Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[Que]

It looks like query is about a month or so from going full DizzyBunny.

He's already devolved into Vettemode "FUCK YOU ! OWN IT!" More than once. Now the random all caps strewn throughout his posts. It can't be long until he just nails that cap-lock key and goes to town with spittle flecked rants.

Oh I am sorry, maybe I should switch to my laptop so I can use italics or underlining?

Does that mean you can take the COTTON out of your ears?

...and you and your God, Obama, do OWN Obamacare. Every-single-page. Even though he delegated Nancy and Harry to collect every word from their favorite lobbyists.

The fact that a few RINOs were corrupt enough to share the SAME lobbyists matters not a single jot or tittle. The Democratic party owns it in its ENTIRETY as written, passed and signed by THEM and ONLY them.

I can't IMAGINE you assigning co-equal blame to Democrats for a bloated defense bill if NONE of them vote for it, just because many of them are also in the pocket of defense contractors or attempt to steer bloated, pork filled contracts to their districts.

Seems to me ALL the money... every PENNY of the Iraq war is "OWNED" by Bush according to you despite the fact that going to war had actual, on the record bipartisan support...

Oh, that's right, the "Bush LIED!" get-out-of-responsibility card is in play.

"If you like your healthcare (policy) you can keep it. If you like your Doctor you can keep it. Healthcare (insurance) will go down by an average of $2500 per American Family."

You think ACA would have passed without THOSE LIES?!spittle-fleck?!?

Interesting to note how much you want some "shared responsibility" for this law that you still support as (if it was) a step in the right direction.

 

[Que]

Trysail has evolved from the CO2 graphs with broad scales and nearly flat lines, to CO2 graphs that show a dramatic increase next to temp graphs with broad scales and nearly flat lines. And Query wants to argue about significant figures.

Query also wants us to come up with solutions that won't hurt the economy, which is an acknowledgment that a problem exists.

1) I wouldnt even begin to discuss sig figs with you since a) you have no idea what it means and b) wouldn't care if you did.

2) #AscriptionAgain How you get from me pointing out the high cost of you cultist's proposals is acceptance of the cultist's premise is more than a leap.

I want to discuss the economic cost of the NON-solutions you cultists propose. For the sake of discussion lets assume that doubling the world-wide CO2 output would double our peril. Cutting our CO2 output to ZERO.(all nuke, all vegetarian all the time and god knows what else) would cut CO2 by 7% since the rest of the world would double. Lets say we get the EU to join us (or more to the point we join them in this lunacy) that's another 6.5%

Lets say production worldwide stays flat...we save 14%, EU 13%. Germany and Japan are already going the other way, getting away from nukes.

Pointing out there is HIGH economic costs to the Administration's idiocy is not concurrence with their ill-considered plans.

Apparently they still believes women get paid 77c on the dollar and 97% of scientists agree with him, and that temperatures have risen 'far faster than predicted.' How about you educate the WhiteHouse on the basics THEN worry about sending climate missionaries to my door.

 

[phrodeau]

The economic costs of abating climate change is a totally different topic, which you keep bringing up whenever your scientific arguments fail.

Most people know that changes to the economy create opportunities for future growth. You can find a way to make money from climate change abatement, or you can keep making buggy whips and pray.

 

[Que]

The economic costs of abating climate change is a totally different topic, which you keep bringing up whenever your scientific arguments fail.

Most people know that changes to the economy create opportunities for future growth. You can find a way to make money from climate change abatement, or you can keep making buggy whips and pray.

Sure we will all just sell each-other chinese made windmills and solar panels. Problem solved...

where exactly did my "scientific arguments" fail? When I pointed out that your position is even if we cant PROVE anything NOW, we might later so we better start now with abatement whether such abatement will or will not make a difference.

Your cult has the burden of proof here. what you claim has not been shown. I thought (wrongly) that only spidey was saying "PROVE that something that hasn't been shown to correlate might not correlate in the future!"

Its bad enough that you are guessing...if you don;t even know you are guessing, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Oh I am sorry, maybe I should switch to my laptop so I can use italics or underlining?

Does that mean you can take the COTTON out of your ears?

...and you and your God, Obama, do OWN Obamacare. Every-single-page. Even though he delegated Nancy and Harry to collect every word from their favorite lobbyists.

The fact that a few RINOs were corrupt enough to share the SAME lobbyists matters not a single jot or tittle. The Democratic party owns it in its ENTIRETY as written, passed and signed by THEM and ONLY them.

I can't IMAGINE you assigning co-equal blame to Democrats for a bloated defense bill if NONE of them vote for it, just because many of them are also in the pocket of defense contractors or attempt to steer bloated, pork filled contracts to their districts.

Seems to me ALL the money... every PENNY of the Iraq war is "OWNED" by Bush according to you despite the fact that going to war had actual, on the record bipartisan support...

Oh, that's right, the "Bush LIED!" get-out-of-responsibility card is in play.

"If you like your healthcare (policy) you can keep it. If you like your Doctor you can keep it. Healthcare (insurance) will go down by an average of $2500 per American Family."

You think ACA would have passed without THOSE LIES?!spittle-fleck?!?

Interesting to note how much you want some "shared responsibility" for this law that you still support as (if it was) a step in the right direction.

Bravo! You even got the spittle flying.

Which point of that gish gallop would you like addressed?

Since you're doubling down on the GOP shares no responsibility in the ACA how about we start there.

A "few RINOs" you say? A "few RINO's" managed to negotiate 161 amendments to the ACA? Just some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. A few RINO's suggested over 700 changes? Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans.

But you claim they bear no responsibility for the outcome? Really? Shall we take a look at some of these RINOs who were asking for hundreds of amendments to a bill they would not support anyway?

Tom Coburn (OK)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Tom Reed (NY)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Bill Roberts (AL)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John McCain (AZ)

This is by no means a complete list. I grew bored with looking them all up. But if the GOP is so overrun with "RINO's" then you have an even bigger problem.

As far as the "Bipartisan support" of the Iraq war.. Congress and the American people were fraudulently led to believe that Iraq still possessed WMDs. MI6 and the CIA both knew this to be false. See the Downing Street Memo.

The National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD despite CIA intelligence to the contrary. No one in Congress was made aware of the intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

 

[Que]

Bravo! You even got the spittle flying.

Which point of that gish gallop would you like addressed?

Since you're doubling down on the GOP shares no responsibility in the ACA how about we start there.

A "few RINOs" you say? A "few RINO's" managed to negotiate 161 amendments to the ACA? Just some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. A few RINO's suggested over 700 changes? Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans.

But you claim they bear no responsibility for the outcome? Really? Shall we take a look at some of these RINOs who were asking for hundreds of amendments to a bill they would not support anyway?

Tom Coburn (OK)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
Richard Burr (NC)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Tom Reed (NY)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Bill Roberts (AL)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
John McCain (AZ)

This is by no means a complete list. I grew bored with looking them all up. But if the GOP is so overrun with "RINO's" then you have an even bigger problem.

As far as the "Bipartisan support" of the Iraq war.. Congress and the American people were fraudulently led to believe that Iraq still possessed WMDs. MI6 and the CIA both knew this to be false. See the Downing Street Memo.

The National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD despite CIA intelligence to the contrary. No one in Congress was made aware of the intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

AND after that steaming pile of shit was debated amended prodded and poked exactly how many republicans including the democrat Olympia snow said..."yep, that looks like it will work?" and voted for it? How many? Zero?

Then I guess the combinations of attempts to steer it towards something workable and the steaming pile of shit that it is were irreconcilable...

So where does Republican responsibility come in here...for outsmarting the oh so clever Dems and sneaking fatal poison pills in it that would have made this steaming pile of shit wonderful without them?

SO the evil CIA tricked democrats and Republicans in congress, but only republicans are responsible for the costs of that war.

