I said clearly and very courteously that I would prefer that you raise new subjects elsewhere.
"I will fully consider your side for as long as your replies are substantive and on the topic of my questions. In the interest of clarity and continuity, if you want to discuss something else, including this preamble, please do it in a new sub-thread, either above or continuing existing, other sub-thread
I won't ask again. I'll simply ignore everything that is not directly responsive to my queries.
Now, I recognize sarcasm and I recognize that your *intent* in using it is *probably* to deny that you intended to deceive, but as we both know, I doubt your integrity. But, due both to your very emphatic protests against being labeled "liar" and your wish to resume discussing climate science, I chose this format to let you explain what to me is explainable only by intent, on your part, to deceive.
So if it's not too much trouble, "yes" or "no" please:
Did you choose the word "trend" because it would be likely to give a reader who's unwilling to pore over the source documents you linked, and moderately to highly trained in some field of physical science, but not a climate science specialist -- I'd guess that's *most* readers interested enough to read these comments -- the false impression of a statistically robust trend?
That method, and the tone of your denials, would both be perfectly consistent with Frank Luntz's known propaganda strategies.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment