Please don’t obfuscate the debate with facts. Uneducated gut intuition is what we’re discussing here.
Do you believe that the validity or invalidity of the hockey stick graph has a significant bearing on whether AGW in general is correct or incorrect?
I did an image search to find a chart based on #5. Apparently, it’s the blue line in the following graph:
http://www.wooster.edu/geology/tr/esper1.jpg
No hockey stick.
So I don’t see why you are talking about the “same results.”
Actually, earlier I linked to a study which (apparently) simply averaged every temperature proxy that had more than a certain number of data points – except for tree rings.
There was no hockey stick.
To a certain extent, yes.
Now let’s wait until you are reviewed by your peers. 
I see a very clear rising trend during the 20th century, don’t you? Of course this data is limited to a few sites in the northern hemisphere and may not be indicative of global temperature. I don’t have access to the full paper but the abstract for their more recent paper makes that pretty clear.
And that plot showed a result not very different from this one, with enormous error bars.
Sure, as well as a very clear rising trend during the 10th century. As well as between 1450 and 1550.
But no hockey stick.
I don’t know how different is very different, but there’s no hockey stick:
http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/loehle9.gif
I believe I commented on something like “mutliple data sources being required to say anything on a given point in science.” Finding one data source which is semi-ambiguous and trotting it around as a proof against the average of it and 9 other data sources is silly. Who in the world puts more weight on one data source than ten?
Sheesh. You said "Arguing over bristlecones is silly when 10 studies come to the same results "
And what’s even sillier is setting up straw men.
Well I did not put much of a weight in the bristle cone evidence after what the commission and other researchers checked what Mann did, what you are missing is that just as Mann can not claim that evidence was definitive, that also means it affects the critics that use that data to discredit Mann.
You are forgetting that the scientists told Mann the bristle cone evidence is good but not very useful compared to other data points.
Since other more reliable data points still show the hockey stick, I have to fall for the other scientists said and just point out the bristle cone evidence still needs corrections, and so grabbing that data point as definitive evidence that the Hockey Stick was debunked is the silly part.
The bottom line is: The hockey stick was not debunked.
Your say so in the Pit that “it was” was indeed misleading in the extreme.
Debunking does require also that the people that deal with the stuff stop making references to it, the best you can do so far is point out that there is now an asterisk added to the original hokey stick chart.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
Fine, let’s put the bristlecone issue aside. Do you agree that the splicing and divergence issues are serious problems for the hockey stick?
Let’s discuss the substance then. By the way, your link didn’t work for me.
As you seem to miss all the links I posted early on purpose, the answer is no.
(There is still more research to be done, but the original issue for the OP is indeed if the Hockey Stick was debunked)
It works for me, just look in New Scientist
And then search for “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong”
(Emphasis mine)
As mentioned before, if the hockey stick was debunked then that 2007 article would not have come that way. It came after the best criticism was already discussed in academia. (and indeed I also posted that link in a previous thread, you still came later with the whopper that “the hockey stick was debunked”, so there is really nothing left to discuss regarding the debunking of the Hockey Stick. It was not debunked. Q.E.D.
And I already mentioned that my grammar is a crime against nature, but ignoring previously posted links is a crime of ignorance. As I have seen again and again, I prefer being wrong in grammar than being ignorant and be proud of avoiding information that does not fit one’s prejudice.
Suit yourself, but those links do not appear to address the issues I have raised - as far as I can tell.
Not only that, but the New Scientist article quotes from the NAS report quite selectively.
Perhaps you are guilty of both sins. What information would make you change your mind as to the hockey stick?
:rolleyes:
It is a myth that it was debunked, give it up.
Now, that there is more research to be done to confirm the data, or that there is a chance the Graph can be debunked in the future, that is a different thread.
(Typed this early expecting that, you are so predictable)
As much as you are complaining, the fact remains the OP came from declaring conclusively that the Hockey Stick graph was debunked.
