New York Times Op-Ed: It Was a Mistake to Believe the Hockey Stick

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Now they tell us.

    One wonders if Dr Mann will try and now sue Dr Muller.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...wry?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    I don't understand what you're saying here.

    "And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey."

    ?
  3. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Muller was repeating what he wrote in 2004 not making that argument now otherwise he'd have to disavow his own research.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    Global warming is "hooey." At least for now.. That is what he means to say, and that the hooky stick is/could be a false predictor.
  5. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    That is not what he means to say. Such interpretations are why it's so hard to talk about science with those who have no interest in actually trying to understand it
  6. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    What I posted was his quote. And his new article reiterates it. I'm wondering what MJW is inferring from it.
  7. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    He said it plain and clear that the hockey stick is a false description. But, go ahead and tell us what you think he meant to say.
  8. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    The left is pulling out all the stops and cranking up the lies and fear mongering. They don't want to lose their chance to get this control. If the left wins, there will be so much freedom and wealth ripped from people by these elitists that they won't understand.

    And the useful idiots will believe they were saved.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    3 reps for you.
  10. Emmitto
    Online

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,343
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    Rick, he says, almost verbatim although I'll paraphrase for brevity, that the "hockey stick" ignoring natural short term variations that can be significant yet not contradictory to long-term warming would be used to confuse the issue. In other words, using a straight line trend was not nuanced enough even though the general trend is correct. He would clearly prefer a "stair-step" line, if a line must be used.

    Both his 2004 statements and the new ones in this article say that denying warming in general is "mistaken." And he predicted in 2004 that this would be the case, and now is crowing about his correct prediction. But each group of statements support the concept of warming.

    Thus my confusion on the point of the thread. His criticism of the "hockey stick" is that it doesn't properly support the correct position, which is that the planet is warming. He specifically says that calling it "hooey" is "mistaken."
    • Like Like x 1
  11. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,150
    Likes Received:
    4,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,926
    Not quite, rick.

    About AGW, his point was that he predicted the pause (though not quite in those words) a decade ago and that he argued at the time the hockey stick would confuse people because it didn't show shorter term natural variations in temperatures or the pauses in the trend line. This would lead also lead folks to be overly confident, suggesting that when pauses occur, people would erroneously believe that warming ceased.

    But what he is not saying now even though he suggested so a decade ago is that their research was wrong since he wouldn't because his own recent research through the BEST studies confirmed Mann et al's research. In other words, the basic shape is correct, but he takes issue with the lack of any pause showing up in the graphical depiction.

    On a related note, Muller needs to learn how to write for a public audience. His conceit gets in the way of him presenting his argument much more clearly. His op-ed could use about two or three major rewrites.
  12. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    68,482
    Likes Received:
    4,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +8,030
    so you say
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Say what??? "Denialists" think this column supports their position? Who are we arguing with?
  14. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    It doesn't matter. Mueller comes out as a skeptic, and Rick says that he knows what he's doing, and Fred will call him a crank. He comes out and says that anthropogenic warming is real, and the roles are reversed.

    There is only one source that should be given credence: the one that agrees with my prior beliefs.
  15. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,740
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    Denialists can't exist without the contrast of alarmists.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    I'm pretty sure they can both exist independently of each other. Check the evolution "debate".
  17. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    You know, forced inscrutability is more than a river in Egypt.
  18. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,740
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    Perhaps we can coin a new term: alarmism denialist.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26

    Your inability to discern the difference between, oh say, almost the entire scientific community of experts on a subject and "alarmists" is duly noted. Your lack of the proper bona fides to make that determination is also noted.
  20. Minister_of_Information
    Offline

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,740
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +968
    The role of alarmism is a longstanding discussion in scientific circles, particularly where AGW is concerned. It is the water bearing acolytes such as yourself that are blind to the issue, because you are eager to believe that which is politically self serving without reservation (i.e., the desirability or necessity of a big centralized government effort to manage the economy). There is, actually, a role for alarmism; the problem arises when cognitive dissonance prompts the alarmists to start believing their own press clippings and dismiss the opposing view. Which appears to have happened here.

Share This Page