No. I am not linking the posts. You are being ridiculous.
You argued that climate change deniers and environmentalists were equally disingenuous is making up conspiracy theories about each other, that they were just being polorized and that was the problem.
You went all golden mean fallacy on Geocentricism vs Heliocentrism. If you're going to say that THAT issue needs a compromise because the heliocentrists are slightly off you are going to commit the golden mean fallacy on everything, so your accusations of the environmentalists being just as much to blame as the climate change deniers is blatantly illogical. You have absolutely no ability to say that one side is right and the other side is wrong and that is a very important ability to have in science and decision making in general.
The entire discussion between us has been ridiculous since the beginning. Why stop being ridiculous now when you have been since you first replied? Except you're not stopping, you're just refusing to provide any evidence. Because at this point, you are not relying on fact at all.
It doesn't help that what you're stating is blatantly false. So blatantly false I don't even have to try to spin words. Here's what I said:
"And that's the real cause of the conspiracy theories this topic was brought up to discuss. You have two sides that are so polarized the most public of their supporters would rather invent conspiracy theories about each other than work together to find a compromise. And the deniers are the loudest group of all, so naturally they invent most of the conspiracy theories."
Note the sentence I bolded. I made it quite clear I didn't think the two sides are equally disingenuous. I did say polarization is a problem, but later on highlighted that this problem is in getting anything done, not in agreement on fact.
Now, the part about holding both Galileo and the Pope as equal... let's take a look at where I actually said that.
"At the time, the evidence Galileo had was faulty. We know he's (somewhat) right now, but the evidence standards he had from his observation through telescopes would not hold up to today's evidenciary standards, and it only held up as a possible theory at the time. A theory sound enough that he even had the very Pope he made it a point to argue with give him the go-ahead to publish his theory. The only requirement was he publish the other theory that fit the evidence of the period."
Note the bolded part. The evidence of the period. As in, the evidence they had on hand at the time. Not the evidence that came after, but the initial set of proof used at the time.
There are a lot of scientific theories, including a few about climate change, that early on simply are one of several guesses about what's going on based on the evidence when they are first proposed. Then, as time goes on, the theories are disproved or modified as new evidence comes up. As we know today, heliocentrism and geocentrism are both wrong because of evidence that came centuries later. Wrong to the point that our models of other solar systems have changed, much like our model of our own did when heliocentrism was the best-fit theory for the evidence (when they changed from the solar system orbiting Earth to it orbiting the Sun).
So, yes. By modern science, both heliocentrism and geocentrism are equal in that they both produce utterly wrong models of solar systems. This is science fact at current, and it remains true whether or not you like it.
However, we also know that, at least with our solar system (as I admitted in this post), the Sun remains at the center of the solar system, even if slightly off, and a heliocentric model is accurate enough for us. Note I admitted that before you even got a chance to argue with my stance, so at this point you're arguing a stance you can't even say I held at the time you replied.
No, you've been obsessively nitpicking over an objectively irrelevant detail that doesn't matter thinking it crashes the entire argument while ignoring the utter lunacy in your own words and I've mostly been ignoring it by responding to things that matter, AND demonstrating that the detail was in fact irrelevant. If you somehow got the impression that most of my response was to your obsessive nitpicking over that irrelevant detail you're mistaken.
Anyone who looks at my posting history knows I can argue for weeks about details about don't matter at a length that rivals college textbooks and on a level of nitpicking that makes even the most OCD of examinations think I'm going too far. And yet... I devoted only three lines to it in this post, conceded that Galileo's model is accurate enough for our solar system in this post, and even admitted he's accurate enough in the modern era while pointing out his evidence issues were mostly in his own era in this post.
I devoted... 41 lines of text across 7 posts to this topic while discussing it with two different people. And in that set of lines, I've admitted Galileo is accurate enough, pointed out is problems in his era were the evidence he had at hand, and pointed out the work of NASA for why he's wrong in the modern era. And it wasn't even a major point when I originally stated it, but just pointing out a flaw in your example.
You've devoted... 43 lines of text across 5 posts on the subject while addressing one person. In that time, you have tried your best to argue that Galileo was some kind of genius who accomplished a lot with heliocentrism (it wasn't even his theory), challenged the scientific standing of NASA, fabricated or misrepresented far more than I care to count about my own words, and are now making defending Galileo your last stand.
I get it. It sucks when someone you view as a hero turns out to have been a villain or just wrong. But defending an outdated solar system model isn't going to magically make it accurate or redeem that person.
You link THIS but handwave in the general direction of where you say you don't need to compromise? The only thing i see is that you can't figure out how to have fewer cows without killing any cows. (Hint:How does france have a negative population grown rate without killing anyone?)
And, again, this entire thing is disproven by fact. Here's me discussing the idea of reducing the cattle population and why a simple reduction might not work out as well as we hope. Took me all of five seconds to find that post and prove you're not using facts.
Seriously, I said a lot of things that are wrong, insane, or rely on a version of reality that has nothing to do with the real world... and so far, you have touched none of them. Instead, you're misrepresenting reality of what words I used and focused on the areas where what is provably real is something you don't like.
The problem you have isn't that I'm saying insane things. The problem you have is that reality isn't living up to your expectations.
Edit: The alias use is an accident, but I think I'll leave it. It amuses me on some level.