Thursday, December 10, 2009

No Bunk, Huh?

A few more links that explain the hockey stick graph and establishing that it has been debunked, by definition.
- a good breakdown of the flaws with the hockey stick graph - another good story, including this tidbit of information that should cause any AGW proponent to stop worshiping at the altar of Dr. Michael Mann for even a second:

It was also prominent display in several places in the 2001 IPCC report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It has now been removed from the latest 2007 IPCC report for policymakers because it has become to much of an embarrassment for the IPCC to include it.

The graph was subsequently criticized by many global warming skeptics and historians, because weather events such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were absent. [emphasis mine]

Hmmm...that's odd. A global warming graph that excluded periods of warming and cooling? Wouldn't that be cause to suggest that Mann's graph may be...inaccurate? - a nice link...about the "hockey stick" being proven in ice levels. You know, the same ice levels that Mr. Leftist Blogger and others like him keep saying is declining? - providing more evidence, especially that Mann's original work showed cherry-picked data. Hmmm...isn't that a sign of blatant dishonesty? I mean, it was when the Left bashed George W. Bush for going into Iraq, but it's okay for an AGW proponent to do? - A presentation given by Stephen McIntyre with a pretty extensive bibliography - not from a climatologist, but with two pretty clear graphs showing what Mann deleted and the impact it would have on the "hockey stick" - a nice summary of how two other AGW proponents went to unusual lengths to "prove" Mann right, in direct violation of academic standards. Gee, wouldn't that raise a red flag in even the most ardent AGW proponent? - the link is self-explanatory, and might actually give a much more credible reason for the variations in the planet's temperature than AGW. Imagine that! The sun might cause heating! And since it's peer-reviewed, I'm sure Mr. Leftist Blogger will accept it as fact as he did with the "peer-reviewed" Mann work... - Just thought I'd throw this in so you can see how AGW has been hyped in the media year after year, pretty much all saying the same thing. - more interesting information showing competing charts showing Mann's flaws - more graphs showing that in three different studies, the results were the same, but the graph showing the "hockey stick graph" isn't one of them. It's the odd-graph-out. Funny how that works out... - Hmmm...this link shows that Mann and the two other scientists quoted in a 1998 Nature magazine article admitted they made mistakes in the original article. And the Left still thinks this guy is credible? - A forum post, I know, but it contains much more damning information about the inaccuracy of the hockey stick graph. - What? A statistical error in the hockey stick graph? Why that's...completely expected! But surely the fact that there was a statistical error in Mann's original work doesn't mean it's wrong, right?

Well, I think I've proven my point. The hockey stick graph has been debunked on several fronts, and the creators of it have admitted errors, while others have proven errors that Mann, et al, have yet to explain away in the context of whether the graph was right to begin with. You can spin it, you can dodge it, you can make up silly pseudo-definitions, but the truth is out there, as I've proven. The hockey stick graph is bogus, and those who cling to it like a security blanket (like a certain Leftist blogger who hates me, but can't stop talking about me) are mere lemmings.

Consider the hockey stick graph debunked, Mr. Leftist Blogger. Enjoy this poster, courtesy of

"But Michael Mann said it would work!"

No comments: