Quote:
Originally Posted by g hall
Perhaps like me he didn't believe you
Also McIntyre who found it also caused some rapid change of heart in the GISS datasets
|
The things I pointed out are inherent in the graphs themselves - they are not things which are open to interpretation, they are not disputable unless you have funny eyesight.
They concern the difference in scales and in geographic area, so in future I suggest you read what is placed before your eyes instead of simply subscribing to your fantasy world in which the recent change in climate has been caused by non-existent and often contradictory natural factors, in which computer models are without exception garbage unless they show what you want them to show, in which there is no reason, no questioning, just the blind acceptance of other's words you claim to fight against!
It's clear that you don't actually check your allies' posts for inaccuracies; instead you simply accept it all as true because it supports your view!
For heaven's sake, someone, give me sceptics who have a little reason, who have a little intelligence! Sceptics who will actually check the posts of their fellows for inaccuracies, or who will actually read things before commenting on them!
Your reply would only have been OK if you'd actually read the post I was referring to and if it had contained something which was debatable. However, unfortunately for your pretences at reading something, it didn't. YOU CANNOT DEBATE THE SCALES OF A GRAPH OR A GEOGRAPHIC REGION IT APPLIES TO WHEN THESE ARE ON THE GRAPHS THEMSELVES.