Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sjaax
Wellicht deed je het per ongeluk, maar je bent de bronvermelding vergeten. Zo is de betrouwbaarheid van je citaat niet na te gaan.
|
De bron was wikipedia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Het probleem met wikipedia is dat enkel de vermelding daarvan alleen al voldoende is voor sommigen (ik zal de gekleurde adjectieven achterwege laten) om de argumentatie te torpederen. Onterecht natuurlijk, je moet wikipedia immers niet geloven, maar wel de bronvermeldingen die ze aanhalen en dan komen we uiteraard uit bij :
- IPCC AR4.
- NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/.../mann2008.html
- en allez : the guardian :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...steve-mcintyre
uit die laatste :
Citaat:
What counts in science, however, is not a single study. It is whether its finding can be replicated by others. Here Mann has been on a winning streak. Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years.
A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed. Briffa's more recent reconstructions are closer to Mann's than those he had in the late 1990s. Folland says: "The Mann work still stands."
|