the latest HockeyStick, Neukom2014

[IanC]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2174.html

I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.

would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?

all data is from the SI at Nature.

and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added

as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.

thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?

and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit

it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Doesn't make any sense...The proxies say the opposite from his conclusion

 

[IanC]

Doesn't make any sense...The proxies say the opposite from his conclusion

I wouldnt say the 'opposite'. I would say that they dont say much of anything at all.

and the proxies for gergis ,marcott and shakun were just as equivical, with time direction and size problems. remember, these are the ones that were selected! it is hard to believe that the one discarded were even more random.

 

[Abraham3]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2174.html

I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.

would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?

all data is from the SI at Nature.

and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added

as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.

thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?

and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit

it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.

What do YOU mean when you say "hockeystick", Ian?

 

[IanC]

hockeystick graphs? shaped like a hockeystick. the upwards blade can be made by many methods. the most popular are by combining low sensitivity, low variance proxy data with high variance, high sensitivity instrumental data and/or poor methodology to select and train proxy data to show a spurious upward trend.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2174.html

I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.

would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?

all data is from the SI at Nature.

and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added

as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.

thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?

and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit

it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.

Amazing.

It's Fraud, pure, outright fraud.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2174.html

I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.

would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?

all data is from the SI at Nature.

and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added

as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.

thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?

and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit

it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.

Amazing.

It's Fraud, pure, outright fraud.

More like witchcraft.. I love the way the final result for the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century departs so dramatically from the ACTUAL means.. If i gave a crap, id love to read that explanantion.... All of that period is plotted BELOW the actual data means...

 

[IanC]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2174.html

I doubt that this latest hockeystick will get retracted like Gergis2012 (same batch of authors BTW) because it is more honest in describing how they cherrypick proxies to get a hockeystick shaped graph.

would you like to see the 100+ proxies that are already screened to produce a predetermined result?

all data is from the SI at Nature.

and of course the mean, with Neukom's results added

as I have said before, be careful of proxy reconstructions. especially the estimated standard deviations of error.

thanks to Willis. Neukom?s Science By Proxy | Watts Up With That?. Duke Neukom?s Secret Sauce | Watts Up With That?

and of course to Steve. Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti « Climate Audit

it doesnt matter if you are a warmer or a denier. if you read those links you will know more about the process of producing a proxy reconstruction.

Amazing.

It's Fraud, pure, outright fraud.

More like witchcraft.. I love the way the final result for the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century departs so dramatically from the ACTUAL means.. If i gave a crap, id love to read that explanantion.... All of that period is plotted BELOW the actual data means...

the paper gives a description of their method but not the actual code. so far it has not been reverse engineered to account for the odd final results but I am certain that the usual group of statisticians will decipher it presently. perhaps similar errors that were found in Gergis2012 will reappear and this paper will be sent to the zombie zone as well.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares.......the hockey stick was proven to be a myth years ago now.

 

[IanC]

Skooks- I agree that few people care. but it is exactly this sort of information that the public should be exposed to because it shows how weak the evidence for 'unprecedented' global warming really is. posters like Abe honestly believe that proxy reconstructions are accurate and robust enough to just add instrumental data to, even though they are two different types of data. he is not alone, the world has been conditioned to accept this type of misdirection since Mann98.

 

[skookerasbil]

Epic cold continues >>>

Climate Moves To California | Real Science



And the cheesedicks keep taking about 400 ppm.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skooks- I agree that few people care. but it is exactly this sort of information that the public should be exposed to because it shows how weak the evidence for 'unprecedented' global warming really is. posters like Abe honestly believe that proxy reconstructions are accurate and robust enough to just add instrumental data to, even though they are two different types of data. he is not alone, the world has been conditioned to accept this type of misdirection since Mann98.

Understood Ian and this is an excellent thread.......but the msm has this whole debate rigged.

And really, in terms of the debate, it doesn't matter. Public policy is not being influenced at all by the "consensus" and pretty soon, congress will be overturning all of this executive order BS ( see Clean Air Act: Impact on Economy Review ).....just need a handful of votes that will happen after November.


Its all good. Renewables continue to be a joke, which they should be given China/India.

 

[IanC]

Skooks- I agree that few people care. but it is exactly this sort of information that the public should be exposed to because it shows how weak the evidence for 'unprecedented' global warming really is. posters like Abe honestly believe that proxy reconstructions are accurate and robust enough to just add instrumental data to, even though they are two different types of data. he is not alone, the world has been conditioned to accept this type of misdirection since Mann98.

Understood Ian and this is an excellent thread.......but the msm has this whole debate rigged.

And really, in terms of the debate, it doesn't matter. Public policy is not being influenced at all by the "consensus" and pretty soon, congress will be overturning all of this executive order BS ( see Clean Air Act: Impact on Economy Review ).....just need a handful of votes that will happen after November.


Its all good. Renewables continue to be a joke, which they should be given China/India.

I totally agree with you that public opinion is evaporating away from concern for AGW and especially CAGW. we are rapidly approaching the paradigm shift where everyone will start saying, "I never believed in that BS".

oddly enough I think Germany is going to be the first country to have a large backlash against AGW. probably because they believed in it so ferverently and now the momentum is rapidly moving in the other direction.

people dont like to be lied to. even if it just exaggeration in the name of The Noble Cause.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skooks- I agree that few people care. but it is exactly this sort of information that the public should be exposed to because it shows how weak the evidence for 'unprecedented' global warming really is. posters like Abe honestly believe that proxy reconstructions are accurate and robust enough to just add instrumental data to, even though they are two different types of data. he is not alone, the world has been conditioned to accept this type of misdirection since Mann98.

Understood Ian and this is an excellent thread.......but the msm has this whole debate rigged.

And really, in terms of the debate, it doesn't matter. Public policy is not being influenced at all by the "consensus" and pretty soon, congress will be overturning all of this executive order BS ( see Clean Air Act: Impact on Economy Review ).....just need a handful of votes that will happen after November.


Its all good. Renewables continue to be a joke, which they should be given China/India.

I totally agree with you that public opinion is evaporating away from concern for AGW and especially CAGW. we are rapidly approaching the paradigm shift where everyone will start saying, "I never believed in that BS".

oddly enough I think Germany is going to be the first country to have a large backlash against AGW. probably because they believed in it so ferverently and now the momentum is rapidly moving in the other direction.

people dont like to be lied to. even if it just exaggeration in the name of The Noble Cause.

Ian....the backlash in Germany is well underway >>>



The green dream in Europe turns black as renewable energy fails


Wind Power: Germany?s Fatal Attraction ? STOP THESE THINGS



If you're part of the AGW fascist religion, this watershed is decimates the cause. Germany is importing coal and natural gas to levels not seen in 2 decades.....imperative for them to be able to compete economically, plus, the people are pissed about the staggering cost of electricity there in recent years due to the renewables BS. Ive been celebrating for well over a year now.


When America starts getting brown outs and blackouts in 2015, the shit will REALLY hit the fan here.