Is this the proposed replacement for the infamous "hockey stick"? If so, in my opinion, it is propaganda that will backfire and diminish the legitimacy of those trying to identify meaningful and viable mitigation strategies.
Which is better IMHO because it shows just how many studies back the larger conclusion of the infamous first paper.
Decisionmakers know this, of course, and have moved on from 'hockey-stickness' to adaptation and mitigation of man-made climate change. Would that everyone would catch up instead of beating dead horses.
From DoE carbon-intensive simulations via the Pew Trust courtesy of Nature blogs with H/T to The Way Things Break.
Is this the proposed replacement for the infamous "hockey stick"? If so, in my opinion, it is propaganda that will backfire and diminish the legitimacy of those trying to identify meaningful and viable mitigation strategies.
ReplyDeletebernie:
ReplyDeleteIs this the proposed replacement for the infamous "hockey stick"?
The comparison was made by the Nature News reporter. This isn't indicative of an IPCC take on the issue.
Read the entires series (from bottom to top). It's pretty straightforward.
The replacement for the hockey stick is this.
ReplyDeleteWhich is better IMHO because it shows just how many studies back the larger conclusion of the infamous first paper.
Decisionmakers know this, of course, and have moved on from 'hockey-stickness' to adaptation and mitigation of man-made climate change. Would that everyone would catch up instead of beating dead horses.
Best,
D
Best,
D