So let's discuss your usually procedure for pushing your "facts".
You post some chart claiming it is the truth without any attribution or proof.
We hunt down the chart on the Internet and see that it came from some questionable blogger or twitter account.
The source is revealed as complete crap and nonsense -- which is why you don't provide an attribution or url with the source.
This happened with the Jennifer Cabrera nonsense and many other examples.
If you want any credibility, why don't you stick with mainstream news and science sources with proper attribution rather than crap posted by people in blogs and twitter -- especially since you know upfront it is such crap that you don't provide any attribution or link.
Almost, but I'll post how it actually happens:
I post some chart - many times just showing the chart itself with no commentary, but sometimes providing commentary. In any case, my posting is indication that the position is something I support (otherwise, I'd probably not have posted it).
You don't hunt anything down except to dig up dirt on the author of the post. You never attempt to refute the data presented, preferring the easier
sleazier way of just slandering the author in an attempt to discredit the post. You never discredit the post, because you lack the skills to do so, and because the posts are usually factually accurate - it's just that you don't like them.
The source isn't revealed to be crap or nonsense, but you try to find dirt on them and challenge other posts of theirs that could be BS or not (I don't know, not supporting those posts) and use it as a way to make ALL posts someone says as wrong.
And I always, every time, provide a link to my posts when they come from an external source. Every. Single. Time.
