Hi thank you, I don't think your comment was rude in fact it was one of the nicest interactions of my day I do, however disagree. The source you gave me, speci

Hi thank you, I don't think your comment was rude in fact it was one of the nicest interactions of my day I do, however disagree. The source you gave me, specifically ... "Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions." subsequentally refers to the same exact persons ("Mann et all") data that I am referring to, -- so to speak, we have come full circle: my source shows a flaw, your argument refers to the flawed data, as true. Do you see this? I am pointing to data showing Manning doctored the data, and you are giving me the same doctored data as proof. I would be honored if you understand my point here. Also I encourage you to read the link [1] and find any flaws. I encourage you to engage critical thinking and play a "contrarian" view on the subject matter. You might be extremely surprised to what you find. 1. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/crus_source...