«The Exxon scientists and those that study climate change do not use Elloit Wave Theory in their analysis.»

Well of course not - that was only an analogy: a good analogy, but still only an analogy!

«The fact remains that Exxon scientist as well as many others world wide were remarkably accurate in their analysis and predictions.»

The significance of any evidence the Exxon scientist(s) may have discovered is in its early date, because any post-Thatcher research or measurements on this topic are inadmissible.

It is therefore important to know exactly how many PRE-THATCHER Exxon and/or other scientist(s) believed in global warming, out of how many who did not, also what evidence have they used.

It would still be difficult in today's world to establish the authenticity and age of this old data and find how to ensure that it has not since been re-engineered, nevertheless it could be a worthy endeavour.

WTF?
Yuyutsu states:"It would still be difficult in today's world to establish the authenticity and age of this old data and find how to ensure that it has not since been re-engineered."

Not hard to establish authenticity at all :

"In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered internal company documents showing that Exxon scientists have been warning their executives about “potentially catastrophic” anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming since at least 1977.

Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s;

the coal industry since at least the 1960s;

electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s;

and Shell oil company since at least the 1980s."

In seven years there has been no rebuttal of this hard data.

Of course their forecasts came true !
It was going to happen anyway ! Either they knew about the cycle and
pretended they forecast it, or they just presumed they knew why the
temperature rose, and struck it lucky.

This will be histories greatest Tulip market in CO2 offset certificates.
They will all be customers of the Gnomes of Zurich, just watch.

WTF?

Yuyutsu states:'... that was only an analogy: a good analogy, but still only an analogy!"

You are wrong there. This a very poor analogy.

I took time to learn about Elliot waves over 20 years ago when I was looking for tools for investing using technical analysis.

It was specifically designed to make predictions about the direction of the stock market and I viewed it as a poor and virtually worthless indicator.

So comparing a worthless stock market indicator (you yourself say "while many others lost and blamed their own mis-reading of the patterns.") with the peer reviewed scientific analysis of many scientists worldword is just trite.

Then you make the outragous claim; " because any post-Thatcher research or measurements on this topic are inadmissible."

A more rediculous statement about scientific endevour I have yet to see.

It is not up to you to decide when scientific reseach ends.

The whole point of scientific reseach is that it is ongoing.

Nowhere in any of your posts are there any references to back up anything you have said.

WFT?

Bazz states: "Of course their forecasts came true !
It was going to happen anyway ! Either they knew about the cycle and
pretended they forecast it, or they just presumed they knew why the
temperature rose, and struck it lucky."

Let's apply just a little bit of logic here.

If they knew about it because it was going to happen anyway why would they claim that the very powerful, extremely wealthy and well resourced companies they worked for were to blame?

If it was going to happen anyway why bite the hand that feeds you for no reason.

The best advice they could give is full steam ahead.

Add some sources to your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

"Fester indicates that Fester's ojections to scientific analysis stems from something that he read as a school boy and some predictions made in a company prospectus."

That is a misrepresentation wtf. My point is that you don't know whether a fifty year prediction is true when you make it. Just because Exxon Mobil funded a forecast fifty years ago is no reason to assume that it was given any more credence than any other forecast it might have funded.