It appears jc2 can’t comprehend what he has linked to.

Here it is again;

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php

“The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they ALL (my emphasis) support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.”

The general conclusion:

"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html

Indeed, the most recent IPCC report has heaps of hockey sticks that make quite a compelling team!

QED

So jc2, it appears you are no different to your master:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8387#133002

woof.

ps: No matter how much you wish it to be, rose coloured glasses can't make the blind see.

Dear VK3AUU,
My interest in the "Bringing them home" report relates to the documentation or rather lack of it concerning the "stolen generation" of Torres Strait Islander children. I had discussions with CJ Morgan on this subject earlier this month on ONO.
Monday, December 29, 2008
"An Indigenous reflection on 2008
Something to do, something to love, and something to hope for" by Stephen Hagan.
Regards
Blair

VK3AUU,

The "Bringing Them Home" report accurately traced the history of laws, policies and practices dealing with removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.

Throughout Australia's 'white' history common law says that parents have the right to decide where the children live and how they will be educated and raised. They should not be removed from their parents unless a court makes that decision based on evidence proving removal is in the child's best interests.

Yet in WA (1905-1954), NT (1911-1964), NSW (1915-1940), SA (1911-1923) and Queensland (1897-1965) Indigenous children could be taken WITHOUT a court order.

In WA, SA, NT and Queensland most Indigenous parents lost their parental rights because the law made the Protector or Protection Board the legal guardian of their children. No such laws applied to non-Indigenous parents.

It would be an act of utter denial to insist these discriminatory powers were not used.

As to the numbers of children forcibly removed and specific cases there will always be room for debate because you are dealing with human memory in a highly charged context. I have no evidence of any individual story being a deliberate fabrication. Maybe you do?

The Inquiry heard evidence in every capital and most regions of Australia, from Cape Barren Island to Torres Strait and the Kimberley. Evidence was given in public and private from Indigenous people, governments and churches, former mission staff, foster and adoptive parents, doctors and health professionals, academics, police and others. It's hard to believe they all conspired to lie or got it wrong.

As to the effects on the children, these would vary because the range of placements varied. Some went to 'good' white families, some to horror homes and many to institutions. In one of the institutions that I grew up in, where 10% of the 200 inmates were Indigenous - standard for Victoria - their treatment was just as abusive as anyone's.

Numerous later accounts (eg. the Senate's "Lost Innocents" and "Forgotten Australians" document the sexual and physical abuse and the emotional deprivation that these hell-holes inflicted. Aboriginal children were not exempt.

Well yes I can, Q&A. It’s you that can’t comprehend basic English.

The question is if Mann’s hockey stick stands up to scientific scrutiny, not if later on, subsequent studies /representations are valid or even show similar trends. Even if they did, it doesn’t prove that Mann’s stick was scientifically valid.

Suggesting Mann’s hoax is legitimate because other studies show a similar correlation is absurd.

“Indeed, the most recent IPCC report has heaps of hockey sticks that make quite a compelling team!”

You’re confusing charts showing this century’s rising temps and Mann’s hockey stick. They weren’t derived the same way and the point of contention with Mann’s is that it doesn’t stand up to scientific examination and only cult like anti-science thugs like Faulty-Lambert would be diving off that bridge into a drought-ridden stream.

Christ, you guys are extreme cultists, aren’t you?

Oh, so Graham is my master, yet sticking up for a thug like Lambert and then failing basic comprehension doesn’t make you one? Stop being so pathetic.

Both you and Fault- Lambert demonstrate having a bias towards being anti-social. Get yourself checked out.

Further explanation of the hockey stick hoax.

The real question is why Tim Faulty-Lambert is still pushing this absurdity.

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%E2%80%9Cgetting-rid%E2%80%9D-of-the-medieval-warming-period/

Tim, of course I deny that my post was abusive. You've amply demonstrated on this thread that you "stick like a tick" - you're still coming back, aren't you? And you have also given us some useful links to your use of "brownshirt tactics". The post that you did on your site about me, and that of Quiggin on the same subject, which you link to, is just the sort of brawling intimidation that the brownshirts went in for. They disrupted meetings of their opponents, and physically beat them up. You do the equivalent of this on the 'net. QED.

Also ironic that you affect such disdain for allusions to Nazism, but you continually refer to people who question any part of whatever you ordain to be tbe orthodoxy, as "deniers", or "denialists", a word chosen because of its links to Holocaust denialism. You feel free to throw this term of abuse around, but if anyone points out that it is abuse, then you accuse the whistle-blower of abuse themselves!

As for the Hockey Stick graph. It has been reviewed twice and found wanting by official committees or inquiries and also by independent researchers who have tried to replicate its findings. When properly analysed the data doesn't show what it purports to show. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf. It is an "artifact of poor mathematics" http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/13830/?a=f. The reasons why it is poor mathematics are easy to follow, and people like you and Quiggin, should have the maths to be able to understand them.

The graph is also contradicted by other proxy reconstructions, as well as even by the graphs that Q&A links to.