• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hockey stick confirmed yet again.

Threegoofs

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,488
Reaction score
28,831
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What- is this like a dozen times?

This one is a very large proxy database that is pretty well distributed globally.
It basically shows what we have known for a while- recent warming is an anomaly over the last 12,000 years.

Published in Nature, and I’m sure denier blogs will be whining about it soon.

Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach | Scientific Data

b4330ff3ab37eeff2b423e7891acdcea.jpg
 
PAGES 2K in disguise, incorporating all the malpractice for which the paleoclimate field has become justifiably infamous. Not worth anyone's time.
 
Jack Hays said:
PAGES 2K in disguise, incorporating all the malpractice for which the paleoclimate field has become justifiably infamous. Not worth anyone's time.
Click to expand...

Published in Nature.

Cleared by editors and peer reviewers, and obviously selected to be published in a top journal because of its significance.

Unlike your hero, Curry. LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
Published in Nature.

Cleared by editors and peer reviewers, and obviously selected to be published in a top journal because of its significance.

Unlike your hero, Curry. LOL
Click to expand...

Malpractice nonetheless.

"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
 
Jack Hays said:
Malpractice nonetheless.

"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research
Click to expand...

Yes. Nature doesn’t understand this topic as well as you and your blogs do.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your citation of Nature does not trump the observation of my Nobel laureate.
Click to expand...

The main idea of Gunnar Myrdal is a global welfare state with redistribution not only inside countries but also from rich to poor countries. So why haven't you propose those ideas on this forum if he is your Nobel laureate?

Gunnar Myrdal - Wikipedia

Also that quote from Gunnar Myrdal taking out of context can be used by any one who question established science like anti vaxxers, flat earthers and those who deny the moon landing.

Also then it comes to the scientific consensus on climate change you have powerful interests that goes against it. Like for example the president of United States that claim that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Also for example the Republican Senator James Inhofe who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

There federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action on climate change even with those people controlling and overseeing those federal agencies. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
The main idea of Gunnar Myrdal is a global welfare state with redistribution not only inside countries but also from rich to poor countries. So why haven't you propose those ideas on this forum if he is your Nobel laureate?

Gunnar Myrdal - Wikipedia

Also that quote from Gunnar Myrdal taking out of context can be used by any one who question established science like anti vaxxers, flat earthers and those who deny the moon landing.

Also then it comes to the scientific consensus on climate change you have powerful interests that goes against it. Like for example the president of United States that claim that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Also for example the Republican Senator James Inhofe who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"

Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

There federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action on climate change even with those people controlling and overseeing those federal agencies. Because the evidence is so overwhelming.

Fourth National Climate Assessment

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...

I have no problem with any of Myrdal's ideas. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
As for the quoted passage, it refers to the behavior of scientists in groups, and is a valid observation across all disciplines. It is never a bad thing to understand human behavior accurately.
 
Jack Hays said:
Paleoclimatology
Major new paleoclimatology study shows (claims) global warming has upended 6,500 years of cooling

Over the past 150 years, global warming has more than undone the global cooling that occurred over the past six millennia, according to a major study published June 30 in Nature Research’s Scientific Data, “Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach.”
Click to expand...

One day after Jack tells us the study is wrong and replicates past mistakes, he posts a blog agreeing with the findings (calling it a major study!!), makes no mention of the ‘mistakes’, but spins the results into a different conclusion.

But hey, denial comes in different flavors so one might just be able to have them all on one rainbow cone, even if the ideas are mutually exclusive!
 
Threegoofs said:
One day after Jack tells us the study is wrong and replicates past mistakes, he posts a blog agreeing with the findings (calling it a major study!!), makes no mention of the ‘mistakes’, but spins the results into a different conclusion.

But hey, denial comes in different flavors so one might just be able to have them all on one rainbow cone, even if the ideas are mutually exclusive!
Click to expand...

WUWT reported the work as it always does, regardless of the work's announced findings. Note the use of the word "claims." This is what is known as fair and honest reporting. It's likely that WUWT will carry a critique when such is produced.
 
Jack Hays said:
WUWT reported the work as it always does, regardless of the work's announced findings. Note the use of the word "claims." This is what is known as fair and honest reporting. It's likely that WUWT will carry a critique when such is produced.
Click to expand...

Like I said- any denial is fine, even if the rationales are mutually exclusive.

The underbelly of dishonesty is once again exposed.
 
Threegoofs said:
Like I said- any denial is fine, even if the rationales are mutually exclusive.

The underbelly of dishonesty is once again exposed.
Click to expand...

Not sure what denial you're seeing in the WUWT post. Regardless, your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is no requirement for every critique to focus on the same perceived error.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not sure what denial you're seeing in the WUWT post. Regardless, your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is no requirement for every critique to focus on the same perceived error.
Click to expand...

Yes.

It’s so common to support an argument that a paper is fatally flawed with a follow up of a post calling it a ‘major paper’ and describing its findings as valid. :roll:

But keep blackknighting. It’s a real good look for you.
 
Threegoofs said:
One day after Jack tells us the study is wrong and replicates past mistakes, he posts a blog agreeing with the findings (calling it a major study!!), makes no mention of the ‘mistakes’, but spins the results into a different conclusion.

But hey, denial comes in different flavors so one might just be able to have them all on one rainbow cone, even if the ideas are mutually exclusive!
Click to expand...

Unbelieveable. The deniers will do anything
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

It’s so common to support an argument that a paper is fatally flawed with a follow up of a post calling it a ‘major paper’ and describing its findings as valid. :roll:

But keep blackknighting. It’s a real good look for you.
Click to expand...

The two are not mutually exclusive. Your universe must be quite simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom