Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming shouldn't be happening


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#31    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 March 2013 - 08:39 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 10 March 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

I suspect that someone has been doing some dodgy splicing.
isn't that exactly what I said already?


#32    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:11 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 10 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

Somewhere I heard of a book called:  "How to lie with Charts and Graphs."  I'd suggest you read it, but I don't think you need to.
so you too think this paper is lying with their graph.

"And there are other ways to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc"
and another is using low resolution data with smoothed low variability, then pasting on high resolution, high variability 20th century data on the end, and then concluding the 20th century much warmer than most of the past.

how did they get a big 20th century uptick in their graph when their own paper states "our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years" - the 20th century uptick has a shorter time period than their resolution.

"How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

"Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side."

http://judithcurry.c...y-hockey-again/

it is STUNNING that people are defending this paper.


#33    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:14 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 March 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

so you too think this paper is lying with their graph.
No.  What I'm saying is that charts/graphs don't tell the whole story.  You need the raw data to do that.  Charts and graphs are nice for presenting findings in an easy-to-understand format.  But that depends on people doing an honest and competent job both presenting and reading them.

Quote

"And there are other ways to lie with charts, like making comparisons using two different scales, etc"
and another is using low resolution data with smoothed low variability, then pasting on high resolution, high variability 20th century data on the end, and then concluding the 20th century much warmer than most of the past.
Smoothing removes variability from the dataset.  That can be good or bad, depending on what you're trying to do.  I work with storms and short-term phenomena.  Smoothing with a ten-year spline (even a five-year one) will remove the storm record, leaving me with nothing.  On the other hand, I can subtract a smoothed dataset from an unsmoothed one and check to see where the negative values are and that will usually tell me where to look for storms.

Was it legitimate to show an unsmoothed dataset appended to a smoothed one?  That's why you need the analysis.  Did it include both datasets or was the unsmoothed uptick just added for illustrative purposes?  What did the authors say?

If your problem is the increase in temps for the 20th century:  you don't need a graph for that.  Depending on which dataset you use, the temperature increase began in 1907, 1908 or 1909.  I work with 19 shortleaf pine chronologies (11 are my own; the rest can be downloaded from NCDC.), one loblolly chronology and one (soon to be two) post oak chronologies.  All show warming.  The only question is:  how much?  Random variation is clouding the issue at the moment and shortleaf pines are not real good at showing warming to begin with (They're cold-sensitive, not heat sensitive.).

Quote

how did they get a big 20th century uptick in their graph when their own paper states "our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years" - the 20th century uptick has a shorter time period than their resolution.
Again, the answer to that question should be in the paper, if you've read it.  I haven't, but I suspect the instrumental data was being used only to illustrate a point, that it did not take part in the modelling or the analysis.  The paper should say exactly what was doen, but it will be in the "fine print."

Quote

"How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. [“Gain” was defined as the ratio of output variance to input white noise in simulations ‘stressing’ combined proxy statistical reliability. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

"Evaluate a 300-year MWP using methods lacking 300 year resolution and voila! The MWP turns into a blip diminished by the colder periods on each side."
There is no solid consensus about temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period.  In some places temps were warmer than today.  In some places they were colder:  like the current situation.  The "Medieval Warm Period" was warmer in central Europe where it was discovered, hence its name; but it was colder in Scandinavia.  It might be possible to use tree ring records to show what was happening where, but I don't know if there are enough chronologies with a wide-enough distribution to do it.  At any rate, the temperature you use for the MWP will affect the slope of the line connecting it to the present and thus, the exact shape of the hockey-stick.

BTW:  Nobody is arguing about the blade of the hockey stick - just the handle.  To me, that looks like they're missing the whole point (or trying to distract their readers from the real issue.).

Quote

The problem with these popular sites is they don't include the stuff they need to.  This one includes a link to an abstract, but not to the paper.  How do you know what the paper said, what the authors did, when you haven't even read the paper?

I suspect I know the answer:  the original paper is copyrighted and available only for a hefty price (The journals charge up to $35 for a download.).  The people who put up the popular site know this.  They do not want to spend the money themselves and know that their readers neither know how to find the article nor would pay the money for it if they did.  They know the average reader will not even check to see if they've distorted a finding, so they get away with it.

Quote

it is STUNNING that people are defending this paper.
What is even more stunning is the number of people who will jump to conclusions without reading the article.

I haven't read it, so I'm not going to try to defend it.  But I'll bet that you haven't read it, either.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 12 March 2013 - 01:16 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#34    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:40 PM

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment.  Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 12 March 2013 - 02:43 PM.


#35    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,821 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:51 PM

I think the scientific evidence that human-caused global warming is happening is persuasive enough that the deniers are beginning to look fring-ish.

Unfortunately the political left is trying to make political points from this rather than do something, by proposing things they know the right will not accept, and this has generated political opposition that was not needed.  Watching Gore at the Academy Awards that one year sickened me; exaggeration on exaggeration, scare tactics, all for politics.

One nice thing about the world is that things often self-correct.  Pricing mechanisms are doing a lot of what government edict cannot do.  A switch to natural gas and from there to solar power and electric vehicles seems in the making, without government edict, perhaps even without government subsidies.

We are probably going to lose the arctic ice cap in summers, and maybe even the Greenland glaciers.  This is gonna hurt a few species and for sure cause a lot of cost moving people inland, but it will happen over the course of a century or two, so overall the society will not really notice.


#36    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,816 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:41 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 12 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment.  Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.
Ignorance is bliss is the way of the world. If people don't care about what is coming down the tracks then we are indeed doomed to a very unhappy future.

Such is life/death.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#37    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 12 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

This has to be bad news for environmental activists everywhere: a massive international study, conducted in 33 countries over 17 years, shows that people just don’t care a lot about the environment.  Maybe it's because, over those 17 years of the survey, they've built up such a healthy distrust of anyone predicting an approaching apocalypse that they treat the green movement with just as much skepticism as they do the corporate villains the movement targets: http://fullcomment.n...global-warming/
Most people want to improve/protect their environment.  But you have to provide for basic needs first.  If it takes four acres to grow your food and four is all you have, you can't set anything aside for warm fuzzy things.  That's the problem faced by most of the world's people:  they don't have a susplus they can use for anything beyond basic necessities.  That's the reason for poor sanitation in the Third World:  sewer systems cost money and they don't have money.

And that's what big business doesn't like:  to protect our own environments we will need to help other people provide for necessities and generate the surplus needed for mitigation.  That surplus is competition.  And help for the Third World probably means taxes for us; although, conservative rhetoric notwithstanding, the US is at its lowest tax rate since the 1950s and the budget deficit is the smallest since W left office.  To keep from exporting pollution, we will need world-wide regulations and that will mean lower profits (Remember Bhopal?  Safety equipment costs money.  Combine that with inappropriate or non-existent regulation and you have a disaster looking for a happening.).

Quote

And Britain is currently experiencing its coldest start to March since 1986.
We just had a few weeks of rain, but now the jet streams have resumed their previous position.  Looking like the drought will continue.  Those few weeks of rain gave us the wettest late winter we've had in several years, but mean nothing to the ongoing drought.  And that's the problem:  most people's memories aren't long enough to assess climate change.  What were the high and low temps where you live five years ago today?  Odds are you can't remember.  Now try to remember the same data for every day for the past 30 years.

If you're under 35, you can't remember the last time Lake Erie froze over.  If you're less than 127, you can't remember the winter storms that devastated the American livestock industry and brought about the end of open range.  But a few of us are old enough to remember a little bit, or remember stories their grandparents told them.  Granpa wasn't kidding about having to walk five miles to school through three-foot snowdrifts; his grandchildren haven't seen that much snow in 25 years.

But that's what records are for.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#38    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,821 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:18 PM

Winters can still be severe and springs and summers can still be chilly; that has almost nothing to do with whether global warming is real.


#39    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:30 PM

First, to respond to Br. Cornelius' question about where the Marcott paper was published:  March 8th edition of "Science," page 1198.

Just dumb luck that I happened to open the magazine to the correct page.  So, now, I've read it.

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

hi doug, i'm going to rasie the bull**** flag i'm afraid.

here is a set of 5 series used for the reconstruction:
Posted Image


here is another 35 series:
Posted Image


here is another 20:
Posted Image

no end uptick in any them.

There are 19 charts/graphs in the article.  These are not in it.  Where did you get them?

Quote



here is their "reconstruction" :
Posted Image

so where did they get the pink uptick at the end? none of their proxy series uptick at year zero.
This is Figure 1B from the article.  The gray line is from Mann 2008.  The "pink" one is Marcott's reconstruction.  Marcott used 73 proxies.  I don't recognize all of them, so I don't know what time spans most of them cover, but for Marcott to use the 1961-1990 base period, all of them had to extend through at least 1990.  Mann used proxy data before 1980 and instrumental readings after that.  His dataset ends in 2001.

You might want to take a careful look at the graph.  At this scale, it could be confusing if you're not used to graphs.  The low-point, about 1840 is the Little Ice Age.  It's not the 1909 or 1976 local minima that you may be used to seeing in that position.

Quote

what they've done is splice on a higher resolution instrumental onto a 100 year resolution reconstruction, meaning that kind of uptick at the end could have occurred at any time during those past 11,300 years but the resolution would not display it, which means its bogus.
There is nothing untoward about combining two datasets.  There are two ways to do it:

1.  Select a reference period that all proxies share and determine the average for that period (Marcott used 1961-1990, so we know that all 73 proxies included those years.).  Add a constant to each dataset that raises or lowers the readings so the means for the reference period match.  In so doing, you have removed the absolute temperature readings and replaced them with relative ones.  The new dataset can tell you how much the temperature changed, but it can't tell you where it started or ended.

2.  Establish means for each proxy (all 73 of them) and a grand mean for the entire reconstruction.  Then mulitply each datapoint by the grand mean and divide by the proxy mean.  This procedure removes the high-side bias, which gives more weight to proxies with larger numbers in them.

In the first case, you still have the problem of "jumps" in the estimated temps every time a proxy starts or ends or there's a gap.  In that case, your reconstruction is valid for the time period in which all proxies overlap, but outside that range, you might want to take temperature changes with a grain of salt.

In the second case, the "seams" have been eliminated and you can simply average the temps by year.  The reconstruction is valid in any year for which you have enough samples to get the variance down to an acceptable level.  Marcott brags that his proxies don't have the problem of increasing variance with age.  That's not completely true because his proxies start in different years.  He actually has the same problem for which he is criticising dendrochronologists (Each of his proxies is analogous to a single tree-ring series.).

Cross-dating rather easily establishes that there is only one position in which that "uptick" could fit.  Any other position will have a higher intercorrelation coefficient.  If you have positioned a series correctly, then each observation will be similar to a corresponding observation in the master series and the difference between them will be minimal, centered on zero.  If you are off by even one time interval (Ignoring autocorrelation; in dendrochronology that interval is one year.), the differences in the two readings approximate a random distribution.  The result is a lower correlation coefficient.


Some of the graphs you posted did not come from Marcott's article.  Your source is a forgery, doctored to make it show things the original article didn't.  That's why you must ALWAYS REFER TO THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.  Next time:  DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 13 March 2013 - 01:37 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#40    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:48 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

"It's not enough to yell "BS" then not be able to back up what you're saying."
i showed you the graphs of the proxies used in the study, so when you say "not be able to backup" you are in fact stating a falsehood.
Two of the graphs you showed were forgeries.  You still haven't backed up your cliams.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not from scientific sources.  That bit about the uptick fitting at other times is flat out wrong - NO OTHER POSITION produces a better fit.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#41    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:12 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 09 March 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

here is a northern hemisphere reconstruction using 120 different proxies from across the world covering the last 2,000 years, resolution 50 years.

Posted Image

here is the reconstruction using 78 proxies, covering 11,000 years that takes data points averaging 120 years apart (some series have data points 500 years apart)
It was 73 proxies. and 11,300 years.

Quote

Posted Image

look how they differ, what happened to the MWP in the bottom chart - see at 1,000 years ago in the top chart.
In Marcott's words from the original article in the March 8th edition of "Science:"
"...both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age."
That "warm interval" IS the Medieval Warm Period and it shows up rather plainly in Figures 1A, 1C and 1E.  So why did you pick Figure 1B which, because of the 11,000-year time scale, does not show it as well?

The answer to that question is:  cherry-picking.

You need to be careful about your sources.  If your source made a mistake and you repeated it, it just became YOUR mistake.

Quote

look at the top chart, around 500 AD it swings 3 celcius in a short period of time, now look at the variance on y axis the bottom chart.
Look at the chart scale again:  that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius.  You misread the chart.

Quote

there is no SH reconstruction which shows the top chart inverted. there are many proxies in the SH that show the same as the top chart though, so the top chart is similar to global chart (before that old chestnut rears its head), also the mann et al grey plot in the bottom graph is NH only.
According to Marcott's article (which you never read):  "...temperatures in this region (Northern Hemisphere) decrease by ~2 (degrees) C from 7000 yr B.P. tp ~100 yr B.P. (Fig. 2H).  By comparison, the low latitudes (30 degrees north to 30 degrees south) exhibit a slight warming of ~0.4 (degrees) C from 11,000 to 5000 yr B.P., with temperature leveling off thereafter (Fig. 2I), whereas the extratropical Southern Hemisphere (30 degrees south to 90 degrees south) cooled ~0.4 (degrees) C from about 11,000 to 7000 yr B.P. ...."
So, which proxies are you talking about?  Marcott's 73 proxies didn't show what you're claiming.  Time to post a source that DOES show it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#42    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 March 2013 - 03:36 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 13 March 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

So, which proxies are you talking about?  Marcott's 73 proxies didn't show what you're claiming.  Time to post a source that DOES show it.
Doug

Something is wrong here.

Why would Marcott use proxies (actually 30 out of 73) in his paper which have been shown to have major temperature errors (> 0.5 degrees)?

Edited by BFB, 13 March 2013 - 03:40 PM.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#43    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,860 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 13 March 2013 - 04:15 PM

View PostBFB, on 13 March 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Why would Marcott use proxies (actually 30 out of 73) in his paper which have been shown to have major temperature errors (> 0.5 degrees)?
I'm checking that out.  I'll have to get back to you on it.

As I explained in Post 39, we're tracking changes, not absolute temperatures.  The transforms I described would destroy the absolute values, leaving only the changes.  A series that averaged a degree high would be relocated to the global average.  So what is important is the consistency.  Is the dataset nearly always high?  That would indicate a correctable bias.  But if the discrepancies are random then various types of averaging or smoothing would be needed to even out the variation.  That would destroy short-term signals, like ice storms, but leave the long-term ones, like century-scale warming trends.

Another thought:  in order to calculate an error, you need a standard to compare to, a standard to serve as the "correct" model.  How were those error rates determined and against what standard?
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 13 March 2013 - 04:18 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#44    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:31 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 13 March 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:


I'm checking that out.  I'll have to get back to you on it.

As I explained in Post 39, we're tracking changes, not absolute temperatures.  The transforms I described would destroy the absolute values, leaving only the changes.  A series that averaged a degree high would be relocated to the global average.  So what is important is the consistency.  Is the dataset nearly always high?  That would indicate a correctable bias.  But if the discrepancies are random then various types of averaging or smoothing would be needed to even out the variation.  That would destroy short-term signals, like ice storms, but leave the long-term ones, like century-scale warming trends.

Another thought:  in order to calculate an error, you need a standard to compare to, a standard to serve as the "correct" model.  How were those error rates determined and against what standard?
Doug

Useing 30 proxies out of 73, nearly half of the poxies which is filled with errors, to make a temperature reconstruction is either completly stupid or a deliberate move.

We both know that using data which can make temperatures either decrease or increase by up to 2-4 degress isn't the best idea if you wanna make a temperature reconstruction. This is not rocket science.

It would be the same if I used a barometer which has been shown to differ 10% in atmospheric pressure values to forcast the weather. How accurate do you think my forcast would be if I used this barometer??

Edited by BFB, 14 March 2013 - 09:32 AM.

"Its not true, until my brain says so" - BFB

#45    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:53 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 12 March 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Nobody is arguing about the blade of the hockey stick
The author of the paper Marcott himself has now distanced himself from the blade of his graph, stating it is "not robust", this is only after he let the media promote the alarmism.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users