The New Hockey Stick?

Powerline ^ | October 6, 2011 | Steven Hayward

[7MMmag]

Everyone who follows the climate change controversy even casually will know about the “hockey stick” controversy. Well, Nature magazine this week offers a new graph of interest: the rising trend of retractions of scientific research papers...

Lo and behold, it looks like a hockey stick! (Heh.)

The Nature story notes:

[B]ehind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.

[7MMmag]

Many, or most of us here on FR have been have long been aware of the various frauds behind the UN "climate change", so this is nothing new.

The graph below, as many others have, breaks Mann's hockey stick entirely. Mann's work, under the auspices of the UN was fraudulent from the beginning. Captain obvious to the rescue? Yes, but what was obvious to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, is now gaining more widespread understanding. The whole climate change thing is a multi-faceted farce.

From an embedded link hockeyschtick.blogspot.com in the above;

There are too many good links to mention.

Other, related info- Here's a paragraph within the Nature article which is also quite telling (and damning) in itself.

Other frustrations include opaque retraction notices that don't explain why a paper has been withdrawn, a tendency for authors to keep citing retracted papers long after they've been red-flagged (see 'Withdrawn papers live on') and the fact that many scientists hear 'retraction' and immediately think 'misconduct' — a stigma that may keep researchers from coming forward to admit honest errors.

Science? What science? We 'aint gotta' show you no stee-king science...it is what we say it is! You, you, climate denier!

For old times sake youtube; Hide the Decline song.

[7MMmag]

Here's the other hockey stick the cited article was talking about. (pardon my clumsiness in not displaying it first)

[thackney]

Here is a "hockey stick" graph you can believe in.

[Dogbert41]

Right now in Reno, I’m watching snow falling. We didn’t even have a fall, we went straight to winter!

[bolobaby]

Nice post!

[The Great RJ]

The use of consensus is totally contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses must be tested continuously by experiment under different conditions and with different researchers. This idea that global warming is driven solely by CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a poor hypothesis and to quite deliberately hide the original tree ring data so no other group can analyze it and manipulate the real data so it fits the hypothesis is totally unscientific.

Consensus can also be used to hinder scientific inquiry. At the beginning of the Renaissance a consensus of scholars believed the earth was the static center of the universe and that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth. This view became dogma and was enforced by the Inquisition. Anyone who denied this consensus was declared a heretic and pursued by the Inquisition. Galileo used scientific method and his own telescope to prove the consensus wrong and narrowly escaped burning at the stake for his heresy. Even his book was suppressed for hundreds of years. The parallels between the man made global warming alarmists who label anyone who disagrees with their dogma a "denier" is obvious.

[mamelukesabre]

Not enough

I want to see that chart in millions of barrels per day

[mamelukesabre]

global cooling??

uh oh, sucks to be canadian

[thackney]

Only Texas or the Gulf of Mexico reach six digits per day.

It is going to take a lot of infrastructure along with the drilling to reach (if ever) that level.

[Betis70]

I personally prefer an old wooden hockey stick (I can control passes better), but those carbon fiber ones sure can propel a puck when you hit a slapshot.

Wait...too wrapped up in my favorite sport to notice this is about economics. Nevermind.

But... Go Bruins!

[TheOldLady]

Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!

Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

Planning to donate $10 or more?
YOU can sponsor a New Monthly Donor
FReepmail TheOldLady

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

The use of consensus is totally contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses must be tested continuously by experiment under different conditions and with different researchers.

The problem is that we started calling AGW a fact and not a theory, and a weak one at that, which it clearly is. Kuhn's book is an historical look back at science. It's well worth reading. Especially the chapter on the "priority of the paradigm".

[dfwgator]

As Don Rickles would say, “Algore is a hockey puck.”

[mamelukesabre]

what about canadian tar sands?

[thackney]

I meant US states only. (I know, GOM isn’t a state...)

A few other countries have areas producing at 1 MMBPD.

[thackney]

Since you asked:

In 2010, Alberta produced 459,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of
conventional light, medium and heavy crude.

In 2010, total crude bitumen production in Alberta was about
1.6 million bbl/d. (oil sands production, often upgrade to synthetic crude oil)

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Org/pdfs/Alberta_Energy_Overview.pdf

[mamelukesabre]

I still think we should build refineries in NDak instead of pipelines to texas refineries. With new refineries in NDak, canadian oil would be attracted to NDak. With global cooling upon us, the folks up north need the industry up there churning out BTUs

[7MMmag]

Very well said, though there are among us here on FR, (Roman Catholic apologists, for the most part) who might take issue with the Galileo reference.

What is indeed a parallel, is the challenge which "climate change" (AGW) skepticism brings to the religion currently attempting to assert authority.

That religion is of course today environmentalism, which becomes a form of Gaia worship in some of it's most extreme (and shallowest?) expression.

Any 'religion' other than that bad old Christian one...(it was against Galileo(!) See? that proves it's wrong(!))

Give us some of that old time "earth majick" religion. Repackage it as 'science', and claimed consensus which even the plow-boys of today can understand (and be priests of!).

Forget a Creator God. He's old news. Stale. Immaterial (not made of material). But still somehow stale.

Earth Goddess(s). Feminism. What-everism. Just no Christian witness or testimomy. We'll take Jesus as long as he's just a mythical figure which we can replace with goddesses more to our fancy.

Distract 'em with that junk, then give 'em hard socialism (communism repackaged for today's masses). Enforce it by UN mandate. Transfer wealth from those whom offend the earth goddess(s) to people in far lands, to assuage the guilt of living in a prosperous nation.

Did I say "it's for the children?"

Major UN Climate Program “Basically a Farce”

[thackney]

If you build new refineries in North Dakota, you still need to build a lot of pipelines. The market for the products is not in North Dakota.

Refineries produce more the gasoline and diesel. Refineries are often located in the midst of chemical plants as they use the output of the refineries as feed stock.

It is far cheaper to build pipeline only to the existing point of demand for crude oil, then spend Billions on new refineries and build even more pipelines for the multiple products.

A modern refinery also takes more inputs than just crude oil. A hydrocracker needs a hydrogen supply. They either have to build a hydrogen generating unit, or tie into a hydrogen pipeline like exists in some existing petrochemical areas.

[7MMmag]

More snow on the way towards you, I'd venture. Raining pretty good right now, about half-way between your location, and the Coast.

Heard forecast that the snow-line, this side of the Sierras, was to be down to 5,000ft. It was 6,000 yesterday.