Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see, if your definition of religion is "a collection of facts and the explanations for those facts based on evidence, tested by logic and the scientific method, and subject to revision or rejection upon the presentation of opposing evidence" then you might have something there.
Given the choice of a direct measurement by thermometers or an indirect method such as tree rings, which would you use?
Surely we can use both? Not really a choice is there for old records. The issue becomes when you graft one onto the other and present it as one set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turboblocke
Are you refering to the "Hockey Stick"? Like this figure from IPCC TAR:
The professor is talking about one of the original Hockey sticks presented to the public, politicians and scientists in 1999 on the front cover of a WMO report.
WMO STATEMENT
ON THE STATUS OF THE
GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using
palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
Surely we can use both? Not really a choice is there for old records. The issue becomes when you graft one onto the other and present it as one set.
But they don't present it as one set do they... read your quote from the WMO document:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
The professor is talking about one of the original Hockey sticks presented to the public, politicians and scientists in 1999 on the front cover of a WMO report.
WMO STATEMENT
ON THE STATUS OF THE
GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999
Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using
palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long
instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal.
The graph shows 3 different plots: but look what they're made up of: tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records.
That's 6 different sorts of records plus the etc. That means on average each plot is made up of at least two sources. Now I don't know about you, but I believe that the public, politicians and scientists, that I meet are able to make that calculation without too much difficulty. YMMV.
But they don't present it as one set do they... read your quote from the WMO document:
The graph shows 3 different plots: but look what they're made up of: tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records.
That's 6 different sorts of records plus the etc. That means on average each plot is made up of at least two sources. Now I don't know about you, but I believe that the public, politicians and scientists, that I meet are able to make that calculation without too much difficulty. YMMV.
(OK, to be honest, maybe not the politicians.)
What happens with the graphs if you take out the tree rings?
Now I don't know about you, but I believe that the public, politicians and scientists, that I meet are able to make that calculation without too much difficulty. YMMV.
You have Muller who just released BEST int the video saying it'deceptive and Judith Currey has this to say:
Bad science and/or dishonesty?
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
There is no justification for the way this graph has been presented other than deception. It's as simple as that.
"That's like saying people know gravity exists are part of some religious faith because the debate is over that it exists. There is massive amounts of proof that it unequivocally exists. If people can disprove it, without fraud and misconduct, they can challenge it. That's how science works. Belief without proof is faith, knowledge with proof is truth.
It is a Sysyphant task to claim global warming is due to human activity.
With regard to gravity, there are no factions arguing against its existence.
Gravity is a temporary truth.
Human caused global warming is a fraud as it pretends to represent unassailable science that must not be challenged. That is absolute proof the scientific interpretation used to defend human caused global warming is not science based. The proposed facts are demanded to be taken on faith, science ends where faith begins.
Blah, blah, blah to the esoteric, intellectual self promotion of the irrelevant links.
LOL, I think the second graph that shows all the data without any splices, truncations or any other manipulations is explanation enough isn't it? The explantion for why they did it is very simple, lines going down will create questions and doubt especially when there is no explanation for why it's going down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
