Moving on
Posted by aogWednesday, 13 August 2008 at 10:18 TrackBack Ping URL

I ran in to this thorough litany of problems in the ‘hockey stick’ climate data and I originally thought “what a powerful bit of writing on the subject”. But, then reality set it. The ‘hockey stick’ has been generally discredited for a while, and it’s either used without regard to its provenance, or redacted out of talking points as if it never existed so as to also erase the sordid history behind it. They’ve moved on to some other foundation, which will also be abandoned once it cracks. At what point in that sequence can one just declare that the argument is purely belief driven and discredit the entire thing on that basis?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
David Cohen Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 15:26

The great example of this is the co2 icecore data. Preliminary studies showed increases in atmospheric co2 that almost perfectly correlated with the temperature record. Here, said the agwists (pronounced “ag wist”) was the smoking gun. No one could ever doubt agw now. This proved they were entirely right.

Final analysis confirmed the perfect correlation: rising co2 levels consistently follow rising temperatures by 800 years, perfectly holing the idea that co2 levels have caused global warming in the past.

The agwists’ response: first, Al Gore put the correlation in his movie and didn’t change his argument a lick; second, agwists responded that this was completely irrelevent and didn’t change things at all.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 18:26

Roger Pielke sez: ‘I have seen some of the frothing and irrationality that he (McIntyre) stirs.’


One of the curious things is that people who are professional skeptics (Orac at Respectful Insolence, for example) are completely in the tank for GW. And Orac is almost a neutralist compared with cranks like Hoofnagle, who is apparently getting a doctorate in a new ‘disease’ he calls ‘denialism.’

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 19:10

Note, though, that it’s no longer global warming but climate change. Isn’t being against climate change like being against continental drift?

cjm Wednesday, 13 August 2008 at 21:02

as long as it’s climate change you can believe in.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 14 August 2008 at 15:50

Out here, it’s rising sea levels that are supposed to be the immediate threat. So ‘climate change’ reduces back to ‘warming,’ ‘cause there’s no theory that gives you rising sea levels with cooling.

Tracked from Random Jottings: Science shenanigans... on 16 August 2008 at 11:45

A blogger calling himself Bishop Hill has written a fascinating post on the machinations behind the famous and influential "hockey stick" model of historical trends in global temperatures. (Thanks to AOG, who notes, sadly, "...But, then reality set it...

Post a comment