Science by Lucia, cartoon by Josh.
Josh writes:
Yesterday Lucia sent me an email about the recent Gergis et al ‘on hold’ paper with the subject title “Do you understand the math enough to do a cartoon?”.
My response was, of course, to nervously read the email to gauge just how embarrassing my assured ‘fail’ would be.
Luckily Lucia is a genius at words as well as numbers and after a few emails back and forth she had explained the problem sufficiently well and suggested a possible cartoon solution. So this is truly a joint cartoon with all the clever bits by Lucia and some drawing by me.
She even wrote a haiku.
Screening fallacy:
If you sieve for hockeysticks
that’s just what you’ll get.
If you want to understand more, head over to The Blackboard or Climate Audit, there’s lots to read.
Related:
The longest, most high resolution, most inconvenient paleoclimate data that hasn’t been published
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since the fundamental basis of the CO2 driven CAGW hypothesis is a fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam, i.e. It has to be CO2 because we can’t find “anything” else that fills the bill, the hypothesis would seem to be doubly “denied” as their modus operandi has been revealed to apparently include a rule to studiously avoiding looking anywhere where that “anything” could possibly exist.
Do we have a total count of “Items -in-” to the sieve?
Not ‘how many papers’ or ‘how many temperature reconstructions’, but how many -trees-, how many sediment samples, how many ice cores?
Because the sieve is actually quite remarkable at excluding stuff, and the final number should be quite boggling. Especially compared with how many items come -out- of the sieve.
At least we now have two hockey sticks: Mann’s & Gergis, manufactured from the same material, fitting the same curve to the blade and extending the handle with similar statistics. Just in time for the Hockey Finals, at least I hope so. In the mean time, drop the puck., we have plenty of net minders.
Sorry for the double post… as you can tell by the name mangle, something strange was afoot with the browser and WordPress logging. Thought it was gone and tried again.
In the blue collar world there is an axiom:
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Same applies to climate models:
When all your “research” is climate model output, everything looks like global warming.
Great cartoon !!
Larry
For the non-scientific viewers (like me), this cartoon clearly explains that which had eluded me.
Absolutely brilliant.
Hockey is a game played on grass. “Ice hockey” is a game played on ice. More countries play hockey than play ice hockey. Why then, do your artists always show an ice hockey stick and not a real hocket stick?
Malcolm Miller
Steve McIntyre is Canadian. As he has the puck, he names the game. Besides, the field hockey stick has a very curved but short blade and a shorter handle. Hence, no matter how the Team manipulates the data, one cannot get a right angle blade, people would surely talk. And with a short handle, you only get back to the Little Ice Age and nothing back to Medieval times. So it’s ice hockey, like it or not.
O the hockey sticks keep comin’
And the propaganda’s numbin’
But the critics they are watchin’
And they’re cleverly out foxin’
The very sticky methodology
Of the climate scientology.
For Steve, Lucia, Josh, they get the trick,
‘If yer sieve fer hockey sticks,
That’s what yer get.’ …you bet!
Some of them fall upside down? No worries, mate (flip)
Malcolm Miller says:
June 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Hockey is a game played on grass. “Ice hockey” is a game played on ice. More countries play hockey than play ice hockey. Why then, do your artists always show an ice hockey stick and not a real hocket stick?
=========================================================
“Hockey” in the US is associated with ice hockey rather than field hockey. Also, the feild hockey stick has more of a “J” shape. On a time trend the tip would go backwards. While Mann’s “Hockey Stick” did set science back quite a bit, his trend resembled an ice hockey stick more than a field hockey stick.
“…Do you understand the math enough to do a cartoon?…”
=============================================
Although Karoly makes out that the paper has been merely “put on hold” due to some perhaps minor glitch in the mysterious methodology used (too complicated for a mere layperson to understand), I don’t see it as a matter of mathematics but of logic.
It is remarkable that scientists at PhD level and their leader (Karoly) could fall into such an elementary defect as circular reasoning.
It is, however, a flaw which bedevils the whole of IPCC ‘science’ and given the state of science education at present, is likely to continue for some time to come.
I can’t resist: “What is Mike Mann’s favorite tune?
@Baa Humbug says:
June 13, 2012 at 10:04 am
Hockey Stick the Musical
——————————————————————–
That’s the funniest thing Iv’e read all day
and ‘You know that ain’t shit when we’ll be gettin’ lots of tit’ what a line!
All the very best to Ant’ Keep it up mate! you’re getting there.