Well thanks for the response on AGW or do you mean climates changed, that was very valuable. By the way where did you get the deporting word from? That was not even cherry picking, rather just a lie.
As to immigration in the context of water and other ecological matters.......crickets.

I addressed that nonsense about immigrants and water ages ago. You didn't bother to respond. Remember I said that water prices have stayed very low despite your hysteria about immigration. The only reason water has increased in price at all is because your country decided to privatize the supply.

As usual it's just you talking to yourself and never reading anybody else's posts.

"That was not even cherry picking, rather just a lie. "

Really what do you think happens when a country locks down immigration, claiming it to be a 'time bomb'? Or are you just complaining for its own sake while advocating open borders as a matter of policy?

Why can't you be honest about your own position?

No I insist, before we move on where did you get the deporting word from. I never wrote it ever....you are my friend a liar

No I insist, before we move on please explain how your preferred anti-immigration policy is going to work in the absence of deportations. Nasty billboard campaigns to terrify new arrivals?

Well an you show where I wrote that word or not? We have the option of sealing the borders without kicking people out. Now where did I write that word....liar.

You addressed nothing at all on water. Look up 10 year drought in the West if you are interested. Best stick to the USA though your comments on electricity and water in the UK were worse than infantile . Your comment on population growth was a classic example of cherry picking. It will form an illustrative example in the future of how not to approach statistical analysis. I will, of course, respect your anonymity. Enjoy the game.

"You addressed nothing at all on water."

Just because you ignore everyone who disagrees with you doesn't mean they didn't respond.

"We have the option of sealing the borders without kicking people out."

Good luck sealing the border without kicking people who manage to get in, out.

You're lying about the implications of your own draconian position.

" It will form an illustrative example in the future of how not to approach statistical analysis. "

This coming from someone who cites the ONS as gospel truth.

Again liar where did I use that word?

Putin, I doubt your sanity. Surely you remember that you were the first one to cite the ONS? I agree that you did not immediately give the citation, but rather had to have it dragged out f you in order that your cherry picking pseudo science could be exposed.

I cited it to discredit your claims that the UK was being swamped by immigrants. I cited it as an example of bad predictions, genius.

"Again liar where did I use that word?"

Again liar how do you seal a border without deporting those who get through the seal?

Crickets on AGW. Crickets on peak water. Crickets all round......

Are you like Dr. Oz except instead of selling fake diet pills you sell fake immigration policies?

"Crickets on AGW. Crickets on peak water. Crickets all round......"

Only because you insist on stuffing crickets in your ears.

Continue with your endless monologues.

I do love how being off by 16 million is but "cherry picking" to you. But yet the AGW scientists are all frauds.

So you agree it was originally your citation......progress. You twisted the analysis to suit your agenda or rather attack mine.

In the UK there are those who propose deporting all immigrants whether they be legal or illegal. I am sure you have those guys in the US too. Let me say again I never used the:p deportation word. You put that into my mouth. That was your lie.

Check the thread and I clearly explained why it was cherry picking. I noted at the time that you failed to respond, on any level not even your customary abuse, to my post then. Look t up

"So you agree it was originally your citation......progress."

So what? You defend the ONS as being accurate. That point hasn't been contested. Continue to dodge and weave, as usual.

"In the UK there are those who propose deporting all immigrants whether they be legal or illegal. I am sure you have those guys in the US too. Let me say again I never used the:p deportation word. You put that into my mouth. That was your lie."

Irrelevant. If you seal the border all immigrants will be by definition illegal and any who get through will be deported. But you continue to lie about your position. Why is that?
Why won't you answer a simple question - how do you plan on sealing a border without deportations of those who get through?

"Check the thread and I clearly explained why it was cherry picking."

Because of the 3 predictions it made, only one was off by 16 friggin million.

Why did the citation have to be dragged out of you? Normally you quite happily throw them around. You knew that you cherry picked and distorted the ONS report to somehow combat my point about kicking the population time bomb down the road. Even Jamiet your allied debater, disagreed with your take on the ONS. I make no argument from authority but one based on reasonable statistical analysis. I even helped you out by explaining this to you then, but you ignored my post. It is yet another example of your dishonest debating style.

Now you accused me of "concentrating on deportation" this was of course another lie. Par for the course. And again you were the first one to write the deportation word not me. Liar.

You make some wild accusation on my previous posts on AGW or climate change (you don't seem to understand the difference). Force me to respond, and then move on to another attack without dealing with the issues you yourself provoked me to respond to.

