What? No hockey stick for Hydrological Climate Change???

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, Alla them thar pointy headed scientists publishing in journals all over the world are just stinking liberals falsifying their data on the request of their government. Whether that government is the US, Russia, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. LOL

Well, yes, the last 200 years have not been following the normal cycles of the last few thousand. Amazing, that. But it is natural cycles driving the changes we are seeing. Damn, you guys are a hoot. One moment natural cycles are obviously driving the changes, the next, the natural cycles are too long for the cycles to be detected during period of warming. LOL Don't ever engage in a formal debate with logic like that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ah yes, Alla them thar pointy headed scientists publishing in journals all over the world are just stinking liberals falsifying their data on the request of their government. Whether that government is the US, Russia, Japan, or Saudi Arabia. LOL

Well, yes, the last 200 years have not been following the normal cycles of the last few thousand. Amazing, that. But it is natural cycles driving the changes we are seeing. Damn, you guys are a hoot. One moment natural cycles are obviously driving the changes, the next, the natural cycles are too long for the cycles to be detected during period of warming. LOL Don't ever engage in a formal debate with logic like that.

Hey Rocks ---

You obviously are DENYING the paper in the OP here. Says that HISTORICAL natural variation is larger than what we see now and that we haven't been LOOKING long enough to see the "extremes" that you are advertising.

Who exactly is ignoring the "pointy headed liburales here?? I think it's you...

Your assertion that what we've been seeing over 200 years. Of accurate MEASUREMENT only the past 80 is unprecedented and undoubtably caused by that 1 deg in your lifetime... But all that "GW out your winder" is CONTRADICTED by this paper. Even cast doubt that small increases in temperature are RESPONSIBLE for the "extremes" of the Hydro cycle.

This is NEWS.. Statements from dead white scientists are not new.. Get with the program..

 

[mamooth]

Then let's try live white scientists.

Michael E. Mann - There is an article just out in the... | Facebook
---
A press release from the international paleoclimate organization ‪#‎PAGES‬ is accompanied by the rather bold headline "Climate models overestimate twentieth century wet and dry climate extremes". The lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist is quoted in the press release stating that the discrepancy between the smaller hydroclimatic variations shown by their paleoclimate proxy reconstruction and the greater variations shown by climate models imply that "Climate models strongly overestimate the intensification of wet and dry extremes in the twentieth century".

Does this study in fact meet the burden of establishing that models are overestimating extremes in rainfall and drought?

Almost certainly *not*.

The discrepancy could arise, of course, from the opposite problem: that the paleoclimate proxy data are *underestimating* hydroclimatic extremes. In my view, that is a far more likely explanation.

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:
---

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then let's try live white scientists.

Michael E. Mann - There is an article just out in the... | Facebook
---
A press release from the international paleoclimate organization ‪#‎PAGES‬ is accompanied by the rather bold headline "Climate models overestimate twentieth century wet and dry climate extremes". The lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist is quoted in the press release stating that the discrepancy between the smaller hydroclimatic variations shown by their paleoclimate proxy reconstruction and the greater variations shown by climate models imply that "Climate models strongly overestimate the intensification of wet and dry extremes in the twentieth century".

Does this study in fact meet the burden of establishing that models are overestimating extremes in rainfall and drought?

Almost certainly *not*.

The discrepancy could arise, of course, from the opposite problem: that the paleoclimate proxy data are *underestimating* hydroclimatic extremes. In my view, that is a far more likely explanation.

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:
---

Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likelyto show muted extremes,


Is that your final answer ?




Going to bookmark this.





.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then let's try live white scientists.

Michael E. Mann - There is an article just out in the... | Facebook
---
A press release from the international paleoclimate organization ‪#‎PAGES‬ is accompanied by the rather bold headline "Climate models overestimate twentieth century wet and dry climate extremes". The lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist is quoted in the press release stating that the discrepancy between the smaller hydroclimatic variations shown by their paleoclimate proxy reconstruction and the greater variations shown by climate models imply that "Climate models strongly overestimate the intensification of wet and dry extremes in the twentieth century".

Does this study in fact meet the burden of establishing that models are overestimating extremes in rainfall and drought?

Almost certainly *not*.

The discrepancy could arise, of course, from the opposite problem: that the paleoclimate proxy data are *underestimating* hydroclimatic extremes. In my view, that is a far more likely explanation.

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:
---

Somebody's lying about what the NEW study says.. And I don't think it's Ljundgvist, The MODELS certainly do over-estimate hydro extremes. That's a statement of fact. The only comment Ljundgvist made is that the ACTUAL MODERN RECORD (not the models) does not exceed his paleo -proxy..

So the issue isn't whether the paleo- proxy extremes are smaller -- they are LARGER than the ACTUAL MODERN DATA !!!!

