Attempt To Revive Debunked Hockey Stick Smacked Down

Home › Groups › aus.invest › Attempt To Revive Debunked Hockey Stick Smacked Down

Number of messages in the thread: 2

1. Date: 2008-11-24 00:31:31
Subject: Attempt To Revive Debunked Hockey Stick Smacked Down
From: "bnzoo" <b...@...com> Search message by this author

November 24, 2008

An attempt to restore Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick - the one that
claimed last century's warming was unprecedented - is smacked down.

Can't See the Signal For the Trees

Willis Eschenbach, November 23rd, 2008

ABSTRACT: A new method is proposed for determining if a group of datasets
contain a signal in common. The method, which I call Correlation
Distribution Analysis (CDA), is shown to be able to detect common signals
down to a signal:noise ratio of 1:10. In addition, the method reveals how
much of the common signal is contained by each proxy. I applied the method
to the Mann et al. 2008 (hereinafter M2008) proxies. I analysed all (N=95)
of the M008 proxies which contain data from 1001 to 1980. These contain a
clear hockeystick shaped signal. CDA shows that the hockeystick shape is
entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US
"stripbark" pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed, the
hockeystick shape disappears entirely.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428#comments

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.
php/heraldsun/comments/forecast_this/

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

Show messages with headings

2. Date: 2008-11-25 03:59:06
Subject: Re: Attempt To Revive Debunked Hockey Stick Smacked Down
From: "bnzoo" <b...@...com> Search message by this author

"Lloyd" <l...@e...edu> wrote in message
news:92ed074d-ee49-44d1-a4d3-590a05ff1090@h5g2000yqh
.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 23, 7:31 pm, "bnzoo" <b...@...com> wrote:
> November 24, 2008
>
> An attempt to restore Michael Mann's discredited hockey stick - the one
> that
> claimed last century's warming was unprecedented - is smacked down.
>
> Can't See the Signal For the Trees
>
> Willis Eschenbach, November 23rd, 2008
>
> ABSTRACT: A new method is proposed for determining if a group of datasets
> contain a signal in common. The method, which I call Correlation
> Distribution Analysis (CDA), is shown to be able to detect common signals
> down to a signal:noise ratio of 1:10. In addition, the method reveals how
> much of the common signal is contained by each proxy. I applied the method
> to the Mann et al. 2008 (hereinafter M2008) proxies. I analysed all (N=95)
> of the M008 proxies which contain data from 1001 to 1980. These contain a
> clear hockeystick shaped signal. CDA shows that the hockeystick shape is
> entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US
> "stripbark" pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed,
> the
> hockeystick shape disappears entirely.
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4428#comments
>
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.
php/heraldsun/com...
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
Now if he published this in a scientific journal rather than a blog...
But of course, you denialists can't get a scientific journal to
publish your pack of lies.
***************************************

ROTFLMAO
You mean like the "New Socialist"????

New Scientist Is Now A Socialist, Agenda-Driven, Political Rag

Peter Foster

October 27 2008

The magazine uses the canard that money doesn't buy us happiness, echoing
the Soviets' Central Plan

With the threat of worldwide economic stagnation, and given the central role
of governments both in creating and exacerbating the current global
financial debacle, a clarion call for much greater government control of a
deliberately no-growth world seems almost satirical.

And yet the British magazine New Scientist recently devoted an issue to
"Beyond Growth." This equates to an economic journal producing a "science"
issue promoting alchemy or necromancy.

The magazine makes the hysterical claim that "our economy is killing the
Earth." Thus we need a new economy, which essentially means new people. It's
hoary and wobbly thesis is based on the alleged incompatibility between
"finite" resources and growth. This "problem" - endlessly regurgitated since
Malthus - is in fact primarily one of failure - or even refusal - to
understand the role of markets and human ingenuity in perpetually increasing
the amount of resources available.

Radical environmentalist are much given to apocalyptic forecasts, but the
New Scientist instead projects a Utopia in 2020, 10 years into a glorious
totalitarian experiment in promoting a "steady-state" economy based on
centrally mandated resource use and draconian controls on waste. The rules
are set by "scientists." (One is reminded of the impractical and deadly
agents of "Reason" who populated the tyrannical floating island of Laputa in
Gulliver's Travels).

According to the magazine, these scientists "work out what levels of
consumption and emission are sustainable - and if they're not sure they work
out a cautious estimate (so much better than the incautious variety). Then
it's up to the economists to work out how to achieve those limits, and how
to encourage innovation so we extract as much as possible from every scrap
of natural resource we use."

Just like the Soviets' Central Plan!

These orchestrated wonders, in which all innovation is presumably to be
vetted by committees of Laputans, are to be achieved under a carbon
cap-and-trade system, plus hefty resource taxes. Of course, the implied
price hikes will bash the poor worst, but since economic growth has been
outlawed, poverty will have to be tackled "differently."

Having suggested earlier that income taxes would disappear (à la a
Dion-esque Green Shift) the New Scientist now tells us that there will be
upper limits to income inequality, although the calculations are admittedly
"tricky," since they involve the assessment of "real" contributions. Welcome
to global pay equity!

Much of the new master plan is pure mysticism. Punishing taxes on private
travel will somehow magically "trigger" huge new investments in public
transports and new technologies. Just where these huge investment funds will
originate is a mystery in a no-growth world, especially since commercial
lending has disappeared along with growth expectations.

"Today," claims the magazine (that is, in 2020), "we only make what we need,
and products are built to last - so no more fun consumer tech that has to be
updated every six months." Indeed, no more fun at all in a world in which we
only consume what our masters decide we really "need."

There will be new "models of ownership." Maintenance and repair will become
much more important relative to production, just as in, say, current Cuba or
the old Soviet Union.

Where will the big job opportunities lie? Government-funded ecologists will
beaver away researching "carrying capacity." Sea level modellers will be in
great demand. Meanwhile there will still be room for entrepreneurs keen on
inventing on command, as long as they don't insist on excessive rewards.

The magazine's fantasy admits that this new economy won't be able to
accommodate full employment, but apparently people will be happier with less
income, less freedom and more forced leisure. Trade will be regulated
according to ecological principles which will eventually embrace the entire
world.

There will be nowhere to hide.

Population and immigration will be rigidly controlled, creating potential
crisis for pension systems, but have no fear; the all-wise ruling clique
will work out the contributions required to make the system "sustainable."

The magazine concludes by regurgitating the canard that money doesn't buy us
happiness, and that the most important thing is to keep our envy in check by
making sure that others aren't too rich either: yet again the Cuban
communist model.

But what of market "externalities" such as climate change? Reflexive power
seekers claim that globally coordinated force is the only answer. But to the
extent that the issue is real - and whatever its causes - the most sensible
and effective response is one of relying on the kind of wealth and ingenuity
that is promoted by economic growth.

That response would be banned under the new eco-dictatorship.

It is perhaps beyond hope that the purveyors of such horrifying nonsense
might ever study economics or history, but they might be directed towards a
little literature: say Orwell's Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four, or
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

However, consumed by their own ecological virtue, and the fatal conceit of
their blinkered rationalism, they just wouldn't get it.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/a
rchive/2008/10/27/brave-new-scientist.aspx

Warmest Regards

Bonzo