Marcott2013

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?
What was predicted early in this thread was "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."
 
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?

Marcott doesn't agree with you why resort to LYING 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."

LOL
 
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?



Not according to the author.
 
Did Marcotte say that his conclusions were unsupported or in error?

:muahaha: :muahaha: :muahaha:

"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."

:muahaha: :muahaha: :muahaha:
 
Last edited:
:muahaha: :muahaha: :muahaha:

"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."

:muahaha: :muahaha: :muahaha:
Yes, that quote was directly above. I assumed that couldn't be the author's statement to which he referred since it counters nothing in my statement. So, again, what is the problem you all seem to believe was caused in Marcotte's conclusion by the merger of his proxy and a dozen other people's instrumental data?
 
Yes, that quote was directly above. I assumed that couldn't be the author's statement to which he referred since it counters nothing in my statement. So, again, what is the problem you all seem to believe was caused in Marcotte's conclusion by the merger of his proxy and a dozen other people's instrumental data?

Your blindness keeps you from understanding this from Marcott himself.

"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."

He is talking about that giant uptick nothing more how can that be so hard for YOU to understand?
 
I have read it. He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.
 
I have read it. He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.



Oh, on which planet is that? Or are you unaware that things get updated? You know, once upon a time it was thought the Earth was flat, but now we know better.
 
Then show me the quote. The comments you've all been pasting around do NOT say any such thing.
 
I have read it. He does NOT say his conclusions are in error or unsupported.

But you DON"T think rationally with it here it is again:

"He is talking about that giant uptick nothing more how can that be so hard for YOU to understand?"

Read the red words several times maybe you finally get the freaking obvious.

Already stated several times that his THESIS paper (which doesn't have that bogus uptick in it) is good but the resolution is at least 60 years to 300 years (According to Marcott himself) which is WHY grafting a yearly resolution rate temperature data onto the end of it is for science illiterates like you to have a hard on over.

You have serious brain problems here?
 
Oh, on which planet is that? Or are you unaware that things get updated? You know, once upon a time it was thought the Earth was flat, but now we know better.

The stupid fuck has been given the links to what Marcott said several times, but he keeps ignoring what Marcott himself stated about the uptick part of the paper.

"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."

He isn't talking about his entire paper just the TWENTIETH CENTURY part of the chart!

:cuckoo:
 
The stupid fuck has been given the links to what Marcott said several times, but he keeps ignoring what Marcott himself stated about the uptick part of the paper.

"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."

He isn't talking about his entire paper just the TWENTIETH CENTURY part of the chart!

:cuckoo:


Crick is a bot.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top