Because: 1. Mann claims tree-rings reliably show temperature for 1000 years. 2. McIntyre proves "hockey stick" graph wrong. 3. Osborn, Briffa, et. al. create "spaghetti charts" from corrected proxy data. 4. They overlay inst. data, erase divergence... "hockey stick proved!" https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1120686403434663936 …
-
-
At best a fine line between intention to mislead and intention to market using bullshit. Is there a significant difference?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is correct thinking. Scott isn’t agreeing or disagreeing. Remember Scott thinks in terms of persuasion... good evidence that is poorly presented doesn’t win you anything
-
Evidence of “climate malpractice” doesn’t disprove climate change. It only proves climate malpractice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.