Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
My Twitter friend Wei Zhang @WeiZhangAtmos pointed me to an open-access study in Nature magazine entitled “Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863“. It claims that sea levels were basically stable for centuries, all the way up until the 1860s when the modern rates of rise started occurring. They are basing this claim on a variety of different kinds of proxy sea level data—foraminifera, coral microatolls, plants, diatoms, peat, shells, vermetids, herbaceous peat, mangrove peat, ∆13C, sediment, testates, archeological, and bioconstructed reefs.
Intrigued, I took a look. Here’s their Supplementary Figure 5.
Figure 1. Figure 5 from the Supplement, with original caption
Hmmm … overall, that wasn’t impressive in the slightest. Different areas are claimed to have wildly differing rates of change, sometimes going up and down radically in a couple of hundred years. Why would New Jersey be so different from North Carolina? Why do Iceland and Denmark show no change in sea level until very recently, when relative sea level is supposed to have dropped? These questions and more …
I noted an interesting point in the caption to Supplementary Figure 5 above. It said that the “global and linear” components had been removed. Hmmm again … how was that done?
Reading the paper I found the magic behind the curtain. The finished records in Fig. 5 above are the result of the raw data being “incorporated into a spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical model” … and hey, if you don’t believe in the millimeter-level accuracy of a random spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical model, you must be anti-science.
Now, those who know me are aware that I’m a great fan of raw data. And kudos to the authors, they included a link to download an Excel spreadsheet containing the data. It contains proxy data from 103 different sites around the world. So I took that proxy data and I graphed it all up.
Figure 2. The proxy data used in the sea level study.
YIKES! All I can say is, it’s a darn good thing that they have their spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical macerator … because if they’d shown the unmacerated data, they’d have to provide 500ml of eyebleach with every issue of the magazine …
With that data as a starting point, as you might expect, their claims are all over the map. Regarding the North Atlantic, for example, they say that the emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise occurred “earliest in the mid-Atlantic [US] region (1872–1894 CE) and later in Canada and Europe (1930–1964 CE)”.
Seriously? After centuries during which their claim is that there was very little sea-level rise (Fig 1.), they say that one side of the Atlantic started rising about a half-century before the other side of the Atlantic, leaving the entire Atlantic tilted … wait, what?
And climate scientists wonder why the general public is so skeptical of their findings?
Sigh …
My very best wishes to all, stay safe and sane in these parlous times …
w.
My Custom: I ask you to quote the exact words you’re discussing. Misunderstandings are a bane of the intarwebs, and vague claims based on what someone thinks someone else meant are a major source of said confoundibulations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Makes tilting at windmills seem rational.
Isn’t that convenient! One of the oldest records of sealevel is the Dutch Rijkswaterstaat’s going back to the late 1870s, complete, and the 60s and 50s increasingly incomplete. So the sealevel started to rise just when it started to be measured. Who would have thought that? What coincidence.
Occam’s razor says: utter tripe.
“So I took that proxy data and I graphed it all up.”
===============
Love your cutting sarcasm Willis.
Willis Eschenbach: “YIKES! All I can say is, it’s a darn good thing that they have their spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical macerator … because if they’d shown the unmacerated data, they’d have to provide 500ml of eyebleach with every issue of the magazine …:
West Marine will sell you one of these spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical macerators for the very reasonable price of $193.99.
Jabsco heavy duty self-priming macerator pump with run-dry protection.
From the West Marine catalogue: “This popular pump works well for fish box, livewell and holding tank applications. The 4 blade stainless steel cutter reduces fish scales, ice and other waste to 1/8″ particles and allow it to pass through the nitrile impeller with ease. Its self-priming abilities allow this pump to be installed up to 5′ above the holding tank and provide 11 1/2 gallons per minute capacity. That means the typical 40 gallon holding tank can be evacuated in less than 4 minutes (outside of restricted discharge areas). A fully sealed motor and powder coated housing ensure a long service life.”
No boat coming into port under threat of a rising sea level should ever be without one.
“The 4 blade stainless steel cutter reduces fish scales, ice and other waste to 1/8″ particles and allow it to pass through the nitrile impeller with ease.”
It is a household garbage disposal for a boat.
Somehow, this seems most appropriate.
I owned a 26′ sleep-aboard boat for thirty years. One of these Jabsco macerators was installed after the original wore out. Bought it from West Marine.
My beautiful Hunter 35.5 sailboat had a 40 gallon waste holding tank. We had such a Macerator, since sped up refueling and pump out. We always did water intake at the slip, not the pump out dock.
The UK uses mean sea level at Newlyn as Ordnance Datum.
Long records of annual MSL data from Aberdeen, North Shields, Sheerness, Newlyn and Liverpool are representative of the sea level change around the coastline. First, the long term rate of MSL change was removed from each record, thereby removing contributions from vertical land movements and (linear) climate change associated sea level rise. Then, MSL values from the five records were averaged to make an index of UK inter-annual and -decadal MSL variability, with the index having zero trend by construction, as shown in (a). (The standard deviation of the five values about their mean in any one year is typically 25 mm except for the early years of the 20th century when it is several times larger.)
Finally, a UK-average value for the long term climate change component of MSL change, estimated from a comparison of tide gauge and geological rates at a number of UK sites, was added to make the time series in (b). This average long term trend is estimated as 1.4 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 which is slightly lower than the 1.7 mm yr−1 consensus value for global sea level change over a similar period.
https://ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends
might expect, their claims are all over the map. Regarding the North Atlantic, for example, they say that the emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise occurred “earliest in the mid-Atlantic [US] region (1872–1894
Nice one, WE. I have found a lot of ‘neat’ stuff in paper supplementary info from the Nature stable and Science . Mostly clearcut academic misconduct. Fabricius pH coral disaster caused by hydrogen sulfide. O’Leary’s Eemian tipping point caused by an earthquake. Marcott’s hockey stick created by core top redating when in the paper he said he hadn’t.
Now you have found a tilted Atlantic Ocean ‘caused’ by an encabulator. About as plausible as Rep.Hank Johnson’s concern that Guam would capsize if we sent more troops to the island because the navy base there is on Apra harbor on one side, with Anderson AFB close by on the same side.
Land surfaces can go up and down just as much as Sea Level does.
That’s the reason why such people do hard work:
https://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=cgps
Of course: the GPD data is very recent, and no one can be sure that vertical land movement velocities measured/computed in 2010 are valid for the past. No one is naive enough to think that way.
But accepting this scheme at least allow you to see by how much the sea level rise is changed when taking these velocities as constant over time (what anyway is certainly the case for glacial isostatic rebound):
The blue lines lack any correction for vertical land movement.
Now look at the US East coast:
As you can see, the situation is the inverse, because the US East coast is dominated by subsidence, while for the Globe, the glacial isostatic rebound in the NH dominates the rest on average.
I guess it’s back to the drawing board on the search for the hockey stick sea level rise reconstruction…
What is most shocking is the time and money squandered in producing such garbage studies when it could be well spent on research on practical ways to adapt to and even benefit from climate changes.
For a person only sea level change within your local area and within your lifetime is of any importance.
Does the “spatiotemporal empirical hierarchical model” take into account post-glacial rebound? In a high number of sites shown, land rise may compete with sea level rise. The sites shown above don’t appear to have been chosen to represent the entire ocean.
This study is a perfect example of torturing the numbers until you get the answers you want.
Change from 1863.
Few gauges are open for that long evaluation.
Here is one:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=140-012
And the evaluation of the trend:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=140-012
No CO2 correlation as I can see!
Nature published this clap trap of a study? That is very depressing.
Sigh. Here we go again with yet another “let’s just make fun of the data because we don’t want to accept it” ideological screed from Eisenbach.
Even from that really messy graph of the raw data, one can discern a general overall sea level rise of something on the order of 2000 to 3000 millimeters over the past 3000 years. That’s a rise rate of somewhere in the vicinity of 0.6 to 1.0 mm/yr. Today’s global rise rate, in contrast, is 3.5 mm/yr (per AVISO), which is three to six times faster, and still speeding up.
Even from this noisy a dataset, the notion that global sea level rise rate was relatively small over the past 3000 years but is now much more rapid is not at all an unreasonable conclusion.
