Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Predictions for 2016

Raff and EM, if you are both agreed that the Hockey Stick represents a crime against science, can we discount everything from Mann, and Schmidt, and Real Climate etc, and start again? Is that fair?

Dec 30, 2015 at 11:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Diogenes

"Is it a dream?"

Not very rigorous, was it Isozu seems to have the same grasp of statistics as Martin A.

Is that what they call handwaving?

Dec 31, 2015 at 12:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf Charlie

"Raff and EM, if you are both agreed that the Hockey Stick represents a crime against science, "

Where hid you get that from? Mann et al 1999 is valid science, pioneering in its time. It is also 17 years old. The pattern it showed has been replicated many times since.

There is now a whole body of resealrch using more modern techniques and reaching similar conclusions. Why not attack that?

Dec 31, 2015 at 12:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM I do apologise, but thank you for clarifying your views on the validity of the Hockey Stick, and non-existence of the MWP and LIA.

Dec 31, 2015 at 12:45 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, now I really understand what it is I actually DENY!

The Holy Hockey Stick of Mann.

Thank you for putting it so clearly for me, you have been a great help.

Dec 31, 2015 at 12:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf, wherever do you get that idea? I view the rather pathetic state of "skepticism", still obsessing about a nearly 20 year old graph, as a sign that since MBH98 you can find nothing very much in climate science to disagree with.

Dec 31, 2015 at 1:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff

Specifying who may post on a thread and who may not post would be a tedious and long winded exercise, specifying the subject matter for the thread works well for all reasonable people.

Dec 31, 2015 at 3:13 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Raff, thank you for explaining your lack of understanding of science.

Dec 31, 2015 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mann et al 1999 is valid science, pioneering in its time.
Sorry, EM, but the whole point of the furore over the hockey stick is that it is NOT valid science; the pattern it showed has not been replicated, independently, as Izuru quite clearly shows. Mann’s only pioneering achievement is to show how so many can be fooled so easily by such obvious junk.

Dec 31, 2015 at 9:51 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

EM your method of argument would no doubt say that the discovery of oxygen vindicated the belief in phlogiston, or that discovery of dinosaur skeletons vindicated those who believed in the fixity of species. If MBH does not resemble later reconstructions, why has it not simply been abandoned on the refuse heap of science? Why is it still necessary to claim it has been vindicated? Is climate science no more than just an ideology where no challenge is allowed to early sources? If that sounds like conspiracy ideation to you, then stick with my belief that the public figures in climate science are stupid.

Dec 31, 2015 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

[snipped - wrong thread]

Dec 31, 2015 at 12:27 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I deny the credibility of Mann's Holy Hockey Stick. Therefore Raff and Entropic Man are stupid.

I didn't realise how dumb the concept of 'Climate Scientist' is, when the logic process is so simplistic.

1. Accept anything that matches your belief system (without checking anything)

2. Reject anything that contradicts your belief system (without checking anything)

3. If in doubt, resort to name calling, again and again, and go back to Step 1, and Step 2. No science necessary.

Dec 31, 2015 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dung, if you want to keep threads on topic they need to be moderated, presumably by the creator (in this case the Yins who have disappeared), to nudge people back to the topic. OT discussion here and elsewhere is not a result of malicious intent but simply responding to things people have said (or asked). Maybe you should act as moderator in chief, as OT discussion upsets you. I will respect requests to move back on topic as long as they are issued even handedly.

Dec 31, 2015 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

I predict more science denial in 2016 by people who cannot see any problem with their faith in Hockey Stick Climate Science.

It is so badly fractured and spliced, that depending on it as a crutch during moments of instability, is only going to end in more tears.

Dec 31, 2015 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Warmists are trapped by their laziness. They tried to shortcut public understanding by claiming a consensus. But a consensus suggests a finished product, not a series of cutting edge guesses and prototype bits of science. The problem with the Hockey Stick was it's use as a poster for the IPCC report. It was there behind every speaker saying 'I'm the best that climate science has to offer'. And it was shite. The consensus should have known it was and rejected it. At no point has the consensus admitted it was wrong, they've just moved on. Well sorry, but the Hockey Stick and how it was handled says everything we need to know about those who want to pretend it was just science in progress. It says you're slap dash, liars who will endorse anything to get your own way. Why should anyone take anything else you shovel, a moments notice?

Warmists have had over a decade to put their house in order. 10 years since Al's flawed movie and 6 years sine Climategate. 2015 saw a lot of fading interest in AGW and its solutions. 2016 might be the year politicians stop pretending they care.

Dec 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2, apart from your omission of 'very expensive' 'damaging' 'disastrous' etc in front of 'shite', I agree entirely.

Unfortunately, Climate Science wants to 'move on', without realising they have been going in the wrong direction for 20 years already.

Dec 31, 2015 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

For a 'denier' website Bishop Hill is amazing; you can comment anywhere, your posts do not get removed and you can start your own discussion threads. You do not need anyone to tell you when you are off topic.

Jan 2, 2016 at 11:40 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, it has its merits. But this whole page is off topic and only 4 of the 17 posts are from EM or me. So fix your own problem, don't blame it on us.

Jan 2, 2016 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Dung, note that climate science experts are keen to disassociate themselves from problems of their own making.

I predict more of the same in 2016, and this thread demonstrates they are starting the year as they intend to continue.

Jan 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

EM, read this and tell me that models and reality aren't parting company.

http://climateaudit.org/2016/01/05/update-of-model-observation-comparisons/

Or better still, tell Steve McIntyre why he's wrong. Nobody can say that we won't have a series of El Ninos but until that happens it would be arrogance to deny that the current data points towards a lower amount of warming.

Jan 6, 2016 at 10:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2, it is the earth that is wrong, for not complying with the computer adjusted climate models, that have been programmed on the assumption that CO2 is the magic control knob. All climate scientists know this, so they will have to adjust more data, to prove they are still right.

Jan 6, 2016 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Doh! You're right. Reality needs to be tortured until it gives the right answers.

Jan 6, 2016 at 11:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2

If surface temperatures and models agree, but RSS gives lower values, perhaps the problem is with RSS.

Jan 6, 2016 at 1:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"If surface temperatures and models agree"

They don't. At least not until they issue the next version of HadCRUT 5 or the next. I take it as read that they will try to narrow the gap they have with GISS. But even GISS must be getting nervous about how much fiddling they can keep on doing to imperfect records. Wouldn't want to detect human finger prints on the data.

Jan 6, 2016 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

TinyCO2, with modern fingerprinting and DNA analysis, it should be possible to identify the men leaving their fingerprints on climate history and the temperature records.

2016 could be a record year for unprecedented and unnecessary temperature record adjustments, based on traditional climate science practices, since computer records could be amended with impunity

Jan 6, 2016 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie