I am sticking to the facts, not acting on your perceptions of what Four intended. I am not a mind reader. Taking you at your word would take us back to "inquisition" type justice. The words he used were OK.
Originally Posted by: polarwind
I think not, and given Four's track record of cheap attempts at point scoring, on the balance of probabilities (there you are, a legal term - so you can forget the 'Inquisition') he was not making a comment but another attempt at cheap point scoring.
But feel free to believe what you like. *
It is highly entertaining seeing you expend such a lot of effort defending the indefensible.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White
* Thank you, I will, as I always tend to do.
My efforts, may be entertaining you, but, are about informing readers who also 'believe what they like' and who will be interested to learn that you would almost always, as you recently posted, follow the core (consensus) climate science - without question. You believe the science that the consensus teaches - without question.
And for those readers, this means your efforts are about distraction away from evidence which supports alternative science. As in this post where we have discussed the meaning of words rather than 'extremes weather events'.
Originally Posted by: polarwind