Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
well know that if the observed isn't what crock wants to see, then the observed is wrong not the models.Greenland Ice thicker than ever . Bit like you Crock .
See last sentence in my recently published Master Topic on the staggering temperature decrease in western Antarctica .
Where you desperately showed some bum info based on laughable models .
The old Crock is .luiza , what's fake?
ok, was trying to figure that out.The old Crock is .
One of these old fashioned fake science afficianados addicted to IPCC false science , using models that never work .
Has failed to notice the energy effect of the Sun which dwarfs puny efforts by us to pollute and harm our planet .
The only thing statistically invalid in that graph is the connection between proxy and instrumented data and that is only because he's being a stickler. The instrumented data are valid. The proxy data are valid. You act as if Marcott had said the whole thing was a lie. Try again.
Let's see a fucking link.
The hot spot has been found by at least four different groups and was meaningless in regard to AGW in any case. ANY form of warming should produce a tropospheric hot spot. It's absence didn't refute AGW. It said that either no warming factor would produce a hot spot or that it wasn't being seen.
You are such a liar.
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.
I have never challenged what Marcott said. I have challenged your apparent assumption that Marcott was saying the entire dataset was faulty. He could have left the instrument data completely off the thing. It was irrelevant and can be had from a dozen different sources.
I have never challenged what Marcott said. I have challenged your apparent assumption that Marcott was saying the entire dataset was faulty. He could have left the instrument data completely off the thing. It was irrelevant and can be had from a dozen different sources.
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.
A more famous shelf collapse:
That is the first poetry anyone has ever written in my honor. What can I say?To unwitting Troll Crock
Occasionally we all get a Crick in the neck .
But Crock is a Crick in the brain and the neck .
Take up a hobby Crock .
Collect crockery -- cracked Meissen , Spode and Royal Albert .
Or clocks -- Crick , crock , cuckoo .
W. Shakespeare , As You Like It
Joking aside, the re-shelving, alone, would be expensive. But making the shelves again, first, wouldn’t be cheap either.That is one fucking incredible video. I wonder what the total price tag was.
Any idea what was in those boxes?Joking aside, the re-shelving, alone, would be expensive. But making the shelves again, first, wouldn’t be cheap either.
Never found out.Any idea what was in those boxes?
and here is what Marcott Said Most Recently for the Third or Fourth Time.I posted the evidence numerous times already which you IGNORED because you can't address it!
Here is what Marcott stated about that red uptick for the 20th time:
LINK
Your propensity to lie is well known after all I corrected you on this around 20 times already.
and here is what Marcott Said Most Recently for the Third or Fourth Time.
So you are knowingly LYING hoping I'm not around.
Yes and I REFUTED you AS ALWAYS re Marcott as you were using OBSOLETE Citations.
How about Marcott 2021 ? (not 2013, NOT pre 2009 decades)
- NATURE PODCAST
10 November 2021 NatureClimate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate
Reassessing 24,000 years of global temperatures, and on the ground at COP26.
[......]
Interviewee: Shaun Marcott
"..The past record provides perspective. Papers like this basically point out, just at the very basic level, what has happened before and where we are in that context and where we’re heading towards. In a Prior paper that we had, we said statistically we don’t really know if today is any warmer than what we call the warm period of the last 10,000 years.
This paper has said actually, We’ve Left what was Normal.
That’s an important perspective to have when you think about where We’re off to, considering these Temperatures that we’re Trajecting towards, as far we know, we Haven’t seen in 50 Million years or so, and the world was a lot Different then."".
[......]
Nature
Climate special: the past and future of the Earth's climate
- - - -
Sunset Tommy cannot even debate Climate!
He Dumps an article from somewhere (like WTFUWT) and says: ""You must refute this paper or you lose.""
WUWT Tommy himself is NOT EVEN CONVERSANT on the topic, and unlike me cannot lay out his position AND/OR why.
He put me on IGNORE after my SIX attempts to make him explain his position on warming and whether and if it was even warming at all.
He could Not!!
He prefers the motor mouth Crick who Unlike me doesn't Crush him with 100%/180° Rebuttal as I just did above AGAIN using his own source: Marcott.
(He Fallaciously/ posted COLD WEATHER DAYS in Skooker's anti-Science "Skeptics Winning" thread as if it was Not warming, but in fact cooling.)
So here Again: ANOTHER SUNSET for TOMMY.
`
Here is what Marcott said more recently for the 2oth Time.I posted the evidence numerous times already which you IGNORED because you can't address it
[b ]Here is what Marcott stated about that red uptick for the 20th time:[/b]
LINK
Your propensity to lie is well known after all I corrected you on this around 20 times already.
Good..Great! We are finally coming out of the latest ice age again for about the 7th time since the start of the Quaternary Period!
Oh Heck .That is the first poetry anyone has ever written in my honor. What can I say?
