Whether or not you believe in AGW, does the hockey stick climate history revision bother you?

Question

The history books all said X, X was based on the tangible evidence from around the world. The history had been X since X happened.

Then X was seen as being contrary to, or at least difficult to easily reconcile with, an agenda and the theory that served as a pretext to advance that agenda.

Then the UN adopted, with little review, new history Y.

And all of a sudden the history books don't say X anymore, and most of them say Y.

Y is based upon very narrow "proxy" data and those who advance Y have never explained a single example of the tangible, direct evidence of X. They've insisted that X, if it happened, was "regional" - but fail to explain how all those regions could have been warmer if the average temperature was colder, and fail to produce very much evidence that any place was significantly colder (and many places would have to be much colder for the average to be cooler than today).

That doesn't bother you, on its face? Whatever you think of global warming, doesn't the revision of history just kind of smack you as.... Orwellian?

Should we let "Noble" lies stand?

Answer 1

Cars go fast.

Answer 2

Problem is that the hockey stick has become an article of faith to them in the same way as the “Jesus is a good God” stickers are for evangelicals. And you should know by now how difficult it is to discuss the reality of articles of faith with true believers looking over their shoulders for the coming inquisitors.

Answer 3

I don't think that the believers have a grasp on what the hockey stick revisions mean.  A critical point to the whole alarmist movement is that it is warmer now than it has ever been.  The hockey stick smoothed out the MWP and the LIA.  How do you smooth out data points without putting in fake data?  Further, if it was as warm or warmer during the MWP, it lends evidence that the temperature increase over the last 150 years could indeed be natural.  

Even better, the methodology of Mann et al. to create the hockey stick creates a hockey stick even when random numbers are used.  That's right, random numbers produce a hockey stick similar to Mann's.

http://landshape.org/enm/a-new-temperatu...

Answer 4

No, graphs are man made.

Answer 5

No, it doesn't bother me when there are new scientific discoveries made.  Does it bother you that Einstein's theory of relativity rewrote the physics textbooks?  Was Einstein a liar too?

You should really take some time to learn what actually happened with the 'hockey stick', because you clearly have no idea.

Does it bother you that the NAS and every subsequent temperature reconstruction confirmed the basic accuracy of the 'hockey stick'?

Obviously it does.