Quote :

"Their main point with the "hockey stick" has already been severely disproven, what more do you need."

The IPCC doesn't use the hockey stick. And it's not their "main point." Are you sure you've looked over it?

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2007 3:35:56 PM

Is that why the IPCC uses it on the first slide of their 2001 report presentation?

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/ppt/05.16.ppt

6/7/2007 3:52:09 PM

That's not the hockey stick model.

gg.

6/7/2007 4:02:26 PM

i'll give you a chance to re-think that comment and correct yourself before you make yourself look any dumber

6/7/2007 4:08:13 PM

The hockey stick graph refers to a specific 1998 study on climate which has been disputed.

The 2007 report doesn't use this study.


Edit:

Here's a graph from wikipedia:



The blue line is the 1998 report- other lines represent subsequent studies.

For all the controversy, the 1998 report sure seems to have been proven absolutely wrong.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 4:17:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

6/7/2007 4:23:00 PM

Oh, wait.

You said 2001.

I thought we were talking about the 2007 report.



I can't keep up with all this backpeddling, sorry.

6/7/2007 4:23:56 PM

backpeddling like this?

Quote :

"That's not the hockey stick model"

Its not even that you're wrong, its that you're so convinced that you're right

6/7/2007 4:25:21 PM

No, backpeddling like this:

2007:

Quote :

"I've looked over the IPCC report and don't feel like relooking that crap up over and over. Their main point with the "hockey stick" has already been severely disproven, what more do you need."

Still in 2007

Quote :

"The IPCC doesn't use the hockey stick. And it's not their "main point." Are you sure you've looked over it?"

Oops:

Quote :

"Is that why the IPCC uses it on the first slide of their 2001 report presentation?"

I didn't look at the graph, because I knew they didn't use the 1998 study in the 2007 report. I hadn't expected you to pull this shit.

"So the 2007 report doesn't use the hockey stick graph, you say? Well what about THIS (points to the 2001 report)"

6/7/2007 4:30:11 PM

Quote :

"The IPCC doesn't use the hockey stick"

thats what i was responding to

but if you'd like to bend around backwards making excuses, continue

I guess when I said I'd give you a chance to re-think that comment, you decided you didn't need to re-think anything because you know everything

6/7/2007 4:33:33 PM

Quote :

"The IPCC doesn't use the hockey stick"

Do you not understand the difference between present tense and past tense?

6/7/2007 4:36:01 PM

Do you not understand the difference in "The IPCC uses the hockey stick" and "The IPCC doesn't use the hockey stick"?

Did you even know the IPCC existed before their 2007 report?

I suppose you'd rather argue syntax and consider "The IPCC" to mean "Only the 2007 report"

6/7/2007 4:37:54 PM

Another TreeTwista related sub-debate where he took literal text and couldn't apply it to the discussion at hand to get what someone was talking about.

6/7/2007 4:40:45 PM

"Doesn't" is present-tense, chief.

Is the IPCC currently using the hockey stick graph?

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 4:41:24 PM

Quote :

"I suppose you'd rather argue syntax and consider "The IPCC" to mean "Only the 2007 report" "

6/7/2007 4:42:11 PM

Does the IPCC use the hockey stick or not, it's a simple question and you won't give it the simple answer that we all know is right.

6/7/2007 4:43:21 PM

Tree...

"Do" you smoke weed?


I mean, you've done it...

and Treetwister has been around for more than a year or so...

So it's fair to say that you "do" smoke weed and are a pot-head, right?

6/7/2007 4:44:06 PM

c'mon boone, verb tense is very subtle wordplay.

6/7/2007 4:44:50 PM

It'd be fair to say that Tree "doesn't" like the opposite sex, since at some point in time he thought they had cooties.

right?

6/7/2007 4:45:43 PM

BOONE! Why must you be so hard to understand, huh?!

6/7/2007 4:45:56 PM

Boone have you read the 2007 Report?

6/7/2007 4:46:24 PM

^ Boone is right, but I don't think he's phrasing himself well

There are several "hockey stick" graphs. The one that is most typically bandied about doesn't have the error bars or as many samples as the one you posted. And that one is from 2001. They all though use data from a scientist named Mann and his colleagues. The flaws in his methodology are mentioned here: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

The IPCC hasn't actually used his hockey stick data in any recent publications (past 2-3 years), but his data was one of the catalyzing influences in bringing the issue of climate change to the forefront.

