HOZ,
As has been exposed in your previous posts one is unable to tell if your post isn't a deliberate lie or that you simply haven't the cognitive function to comprehend what you're posting which has been evidently proven in your past posts.
I mean, that your posting history has exposed you as being either (a) corrupt/dishonest/fraudulent enough or (b) stupid/gullible enough to think that ooooh there used to be x1000 CO2 in the atmosphere is a good argument against AGW speaks volumes about your cognitive function to make an informed decision on the events.
You can whine all you want and say I'm fudging the data to attack you. My defence? It's all observational, recorded data.
(a) or (b) HOZ. Corrupt or stupid? Lying or gullible? Which one is it?
I look forward to your deflections and ignoring of the question which will only strengthen and prove my point.
It's a sad reflection when you can't man up or explain the rationale behind an an argument.
But hey .... you just keep on posting quotes you don't understand if it makes you feel good. Shame really, you were doing much better at the cartoons.
Oh and BTW .... (a) or (b)
