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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (35085)	9/14/2017 1:35:42 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364190

Yes; sorry. Your link was a critique of M&M, but does nothing to address the problem that samples with noise were able to reproduce the hockey stick. This is a perfect example of the kind of pseudo-science we expect from the Warmists. The fact that noise run through the model only provided hockey sticks a small percentage of the time does nothing to address the problem, which is that SOMETIMES, when you put noise into that model, you get back a hockey stick. A hockey stick where there shouldn't be one. Anyone who tries to defend it as "ok" is just contributing to the problem. I would refer you the finest, most detailed account of the research that broke the "hockey stick" -- this is a book called "The Hockey Stick Illusion." IF you want to truly be informed about the under-the-table shenanigans of the "Hockey Team", you ought to read it. McIntyre's analysis of MBH98 crushed it. When Mann was challenged he "brushed" away the facts but ended his letter like this: "Owing to numerous demands on my time, I will not be able to respond to further inquiries. Other researchers have successfully implemented our methodology based on the information provided in our articles." WHAT THE FUCK. Someone challenges the science of [at that time] the most important paper in the field of climate science, finds serious deficiencies, and first you refuse to discuss it then lay it off on other people making the same mistakes find the same errors? Seriously, this is not science.