Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Latest Hockey Stick

Black Knights Matter, and spatter. Let me give you a hand up, Phil; oops, it's your own hand.
===============

Aug 7, 2016 at 1:10 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

kim, the unprecedented disaster of Gergis, is just a flesh wound to Climate Scientists. As long as it is worth their while financially, they know their best interest remains lying.

Aug 7, 2016 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

If you can add or remove a proxy series without fear of any consequences to the result, why not remove them all?

Aug 9, 2016 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

EM. Can I believe my eyes? I couldn't put it more simply myself.

Aug 9, 2016 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

EternalOptimist, without dodgy proxy data, the signal of adjustments by climate scientists, would not be detectable in fabricated records of temperature.

Aug 9, 2016 at 2:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

in that case GC, If you can add any old proxy series without fear of any consequences to the result, why not add as many as you can find?

why stop at 20? why not add a million proxy series?


and if laughing boy comes back and tells me that some of them would not fit, then the extra one that was added was clearly selected because it did fit.

which is fraudulent

Aug 9, 2016 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

EternalOptimist, the more proxies there are, the easier it is for climate scientists to select those that record what was required, by those that funded the climate scientists.

The onus is on those that produce proxies, to produce proxies that climate scientists want, not proxies that will be discarded.

Fabrication of proxies is another highly skilled micro industry that depends on the Globe Warming. Which is a curious conflict of interest.

Aug 9, 2016 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A. Vuja de means having an experience again but not recognizing it. In this context it would be reading Gergis et al 2016, expecting it to be like Gergis et al 2014 but finding it without fault.

I believe experiencing deja vu more than once is deja tu.

Aug 10, 2016 at 7:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

You must realize there are two types of climate proxy which should never be used together.
Proximal climate proxies are those that are closest to what you wish to prove. They should be used before, during and after any analysis and are characterized by their hockey stick appearance. They can be found or manufactured everywhere, except apparently in mainland Australia.

In contrast, poxy climate proxies reveal inconviencies, and should be tortured or better still ignored. Unfortunately they are also ubiquitous, including Australia. Poxy proxies can sometimes be made proximal by making them prescient, by one year today but, who knows, perhaps trees can forecast by a decade or more. Most Medieval history is poxy.

The two types can be separated using Josh's 2012 sieve.


Josh could we could have a deja vu?, your cartoon still applies.

Aug 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Gergis et al 2016 is a reGergisation of Gergis et al. 2012 and is still vomit.

Aug 10, 2016 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Those who believe science should be devoid of beliefs, haven't practiced doing it.
Aug 5, 2016 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

"science" as in "social science", "domestic science", "political science", "climate science" I take it.

Belief is a subjective thing.

Aug 10, 2016 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. Not at all. Try reading my Aug 5 post again. Belief is an essential part of the hardest of sciences. Until the Higgs boson was confirmed it was pure belief. Now its dark energy and matter that are believed by some, disbelieved by others.

Aug 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

And such is the human condition, to be beset by these notions in the brain. My cat has never lost any sleep pondering dark energy. In fact he slept just as much before higgs as afterwards. There are eternal verities out there, whether you believe, disbelieve or sleep right through it, does it matter ?

I suppose if the policies that follow from beliefs increase unhappiness and cause damage then it does matter. And that is why I will oppose laughing boy and his ilk. They cause real harm

Aug 10, 2016 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

Eternal Optimist

I always believed cats were pure mathematicians. Dogs on the other hand are social engineers. Both dream violently, so must worry.

Aug 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

@ACK Aug 10, 2016 at 8:49 PM

My experience has been that cats are far more than "pure mathematicians". They have soooo much more going for them than canines. Please see a "contribution" from my - now long departed - cat, to my - now very long neglected - personal website:

Re:Pet Peeves

Aug 11, 2016 at 5:13 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Hilary Ostrov. Suggesting cats are pure mathematicians was meant as no slur. Far from it, it was intended to illustrate their self belief in their overwhelming superiority, especially when they gaze down upon us through sleepy eyes from the lofty heights to which they have climbed. Most are also superb applied mathematicians, calculating everything to their advantage. It is clear that they rule.

On the other hand, as companions and helpmates, trained dogs are near perfection. Dogs are the only reason I am an agnostic, rather than an atheist. Almost I could believe in intelligent design.

I have no intention of stoking up cat-dog wars. I have been owned by both.

