I did respond in a way that you could see as picking a fight and yes he linked it to climate change but his comment was also statistical. As I said to you his conclusions may have been flawed but the comment about more flights leading to more incidents not automatically wrong.
you attacked him and quite belligerently. Maybe I shouldn’t have reacted as strongly but this was my first response
goodness. Read what he wrote and debate that not your faulty interpretation. Even the graph is clear. question I have on the research is what data sources were used to determine turbulence. Because unless they keep records on turbulence at different altitudes quite separately from and aircraft incident reports it’s impossible to draw conclusions from it that aren’t connected to flight frequency
and there was room in the response to add to the information
this was the second response based on your comment which made meaning of his post that was not there
as to giving me advice - who on earth do you think you are? You do realise the arrogance of that statement. Utter arrogance. You don’t know me. You don’t know my background and you are in no position to give me advice. It’s a version of mansplaining and it’s remarkably inappropriate
And btw I don’t think I’ve noticed you have any ability to back away. If you keep telling me what to do, I will respond. What makes you think I should back off?
