The really compelling part of your argument is that it is overflowing with references to good sources. It totally doesn't look like something you coddled together in photoshop. Further evidence of your confidence is proven by the fact that you edit your own comment board.
You've got the wrong chart. That shows how many cores were included in the samples. It's important but not the main thing. You need the second chart that has the change in temperature variation. It's much more dramatic.
Environmentalists can go puck themselves!
ReplyDeleteThe really compelling part of your argument is that it is overflowing with references to good sources. It totally doesn't look like something you coddled together in photoshop. Further evidence of your confidence is proven by the fact that you edit your own comment board.
ReplyDeleteFolloyw the link, Anonymous. The Captain didn't make this up.
ReplyDeleteIdiot.
You've got the wrong chart. That shows how many cores were included in the samples. It's important but not the main thing. You need the second chart that has the change in temperature variation. It's much more dramatic.
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif?w=420&h=360&h=360