I have felt for a long time that you need to seek out some help. I even ignored your posts for a time as I felt a little guilty in responding. You are, however, sometimes I possible to ignore because of your aggressive, insulting and dishonest internet persona.

"Why did the citation have to be dragged out of you?"

By dragged you mean you asked what it was and I responded right away about both that and provided you another citation? That's what you call dragging? If that's dragging then what do you call your normal routine of ignoring people and link bombing them with irrelevant information?

"I make no argument from authority but one based on reasonable statistical analysis. I even helped you out by explaining this to you then, but you ignored my post. It is yet another example of your dishonest debating style."

No, you wanted to distract from the fact that one of the three predictions it made was wildly off the mark and before that post you had made spurious claims about population growth based on nothing but your surmises.

" It is yet another example of your dishonest debating style."

So you're into honesty but you frequently cite pro-life propaganda verbatim without telling us where you got it from. And you're so into honesty that you can't be bothered to answer a simple question about what sealing the border entails.

"Now you accused me of "concentrating on deportation" this was of course another lie. Par for the course. And again you were the first one to write the deportation word not me. Liar."

So you're going to seal the border without actually sealing it, eh? Is like fasting while eating food?

"You make some wild accusation on my previous posts on AGW or climate change (you don't seem to understand the difference)."

So wild that you emphatically confirmed my 'allegations' within a post or two.

"Force me to respond, and then move on to another attack without dealing with the issues you yourself provoked me to respond to. "

Moved on to what attack? As far as I can tell the only two topics raised are climate change & immigration.

"You are, however, sometimes I possible to ignore because of your aggressive, insulting and dishonest internet persona."

Rich. Take a poll of the forum of people you've had past run-ins with on Darwinism, abortion, climate change, and any other topic which you've injected your nonsense into and ask them if you're the exemplar of honesty here. If you're not lying, you're not posting.

Again twisting and turning and lying. If run-ins are your calibration standard then look inti the mirror. I will not bring up all of yours because they are irrelevant red herrings. The only reason you bring up my past posts is a facile infantile attempt to throw mud around hoping some of it will stick. The majority of posters debate things in their contexts, but not you. You move on knowing no bounds to your attempts at AH. Look at the record every time I post on any matter you heap the insults and lies on. You always instigate the aggressive response. You are a nasty internet bully who needs to be put in your place.

"I will not bring up all of yours because they are irrelevant red herrings. The only reason you bring up my past posts is a facile infantile attempt to throw mud around hoping some of it will stick. The majority of posters debate things in their contexts, but not you. You move on knowing no bounds to your attempts at AH. Look at the record every time I post on any matter you heap the insults and lies on. You always instigate the aggressive response. You are a nasty internet bully who needs to be put in your place."

You complain about red herrings but yet go on a paragraph long rant and have ignored my question about sealing borders about 7-8 times now. You complain about insults but you feel the need to insult me every other post. You're the one who began the insults here by calling me a liar (while ignoring my queries as to how I lied) but you as usual like to play the victim. You then escalated the insults over and over again, and I have barely responded in kind.

"The majority of posters debate things in their contexts"

Certainly not you.

I do enjoy how your total lack of self-awareness and your ability to lecture about behavior that you yourself are engaged in at the very moment you're complaining about it.

No you always instigate the aggressive tone. This thread is an example and you will find it everywhere else. You are a wannabe bully.

"No you always instigate the aggressive tone. This thread is an example and you will find it everywhere else. "

You must have gallons of poopourri because you routinely hijack threads with hostile "questions" and link bombs about irrelevant nonsense, while insinuating people (usually scientists) are Hitler's minions if not worse, but yet you're Mr. Innocent of course.

I rest my case. You are indeed a wannabe bully and I am calling you put.

I am pleased you mentioned Hitler because it reminded me of the time you accused me of making holocaust denial statements. That was another insulting lie which you couldn't support. What a creep you are.

You always rest your case. In fact you never make a case. Just ignore and insult, while whining that you're being ignored and insulted.

And you're an adult?

So you do remember your bullying attempts of accusing me of holocaust denial.... I thought so. As I said a nasty wannabe bully

No I don't remember and I'm sure you'll explain the context of those alleged comments too, right? Because you're all about being honest and straightforward. Which is why you refuse to answer any question about how you, the "non-bully" will seal your border from immigration.

It happened and I I'll look it up for you.

As to immigration you have yet to explain how I am "concentrating on deportation" YOUR words, when I didn't even mention the word

. Now you explain how if you, as you have said, want limited and controlled immigration your take on deportation. You used the deportation word to suggest racism on my part, as I explained earlier with my reference to legal and illegal immigration. I am calling you out bully.