Even sillier was Eisenbach’s quip about the Atlantic Ocean being “tilted”. Oh please. Anyone who has done any reading at all on sea levels knows that the oceans do not behave like a quiescent bath tub, which is apparently what Eisenbach was trying to pretend. Differences in winds, currents, and temperatures can and do make for different sea level changes at different locations within the same ocean.
MGC March 20, 2022 3:53 pm
Sigh. Here we go again with another bunch of vague handwaving accusations from someone who can’t be bothered to
• actually QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS that he thinks are wrong as requested over and over, or
• learn to spell my name, or
• have the albondigas to sign his own name to his own words.
MGC, come back when you decide to do some actual science. For example, if you think that you can “discern a general overall sea-level rise of something on the order of 2000 to 3000 millimeters over the past 3000 years” from the data in Figure 2, how about you actually do the work to calculate it from the data and give us a graph with an associated uncertainty?
Because squinting at that from across the room and claiming you can detect a 0.6 mm to 1 mm/year sea-level rise is idiocy beyond belief. Even the authors don’t make that claim, they
say that you need a hypercritical polychromatic heuristic climate model to do that …
Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but please, spare us your ludicrous claims disguised as actual science. For example, you say “Differences in winds, currents, and temperatures can and do make for different sea-level changes at different locations within the same ocean.”
OK, so how about a link to actual data showing one side of an actual ocean that actually started to rise, at 2-3 mm per year, fifty years before the other side of the ocean.
Because guess what? Very few people reading this site are foolish enough to take your word for it, and in fact, most of them, like me, are just going to point and laugh at your pseudo-scientific puffery.
w.
OMG LOL Willy Boy !! What a truly comical “response” !!
But, ahem, seriously. Sorry. I must truly apologize. Mea Culpa. I realize now that I just didn’t make it simple enough for you to comprehend.
I didn’t include a little piece of detail in my previous comment … which is this:
Forget all that “hypercritical polychromatic heuristic climate models” mumbo jumbo and simply LOOK at that very noisy dataset. One can discern, beyond any reasonable doubt whatever, that the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE MEAN HISTORIC GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE RATE OVER THE PAST 3000 YEARS that can be derived from that dataset cannot in any way be much more than about 1 mm/yr. Go look for yourself. If anyone wants to try claiming anything much beyond that mean rise rate over the past 3000 years, then they truly need to have their head examined.
But current global sea level mean rise rate is far beyond 3 mm/yr., well over three times faster, and is still increasing. Thus, there is more than ample evidence to conclude that today’s rise rate is much higher than what had occurred over the past 3000 years.
How sad it is to see that, apparently, anti-science denier ideology has rendered you so totally incapable of accepting such an obvious conclusion.
And now on to the second point you raised. Again, in all seriousness, I am beyond dumbfounded to find that (I really still can’t believe this!) you are actually “challenging” the well known FACT (FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT) that sea levels do vary, fairly significantly, because of differences from location to location in winds, currents, and ocean temperatures.
It is so comical (yet also so utterly tragic) to watch you pretend for your audience of willfully ignorant WUWT sheeple that you are supposedly some kind of high and mighty climate “expert”, yet you have so pathetically demonstrated that you are not aware of even the simple well known fact that, yes, oceans most certainly can and actually do “tilt”.
OMG LOL! Do yourself a favor and, hey, just this once, actually learn some REAL SCIENCE for a change.
OMG LOL !! OMG LOL !! OMG LOL !! OMG LOL !!
Tell me: how does it feel to be so, so, so, so, SO TOTALLY OWNED, Willy Boy?
I look forward to our next encounter, son!
Regards, Pal!
“MGC”
MGC March 21, 2022 9:57 pm
Actually, I just took a straight average of the proxies. It gives an average annual change over the last fifty years (1965-2014) of 4.4 mm per year, and an average over the last ten years (2005-2014) of 16.9 mm/year.
My advice? RUN THE NUMBERS BEFORE RUNNING YOUR MOUTH!
Next, you make an amazing claim, viz:
I know of no place on earth where that is true of the absolute sea-level rise. Link?
w.
PS—It appears you don’t understand that your endless stream of insults only has one effect—it makes folks point at you and laugh. Like me, most people here know that when a man starts throwing mud as you are doing … it’s a surefire sign that they’re out of real ammunition.
