallen for it. haha!!

Damn you, 'z'. You have handed the enemy our secret weapon :-)-

Brush up on your law. In your position, withholding any pertinent data
can be construed as criminal intent to defraud. Look what happened to
Niffong in the cases against the college guys accused of raping the
stripper. He withheld pertinent data. Was disbarred and convicted of a
crime.

Good luck in hell, dweeb.