Not exact matches
I posted this a week ago to my personal blog and intended to cross-post it here without too much delay, but I've just realized that I
never got around to it.There's a particularly bad
argument against those who
accept the biblical prohibitions against same - sex sexual acts, and I think I've....
In all these writings i have seen your main
argument against this, that you
accept that the CO2 is dependent of temperature as we see in my writing, but you say that this oscillation would only last so short that we
never would see bigger deviations from Antarctic curves.
Unless any of the many, many people who have argued against the conclusion that Jelbring's work is completely wrong and should have
never been
accepted in the first place wish to keep arguing, perhaps the more polite ones can concede in one last post and we can wrap this up and move on to N&Z, the «existence» of a real, live GHE, and maybe, just maybe, get to where the skeptical
arguments on the list are much better informed and less likely to play fast and loose with the laws of nature or thermodynamics.
While we should
never have been subject to a scheme which lacked these features, it is right that we should recognise that the MoJ
accepted the Bar's
arguments, and included these features in the new scheme.
They were discussing a recent
argument, and one of them said with frustration: «I told her I was sorry, but she can
never accept that.»