By the guy who is blaming "science" for everything, the same guy who shows a distinct lack of understanding and the same guy who refuses to acknowledge correct information because it does not fit his own over-inflated opinion and who admits that he is paranoid...
Have you failed to notice that you are the only one who thinks all our refutations were inadequate?
Have you failed to realise that you are what this thread topic is actually about and what it described?
Firstly, you could only make such a claim if you ignored everything that you said in this thread.
In other words, now you are basically lying.
I have no issues with you discussing the issues or this thread's subject matter. I have a very big problem with your disingenuous trolling.
You have an issue QQ and you keep blaming us for it. The reality is that it's you and not us.
I don't have to solicit support from others, nor is it my intent to humiliate. It is my intent to provide you with correct information. The fact that you deliberately choose to ignore it, misrepresent other bits, take things out of context and then cry 'I'm a victim' when your trolling is addressed is not my problem or fault.
I haven't humiliated you.
You humiliated yourself by making ridiculous claims and having a full blown meltdown because "the earth's lungs are burning", then ranting about hypoxia, despite our repeated attempts to get you to stop doing so.
And neither are your posts.
And here we are, 15 or so pages later.. And you are still making ridiculous and incorrect claims, advocating for just as dangerous chemical useage and now using the word "hypothetical", when we have all experienced your 'hypotheticals' in the past, where you treat it like it's fact, and yet again, coming into a science forum and blaming "science" for anything and everything without any actual clue.
For example:
Reality - ammonia is actually a fairly dangerous chemical with pressurised use, it can and does kill (as has been linked to you several times), causes horrific injuries, damages the environment, is a pollutant, is highly corrosive and can cause explosions (as has also been linked)..
So your hypothetical vs reality...
Which do you think should be considered as being correct?
You would rather risk the
environment and our health and wellbeing because you do not trust scientists who have been studying the ozone layer and have projected that it will fully resolve itself by 2060?
As opposed to
what "science"?
See, it is comments like this, that makes you look like a fool.
Do you even know or understand what constitutes "human science"?
Terminology matters.
Secondly, no, "human science" has not enabled global warming.
Our reliance on coal, our contribution to greenhouse gases has accelerated and increased what is naturally occurring.
So it is not "human science" - unless you want to argue that anthropology enabled global warming...? It is our reliance on certain things that has essentially sped up the process.
This was addressed pages ago. Why do you keep posting the same incorrect information?
Your argument is from a standpoint that scientists should have seen hundreds of years into the future to know that burning coal would cause global warming... It is absolutely ridiculous.
So you blame "science" and "human science" to boot..
You have not provided any evidence to support this "well known fact".
You were provided with evidence and repeated explanations that showed you how and why you were wrong - for example, planting grass and other plants and crops in that space would actually increase oxygen production, if one could call it that than what these forests provided..
And yet, you keep repeating this same incorrect claim and demanding it is "fact". You even demanded that the scientists, who explained why claims like yours are incorrect, were wrong, because "the earth's lungs are burning" and you ranted on and on for pages about hypoxia because those forests were burning..
It is possibly a "well known fact" to the voices in your head. It is not a "well known fact" in reality.
Oh no, I did.
And as was explained, the fires would contribute to global warming.. That was never in disagreement.
We repeatedly said, the loss of those forests were bad because it was a loss of a diverse ecosystem that existed nowhere else on earth and because its contribution to global warming..
You were too busy screaming about hypoxia to notice.
Love how you now suddenly switched to "hypotheticals".. Really, trolling at its worst.
You mean CRISPR?
And "mismatching of edited persons"? What?
Given it is you who considers them inadequate, I'd say I am on the right path.
You offered a "rationale", by spouting anti-science rubbish and making false and incorrect claims repeatedly, and you have kept doing it for pages and pages now.
In a
science forum.
And then you whine when your utter BS is called out?
