# Temperature Record of the Last 1000 Years **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2007, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935 "2007-11-10T17:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/321 "2008-03-01T23:57:12Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I’m more interested in discussing the underlying issues than just simple appeals to authority. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: It seems you still think that referring to authorities is a fallacy, it is not, the fallacy only applies if the authority being cited are not experts in the field or knowledgeable in what the the discussion is about. So, not a fallacy, and your OP is still baloney. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/322 "2008-03-02T00:02:32Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] So if the Union of Concerned Scientists says that the hockey stick is correct, my question is how they would respond to the arguments I have made. [/quote] So you should ask them and stop wasting time. > [@](#): > > In any event, I note that one of your own authorities raises serious questions about the (Mann) hockey stick: > > bolding added. > > This is significant because the claim that recent temps are the highest in 400 years is much less interesting than the claim that recent temps the highest in 1000 years. After all, we just came out of the Little Ice Age. And what you are saying here just shows that you did not learn anything from what others posted. The questions were not enough to prevent Mann from contributing once again to the latest IPCC report. And I’m still waiting to see if you will deal honestly with post #319 ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/323 "2008-03-02T00:04:39Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] :rolleyes: It seems you still think that referring to authorities is a fallacy, [/quote] Absolutely not. What authorities have to say is interesting and carries weight, but I’m more interested in discussing the underlying evidence and arguments. In any event, I don’t accept the Union of Concerned Scientists as authoritative. Even Wikipedia describes it as an “advocacy” group. Nor do I accept Colin Summerhayes. Not just based on reading a letter to the editor that he wrote. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/324 "2008-03-02T00:06:53Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] So you should ask them and stop wasting time. [/quote] As far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to post to this thread. > [@](#): > > The questions were not enough to prevent Mann from contributing once again to the latest IPCC report. 😕 So what? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/325 "2008-03-02T00:12:41Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] It is clear to me a debunking or discrediting in science requires the mainstream or the consensus to tell us something is discredited or debunked. [/QUOTE] I proposed a slightly different definition in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9512637&postcount=251) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/326 "2008-03-02T00:16:03Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] 😕 So what? [/QUOTE] That was my line there. 🙂 If the hockey stick was invalid then the “overwhelming” evidence would have prevented Mann to publish yet another graph like that in the latest IPCC report. If you want to discuss the validity of the data you should open a different thread, it is the baloney in the OP and in your statement that “I now believe that the hockey stick, as I understand it, is invalid.” The evidence so far shows that no opinion can be changed with your “debating” Show your honestly then by dealing with post #319 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/327 "2008-03-02T00:18:35Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I proposed a slightly different definition in [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9512637&postcount=251) [/QUOTE] Moving the goalpost. > **[Moving the goalposts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost)** > > Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports such as football and hockey, that means to change the rule or criterion ("goal") of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage. > This phrase is British in origin and derives from sports that use goalposts. The figurative use alludes to the perceived unfairness in changing the goal one is trying to achieve after the... As mentioned before, open a different thread then, your OP here remains kaput. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/328 "2008-03-02T00:30:42Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Moving the goalpost. [/quote] No, although I admit that the question I am interested in discussing is a bit different from what I asked in the original post. However, if you want to get technical, the original post was just about the Mann hockey stick. Actually it was you who claimed that despite problems with the orignal hockey stick, important aspects of the hockey stick have been supported by other research. So you yourself broadened the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/329 "2008-03-02T00:31:50Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] If the hockey stick was invalid then the “overwhelming” evidence would have prevented Mann to publish yet another graph like that in the latest IPCC report. [/quote] I don’t see why. Anyway, the new “hockey stick” is significantly different from the old one. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/330 "2008-03-02T00:34:21Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] If you want to discuss the validity of the data you should open a different thread, it is the baloney in the OP and in your statement that “I now believe that the hockey stick, as I understand it, is invalid.” [/quote] Again, you are the one who broadened the discussion so you are hardly in a position to claim that we’ve wandered off-topic. > [@](#): > > Show your honestly then by dealing with post #319 I offered my own standard for “discredited.” I’m not sure what more you want. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/331 "2008-03-02T00:36:24Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] No, although I admit that the question I am interested in discussing is a bit different from what I asked in the original post. However, if you want to get technical, the original post was just about the Mann hockey stick. Actually it was you who claimed that despite problems with the orignal hockey stick, important aspects of the hockey stick have been supported by other research. So you yourself broadened the discussion. [/QUOTE] And you think that would be a problem with my position in this thread? 🙂 If you want to discuss the validity of the data you should open a different thread, it is the baloney in the OP and in your statement of “I now believe that the hockey stick, as I understand it, is invalid.” that is the problem here. You are entitled to that opinion, but not the facts. In academia the hockey stick was not discredited, the very heavy weight of the cites I posted show that you were terribly mistaken in your OP. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/332 "2008-03-02T00:38:09Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I offered my own standard for “discredited.” I’m not sure what more you want. [/QUOTE] To stop cherry picking and deal with the whole post, not just the last line. IOW, stop that dishonest debating tactic. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/333 "2008-03-02T00:49:50Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] And you think that would be a problem with my position in this thread? 🙂 [/quote] Yes. If you want to strictly limit discussion to what was asked in the first post, then fine. The fact is that there were serious problems with Mann’s analysis and the NAS said as much. End of discussion. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/334 "2008-03-02T00:51:54Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] To stop cherry picking and deal with the whole post, not just the last line. [/quote] I don’t know what you are talking about. The OP did not contain a definition of “discredited.” I later offered one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/335 "2008-03-02T00:59:19Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Yes. If you want to strictly limit discussion to what was asked in the first post, then fine. The fact is that there were serious problems with Mann’s analysis and the NAS said as much. End of discussion. [/QUOTE] Since you never explained why New Scientist would publish that it is a myth to think the Hockey Stick was discredited, and many other science groups find no trouble with it; sure, the discussion has ended. The problems were not serious, when even Mann was happy with the results it is clear that you do not have any idea what “discredit” means. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/336 "2008-03-02T01:03:50Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I don’t know what you are talking about. The OP did not contain a definition of “discredited.” I later offered one. [/QUOTE] Like I said, you have no idea what “discredited” means. Your sorry definition can mean that any nitpick should be good to discredit something, as I see academics not shying away from using the term the conclusion stands: It is a myth to think the hockey stick was discredited. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/337 "2008-03-02T01:21:22Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Like I said, you have no idea what “discredited” means. Your sorry definition can mean that any nitpick should be good to discredit something, [/quote] I disagree. My definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” to prevent this problem. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/338 "2008-03-02T01:26:36Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Since you never explained why New Scientist would publish that it is a myth to think the Hockey Stick was discredited, and many other science groups find no trouble with it; sure, the discussion has ended. [/quote] Lol. That “New Scientist” publication is based on later studies and therefore belongs in your new thread. At least according to your logic. > [@](#): > > even Mann was happy with the results What’s he gonna say? That he’s crushed? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/339 "2008-03-02T01:34:48Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] I disagree. My definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” to prevent this problem. [/QUOTE] Like I said, you are entitled to that opinion but not the facts. After seeing the latest IPCC report [http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1\_Print\_Ch06.pdf](http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf) I have to agree with what RealClimate said here: > **[RealClimate: WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/wsj-editorial-board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand/)** > > RealClimate: While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report, one small village still holds out against the tide - the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This contrasts sharply with the news section of... > [@](#): > > Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ ". Not only are the three original “hockey stick” reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years. The only reason why I wring yet another example of the hockey stick not being discredited is to once again show the OP was mistaken. If Mann was discredited then I would expect him to be out of the picture in the latest report, no such thing has occurred. And you can not explain that away other than in LOL assertions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2008, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935/340 "2008-03-02T01:37:20Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. That “New Scientist” publication is based on later studies and therefore belongs in your new thread. At least according to your logic. What’s he gonna say? That he’s crushed? [/QUOTE] That was not the whole quote (more dishonesty), as anyone can see you are only avoiding the realization that you are only propping up a myth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/temperature-record-of-the-last-1000-years/425935.md?page=18)