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: combjelly who wrote (89439)	8/16/2018 10:22:38 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356033

I understand. There are lots of Warmists who don't appreciate the Hockey Team being exposed. As to this link, it is nothing more than a personal attack on the author of the book. If you want to argue the book is wrong, fine. I recommend you read it. If you don't want to read it read a few of the reviews: "I love to read. I love math. It may sound sick, butI love to read about the math. This is a very well written explanation of how to take the scientific method and destroy the the credibility of scientists. Seems the developers of the hockey stick hoist a premise and then go about the process of proving it to themselves and using their allies to back them up. Noting that they seem to deny the process while hailing the process. If anyone every wanted to have it both ways, the Hockey Stick climatologist are those ones. I loved the book, but am disappointed in the field of Paleo Climatologist "Scientists" who claim a scientific basis for the hockey stick. In a former life I flew airplanes and have a joke referencing the credibility of Weathermen. The joke actually fits these illusionists who developed the hockey stick. "Little boys who tell lies, will grow up to be weathermen (paleo-climatologist). If you like to read of the web of deceit weaved in our lifetime - this is a book that un-weaves that web of deceit." "This is an amazing book. The deception of the global warming community is startling. When I earned my Ph.D. at Stanford University we were taught that openness and honesty, subject to peer review, was essential to honest and successful research. That is important for real scientific progress. Yes, scientists must have high ethics rather think only about the next funding round. The foot dragging of Mann et al. is well documented with their own words in this book -- that is quite eye opening with regard to this group. If you have taken the hockey stick model for global warming as your religion, I dare you to read this book. (But I doubt you will.)" This was the critical review: "The sales blurb for this book said that the science would be simply explained, but I did not find it so. I am tertiary educated although not in climate science, but one needs an understanding of statistics to fully appreciate Mountford's argument. I am also a climate sceptic, and while I agree from other reading, that the science behind the hockey stick was corrupt, I did not follow Mountford's argument at all well. To make matters worse, even my copy of the book was "corrupt" in that it had 2 lots of pages numbered from 145 to 176, the next page after the second 176 being 209. In summary, a quite unsatisfactory purchase." ------------- I had the Kindle version and had no formatting issues that I recall. I do think someone that doesn't have a basic understanding of statistical methods would be lost in this book. The essence of PCA is fairly advanced statistics, and to REALLY understand it you're going to have to grasp some linear algebra and matrix operations, but you don't have to get that far into the weeds to understand the essence of it. I'd really recommend this book to anyone who wants to grasp the extent to which Warmists will go to avoid having to admit the lies behind the Hockey Stick claims.

To: combjelly who wrote (89439)	8/16/2018 11:26:50 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356033

While it is true the book is so conclusive that Warmists everywhere jumped on it, none have made the case against the book that I have seen. This is, as I said, personal attack. There was no substantive discussion of the content. It is reasonably complex content, but it is laid out in terms any educated person can get. Koan could read it and understand 3/4 of it. Well, 2/3, maybe. You would have no trouble with it. You ought to give it a chance rather than googling to try to find a legitimate criticism. It isn’t going to kill you to open your mind.