What I suspect happens is that throughout the day, you spend your time bitterly muttering to yourself in anger because your life didn't turn out as planned. During those times, you envision conversations you *think* you had with GOT posters, because thinking of clever responses to posts on GOT is one of the highlights of your sad day. What happens then is that you start to actually believe you and a given GOT poster had a conversation about a given topic that you imagined out of thin air even though this exchange never happened.
For example, the "empty planes" bit you just conjured out of thin-air despite me not ever bringing it up, nor caring about it, given our discussion was about the hockey stick graph. Yet you continue to hammer on about it,
here,
here here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here (while puzzlingly claiming it isn't your "ace in the hole" argument). Even the logic of your sad obsession doesn't make sense: climate change is made up because airline companies need to fly empty planes back and forth to preserve their routes?? This is the type of logic I would expect of someone who can barely write coherent sentences.
As another example, you claimed I was
"whinging" about "zero emissions." But a simple search would reveal that I never once have brought up "zero emissions" on this thread or indeed the entire forum. So again you had an imaginary conversation with yourself while waiting for your parole officer to finish lunch, and you thought about this so much, it became reified in your mind to the point where you claim I was whinging about it. But you didn't check this because evidence is inconvenient to you.
More generally, as I've mentioned several times, you don't understand how science works, as you claim that "science is never settled" thereby implying consensus can't be achieved. This is simply false, as I pointed out to you using examples regarding gravity, evolution, and other settled issues where scientific consensus is achieved. So you are simply wrong.
I find it funny that you claim to be suspicious of MSM and make claims about thinking independently and doing your own research. This is ironic in light of you posting youtube videos discussing or featuring some of the most predictably right-wing ideologues, such as reaction videos involving noted homophobe/misogynist Jesse Lee Peterson, or the eminently milquetoast and predictable Larry Elder. But I guess when you have trouble writing coherent sentences it's best to let videos do the talking for you, even though this undercuts the image of yourself being an independent thinker.
As to my own expertise, I'm a scientist and I do have expertise in climate warming, having run some stochastic climate models for their influence on wildlife; further my colleagues and I have been planning a course on climate change. I am not a climate scientist per se, but I'm fairly certain I have more expertise than you in both science and also in the science of climate change. My expertise has been amassed over 25 years of reading, thinking, and doing science. Your "expertise" has been amassed by watching clever and wrong "reaction videos" on youtube, coupled with a major case of Dunning Kruger.
One place where I am admittedly not an expert is psychotherapy. But given you have trouble writing coherent sentences, have admitted that you have limited reading comprehension (you called and easily understood sentence "word salad"), that you imagine conversations/exchanges about topics that never occurred, that you refuse to face any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, that you clearly overestimate how clever you are...in all this, you might want to seek therapy. But again, I'm not an expert in this field.
In any case, this is my last response to you as I don't have the time or patience to interact with the unteachable. You can treat my future non-responses to you as a victory, as I suspect these small victories mean more to you than me as you go about your day angry at the world.