Newer studies done in light of Mann's mistakes support the general conclusions though:

The main problem in his methodology was that the "stick" was too flat. The main point of Mann's graph was more the end, than the stick, and that part didn't actually change.

Here's a link to the latest presentation the IPCC has put out based on the work of "Working Group I": http://www.ipcc.ch/present/WMEF_FINAL.ppt (lots of pictures and stuff)

Their full report is here (around 1000 pages): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

6/7/2007 4:49:04 PM

Interesting how the link you posted that discussed the flaws in the hockey stick graph had the exact picture I posted in the PPT link that Boone claimed was "not the hockey stick model"

6/7/2007 4:51:49 PM

He didn't click the link, can you not read where he said this

Quote :

"Oh, wait. You said 2001. I thought we were talking about the 2007 report. "

Or, after your severe domination on this sub-topic by Boone, you're going to keep trying to win anyway, apparently his explanation is not enough for you, you'd rather just go with exactly what he said and claim a victory...then wonder why most people here don't like you. Don't you have 75k to make tending your IT job?

6/7/2007 4:54:15 PM

^^Cheese and crackers we've been over that.

I didn't look at the graph before I responded.

I apologize for only assuming your response was slightly retarded rather than completely so. I'll not make the same mistake again.


Now... you're claiming that the IPCC "does" using the hockey stick graph. Address moron's post, plz.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 4:56:18 PM

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : he said it]

6/7/2007 4:56:50 PM

Boone have you read the 2007 Report?

^the hockey stick model i posted in the PPT link was THE hockey stick model

gosh you guys just gang up to make yourselves feel smarter and you cant ever admit when you're wrong

Quote :

"you're claiming that the IPCC "does" using the hockey stick graph"

well the powerpoint i posted that does use the hockey stick graph on that particular slide is hosted on the IPCC website....so...

Quote :

"Its not even that you're wrong, its that you're so convinced that you're right"

6/7/2007 4:57:06 PM

Now you're just blatantly trolling, which is what you do when you lose a point.



Next topic.

6/7/2007 5:01:10 PM

THE model that's no longer used by the IPCC?

Are you really not following us?



And I read the "Summary for Policy Makers"

And that's what Tree's been dying to hear: the point where he can say "OMG YOU ONLY READ THE SUMMARY?! HAR HAR HAR I READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE THING, BECAUSE I'M AN IT GUY!1"

Out of the severe beating he just got, he's going for the low-blow, which was just usurped by moron


[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:02:09 PM

Quote :

"But, the “hockey stick” was remarkable. And as such, it will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight. The embarrassment that it caused to many scientists working in the field of climatology will not be soon forgotten. Hopefully, new findings to come, as remarkable and enticing as they may first appear, will be greeted with a bit more caution and thorough investigation before they are widely accepted as representing the scientific consensus. "

This is what I worry about. Not that global warming is not a threat, but the herd mentality is always dangerous when powerful fearmongers sound the alarm. It happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and when we look back 50 years from now, we might view the global warming scare in the same light.

6/7/2007 5:02:47 PM

Quote :

"That's not the hockey stick model. gg. "

why dont you just admit that you were talking out of your ass here? afraid such an intellectual erudite instructor like yourself doesnt know as much about something as a dumb stoner who works at mcdonalds?

Quote :

"OMG YOU ONLY READ THE SUMMARY?! HAR HAR HAR I READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE ENTIRE THING, BECAUSE I'M AN IT GUY!1" "

no i was going to say you couldnt have possibly read the whole official report cause its not officially out yet...only the pre-copy edit version

6/7/2007 5:03:12 PM

I was assuming, it's true. Assuming that your counterargument was on-point.

And it was indeed dumb of me.


Now, how about you address moron's point?



PS: When you're playing yourself this badly, it's really not trolling anymore.

