There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

[Sunsettommy]

No one is waiting. I think you can assume that the PhDs that wrote the paper are familiar with high school mathematics.

The chart makes clear he is quack since he merged data with divergent resolution values into a single temperature history which fools like you fall so often on.

Since you don't what the resolution of the proxy data is......

the paper isn't worth shit.

 

[Crick]

The chart makes clear he is quack since he merged data with divergent resolution values into a single temperature history which fools like you fall so often on.

Are you unable to read the legend?

Since you don't what the resolution of the proxy data is......

the paper isn't worth shit.

The source of that graph is a media release from the Oeschger Center for Climate Research (yes, that Oeschger), part of the University of Berlin. The authors and title are: Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

So, while you think it isn't worth shit, Nature magazine published it. Guess whose opinion I'm going to go with...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you unable to read the legend?

The source of that graph is a media release from the Oeschger Center for Climate Research (yes, that Oeschger), part of the University of Berlin. The authors and title are: Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

So, while you think it isn't worth shit, Nature magazine published it. Guess whose opinion I'm going to go with...

Naure has stooped to publishing for the gate keepers. Not much they publish these days has ethical center or follow the standards of scientific method. It is truly sad how so many people have been duped by the phrase "Published in a Journal". 40 years ago that meant something, not so much today. Now shoddy work is promoted by the establishment parrots, and it is never called out. Most PhD's today blog their own work and keep their circles fairly wide of those they respect. The "journals" are nothing more than the enquirer for science.

 

[Crick]

Naure has stooped to publishing for the gate keepers.

Where have you been published Dr Boy?

Not much they publish these days has ethical center or follow the standards of scientific method. It is truly sad how so many people have been duped by the phrase "Published in a Journal". 40 years ago that meant something, not so much today. Now shoddy work is promoted by the establishment parrots, and it is never called out. Most PhD's today blog their own work and keep their circles fairly wide of those they respect. The "journals" are nothing more than the enquirer for science.

I agree that most PhDs put material on the net. But researchers that don't get published (and cited) don't keep their jobs.

 

[Mac-7]

And unfortunately, many other 2nd and 3rd world nations are emitters of excessive CO 2 as per global elites dictums. And we are the suckers paying for the false green technologies that will eventually come however the Prog Socialists need to take credit no matter how many really die.

It helps if you can saturate western minds with feelings of guilt over colonialism and racial injustice

If successfully brainwashed lib greenies will do incredibly stupid and harmful things to themselves using the ruse of saving the planet

 

[Sunsettommy]

Are you unable to read the legend?

The source of that graph is a media release from the Oeschger Center for Climate Research (yes, that Oeschger), part of the University of Berlin. The authors and title are: Neukom, R., Steiger, Nathan, Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Wang, J., & Werner, J. P. (2019). No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the pre-industrial Common Era. Nature, DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2

So, while you think it isn't worth shit, Nature magazine published it. Guess whose opinion I'm going to go with...

I saw that paper early on you drip!

That is WHY I have asked what the Proxy RESOLUTION are, and you keep avoiding it which means you don't know and since anyone who is rational knows Proxies are NEVER annual data points (Often 20 years or higher at a time) that chart is crap as it merges divergent resolution datapoints into a single chart.

It is clear you are stupid as shit!

 

[jc456]

Are you unable to read the legend

You didn’t read his post. He said you combined them. Do you know what that means? Correction, the one who made the graph combined them

 

[Billy_Bob]

The chart makes clear he is quack since he merged data with divergent resolution values into a single temperature history which fools like you fall so often on.

Since you don't what the resolution of the proxy data is......

the paper isn't worth shit.

You nailed it. The Michael Mann school of Graphing Deception...

They are using the same deceptive means here that Mann used in his hokey schtick. People not well versed in science wouldn't know what they are looking at, using their ignorance against them. That is how they sold this lie in the first place. This time we are speaking up about the deceptions.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You didn’t read his post. He said you combined them. Do you know what that means?

Actually, it was the PHD dude who made that gross error, Crick simply swallowed it whole out of ignorance.

 

[jc456]

You nailed it. The Michael Mann school of Graphing Deception...

