Four years of university study says you are wrong
I know a lot more about science than the average person, especially the moron Frankfooter
Your ideas about climate change, carbon dating and climatology are idiotic.
Would you like to refresh your memory?
You have shown you can copy & paste, yet you have not shown you understand anything about science.
BTW you quoted me but were unable to show fault with any of my statements
I did show the problems with your statements previously, but if you prefer I'll repeat how idiotic your claims are.
My position has been that It would be the biggest sin mankind ever committed if we cause our own extinction
1) Establishing that you accept that risks posited by climatologists are serious.
I have also never said I know more than the scientists
To be fair I have also never said I do not
Refusing to accept that you do not know as much about climatology as thousands of scientists who have studied it their lives.
Egotistical, bordering on Dunning Kruger effect.
Look stupid
I most certainly understand science better than some loud mouth, high school drop-out who can not calculate a weighted average
I searched for extrapolation & found only one mention & that did not provide any indication there was not any extrapolation or estimations in any or all of the work
How can one state an ice core sample is 800,000 years old without extrapolation?
Ignorant claim based on total lack of understanding of the science used.
Carbon dating is based upon half lives which requires exponential extrapulation
Your studies were using ice cores supposedly 800,000 years old
Ignorant claim based on the total lack of understanding of the science used.
Note that no mention is made of carbon dating as it is not used, despite your ignorant claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#Reconstructing_ancient_climates
Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.
However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!
In one sentence you admit that radioactive decay is a great tool with rates that are 'essentially constant' yet in the next sentence you claim using these same techniques wouldn't be 'credible'.
.
Anything over 5,000 years is pushing it and will introduce experimental errors which grow exponentially the further you push out from 5,000 years
Ignorant claim based on your very stupid focus on a technique not used in paleoclimatology.
And the capper, where you note that you refuse to admit you ever make a mistake.
This post will be copy and pasted every time you make a claim about my ignorance of science.
Fair?
Explain to us, oh self declared wise one, why humanity shouldn't worry about temperatures and CO2 levels that are rising way, way faster then the planet did during the PETM?