6/7/2007 5:06:37 PM

Quote :

"Now, how about you address moron's point?"

i addressed moron's first post on this page and you come up with this blatantly incorrect lie

Quote :

"That's not the hockey stick model"

yet your high school teacher pride wont let you

Quote :

"admit that you were talking out of your ass here"

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 5:07:55 PM

That's the new "hockey stick" from the most recent report. It has several models, not just Mann's (MBH). You can see while his was too flat, the data from several different sources still supports the idea of an overall warming.


This is from ch. 6 of the WG1 report link I posted earlier:

Quote :

"Their full report is here (around 1000 pages): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html"

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2007 5:08:52 PM

Do

Did

What's the difference?

6/7/2007 5:09:31 PM

i argue syntax and make off the wall comparisons about weed because i got called the fuck out for saying "That's not the hockey stick model"

i also didnt know what the IPCC was up until a couple years ago because thats before I had seen An Inconvenient Truth

6/7/2007 5:10:30 PM

Quote :

"yet your high school teacher pride wont let you admit that you were talking out of your ass here""

Quote :

"I was assuming, it's true. Assuming that your counterargument was on-point. And it was indeed dumb of me."

keep playing yourself.

6/7/2007 5:11:46 PM

Quote :

"moron: That's the new "hockey stick" from the most recent report"

so you're saying the most recent report DOES use the hockey stick? but i thought...

6/7/2007 5:12:22 PM

6/7/2007 5:13:27 PM

Boone do you care to comment on what moron just said about that hockey stick model being used in the most recent report? Any thoughts on that?

6/7/2007 5:14:42 PM

^^^ Are you kidding me? Did you turn off your reading comprehension switch there? I put "hockey stick" in quotes to make fun of the people who reject climate change based solely on that one issue. I was suppose to be sarcastic, because the graph clearly is not a hockey stick. I was not meaning to imply that it is flawed in the same manner people are saying about the hockey stick.

It "uses" it in the context of other data.

The reason people are saying it was "debunked" is no longer a valid criticism of the IPCC report, because other more accurate sources of data (10 of them) are now used in the IPCC report.

Do you know exactly what people are saying is wrong with the Mann graph?



[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2007 5:16:45 PM

mainly that they werent certain about how accurately they reconstructed the past data

btw if you think i "reject climate change" you really need to go back to the first page and refresh your memory

6/7/2007 5:18:33 PM

I wasn't going to honestly, but if you really want to dig yourself into a deeper hole...

Quote :

"moron: That's the new "hockey stick" from the most recent report" Tree:so you're saying the most recent report DOES use the hockey stick? but i thought..."

If your reading comprehension was above a 5th grade reading level, you'd notice that the use of quotation marks and the modifier "new" seems to imply that he wasn't talking about THE hockey stick model.

(and by "THE hockey stick model," I do in fact mean the 1998 one, in case you're having trouble keeping up)

6/7/2007 5:19:28 PM

I thought you'd come out of hiding once moron addressed it first

are all those quotation marks and wild analogies what it takes to make high school kids learn stories and memorize dates?

Quote :

"and by "THE hockey stick model,""

oh you mean THE model that I posted and you claimed was NOT the model?

6/7/2007 5:20:20 PM

Quote :

"btw if you think i "reject climate change" you really need to go back to the first page and refresh your memory "

If you think I was saying that about you, maybe you should go back to this page, and reread my post.

6/7/2007 5:20:38 PM

Well I think I just need to throw that out there every now and then cause a lot of people don't see a theist and they assume you're an atheist even when you're an agnostic

6/7/2007 5:28:45 PM

This thread has finally reached the same end that all the other climate change threads reached.


Tree argues against climate change for page after page,

loses,

reminds everyone that he's undecided.

6/7/2007 5:31:25 PM

Quote :

"Tree argues against climate change for page after page"

you're racking up on the lies you post on this page aren't you

6/7/2007 5:31:47 PM

Lie #1:

...?

6/7/2007 5:32:18 PM

Lie #1 (of Page 24)

Quote :

"That's not the hockey stick model"

again, its not so much that you're wrong...its that you're so blindly convinced that you're right

i point out that i'm undecided because i know i dont know everything about climate change...you'd rather feign knowledge...I guess everyday its important for you to convince a bunch of kids somewhere in the 14-18 age group how smart you are and you have trouble turning that mode off

6/7/2007 5:32:35 PM