I did say I am not getting into the same old circular argument, so I don’t know why you think I’ll bother debating. I have already stated that it’s pointless debating with you, because there’s no chance I’ll be accurately represented. And, no, critiquing you here is not a personal attack. I am not obliged to think you are a good faith debater.
The evidence has been given time and time again, there is nothing to be gained from doing it once more. Suffice to say, if you’re conflating weather and climate there’s little hope of it ever being productive. If you can’t understand that, as you seemingly do not, then there’s no hope of me being able to have a representative debate. There is not a chance you will think about it and maybe understand why your comparison is balderdash, because then you’d be in error (which never happens).*
*Before the playground response that I am like this, I am often wrong and have admitted so previously.
