Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.
I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.
They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.
But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.
The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.
Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..
Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods. I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.
There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
God bless them all.
It astounds me how often deniers think they've found something that will upset the rest of the world (ie, the folks who follow mainstream science), This will bite alarmists in the ass. This willl make them gnash their teeth. This will make them howl. This will make them shit a brick. This will make them foam at the mouth.
The truth is, you've never found shit that makes any difference to anyone. This is the sort of babbling you get from someone who really has absolutely nothing with which to defend or justify the views he's chosen to hold.
Bad choice on your part.
It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.
The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.
Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.
If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.
Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.
i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
'Blown up'. By bloggers?There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
God bless them all.
Mann was a newly minted PhD when he created the hockey stick using novel methodologies that weren't vetted by statisticians. Climate science was very pleased to turn existing theory on its head, and ring the alarmist bell.
Marcott13 came on the heels of the Gergis12 fiasco where the newest hockey stick was blown up in weeks instead of years, and withdrawn AFTER full acceptance but before actual publication in the journal. Marcott13 was essentially Marcott's PhD thesis with a hockey stick blade tacked on the end with help from Shakun and Mann.
Two new PhDs, trying to make reputations, using shoddy methods to overstate their findings so that they would get press time.
threegoofs image is from a RealClimate post trying to support Marcott13 from withering criticism. It is an amalgam of Shakun, Marcott, HADCrut, and a temperature projection out to 2100.
threegoofs considers anyone who cannot see the change from red to dark orange as colorblind. Hahahahaha. What say you smart phone users? Are you colorblind? Perhaps the better question would be why RealClimate chose to use nearly identical shades to represent both real(ish) and hypothetical temperatures.
'Blown up'. By bloggers?There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
God bless them all.
Mann was a newly minted PhD when he created the hockey stick using novel methodologies that weren't vetted by statisticians. Climate science was very pleased to turn existing theory on its head, and ring the alarmist bell.
Marcott13 came on the heels of the Gergis12 fiasco where the newest hockey stick was blown up in weeks instead of years, and withdrawn AFTER full acceptance but before actual publication in the journal. Marcott13 was essentially Marcott's PhD thesis with a hockey stick blade tacked on the end with help from Shakun and Mann.
Two new PhDs, trying to make reputations, using shoddy methods to overstate their findings so that they would get press time.
Mann went on to get a Distinguished Professor post at a very young age because of his impressive work, and his papers are well cited to this day.
It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.
The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.
Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.
If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.
Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.
i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
'Blown up'. By bloggers?There's a reason they're experts and you're NOT. A life time of study and hard work!
God bless them all.
Mann was a newly minted PhD when he created the hockey stick using novel methodologies that weren't vetted by statisticians. Climate science was very pleased to turn existing theory on its head, and ring the alarmist bell.
Marcott13 came on the heels of the Gergis12 fiasco where the newest hockey stick was blown up in weeks instead of years, and withdrawn AFTER full acceptance but before actual publication in the journal. Marcott13 was essentially Marcott's PhD thesis with a hockey stick blade tacked on the end with help from Shakun and Mann.
Two new PhDs, trying to make reputations, using shoddy methods to overstate their findings so that they would get press time.
Mann went on to get a Distinguished Professor post at a very young age because of his impressive work, and his papers are well cited to this day.
Who blew it up then?
Did the authors find their mistakes independently?
It astounds me that morons like you think that you are still somehow talking about "science". Couldn't be further from the truth. AGW alarmist claptrap is about politics (and the accumulation of power) and money (name;y the rich getting super rich by turning the middle class into serfs.
The video below is by a NOAA meteorologist he lays it out pretty well. Sorry for the length though.
Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.
If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.
Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.
i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.
If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.
Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
No, it reflect completely on you. You're a propagandist. Probably paid to spew your masters poo. But poo it still is.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
No, it reflect completely on you. You're a propagandist. Probably paid to spew your masters poo. But poo it still is.
Speaking of pooh, I have been trying to figure out who's sock puppet threegoofs is. The pooh flinging monkey is an obvious suspect.
Again, I appreciate you think I'm a professional. Considering your analysis is amateur, I understand your confusion.Funny. All your 'references' are from blogs.
If you understood science, you'd understand that real science is done in journals and, to a lesser extent, at conferences.
