Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Actually, you used the word incorrect when I said you couldn't get published. And your argument proving I was incorrect: that you had been cited.

And now you're denying that you equated the two. Good luck with that, as long as the following screenshot exists:

I never equated the two, as I have never attempted to be published - thus your argument was a strawman. I used the term "Incorrect" to show that your implication was wrong since my work is taken seriously in the peer-reviewed literature by being cited multiple times.

Please quote where I claim that being cited in the peer-reviewed literature is the same as being published.

Your derangement on this issue is not surprising.

Whether you did or did not attempt to get published, that does not change what you wrote.

The use of the word "Incorrect" was responding to the implied intent of your statement - that my work could not taken seriously in the scholarly literature. By demonstrating that I have been cited I refuted this argument.

I was not responding that by being cited = my work has been published.
I was responding that by being cited = my work is taken serious in the scholarly literature.

Umm, . . . may poor old DonDiego suggest that forkushV and Poptech get a room, . . . and settle their differences like men.

Interesting, I have yet to hear a detailed scientific study of stars the same age of ours and the solar output for the next 4.5 billion years. Why is this important? In roughly that time our sun will have grown past the orbits of Mercury, Venus and quite possibly Earth before it shrinks down to a white dwarf. During the enlargement phase, global warming will be the least of the Earths worries as the oceans boil away and man and all of the animals will be burnt to a crisp. Any warming caused by man will be moot by this point as everything on Earth will be ashes.

Can Forkie or PJ explain all of the warming and cooling that has happened during the past 3.8 billion years? Man wasn't around for any of it yet you are all hell bent stating man is causing global warming aka "climate change". If it snows in July in Alaska, you will blame it on climate change, any flooding same cause. Too many locusts, its climate change. All caused by man....

Back in the middle ages, everyone knew the world was flat and to disagree with the church was punishable by death or banishment. I guess todays "church" is "climate change" and any one who doesn't believe in the teachings of said church will be blasted down.....

I dunno. Maybe you should ask one of these guys:

I don't know who farted, but it's a nice day if it don't rain.

I already refuted that nonsense,

2,258 Meaningless Search Results

My chart was put together by an MIT trained PhD who was the president of a couple of universities and a couple of science museums. And was appointed to a national science board by a couple of Presidents of the United States.

Your chart is from a blogger with no last name who claims that marijuana is deadly and is a Breitbart fan.

Poptech, rather than belaboring this issue, why don't we just let everyone make up their own mind as to who is more credible.