Many Americans have what some (most?) would consider and odd affection for British humor. Monty Python and the Holy Grail has become a cult classic here. At this point, your arguments remind me of the scene where Arthur wants to cross the bridge, but the Black Knight refuses passage. Who can forget this:
Just as in the US there's a geeks and Star Trek cliche, over here there's a geeks and Monty Python cliche.
If you've nothing to say direct to my post, let's assume I've wrapped it up. Climate science is not based on statistics, it draws on the wider world of science to explain observations of a particular physical system - a very thin fluid skin on the surface of a planet. It would be an esoteric study if we didn't happen to live in one of those thin skins.
The problem is, there was no such thing as the "hockey stick" prior to the IPCC 2001 report (actually MBH98/99).
My bad about the "decades". The gnawing just seems to have gone on for
ever.
Up until then, IPCC used the hundreds of previous studies and historical evidence for MWP, using the correct temperature record.
There's a
correct temperature record? You're not referring to the Eurocentric schematic curve, are you? As to the historical record, I assume you
are referring to the Eurocentric experience.
The statistically challenged and systematically erroneous Mann hockey stick is nowhere to be found in 2007, yet like the Black Knight, IPCC refuses to formerly admit defeat.
Isn't it time to start gnawing on the new Hockey Stick, then? Mann
et al is
so nineties, after all. A lot of work's been done since then, and of course there's about ten years of extra data to include.
Since you have no limbs left, I think it unfair to lop off your proverbial head. Have at it, however don't expect a response to yet another convoluted nonsensical speech.
I'm not going to talk down to you unless that's what you explicitly want. Probably not even then.
You went looking for back-up to the idea that climate science is mostly statistics, found a definition of
climate as statistical, and leapt on it as if "climate" and "climate science" are the same thing. If you curbed your eagerness and put some more time into considering what a source really says you'd ... perhaps stop saying anything.
The background to this exchange is the attempt to divorce climate science from science in general and then destroy it in detail. It's worked with you, obviously, and you're hardly alone. Rather than be a real world problem it becomes an argument about the numbers and their interpretation. Much like politics, really. Which is perhaps why people who gnaw on the statistics tend to bring politics into the issue so much (you'll have noticed that yourself, I'm sure).
