Of course I have, above. You just can't accept that your insults are unprovoked and your regurgitated accusations are false.
Again with the distortions. You haven't demonstrated anything about provocation, in either direction. You've just kept making the same bald assertions with nothing to back them up, as though repeating them might make them true. You cite your own old out-of-context distortions as though they might make a new one true. This is really quite amusing, but it's wasting too much of my time.
You made the claim, and you haven't backed it up. At all. And all these other straw-man arguments you've been making are attempts to pull the discussion in a different direction, to hide that fact. That's a variant of "moving the goalposts".
I've demonstrated your abuse of these logical fallacies so many times now, I really wonder why I bother to feed the troll. Even when it is just in self-defense against false accusations.
When we look at the last 6,000 years, the impact of human activity on our climate is unmistakable. There are no major large natural cycles over the last 6,000 years ... That's consistent with Marcott et al. 2013 (PDF) which shows that the world has been cooling for most of the last 6,000 years.
I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age, and is cherry-picked to evade discussion the Holocene Optimum. As I understand it, even Young Earthers are willing to accept that the Earth might be as much as 10,000 years old. So why leave out those 4,000 years? The answer is obvious: to avoid having to discuss periods of the past that don't fit her thesis. That's called cherry-picking.
Apparently "vilified" means that I told Jane why Young Earthers are wrong
I don't know why that would be "apparent" to anybody. And your implication that you "taught" me Young Earthers are wrong is another example of your subtle distortions. I've known they were wrong since I was in grade school. And I have never (except perhaps in jest, but I don't even recall that) claimed their view was correct. In fact I've publicly denounced it many times in many places, including here earlier. It's really quite fascinating to see you distort things so far that you're actually defending someone who caters to young-earthers, then try to imply that somehow I might be defending them. I'm not and I haven't.
The rest is just more of your particular brand of verbal nonsense. Like this:
If Jane could quote Dr. Hayhoe making an absurd claim like "young-earthers have some evidence" then
Of course they do. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't good evidence, and I am pretty sure most if it is quite invalid. But even very poor-quality evidence is still evidence. You might be surprised learn that the "moon landing is a fake" crowd also have some evidence. Again, it isn't good evidence but some of it took quite a bit of effort to successfully refute. And no, I don't subscribe to their view either. But neither am I a reality denier who claims there is NO such evidence. Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you.
And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. Again, you've just kept repeating your bald unsupported assertions to that effect until, it seems, you believe them yourself.
Again, I'm done here. I'm sick and tired of your distorted-out-of-contexting and straw-manning and attempts at other verbal trickery.
Oh... and by the way: while you may dislike the Cornwall Alliance for whatever reasons of your own, the only "religion" in their actual position, as stated in their "what we believe" section, is here:
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystemsâ"created by Godâ(TM)s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence â"are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earthâ(TM)s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
Now, other than the stated belief that God created the world -- which, again, is central to all Christian belief -- I see nothing in that statement which is radical or unreasonable, or which actually mixes science with religion. Nor do I see such in the rest of their "What We Believe" or "What We Deny" sections. I see no evidence in those passages that the religious beliefs and the science are getting crossed up at all in the way Hayhoe garbles them together.
Now, to be clear, I'm only going by that page you linked to. I know nothing else about them. Nor do I really care, since I've seen nothing to indicate the scientific position is being driven by the religious position.
As for the rest: you've wasted far too much of my time, and you still haven't proved any of your original accusations. I think by now it is more than reasonable to conclude that the reason is that you are simply incapable of doing so. And you've shown us absolutely no -- not one word -- of actual evidence that any of my comments were "unprovoked".
So I do not plan to respond further, even if you do make more false accusations. You have demonstrated many times that I'm wasting my time trying to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion with you. If you reply here, I'm just going to record it for posterity. (I suspect that you will reply, and I even strongly suspect I know pretty much what you'll write. So be it.)
Have a day.