Marcott2013

[IanC]

All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.

How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.

You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?

And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well.

The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.

His paper is valid. End of story.

Are you saying that Marcott lied in the RC FAQ? He said no valid conclusions could be derived from the modern portion.

Which is it? Did he lie at the beginning or after he was caught? It has to be one or the other.

 

[orogenicman]

Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.

I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?

Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.

You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?

And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well.

The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.

His paper is valid. End of story.

Are you saying that Marcott lied in the RC FAQ? He said no valid conclusions could be derived from the modern portion.

Which is it? Did he lie at the beginning or after he was caught? It has to be one or the other.

Zzzzz.

 

[IanC]

Run away and hide. That is your typical response when you cannot answer the straightforward question.

 

[orogenicman]

Run away and hide. That is your typical response when you cannot answer the straightforward question.

You put words in my mouth and expect me to stay awake for it? Oh dear.

 

[IanC]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you a pointed direct question. Which version of Marcott's story is the correct one? Early on when he agreed that his study showed warming unheard of in thousands of years, or the later version when he said his study did not show pertinent information on the 20th century. Do you care to answer?

 

[orogenicman]

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am asking you a pointed direct question. Which version of Marcott's story is the correct one? Early on when he agreed that his study showed warming unheard of in thousands of years, or the later version when he said his study did not show pertinent information on the 20th century. Do you care to answer?

Look, most scientists are pretty smart. They know how to read scientific papers. Then modern data included in his paper wasn't particularly robust, and wasn't meant to be. But it wasn't contrary to anything that has been published before. In other words, the uptick in modern temperatures is there whether the resolution is high or low. You can't get around this fact.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

Since you couldn't counter what the "message therapist" wrote about does this mean you are unable to overcome such a man?

By the way look up the word POLYMATH.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Louisville and a Masters of Science degree from the University of Kentucky. I was a registered geologist for 15 years before I became disabled. From 1990 to 2003 I was an environmental consultant. Clients included The States of Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida, Chevron, BP, Shell, Ashland Petroleum, Enro Marketing, which is a subsidiary of Marathon, Marathon, Caterpillar, the City of Louisville, and many others. I've written over 400 proprietary environmental reports (though many are accessible via FOIA request with various agencies). I am also published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and in the Journal of the Louisville Museum of Natural History (now the Louisville science Center). And two of my astrophotographs were published today in the Courier Journal newspaper in relation to an article about the Louisville Astronomical Society's 80th anniversary, of which I am currently a board member and have been a member since 1984. That's the reality here, gslack.



Right, as opposed to McIntyre, who holds no advanced degree in any field whatsoever, holds no science certifications, and is not published in any recognized peer reviewed journal. Next.

So, you think having a science degree automatically exclude people who didn't have such a degree like Harland Bretz, Otto Wegener Clyde Tombaugh and Milton Humason from making discoveries OUTSIDE of their fields of expertise?

What about Henrietta Leavitt?

That is really snobbish of you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

He is still a political scientist, not a real scientist. Next.

Yawn your snobbery is really boring, you post Marcott's link but you show no evidence that you read it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Zzzzz.

This is why your credibility went from 100 to 10 in just a few pages in the thread you ignored the low-resolution level of the proxies that IanC and Flacaltenn brought up and you ignored Marcott's statement that the blade isn't valid.

The paper isn't robust enough to support their outlandish claims made on it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are still quoting Pielke? Oh dear.

If Pielke (a PhD in Political Science) is so sure that his objections have a scientific basis, why doesn't he publish them in a peer reviewed science publication? Why has NONE of your deniers done so?

Your snobbery is so dumb that I am going to show what a High Schooler did what Professional Astronomers failed after several decades of looking, I am talking about Clyde Tombaugh who was hired in the fall of 1929 to do some photographs and blinking of the plates in the search for the mysterious body that became known as Pluto.

He searched differently a after a few days realizing he would have a better chance to find it by going into the deepest part of its possible orbit calculation which then took him just three months to find it when he took over the blinking part to discover he had found it in January 1930.

