eclectron wrote:On these curves we have the CO2 rate as a function of time and the temperatures as a function of time.
I just traced correspondences and made a graphical reading of durations (approximate, who cares, we are not within 10 years, given the durations).
Ah yes? Well, nowhere did you say that it was you who had drawn lines by hand on the graphics, of which you had not given the source! This explains their inconsistency (I had noted the incongruity of a "relaxation time" which depends on the temperature, and not monotonously in addition! but if it is you who invented them it is less surprising) .
in other words, you tampered with a graph, without saying the method you had applied, to 'justify' your positions, but without saying it, and you only had to admit it when you were asked for the references of your graphics (it's not even me who asked for it by the way c ('est Izzy) - which of course forces you to recognize that the original graphics were not those there ... and then it's I who would be in bad faith !!: roll:
but that you want to get rid of someone who asks you to justify yourself when you tamper with the graphics, it is not surprising, indeed.
