Dr. Bradley (of MBH98 hockey stick fame) really outdoes himself this time.
‘Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’ as Bradley put it.
The reliability of his findings has been confirmed by more than a decade of testing and scrutiny by the field. And yet the campaign to discredit what he and almost all of his colleagues accept as the fact of human-influenced global warming has made significant gains in popular and political culture over the past decade. “
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/08/playing_rough/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You would have thought he could come up with a more sturdy analogy – like a Brick Castle or something not filled with the waste of humans.
“Scientifically, “the hockey stick is a brick outhouse, very robust,’’
Hmmm… outhouse…
Poo in, poo out.
Yeah, that part of the analogy works!
This is John Clarke and Bryan Dawe’s take on Global Warming
(The Repairman)
(SCENE: Front door of BRYAN’s home. Door bell rings. BRYAN answers door. It is JOHN.)
John: G’day. I’m here about the climate.
Bryan: What climate?
John: Your climate. Our climate. THE climate. I’m here to fix it.
Bryan: What’s wrong with it?
John: It’s buggered. Absolutely buggered.
Bryan: No it isn’t. I was using it this morning.
John: What for?
Bryan: For drying the washing out the back.
John: Spoken like a true layperson! What you have just witnessed was not the working of an healthy climate, but a clear manifestation of catastrophic global warming! Scientists warn that if current trends continue, solar drying of your clothing will cause it to be not only dried, but pressed and lightly toasted as well!
Bryan: You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: You have to believe me!
Bryan: Why?
John: The IPCC, the climate science, the models…
Bryan: What about the models?
John: They’re excellent models. Very robust.
Bryan: What makes you say that?
John: They all reach the same conclusion – they agree with each other.
Bryan: They don’t happen to use the same input numbers, perchance?
John: There is a level of collaborative effort, yes.
Bryan: And they all use atmospheric CO2 level as a major input?
John: Of course.
Bryan: Why’s that?
John: Because atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: So what do all of these “robust” models conclude?
John: That atmospheric CO2 level is a significant driver of global climate.
Bryan: Funny that. You know what?
John: What?
Bryan: I don’t believe you.
John: But the climate record! The long term climate record!
Bryan: Which goes back how far?
John: As early as 1850 – the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: Even though global temperatures have gone down, as well as up, during that period?
John: The downward cycles were simply the earth’s natural variation.
Bryan: But the upward cycles are global warming?
John: Absolutely.
Bryan: No chance that the upward cycles aren’t natural variation as well?
John: Of course not! They wouldn’t be man-made then, would they? And anyway, the trend for the last 150 years clearly shows a long term warming trend, interspersed by some decades of cooling.
Bryan: Sort of expected, really.
John: Che?
Bryan: Sort of expected. If you’re coming out of a little ice age, then you expect things to be warming up. Otherwise you’d still be in the little ice age, wouldn’t you?
John: I think you’ll find that the little ice age (LIA) did not, in fact, occur. Plus, it was only a localised event of a strictly transient nature. The peer-reviewed literature clearly demonstrates a stable global climate up to the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Bryan: You mean the hockey stick? Don’t make me laugh!
John: This is no laughing matter, my good man. The peer-reviewed literature clearly shows that temperature was benign and stable until the intervention of mankind.
Bryan: You mean YOUR peer review literature? As reviewed by people who are paid to agree with it? As discussed in the Climategate© emails? As distinct from the geological, sociological, archeological, oceanographic and historical evidence to the contrary?
John: That comment was not very helpful.
Bryan: Suit yourself, but I still don’t believe you.
John: What about the rising sea levels? You can’t deny the rising sea levels. Scientists believe that sea levels around the globe are rising due to the effect of the melting ice caps.
Bryan: Of course. And they’ve been rising for about 8000 years – just after the end of the last major ice age. Haven’t noticed anyone taking a walk from Russia to Alaska lately, have you?
John: The Barents Sea would be a bit of a problem, no.
Bryan: That’s because rising sea levels covered the land bridge a few thousand years ago. Well before SUV’s became fashionable, you’d agree? Looks like natural variation to me.
John: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Bryan: You’re a loony!
John: No, I’m a Climate Scientist. And if you don’t believe me, just look at all the catastrophic climate events over the last 20 years. The droughts. The heat waves. The glaciers. The snowstorms. The floods. Can’t you believe your own eyes?
Bryan: So global warming causes droughts? AND floods? Heatwaves AND snowstorms?
John: The floods and snowstorms were only weather events, of course.
Bryan: Just like the decline or plateauing of the global temperatures these last 10-15 years, I suppose?
John: You are being very unreasonable – I can see this conversation is not going to take us anywhere. The science is settled, the debate is over. I think it better if I left now, without fixing your climate.
Bryan: OK, but before you go I’ll just give you a demonstration of the Carbon Tax.
John: Jolly decent of you.
Bryan: Care to show me your wallet?
John: Sure. [Pulls out wallet from pocket.]
Bryan: Now, I’d like you to open your wallet, close your eyes and think nice thoughts about Gaia.
John: OK. [JOHN holds out wallet, smiling blissfully. BRYAN helps himself to the cash.]
Bryan: Thank you for saving the planet. [Shuts door.] And I still don’t believe you
This has got to be a joke. But it seems to be real.
After looking at the full resolution of the photo that accompanies the article, I find it ironic that (not unlike Bradleys crapper) it would appear that only three thin wires are all that keeps it from going over the cliff. Robust indeed.
JPeden is right–the term “brick outhouse” has always been applied to a shapely woman, as in: “Whoa, she’s built like a brick sh!thouse”. But therein lies the discrepancy: No bricklayer would force such a woman’s shape on a vertical brick wall, let alone an entire structure–rather by doing so the whole is rendered completely unstable; indeed, unless forced into such a torturous, unnatural shape, it would never stand in the first place.
Hence I submit Dr. Bradley’s subliminal utilization of the symbol is completely appropriate for the bent mnemonic worshiped incessantly by a gaggle of climate chauvinists.
Josh will have fun with this one. I picture a climate ‘scientist’ sitting straining to pass a robust hockey stick shaped motion…
I’m sure Freud would have had some thoughts…
“The reliability of his findings has been confirmed by more than a decade of testing and scrutiny by the field.”
Seems to me there hasn’t been any “testing” (who exactly has bringing the proxies up to date?).
I simply can’t see how Bradley could believe that his work in MBH98 is defensible. These people seem to be on another planet playing by different rules.
Cute quote…but an outhouse?
take out the garbage and the trash and man made global warming will be in there
Hey RockyRoad: Built like a brick shitehouse refered to over robust women, thnk Russian shot putters, not shapely ones in my usage.
The whole problem is that the “hokey schtick” is built, to exacting specifications. Not derived from actual data.
Regarding what the reference means regarding feminine pulchritude let’s consult the archives
Richard Graves says:
June 8, 2011 at 6:55 pm
It could very well have different regional connotations. Where I’m from (Western US), it generally refers to attractive women.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2458/how-did-the-phrase-built-like-a-brick-shithouse-get-to-be-a-compliment
Re Dave Wendt lets consult the archives
When said of women, one 1938 source notes, the phrase usually meant a “heavy, cloddish, sexually unappetizing female.” But even in the 1930s a few wiseguys were applying it to attractive women, and in the U.S. that usage has now supplanted all others. from http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2458/how-did-the-phrase-built-like-a-brick-shithouse-get-to-be-a-compliment My age is showing vintage 1936. Different ages different meanings!
Evidently his ability to construct metaphors is about the same as his ability to do or comprehend science. Pretty sh**y.
Ross. June 8 @1-44pm
Not sure the ABC’s John Clarke and Bryan Dawe would be too happy with you. It’s actually one from a great series
“If the ABC were relevant” by Speedy, a Jo Nova poster .
Dr. Bradley really should read A.W. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Montford explains the H.S. problems in a form that even Bradley should be able to comprehend!
Some quotes are very strange. Perhaps this one should’ve just been flushed.
Jimmy Haigh says:
June 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Haha – very good! My take on it was similar, but there would be someone else holding the hockey stick trying to extract the ‘data’!
Its an insult to out-houses which serve a useful purpose. One had to watch our for wasps while reading the remaining pages of the Sears & Robuck catalog.
This is an explosive revelation…
I didn’t know Bradley could sing!