The Great #Coronavirus Lockdown Hockey Stick Twitter Brawl

[Note: This post is full of inside baseball (jokes) for OLD time readers. However there is tons of content for anyone wishing to explore any of the branches of this kerfuffle. ~cr]

Reposted from Climate Sceptism

Posted on 16 May 20 by Mike Dombroski

When Brad Keyes wrote his great Shibbolithic post at WUWT, I just had to tweet it out.

This resulted in a long long thread about issues like climate comedy, the hockey stick and Oreskes’ consensus paper,  prompting Andy Revkin to tweet to us to chill out—twice.

It started out with derisive responses from Nick PalmerTony Duncan and Bob D. Then it started growing like Jack’s beanstalk with various sub-threads and it might still keep growing.

Here’s Some Highlights:

•  Ken Rice retweeted my call out adding that he wouldn’t bother reading it. Steve Mosher responded that “it’s not even funny.”

•  I asked for examples of climate humor that are funny. Eli Rabett chimed in linking to one of his own snarky posts ridiculing Anthony Watts. Then he tweeted a couple more unimpressive posts and another that I thought was beyond lame. Then Mosh and Brad started arguing about comedy.

•  Andy Revkin’s chill out video had a section on climate comedy. I tweeted about it leading to more discussion among meBrad and Mosh. Mosh knows a lot of actual comedians and academics who’ve turned comedy into an actual science. I compared Brad to Robin Williams.

•  The hockey stick brawl started to form when Tony tweeted about engaging directly with climate scientists. I tweeted the well known video of Gavin Schmidt running from Roy Spencer. Brad started a skirmish with Tony by bringing up Michael Mann’s Serengeti strategy. I brought up Gavin’s inline responses to Judith Curry’s comment on the Real Climate review of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion.

•  Brad branched out on Peter Gleick’s forged Heartland memo.

•  Tony asked why Mann would fabricate a result that ends up being confirmed by a dozen other subsequent studies? I replied “He’d want all the spoils and acclaim that getting there first brings, and which he got.” Dan Neuman quipped, “So he was able to foresee what all future research would show? Wow, Mann’s even more amazing than I thought.” I replied with David Deming’s Congressional testimony about getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

•  When the topic got to Principle Component Analysis, I tagged Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick. Steve showed up and started rebutting points. Caerbannog had a quote from MBH’98 that he claimed disclosed Mann’s hockey stick mining method. Steve refuted it and I gloated at Caerbannog.

Caerbannog’s quote from MBH’98:  “The proxy series and PCs were formed into anomalies relative to the same 1902–80 reference period mean, and the proxy series were also normalized by their standard deviations during that period.”

•  Steve brought up Mann’s use of FORTRAN instead of a modern language such as R. Eli replied “r in 1998?” This led to a big discussion about whether FORTRAN is outdated or still useful. Gavin showed up to dispute the usefulness of R in 1998. I actually think the other side sort of won this part of the debate.

•  Dan tried to claim there was nothing about the hockey stick that was hidden. I responded “Oh Baloney!!” Rob Honeycutt showed up and mocked me for my use of multiple exclamation marks. Then he started quizzing me. I tried to address his questions. He asked me if I’d read MBH98/99.  I like to think that I address questions, so I responded with a three tweet series  and some wisecracks.

•  Steve commented:  “one of the reasons I became interested in it early on was Mann’s incredibly grandiose and pompous verbiage to describe steps in his method that were merely linear regressions. Such inflated language for simple steps indicated pretentious mediocrity.”

•  Someone brought up Jon Stewart’s bit about “hide the decline” on the Daily Show. I located it.

•  This led to a lot of back and forth over “hide the decline” among Steve, Rob, Ken Rice, Eli Rabett and Tony. The Wegman report even came up. Later Steve made this important point: “Hide the Decline tried to deceive people into thinking that tree ring temperature reconstructions had more validity than they really did. They didn’t want to ‘dilute the message’ or give ‘fodder to skeptics.’ Deletion of decline as done in HTD would be illegal for fund manager.”

•  Things sometimes got heated. Rob tweeted “You castigate real science to your own peril.” I responded with a Robert De Niro “you talking to me” video. Steve called it a Freudian slip for, “You castigate Realclimate to your own peril.”

• Then Brad brought up two graphs by Naomi Oreskes that appear to have two conflicting numbers.  This led to a couple weeks of arguing with some participants at times leaving, which is probably the best measure of  who is winning a Twitter argument.