And M. Mann???? Seriously??? He's there to immediately bury any non-believer evidence. And he does so THIS TIME by actually ADMITTING to the weaknesses of the paleo-proxies that made him a "leading expert" on climate.

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then let's try live white scientists.

Michael E. Mann - There is an article just out in the... | Facebook
---
A press release from the international paleoclimate organization ‪#‎PAGES‬ is accompanied by the rather bold headline "Climate models overestimate twentieth century wet and dry climate extremes". The lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist is quoted in the press release stating that the discrepancy between the smaller hydroclimatic variations shown by their paleoclimate proxy reconstruction and the greater variations shown by climate models imply that "Climate models strongly overestimate the intensification of wet and dry extremes in the twentieth century".

Does this study in fact meet the burden of establishing that models are overestimating extremes in rainfall and drought?

Almost certainly *not*.

The discrepancy could arise, of course, from the opposite problem: that the paleoclimate proxy data are *underestimating* hydroclimatic extremes. In my view, that is a far more likely explanation.

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:
---

Somebody's lying about what the NEW study says.. And I don't think it's Ljundgvist, The MODELS certainly do over-estimate hydro extremes. That's a statement of fact. The only comment Ljundgvist made is that the ACTUAL MODERN RECORD (not the models) does not exceed his paleo -proxy..

So the issue isn't whether the paleo- proxy extremes are smaller -- they are LARGER than the ACTUAL MODERN DATA !!!!

And M. Mann???? Seriously??? He's there to immediately bury any non-believer evidence. And he does so THIS TIME by actually ADMITTING to the weaknesses of the paleo-proxies that made him a "leading expert" on climate.

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Yup it is so perfect he burned himself and Mamooth posted the proof.

 

[Crick]

Do tell us where Mann has published work on past extremes on which Ljunqwists' work would have had any impact.

"We published several articles demonstrating this problem [muted extremes in the paleo proxy record] over the past several years"

Schurer, A., Hegerl, G., Mann, M.E., Tett, S.F.B., Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium, J. Climate, 26, 6954-6973, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Schurer, A., Tett, S.F.B.,Fuentes, J.D., Discrepancies between the modeled and proxy-reconstructed response to volcanic forcing over the past millennium: Implications and possible mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 7617-7627, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50609, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

All available here: Michael E. Mann
God are you people stupid. And that now apparently includes FCT.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do tell us where Mann has published work on past extremes on which Ljunqwists' work would have had any impact.

"We published several articles demonstrating this problem [muted extremes in the paleo proxy record] over the past several years"

Schurer, A., Hegerl, G., Mann, M.E., Tett, S.F.B., Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium, J. Climate, 26, 6954-6973, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Schurer, A., Tett, S.F.B.,Fuentes, J.D., Discrepancies between the modeled and proxy-reconstructed response to volcanic forcing over the past millennium: Implications and possible mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 7617-7627, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50609, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

All available here: Michael E. Mann
God are you people stupid. And that now apparently includes FCT.

Once again Crick shows why he is dishonest..

Mann stated the facts and you want to dismiss those facts because he admitted it was all a fraud...

There are two choices ..

1) Your complicit with the fraud. In which case you know the facts of spatial resolution and their limitations and choose to act ignorant in an effort to hide the truth..

Or

2) Your ignorant of science and therefore oblivious to the facts and limitations of paleo-reconstructs. In short, you choose to eat the shit your feed and ignore facts presented becasue they dont fit your religious belief structure.

Choices, choices, choices.....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Then let's try live white scientists.

Michael E. Mann - There is an article just out in the... | Facebook
---
A press release from the international paleoclimate organization ‪#‎PAGES‬ is accompanied by the rather bold headline "Climate models overestimate twentieth century wet and dry climate extremes". The lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist is quoted in the press release stating that the discrepancy between the smaller hydroclimatic variations shown by their paleoclimate proxy reconstruction and the greater variations shown by climate models imply that "Climate models strongly overestimate the intensification of wet and dry extremes in the twentieth century".

Does this study in fact meet the burden of establishing that models are overestimating extremes in rainfall and drought?

Almost certainly *not*.

The discrepancy could arise, of course, from the opposite problem: that the paleoclimate proxy data are *underestimating* hydroclimatic extremes. In my view, that is a far more likely explanation.

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:
---

Somebody's lying about what the NEW study says.. And I don't think it's Ljundgvist, The MODELS certainly do over-estimate hydro extremes. That's a statement of fact. The only comment Ljundgvist made is that the ACTUAL MODERN RECORD (not the models) does not exceed his paleo -proxy..

So the issue isn't whether the paleo- proxy extremes are smaller -- they are LARGER than the ACTUAL MODERN DATA !!!!