So please, dial back on the aggro and snark. It just makes you look like an impotent grade-school bully, and I doubt that’s the image you want to project.
Willis says:
“I just took a straight average of the proxies. It gives an average annual change over the last fifty years (1965-2014) of 4.4 mm per year … etc etc.”
So you are directly confirming my statement, thank you very much, that current rise rate is much higher than the mean rise rate was going back the previous 3000 years, which, just by looking at the graph, could not possibly have been any much more than around 1 mm/yr.
But go ahead: actually straight average the proxy data going back the last 3000 years, and then compare that value to the recent rise rates that you just stated. You’ll have no choice but to agree that I’m absolutely correct. Just like the researchers who wrote the study itself; the ones you childishly made so much fun of in your article.
“I know of no place on earth where that (over 3 mm/yr rise rate) is true”
Say what? The current mean global rise rate as measured by satellite altimetry is around 3.5 mm/yr. (see following link.) And didn’t you *just* say that even the proxies give a rise rate higher than that? You seem to be all over the place here, son! You sure you know what you’re talking about?
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/data-acces.html#c12195
Willis also says: “So please, dial back on the aggro and snark”
Heed your own advice, pal. My attention was drawn to your article precisely because it was itself so chock full of ignorant, juvenile “aggro and snark”.
Not to mention that its “conclusions” were all wildly wrong, too, LOL!
“MGC”
Funny how you forgot to mention the part of my comment where I pointed out that it gives “an average over the last ten years (2005-2014) of 16.9 mm/year.”
And since that is ludicrously impossible by an order of magnitude or so, anyone who believes in the rest of the time periods is just making things up. So no, I’m NOT “confirming your statement”. The numbers are ridiculous end to end.
As to your incorrect claims about satellite altimetry, it’s the result of bogus splicing of four satellite datasets. See “Munging The Sea Level Data” for the facts. If you disagree with anything I said there, QUOTE WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG and demonstrate, not claim but show, exactly what is wrong.
w.
What is truly and genuinely “ridiculous” here, Willy Boy, is that laughably pompous “Munging the Sea Level Data” reference you provided, that is so chock full of tired old knee jerk denier talking points that are just flat out wrong. Falsehoods like this one:
“satellite-based sea-level data show that the sea level is rising so much faster than the rise measured at tidal stations on the coastlines”
Totally wrong, and here’s why: you compared the satellite rise rate data, from 1993 onward, with tidal gage data prior to 1993 … and you simply assumed that the rise rates measured by tidal gages would remain more or less constant going forward into the satellite era, post 1993. But they didn’t.
Yes, as it turns out, the rise rates measured at tidal stations also started increasing significantly. At many locations, this increase actually began a few years to perhaps a decade before satellite measurements started coming on line.
Some examples: rise rate measured at Boston Harbor was on average somewhere around 2.5 mm/yr prior to the start of satellite data in 1993. Since 1993 its been closer to 4.5 mm/yr. At Brest France, the oldest and longest continually running tidal gage in the world, the rise rate has been over 5 mm/yr since 1993. And the rise rate since 1993 in NY Harbor has been closer to 6 mm/yr. whereas previously it had only been around 3 mm/yr.
Once satellite data came online, the global mean rise rate as calculated by tidal station data stopped being routinely published, but it is still out there if you look for it. And what it has shown is AGREEMENT during the satellite era between satellite data and ground station data.
But what is perhaps the MOST truly laughable aspect of your ignorant pretending that the increase in sea level rise rate as measured by satellites must simply be due to poor measurement calibration, and that the satellite data “doesn’t” agree with ground station data, is that the satellite measurement calibrations include MAKING COMPARISONS TO GROUND STATION DATA.
YES, THEY’VE ROUTINELY CHECKED THAT THE SATELLITE DATA AGREES WITH GROUND STATION DATA.
Oops! Your silly “conclusions” just went totally, totally up in smoke.
Now, you never bothered to look into *any* of these vitally important details, did you? No, of course you didn’t. You have an anti-science denier agenda to peddle to your intentionally ignorant WUWT sheeple, and these annoyingly pesky facts just flat out ruin your little climate crackpot crusade.
So I’m sorry to say this, pal, but yet again, you’ve been so so so so so so SO totally OWNED.
I look forward to our next encounter, son! If it’s anything like this one, it should be a real hoot!
