Willie Soon paid to deny climate change

[threegoofs]

Really, Kosh? Your proof that the Hockey stick is non-science is? More than a dozen studies in differant nations using differant proxies, with differant researchers has backed up Dr. Mann. All you have is flap-yappers like you spewing nonsense and vitriol.

Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

 

[jc456]

Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

dude, you know, I just have to laugh at the inability of you all to read. There's a really big word in what you just posted. Can you find it? Here I'll help it begins with re- has the word construction following it. So I don't need any paper, I have the quality reporting by the likes of libs in here.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

So the words "models show" or "models indicate" are just a figment of my imagination...

 

[threegoofs]

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

So the words "models show" or "models indicate" are just a figment of my imagination...

I'm sure those words exist somewhere. Not in regards to these papers tho.

It's so fun when I don't have to actually point out that you are a blithering idiot, because you just demonstrate it so clearly.

 

[IanC]

Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

So the words "models show" or "models indicate" are just a figment of my imagination...

I'm sure those words exist somewhere. Not in regards to these papers tho.

It's so fun when I don't have to actually point out that you are a blithering idiot, because you just demonstrate it so clearly.

The only blithering idiot is you... but thanks for pointing out that you have no ethical scientific standards. You will say anything, even if untrue, to make your point.

 

[threegoofs]

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

LOL.

I'm sure there are lots of threads here that say that.

There are also threads that say 911 was done by aliens.

Notice how the roaches scatter when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

 

[threegoofs]

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

So the words "models show" or "models indicate" are just a figment of my imagination...

I'm sure those words exist somewhere. Not in regards to these papers tho.

It's so fun when I don't have to actually point out that you are a blithering idiot, because you just demonstrate it so clearly.

The only blithering idiot is you... but thanks for pointing out that you have no ethical scientific standards. You will say anything, even if untrue, to make your point.

Found that paper yet, dumkopf?

Or are you still learning the difference between a model snd a study?

 

[IanC]

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

LOL.

I'm sure there are lots of threads here that say that.

There are also threads that say 911 was done by aliens.

Notice how the roaches scatter when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

Again...have you actually bothered to look at the proxies used in any of these papers?

They are posted here at USMB. All you have to do is look.

 

[IanC]

Hockey Sticks are not Science. That why it disappeared.. Anyone claiming otherwise is a true climate denier, like the AGW cult.

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

 

[threegoofs]

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

LOL.

I'm sure there are lots of threads here that say that.

There are also threads that say 911 was done by aliens.

Notice how the roaches scatter when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

Again...have you actually bothered to look at the proxies used in any of these papers?

They are posted here at USMB. All you have to do is look.

Yes. They are certainly posted by amateurs on an anonymous message board.

That's about all you have.

I think I'll stick with the scientific papers.

 

[threegoofs]

Disappeared?

It's been replicated multiple times.

It's been persistent in the scientific literature ever since Mann was published in 1998, and with projects like PAGES 2K, it's been confirmed worldwide with many, many more proxies and much deeper in time.

The only people who deny it are...denier blogs.

View attachment 52840

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

 

[bripat9643]

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

Funny how the left relates to WUWT being the most viewed and the most debated site on the net which hosts the likes of many Harvard and Stanford PHD's on many areas of climate science, atmospheric sciences and modeling. I'm sure the like of Dr Robert Brown and Dr Lief Salvagard among many others like Dr Tim Ball are just nobodies in their world..

 

[IanC]

Too funny:

Over and over and over again it has been debunked and shown fraud.. SO you like to push fraud and deceit as science?

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

Hmmm...are you saying that the proxies I posted are NOT from Marcott 2013? They were taken directly from the SI of the paper.

 

[threegoofs]

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

 

[threegoofs]

Debunked where, exactly.

Please reference the journal paper.

Yes, please reference the journal paper that debunked it Billy.

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

Hmmm...are you saying that the proxies I posted are NOT from Marcott 2013? They were taken directly from the SI of the paper.

I could care less.

Asked for a scientific source refuting the paper, and you post amateur analysis.

 

[jc456]

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

LOL.

I'm sure there are lots of threads here that say that.

There are also threads that say 911 was done by aliens.

Notice how the roaches scatter when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

Again...have you actually bothered to look at the proxies used in any of these papers?

They are posted here at USMB. All you have to do is look.

Yes. They are certainly posted by amateurs on an anonymous message board.

That's about all you have.

I think I'll stick with the scientific papers.

What papers is it that you wish to see? Peer reviewed? Hahahahaha you know what those are right? Good old boy club work which have no value. They all agree with each other. Funny though, they're useless.

 

[bripat9643]

Its called empirical observed evidence.. Those pesky facts you wont address unless they are homogenized and fabricated through your failed models...

Your appeal to authority is an EPIC FAIL.. As is that new paper which is premised on a MODEL.. You idiots are basing your assumption on a SWAG... (Yes a model is only a scientific wild ass guess, fantasy land, Models which fail empirical review)

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Here are thumbnails of the first 25 proxies used in Marcott 2013. I can assure you the other 48 are no better. The idea that past global temps can be identified to a tenth of a degree with error bars of similar magnitude is ridiculous at best.

This is irrelevant to the string you posted.

Congrats for posting someone else's data and telling us all how it's not good. Anonymous message boards all around the world are impressed.

What's Up With That is hardly an anonymous message board.

But it's not their data, is it?

It's also not a scientific journal.

It's a bunch of deniers. Just like this section of USMB.

Of course it's not their data. It's the Voo Doo promoted by the AGW cult. The whole point was showing how ludicrous their claims are based on their data.

The liars are all members the AGW cult. They've been caught lying time after time after time.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, the 'EPIC FAIL' is yours.... because none of the papers referenced is referencing 'models'. A model, as it applies to climate science, is the projection of future climate events based upon known variables.

This is a paleoclimate reconstruction.

Thanks for proving that you are dumber than a doorstop when it comes to this stuff.

Have you ever looked at the proxies used to make these reconstructions? They are all over the board. And they are the ones chosen to be included!!

And there is a great deal of modeling done to tease out a weak signal. Which is then presented as a narrow line with unrealistically small error bars.

There are threads here that show the many weaknesses of Marcott, Shakun, etc. Faith in multiproxy reconstructions as anything more than a general possibility is unwarranted.

LOL.

I'm sure there are lots of threads here that say that.

There are also threads that say 911 was done by aliens.

Notice how the roaches scatter when I ask for a SCIENTIFIC PAPER.

Again...have you actually bothered to look at the proxies used in any of these papers?

They are posted here at USMB. All you have to do is look.

Yes. They are certainly posted by amateurs on an anonymous message board.

That's about all you have.

I think I'll stick with the scientific papers.

What papers is it that you wish to see? Peer reviewed? Hahahahaha you know what those are right? Good old boy club work which have no value. They all agree with each other. Funny though, they're useless.

"Peer reviewed" would more accurately be called "pal reviewed," because one member of their tight little club is always reviewing a paper by another pal in the club.