- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists. https://harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/files/publications/pdfs/Pearl_QuatSciRev_2019.pdf
A
NOW rree ring proxies are ok.
And somehow, magically all paleoclimate data doesn’t automatically become a hockey stick.
Fascinating. [emoji849]
The hockey sticks were produced by ex post sample selection and a poor grasp of statistics. Absent those shortcomings, there's nothing wrong with tree ring proxies. You would know this had you read any of the voluminous material posted here. You cannot make an argument out of your self-imposed ignorance.
And the statistics are good here because... you like the results?
I make no judgment about the quality of the statistical work in these recent papers, but we know the work was shoddy in the hockey stick papers.
Of course you make no judgement. You saw them on a denier blog and spit them up here.
The journal editors and peer-reviewers made their respective judgments.
The paper is still widely cited, and virtually every major paleoclimate expert is a part of PAGES 2K.
But the denier blogs you cull from dont care about that, and you don’t know any better, apparently.
The papers speak for themselves.
I know. That’s why MBH98 is still cited today as a landmark paper.
Dramatically fewer in the past decade, and a number of those were of the "problems with" variety.
No, it’s actively referenced now, which is pretty impressive for a 22 year old paper.
Your blog spam has no references.
Nope. I looked up the citation history.
I just posted it. But you oddly cut it out of your response.
I guess you’re not just not able to understand, you are actively being dishonest.
My bad!
[h=1]Hump Day Hilarity – How Science vs. Climate Science works[/h]Anthony Watts / 5 hours ago June 3, 2020
[FONT="]The other day, I was in a conversation related to the climate science, and and I was trying to explain the scientific method, I was looking for a flowchart of steps, and found one. I also found one that compared the scientific method with the “science worshipper” method. While not exactly right, it struck me as being a good representation of climate science.
I’ve updated and enhanced the flowchart to accommodate the Popper Mannian method of climate science.
click to enlarge[/FONT]
This is nothing but Anthony Watts lying about climate science.
This is nothing but Anthony Watts lying about climate science.
It appears to me an accurate assessment of how the climate sciences deviate from proper scientific methodology.
Can you show us a flowchart of what the IPCC does?
Odd.
It’s extremely well outlined on the IPCC website.
You would think you’d have read it, given that you read ‘all the papers’.
You think so?
Think?
It’s pretty clearly laid out. Every meeting, every deadline, every review....
I guess you never bothered to look either.
Weird, because every time I give you guys the link, you whine like babies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?