New findings in hockey stick debate ...

[leebert]

;-)

http://fare.uoguelph.ca/events/HockeyStickDebate.html

[GliderGuider]

1. Aha. Have you just revealed your true colours?

McKitrick and McIntyre, eh? Anybody who has been following the research should immediately discount your opinions by 90%. I know I will.

You want to be careful around here. We were born at night, but it wasn't last night.

[leebert]

2. Jumping to conclusions

Aren't you jumping to conclusions?

That hockey stick was presented to M&M as a double-edged joke! Take a closer look at the blade of that hockey stick, it's not a pro-skeptic icon at all. It's a crooked handle but a big swooping blade nonetheless. So what does it mean? Who knows? It's a JOKE, not a provocative statement of ideology or fact. There are those in science who still have a sense of humor regardless of their opinions.

As for M&M, I don't cite them, I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions, I find their work to be mostly absorbed in minutia. Other climatologist projects (not Mann's) have shown a similar trend line. The trend line has been corroborated, so for me we're now down to grappling with causes & solutions.

What I don't get is the animus in these fora. Why is everyone so darn ready to go up like a rocket?

[GliderGuider]

3. Fair enough.

The reason for the "intense skepticism" is that we get way more than our share of people who have been assimilated by the Lom-"Borg" and are all too eager to tell us why the coming shitstorm is all in our minds. So when I see a 20-post newbie referencing M&M in any context at all my detector tends to light up.

Sorry if that's not the situation here, but I have to say, in light of the "soot is king, fix it and we're saved" tone of your other posts I was more than ready to see an agenda in your actions. Please, stick around and prove my concerns unfounded. We always need new voices and new insights.