Monday, September 28, 2009

Emily Litella leaves the ice 

For those of you following the arguments around the climate "Hockey Stick", there's been another major development. It's pretty clear now why obtaining data transparency was such a chore. See also "Ding Dong the Stick is Dead".



By Anonymous tyree, at Mon Sep 28, 08:12:00 AM:

I have to say it,

"They told me if I voted for Bush and McCain junk science would be used to push the political agenda, and they were right!"  

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Mon Sep 28, 10:06:00 AM:

Kudos to Steve for having both the skill and chutzpah to dig thru the data to find this neatly hidden fact (because real scientists publish their data to prove their theories, and fraudulant scientists hide their data) and publishing it in a format that even I can understand. (no small feat)

Now if only he can publish it in a format to make the AGW crowd understand. Presumably this will take a stick also, applied in a correct manner.

I wonder how long it will take them all to run around screaming Ice Age?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Sep 28, 10:53:00 AM:

It'll be interesting reading the explanations of this.

Thanks for posting this.  

By Blogger Carolyn, at Mon Sep 28, 12:03:00 PM:

You people are obviously stuck in old-fashioned Normal Science.

You just don't understand the nuances of Post-normal Science.

Go back to school. Get with the program.  

By Blogger davod, at Mon Sep 28, 01:11:00 PM:

WRT the Hockey Stick Theory. This ratbag never let anyone look at the Raw Data. Imagine, such a critical element used to support the IPPCs decisions on Man Made Global Warming, and no-one has been able to see the raw data.

Just how did all those scientists come to ageee with the theory?  

By Anonymous tyree, at Mon Sep 28, 03:22:00 PM:


A significant number of the "scientists" who signed on to this theory were "social scientists" who wanted it to be true so they could save Gaia. Think of all of the "Doctors" in the Middle East who have Phd's in "the Koran". Not the same thing but similar.
The real scientists have been pursuing this angle for years. I remember reading about this data coverup a long time ago. The Global Warming/Climate Change/Save the Snail Darter crowd kept banging the drum about doing something now because the "world can't wait". They needed a crisis to get their "change" so they invented one.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Sep 28, 08:41:00 PM:

"I wonder how long it will take them all to run around screaming Ice Age?"

Hasn't that already been done?  

By Blogger The Machiavellian, at Mon Sep 28, 09:12:00 PM:


Thanks for finding this story.

All I can say, is pass it on, because it is unlikely that the MSM will carry a story about global warming scientist cooking the data.  

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Tue Sep 29, 12:34:00 AM:

Whoops, sorry. "Screaming Ice Age again."  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Tue Sep 29, 07:01:00 PM:

So let's see McIntyre put this into publishable format - I doubt there's anything more to it than the rest of his stuff - a few nitpicks accepted, while the overall conclusion is garbage.

If you think otherwise, then bet me over whether global warming will accelerate in the next decade.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Oct 01, 09:46:00 AM:

Your faith is touching but, Brian, even those who most steadfastly believe in climate modeling will have to accept that the foundations of the religion are shaking.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Oct 01, 03:29:00 PM:

George Will quotes the NYT on this subject, and it's pretty funny.

"In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word "plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it.

The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." "

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Fri Oct 02, 01:40:00 PM:

As usual, the claim falls apart:


1. McIntyre has no evidence for biased selection of tree cores.

2. McIntyre used no methodology for choosing his own selection of tree cores.

3. The hockey stick persists even if you remove that Siberian tree core set, or even if you remove all tree cores and use other proxies like glaciers and boreholes.

The denialists have nothing, nothing, nothing. And they won't put their money where their mouths are.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Oct 02, 02:03:00 PM:

Heh, heh, heh. Even the Times is turning on the religion, but Brian has his neurons firmly locked down.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?