Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (870315)	7/4/2015 6:13:47 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572893

>> "the MM attack on the Hockey Stick was based on the fact" that it would be bad for fossil fuel sales. So are the 36 other confirming studies. Uh, not really. A lot of those are warmed-over MBH98-99, in many cases studies done by Mann's entourage (like Rutherford, von Storch, and others). But there are other important issues. First, no one is POURING MONEY into finding the flaws in these studies. The shredding of MBH98-99 would never have occurred but for the willingness of a couple guys on a shoestring to do the work funded out of their own pockets. And it takes a hell of a lot more work to disprove one of these fake papers than it does to make the claims in the first place. What McIntyre & McKitric did, however, was to shoot down the ENTIRE PEER REVIEW PROCESS. To prove it is not worth a damn. And to show that it is totally biased in favor of a finding of AGW. In particular, the publications in Nature should be totally discounted pending a fair and reasonable peer review process, because it is clear those guys are totally in the tank for Warmists. If we are going to rely on proxies (and you have to if you're going to develop meaningful statistics about climate change at this time) you need to be able to determine the proxies are meaningful in the context. The research required to do it, when you are roadblocked at every turn, requires time and money that no one has. If taxpayers are going to fund Warmists, half that money ought to be directed to Deniers to challenge the science legitimately.