- Thread starter
- #81
“Around half of the CO2 available at the time,” Bujak said . “Levels dropped from between 2500 and 3500 [parts per million] to between 1500 and 1600 ppm.”*44No it doesn't. It indicates that you are an idiot for questioning data that is widely accepted and readily available from multiple sources. Clearly you are concerned with what the data proves that you would try to discredit it.
Stop lying. You do not have data from multiple sources. You have data from one single source, which appears to be faked (being you won't show the source, and that the paper it claims to be from doesn't show such data), and you actively refuse to look at any other data.
In contrast, I posted what the data from multiple sources says, in Royer (2006), which summarizes all the other studies. The data from multiple sources flatly contradict your claims, being that no CO2 spike is shown. By your own standards, you are totally wrong because multiple sources say so.
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf
Do you have the courage to address this, Ding? After all, over in the religion folder, you just bragged about how your religion gives you courage. Funny, how there's no sign of any courage from you over here. Instead, we just see you running away, over and over.
The fern that changed the world