You are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

The only Republican on that list I recognize as having any business suggesting changes to our healthcare system is maybe Coburn,...seems like he is a doctor...might be confusing him with Price.

We could get in the weeds on 161 amendments...which ones were in the house version, which ones were in the senate version..what they said, what issues they were trying to address...whether it was molding it in a workable direction or not.

Bear in mind the fucking DEMOCRATS got to empty their file drawers of every lobbyist crafted piece of legislation and staple it to the bill itself, they needed no amendments they got EVERYTHING on their wish-lists short of single payer. Why do you suppose it was a LONG as it was? Why it is FULL of non-sequiters..those were not amendments, they were the product of an orgy of legislative excess.

And that is BEFORE they got around to doing what every Democrat counts on employing the 4th branch of government, the regulatory powers. The BILL says no abortion period...not exactly what hobby lobby is experiencing.

Bottom line, what was crafted SUCKS. And the administration Owns it with the big O of the Obama signature. Period.

So be proud, and hope for the best. YOU OWN IT.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Your reading comprehension seems to suffer when the spittle starts flying.

The CIA told the Bush administration that Saddam had no WMD capability, that information was not passed along to congress or included in the NIE prior to the vote on the AUMF. The Downing Street Memo gives insight into what was going on:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Concerning the ACA: Is your assertion that only Doctors can properly write legislation concerning health insurance? I'm sure that would work out VERY well. Although I suppose we could stipulate that all candidates for the legislature be doctors AND lawyers. Good luck getting that particular requirement passed.

I blame both parties for what the ACA became. The Republicans for intentionally trying to sabotage the bill repeatedly (before and After it passed) and the Democrats for being naive enough to think that the Republicans were ever negotiating in good faith.

There are no "weeds", 161 Republican amendments were included in the final version of the law.

Your assertion that the Republicans bear zero responsibility because they closed ranks and refused to vote for the bill after inserting hundreds of changes is ludicrous. You can't spend months negotiating changes to a bill and then act as if you had nothing to do with it. If the Republicans wanted the Democrats to have sole ownership of the ACA then they should have done nothing but oppose it from the start. They did not, they dug in and got the Democrats to agree to literally hundreds of changes (after rejecting hundreds more). The Democrats naively agreed to these changes in exchange for what turned out to be zero support. But failing to vote for the bill does not absolve them of the influence used in writing and rewriting it. The Republicans are just as culpable.

 

[phrodeau]

OK, "Winner."

Trysail is using virtually the same information, graphed with SLIGHTLY more attention to "significant figures" to prove the OPPOSITE of what you think you are demonstrating i.e. that there a strong cause and effect suspected by the correlation between rising temperatures and CO2 emissions.

I could explain in more detail, but I highly doubt you are interested.

you don't even know what the phrase "significant figures" means.

It is what it means mathematically in ANY scientific endeavor. I don't think Trysail was teaching rudimentary quantification mathematics.

Explain how you can form what look like complete sentences while having absolutely no idea what it is you are asking?

Click the link, study the lesson, do the sample problem, and then DON'T get back to me because if AFTER you actually understand "sig figs" you still have no idea why I would bring it up, I cannot help you.

(edited)

1) I wouldnt even begin to discuss sig figs with you since a) you have no idea what it means and b) wouldn't care if you did.

Your concern for my education is touching.

I'm guessing that this whole argument about "significant figures" is based on Trysail's first graph. He shows CO2 measurements as a squiggly line. More data points, more frequent sampling and more significant figures than the same line on my graph.

Big deal, huh?

 

[Que]

Your concern for my education is touching.

I'm guessing that this whole argument about "significant figures" is based on Trysail's first graph. He shows CO2 measurements as a squiggly line. More data points, more frequent sampling and more significant figures than the same line on my graph.

Big deal, huh?

No. That isn't it. You have LARGE variance in CO2 and tiny varience in temperature.

In the graphing the two are graphed to imply that their curves are a similar shape...eccep they arent.

