From: grmerrick@shaw.ca   
      
   On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:02:08 +1200, Eric Stevens   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 18:28:00 -0700, Bob F  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On 7/28/2017 3:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:32:52 -0700, Bob F  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >   ---  snip ---   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> And if you trust their data then you have a problem.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying their data is wrong. I'm saying we just don't know.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> What is the source of their data and what has been done to it?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Please feel free to get a degree related to climate science, do your   
   >>>>>>>>>> research, and submit it to a REAL scientific journal for REAL peer   
   >>>>>>>>>> review. Claiming belief in a "study" that doesn't meet these   
   criteria   
   >>>>>>>>>> doesn't stand for much.  The claim in that fake research is that the   
   >>>>>>>>>> changes to the data INCREASE the appearance of warming. The articles   
   >>>>>>>>>> that I referred you to clearly show that the data changes have   
   actually   
   >>>>>>>>>> decreased the appearance of warming, which is still significantly   
   visible.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes. 'The claim is ...'. But, the articles to which you referred to,   
   >>>>>>>>> do not clearly show anything. They merely reiterate the claims of   
   >>>>>>>>> others.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> In any case, ther is not, and never has been any denial of global   
   >>>>>>>>> warming over the lasr several centuries. The important question is   
   how   
   >>>>>>>>> much has mankind contributed to it and what the particular   
   >>>>>>>>> contribution of man-made CO2 has been.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Do you even comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes - enough to know that there isn't one.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Just as I thought - not a clue.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Please demonstrate your knowledge by telling us how it works.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Knowing that you don't have a clue is sufficient for me to give up on   
   >>>> you. You make your decisions with no knowledge of the subject.   
   >>>   
   >>> "Don't have a clue"?  At least I can tell you how it is supposed to   
   >>> work and the evidence which shows that that the necessary stuff is not   
   >>> happening.   
   >>   
   >>Well then, why didn't you offer that information when you were asked.   
   >   
   >But I wasn't asked for that information. I was asked "Do you even   
   >comprehend the scientific principle of global warming?" and I   
   >truthfully answered that question "Yes - enough to know that there   
   >isn't one."   
   >   
   >>Please do show us your knowledge pf the theory, and detail the exact   
   >>reasons you think the theory is wrong. Then we can talk about your   
   >>misinterpretation of the data.   
   >   
   >Sorry: I got in first. I have already asked "Please demonstrate your   
   >knowledge by telling us how it works". Now you are trying to swing the   
   >onus back on me.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> But you - all you can do is back off and start running when asked to   
   >>> justify your faith.   
   >>>   
   >Now you are twisting.   
      
   No. You are a troll . Why do you spout nonsence. Perhaps you need   
   another hobby.   
      
   ---   
   This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.   
   http://www.avg.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)