“MGC”
I suppose you could be slimier and nastier, but you’d have to work hard to beat that comment.
Come back when you can keep a civil tongue in your head. At that point, we can discuss it.
In the meantime, you merely ASSUME that I haven’t looked at the change in tide gauge data. But in fact, I had looked at it in detail in my 2018 post Inside The Acceleration Factory. Here’s the problem. First, the difference in the Church/White data pre and post 1993 is a full 2.1 mm/year.
But that is NOT the case with the tide gauge data. You’ve picked an extreme example in Boston. But there are plenty that go the other way.
What I’d looked at in 2018 is the post-1993 trends minus the pre 1993 trends.
The result? Yes, there’s been a slight increase post 1993. This is not a particular surprise, as it shows up in the 30-year trailing acceleration data. Pick a different time period, you’ll find the opposite.
But the amount of the increase in the trend is far too small to explain the 2.1 mm/year jump.
[ORIGINAL CAPTION, 2018 POST] Figure 6. Comparison between the values and the errors of the difference between the 21-year trend before the 1993 start of the satellite record, and the succeeding 21-year trend from 1993 to the end of the Church and White records. The C&W trends are shown in Figure 3 above.
Finally, as I pointed out in my post Inside The Acceleration Factory, I’m not the only one to notice this discrepancy:
[ORIGINAL CAPTION, 2018 POST] Figure 7. Different results for the satellite era depending on whether or not the satellite data is illegitimately spliced into the tide gauge records. SOURCE
So I stand by my claim that the ground data has been corrupted by the inclusion of satellite data.
My advice? Emulate the rooster, and make sure it’s actually sunrise before you start crowing. You didn’t do your homework, so you didn’t realize I’d actually done what you so joyously, unpleasantly, and totally incorrectly accused me of not doing …
w.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating that you talk out of both sides of your mouth, Willis. In this most recent article, you tried to pretend away SLR acceleration by childishly making fun of proxy datasets. But in your 2018 article, you admitted that your very own calculations did show some acceleration, though you claimed that it was smaller than what had been reported by C&W.
By the way, going back to your 2018 article, there are a multitude of possible reasons (other than your unhinged, unsubstantiated, loony tunes, “slimy and nasty” conspiracy theory twaddle that C&W were lying on purpose) for why your simple average of the PSMSL datasets would differ from the C&W estimate. One possibility is that because tidal gauges are not randomly distributed across the globe, your simple averaging does not provide a valid representation, but C&W very likely did correct for the non-random nature of tidal gauge locations.
I’ll also suggest, again, that if you want to try to pretend that the satellite measurements are miscalibrated, then you might want to at least start with learning about how the calibrations of those measurements are actually conducted, instead of starting as you did, with the misguided knee-jerk assumption that some of the best trained scientific measurement professionals in the entire world are all incompetent and wrong, and that your little bit of weekend analysis somehow allows you and you alone to pompously “know better” than all of them.
MGC, you falsely claimed that I had not examined the individual tide records when I stated that the Church/White data regarding the recent sea-level rise rates was affected by the satellite data.
But when I showed just above that I’d done that exact thing, you don’t have the balls to admit that your claim was 100% wrong.
Come back when your testicles descend far enough for you to admit that you were completely wrong and that your claim that I hadn’t investigated the individual tide stations was complete nonsense.
Also, I didn’t say that C&W were “lying on purpose”. That’s all you trying to blacken my name. I didn’t use the word at all.
I’m done with you. Go bother someone else. I’m tired of your endless ugliness and misrepresentations. In future, don’t waste time responding to me. I’m just going to point and laugh.
Willis, yes, it turns out that you did happen to look at the tidal gauge records. Happy now? I’d assumed you hadn’t because your claims didn’t jive with having actually looked at them (and still don’t).
And although you didn’t explicitly use the word “lying” when speaking of C&W, that is precisely what you implied when you titled your article “The Acceleration Factory”, further claimed that they were “manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists”, and called them “bad scientists”, all the while overlooking entirely plausible reasons that would justify their analysis being correct.
You’ve also tried to pretend that satellite SLR measurement professionals are incompetent and their measurements are miscalibrated, without even knowing how those measurements are calibrated to begin with.
