- Thread starter
- #181
All Marcott had to do, at the beginning of the press releases, was to say that his findings said nothing about the last hundred years of warming. He didn't. Instead he basked in the glory of new found fame. When forced to come clean he said he was misinterpreted but he knew it all along and was quite willing to let everyone make the wrong implications.
How is it that you cannot recognize dishonesty?
Right. So you can read minds from afar, can you? Interesting.
I am not reading minds, I am quoting the man's words and actions. If he knew that the modern portion of his work was not fit for purpose, why did he let everyone focus on it? Why did he not stop the the erroneous implications immediately?
Those are your words, not his, and you know it. Trying to demonstrate someone's dishonesty by being dishonest yourself, is just plain stupid. But you knew that already. The fact of the matter is that his work is valid, and has been accepted all this time despite rantings by people such as you. Get over it.
You have read the Real Climate FAQ. What does he say about the modern portion of the graph?
And this is just Marcott's statements. We could delve into some of the 'inconsistencies' of the dating of the proxies as well.
The paper is garbage for the last hundred years as was admitted by Marcott. Just because they are brazening out the mistakes doesn't make it any thing else but garbage.
His paper is valid. End of story.
Are you saying that Marcott lied in the RC FAQ? He said no valid conclusions could be derived from the modern portion.
Which is it? Did he lie at the beginning or after he was caught? It has to be one or the other.