Oh, c'mon, we can't let him win!
For his own ammission, he didn't read a word of the scientifical souces provided. He posted only that article that was saying the opposite of what he was thinking (the scientists saying the reports of the robots was a phenomenon to study and broaden, him thinking that it was the great proof of "there is not heat" - also while I had provided articles showing that some local cooling being irrelevant).
As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists
lie and
don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon, because they fear the other childr... ehm the peer review
(Not to sound rude myself too, licker, that's just random thoughts)
