Hey, Where Did the Hockey Stick Go??

[Utah]

The IPCC just released that latest junk science "summary" on global warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf). It is about 21 pages but the holy grail of global warming - the hockey stick - is no where to be found. How is it even remotely possible that they didn't include it as it has been held up as the beacon to warn the world of the impending global disaster? The hockey stick was used to ridicule anyone who doubted global warming. It was said that anyone who doubted it was either polically/financially motivated or just plain dumb. It was irrefutable and held up to all scrutiny. And **POOF** it is gone from the summary. Very curious as to why. Are there any other reasons they would exclude it other that it was obviously phony to anyone who really researched it?

As to why I called it junk science - the IPCC released the summary but not the actual data. The IPCC is going to wait a few months to see what the reaction to the summary is so they can readjust the underlying data. I kid you not. They are going to fit the data to the summary and not the other way around. You do not need to look further than that to know that the IPCC report in no way should be taken seriously as it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Any valid scientific study would never fit the data to a conclusion. Here is what the IPCC said, "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter." Of course, if one wanted to have fun with the IPCC summary they can point out little things like how the IPCC has changed confidence intervals. But, that would just be for sport [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

the 2001 IPCC Summary Graph (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf). If we were told how important this chart was and how well grounded it was in science then how is it not included in the 2007 summary??????

[HajiShirazu]

The only reason a group like that even exists is that people are too ignorant/unwilling to read the findings of the many legitimate scientific studies themselves, then consider the merits of each, so we all have to waste a ton of money to pay everybody from a bunch of different countries to get together and try to prove themselves right to one another, then publish some BS report.
Keep in mind that this in no way means that everybody isn't in agreement over whether warming is taking place, they are only arguing over the degree.

[iron81]

1. I don't think its fair to say that they are going to fit the data to the reaction/conclusion. This is a very complex undertaking with hundreds of people giving input. It just takes a while to come out with the results.

2. The report is being released in four parts, this part was simply about whether humans are responsible for Global Warming. This explains 1. Why they didn't confirm the graph, 2. Why they didn't release the data.

3. Its not like the hockey stick is fiction. From that graph you posted, the first part of the warming trend has already happened. The increase in temperature is much larger than any increase over the last 1000 years and I'd bet that goes back much further.

I think this is a valuable accumulation of the combined wisdom of science and its conclusions should be accepted as fact. I would normally suggest further peer review, but a massive amount of review has already gone into the reports conclusions which draw from dozens of peer reviewed (I'm guessing) studies.

[utula]

[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC just released that latest junk science "summary" on global warming (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf). It is about 21 pages but the holy grail of global warming - the hockey stick - is no where to be found.

[/ QUOTE ]
See Figure SPM-7, page 21/21 of the new summary. Isn't that the "hockey stick" chart, except it's only from 1900 to 2100?

[Smasharoo]

As to why I called it junk science

You were parroting some junk news source?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't think its fair to say that they are going to fit the data to the reaction/conclusion. This is a very complex undertaking with hundreds of people giving input. It just takes a while to come out with the results.

[/ QUOTE ]
A summary comes out of the data. It can be no other way and be scientifically valid. You can't make the data fit the summary and that is exactly what they say they are doing. If it is too complex, not ready, etc. then dont release the summary until the data is ready. It is that simple. The release of the summary first when the data is not finished is prima facie evidence that the study is not to be trusted or viewed as scientifically valid in any way.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The report is being released in four parts, this part was simply about whether humans are responsible for Global Warming. This explains 1. Why they didn't confirm the graph, 2. Why they didn't release the data.

[/ QUOTE ]
Same answer. If the summary was simply focused on the human cause then they should still release all the relevant data and study to that exact point. If they want to release in phases that is fine. BUT, the phases should be a specific area of study that includes both the summary and the data to support it. The phases cannot be: summary then data, when the data is not even finalized. As to not showing the hockey stick - it was the smoking gun showing that humans were the cause. How could it possibly be omitted given what were were led to believe about it?

[ QUOTE ]
3. Its not like the hockey stick is fiction. From that graph you posted, the first part of the warming trend has already happened. The increase in temperature is much larger than any increase over the last 1000 years and I'd bet that goes back much further.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whether it is or isnt fiction is not the question. The question is whether the conclusion that the hockey stick accuracy is supported by valid science. The answer is no. This doesnt mean that it is absolutely wrong because to say so would be to make the same error that the global warming propagandizers are making as there is no proof to support the opposite. However, it is silly to take the hockey stick as anything other than an unsupported theory. Because the earth is warming or has warmed over the last 100 years in no way, shape, or form validates the hockey stick.

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a valuable accumulation of the combined wisdom of science and its conclusions should be accepted as fact. I would normally suggest further peer review, but a massive amount of review has already gone into the reports conclusions which draw from dozens of peer reviewed (I'm guessing) studies.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, if a bunch of scientists (especially an inbred group of scientists) and studies say something we are to conclude it is true? Science is infallible? One needs to only look at the field of medicine to see how often widely studied topics and conclusions are proven to be wrong. Or, if one prefers, one can simply look at global temperature predictions in the 70s that predicted a coming ice age.

[Smasharoo]

So, if a bunch of scientists (especially an inbred group of scientists) and studies say something we are to conclude it is true? Science is infallible? One needs to only look at the field of medicine to see how often widely studied topics and conclusions are proven to be wrong. Or, if one prefers, one can simply look at global temperature predictions in the 70s that predicted a coming ice age.

Well it's only logical that we should completely ignore scientific consensus unless it furthers our political agendas in some way then.

Honestly there isn't actually any intellectually honest debate that global warming is occurring because of man made factors. None. There will be mistakes made in analysis and prediction and mistakes in data correlation will occur.

None of that will change the mountain of peer reviewed incontrovertible evidence that it's occurring or the conclusion that it would be beneficial for human beings long term interests were it not to occur. Frankly, having to frame the debate with charts and other grossly dumbed down materials because most people can't understand the science has little if anything to do with the conclusions. It's just what's required to get the point across.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

As to why I called it junk science

You were parroting some junk news source?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say "because that's the preferred term of corporate propagandists?":


" <font color="#666666"> John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate profits. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through the vehicle of various "astroturf groups". Theories more favorable to corporate activities may be praised using the term "sound science".

In a February 6, 2006 article entitled "Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire", Paul D. Thacker of The New Republic reported that Fox News "Junk Science" commentator Steven Milloy was receiving money from ExxonMobil while attacking research on global warming as a supposedly independent journalist.[5] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year from Philip Morris while he ridiculed the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science".

While Fox News has yet to address its role in the issue of industry-paid journalists,[5] tobacco industry documents reveal that Phillip Morris executives conceived of the "Whitecoat Project" in the 1980s as a response to emerging scientific data on the harmfulness of second-hand smoke.[11] The goal of the Whitecoat Project, as conceived by Philip Morris and other tobacco companies, was to use ostensibly independent "scientific consultants" to spread doubt in the public mind about scientific data through the use of terms such as "junk science".[11] </font>"

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
While Fox News has yet to address its role in the issue

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Fox a blessing. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[frizzfreeling]

[ QUOTE ]
As to why I called it junk science - the IPCC released the summary but not the actual data. The IPCC is going to wait a few months to see what the reaction to the summary is so they can readjust the underlying data. I kid you not. They are going to fit the data to the summary and not the other way around .

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you get this? How did you make this "obvious" connection between the fact of them releasing the summary first, and you then stating that it must be because they are going to change the data to fit the summary later.