Brad’s List

Brad’s humor can be sharp edged. I asked him what tweets he thought should be included. Some of them are actually my tweets. He came up with these pithy descriptions:

•  Will Revkin take the bait?

•  What’s the problem, T or T`?

•  Flight of the consensutards

•  Publish = perish

•  Deniers are an odd lot

•  Ken’s Hockey Stick challenge

•  Believalist agrees with the scientists

•  Trust a German to tell the best joke in the thread

•  Steve McIntyre gives obscurantists a good hiding

•  Miscellanea:  one    two     three     four     five     six

This is my interpretation of what’s significant. Any other participants who don’t like it can write their own. As they say, history is written by the winners.

83 thoughts on “The Great #Coronavirus Lockdown Hockey Stick Twitter Brawl

  1. Fortran 202x is the working title of the revision of the Fortran standard after Fortran 2018. Previously it was referred to as Fortran 2020. Fortran 2018 is the current standard.

  2. Fortran is still a thing? Dang. I loved the “goto” and felt bad when I found out it is only used by amateurs and not allowed in any serious language (some C bigots I worked with in the 90’s).

    LOL. Hire me. I actually like FORTRAN

    • “I actually like FORTRAN”

      FORTRAN was the first computer language I learned in High School on an IBM 1620 “scientific” computer. I recently found a PDF of the language manual for PDQ FORTRAN for that computer dated November 15, 1963. It says it was based on the “FO-OO4 language” standard. It brought back fond memories of my first attempts at learning how to write computer programs. As an aside, the IBM 1620’s project name was “Cadet” which some IBMers claimed stood for “Can’t Add Doesn’t Even Try” because the original version of the computer did not have an adder, it did addition using a look-up table.

      • A “COMEFROM” FORTRAN IV statement was proposed circa 1972 in a Computer “trade” magazine during the religious structured programming wars. Of course, the article was a joke.

  3. “Tony asked why Mann would fabricate a result that ends up being confirmed by a dozen other subsequent studies? I replied “He’d want all the spoils and acclaim that getting there first brings, and which he got.” Dan Neuman quipped, “So he was able to foresee what all future research would show? Wow, Mann’s even more amazing than I thought.”

    See, the mistake here is in the answer. Instead of “He’d want all the spoils and acclaim that getting there first brings,” the response should have been, “the others couldn’t have gotten there al all, let alone ‘first,’ because until Mann invented the entire fantasy out of nothing, there was no there there.”

    • Yes! Sorry I missed your comment before writing my reply to Pat Frank (published at 7:41pm today — below yours). That line jarred me when I read it. I am glad that I had looked up a few of the linked (cringe — must we use this sickening term?? –>) tweets and saw “Climate Nuremberg’s” excellent riposte, saying, essentially what you just did. Good for you to point out the truth.

  4. I wonder if the math routines are the ones that I wrote back in the day for Fortran. An interesting thought indeed.

    • Fond memories, albeit dating me. I started on Cal with punch tape as a college frosh, graduated to Basic, then graduated to Fortran for my senior/Ph.D thesis— on IBM punch cards, several boxes full with the old black magic marker swipe in case one dropped. You could get close.

      Had to program my own pseudorandom number generator for my paper proving equivalency of Markov chains to calculus for the classic predator/prey problem formulation.

      Since years, my computer has run Python, altho now most of what I do can be done in Excel. Never had a C or R motivation.

      • For me my first box was at Univac and loaded boot with switches. Then paper tape. Later we moved on to punch cards. Modern indeed. Yes I still program daily.

      • “on IBM punch cards, several boxes full with the old black magic marker swipe in case one dropped. You could get close.”

        Now, why didn’t I think of that!

        I dropped stacks of punch cards several times during my short career on IBM puchcard machines. Then I had to laboriously put them back in order.

        It wasn’t too bad: Each card represented a railcar on a train, so we’re talking about 100 or so punch cards in the stack. And the main use for this stack was to printout a list of the train and its railcars: car number, car type, emty or list of contents, origin and destination.

        I got pretty good at juggling those stacks after a while. Concentration really helps.

        • Burroughs, HP, 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386 and so on. Machine language, Assembly, SmcBasic, MS Basic, Quick basic, Power Basic. Tried C but Power Basic was faster and easier.
          Still using it. Wrote the world fastest numeric sort with it. See PowerBasic.com.

      • Rud, you don’t need to answer but is English your second language.? I’m just curious.

    • I wonder if your FORTRAN routines were as ‘interesting’ as one library routine my wife encountered yea, many years ago. She had a program of hers with an impossible bug, and after an incredible amount of print-level debugging, she traced it down to one place where the value of the constant “1” was being changed! The subroutine writer had used a subroutine argument as a scratch variable, forgetting that FORTRAN passed all arguments by reference. Ah! The old days! Long may they remain ONLY in humorous memory!

  5. Rob tweeted “You castigate real science to your own peril.”

    The hockey stick isn’t science.

    Principal components have no physical meaning. Not even when they’re extracted from tree rings cored from trees that some dendrologist has judged — by no quantitative method — to be temperature limited.

    None of the paleo temperature reconstructions are scientific. They’re all statistical constructs.

    All of the supposed hockey stick corroborations are merely demonstrations that there are multiple ways of generating hockey-stick trends using various metrics (trees, ice cores, carbonate layers, lake varves) of no known discrete physical meaning. These people are crock-mongers.

    The hockey stick rested on fake methods. Reproducing a fake does not make it real. Especially when the reproductions themselves — statistical constructs, all — are falsely represented as science.

    These arguments go on and on, without any recognition of the obvious truth that they’re arguing angels and pin-heads. For that reason, it seems likely that they’re in it for the argument itself. None of them want a resolution, because with resolution they’d lose so much that makes their life worth living.

    • Hi, Pat.

      Your comment was needed (and well-informed and well-written, as usual) to refute this:

      Tony asked why Mann would fabricate a result that ends up being confirmed by a dozen other subsequent studies? …

      For the above narrative left out the final tweet (I absolutely LOATHE that noun!!!! — I hope I NEVER have to use “Twitter” — HORRID name (((ugh)))) in that series:

      “[Re:] “confirmed by a dozen other subsequent studies”

      “Confirmed” or “broadly resembled due to a common ancestry in worthless proxies”?

      (Source: “Climate Nuremberg,” (cringe…… grit teeth and type….. –>) tweet, April 14, 2020)

      Thank you, Pat, for making sure no one left this thread confused after reading of Mann possibly getting there first, and, thus, possibly mistakenly concluding that Mann got anywhere with his bogus tree ring assertions.

      Cheers! 😊

      Janice

      • A clarification (just for my peace of mind): I LIKE the word “tweet” (and “twitter,” too) when used about beings such as the sweet, faithful, little birds who help Cinderella get dressed for the ball (in the original Disney cartoon).

          • Great you can recognise one when you see it, some people confuse their opinions with data.

        • It’s not an opinion that principal components have no particular physical meaning, Loydo.

          Nor is it an opinion, Loydo, that trends constructed from physically ambiguous metrics have no particular physical meaning.

          Nor is it an opinion, Loydo, that a fake hocky stick trend is not rescued merely because others can construct similar-looking and also physically meaningless hockey stick trends.

          Nor is it an opinion, Loydo, that paleo-so-called-temperature reconstructions are statistical constructs grounded in no physical theory.

          As such, they have no discernible connection to science. That’s not an opinion, Loydo. That’s a fact.

          If you can describe, or even link to, a physical theory that converts tree ring metrics into temperature degrees, let’s see it.

          If you can’t do so, then you ought to seriously think about surgically removing that hat you’re always talking through.

          • Not only is “various metrics…have no known discrete physical meaning” merely your opinion, it is also ironically meaningless. It remains merely that no matter how many times you repeat it or how indignant and insulting you want to be.

          • That tree rings and ice cores have no discrete physical meaning with respect to temperature is a fact, Loydo. Your denials are mere arguments from ignorance.

            Let’s see your theory that turns tree ring metrics into degrees centigrade, Loydo.

            And let’s also see your theory, Loydo, that turns ice core metrics into degrees centigrade.

            Let’s see you refute word one of Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-Science, Loydo, posted right here at WUWT.

            You’re just a believer, Loydo. You’ve got your talking points. But in fact you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • Janice, I avoided twitter successfully until
        I found a reference to a Steve McIntyre tweet.
        He uses it extensively. He is my hero and I am elated being abler to get his daily insights regarding the Flynn stuff. Give it a try and follow a couple of people you respect.

        • I think Janice is like me: She can barely get warmed up within 140 characters.

          Twitter is not for the long-winded. Which was the point of Twitter, but for people who like a lot of discussion, it it totally inadequate, as far as I’m concerned.

          And then there is the Twitter censroship. I can’t support a platform that censors speech based on leftwing politics, or anything else, for that matter.

