To: koan who wrote (10086 ) 2/22/2012 11:43:39 PM From: TimF 3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) | Respond to Its not simply math. Even your own choice of links about it hardly describe it in such terms. And Wikipedia is hardly neutral on climate issues. It has a long history of tilting the articles in the climate alarmists direction (which doesn't automaticlly make it wrong, merely that like any other source, it has its biases) that its defence overwhelmed their professional integrity and scientific objectivity. Time and again the goal of enshrining the Hockey Stick as the robust “consensus” view took precedence over due scientific process and disclosure. The English members of the team produced some tree ring graph lines that could be added to Mann et al’s graph to bolster its intergovernmental credentials. When evidence of the Medieval Warm Period became apparent it was rationalised away as likely to be localised rather than worldwide. When proxy tree ring graph lines declined inexplicably in the late twentieth century they were cropped short and replaced with instrumental lines—sometimes the replacement was noted, sometimes it was hidden. Borehole studies that showed higher temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period than during the Current Warm Period were shunted out of the picture, except for a consolation prize of being used to demonstrate rising temperatures since the Little Ice Age..."quadrant.org.au And to say that "arguments from authority are very weak." Makes no sense at all. How is that logical?