And M. Mann???? Seriously??? He's there to immediately bury any non-believer evidence. And he does so THIS TIME by actually ADMITTING to the weaknesses of the paleo-proxies that made him a "leading expert" on climate.

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

You do realize that your trying to educate a religious wall? You could shoot the truth at them from a howitzer and it still would not penetrate the skull. Their religious beliefs will make the facts bounce off their heads..

Even their own so called scientists admitting their works are incapable of proving what they spout won't sway them. Mann was trying to save his ass as a scientist because he was called out on his deceptions.

 

[Crick]

Do tell us where Mann has published work on past extremes on which Ljunqwists' work would have had any impact.

"We published several articles demonstrating this problem [muted extremes in the paleo proxy record] over the past several years"

Schurer, A., Hegerl, G., Mann, M.E., Tett, S.F.B., Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium, J. Climate, 26, 6954-6973, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Schurer, A., Tett, S.F.B.,Fuentes, J.D., Discrepancies between the modeled and proxy-reconstructed response to volcanic forcing over the past millennium: Implications and possible mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 7617-7627, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50609, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

All available here: Michael E. Mann
God are you people stupid. And that now apparently includes FCT.

Once again Crick shows why he is dishonest..

Mann stated the facts and you want to dismiss those facts because he admitted it was all a fraud...

What fucking universe do you inhabit? Mann stated that Ljunqvist didn't know what the fuck he was talking about because in several papers he had been involved in (and one presumes more papers in which he was not) it had been found that proxy data UNDERSTATED or UNDERREPORTED climatalogical extremes. Thus making Ljundqvist's claim that modern models overstate the issue unsupportable.

There are two choices ..

No, there are not.

1) Your complicit with the fraud. In which case you know the facts of spatial resolution and their limitations and choose to act ignorant in an effort to hide the truth..

Spatial resolution for a proxy? Do trees wander the globe? Do varves move from state to state? And since the only thing I've done here is to repost the comments from Mann and the works he's published, your charge here is senseless. And please explain how, as you seem to believe, limitations in spatial resolution would help Ljunqvist and hurt Mann.

Or

2) Your ignorant of science and therefore oblivious to the facts and limitations of paleo-reconstructs. In short, you choose to eat the shit your feed and ignore facts presented becasue they dont fit your religious belief structure.

Choices, choices, choices.....

You did very poorly in high school English, didn't you. What a fucking mook.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do tell us where Mann has published work on past extremes on which Ljunqwists' work would have had any impact.

"We published several articles demonstrating this problem [muted extremes in the paleo proxy record] over the past several years"

Schurer, A., Hegerl, G., Mann, M.E., Tett, S.F.B., Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium, J. Climate, 26, 6954-6973, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Schurer, A., Tett, S.F.B.,Fuentes, J.D., Discrepancies between the modeled and proxy-reconstructed response to volcanic forcing over the past millennium: Implications and possible mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 7617-7627, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50609, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

All available here: Michael E. Mann
God are you people stupid. And that now apparently includes FCT.

If you don't understand the problem by now -- I ain't wasting time to explain it to you. What claims do you repeatedly make about Mann's Hockey Stick and what did I tell you about why those claims are NOT SUPPORTED by his proxy studies? Did it have anything to do with EXTREMES of temperature?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do tell us where Mann has published work on past extremes on which Ljunqwists' work would have had any impact.

"We published several articles demonstrating this problem [muted extremes in the paleo proxy record] over the past several years"

Schurer, A., Hegerl, G., Mann, M.E., Tett, S.F.B., Separating forced from chaotic climate variability over the past millennium, J. Climate, 26, 6954-6973, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Schurer, A., Tett, S.F.B.,Fuentes, J.D., Discrepancies between the modeled and proxy-reconstructed response to volcanic forcing over the past millennium: Implications and possible mechanisms, J. Geophys. Res. 118, 7617-7627, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50609, 2013.

Mann, M.E., Fuentes, J.D., Rutherford, S., Underestimation of Volcanic Cooling in Tree-Ring Based Reconstructions of Hemispheric Temperatures, Nature Geoscience, 5, 202-205, 2012.

All available here: Michael E. Mann
God are you people stupid. And that now apparently includes FCT.

If you don't understand the problem by now -- I ain't wasting time to explain it to you. What claims do you repeatedly make about Mann's Hockey Stick and what did I tell you about why those claims are NOT SUPPORTED by his proxy studies? Did it have anything to do with EXTREMES of temperature?

This is getting hilarious, like a child getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar

.

 

[flacaltenn]

Spatial resolution for a proxy? Do trees wander the globe? Do varves move from state to state? And since the only thing I've done here is to repost the comments from Mann and the works he's published, your charge here is senseless. And please explain how, as you seem to believe, limitations in spatial resolution would help Ljunqvist and hurt Mann.

