On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.