Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How deniers view Global Warming...
- Thread starter Billy_Bob
- Start date
Tom Sweetnam
Platinum Member
For the same reasons they killed their other victims: fear, ignorance, and hate.
WOW... total ignorance of Patrick Moore's founding participation in Greenpeace. You must be a rabid reader of SKS or Media Splatters.. They like to mislead people. As for science, you really need to stop playing with models and get back into observational science and facts..For the record I grew up during the time Greenpeace was getting started and Patrick Moore was an integral part of it. Its rather interesting the scrubbing they have done to both the Greenpeace web site and Wikipedia.. Not totally unexpected however. They can not have one of the founders of that movement show them frauds..
Just another of your cult's many lies. That's why nearly the entire planet correctly considers you to be an acolyte of a liars' cult. Of course, you probably don't realize you're repeating lies, given the thoroughness of your brainwashing. And at this point, you're too emotionally invested in all the lies you've been fed, so you'll react with venom at anyone who points out the lies.To start your recovery, you should try looking at actual science, instead of restricting yourself exclusively to your cult's websites. Baby steps.
A fine example of a lie that you've been fed. Moore is not a founder of Greenpeace. Gore Rule invoked. Anyone bringing up Gore forfeits the thread for their side. Better luck in the next thread. Those who can discuss the science, do. Those who can't, they rave about political figures.
Hey ignoramus, warmy bullshit got a 7% rating as to the issues Americans are most concerned about. Your snake oil is dead. Warmy is no more...flushed down the toilet right where it belongs. And Moore's address to the US Senate is just going to nail your coffin lid shut all the quicker. Bye bye, and good riddance..
Exactly. Someone who wants to have an open discussion lets all voices be heard.IT is not a science website.. it is a propaganda website and he is not any form of scientist. WUWT allows both assenting and dissenting opinions as long as they are civil. The fact that Cook deletes all posts not praising his point of view tells the story..The fact the guy deletes comments shows he disingenuous.
So you're upset because a science blog won't let you come in and shit on the carpet. Don't expect any sympathy.
It's not a discussion blog. It's a science website. Dishonest deniers trying to stink up the place with outright fabrications and temper tantrums get their comments deleted. The grownups won't put up with it. If you crybabies have to throw your tantrums somewhere, you can do it here.
elektra
Platinum Member
A moot point, maMOOT.WOW... total ignorance of Patrick Moore's founding participation in Greenpeace. You must be a rabid reader of SKS or Media Splatters.. They like to mislead people. As for science, you really need to stop playing with models and get back into observational science and facts..
Unlike you, I examine the actual evidence. The evidence shows Patrick Moore asking in 1971 if he could join the Don't Make A Wave Committee, which was the name of Greenpeace at the time.
Who Founded Greenpeace Not Patrick Moore. 8211 Greg Laden s Blog
Being that Don't Make a Wave Committee/Greenpeace was founded a year earlier, it's rather hard for Moore to have been a founder.
So, you've been lied to. You can take to task the people who lied to you, or you can rage at me, the messenger. Make your choice.
Unlike you, I also examine the logic. Patrick Moore left Greenpeace and became a paid industry shill in 1986. He shows no ability to think critically. Founder or not, why should anyone value the unsupported opinions of someone who has been a paid shill for polluters for the last 28 years?
founding participation in Greenpeace, is not the same as saying, founder.
Hardly does maMOOT "examine the logic".
maMOOT does not understand the difference in, founding participation and founder.
Brilliant
Exactly. Someone who wants to have an open discussion lets all voices be heard.IT is not a science website.. it is a propaganda website and he is not any form of scientist. WUWT allows both assenting and dissenting opinions as long as they are civil. The fact that Cook deletes all posts not praising his point of view tells the story..The fact the guy deletes comments shows he disingenuous.
So you're upset because a science blog won't let you come in and shit on the carpet. Don't expect any sympathy.
It's not a discussion blog. It's a science website. Dishonest deniers trying to stink up the place with outright fabrications and temper tantrums get their comments deleted. The grownups won't put up with it. If you crybabies have to throw your tantrums somewhere, you can do it here.
WUWT has deleted all three of the comments I put up there.