You really don't know how spatial resolution applies to a supposedly "GLOBAL" proxy study -- doya?

That's why I ain't wasting time explaining why mann just admitted CLEARLY and OPENLY that his work does NOT support the outrageous pronouncements that he made about it. Even if -- you continue to parrot those claims after having Temporal and Spatial Resolution limitations of those studies explained to you --- by me ---- in detail ----- about 8 times.

Can't fix stupid. Or subjectively stupid. You decide which applies..

 

[flacaltenn]

OMG.... Mann just TOLD YOU that ALL Paleo-proxy studies lack the temporal (and actually spatial) resolution to measure "extreme" anything. That applies his TEMPERATURE proxy and it applies to this Hydro cycle proxy study,. He just validated what I've told you REPEATEDLY about Hockey Sticks not being CAPABLE of measuring the "extremes" of temperature/humidity swings under several hundred years long. And Mann just told what I've BEEN TELLING you that even if they do show a blip -- that "blip" is likely GREATLY ATTENUATED from the actual "extreme" value of that event.

WTF else do you need to know? MANN himself just confessed to playing loose and fast with his "interpretation": of the importance of his own work.......

When he said his Hockey Stick made it likely that the modern age temperature blip was (likely or otherwise) UNPRECEDENTED in Magnitude and Rate over 4000 yrs (or whatever the span was) --- he was making claims NOT SUPPORTED by his own paper.... He is a confessed Hockey Stick felon now..

He finally fessed up to what Marcott admitted about HIS work about a decade ago.

 

[Crick]

I have never challenged temporal resolution issues. And you started THIS one with a comment on the SPATIAL resolution of proxy data. Brain fart, eh? Afraid to admit it, eh?

My claim regarding temporal resolution is that the current spike cannot possibly be gone - even with dedicated human intervention - within the period of temporal resolution. Therefore if one occurred in the proxy record, it would be visible. And, of course, you have STILL not suggested any viable, natural mechanism that would produce warming as we've seen it since 1900 nor the near instantaneous cooling that would be required to even match the span of temporal resolution.

There is also the point that the topic under discussion here with Ljundqvist is WEATHER extremes, not CLIMATE extremes, so you are attempting to see an even briefer event in a heavily damped recorder.

Now then, back to Ljunqvist. L claims that because models predict more weather extremes than he finds in his proxy records, the models are wrong. Got it? Ljundqvist is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Olde Europe]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

It means exactly what it says, only a sheep of Mann would believe otherwise, that prick has a history of trying to push under the rug anyone that challenges him.

 

[Crick]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

It means exactly what it says, only a sheep of Mann would believe otherwise, that prick has a history of trying to push under the rug anyone that challenges him.

Only someone with Mann Derangement Syndrome would make the charges you've made. How old are you dude? Compared to a few years ago, you seem to be losing it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

You left out the hysterically funny hypocrisy that most folks are not gonna appreciate. It's a rib-cracker Squiddly..

Our own extensive work analyzing paleoclimate proxy data has shown that they are not well suited for reconstructing past climate *extremes*. Tree rings and many other chemical and biological climate proxy records, by their nature, tend not to record very large short-term fluctuations, and for this reason they are likely to show muted extremes, i.e. less extreme variation than actually exists in the climate record. We published several articles demonstrating this problem over the past several years:​

Holy shit Squidward.,.. A signed confession of a hockey stick felon.. Right THERE ON THE FACEBOOK..

I'm with the Bear on this one. THIS is bookmark gold right there. The MOTHER LODE of rare honesty after the lies about hockey sticks proving that our temp blip was UNPRECEDENTED in magnitude or rate.

OUR OWN studies "are not well suited for reconstructing past climate "extremes" !!!! Glad I chose #3 as the most likely truth coming out of this dust-up.. That ALL paleo - proxy studies FAIL to portray extreme events..

I'm pretty good at this stuff -- ain't I???

Methinks you should try to read Mann's statement again, for it doesn't say what you think it says, and doesn't support the conclusions you seem predetermined to draw. I've emphasized the salient point for your convenience.

It means exactly what it says, only a sheep of Mann would believe otherwise, that prick has a history of trying to push under the rug anyone that challenges him.

Only someone with Mann Derangement Syndrome would make the charges you've made. How old are you dude? Compared to a few years ago, you seem to be losing it.

Me losing it? Not the one crying about people posting about how hypocritical you are in the anoucnents ..


Every one knows Mann is a little prick who hates anyone who confronts him. He will always try to silence critics who dare challenge him.

Like you and dotie on here.





.

 

[Crick]

That comment was addressed to FlaCalTenn. You have NEVER been sharp.