Aug 11, 2016 at 6:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK


Martin A. Not at all. Try reading my Aug 5 post again. Belief is an essential part of the hardest of sciences. Until the Higgs boson was confirmed it was pure belief. Now its dark energy and matter that are believed by some, disbelieved by others.
Aug 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Alan - I had read what you had written and was a bit surprised at your viewpoint.

Beliefs are not the same as speculations or hypotheses but you seem to think that they are.

Aug 11, 2016 at 8:45 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

MartinA. You are quibbling over words. Yes beliefs are different from speculations and hypotheses. But to move speculations/hypotheses forward an investigator has to have some belief that what is being pursued has a moderate chance of surviving challanges that might be thrown at it (i.e. be scientific "truth"). Otherwise, why bother? Yes the words have different meanings but there's scarcely a fagpaper between them.

Aug 11, 2016 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Alan - No, I am not just quibbling over words.

I said "... if it's a matter of *belief*, then it's not science", after someone said "...it is only important that the Expert Climate Science Peer Reviewers believe in the proxies and reconstructions".

You butted in saying that science is all about belief (or something like that), which in the context can be read as meaning that you think that, if the Peer Reviewers believe in the proxies and reconstructions, then that validates the reconstructions reported in the papers they review.

But now (Aug 11, 10:05 AM) you seem to be limiting your position to saying that an investigator's belief in their untested hypothesis may motivate them to test it. Few would disagree with that, but it does not contract my pointing out that "... if it's a matter of *belief*, then it's not science".

Aug 12, 2016 at 3:21 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. I was talking about science in general. You made a statement about a particular and specific aspect of science, but made the wider point that "if it's 'belief' it isn't science". Such a statement applies to all science, and it is wrong. My August 5 post refuted your statement in general terms. But if you want to be specific, so be it.

It must be concluded that those using proxies believe in them. They think they allow meaningful conclusions to be made. There is little difference between a palaeoclimatologist's believe in the validity of the proxies they use and an astronomer's belief in dark matter. Both have opponents who offer counter argument/data, which they ignore. If you argue that the worst palaeoclimatologists are not following scientific procedures, I recommend you read a book I recommended to golf Charlie - Fabulous Science by John Waller. In it you will find that pillars of the scientific establishment engaged in some very dubious practices. They did this because they BELIEVED they knew what the truth was and doctored evidence to fit. They were fortunate because their beliefs turned out to be correct.

There is an awful lot of mythologizing about science and homage paid to the "false god" of the scientific method. The more I practiced science myself and the more biographies of scientists I have read the more I have realized that science involves darker forces than I originally thought. Please note that I am not condoning bad practice in science and when it is identified it should be rooted out. This is why I have tried so hard to illustrate the shenanigans surrounding publication of the PAGES2K 2013 paper in this discussion thread.

Aug 12, 2016 at 7:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Heh folks did you know
In climate circles
Australasia has expanded so?

Vostok, Java and Fiji
now included
in a tortured geography.

Tis' a wonder that Gergis et al did not include records from the latest Eurovision Song Contest venue.

Singer beneath bridges

Aug 17, 2016 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

ACK, the Eurovision Song Contest may not be predetermined in terms of a clear winner, but politics and money do play a big part. Slurring the Eurovision Song Contest by comparing it to Climate Science's best efforts at re-adjusting history, is a bit unfair.

I am amazed that no one has yet linked the colour change of the Olympic Diving Pool to Ocean Acidification, or was it just another Greenpeace publicity stunt gone wrong having failed to daub Green slogans on Christ the Redeemer?

Aug 17, 2016 at 4:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie, It is suspected that the coloration of the pool was accomplished to prevent the Chinese synchronized swimming team achieve goldness and was done by a GREAT power. Whether done by application of GM cyanobacteria or chemical warfare is not known. Investigations are ongoing and will be reported soon. But don't hold your breath, except in the pool!

Aug 17, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil dove in the deep end, and it keeps getting deeper and deeper and deeper. Will he ever surface to hear the plaudits or to 'Read' all about it?
=================

Aug 17, 2016 at 6:34 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

golfCharlie. Me slur the Eurovision Song Contest? - Sacre blue non! It was the attempt by Australian climate mandarins to assume sovereignty over vast tracts of other peoples' lands that concerned me. Clearly Law Dome is not part of Australasia; only bits that warmed over the last 30 years need apply for climate citizenship.

Aug 17, 2016 at 7:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK