: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.
So you should ask them and stop wasting time.
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
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.
As far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to post to this thread.
So what?
I proposed a slightly different definition in this post
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
Moving the goalpost.
As mentioned before, open a different thread then, your OP here remains kaput.
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.
I don’t see why. Anyway, the new “hockey stick” is significantly different from the old one.
Again, you are the one who broadened the discussion so you are hardly in a position to claim that we’ve wandered off-topic.
I offered my own standard for “discredited.” I’m not sure what more you want.
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.
To stop cherry picking and deal with the whole post, not just the last line.
IOW, stop that dishonest debating tactic.
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.
I don’t know what you are talking about. The OP did not contain a definition of “discredited.” I later offered one.
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.
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.
I disagree. My definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” to prevent this problem.
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?
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
I have to agree with what RealClimate said here:
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.
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.