• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Reply to thread

Not so. It is you who are making the claims.




A figure has been provided. You just can't recognize it when it is stated baldly out-loud to your face.




Based upon the evidence of your 'debate' on this thread, you are no one to instruct about science. Mike's figures can be debated - you just don't understand - either how to do that - or the science underlying his arguments.




Shoulds and woulds and musts - doesn't work that way.  You have to defend your stance - not pontificate.


Mike has given you a figure. At this point, I am pretty well convinced that you are confronted with a task beyond your ability to deal with. That's okay - if you could admit that. Instead you stall on a narrowly defined element - that is bogus to begin with.


Back
Top