Comments on: Hockey Stick: RIP

By: Scientist

Scientist — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:01:30 +0000

So how can we understand anything at all about the Earth or the universe, in your opinion?

By: og

og — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:09:17 +0000

Oh, and continue to attack me personally, if you like. Ad hominem (surely, as a “scientist”, you understand some latin) amuses me so.

By: og

og — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:06:45 +0000

Ooh, 200 million years.

I am utterly stupid. That's why I'm just a neanderthal and you're a "scientist". What are your credentials, anyway?

You cannot predict something based on statistically insignificant data, period. Anyone who thinks they can, is an abject moron. Period.

By: Scientist

Scientist — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:39:12 +0000

You think that unless we have observed the planet since its formation, we can’t understand what factors affect the temperature of its atmosphere? How incredibly stupid. It’s very very simple to predict global warming, if the concentration of one of the gases which plays a major role in the energy balance of the atmosphere is going up. The age of the planet is utterly irrelevant, but you got it wrong in any case, by about 200 million years.

By: og

og — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:32:24 +0000

Yep. Because Google is such an important research tool. And totally unbiased, too. Once again: With less than 100 years of accurate temperature data, about a planet 4.75 billion years old, you can predict global warming how? (no, you don't have any direct observations beyond about a hundred years, anything before that is "extrapolation"(read:"Guess"))

"And you still can't spell, or write like an adult."

Ah. The classic ad hominem attack, last resort of the failure to win a debate.

By: Scientist

Scientist — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:22:44 +0000

You clearly do not understand that there are many more papers independently confirming the results that there are which question them.

And you still can't spell, or write like an adult.

By: sunsettommy

sunsettommy — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:15:55 +0000

His 704 citations certaintly shows his AGW delusion.

He apparently does not realize that a number of them actually contradict the HS. paper.But never mind.

LOL

By: og

og — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:47:18 +0000

"Obviously, you wouldn't need to say this repeatedly if it was actually true"

Yep, obviously. Because repeating lies about clearly nonexistent AGW over and over again, is speaking truth to power, and trying to alert the world to the junk science being foisted onto them is "denialist"

And why not learn how to do math? Basic errors (like assuming you can model meaningful temperature data on less than 500 years of data (the age of the thermometer)) hardly enhance your credibility.

By: Scientist

Scientist — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:50:47 +0000

Google Scholar lists 704 citations to Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998). Have a look through. You'll find numerous independent studies confirming their results.

And why not learn how to spell? Basic errors like that hardly enhance your credibility.

By: Sunsettommy

Sunsettommy — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:00:06 +0000

What INDEPENDANT paper is that?