Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
i'll do even better, here's the study's lead author/scientist admitted they fudged the data
realclimate.org, that's good enough for you, right.
"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." - See more at: RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al. |
RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al. and here's the site you're leaning on saying they think the results of the paper are entirely legit, and even the quote you posted just says that the data you're talking about wasn't part of the dataset they used to draw their conclusions.
This is hardly comparable to bought and paid for scientists outright lying in order to serve their conservative corporate masters is it? And why do you, as an American citizen, somehow think you're 'winning' by allowing corporate interests to contaminate the environment in which you live and breathe? You live here too.