The “hockey stick” theory is now discredited: How fanaticism substitutes for science

You don't think scientists looked at natural causes? Tell us another one.

 

Wrong again... it finally came out around 07-09 from the time I read the article that it was a possibility that the Sun might be a great influence to the Climate Change.

Also why believe in the Doom Sayers when they predicted the World would freeze over and now it's going to burn.

 

Oh Jesus (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Christ, not global cooling again. It's been explained 100 times that the majority of scientists were very quick to discredit global cooling.

 

Again, you are very mistaken.

In all due respect, Kessy_Athena, you need to research your conclusions more carefully before you post them.

Check this out.

Is is a reliable scientific report from the EPA.

 

You are absolutey correct, Roelath.

Remember this famous scare by the global environmentalists in 1972?

The "eco-kooks" still can't make up thier minds!
^

 

As I recall, there were more global environmentalists back then who endorsed the theory than disputed it.

Just you know of a few scientists who may have questioned this theory back then (I too questioned it at the time just as I now question the validity of anthropomorphic global warming) means absolutely nothing.

 

Some scientists, such as Michael Mann and Phil Jones, did look at natural causes, but their political agendas caused them to incorrectly discard these sources.

 

Honest question.

Climate Change, IPCC 1990, page 202.

For a more detailed explanation of the graph, see Where did IPCC 1990 Figure 7c Come From?

 

Yes, of course.

I disagree that the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere is "well known". Some of the physics underlying the dynamics of the Earth's climate variability have not been accurately and precisely modeled.

CO2 is a radiative forcing, but its effect is logarithmic. The assumption in many mainstream climate models is that CO2 amplifies certain feedback mechanisms, which are further assumed to be positive. There are too many assumptions being made in regards to these climate MODELS. Many top physicists are disputing the underlying physics as we speak. It is presumptuous of us to pick a side in that debate.

 

Its sad to see how science has been hijacked by the political machine.

 

AAAS assessment of climate change science: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
Joint National Academies' statement on climate change: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
US-CAP homepage: http://www.us-cap.org/
2003 US DoD study on the security implications of climate change: http://www.edf.org/documents/3566_AbruptClimateChange.pdf


This is from your 4th link:

around the world. More severe storms and typhoons bring about higher storm
surges and floods in low-lying islands such as Tarawa and Tuvalu (near New
Zealand). In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through
levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague
unlivable. Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the
Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system
transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no
longer be kept out of the area during the dry season. Melting along the Himalayan
glaciers accelerates, causing some Tibetan people to relocate. Floating ice in the
northern polar seas, which had already lost 40% of its mass from 1970 to 2003, is
mostly gone during summer by 2010. As glacial ice melts, sea levels rise and as
wintertime sea extent decreases, ocean waves increase in intensity, damaging coastal
cities. Additionally millions of people are put at risk of flooding around the globe
(roughly 4 times 2003 levels), and fisheries are disrupted as water temperature
changes cause fish to migrate to new locations and habitats, increasing tensions over
fishing rights.


Also well credentialed and "respected" scientists have predicted calamities as above. My favorite, living in Florida on the Atlantic Coast as I do, is that there would be over 50,000 refugees from areas of Florida that would be underwater by,,,,,,,,,,,,Wait for it,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the year 2000.

And the first 3 links contain NO scientific data. LOADS of opinions by well credentialed and 'respected' scientists, but just opinions, no data.

I don't know if global warming is real or not. But when it is strongly pushed by 2 politicians, Gore and obama, that stand to become BILLIONAIRES from global warming investments, I am very suspicious.

 

Excellent response, Dan 40.

Global warming was a fairly well accepted theory before Michael Mann came on the scene in the late 1990s with his wild assertions and his political agenda.

Unfortunately, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) bought this fradulent sicence hook, line and sinker!

"The embarrassment that it caused to many scientists working in the field of climatology will not be soon forgotten."

The entire discussion of global warming has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it has become very hard to dig into it to reach the science.

For example, what happens to the CO2 emissions that are produced by human industrialism? I'll wager most of the self-styled global warming activists don't even know!

Well, for one thing, most of the CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans which cover 75 percent of the earth's surface.

Here is an excellent article that was published in Technology Review by MIT on the subject of global warming activism and the real science that we can believe.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f

 

This is very true, StarsAndStripes.

It appears a number of their paid supporters are alive and well in this political forum!

What they can’t refute with actual facts, they deal with by posting and injecting childish sarcasm!

 

Thanks, Ethereal.

You do very good research!

James Cessna



Check this out.

The IPCC published one graph in 1995 ( the correct one) and a completely different graph in 2000 to support Michael Mann and his highly discredited "hockey stick" model.

"The ultimate consummation of the new theory came with the release of the draft of the Third Assessment Report (TAR-2000) [11] of the IPCC. Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report. They could not even offer any scientific justification for their new line."

 

How about the science of climate?

Can you or anyone here see the false assumption you are making?
And even if Mann is wrong, the conclusion that humans influence climate is correct.

 

This is also from her 4th link.

"As the surface
warms, the hydrologic cycle (evaporation, precipitation, and runoff) accelerates
causing temperatures to rise even higher. Water vapor, the most powerful natural
greenhouse gas, traps additional heat and brings average surface air temperatures
up."

Just WHAT are we supposed to do about WATER VAPOR? That deadly gas that will surely kill us all?

 

MannieD,

Your conclusion that humans influence the world’s climate is very true.

However, our contributions are small when compared to nature's own contributions.

The big natural drivers in world climate change include increases in solar energy output, changes in the directed flow of ocean currents, changes in world cloud cover and other natural causes like volcano eruptions that release copious amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and the release of methane gas by solid methane hydrates that are situated on the vast ocean sea floor.

Our contributions to world climate change are similar to a grain of sand in a swimming pool.

 

You are correct, Dan40.

The self-styled environmentalists in this group would have us stop breathing!

The big natural drivers in world climate change include increases in solar energy output, changes in the directed flow of ocean currents, changes in world cloud cover and other natural causes like volcano eruptions that release copious amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and the release of methane gas by solid methane hydrates that are situated on the vast ocean sea floor.

Water vapor released by the breath of humans and other animals is a strong greenhouse gas, and it too causes the atmosphere to warm.

Again, our man-made contributions to world climate change are similar to a grain of sand in a swimming pool.

 

Amount of WV in the atmosphere depends on temperature. WV is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days. Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not depend on temperature. CO2 takes decades to be removed from the atmosphere.

So I post a link to explain the science and you don't even bother reading it? Why do you ask for information if you have already made up your mind? If that's the case, I really don't care if you continue to remain ignorant of the facts, maths and theory of climate. But I am not going to waste my time with someone who wants to preach instead of discuss!

 

There is also widely accepted scientific evidence of increased temperatures on Mars. It must be caused by those fleets of Rovers we've sent there causing traffic jams all over the Red Planet!
It is either man's fault, or Bush's fault.

 

You have to be kidding me!

Your link, "The Science of Doom" is a personal blog. It contains nothing but opinions by people who are non-scientists.

There is no reputable science information in this source whatsoever.

In all due respect, if this is the best you can do, you need to go back and take a basic science course in middle school!

By the way, what evidence do you have that, "WV is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days"?

Anyone who knows anything about science knows water vapor is always present in the atmosphere as long as the relative humidity is above zero percent!

By the way, the clouds you see in the sky? ... Clouds are nothing more than condensed water vapor!

Again, if this is the best you can do, you need to go back and take a basic science course in middle school!

 

Then you should have an easy time correcting his "opinions". You can start here:

 

Come now!

This information is out of date and incomplete and you know it!

Here is the discalimer that was included with the article.

"Note: This article was significantly updated August 5th, 2010. Therefore, many comments became obsolete, or at least proved their worth, by encouraging an update"

By the way, what evidence do you have that, "WV is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days"?

^^^

Again, if this is the best you can do, you need to go back and take a basic science course in middle school!

Then you will be able to correct the article!

Haha!

 

Yeah, I did not think you could.
Please read the disclaimer carefully! Note by bold. "comments" in the comments section have become obsolete; not the facts in the article.

 

You are funny!

You are blowing smoke and you know it!

Again, what evidence do you have that, "WV is removed from the atmosphere in a matter of days"?

^