Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 11, 3:17 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
On Apr 10, 11:26 am, Peter Franks wrote:
[ . . . ]
That is not a scientific response. The question is honest and valid,
and more importantly, relevant to your original posting.
NOPE! You're question would be on topic only if
"the little ice age" happened in the past 129 years.
Otherwise, you were posting off topic.
Really?

Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant to the study
of warming/climate change?

...
Only data and observations from the last 129 are relevant
TO THIS THREAD!

"Basic greenhouse gas physics from MIT."

and

"This run of 172 months above the norm is the result of a warming
world. It is too large to occur by chance at any reasonable level
of confidence."

What is the cause of the warming world? You seem to infer greenhouse gases.

I counter that inference by attempting to discuss the Little Ice Age and
its causes. I've brought this topic up several times in threads (often
your threads) that are more than appropriate. You don't respond or you
don't respond substantively. You demonstrated that again just now,
along with some completely unnecessary belligerence, name calling, and
profanity. I have no interest in that.

Have a nice day.

-pf

Leadership by IQ... the "most educated people" don't seem to be the
wealthiest ones?



--

http://Talk-n-Dog.org
********* Koom-Bay-Ya *********
http://CoalitionForFreeThought.org