Not blogs, or TV shows. Or you tube.
They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
No, it reflect completely on you. You're a propagandist. Probably paid to spew your masters poo. But poo it still is.
the fact is, you don't need to be a scientist to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It just doesn't. Funny, they still can't ever produce a piece of fact. Even their temperature sets are fudged. It's hilarious these clowns.Ian,
how often does Science call you up and ask you to review a submission?
I love these bull shit appeals to authority.. Are you implying that others are not capable of reviewing these works and showing them garbage?
I know Judith Curry did, and she agrees with us. So what now?Got a citation on that? From a scientific journal? (and the Journal of Pulling Things Out of Your Ass isnt acceptable).Marcott's reconstructions are garbage!Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
bullshit artist, you bet we believe you are a professional for sure. Other than that, you have no idea about science, you show that in every post.Again
Again, I appreciate you think I'm a professional. Considering your analysis is amateur, I understand your confusion.They are now. The Journals have been corrupted. Sad, but true.
That's the talk of conspiracy theorists and idiots.
You don't like the conclusions, so you pretend the science has been corrupted.
No, that's factual. Those emails were very illuminating.i understand you have no idea what I'm talking about. That reflects more upon you than me.Actually, I'm well aware of what Marcott stated.
I'm also aware that a spike in temperatures that we are experiencing today would be very noticable in his record, even assuming that spike would also plummet back down to normal temperatures in an equal amount of time, which absolutely NO ONE in science (except possibly an assclown like yourself, who thinks reading denier websites makes him a 'scientist')thinks will happen.
Thats why no one has a problem with Marcotts reconstruction, or, for that matter PAGES 2K, or the other mutliple reconstructions out there. And because of that,virtually every scientific organization on the planet accepts things like AGW as real. And the only people who prattle on about limitations in hockey sticks are guys who cant cite any literature at all, because the only stuff they get are blog posts and fox news reports on climate.
They may think of AGW as real -- but they are not confused between the science that Marcott and Mann did and what the outrageous claims were that were unsupported by the work..
I have NO idea what you're babbling about -- insisting that the Marcott statement doesn't mean what he says..
You would NEVER see a full scale 100 year spike in temperature with that data preparation.. Don't CARE how much "plummeting" to and fro it does. Would be like taking a 50 year average to the Dow record and trying to find the highs and lows.
We now know however that you're incapable of reading any actual technical material and you depend solely on the false impression that everyone in climate science is content and happy with the methods and undisturbed by the hype.. So we got nowhere left to go here if you don't understand what -----
We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer.
I respect Marcott for that honest appraisal.. He was probably appalled at the wild exaggerated claims made for his study by other activists. His only crime is that he tacked on a high resolution modern instrumental record to the very LOW resolution work that he did. Probably to appease the reviewers and the sponsors..
If you don't like that paper, go to PAGES 2K, which showed similar results.
The only people who think this is an issue are denier bloggers.
No, it reflect completely on you. You're a propagandist. Probably paid to spew your masters poo. But poo it still is.
funny, it's been explained to everyone on this forum hundred's of times. Go read, search on Mann and the upside down tree ring.Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.Peer review is like democracy - (ANALOGY ALERT!) : it's the worst system ever invented, except for all others.Peer review has certainly had a lot of black eyes lately. The Gergis paper that went into limbo after being fully accepted was actually a success in a way. Paper that are accepted and printed seldom get retracted in climate science no matter how bad the discovered mistakes. Of course PAGES2K used it anyways.
I'm sure your retracted paper was probably covered by all your denier blogs, but again, a single paper is just a piece of the mountain of evidence that is literally growing monthly.
I find it odd and somewhat disconcerting that mistakes found in climate science papers are handwaved away as unimportant rather than seen as an opportunity to improve the science and future publications.
They certainly are used as opportunities for improvement.
But I find it odd that the deniers seize on this minority of papers often with minor errors and pretend it is generalizable to all of science.
The M&M fiasco with Manns original Nature paper illustrates this in spades.
Mann's Nature paper is a pile of crap. Its been show fraudulent and the data made up.. Gawd you ass clowns are so predictable..
Amazing how a guy can make up data and then have his findings verified independently multiple times by people using totally different methods. I guess thats why he's a Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the #1 ranked school of earth science and you are...some guy who knows how to use emojis.
