[BartSimpson]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually Bart that's not the one I was thinking of.

It's this one.

Hansen has also made the earthquakes caused by global warming claim. Chalko's theory however concerning disrupted energy fields, and whatnot is just plain nuts. And that's not surprising, because as it turns out when you look for the information, Chalko is most likely nuts.

Hoo-wee! That is nutty!

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's a graph from the Wikipedia page on the Hockey Stick controversy. They, of course, being Wikipedia, are pro-hockey stick. Show me the error bars.

It doesn't have error bars. That's a problem. That was one of the big critiques of Mann's work, if I recall, that the uncertainties were not accurately reflected. Therefore there should be error bars. Pointing at a graph with which you disgaree and saying "That doesn't have error bars either" does not rectify the issue.

This is important, becasue based on what I've seen, if you incorporate the uncertainties the Medieval Warm period can be hotter or cooler than today.

$1:

Speaking of which, I'll show you a trick. There's a program called Page One which allows you to collect links on an HTML page in a searchable format. Every time you see one of these global warming threads, you'll see links. Open up Page One, and collect the links. You'll be surprised how quickly you have a links page with all the relevant information at your fingertips. I can find most stuff pretty quick.

Good tip, thanks!

$1:

You know what really bugs me about that article on Mann this thread is based on? It presents that study as some sort of automatic maxim of climate science without doing basic fact checking. If he did fact check he'd know why a study like that would not be openly accepted as a result of Hockey stick critique. That demands at least a paragraph explaining the controversy. He'd also know there are many current studies contradicting Mann's claim. That's worth mentioning.

Granted.

$1:

There's so many of these articles turning up where no fact checking is done. The claim of whoever is then presented as scientific fact rather than what is, an as yet unsupported theory. Did you see that one lately from, I think it was NBC, and possibly the AP, stating global warming was going to cause catastrophic earthquakes? It turned out the quote unquote scientist was some whack-a-doodle psychic, and the university he was supposed to represent was run souly by himself. Or how about the one about the baby penquins who were drowning because they had to swim a thousand miles to escape the rain?

That's the media for you. They pick their stories based on the sensataionalism of the claim as opposed to the reliability fo the source.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That's the media for you. They pick their stories based on the sensataionalism of the claim as opposed to the reliability fo the source.

Yep, I sent out a press release saying that you're the actual father of Bristol Palin's baby just to see how far it goes.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

That's the media for you. They pick their stories based on the sensataionalism of the claim as opposed to the reliability fo the source.

Yep, I sent out a press release saying that you're the actual father of Bristol Palin's baby just to see how far it goes.

[C.M. Burns]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

And you have the non-facts to prove it!

Chuck you, farley.

Was your Mom watching over your shoulder when you wrote that?

[BartSimpson]

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

And you have the non-facts to prove it!

Chuck you, farley.

Was your Mom watching over your shoulder when you wrote that?

Glad you liked it!

[C.M. Burns]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Glad you liked it!

I did!