Over at ATTP's Tony B came up with the perfect non sequitur.
Persons such as Mosh, ATTP and Eli could surely spike the guns of those making these claims by offering to work with the claimant in turning their information into a paper of a standard capable of being peer reviewed, but leave the actual submission to the claimant.Don't know about those other guys, but Wiley speaks for Eli
Yes, these revolutionary ideas are repressed simply because of formatting and grammar.
ReplyDeleteHey, warmist. Polish this up a little and you can be the second author. It's a bit rough but *I* haven't been sucking back grant money all my life. Anyway it's all pretty clear, maybe you could fix the grammar and put in some graphs.
ReplyDeleteA clearly fraudulent data passed off as warming trends by NASA scientists
B have been tested by site by site, saw stations
algorithm that proves no warming
C (mention Little Ice age)
D temperature satellite vs ground
E solar flares are bigger & sunspots
E how thermometers work
G why 'adjust' data
H why we have satellites
Antartic ice growing
I Vikings made wine in Greenland - was hot
J oceans aren't acid this is STUPID high school error important 2 note this
I claim RCP8.5 isnt "business as usual", but you lack the expertise in the field. I'm hoping the CMIP6 pathways will recognize this problem. If they don't I'll have a smoking gun to show the IPCC are a bunch of yahoos.
ReplyDeleteMosh, ATTP and Eli (and others) are already doing that by pointing out the flaws in the reasoning on the blogs where these claims are made. You can lead a horse to water...
ReplyDeleteMagmacc seems to be channeling Zippy The Pinhead and Mark Steyn
ReplyDeleteFor openers, try :
"I Vikings made wine in Greenland - was hot"
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/06/mark-steyn-and-grapes-of-wrath.html