So, with regard to this particular data point, the ball is now in your court. You must explain why an error of .55C does not mean that clearly, the Nobel-winning IPCC overstated its case.Good luck with that.Because Monckton - like the liar he is - is bullcrapping you about what the IPCC said.Like I said GO TO THIS LINK:http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/09/temperatures-are-below-p...REALLY.Go to it. Watch it.What have you got to lose except a few minutes and your misconceptions?What does that have to do with it being based on a fallacy?Are you spewing about the garbage frauds and weirdos like Monckton have fooled you with?That what HE says the IPCC says is true, rather than what the IPCC actually said?If so, then once again the Mr. Reasonable suit you have measured up for yourself is cut from a very shoddy cloth.You have NO IDEA how hilarious it is to have someone resort to CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON and then try to huff and puff about scientific probity.I'm sorry if you didn't realise before what an oddball huckster this guy is - and it must be embarrassing to be pulled up in public about it - but let that be a lesson to you: check your sources.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat