British Democracy Forum
Web | Images | Groups | News | Advanced
Google
Worldwide Results UK Focused Results

Go Back   British Democracy Forum > General Politics > Environment & Energy


You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 29-04-2008, 05:23 PM   #11 (permalink)
Uber Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 2,089
Clippo is just starting out
Default

I believe the 'hockey stick graph' was looked at comprehensively by a US congressional committee who agreed that some of the statistical methodolgy was flawed but made so little difference that is was insignificant in the final analysis.

Anticipating this, the 'Exxon' led doubters set up through sceptic congressman Barton a parallel congressional comitteee, headed by a denier stool-pigeon ( Wegman?). Nobody of significance took any notice of their report apparently since the IPCC moved wholesale to the Hockey stick, slightly corrected and have developed it on further.

Nobody in the scientific community with any sense doubts it is the best collation & analysis of the last few hundred years (millenia actually) warming data even thought the uncertainties over proxy data are shared by everybody.

However, in the final analysis, it's a done deal and yet the denialists still think they will overturn the whole AGW concept by trying to reverse their previous routings - probability of that happening = the square root of sweet FA (polite version)

It's all in wiki btw

I didn't know until just now that Mcintyre & Mckittrick publish their first criticism in Energy & Environment

Last edited by Clippo; 29-04-2008 at 05:25 PM. Reason: addition
Clippo is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote

You can remove this advert by logging in or registering
Old 29-04-2008, 05:34 PM   #12 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 176
Poptech is just starting out
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
I believe the 'hockey stick graph' was looked at comprehensively by a US congressional committee who agreed that some of the statistical methodolgy was flawed but made so little difference that is was insignificant in the final analysis.
Yes it was looked at and thoroughly discredited. It is so absolutely pathetic to see Computer Illiterates not comprehend that when you fed Mann's program junk numbers it ALWAYS produced a hockey-stick shape and then sit here and spin it. ANYONE who is trained in Computer Science understands he was deliberately programming for a Hockey Stick shape.

Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)
Poptech is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2008, 05:39 PM   #13 (permalink)
Uber Member
 
g hall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: erehwon
Posts: 5,225
g hall has some supporters
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo View Post
I believe the 'hockey stick graph' was looked at comprehensively by a US congressional committee who agreed that some of the statistical methodolgy was flawed but made so little difference that is was insignificant in the final analysis.
"I believe" says it all really

Quote:
Anticipating this, the 'Exxon' led doubters set up through sceptic congressman Barton a parallel congressional comitteee, headed by a denier stool-pigeon ( Wegman?). Nobody of significance took any notice of their report apparently since the IPCC moved wholesale to the Hockey stick, slightly corrected and have developed it on further.
Significance in YOUR eyes perhaps

Quote:
Nobody in the scientific community with any sense doubts it is the best collation & analysis of the last few hundred years (millenia actually) warming data even thought the uncertainties over proxy data are shared by everybody.
Nice sweeping generalisations again

Quote:
However, in the final analysis, it's a done deal and yet the denialists still think they will overturn the whole AGW concept by trying to reverse their previous routings - probability of that happening = the square root of sweet FA (polite version)

It's all in wiki btw

I didn't know until just now that Mcintyre & Mckittrick publish their first criticism in Energy & Environment
It's a done deal because of people like you who dismiss any thing else without even trying to understand the facts and as for trying to reverse it well it looks like it's a good way to control the masses and make money

As ever you are incapable of rational debate and post the same tired old drivel, you're either playing devils advocate or an IDIOT which is it ?
__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."


g hall is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!FuzzFizz It!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This site is owned and operated by MyCartel Limited © 2007. Hosting: BookFizz.
This site supports Label My Food and Politigg
My latest commercial site: Cell Phone News 2.0 - [Mobile version]

Mobile version

Politishop

eXTReMe Tracker
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0