At one extreme you coupld graph the temperature to the 1/100th of a degree while say losing a couple of decimal points on the CO2 and it would appear that the temperature is increasing MUCH faster than the rate of CO2.

I wouldnt bother but I could graph this on a 100 point temperature scale...maybe with a pretty thermometer graphic on one side, then go REALLY fine scaled on the Co2...it would look like a fuzzy caterpillar of a straight line, and a skyrocketing Co2 trajectory.

Sig figs usually are used in chemistry more than other field because you are dealing with numbers like 6.023 x 10 to the -23rd. really small numbers. It matters how you you compare things. In this case we know temperature is rising (modestly) CO2 is rising dramatically...co2 is in parts per million, temperature is (at best) +/- a degree. It really isnt even worth arguing like Ish's .33 degrees or Spideays 1 degree chart...neither chart tells you anything interesting, not really...

So can you for illustrative purposes draw up a chart to explain in a graphical way that both are rising?

Sure.

But what you see from the charts is what you see from the data...that we have either NO idea if they are related or there other variables that have a BIGGER effect than co2.

I dont know if it was intentional but for at least one piece of the analysis you actually posted one chart that MIGHT explain (for that time period only) why it is there was no correlation and why the model was wrong.

What if the models and co2 was 100% right if the solar cycle had remained the same, but accordiing to the graph you showed the sun just wasnt as hot then, so we dodged a bullet.

lots of explainations both (lets reduce are green house gasses) and (fuck it) can be supported with different data sets for different windows of time...

the fact that no one (yet) has a nice unifying theory that I have ever heard of that both models looking backwards, and shows peomise going forward says theis stuff is not "settled". The POLITICS are (for now) settled. The science absolutely not.

That 97% figure? A couple of NOT climatologists, looked at a stack of studies, using their own preconceived bias, they reviewed each of the various studies (legitimate, lets hope honest, valid data sets etc) studies. They played eeny meenie miny moe. They did not ask any of those studies authors..."hey whatduhya think?" No. They looked at charts studies and made an independant jusgement call on whther something in that graph, study, or dataset confirmed their bias. Only 3% of the time could THEY find things that made them question THEIR bias.

Individual authors of studies known to be included in that pile of studies have said that their studies are NOT jumping for example to man--->co2--->hot. They may be Sun--->hot. or whatever.

When obviously non-scientific pronouncements are made with always/ never/ and settled, you don't have to be a scientist in the field to smell bullshit.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No. That isn't it. You have LARGE variance in CO2 and tiny varience in temperature.

In the graphing the two are graphed to imply that their curves are a similar shape...eccep they arent.

At one extreme you coupld graph the temperature to the 1/100th of a degree while say losing a couple of decimal points on the CO2 and it would appear that the temperature is increasing MUCH faster than the rate of CO2.

I wouldnt bother but I could graph this on a 100 point temperature scale...maybe with a pretty thermometer graphic on one side, then go REALLY fine scaled on the Co2...it would look like a fuzzy caterpillar of a straight line, and a skyrocketing Co2 trajectory.

Sig figs usually are used in chemistry more than other field because you are dealing with numbers like 6.023 x 10 to the -23rd. really small numbers. It matters how you you compare things. In this case we know temperature is rising (modestly) CO2 is rising dramatically...co2 is in parts per million, temperature is (at best) +/- a degree. It really isnt even worth arguing like Ish's .33 degrees or Spideays 1 degree chart...neither chart tells you anything interesting, not really...

So can you for illustrative purposes draw up a chart to explain in a graphical way that both are rising?

Sure.

But what you see from the charts is what you see from the data...that we have either NO idea if they are related or there other variables that have a BIGGER effect than co2.

I dont know if it was intentional but for at least one piece of the analysis you actually posted one chart that MIGHT explain (for that time period only) why it is there was no correlation and why the model was wrong.

What if the models and co2 was 100% right if the solar cycle had remained the same, but accordiing to the graph you showed the sun just wasnt as hot then, so we dodged a bullet.

lots of explainations both (lets reduce are green house gasses) and (fuck it) can be supported with different data sets for different windows of time...

the fact that no one (yet) has a nice unifying theory that I have ever heard of that both models looking backwards, and shows peomise going forward says theis stuff is not "settled". The POLITICS are (for now) settled. The science absolutely not.

That 97% figure? A couple of NOT climatologists, looked at a stack of studies, using their own preconceived bias, they reviewed each of the various studies (legitimate, lets hope honest, valid data sets etc) studies. They played eeny meenie miny moe. They did not ask any of those studies authors..."hey whatduhya think?" No. They looked at charts studies and made an independant jusgement call on whther something in that graph, study, or dataset confirmed their bias. Only 3% of the time could THEY find things that made them question THEIR bias.

Individual authors of studies known to be included in that pile of studies have said that their studies are NOT jumping for example to man--->co2--->hot. They may be Sun--->hot. or whatever.

When obviously non-scientific pronouncements are made with always/ never/ and settled, you don't have to be a scientist in the field to smell bullshit.

Saying that the temperature rise is "tiny" is solely your opinion and yours alone, and is erroneous.

I'd be very interested in reading those published papers. Please provide a link.

 

[Que]

By the way...didnt mean to run on there...(of course I always do)...

What I wanted to say is I hear you actually looking at those graphs and looking for differences...that is good enough...just having a skeptical eye.

I WAS being a bit of a smart ass about sig figs and you DO tend to put some effort into researching your point of view, so that was snarky on my part and I apologise.

I dont expect you to decide that co2 is unimportant (frankly I suspect it IS important to some degree) I just get erped by people that think we have even an idea how bad or how minor this might be...we really have no idea.

Those saying, lets spend some time and money figuring this out are more than reasonable. It just isnt reasonable making policy decisions when our leaders cant even speak to the basics as well as say you can for your point of view or I for mine. I consider my knowledge on this pretty basic surface level stuff, and it far exceeds most of the crap I see politicians saying. Including right wing wackos.

 

[Que]

Saying that the temperature rise is "tiny" is solely your opinion and yours alone, and is erroneous.

I'd be very interested in reading those published papers. Please provide a link.

your own god-damned graph you fucking idiot is a good place to start. 1/3 of a degree IS tiny.

 

[Que]

Your reading comprehension seems to suffer when the spittle starts flying.

The CIA told the Bush administration that Saddam had no WMD capability, that information was not passed along to congress or included in the NIE prior to the vote on the AUMF. The Downing Street Memo gives insight into what was going on:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Concerning the ACA: Is your assertion that only Doctors can properly write legislation concerning health insurance? I'm sure that would work out VERY well. Although I suppose we could stipulate that all candidates for the legislature be doctors AND lawyers. Good luck getting that particular requirement passed.

I blame both parties for what the ACA became. The Republicans for intentionally trying to sabotage the bill repeatedly (before and After it passed) and the Democrats for being naive enough to think that the Republicans were ever negotiating in good faith.

There are no "weeds", 161 Republican amendments were included in the final version of the law.

Your assertion that the Republicans bear zero responsibility because they closed ranks and refused to vote for the bill after inserting hundreds of changes is ludicrous. You can't spend months negotiating changes to a bill and then act as if you had nothing to do with it. If the Republicans wanted the Democrats to have sole ownership of the ACA then they should have done nothing but oppose it from the start. They did not, they dug in and got the Democrats to agree to literally hundreds of changes (after rejecting hundreds more). The Democrats naively agreed to these changes in exchange for what turned out to be zero support. But failing to vote for the bill does not absolve them of the influence used in writing and rewriting it. The Republicans are just as culpable.

tl;dr

as i said:

cliff notes:

bush bad..he owns it

obama good, he gets all credit if it ever works... no responsibility for why and how it flounders.

Like always with you.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

your own god-damned graph you fucking idiot is a good place to start. 1/3 of a degree IS tiny.

Not so sure any of my graphs showed a .33 Celsius change. Could I get you to agree that there's been a .61 Celsius change?

http://alexwhite.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/global-surface-temperature.png

 

[Que]

Not so sure any of my graphs showed a .33 Celsius change. Could I get you to agree that there's been a .61 Celsius change?

go play in the street without your helmet.

.61 would be tiny... .612 would be tiny..... .6141592645degrees would be tiny.

a FULL DEGREE would be tiny. DO NOT tell me what your point is. Please.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

go play in the street without your helmet.

Looks like you don't want to agree on what the facts are.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

tl;dr

as i said:

cliff notes:

bush bad..he owns it

obama good, he gets all credit if it ever works... no responsibility for why and how it flounders.

Like always with you.

I appologise if my response to your Gish gallop was too lengthy for your short attention span.
Had you actually read what I posted you would know that I blame both parties rather than assigning a position to me.

In the future if you want shorter posts try to limit your obfuscations to a single topic.

 

[Que]

I appologise if my response to your Gish gallop was too lengthy for your short attention span.
Had you actually read what I posted you would know that I blame both parties rather than assigning a position to me.

In the future if you want shorter posts try to limit your obfuscations to a single topic.

You know I read and understand every word. I read everything.
Typcial..."I blame obama that he let the republicans fuck up his roll"

you must be great in job interviews...humble brag built into every non-weakness admitted.

YOU have the god-damned pen, and you sign THAT many pages into law hurrying it before the next election where you fucking KNOW you are going to get your ass kicked when TED FUCKING KENNEDY the FUCKING GODFATHER of socialized medicine attempts dies and a Democrat LOSES that seat on the fucking sympathy vote...and you still fucking sign it...

YOU FUCKING OWN THIS SHIT. What we call "Clear Title."

No liens, no clouds.

Don't think history will not remember that DEMOCRATIC district town halls had people SCREAMING at them DO NOT DO THIS..

YOU OWN it and it is telling that you have to get mealy mouthed about this and you aren't proud of OBAMAS decision to FUCKING SIGN IT.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You're getting pretty good at the spittle-flecked oratory. The all caps emphasis doesn't come off as deperate at all.

You know, just repeating the same thing over and over doesn't actually make it true.

 

[Que]

Looks like you don't want to agree on what the facts are.

Pick any number you like from -273.15 degrees Celsius to 451 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Pick any number you like from -273.15 degrees Celsius to 451 degrees Fahrenheit.

I can't randomly pick a number. I can only use numbers that peer reviewed scientific research has produced. That process has shown a .61 Celsius increase. Is that number agreeable to you for the purposes of the conversation?

 

[Que]

You're getting pretty good at the spittle-flecked oratory. The all caps emphasis doesn't come off as deperate at all.

You know, just repeating the same thing over and over doesn't actually make it true.

Quiet, prissy little snark while avoiding responsibility for the effects of your ideology doesn't make it true, either.

 

[Que]

I can't randomly pick a number. I can only use numbers that peer reviewed scientific research has produced. That process has shown a .61 Celsius increase. Is that number agreeable to you for the purposes of the conversation?

Pick someone else to have your "conversation" with. Or last conversation cost me five hours of my life. I normally charge for that kind of analysis.

I used to have a minimum penalty I charged end-users for stupid questions. The minimum response per first stupid question was they would be subjected to one full page of explanation. The second offense was two full pages. No one ever asked a third stupid question.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Quiet, prissy little snark while avoiding responsibility for the effects of your ideology doesn't make it true, either.

Nice color. Is it supposed to signify anything in particular?

There was nothing quiet about the snark and I see by the response that it struck home.

 

[phrodeau]

go play in the street without your helmet.

.61 would be tiny... .612 would be tiny..... .6141592645degrees would be tiny.

a FULL DEGREE would be tiny. DO NOT tell me what your point is. Please.

That is just wrong.

Go learn about the topic and come back.