[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand what your point is. According to you, my definition allows a claim to be discredited through nitpicking. I pointed out that my definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” so that a claim CANNOT be discredited just with a nitpick. And in response, you cite an IPCC report and realclimate. What exactly are you trying to say?
And again, you are making reference (indirectly) to later studies. By your strict approach, those belong in another thread.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
That was not the whole quote
[/quote]
Please show me the whole quote then.
[QUOTE=brazil84]
I don’t understand what your point is. According to you, my definition allows a claim to be discredited through nitpicking. I pointed out that my definition explicitly incorporates the word “significant” so that a claim CANNOT be discredited just with a nitpick. And in response, you cite an IPCC report and realclimate. What exactly are you trying to say?
And again, you are making reference (indirectly) to later studies. By your strict approach, those belong in another thread.
[/QUOTE]
This point of yours that my points belong on another tread are silly, once again, I bring them only to point out how wrong you were in your OP, because at the time you said the points in the baloney OP all the items that I posted were already known.
If you want to continue believing the hockey stick was discredited that is fine, but you still have to produce evidence that that is the case in academia.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
This point of yours that my points belong on another tread are silly,
[/quote]
:shrug: You’re the one who’s insisting that this thread be strictly limited to the question presented in the original post.
As I said, I’m more interested in the underlying evidence and arguments than in appeals to authority. Authority is interesting, but evidence is more interesting – to me.
TWEEEEEEEEEEET!!!
All, right.
After three and a half months of bickering over nearly 350 posts (punctuated by a lot of “Show me where I said that” evasions) this thread is no closer to a resolution and it has worn out its welcome, here.
Closed.
[ /Moderating ]