This is debunking:
When ABC came with the controversial scene of “we came close to killing Bin Laden” part in their 911 movie, the producers wanted to show that the Clinton administration incompetently or even on purpose refused to kill or capture Bin Laden in Sudan or Somalia (the implication of the movie was that then 911 would never had taken place.)
The problem was that while right winger sites or sources claimed that “Clinton was offered Bin Laden and Clinton refused to take the offer” the reality is that tale was debunked years ago.
It was only when ABC and the producers were forced to take a look at the research by historians and the 9/11 commission that then ABC was shamed into editing or re-shooting that scene.
When that item was debunked by historians and independent sources the debunking was ignored (to this day I may add, I wonder why ) by the right wing media and so it is not rare to find even today people who are still deceived.
Going back to the Hockey Stick:
It is very clear that in the scientific community and commissions that the Hockey Stick graph was discussed, amended and still approved.
Having some still claim that the Hockey Stick was debunked does not tell me much. Their criticism was even already given a look and still people that work in publishing science material checked the conclusions of commissions and other climate scientists to say now that** the debunking of the Hockey Stick remains a “Climate myth” **
The conclusions of the experts do not change just because you believe so, better evidence then is needed and if one claims to have it, it is then for me a colossal waste of time to convince people in a message board that all those scientists and commissions are wrong, you have to play with the big boys in academia and then when the tune in academia and science publishers changes, then the OP will have a valid point.
Have you even read this thread?
Anyway, I’m willing to debate the substance of what’s left of the hockey stick. You apparently are not.
Then why didn’t you answer the question? What information would change your mind about the hockey stick?
:rolleyes:
Yes and Mann was overall happy with the concussion, the Hockey Stick was not debunked, and speaking of not reading: jshore already pointed out the item that year in the 1930’s being hotter does not affect the overall concussion.
What substance? The Hockey Stick was not debunked since it is still being seen in climate research, worse, your say so’s that it was debunked was deemed to be a myth by science publishers that already took a look at the points the critics mentioned when the controversy erupted.
Easy, that the information from the ones claiming it was debunked was reliable.
(Here you demonstrate once again that you ignored my fist post on purpose, so much for good faith.)
And just because for some reason it was not obvious:
As **jshore **pointed out, the assumption that this debunked the hockey stick is misleading, the commission took Mann to task for those specific assessments, nowhere they are claiming that the Hockey Stick shape was not supported.
This and Mann’s reporting to be overall happy with the commissions conclusions is part of the reason why the contributors to New Scientist said that AGW deniers say so that “the Hockey Stick was debunked” is just wishful thinking from the denier’s part.
The context shows that the commission is referring to the reliance of the bristle cone evidence, as mentioned before, finding that it is not as reliable as it seems cuts Mann and also the debunkers that claimed to see hotter years in the middle ages than the last 20 decades based on that evidence.
Of course this word is a pain to me (word processor insists on this choice first)
I meant to say conclusion not concussion.
Lol. So what? What’s he gonna say? That he’s furious he’s been debunked?
Here’s a question for you:
Is anyone citing MBH for the proposition that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the millenium?
The splicing problem; the divergence problem; and the strip-bark problem, to name a few.
Cites please.
I have no idea what you are saying here.
Yes, and?
10 studies came to a hockey stick result. Conjoined. Averaged. Combining data sources. Taking more faith in separate data than one.
Besides reading the words under pictures, also try combining the sentences and paragraphs there into a total sum point. In the grand majority of things ever written, when people start a new paragraph or sentence, they’re still talking about the same thing as they were talking about in the preceeding (and proceeding) text. This aids both the reader and writer since they don’t have to repeat and qualify ad infinitum through every individual sentence (since they are most likely talking about the same thing as they were in the preceeding and proceeding text (when trying to talk about a certain point (which would be self-aware if you practiced your reading comprehension.)))