          • Hello, Tom,

            Whether or not you and I are much alike, I am honored that you would consider that to be true, for you appear from most of your comments to be someone to emulate. [140 chars and I am, indeed, just getting started.😄]

            In view of what you just wrote about me, I’d like to clarify my (((shudder))) Twitter position. I detest the baby-talk terminology of that platform, thus, I hope I never find a pressing need to use it. Leaving that aside, for short, text-like, comments, I wouldn’t mind using it. That is, I don’t detest the platform, per se.

            However. Having a “discussion” via one-liners, sharp retorts, and snappy comebacks is a waste of time to me. Just a verbal joust more likely to produce heat than light.

            And it is a grave temptation to impulsively putting one’s foot in one’s mouth. I have enough trouble with that as it is!

            Janice on the platform which shall remain nameless (heh):

            J: CO2 UP. WARMING NOT!

            Twit: Prove it.

            J: The burden of proof is on those who assert human CO2 controls climate.

            Twit: You are so stupid. 500 scientists can’t be wrong.

            J: 500 scientists and NO DATA are WRONG.

            Twit: They have data.

            J: No. They don’t. They have computer simulation output.

            Twit: That’s data.

            J: No. It isn’t.

            Twit: YES. IT IS.

            J: Great argument, Twit.

            Twit: Still waiting.

            J: For your mother to email you your next reply? Or for your brain to reboot after clearing your memory of all the useless stuff you’ve crammed in there?

            Twit: Classy.

            J: Sorry.

            Twit: Well?

            J: Well — where is your prima facie case for AGW?

            Twit: No.

            J: No? Down to your last two bytes of RAM? Stalling for time until the next post on Climate Clowns, Inc. appears? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

            Twit: Don’t yell at me.

            J: Sorry.

            Twit: This is why I don’t like talking with you. You are mean.

            J: Sorry.

            Twit: Not good enough. I am upset.

            J: Twit. YOU UPSET YOURSELF. YOU. YOU. YOU. YOU. That is what the problem is. YOU do not open your mind to let in facts.

            Twit: There you go being mean again. I am leaving.

            J: Sorry.

            **************

            I rest my case (against me using that T platform). 💃

            Take care back there in OK,

            Janice

          • P.S. Re: Twit’s “No.” above

            That was NOT meant by me to criticize commenters on WUWT who from time to time answer an obnoxious/disingenuous assertion/question with a powerfully effective “No.”

            I remembered last night that recently one of our best commenters used “No” with consummate eloquence. So, here I am to make sure he (if he happened to read my above dialogue) knows that I was not dissing him.

            Done! (for now 🙂 )

      • “Thank you, Pat, for making sure no one left this thread confused after reading of Mann possibly getting there first, and, thus, possibly mistakenly concluding that Mann got anywhere with his bogus tree ring assertions.”

        Well said, Janice. And Pat, too.

      • Thanks, Janice. 🙂

        There are some claims that do such violence to factual truth that they just can’t be left unchallenged.

  6. Neuro-COVID: Gaining Recognition as New Disease Terminology
    There’re 3 types of Neuro-COVID, and it progresses through 3 stages — involving the brain’s respiratory center.
    Shin Jie Yong May 14 · 4 min read

    Extracts:
    In a May 5 published paper in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, researchers at the University of Brescia in Italy said there are three distinct features of clinical COVID-19 neuroinfection: (1) Cerebral thrombosis with hemorrhagic infarction, (2) demyelinating lesions, and (3) encephalopathy. “We defined this condition as Neuro-COVID for the overwhelming CNS involvement in COVID-19,” they proposed.

    Two other papers by researchers in China support the proposed neuroinfection route the Italian researchers, which involve either olfactory nerve transport or blood-brain-barrier crossing, or both.

    Other research groups have also linked the brainstem — brain’s respiratory center — to COVID-19. …
    https://medium.com/@shinjieyong/neuro-covid-gaining-recognition-as-new-disease-terminology-3b0c450fd868

  7. Three observations.

    1. When so many warmunists (see fn 24 to essay Climatastrophy in ebook Blowing Smoke for the derivation thanks to Vaclav Havel in his 2007 book ‘Blue Planet in Green Chains’) been so hugely wrong on so much for so many years, there is not a lot left to discuss intelligently. As this very funny ‘inside baseball’ for decades thread amply shows. Saw it over there at CS, glad CtM brought it over here, where Brad Keyes started the fun. H/t and TY.

    2. With warmunists descending from Mann to ATTP (Ken Rice) to now Greta Thunberg via Eli Rabbit, derisive ridicule seems the best Warmunist response left for skeptics. As demonstrated here.

