Controversy over Bradley and Jones 1993?

Apologies; another wiki post. Though since palaeo reconstructions are in all the news, nowadays (sidenote: is [[Shaun Marcott]] notable? Or is it just his paper that is notable? I think I'd argue the latter. Discuss) this is topical.

So: the wiki Hockey stick controversy page is long and thorough (too long for some) and includes a section on an aspect I couldn't even remember, "Bradley and Jones 1993". I argued on the talk page that it wasn't really notable - obviously, if even I can't remember it, with my notoriously fine memory, it can't possibly be notable. But DS, who has put so much work into getting that page into decent shape, thinks its notable as controversy about something before MBH '98.

Initially I believed that, but now I'm more inclined to notice the differences. Firstly, it begins with a United States House Committee on Science hearing which didn't invite sci-fi authors or other bozos - ah, those were the days. Secondly... well, essentially nobody noticed. The world was different then, of course, but even so. Nobody noticed either side of the argument. Its not too surprising that nobody noticed Michaels, since he was writing in his World Climate Report. But I don't think the other side was pushing their stuff either.

More like this

Things like this only get wide public discussion when a propaganda campaign puffs them up out of all proportion, which is really all one has to know about the "debate."

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 08 Apr 2013 #permalink

John Mashey's compilation is excellent.
I wish a Google Image Search would pull up that collection. It shows how effectively the septics use pictures to lie.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

Thanks, Hank.
Google Images finds a lot, but many of the images only exist in books, I think. When my current big project is done, I may scan these things and expand this with the images, also adding Durkin's TGGWS and a few others, where people used, for instance, Loehle, and also pick up the mis-use of Huang et al by Essex, McKitrick, McIntyre, long after it had been deprecated by the authors.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 09 Apr 2013 #permalink

I'm spamming the usual suspects hoping that one of you will lay a Watts smackdown as a top-level post (it is just such a perfect example of egregious not-understanding):

His crime: not understanding that "gasoline retail sales by refiners" is a subset of "gasoline retail sales" and that US gasoline usage has not dropped by more than 50% since 2004. And point out how, perhaps, a real "skeptic" might have realized that there's no way we could have failed to notice a 50% drop in consumption, and that therefore, just maybe, the chart doesn't say what it seems to say?…

I think is a better graph of actual consumption. Watts might also have been tipped off that his chart was.. inappropriate... because US gasoline consumption is about 368 million gallons per day ( and his chart shows a peak of 60 million gallons per day...


Trying to talk sense to our friend Tony is a waste of time. It's like arguing with a Coke machine when it takes your money but doesn't dispense your drink. No matter how well informed you are on the mechanics of vending machines, no matter how impeccable your logic ("I paid the specified amount, so you must provide a product in return"), the exercise is utterly pointless.

By American Idiot (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

The make a satisfying klang when you knock them over

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 10 Apr 2013 #permalink

Seems Tony eventually added a correction. Of course, the error should have been easy to spot already before pressing the "Publish" button.

By Lars Karlsson (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink

Normally I stay away from Tony's place for the sake of personal sanity, but this intrigued me enough that I went there to glance at the post and comments. Though he eventually corrected the post after a lot of prodding, it's striking that gladly published these figures without once stopping to ask "Does this make any sense?"

A 50% drop in gasoline sales over a few years would mean massive social and economic collapse - not just a severe recession. Realizing this doesn't require being "privy to the vagaries of gasoline supply/sales channels" as Tony tries to excuse himself.

This shows a lack of even the most basic critical thinking. That anybody takes this guy seriously is baffling.

By American Idiot (not verified) on 11 Apr 2013 #permalink