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian ecologist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an environmental activist from 1971 to 1986. Today he is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies in Vancouver, a consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[3] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[4] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[5]
Greenpeace
According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970.[7] The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. Moore joined the committee in 1971 and, as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.”[8]
Moore traveled to Alaska on advanced research with Jim Bohlen, attending Wave Committee meetings. In 1971, Moore was a member of the crew of the Phyllis Cormack, a chartered fishing boat which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year.Greenpeace was the name given to the boat for the voyage and it would be the first of the many Greenpeace protests.[9] Following the first voyage, key crew members decided to formally change the name of the Don't Make a Wave Committee to the Greenpeace Foundation. These decision makers included founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe as well as Patrick Moore.[10][11]
Following US President Richard Nixon's cancellation of the remaining hydrogen bomb tests planned for Amchitka Island in early 1972, Greenpeace turned its attention to French atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific. In May 1972, Moore traveled to New York with Jim Bohlen and Marie Bohlen to lobby the key United Nations delegations from the Pacific Rim countries involved. Moore then went to Europe together with Ben Metcalfe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Lyle Thurston and Rod Marining where they received an audience with Pope Paul VI and protested at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. In June, they attended the first UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm where they convinced New Zealand to propose a vote condemning French nuclear testing, which passed with a strong majority.[12]
Moore again crewed the Phyllis Cormack in 1975 during the first campaign to save whales, as Greenpeace met the Soviet whaling fleet off the coast of California. During the confrontation, film footage was caught of the Soviet whaling boat firing a harpoon over the heads of Greenpeace members in a Zodiac inflatable and into the back of a female sperm whale.[13] The film footage made the evening news the next day on all three US national networks, initiating Greenpeace's debut on the world media stage, and prompting a swift rise in public support of the charity.[14] Patrick Moore and Bob Hunter appeared on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's talk radio show on KGO and appealed for a lawyer to help them incorporate a branch office in San Francisco and to manage donations. David Tussman, a young lawyer, volunteered to help Moore, Hunter, and Paul Spong set up an office at Fort Mason. The Greenpeace Foundation of America (since changed to Greenpeace USA), then became the major fundraising center for the expansion of Greenpeace worldwide.[15][16]
Presidency of Greenpeace Foundation in Canada[edit]
In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. He inherited an organization that was deeply in debt.[17] Greenpeace organizations began to form throughout North America, including cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada. Moore's presidency and governance style proved controversial. Moore and his chosen board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time David Tussman, together with the rest of the founders, early activists of Greenpeace, and the majority of Greenpeace staff-members announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore's Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.
The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler, and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named Chairman. Moore became President of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK, and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a Director of Greenpeace International.
In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government. He and other directors of Greenpeace International were greeting the ship off the coast of New Zealand on its way to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. Expedition photographer, Fernando Pereira, was killed. Greenpeace's media presence peaked again.[18]
He has sharply and publicly differed with many policies of major environmental groups, such as Greenpeace itself, on other issues including forestry, biotechnology, aquaculture, and the use of chemicals for flame retardants.[3] He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy[4] and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change.[5]
Greenpeace
According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970.[7] The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. Moore joined the committee in 1971 and, as Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.”[8]
Moore traveled to Alaska on advanced research with Jim Bohlen, attending Wave Committee meetings. In 1971, Moore was a member of the crew of the Phyllis Cormack, a chartered fishing boat which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year.Greenpeace was the name given to the boat for the voyage and it would be the first of the many Greenpeace protests.[9] Following the first voyage, key crew members decided to formally change the name of the Don't Make a Wave Committee to the Greenpeace Foundation. These decision makers included founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe as well as Patrick Moore.[10][11]
Following US President Richard Nixon's cancellation of the remaining hydrogen bomb tests planned for Amchitka Island in early 1972, Greenpeace turned its attention to French atmospheric nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific. In May 1972, Moore traveled to New York with Jim Bohlen and Marie Bohlen to lobby the key United Nations delegations from the Pacific Rim countries involved. Moore then went to Europe together with Ben Metcalfe, Dorothy Metcalfe, Lyle Thurston and Rod Marining where they received an audience with Pope Paul VI and protested at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. In June, they attended the first UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm where they convinced New Zealand to propose a vote condemning French nuclear testing, which passed with a strong majority.[12]
Moore again crewed the Phyllis Cormack in 1975 during the first campaign to save whales, as Greenpeace met the Soviet whaling fleet off the coast of California. During the confrontation, film footage was caught of the Soviet whaling boat firing a harpoon over the heads of Greenpeace members in a Zodiac inflatable and into the back of a female sperm whale.[13] The film footage made the evening news the next day on all three US national networks, initiating Greenpeace's debut on the world media stage, and prompting a swift rise in public support of the charity.[14] Patrick Moore and Bob Hunter appeared on Dr. Bill Wattenburg's talk radio show on KGO and appealed for a lawyer to help them incorporate a branch office in San Francisco and to manage donations. David Tussman, a young lawyer, volunteered to help Moore, Hunter, and Paul Spong set up an office at Fort Mason. The Greenpeace Foundation of America (since changed to Greenpeace USA), then became the major fundraising center for the expansion of Greenpeace worldwide.[15][16]
Presidency of Greenpeace Foundation in Canada[edit]
In early 1977, Bob Hunter stepped down as president of the Greenpeace Foundation and Patrick Moore was elected president. He inherited an organization that was deeply in debt.[17] Greenpeace organizations began to form throughout North America, including cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Boston, and San Francisco. Not all of these offices accepted the authority of the founding organization in Canada. Moore's presidency and governance style proved controversial. Moore and his chosen board in Vancouver called for two meetings to formalize his governance proposals. During this time David Tussman, together with the rest of the founders, early activists of Greenpeace, and the majority of Greenpeace staff-members announced that the board of the San Francisco group intended to separate Patrick Moore's Greenpeace Foundation from the rest of the Greenpeace movement. After efforts to settle the matter failed, the Greenpeace Foundation filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco charging that the San Francisco group was in violation of trademark and copyright by using the Greenpeace name without permission of the Greenpeace Foundation.
The lawsuit was settled at a meeting on 10 October 1979, in the offices of lawyer David Gibbons in Vancouver. Attending were Moore, Hunter, David McTaggart, Rex Weyler, and about six others. At this meeting it was agreed that Greenpeace International would be created. This meant that Greenpeace would remain a single organization rather than an amorphous collection of individual offices. McTaggart who had come to represent all the other Greenpeace groups against the Greenpeace Foundation, was named Chairman. Moore became President of Greenpeace Canada (the new name for Greenpeace Foundation) and a director of Greenpeace International. Other directors were appointed from the US, France, the UK, and the Netherlands. He served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada, as well as six years as a Director of Greenpeace International.
In 1985, Moore was on board the Rainbow Warrior when it was bombed and sunk by the French government. He and other directors of Greenpeace International were greeting the ship off the coast of New Zealand on its way to protest French nuclear testing at Mururoa Atoll. Expedition photographer, Fernando Pereira, was killed. Greenpeace's media presence peaked again.[18]
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #48
Exactly. Someone who wants to have an open discussion lets all voices be heard.IT is not a science website.. it is a propaganda website and he is not any form of scientist. WUWT allows both assenting and dissenting opinions as long as they are civil. The fact that Cook deletes all posts not praising his point of view tells the story..The fact the guy deletes comments shows he disingenuous.
So you're upset because a science blog won't let you come in and shit on the carpet. Don't expect any sympathy.
It's not a discussion blog. It's a science website. Dishonest deniers trying to stink up the place with outright fabrications and temper tantrums get their comments deleted. The grownups won't put up with it. If you crybabies have to throw your tantrums somewhere, you can do it here.
WUWT has deleted all three of the comments I put up there.
You must be a trolling moron.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #49
Right after you tell me why Al Gore should be....Please explain Billy Bob, why the opinion of Patrick Moore who is NOTa climate scientist and has done NO climate research, should be held superior to the opinions of thousands of scientists who ARE and who HAVE?
