I will not stop writing 2+2=4 simply because you name this "standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line". Even if 2+2=4 would be "standard and stereotypical US corporate rightwing propaganda line".
You keep pretending that the identification of your sources - by argument from evidence - never happened.
As noted many times now, it's the common errors that identify the common source.
Your insistence on writing 2+2 = 5, or 13, or wallpaper paste, or whatever Fox News or some Republican politician says it equals this week,
like them in synchrony with the US corporate rightwing media feed, same vocabulary and framing and "logic" and everything,
is how we know that feed is your source. If you had posted 2+2=4, there would have been no way to tell where you got it - that's common reality.
For example: Nobody else on this planet calls the findings of published and peer reviewed AGW research "alarmism", namecalls the researchers "alarmists", and so forth. Only that rightwing corporate media feed and its parrots use that language for those people and that research.
. You, instead, hide behind claims of what scientific research has found, without providing a single bit of evidence for this.
"Hiding" behind scientific research?
Once again you admit to knowing nothing about AGW.
If you don't believe my claims, check them.
I argue based on common sense.
No, you don't. Ignorance is not common sense. You argue based on ignorant presumptions; the presumptions are wrong, the arguments are foolish, and we can see where they came from - the US rightwing corporate media feed, Republican propaganda.
Like all AGW denial.
And so you are unable to recognize the implications of the research and analysis finding that the extra rainfall precipitation predicted from AGW is likely to fall as torrential addition to existing storms - damaging to agriculture and infrastructure alike, and with increasing frequency disastrous.