They are using the same deceptive means here that Mann used in his hokey schtick. People not well versed in science wouldn't know what they are looking at, using their ignorance against them. That is how they sold this lie in the first place. This time we are speaking up about the deceptions.

That’s why it is intentional. They know over 50% won’t catch it. And then argue that we’re out of touch. Gaslighting

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually, it was the PHD dude who made that gross error, Crick simply swallowed it whole out of ignorance.

And to think that GROSS ERROR made it past the publication review as did Mann's deception. That alone tells us that being published in a Journal means exactly squat.. Right agenda, Right lie, and no one will call you out and it gets published.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Where have you been published Dr Boy?

I agree that most PhDs put material on the net. But researchers that don't get published (and cited) don't keep their jobs.

You mean those who do not toe the line and comply get fired... That is why it is called GATE KEEPING... fear will keep the locals in line. That is NOT SCIENCE! That sir, is coercion. And that is exactly what we are calling out.

 

[jc456]

You mean those who do not toe the line and comply get fired... That is why it is called GATE KEEPING... fear will keep the locals in line. That is NOT SCIENCE! That sir, is coercion. And that is exactly what we are calling out.

Correct, collusion

 

[Billy_Bob]

Correct, collusion

Collusion means they are doing it willingly. Coercion means they are doing under duress not of their own free will.

I am sure there are many who are colluding but the majority are being forced into this out of fear for their very jobs and livelihoods. Have you noticed when PhD's retire and are no longer restrained by the fear of losing their jobs, the views they point out are not in the favor of the GW scam?

 

[Sunsettommy]

The we are doomed cultist has run away failing to answer a simple valid question about the RESOLUTION of the data of the paper he is so enamored with because it meets his delusions and the lie of no MWP and LIA which is a classic sign of a cultist who ignores long held and accepted facts of their existence and all over the planet by numerous published papers.

 

[Crick]

The we are doomed cultist has run away failing to answer a simple valid question about the RESOLUTION of the data of the paper he is so enamored with because it meets his delusions and the lie of no MWP and LIA which is a classic sign of a cultist who ignores long held and accepted facts of their existence and all over the planet by numerous published papers.

I have to go somewhere so I'll have to make this short. You are really, REALLY, REALLY STOOOOOOOOOPID. I'll have you for a late lunch when I get back.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have to go somewhere so I'll have to make this short. You are really, REALLY, REALLY STOOOOOOOOOPID. I'll have you for a late lunch when I get back.

Translation: I don't know the answer to the Resolution question thus I scream at you to try confusing you.



Confusion and failure are all yours pal!

 

[abu afak]

Actually, it was the PHD dude who made that gross error, Crick simply swallowed it whole out of ignorance.

I've Outed you on THREE ERRORS IN THREE DAYS.
Which is why you have me on 'Faux Ignore.'
You have gotten Destroyed.

`

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've Outed you on THREE ERRORS IN THREE DAYS.
Which is why you have me on 'Faux Ignore.'
You have gotten Destroyed.

`

`

Your three responses are OPINON and not of fact. You can't even tell the difference between the two.

SO while we're on the subject of deceptions tell me how a 50-year point plot, a 5-year point plot, and a yearly point plot are all shown on the same graphing and why that is a deception. As you are defending it, you will not answer this truthfully, If we plotted the 1 and 5 year data points to allow proper context, we would have to take 50 of the one-year data points and average them to get the one 50 year plot point, The 5 year would require ten be averaged to create the one 50 year plot point. Your "emergency" vanishes when the context of the graph is put in its proper form. This is why AGW is fraud. they tack on plots, out of context, to make it appear as if there is a problem. This is not science, this is outright fraud.

 

[mamooth]

And yet Plymouth Rock still sits at sea level. Zero rise in what 3-400 yrs.

The quick summary: Plymouth Rock was last moved in 1921, and it's regularly underwater at high tide now.

Fact Check-Plymouth Rock cannot provide an accurate measure of sea level

Plymouth Rock, the place where William Bradford and other pilgrims are popularly believed to have made first landfall in what is now the United States, is not a benchmark of sea-level rise and does not prove that modern ocean-level rise driven by human-led climate change...

www.reuters.com