I've never - NEVER - said he should be. Of course, I don't have to. I have 97% of the world's climate scientists to draw from. You've got a handful of scientists and a pot load of losers like Watts, Monckton. Even Al Gore, who I think should have been the POTUS, did an incredible thing with An Inconvenient Truth and fully deserved the Nobel he received BUT is not a climate scientist and is NOT where I go for data - that Al Gore makes your experts look like the looney tunes they actually are.
So, one more time, why the fuck should I take the word of Patrick Moore over THOUSANDS of climate scientists and thousands of peer reviewed studies?
ANSWER: I shouldn't
So, one more time, why the fuck should I take the word of Patrick Moore over THOUSANDS of climate scientists and thousands of peer reviewed studies?
ANSWER: I shouldn't
elektra
Platinum Member
Post a complete study.I've never - NEVER - said he should be. Of course, I don't have to. I have 97% of the world's climate scientists to draw from. You've got a handful of scientists and a pot load of losers like Watts, Monckton. Even Al Gore, who I think should have been the POTUS, did an incredible thing with An Inconvenient Truth and fully deserved the Nobel he received BUT is not a climate scientist and is NOT where I go for data - that Al Gore makes your experts look like the looney tunes they actually are.
So, one more time, why the fuck should I take the word of Patrick Moore over THOUSANDS of climate scientists and thousands of peer reviewed studies?
ANSWER: I shouldn't
Tom Sweetnam
Platinum Member
A moot point, maMOOT.
founding participation in Greenpeace, is not the same as saying, founder.
Hardly does maMOOT "examine the logic".
maMOOT does not understand the difference in, founding participation and founder.
Brilliant
Please explain Billy Bob, why the opinion of Patrick Moore who is NOTa climate scientist and has done NO climate research, should be held superior to the opinions of thousands of scientists who ARE and who HAVE?
God what an ass. Moore was co-founder of Greenpeace no matter what all your marxist morons say to the contrary. But hey, I'm old enough to remember all the same stripe chicken littles running around squawking about the end of the world if we didn't spend billions on the horrors of global cooling. Academia stood in line behind that one like a bunch of fucking borg. Warmies shit on science. They have no respect for empiricism. None. They're marxists who see this latest catechism of bullshit as a stepping stone to ending international free markets and capitalism. Fuck you. It ain't going to work.
God, what an idiot. Patrick Moore could be the heart and soul and sole member of Greenpeace and it wouldn't matter one bit. He's not a climate scientist. He's never done one shred of research on atmospheric science or global warming. His opinion on this matter is as close to irrelevant as could be.
I am also old enough to remember the mainstream media reporting that some scientists were concerned about a coming ice age. There was evidence that supported the idea at the time (look at any global temperature graph covering 1940-1980) but it was never a dominant idea among the climate scientists of the day. THAT has been demonstrated by a number of literature reviews. Academia did NOT stand in line behind such positions. Given that the vast majority of climate scientists and the vast majority of their peer reviewed studies support anthropogenic global warming, attempting to contend that they "shit on science" and "have no respect for empiricism" is complete nonsense. The world's climate scientists are not Marxists opposed to free markets and capitalism. Such a charge is absurd and tells us nothing about climate scientists but a great deal about you.
So fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
I am also old enough to remember the mainstream media reporting that some scientists were concerned about a coming ice age. There was evidence that supported the idea at the time (look at any global temperature graph covering 1940-1980) but it was never a dominant idea among the climate scientists of the day. THAT has been demonstrated by a number of literature reviews. Academia did NOT stand in line behind such positions. Given that the vast majority of climate scientists and the vast majority of their peer reviewed studies support anthropogenic global warming, attempting to contend that they "shit on science" and "have no respect for empiricism" is complete nonsense. The world's climate scientists are not Marxists opposed to free markets and capitalism. Such a charge is absurd and tells us nothing about climate scientists but a great deal about you.
So fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
WUWT has deleted all three of the comments I put up there.
You must be a trolling moron.
You claimed WUWT wouldn't delete anyone's comment. Now you seem to be saying something different. Which is it? Do they let all posts stand or do they remove posts the find unacceptable for some reason?
Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
I just posted this in a new thread:
SNIP:
Sturm: Inconvenient truths denied by climate faithful
[URL='http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/12965067-113/climate-policies-sturm-think#']71
Share on email Share on print
At the tumultuous summer’s close, when throat-slashing, genocidal jihadists and economic malaise dominated headlines and our psyches, Hillary Clinton announced her preoccupation.
“Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she proclaimed, adding, “no matter what the deniers try to assert” — thus dismissing from polite society those inclined to Think Again about America’s greatest concerns.
Like Clinton, members of the “Church of Settled Science” invoke the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial to reject those deeming climate change less dangerous than other threats, such as the Islamic State, a nuclear Iran, a debt-laden stagnant economy or record levels of poverty.
ALL of it here:
Sturm Inconvenient truths denied by climate faithful AspenTimes.com[/URL]
SNIP:
Sturm: Inconvenient truths denied by climate faithful
[URL='http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/12965067-113/climate-policies-sturm-think#']71
Share on email Share on print
At the tumultuous summer’s close, when throat-slashing, genocidal jihadists and economic malaise dominated headlines and our psyches, Hillary Clinton announced her preoccupation.
“Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face,” she proclaimed, adding, “no matter what the deniers try to assert” — thus dismissing from polite society those inclined to Think Again about America’s greatest concerns.
Like Clinton, members of the “Church of Settled Science” invoke the moral equivalent of Holocaust denial to reject those deeming climate change less dangerous than other threats, such as the Islamic State, a nuclear Iran, a debt-laden stagnant economy or record levels of poverty.
. After all, as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said before Congress, because “frost and ice are the enemies of life ... a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”Their Church gospel considers it “anti-science” to believe climate change is a naturally reoccurring phenomenon to which mankind has always adapted, and still can
ALL of it here:
Sturm Inconvenient truths denied by climate faithful AspenTimes.com[/URL]
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,104
- 12,692
- 2,400
I guess I should have pointed out that "reliable source" would be another peer reviewed study by Marcott's peers or betters (something like the 136 papers that cited Marcott et al 2013), not a denier blog. Roger Pielke Jr. has a bachelor's in math. The rest of his education is in public policy and political science. He lacks any qualification to judge Marcott's work and this article is nothing but a critique of Marcott's presentations.
You haven't got shit.
Marcott himself admit the red stick isn't valid when he was caught trying to peddle some lies.
I posted this a year ago,
Where's the hockey stick? The 'Marcott 9' show no warming past 1950
POST 86
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,104
- 12,692
- 2,400
Skeptical Science is obviously a science website. Just because your crybaby cult says it's not doesn't change that fact. Piss and moan all you want, it's still a science website. And you fail hard at refuting any of the science there. Anytime someone brings it up, you run screaming from the science and rant about Cook, obviously because you suck hard at the science and can't debate it.
WUWT? Watts bans almost all contrary opinions, civil or not. He only allows token opinions from Nick Stokes, when he's not being temp banned. Of course, Watts allows and encourags all his howler monkeys to be vile, profane and insulting towards Nick Stokes. Watts claiming he values "civility" is bullshit, since he takes no action against people on his own side being uncivil, and since Watts himself is regularly such a rude asshole.
Ha ha the lies rolls off your forked tongue since I as a moderator approve a lot of comments that are in opposition to the article, and I have gotten a few skeptics banned since I became moderator about 5 years ago.
Go look at these comments I approved 5 days ago despite that he is really snotty part of the time even told him to stop trolling Eschenbauch for allegedly not posting the data for the charts when I corrected him on it as Willis posted ALL of the data and spread sheet on it.
Barry Anthony is the name in THIS THREAD
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 15,104
- 12,692
- 2,400
I guess I should have pointed out that "reliable source" would be another peer reviewed study by Marcott's peers or betters (something like the 136 papers that cited Marcott et al 2013), not a denier blog. Roger Pielke Jr. has a bachelor's in math. The rest of his education is in public policy and political science. He lacks any qualification to judge Marcott's work and this article is nothing but a critique of Marcott's presentations.
You haven't got shit.
You as usual didn't bother to read Bobs SOURCE link where it shows what Marcott himself states about that uptick:
"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 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."
Your lazy stupidity strikes again!
Similar threads
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 105
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 45
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 150
- Views
- 834
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 419
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8387
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-