<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: New study extends hockey stick back 11,300 years </title> <atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/</link> <description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:33:19 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title> By: Nos Lapre </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19485</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nos Lapre]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:33:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19485</guid> <description><![CDATA[I learned at High School, that it is CO (carbon monoxide) and not CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is toxic. So why do the doomsayers keep attacking a gas, which is according to the U,.S. Supreme Court a harmless gas, which is vital to all life on earth? (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I learned at High School, that it is CO (carbon monoxide) and not CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is toxic. So why do the doomsayers keep attacking a gas, which is according to the U,.S. Supreme Court a harmless gas, which is vital to all life on earth? (<a href="http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/23/lawrence-solomon-supreme-skeptics/</a></p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: MT Geoff </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19484</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[MT Geoff]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:14:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19484</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19482">benofhouston</a>. On a related note: I once visited a health website and went through their longevity tool. It said that if I lost ten pounds, I would probably live three weeks longer. I swear it really happened.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19482">benofhouston</a>.</p> <p>On a related note: I once visited a health website and went through their longevity tool. It said that if I lost ten pounds, I would probably live three weeks longer. I swear it really happened.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: MT Geoff </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19483</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[MT Geoff]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:13:24 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19483</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19482">benofhouston</a>. Howdy BofH Of course you're right, but the whole global warming business is based on working far right of the decimal point with data that should stop at the decimal point. This is even more true when talking about sea level, damages due to weather events, droughts, floods, etc. If the CAGW folks had to work within the limits of the data, they couldn't work at all. And unemployment is already too high.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19482">benofhouston</a>.</p> <p>Howdy BofH<br /> Of course you’re right, but the whole global warming business is based on working far right of the decimal point with data that should stop at the decimal point. This is even more true when talking about sea level, damages due to weather events, droughts, floods, etc. If the CAGW folks had to work within the limits of the data, they couldn’t work at all. And unemployment is already too high.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: benofhouston </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19482</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[benofhouston]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:48:53 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19482</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19481">John B</a>. John, 70-80% is much more accurate. If you have only a single digit of certainty (which in my opinion is laughably precise), then you have to say 70-80%. Would you trust a project proposal that said that the cost of building a power plant will be $1,251,765,321.23? No, you'd call them an idiot for counting pennies on a number that is unlikely to be within a hundred million dollars. Same thing.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19481">John B</a>.</p> <p>John, 70-80% is much more accurate. If you have only a single digit of certainty (which in my opinion is laughably precise), then you have to say 70-80%. </p> <p>Would you trust a project proposal that said that the cost of building a power plant will be $1,251,765,321.23? No, you’d call them an idiot for counting pennies on a number that is unlikely to be within a hundred million dollars.</p> <p>Same thing.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: John B </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19481</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[John B]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:27:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19481</guid> <description><![CDATA[Even if all of their "facts" are true, they continue to exhibit an inherent sloppiness and lack of care. For example: "today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years" If they are scientists and have all the exact facts, why not 72.33% or 78.777%--instead of 70 - 80%, which sound like my betting the odds on a football game. (or a % that most weather forecasters would love to achieve))]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if all of their “facts” are true, they continue to exhibit an inherent sloppiness and lack of care. For example:<br /> “today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years”<br /> If they are scientists and have all the exact facts, why not 72.33% or 78.777%–instead of 70 – 80%, which sound like my betting the odds on a football game. (or a % that most weather forecasters would love to achieve))</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: benofhouston </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19480</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[benofhouston]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:11:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19480</guid> <description><![CDATA[Given that they apparently know Pharoh's global temperature better than we know last week's global temperature, I'd say that they need lessons on error calculation.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that they apparently know Pharoh’s global temperature better than we know last week’s global temperature, I’d say that they need lessons on error calculation.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: mo2tex </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19479</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[mo2tex]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:44:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19479</guid> <description><![CDATA[The press release says that the temperature reconstruction is reliable, so I don't know where you science-lovers get off pointing out all the tricks. The fact that they cherry-picked data, used an unreliable proxy, and mixed that unreliable temperature proxy data with instrument measurements which have been "adjusted" beyond all recognition shouldn't matter. Now that everybody is in agreement, can we get on with destroying the world's economies?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The press release says that the temperature reconstruction is reliable, so I don’t know where you science-lovers get off pointing out all the tricks. The fact that they cherry-picked data, used an unreliable proxy, and mixed that unreliable temperature proxy data with instrument measurements which have been “adjusted” beyond all recognition shouldn’t matter. Now that everybody is in agreement, can we get on with destroying the world’s economies?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Doubting Thomas </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19478</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Doubting Thomas]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:14:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19478</guid> <description><![CDATA[So, even if you take it at face value, it looks like global temps are just returning to "earth normal". Isn't that what the warmists want? Aren't they saying that there is a "correct" earth temperature? Looks like we're way below the norm right now. Got some warming to do boys, so roll up your sleeves! Also, I'd like to be enlightened as to why those temps were so high without man spewing out CO2 and then why did they drop? Once the warmists can explain these things in current AWG terms, I'll give them a little more credence. BTW, Mann's original "hockey stick" timeframe (back 1000 years) on this chart looks a lot more like a backwards "checkmark" to me (all downhill, then sharply up, as opposed to all flat, then sharply up). Makes current warming look more like a "recovery" than an abherration. Does this also mean that the warmists now quietly admit the hockey stick was bogus?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, even if you take it at face value, it looks like global temps are just returning to “earth normal”. Isn’t that what the warmists want? Aren’t they saying that there is a “correct” earth temperature? Looks like we’re way below the norm right now. Got some warming to do boys, so roll up your sleeves!<br /> Also, I’d like to be enlightened as to why those temps were so high without man spewing out CO2 and then why did they drop? Once the warmists can explain these things in current AWG terms, I’ll give them a little more credence.<br /> BTW, Mann’s original “hockey stick” timeframe (back 1000 years) on this chart looks a lot more like a backwards “checkmark” to me (all downhill, then sharply up, as opposed to all flat, then sharply up). Makes current warming look more like a “recovery” than an abherration. Does this also mean that the warmists now quietly admit the hockey stick was bogus?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Stan B </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19477</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Stan B]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:41:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19477</guid> <description><![CDATA[Whew! I thought the current warm spell was some sort of "abnormal aberration," a "one off" that meant we had to be the cause and that there was no "precedent in history" for the current warmth! Luckily, these guys proved that it's happened 20 to 30 percent of the time since the last ice-age. Does anyone know where the "proxies" end and the "instrument records" have been grafted onto the end of the chart?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whew! I thought the current warm spell was some sort of “abnormal aberration,” a “one off” that meant we had to be the cause and that there was no “precedent in history” for the current warmth! Luckily, these guys proved that it’s happened 20 to 30 percent of the time since the last ice-age.</p> <p>Does anyone know where the “proxies” end and the “instrument records” have been grafted onto the end of the chart?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Sydney Lotterby </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2013/03/new-study-extends-hockey-stick-back-11300-years/#comment-19476</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sydney Lotterby]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:38:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://junkscience.com/?p=36908#comment-19476</guid> <description><![CDATA[you're Bit out of date, grapes are now being grown as far north as Perthshire, vineyards in England & Wales are not uncommon (about 400 commercial vineyards) & there are at least 20 vineyards in Denmark (developed since 1999) producing around 40,000 bottles of wine per annum]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you’re Bit out of date, grapes are now being grown as far north as Perthshire, vineyards in England & Wales are not uncommon (about 400 commercial vineyards) & there are at least 20 vineyards in Denmark (developed since 1999) producing around 40,000 bottles of wine per annum</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>