I don’t understand what your point is. According to you, my definition allows a claim to be discredited through nitpicking. I pointed out that my definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” so that a claim CANNOT be discredited just with a nitpick. And in response, you cite an IPCC report and realclimate. What exactly are you trying to say?
And again, you are making reference (indirectly) to later studies. By your strict approach, those belong in another thread.
Please show me the whole quote then.
This point of yours that my points belong on another tread are silly, once again, I bring them only to point out how wrong you were in your OP, because at the time you said the points in the baloney OP all the items that I posted were already known.
If you want to continue believing the hockey stick was discredited that is fine, but you still have to produce evidence that that is the case in academia.
:shrug: You’re the one who’s insisting that this thread be strictly limited to the question presented in the original post.
As I said, I’m more interested in the underlying evidence and arguments than in appeals to authority. Authority is interesting, but evidence is more interesting – to me.
TWEEEEEEEEEEET!!!
All, right.
After three and a half months of bickering over nearly 350 posts (punctuated by a lot of “Show me where I said that” evasions) this thread is no closer to a resolution and it has worn out its welcome, here.
Closed.
[ /Moderating ]