...
I called Hefaistos on supplying a doctored figure that is not what was in the paper he linked to.
When asked for the source of his appended figure he has still failed to provide it .T...
Sorry, Kiwigriff, but that is a
lie.
In my first post, Reply #4002, I
1. gave the link to where the chart is from, and
2. I even provided the pdf file with the paper where the chart is.
The chart isn't 'doctored', it's
appended with some additional, clarifying info along the time line.
Yes, it's cut out from a larger panel, but the rest of the panel isn't relevant to what's discussed.
Yes, I agree, I should have said the chart was annotated. But honestly, I think the annotated version is more readable.
I'm
sorry about the years being wrong in the annotation, I didn't know that 1950 is used as a base year. However, I think this is not so much to be upset about, as we're talking about a chart that encompasses 10.000 years, and the 100 years at the end aren't too distinguashable anyway.
In my Reply #4011, I gave fiurther reference to where the chart is from, originally. I wrote: "The model that gave the data and the figure is originally from Larsen et al, "The response of the southern Greenland ice sheet to the Holocene thermal maximum", 2015, DOI: 10.1130/G36476.1" This was in reply to Gerontocrat, who wrongly asserted that there was no information on volume data.
I attached a figure with the relevant panel from that paper as well.
Then came S.Pansa in Reply #4014 and wrongly claimed that the figures weren't in the papers I linked to.
This is incredible, that some people here are unable to read what I wrote, unable to check the references I gave, and again, Kiwigriff repeats the same lie.
I give links, I give proper references, I attach charts, but to no avail. Because some people on this forum are much more interested to try to find errors in others, than to discuss the science.
In Reply #4021, Paolo put things straight.