oh we have a conspiracy theorist on board. You addressed literally zero of my arguments.
That's because I'm not arguing or debating you, I am educating you how things are. You know... The real world.
Cores, trees, ocean temps, solar radiation etc are all observable data, you can't be in person to observe the climate, you are making zero sense.
Again, for the third time, proxy data IS NOT weather OR climatic data. It's only proxy data. If you can't understand this basic fact then maybe you should just shut the f-ck up.
Using a contrarian when literally 99% of the climate scientists agree that climate change is anthropogenic is silly. No other science works like this.
OMG you haven't a single original thought... it's all regurgitations from the climate alarmism looney-tunes. More education: There is no consensus or agreement in science. Science is based on observation, measurement and independent scrutiny. By the way the 99% of climate scientists you just mentioned is a made up #. It's like me saying that "95% of all the prostitutes around the world say I'm the best in the sac." Go and prove me wrong.
By the way, that line came from Naomi Oreskes in 2004 and it was found to be a complete fabrication. Not only that, Oreskes was thrown out as an expert on the history of climate science in the Mann v. Simberg/Steyn case by the court back in 2021. The reason? "her methodology—described as subjective "reading and thinking"—lacked peer-reviewed standards, replicability, and a known success rate." THIS is the "scientist" you're quoting. Quite a feat.
My simple argument about carbon dating disproves your whole idea. You also can't observe physics in the way you are suggest, which is legitimately the most "hard" science.
Again, carbon dating shit doesn't mean shit. Saying that you can tell what the average Mongolian male's average caloric intake is from the amount of solidified turd (proxy) found in his septic tank is stupid. Anyone posing such an argument MUST have their driver license removed for stupid.
Say, have you ever gotten an estimated bill from your energy company? Was it ever even close? Well, the calculation is basically based on the same calculations and regression models that climate alarmist dumbasses use.
You also can't collect weather data at every point so it's always correlational.
No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! Again, another stupid argument. More jibber jabber. You cannot correlate climatic data from stations in other climatic areas. CAN. NOT.
Not to mention weather is a non-linear phenomenon as outlined in chaos theory. You can't extrapolate it ever, 1 to 1, it can't be done because of initial conditions causing perturbations which cannot be accounted for in advance. At best you can look at attractor basins.
Non sensical jibber-jabber. You're literally not saying anything dude. Nothing. It may sound smart to you but you're communicating ZERO.
The subprime thing is also a silly argument. You are acting as if there wasn't extraneous variables which could not be accounted for in the models, economics is a human creation as such it involves things that are qualitative which are extremely difficult to capture. The market is far harder to predict then the weather for example.
It's not a silly argument precisely because it shows that mixing different data sets and types, smoothing out if you will, always, ALWAYS ends up failing big time.
You clearly have an agenda, I don't, I listen to what the people with the most knowledge say, as should you. You also don't seem to be involved in the sciences by the jargon you are using.
I have an agenda?
? From the guy that has no original thought and is incapable of speaking intelligently about something so important? Ninja pleaze.
