Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Hockey Stick Broken. (Read 4318 times)
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #30 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:04am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am:
Science is a search for truth, not perfection.



what about PANIC?...you sound like you are in PANIC MODE...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19597
Perth
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #31 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:13am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am:
Science is a search for truth, not perfection.


I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 27649
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #32 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:47am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am:
Science is a search for truth, not perfection.


Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money?
Back to top
 

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47067
At my desk.
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #33 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 10:53am
 
Gnads wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:47am:
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am:
Science is a search for truth, not perfection.


Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money?


Well obviously there is going to be a problem when the oil companies start funding fake science, but it is easy enough to poke holes in, as this thread demonstrates.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #34 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:31am
 
The MWP MYTH? Grin Grin Grin Grin

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-37.521...

Interactive map with notations of studies.
or

...

But of course you prefer your 2007 paper to that of 2018. Science in reverse. Wink

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #35 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:34am
 
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 28th, 2019 at 10:05pm:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most...



oh noes. phil does science by newspaper reports.

But that must be why Mann failed to present his "evidence" so that it could be viewed. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #36 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:37am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 7:51am:
The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction.



That uncertainty in light blue shows uncertainty of over 1C. Just sayin'. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
philperth2010
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19597
Perth
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #37 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:43am
 
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 10:53am:
Gnads wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:47am:
freediver wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 8:47am:
Science is a search for truth, not perfection.


Yeah even if it's bought & paid for in the effort to make more money?


Well obviously there is going to be a problem when the oil companies start funding fake science, but it is easy enough to poke holes in, as this thread demonstrates.


You are talking to imbeciles who will not accept evidence Freediver....They believe NASA, The CSIRO, The IPCC and every scientist who promotes human caused climate change are in a conspiracy....How do you debate stupidity???

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #38 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:45am
 
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:13am:
I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity???



You mean like those who give NASA as gold standard.

And yet NASA claim the 97% is true.

Cook et al 2013 32.6% not 97%.

Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%.

Both a long way from 97%.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #39 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:47am
 
lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:45am:
philperth2010 wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 9:13am:
I have determined there is no point trying to debate those who believe science is a conspiracy between different organisations to create a Climate Change hoax that unfairly targets fossil fuel....How do you debate stupidity???



You mean like those who give NASA as gold standard.

And yet NASA claim the 97% is true.

Cook et al 2013 32.6% not 97%.

Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%.

Both a long way from 97%.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus



Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=49


Benny Peiser repeated Oreskes survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #40 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:52am
 
Oreskes 2004 which actually found 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW. That folks is 24.8%.



https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686


Here is the article you are linking to. Reading it, I have zero idea how you could say 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW


Especially when this paragraph states

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position..
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #41 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:56am
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:47am:
Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists


That hasn't stopped NASA claiming otherwise.

NASA also claim Cook et al as scientists not as climate abstracts.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"

"J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024"

"N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618."

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

BTW - You do know skeptical science is a blog by J Cook of Cook et al 2013 fame. Circular logic much. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Prime Minister for Canyons
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #42 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:58am
 
lee wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:56am:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:47am:
Orestes 2004 was looking at peer reviewed abstracts not scientists


That hasn't stopped NASA claiming otherwise.

NASA also claim Cook et al as scientists not as climate abstracts.

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:"

"J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024"

"N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618."

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

BTW - You do know skeptical science is a blog by J Cook of Cook et al 2013 fame. Circular logic much. Wink



Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue.
Back to top
 

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #43 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:01pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:52am:
Reading it, I have zero idea how you could say 230 out of 928 agreed with AGW



Sorry. you would have to read her follow up paper.

http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/climate2010/includes/media/NotwrongCl...

Unless of course you believe the 928 papers is just an unusual coincidence.

have a  look at the graph.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16350
Gender: male
Re: Hockey Stick Broken.
Reply #44 - Aug 29th, 2019 at 12:03pm
 
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 29th, 2019 at 11:58am:
Thats why I looked up the original article and still had an issue.


Which then shows the issue is with NASA. Surely they have enough funding to be able to read and analyse papers?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 7
Send Topic Print