The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Terry Fields wrote:
Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:
The guys quotes sourced data, with no mainpulation. Roger wanted data
and he got it in spades.
I got a lot of bull**** from a charlatan which I haven't time to go into
in detail right now and judging by other responses I was right not to
take it as gospel. Wikipedia is a much safer source. :-)
I take it then that although none of the particular points that I
quoted has been challenged, either on the group or by the baying mob,
that means nothing. Character assassination is, apparently,
everything.
Well done on the Ostrich Approach to the Uncomfortable.
As I said before there are none so blind as those who will not see.

As is often the case on Usenet you are trying to discredit your
opposition by ascribing to them the tactics you yourself are using.

I took issue with several of the more obviously suspect points. On that
you have so far exercised your right to silence.

And your failure to respond to questions I raise is what, exactly?

Apart from hypocrisy, that is.

Economy and efficiency: no one responding here agrees with you - in fact
all you have succeeded in doing is unearth yet more evidence that
strengthens the case against your view..

Ero, you are no longer even interesting.

I didn't come on here to talk about this to be popular. I came on here
to discuss the issues of the myth of AGW.

I have presented data.....no-one has countered that data.

I posed questions....they remain unanswered.

There has been, though, a range of opinions expressed, which even you
will recognise is not data.