Comments on: Deconstructing the Hockey Stick

By: J Craig

J Craig — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:47:05 +0000

All climate is local. Trying to define global climate trends based on Southwestern US Bristlecone Pine data is the same as conclusively determining a trend with one data point.

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:21:16 +0000

Manfred:
"This complete lack of robustness raises serious questions about the design goals of Mann's approach."
Actually, it answers more questions than it raises.

By: Manfred

Manfred — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:23:29 +0000

The exclusion of a single proxy series completely alters the shape of the reconstruction. This complete lack of robustness raises serious questions about the design goals of Mann’s approach.

By: hunter

hunter — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:41:34 +0000

No matter how much lipstick Mann paints on his hockey stick, it is still a pig.
That he is knowingly using corrupt data sets and trying to claim he is able divine meaningful data from it means that he already knows the answer he is after and simply wants to justify it.
If he actually was on to something, the stick would not disappear if knew proxy sources were used.
Instead, this is the climate equivalent of the 'Faces on Mars'. That was where UFO crackpot Richard Hoagland (former NASA guy, by the way) spent decades telling people about how he was able to 'prove' there was a great pyramid complex on Mars. He were of course at best mistaken, and at worst simply a con-artist. Even after it is obvious the Martian istes in question are just eroded hills, there are still true believers who claim it is all a big coverup and that Hoagland is a great genius.
Mann is fixated on his hockey stick, because without the temp data is just a non-threatening pile. But by his magic, he transforms it, into an ominous indictment of humans. Selling the wickedness of humans and an impending apocalypse is much more fun- and as Gore & co. demonstrates, profitable.
Think how achievable it would have been to have spent the last years building a global standard to burn coal and diesel more cleanly, and to cut down on particulates aerosols and soot.
Instead, we are chasing the delusion of climate management by way of CO2. And the AGW promoters are attacking anyone who even dares talk about other claimte forcings, much less questioning their assertion that CO2 is the leading claimte forcing.
Meanwhile, we know the AGW community was wrong about the Arctic ice. They were wrong about temps. They were wrong about storm strength. They were wrong about droughts.
Yet Gore &co. cannot be questioned?
Bunk.

By: joshv

joshv — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:53:14 +0000

Am I getting the silent treatment Jennifer? Poor me. I guess you will have to just let my words stand, unrefuted. You also continue to demonstrate your inability to answer simple questions. Ignore them or evade them – you are still quite incapable of answering direct questions that get straight to the heart of your arguments.

Perhaps I should just start posting under another name. No… no… I quite enjoy the silence.

By: joshv

joshv — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:33:48 +0000

It is independently verified by removing the proxies found by the method and confirming that the end result is in fact very dependent on those proxies. Do you dispute this fact Jennifer?

By: dearieme

dearieme — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:29:02 +0000

@A. McIntire – thanks for the tip. The quality of his comments are often so high that I’ll lie low until I have something to contribute, rather than just something I want to get off my chest.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:08:28 +0000

Alan. No, I am not confused. You are. I would accept your answer in the sum above because although your method is invalid, the answer can be verified by a valid method. Like I said in the first place, “Never accept any result if you don’t agree with how it was derived, unless it’s been independently confirmed by a method you do agree with.” The original post says nothing about independent confirmation – it just says “here is a statement, that has been arrived at by dodgy reasoning. But I like the statement, so I will endorse it.” This is anti-scientific.

By: hunter

hunter — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:48:05 +0000

So once again we see a combination of corrupted data, and algorithms designed to show the answers the the author wanted:
GISS, Hansen's predictions, Mann's recycled pap.
The thing that makes this sort of bogus work hold up, however, is the willful support of fellow AGW believers.

By: Alan D. McIntire

Alan D. McIntire — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:14:26 +0000

In reply to dearieme and dreamin: I had problems after McIntyre switched
to a different server after his site was crashed several times. Try
the browser firefox at

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

and you'll be able to get on

Jennifer- you are confused about the difference between accepting a method and accepting a conclusion.

I could say : take the equation 1666/6664, proceed to
cancel out sixes in both the numerator and denominator , and you'll get

1666/6664 = 166/664= 16/64 = 1/4.

You will accept the result that all of the above fractions are equivalent
even though you disagree with my method of canceling out sixes.

- A. McIntire