This same Kansas boy also discovered the Cluster of Galaxies years before when he tried to show the evidence to Edwin Hubbell who ignored it because...... Tombaugh didn't have a PHD in his back pocket that's right he was a victim of Hubbel's snobbishness which was later eventually officially discovered by Geoge Abell in the 1950's.

Yup just a hick farmer from Kansas discovered the trans Neptunian object in just 3 months after many Professional Astronomers failed after years of looking.

He built several Telescope and mirrors all by himself and so impressed Lowel Observatory on the quality of Jupiter Mars sketches he made using his 9" Telescope who figured his mirrors by digging a mirror test set up trench 24' long and 8' deep and 7' wide.

But YOU would say he isn't qualified because he is a 23-year-old skinny hillbilly Kansas farm boy with a High School degree.

Shall I talk about Milton Humason next?

You diminish yourself when you talk that way and disappoint me because of your education you posted which is why expected better from you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Look, most scientists are pretty smart. They know how to read scientific papers. Then modern data included in his paper wasn't particularly robust, and wasn't meant to be. But it wasn't contrary to anything that has been published before. In other words, the uptick in modern temperatures is there whether the resolution is high or low. You can't get around this fact.

Gee you don't seem to be that smart because a simple question IanC asked was too hard for you to answer.

 

[westwall]

Gee you don't seem to be that smart because a simple question IanC asked was too hard for you to answer.

Quite the necro thread. Oreoboi was clearly a sock, probably for trader, who was also most likely a sock, either way, the thread died because, like most warmers, they lied, and when caught they fled.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Quite the necro thread. Oreoboi was clearly a sock, probably for trader, who was also most likely a sock, either way, the thread died because, like most warmers, they lied, and when caught they fled.

I get irritated when I encounter prevaricating snobs who doesn't show significant indication of alleged training then to evade IanC like that was pathetic.

Too bad IanC left he was a credit to the science area with his strong civility on display.

threegoofs is just as useless and stupid at another forum who finally got a moderator unhappy slapped hard for his endless trolling in the science threads. Longview a 40 year science veteran might have finally turned him in.

You were Moderator then he was able to hide his identity on you?

 

[westwall]

I get irritated when I encounter prevaricating snobs who doesn't show significant indication of alleged training then to evade IanC like that was pathetic.

Too bad IanC left he was a credit to the science area with his strong civility on display.

threegoofs is just as useless and stupid at another forum who finally got a moderator unhappy slapped hard for his endless trolling in the science threads. Longview a 40 year science veteran might have finally turned him in.

You were Moderator then he was able to hide his identity on you?

Yeah, I could never pin him down because he used proxy IPs

 

[Crick]

Early on in this thread, several posters suggested that Marcotte would be withdrawing his paper. That has not happened. The original paper has now been cited over 1,400 times. So, who won this debate?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yeah, I could never pin him down because he used proxy IPs

If they are from Korea, China, Russia and other places where non-English-speaking people would not bother coming here is someone evading you.

I would have blocked such people at WUWT because it is against blog policy to allow them through the front door along with a valid e-mail that should be from the same country, they really live in.

David Appell (who was long banned) kept coming into the blog over and over this way until I became Moderator 5 years ago when I figured out how to slow him way down to a trickle his style of posting always gives him away haven't seen him a year now must has gotten tired of being discovered so quickly and the other Mods getting up to speed on the unreliability of roving IPS.

 

[ding]

Seems like that was predicted too .

A retraction doesn't matter. Idiots like thunder and siagon will be posting that rediculous graph till the hoax completely implodes and the present crop of climate scientists have taken to the tall grass in order to avoid justice.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Early on in this thread, several posters suggested that Marcotte would be withdrawing his paper. That has not happened. The original paper has now been cited over 1,400 times. So, who won this debate?

His THESIS paper is good, but the later contrived uptick damaged the paper again you overlook what Marcott says about it:

Marcott said:

"20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Stop being a fool, Crick!

 

[Crick]

Seems like that was predicted too .

The "Uptick" is based on the instrumental record and is completely robust. What is it you think his merger of the proxy and the instrument data did to the validity of that graphic or the claims in his conclusion?