Clueless again: that's your assertion, isn't it?

I have simply presented 2 view points.

And you can't even understand the basic statement in each:

1. Dyson: CO2 makes the plants grow more, hence greener

2. Heller: the temperature rise in ground measurement was the result of adjustment, not actual measurements.

You don't seem to understand these statements, and keep trying to argue about.....

exactly what?

So: WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION?

所有跟帖： 

• Heller's assertion: NOAA global warming--confirmation bias -SwiperTheFox- ♂ (372 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:00:45

• Dyson's assertion is about it gets greener -tibuko- ♂ (623 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:03:20

• What does this have to do with my posts? Where is the CONTRADCTI -tibuko- ♂ (24 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:13:07

• That is not the post, the post is about the data adjustments -tibuko- ♂ (605 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:22:19

• You really lack basic scientific training to even talk about thi -tibuko- ♂ (38 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:14:08

• That's a basic observation of your posts. -tibuko- ♂ (193 bytes) () 12/01/2019 postreply 15:23:19