I read all your posts on this thread. Usually, I try to offer some constructive input and information when I notice that someone is providing erroneous or fraudulent information in the guise of "facts", but when someone works so hard through so many posts to exhibit their abysmal stupidity and complete obtuseness to any contrary information, it becomes a waste of time for anyone to try to offer facts and guidance to "educate" said asshat. You have shown that, while professing to be so literate and educated, you are in fact so completely stupid about the subject which you profess to "enlighten" others. Almost all of your fraudulent Krap™ that you are spewing here comes from realclimate.org, whose main contributors are Schmidt and Mann, et. al. Obviously, they would have all kinds of technically couched "explanations" and rationalizations for why their work isn't the false premised junk science it has been proven to be. It is obvious that you've fallen for their line, and parrot what you've read on their website so everyone will think you are an educated climate scientist or similar. The only thing you do is show your abysmal stupidity and gullibility. Remember, ignorance can be cured with education, stupidity is forever. You are the worst- terminally stupid play acting like you're educated.
Oh, and any website that is cited by the Daily Kos as experts on global warming and to "discuss that disturbing reality free of political spin. This is real data, these are real researchers: This is REALCLIMATE", will probably not get a lot of traction on a website like FR. Most here aren't as easily duped and gullible as you.
Now if you really want some factual information on climate and global warming, let the people here on this thread know and they will be happy to provide you with dozens of links that provide not only factual information, but show realclimate.org for what it is - propaganda for the DNC, human caused global warming, and the leftist agenda. But I'm sure you will prefer to drink the left's kool-aid and won't look any further than your holy realclimate.org apologists.
Like I said, what a maroon.
Further discussion with you is clearly impossible.
Quick Reaction to the NRC Hockey Stick Report
I actually disagree with the article conclusions; from what I've seen, the report does not at all vindicate Mann et al.'s methods. But the point I'm going to raise with you is the reply from Hans von Storch (and given what you've said, I expect that you recognize the name -- otherwise, Google it).
"Our group (Eduardo Zorita, Fidel Gonzalez-Rouco and myself) have issued this statement: “We welcome the National Research Council’s Report, which clarifies that the discussion about the technical qualities of the hockeystick-methodology is insignificant for the overall conclusion that the presently ongoing warming is likely related to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. We are pleased to read that the NRC shares our view that the methodology behind the hockeystick is questionable. We stick to our view that the methodology was not sufficiently described when published and independently tested thereafter.”
On my web-page (http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/NRC-conclusion.hvs+ez.0606.doc) this statement is explained in some more detail. The problem of “detecting” ongoing climate change as (partly) non-natural and “attributing” human causes to this change, is based on the speed of temperature change, i.e, it is mainly an analysis of trends. To this end, the hockey stick was never really relevant, but it was “made” relevant by interested scientists, often detached from the debate about “d&a” (detection and attribution) and the public, who is unable to deal with the intricacies of d&a.
The analysis in Rybski, D., A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H. von Storch, 2006: Long-term persistence in climate and the detection problem. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L06718, doi:10.1029/2005GL02559 examines how the detection effort depends on what we assume the right historical temp reconstruction would be. That is the most recent trend from instrumental data were compared with “historical noise levels” from a series of reconstructions, namely Mann, McIntyre, Esper, Jones and Moberg. In all cases, the result was the same – independently of the assumed temp history of the last 1000 years, the recent changes are beyond the range of historical “evidence” (whichever you chose to opt for).
In my opinion, the significance of the hockeystick debate is not with the question of d&a, but with the scientific culture of openly discussing concepts, of sharing data, of describing methodologies so that third parties, also hostile third parties, can examine the claims."
In my opinion, that clarifies things fairly nicely.