 Scott. I've explained exactly WHY I call "troll tactics" on your part. I've explained exactly WHY your version of reality is clearly "warped". And, frankly, I can't see how referring to you as a "warmist" would qualify as an ad hom. You do think more CO0 in the atmosphere makes the world warmer. That DWLWIR from the cool atmosphere makes the already warmer surface even warmer. Or don't you? It's not like I call you "anti-science" for believing so. If you called me "natural warmist", "solarist", "oceanist" or "atmospheric massist", what would it matter? It would point to my scientific position on this issue. I can see why calling people "alarmists" or "warmunista" would be objectionable. A bit like calling someone a "denier". But "warmist"? If you had cared to explain exactly why and how my "approach" is a "Slayer approach", then we could've discussed it. But you didn't respond to me directly. You didn't "say it to my face". You went somewhere else (a pure coincidence I even saw it) and called my argumentation a "Slayer approach", without qualification. (Well, you purported to give an explanation by directly misrepresenting what I had actually said; foul play!) That's more like slander. 