nor his silliness.
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Joshua
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
Pekka, that is pretty much a perfect summation. The averaging period they used though could have made a more interesting paper since they include paleo ocean data with the “seesaw” effect. The deep ocean lags the surface by about 1700 years and the northern extent oceans are out of phase with the southern extent oceans. You can get a pretty wide range of “Average” with either an uptick or downtick depending on your mood.
Mixing surface air, SST and deep ocean temperature proxies makes fruit salad or Ambrosia if you prefer..
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Jim D
I would say this story has a hard time getting traction unless they show the result is wrong in an important way (i.e. one the public would understand, not a time shift error that can’t be seen on a 10000 year scale). Unfortunately for skeptics their emphasis only brings out the kinds of graphs that Fan has shown here, with thermometer records and projections, which won’t help the skeptical cause to make public.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Joshua
Rud -
Oops. Mistaken cut-and-paste above – I wouldn’t want you to miss your opportunity…
And you had best leave your disgusting ad hominem slurs elsewhere.
Only a matter of time ’till you take Willis to task. The countdown has started.
Of course, he could always offer the excuse that the “MSM” made him do it.
“Skeptics” = never-ending amusement.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Rob Starkey
+1
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Eli Rabett
That, is Willard bait but allow Eli to play The difference between the heavy lumber Eli used to wield and today's <a href="http://www.hockeymonkey.com/bauer-hockey-stick-supreme-one9-sr.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=shopping%2Bengine&utm_campaign=GOOGLE_PRODUCT_SEARCH&utm_content=bauer-hockey-stick-supreme-one9-sr&gclid=CP-s_rrpi7YCFYje4AodMkoAyg" rel="nofollow">wonder weapons</a>, is like the difference between pine and polymers:)
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by miker613
Joshua, Willis may or may not be right about his opponents’ courage, but what he says is not an ad hominem. He is making an ethical point about them directly.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by ntropyalwayswins
Willis I think Mr Mosher just wants us all to know what a swell guy he is hanging with the big dogs. Probably didn’t occur to him that they were cowards.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Pekka Pirilä
My understanding is that the only sensible thing to do with the most recent decades included in the paper would have been cutting them off.
Steve McI. presents plausible arguments that that part of redating that did influence strongly the latest datapoints was erroneous, but no redating would make them significant. Thus they should have been dropped from the paper, which would have made also these questions on the details of the redating procedure moot. (The questions raised by Steve McI. extend in one case 1000 years to the past, but the larger number of proxies lessens the influence of that over earlier periods.)
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Eli Rabett
You are making exactly the same error as everyone made with the "hockey stick". The blade of the hockey stick is the instrumental record. In this case, the sharply rising back of the wheelchair is the instrumental record and the CMIP5 A1B models. The key area for joining Marcott to these is 1800-1900.
The best place to look at the data and the issue is a series of posts at Nick Stokes' <a href="http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Moyhu</a>
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Don Monfort
So why do you think that they did not do the only sensible thing, Pekka? Are they that stoopid?
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Don Monfort
Good suggestion, rabbette. Go to Nicky “Racehorse Haines” Stokes, for the best look at the data and the issue from an impartial perspective. You people are rally funny.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Joshua
mike -
Joshua, Willis may or may not be right about his opponents’ courage, but what he says is not an ad hominem. He is making an ethical point about them directly.
I think that arguments about what technically is or isn’t an ad hom is one of the most amusing features of blog discourse. It is almost always nothing other than a reflection of combatants’ inability (or unwillingness) to control for their own subjectivity/confirmation bias/motivated reasoning.
I get the distinction that you are making there, but: (1) I think that the distinction is unknowable, actually. Do you really think that in his rant about people being “cowards” – people I will point out that Willis doesn’t know personally, who he has formed a definitive judgement of with no actual information to assess their character – is not meant as a (at least partial) statement on their motivations and reasoning? Seriously? Do you think that you could ever impugn someone’s integrity so without also expecting carry-over to the validity of their argument?
And, (2) The main point I was making was the selectivity of “disgust” and concern about ad homs. Even if we did determine your distinction between insulting a person and criticizing their argument (a distinction I don’t accept), the precisely same reasoning could be turned around to characterize Fan’s post. In his post, Fan didn’t attack Willis’ arguments by virtue of attacking Willis’ character. He attacked Willis’ arguments by attacking the attributes of Willis’ arguments (by virtue of the silly distinction of when Willis posted).
If we wanted to play the “Blog Ad Hom Definition Game,” I’d say we could just as easily say that Fan’s posts is less of an ad hom, from a technical standpoint, than Willis’ rant.
The point is that neither Fan’s nor Willis’ syntax has any place in serious scientific discourse. So let’s just acknowledge that neither deserves to be taken seriously when they write such nonsense. Arguing about the application of ad hom to either’s comments only becomes more same ol’ same ol’
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Pekka Pirilä
That has been a point of discussion. The graphs are drawn at a scale that makes it impossible to tell what it’s showing over a few decades. I have found the arguments that conclude that the uptick is an outcome of the analysis compelling. The data as presented after redating supports that conclusion.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the comparison of recent instrumental data with the paleodata are a separate issue. One may compare the empirical paleodata with recent observations and one may compare also with projections to the future. The authors have done that as well in some discussion of the results, but their graphs don’t present such a comparison as far as I can judge. Neither should they put the instrumental data to this graph. In particular they should not add there anything without telling exactly, what they have done and how they have aligned the scales.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by DCA
It’s so crowded over there (sarc). Can Moyhu accomodate more than a half dozen participants?
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Pekka Pirilä
I may have my own speculations, but I have no support for them. Thus I don’t write them out.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Don Monfort
Sorry fanny, but it looks like the denialist demagoguery is winning out over the shoddy statistical shenanigans of the alarmistas:
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Wagathon
Why not let the free enterprise system spend what it wants to invent Climate Models that can predict the future and leave government out of it? The nonsense of a ‘greenhouse’ from the get-go is nothing more than allegory by Al Gore, et al., with CO2 as the Left’s <em>Moby Dick</em>–i.e., a dramatic tale about the evils of Americanism as told by scientific idiots that secular, socialist politicians find useful to fleece the sheep.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Latimer Alder
@bart r
Please provide specific examples of the failings that you claim are present in Rud Istvan’s commentaries.
I re-read them carefully and see no
‘ demonization, simplicism, god/devil wording, double standard, fallacy, personalization, and every other technique of demogoguery run amok.’
And the subsequent remarks by many commentators provide some robustly expressed criticisms, but nothing out of the ordinary for normal discussion among adult people with strong opinions who are capable and accustomed to expressing them. Maybe in acdeme there would have been more honeyed words, but that is merely style, not substance.
And it was the authors themselves who chose to leave the academic confines. They chose to issue a press release, conduct media interviews and gain headlines for their paper all around the world. They were not obliged to do any of these things. But they did them and in so doing they voluntarily stepped into the more vigorous discourse of the real world.
If they find the heat of this arena too much for them, perhaps they will choose to keep out of the kitchen next time.. Or realise that they can’t have their cake and eat it.
If they want the publicity and the kudos, the vigorous, robustly expressed scrutiny comes too.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do.
— Wendell Berry
Wendell Berry’s solid common-sense conservatism easily beats the WSJ’s short-sighted selfish marketism, eh Don Monfort?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ddffee&fg=00aa00&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
