>>14166253>I don’t know what you want to hear and why do you have such a gripe with the fact that those specific mechanisms are not 100% solved.You know what I want to hear since you just answered me. I truthfully thank you for your straightforward honesty in answering a simple question.
>>14166536You have quoted eight (8) sentences instead of addressing the only one which has ever required your attention this entire time. I will repeat it again just to be sure it merits your attention: "there is still no clear proof of the mechanism responsible for the 100 ka periodicity". The wikipedia article cannot consider the simulation to be a proof or it would not contain this sentence. The simulation is rejected as a hard evidence that something is true. That does not mean it is rejected as a paper, this has a different meaning altogether in its own context. I see the shadow of incoherent verbal judo over the word rejected which I will not indulge at all. I will instead ask you again to confirm that english is not your first language. It adequately explains our struggle with a simple conversation. The other poster I reply to in this post says it is fact that certain mechanisms that pertain to the theory of global forcing are not solved. They write what the wikipedia articles says. I can only sum that you struggle with reading the same simple wikipedia page for deeply personal reasons. Knowing this, I would rather avoid speaking with you any further, as to avoid giving the appearance of bullying someone who deserves nothing but respect.