In my book, all of that stuff is what wins top billing in the “ugliness and misrepresentation” category.
“MGC”
PS – still haven’t explained (in “Climate Models Don’t, March 16, 2022”) why your representation of the CMIP6 climate model track record is in massive discrepancy with other public records of the same datasets.
Pass. You’ve burned your bridges with me. You falsely accused me of scientific malpractice by making claims when I hadn’t looked at the data.
When I pointed out that I had, you ignored it. When I pointed out that you’d ignored it, rather than apologizing like decent person would, you grudgingly said yes, I had looked at the data. But no apology for your scummy behavior in accusing me.
Clearly, you don’t understand that how it’s generally done is you say “Willis, did you look at the data?”, I say “Yes, I did, here’s the link”. And we’d move forwards.
But NOOO, you have to make it into a big accusation that I’m incompetent, and load on a bunch more insults, then ignore when you’re shown wrong, and never even attempt to apologize or learn from your colossal ignorance.
And then, without drawing breath, you jump directly to the next accusation. Sorry, talk to the hand, ’cause the head’s not listening. Discussing science with you is like discussing philosophy with a wolverine, and I’m not interested in getting bit again.
In short? Piss off. I’m done with you. Go try your ugly tricks on someone else. Not interested. This is the last answer you’ll get from me. I’ll repeat it again as necessary.
Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. I wish you well wherever you go, and I’m done with dealing with you.
w.
By the way, on another topic, you still haven’t explained (in “Climate Models Don’t, March 16, 2022”) why your representation of the CMIP6 climate model track record is in massive discrepancy with other public records of the same datasets.
Pass. You’ve burned your bridges with me. You falsely accused me of scientific malpractice by making claims when I hadn’t looked at the data.
When I pointed out that I had, you ignored it. When I pointed out that you’d ignored it, rather than apologizing like decent person would, you grudgingly said yes, I had looked at the data. But no apology for your scummy behavior in accusing me.
Clearly, you don’t understand that how it’s generally done is you say “Willis, did you look at the data?”, I say “Yes, I did, here’s the link”. And we’d move forwards.
But NOOO, you have to make it into a big accusation that I’m incompetent, and load on a bunch more insults, then ignore when you’re shown wrong, and never even attempt to apologize or learn from your colossal ignorance.
And then, without drawing breath, you jump directly to the next accusation. Sorry, talk to the hand, ’cause the head’s not listening. Discussing science with you is like discussing philosophy with a wolverine, and I’m not interested in getting bit again.
In short? Piss off. I’m done with you. Go try your ugly tricks on someone else. Not interested. This is the last answer you’ll get from me. I’ll repeat it again as necessary.
Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. I wish you well wherever you go, and I’m done with dealing with you.
w.
re: “You falsely accused me of scientific malpractice, etc. etc.”
Sounds exactly like what lots and lots of scientific professionals could say about your claims regarding them, pal. How does it feel to have a taste of your own medicine?
You want to be treated with some respect? Show some respect to the worldwide professional scientific community yourself. Quit trying to pretend that they’re all a bunch of ignorant incompetents engaged in some kind of massive “conspiracy”.
Pass. You’ve burned your bridges with me. You falsely accused me of scientific malpractice by making claims when I hadn’t looked at the data.
When I pointed out that I had, you ignored it. When I pointed out that you’d ignored it, rather than apologizing like decent person would, you grudgingly said yes, I had looked at the data. But no apology for your scummy behavior in accusing me.
Clearly, you don’t understand that how it’s generally done is you say “Willis, did you look at the data?”, I say “Yes, I did, here’s the link”. And we’d move forwards.
But NOOO, you have to make it into a big accusation that I’m incompetent, and load on a bunch more insults, then ignore when you’re shown wrong, and never even attempt to apologize or learn from your colossal ignorance.
And then, without drawing breath, you jump directly to the next accusation. Sorry, talk to the hand, ’cause the head’s not listening. Discussing science with you is like discussing philosophy with a wolverine, and I’m not interested in getting bit again.
In short? Piss off. I’m done with you. Go try your ugly tricks on someone else. Not interested. This is the last answer you’ll get from me. I’ll repeat it again as necessary.
Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. I wish you well wherever you go, and I’m done with dealing with you.
w.