>>14165295I came in a thread about a subject which interests me, I asked to hear more about a particular field of climate change. Anyone not interested to discuss that subject could ignore my post. Nobody who initially answered my post treated it as trolling. I downloaded and read the massive document which was linked to me, as evidenced by the fact that I quote it, provide the page number for the quote, and by this method I successfully confirm the opinion of the person who posted it, which is that "orbital forcing" is their primary answer to my question. They could just have said that but didn't and I expended honest efforts to understand their claim.
Confirming their answer to be primarily about global forcing allowed further discussion about its perceived validity. The wikipedia article, which I do not claim to necessarily contain any definitive truths, at least showcase that orbital forcing is not universally considered to be fully understood. I was given an answer, wished to confirm that it is not contested, and confirmed that it was, at least in some capacity. My curiosity is natural. What followed was me simply asking about personal choice of hypothesis for plugging the holes in orbital forcing. I met additional strange communication barriers, being told there are no discrepancies, that they exist but are already plugged, and pointing to an unproven simulated conjecture as the source of that answer, a conjecture mentioned in the link I provided myself where it is not treated as hard evidence. My final impression is that global forcing is not universally considered to be fully understood and that this subject creates intense hostility that is rather uncalled for.
With that said, in what capacity am I trolling here?
