Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?
Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?
Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.
Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?
Again, thanks for finally being honest. Youâ(TM)re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. Youâ(TM)ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesnâ(TM)t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:
And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?
Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.
I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?
Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.
And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.