Comments on: Sorry deniers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years

By: KW

KW — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:43:06 +0000

So, as of 2009…aren’t we back down to the peak of the Midevil times? It would seem so with all the people wearing chain mail and such, jousting each other over trival things such as tenths of degrees of warming.

By: Mary Hinge

Mary Hinge — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:41:17 +0000

So Bob,
I see you have been trawling the depths of the denialists’ blobs, the language and phraseology is exactly what we would expect.
Perhaps you would like to share your references for the ‘hockey stock’ being ‘totally discredited’ by scientists and statiticians? (not blog references, I mean actual scientific references) As far as I am aware over 99% of credible scientists do not share this view and statiticians, well Steve McIntyre comes to mind….no…can’t think of anyone else.
Bob, remember that all the credible scientific papers in the last 20 years show that the affects of AGW are increasing and the fact that man is the major cause is beyond reasonable doubt.
To learn more about this subject broaden your reading. Virtually all of the denier blogs are run/supported by the religious right wing (your ‘global warming religion shows how they are trying to delfect attention from this) and oil and energy companies. If you don’t believe me about the religious right then just look at the denialists websites when Obama was in the process of being elected, very illuminating.
I hope you will heed the advice, read more from peer reviewed journals and less from the same sources that deny evolution and’or are convinced of a huge inter-governmental cover up (very similar in style to those who believe in Roswell, tin-foil hats and grassy knolls..you get the picture)

By: Bob Herron

Bob Herron — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:45:21 +0000

The Mann hockey stick is totally discredited by scientists and statisticians around the world. Just as the last ten years is collapsing the global warming religion (now climate change) the science generated by warmists is being uncovered as sham and data manipulation. The latest being the claim Antarctica is warming, discredited even by global warming believers.

By: shop

shop — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:31:55 +0000

Some 1,200 proxy records were used, mostly from the Northern Hemisphere. These figures show the spatial and temporal distribution of the nine different kinds of proxy records used

By: Janama

Janama — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:31:24 +0000

“Without this explanation, a logical conclusion from the proxy graph is that the MWP was at least as warm as now and very possibly warmer. ”

you mean like in this chart from this same site that shows the MWP at a higher temp than today.

http://climateprogress.org/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2008/ 08/ sweet-spot.jpg

By: kuen

kuen — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 09:32:31 +0000

this is sience fiction!

the hockeystik ist nonsens, completely wrong. everbody should know about temperatures during lia and the warmer periodes.
what you show, is dramatically in pulling down the warm times and useless uprising in the lia temperatures.
i do not talk to peoples any more, how do not understand simple climatologie at all. this is only dramatik fiction, no sience.

your,

m.kuen

By: PHE

PHE — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:28:13 +0000

As summarised above, Mann et al state they have no explanation of why the instrumental data are so much higher than the proxy data in the most recent times. Without this explanation, a logical conclusion from the proxy graph is that the MWP was at least as warm as now and very possibly warmer.

Take the difference between instrumental and proxy for the most recent time: approx 0.7 deg C. Then add this to the highest proxy result in the MWP (0.2 degC). If there were relaible thermometers then, it is perfectly possible that they would have recorded up to 0.9 degC (on the given scale). Of course there is no proof, just a possibilty.

It is therefore difficult for an idiot to see how Mann et al draw their conclusion “that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are LIKELY anomalous in a long-term context.”

By: Mark Zimmerman

Mark Zimmerman — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 02:54:38 +0000

As the paper has lots of links to data and the datasets are on line, if folks want to do more work, they can have it. Hence the tenor of my responses above

I would do this if I had the ability; can you point me to where I might get the program to download and display the data Gavin directed me to?

By: Dano

Dano — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:08:25 +0000

Personal attacks (eg ad hom): you are wrong because you are an idiot.

NOT personal attacks (NOT ad hom): you are wrong because of A, B, C, and by the way, you are an idiot.

Your rhetoric needs work. A lot of work. Write the authors and tell them they are wrong. Write PNAS and tell them too. Let us know how that turns out.

———

Mark Z:

I read the exchange you refer to and in the page numbers I give above and explain, the issues with datasets and calibration that I mention and gavin talks around is generally known as the _divergence problem_, discussed in the paper.

Mann has effectively said – in my view – this is our analysis (second author is a stats guy), this is what we came up with, there are the data. It sounds like (I haven’t corresponded with any of the authors) other things are in the works and rehashing old ideas is being put to bed. As the paper has lots of links to data and the datasets are on line, if folks want to do more work, they can have it. Hence the tenor of my responses above.

There are many more things to do that take importance over rehashing old ideas. Folks with natural science degrees (I am one multiple times) see many signs that cause great concern. Anyone visiting a decent Uni library and spending a day in the journal stacks sees the same thing.

That said, adding more data to allow us to better map scenarios for adaptive management is a good thing. The world’s militaries are already doing this.

But the point is: we have moved beyond this quibble. We are trying to figure out what to do in a warming world. Nailing down precisely how much man contributes to this (most of it) is helpful to craft good policy. But it is not helpful to get society going, which is what needs to be done now, so the details about abatement can be accepted. Without acceptance, nothing gets done. This is how it works. Folks quibbling about details of minor importance don’t want the societal discussion to happen at all. That is what we see here. And on the other thread, with that snowblind character, you see the effect of how the game is played to delay the discussion – it’s to the point where you don’t know if this is a gullible dupe or a misinformation campaign to create a false sense of a grass-roots movement – believe me, that is the main thing in the way of decision-making, not a question about the science.

Best,

By: PHE

PHE — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:45:01 +0000

BTW, Dano gives me too much credit. When it comes to ‘personal attacks’, he does quite a good enough job himself of making his ‘arguments’ look ridiculous. I take no credit for that.