But it is science the deals with provabilities what **Enginerd **and others are discussing here, assuming a simple answer is getting into a fallacy. For a true yes or no item, the OP’s point is a good item that can be set with a yes or no answer. (And it was answered in one post already).
And you are wrong, it is not a fair question but a fallacy:
[Bolding mine.]
And that takes us to the sorry point you make recently of accusing others of not debating honestly. Pointing others to read the whole thread just shows people like **BrainFireBob **that you are avoiding dealing with the flaw of the OP:
Right now, even after several pages of evidence and clearly avoiding the first post I did (how honest was that? (look at the first page)), you are still presupposing there is something of an agreement that the hokey stick was discredited. As I have seen in the science news and from other academics looking at the subject, the position that the hockey stick was discredited remains a myth.
It has been repeatedly pointed that the medieval warm period was most likely a local phenomenon in Europe or the northern hemisphere, and that is based in doubtful proxy data, ergo, it is not proven or remains a doubtful point to take that that period was warmer than today.
The term “hockey stick” is undefined. Without an agreed-upon definition of that term, any answer you get will be meaningless.
Furthermore, the term “hockey stick” has no scientific significance. It’s merely a descriptor that helps people visualize the shape of a curve. By focusing on semantics rather than data and statistical analysis, you’re doing the exact same thing you’ve done throughout all of these threads - avoiding every shred of science in favor of false dichotomies, word games, and “gotcha” questions.
It’s a dishonest way of debating from the start, and it’s been pointed out to you time and time again. One more won’t make any difference, I suppose, but here it is.
I do agree with what you say, but we have to at least deal with the OP, while it is true the term has no scientific significance, it is true that the critics of AGW are grabbing these meaningless gotchas to keep on going. Even if it is meaningless, the fact remains that even when used in academia it is an item that was not debunked:
And **brazil84 **still avoids the fact that the OP was a sorry one, and purposely avoids dealing with the fact that in more serious circles saying that the ““hockey stick” has been pretty much discredited” is considered baloney.
It was better to then start a different thread dealing with the criticism of the data. As far the OP is concerned, posting again here to bump it and advising others to check the whole thread is a really unwise thing to do.
Sheesh. My question did NOT presuppose that the MWP was warmer than temperatures today.
The question doesn’t presuppose ANYTHING about actual temperatures. It simply asks a question about a hypothetical temperature reconstruction (which might or might not be correct.)
If you honestly believe that the question makes assumptions about actual temperatures, then you have completely misread it.
No. I’ve read six pages of you ignoring what other are saying and trying to pidgeon hole them with *gotcha *replies. I won’t be a part of that because I don’t posses the amazing level of patience that some of the others do.
From my vantage point when someone posts an answer to your questions and you ignore it. Then you post again with something trivial or a semantic word game. You aren’t debating, you seem to be trying to tire people out.
Sure - the OP used the term “hockey stick” as shorthand to refer to Mann’s plot, which is a perfectly valid and accepted use of the term that won’t be misconstrued. But my post above was responding specifically to brazil asking what’s presupposed or not accepted in his question:
What exactly does “hockey stick” mean in that hypothetical?
The first time I use the phrase, I was referring to the Mann hockey stick – the actual graph that can be found in the IPCC report. The second time, I was using the term in a generic sense, without a specific definition in mind – part of the point of the question was to probe Brainfirebob’s position re the essential aspects of the hockey stick.
As I demonstrated with cites, there is no fuzziness about it, the OP can be responded like a yes or no question. The “hockey stick” was not discredited, even in a different thread I posted that a revised “hockey stick” was published in the latest IPCC report.
So much for being discredited.
And saying that the medieval warm period was hotter than today remains in doubt.
So, as it needs to be repeated, yours was a baloney OP.
As they say, you are entitled to your opinions but not the facts.
The fact remains that in academia the idea that “the hockey stick was discredited” is a myth.
I have to mention once again the point of post #89 (that you also avoided dealing with, so much for honesty):
The only loose item to me that remains, is that brasil84 needs to clarify if the definition of discredited or debunked used in the OP is a valid one. If some authorities (and as the long thread showed, calling them authorities is being generous) claim that something was debunked or discredited and someone like brasil84 insist that theirs is a good position to take, then we might as well say that the idea that “HIV causes AIDS” was debunked because some “authorities” say so.
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.
I’m more interested in discussing the underlying issues than just simple appeals to authority. 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.
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.