    3. Oreskes is in a warmunist activist league of her own, chairing the 2011 Scripps planning session based on her 2010 garbage book Merchants of Doubt (Comparing climate skeptics to the Big Tobacco RICO case on cancer causation) , which instigated the now largely failed several CAGW Lawfare attacks on fossil fuel energy producers.
    Her 2013 Harvard appointment as full tenured professor in two fields (history of science, ‘climate’) is the reason my three time alma mater has gotten zip contributions since, although they really tried by flying senior alumni solicitors down for years after, for me to buy them lunch or dinner and politely explain NO $ until Oreskes is gone. They finally gave up when I declined a dinner meeting (at my expense) last year.

    • book ‘Blue Planet in Green Chains’) was authored byVaclav Klaus, notVaclav Havel as you mentioned

      • correct. My apology to him for a faulty memory. Former Czech Republic president after fall of the Iron Curtain.

    • Rud,

      Great comment. Great comment. Great comment.

      I’d have paid for dinner just to watch you say that to them. Got a transcript or other info to evoke the scene? What a perfect cold-open for a movie about the Climate Skirmishes.

      Eh, who am I kidding, when did Hollywood ever want a script about underdogs debunking Goliaths?

    • Why would anyone give anything to a school with a $41B endowment? There is no realistically conceivable way that they will ever need another penny of donations- even if they were to drop tuition to $0. Donating to Harvard is the literal definition of “waste of money,” simply because there is no way the money will ever be used for anything except to make more money that they will never use.

      Why not give to one of the many non-profit organizations doing great work that actually need money?

      • Reply long after relevant.
        Because of my WW2 father. I was accepted to six collrge schools, including West Point and Harvard. We visited together all six. His face said it all. End of discussion, if you ever have that choice.

    • Bemused Bill (and Josh)

      Thanks for that! The blend of pictures and words makes that info-toon ideal for infiltrating the skulls of believalists who couldn’t otherwise read a whole Tweet without losing concentration.

      I anticipate many hours of enjoyment from it.

    • Over at Planet Moron, one can get a “Summary of the Science Behind Global Warming T-Shirt.

      It’s the perfect summary of AGW science as explicated in the tweets above: Shut up, that’s why.

      Clear now? 🙂

    • That cartoon represents reality. All the alarmists know the Hockey Stick is bogus, but they don’t care, just like Mann’s companion in the cartoon.

      Mann took the Earth’s temperature profile and turned it into science fiction, in order to make it look like the Earth was getting hotter, and hotter, and hotter and hotter and is now at the hottest point in human history, all caused by CO2.

      When in fact, any unmodified regional temperature chart will show that it was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today so there is no unprecedented warmth caused by CO2. Everyone knows this. The Alarmists know it, they just choose to pretend the regional temperature charts don’t exist. They prefer their computer-generated fantasy to reality. Reality doesn’t pay very well for them, so it is to their advantage to ignore the inconvenient facts.

      They are definitely ignoring the facts, and they know they are. They are doing so to sell an agenda. Think of what their Hockey Stick agenda has cost the world in damages already.

  8. Note: This post is full of inside baseball (jokes) for OLD time readers. …

    Climategate is ten years old. Mann’s hockey stick is twenty years old. Decades can be an eternity in climate. Who knew?

    • To paraphrase a joke about Macon, Georgia from a friend living in Macon, Georgia:

      If a doctor tells you you have only six months to live, immerse yourself in warmist climate science “arguments”. You’ll still die in six months, but it will seem longer.

    • Mike,

      My rule of thumb is:

      a scandal is fresh until they acknowledge it happened.

      I’d put money on ClimateGate still being relevant a decade from now.

      Well the man said to God,
      what’s a million years to you?
      And God said, a second.
      So the man said to God,
      what’s a million dollars to you?
      And God said, a penny.
      So the man said to God,
      will you give me a penny?
      God stopped and said,
      Yes I will.
      Just a second.
      —Michael Davis

      • Guy, my dad’s mom and dad came from Poland and I always remember our name being spelled “Dombroski”. I see the spelling “Dombrowski” quite often and once in a while “Dabrowski”. The Wikipedia article was interesting. I vaguely remember someone having a picture of a Dombroski coat of arms.

  9. I dropped everything to seek out the definition of ecneics. Then I had to pick everything up. Not happy.

      • Mr. Keyes. Mshr is mixed up (or just forgetful, perhaps…). He is forgetting the context for his “it’s not even funny” remark. It was in reference to your “Welcome to the Shibboleth” article in which there is not one mention of the term “consensutard.”

        That’s why I cited 3 examples from that article to counter his snide remark here.

        • Loved those comedy highlights Janice, for which I can take no credit.

          Thanks, as well, for actually spelling my hapax (now dis) legomenon correctly, unlike certain provocatards of our acquaintance.

          Cheers!

          • You’re welcome, Brad.

            And, you CAN take credit for:

            1. the excellent choice and application of those quotes.
            2. your own clever remarks, e.g., mimicking the “they, they, they” to nice comic effect and “Recursive Seepage.”

            Re: my mistakenly (oops!) spelling “consensustards” the way I did — it was just my laziness in not reviewing to be sure I spelled it right. I just guessed and my brain left out the third “s.” It sounded “right” to me. Glad you liked that 🙂

            Finally, thanks for a new compound word. Just looked up “hapax legomenon.” Cool. Never going to use that one, but, still, cool. “Provocatards” — heh.

    • Au contraire, Mr. Mshr. Mr. Keyes’ April 9, 2020 WUWT article is full of humor.

      “…these same people—I can go down a list of their names—are involved in this. And so what do they do? They, they, they, they pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message…”

      (Al Gore at Aspen, 2011)

      Funny. 🙂

      … the Guardian ran a series of admirably even-handed stories by Fred Pearce … one of my favorite snippets of climate commentary ever … Barnett … joined [Phil] Jones to form a small group within the IPCC to mine this data for signs of global warming, ready to report in the next [IPCC] assessment due in 2001.

      “‘What we hope is that the current patterns of temperature change prove distinctive, quite different from the patterns of natural variability in the past,’ Barnett told me in 1996.”

      Even then they were looking for a hockey stick.

      This passage is not just ironic but meta-ironic: the truth unwittingly revealed by the interviewee is reported no more wittingly by the interviewer himself, giving rise to what Lewandowsky would probably call Recursive Seepage …

      Funny. 🙂

      In his 1965 essay To Tell a Chemist, Isaac Asimov wonders how to triage practitioners of chemistry from poseurs. He comes up with a heuristic: put the word “unionized” on a sheet of paper and ask the subject to read it back to you. A real chemist will use four syllables, while someone who just plays one on TV will use three.

      Funny. 🙂

      And I didn’t even read the whole Brad Keyes article… .🤨

  10. Thanks for this hilarity, CTM. I love all of the participants, including Mosher. I think that saying Brad Keyes is another Robin Williams is off by quite a bit, though I understand the parallels. I would agree that Robin Williams is analogous to his final output stage, but the mind loading that output stage has the wit of Voltaire, Swift, Wilde, Twain &c, and is equipped with the vocabulary of Shakespeare-Marlowe-Buckley &c. He could ultimately be recognized as the greatest satirist and humorist of all time. Personally, I think he’s well on his way, and wish him well.

  11. The hockey stick graph is made by computer models. If you put junk information in to the model then you’ll get junk out!
    Mann and his ilk like to think they understand fully the processes that are involved in the climate but they don’t and more importantly the little they do know is very difficult to translate to a computer to model. The other issue which has been raised in the past is that if the results that you get from the models aren’t what you’d like or expect then a simple tweak here and there gets it for you. That’s the standard of these climate models now. Junk info and tweaks.
    I have noticed an absence of chatter on the new climate models (CMIP6) that people do champion as proof of climate change. CMIP6 model is proving that CO2 has no effect at all on climate! They ran the new model with 4x the current CO2 and the warming didn’t occur. Oops.
    So what’s new with the CMIP6?
    Solar Particle Forcing. The Sun.
    The new climate report is due in 2022 and it will include the information acquired from CMIP6.

    • “If you put junk information in to the model then you’ll get junk out!”

      Especially if the model itself is nothing but junk.

  12. IBM 1130 -> Fortran -> PDP-8/E -> Assembly -> PDP-11/34 -> IBM PC -> C -> C++ -> JavaScript -> Angular -> Rxjs.

  13. Entertaining. Brad is kinda a Stradivarius of forum humor, and here he plays on twitter (which I don’t do).

    • Tilak,

      your Forbes articles are brilliant.

      Everyone,

      Tilak’s Forbes articles are brilliant.

      And that’s not something I say very often. In fact, prior to coming across Tilak’s Forbes articles, I can count on one hand the number of times I’d typed that exact sentence.

Comments are closed.