4 ms·
Not a good example. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy, the above conclusion was
by woodchuck64 14y ago
Not a good example. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy, the above conclusion was itself discredited and finally:
"The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph"
- sigil 14y agoBut the result wasn't discredited: there was in fact a normalization error in Mann et al's original findings, and we didn't find out until 8 years later because the data manipulation code was "proprietary." Meanwhile, everyone proceeded as if it were fact. We need to raise the bar of skepticism and with it the burden of proof. Show me your raw data. Show me your code for manipulating that data into the final result. I'm honestly surprised that publishing data + paper + a source code repository isn't required in order to be taken seriously these days.
- woodchuck64 14y agoNot according to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121 "7) Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw? Yes." "8) So does this all matter? No."
- bromang 14y agoThis is not a credible source.