- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
WTF? Do you have a case to make in refutation of NOAA's findings or don't you? If you do, present it.
Red:
I mean exactly what I wrote: they didn't eliminate every stinking possibility that exists.
Blue:
I was unequivocal in my depiction of NOAA's statements.
Brown: I never said I had a problem with the NOAA's statements.
Green: No, that isn't what you said or implied. You said that the NOAA's statements were unequivocal. By you saying that they were unequivocal you were saying that they were saying that there is no other possibility period. You even used the word "zero" in one of your posts. Science does not deal in "zero" or "unequivocal". They do not deal in absolutes. Both of those words that you used are absolutes in the world of science.
You see, my posts here actually had nothing to do with the NOAA. They were directed at your word choice to call their statement "unequivocal". Their word choice was actually perfect. Your's...not so much.