Once again you are wrongI've posted sources here that you claim are wrong,
I have pointed out issues and expressed skepticism.
I have not claimed they were wrong, nor have I claimed they were right.
I have explained this to you a dozen times
Yet you still do not get it
I explained the limitations on carbon dating which you could not graspfrom your personal views on carbon dating
My personal views on carbon dating?
It is a very ingenious and effective method for dating fossils up to 50,000 years old. I believe it can also be used for quantitative analysis (how much carbon in the sample) with some precision
Those that discovered this technique made a real positive contribution to science, history & humanity
If you are going to claim absolute you will need a whole lot more precision , than a peer review assembled by a potentially biased activist / scientistto now your personal views on a peer assessed paper, one of about 7 that came to similar results.
My personal views on a peer assessed paper?
No doubt useful to scientists seeking information to plan their experimentation, confirm / refute assumptions & as possible route to discovery.
However if one guy is categorizing results, then, it is not suitable for policy making or claiming an absolute position, which is how you are using it
Despite the fact you do not understand the science
What an absurd statementClaiming you are neutral while stating you don't believe the consensus science is like stating you're neutral on the theory of gravity, so therefore are going to floating off the CN tower later.
There is a law of gravity
Your position is hardly the "Law of climate change"
again you
a) mistake scientific consensus for scientific method
consensus has no place in science
b) proclaim your position is absolute and as infallible as the "Law of gravity"
An absolute scientific position as declared by a lair/ con man who can not pass a grade 10 science test?
I do not think so