Ha. In Phil's words, you're ducking and weaving. The post you responded to was about the fact that the article used certain words as tags/headlines but then didn't actually talk about such, an ask for you to explain how you think that's not about propaganda.
As for your bait and switch request now for math, ha that's also funny and massively ironic, you being the one going on and on denying global warming based on in your opinion facts and science, you starting multiple threads and posts related to it while also claiming to only post facts and science, but not one single pinch of math/facts/science posted by you to back up your claims. Unfortunately for you, the onus is on you to show the math/facts/science behind what you claim as factual/sclence based, unless your purpose is only about propaganda.