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

Sorry, James, wish I could, afraid I can't. It's true that the terrestrial biosphere does absorb massive quantities of CO2, (mainly through photosynthesis) it also emits massive quantities of CO2 (mainly through respiration). Remember that plants burn a lot of the sugars they make with photosynthesis for energy, and that most plants tissues wind up either being eaten or decomposing, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere. Only a very small portion of the carbon absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere stays out of the atmosphere for any length of time. As with the oceans, there's a fair amount of uncertainty about the exact figures, but overall the terrestrial biosphere seems to absorb a net amount of about 1 GtC/y. Compared to human CO2 emissions of around 7 GtC/y, this is actually quite small.

Gross terrestrial carbon uptake: 101.5 GtC/y, Net terrestrial carbon uptake: 0.7 GtC/y, Anthropegenic carbon emissions: 7.7 GtC/y
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/graphics/c_cycle.htm
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Net terrestrial uptake: ~1 GtC/y
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

Net terrestrial uptake in 1980's: 0.3 - 1.5 GtC/y
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001.../2000GB001298.shtml

Human emissions: 7.5 ± 1.5 GtC/y, Atmospheric increase: 3.4 ± 0.2 GtC/y, Oceanic net uptake: 2.0 ± 0.8 GtC/y, Which means that the terrestrial uptake plus the mystery sink(s) may be up to 4 GtC/y
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/3/c003p001.pdf

The key phrase you seem to be missing here is "On a time scale of a thousand years." That means that if we stop emitting CO2 now, that the oceans should return CO2 levels to normal in something like a millennium. Which doesn't help much when we're looking at severe consequences coming at us on the time scale of decades. (Or less)

Also, the point of this paper is to study the possibility of artificially injecting CO2 into the ocean to sequester it. This is exactly the sort of mitigation effort that we're saying we need to do to deal with climate change.

Yes, water vapor is overall a more important greenhouse gas on Earth then CO2. But we aren't monkeying with the levels of water vapor, we are with CO2. Atmospheric water vapor levels are controlled by a dynamic equilibrium that human activities have not had any real impact on. At least not so far.

As for that graph, you do realize that it's 20 years out of date? That the section that uses it also discusses changing precipitation levels in the Soviet Union? It was a very early attempt at a reconstruction that had a great deal of uncertainty (as the original context makes clear) that excludes several important data sets because they hadn't been adequately calibrated at the time, such as all tree ring data. Judging by the look of the graph, it quite clearly doesn't include the historic instrumental record, either.

Here's what the report the graph comes from says about it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

In 1990, there was still a lot of uncertainty about how real and how severe anthropogenic climate change was. However, the state of the science has progressed quite a bit in the last 20 years, and now there really isn't any room to doubt the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Here's the most recent version of that graph (from 2007)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

Personally, I think this graph is really too busy, which makes it hard to see what's really going on, but if you look closely, you will see that distinct signatures from the medieval warm period and the little ice age are there, just not as prominent as in the earlier graph. As was stated in the original 1990 report, there was doubt whether those events were truly global climate variations or not, and in fact it turns out that they're really not. Neither event had a uniform impact across the globe, and different regions saw different impacts at different times.

On the other hand, the warming we're seeing today is global and is happening at the same time. So, to answer the questions posed, the medieval warm period was not warmer then today, and was not the same sort of climate event that's occurring now. And solar variability is a good candidate for the temperature changes seen in the early 20th century, but what we've been seeing since the middle of the 20th century is simply far beyond what can be accounted for by solar activity.

 

This sentiment I can understand...

...this one I cannot. People who are foolish enough to cling to their egotistical investments in silly ideas deserve every adversity that befalls them on that account. It is the rest of us who don't deserve such adversities.

 

*Sigh*

You guys really need to stop obsessing over Michael Mann and the IPCC. Even if you could actually prove that they're deliberately fabricating data and everything they've ever done is a complete fraud, it wouldn't change the debate at all.

Dr Mann is just one researcher out of... I don't know, hundreds? Thousands? Of people working on the climate. Toss out his entire life's work and you'll have hardly reduced the evidence for climate change at all.

And the IPCC doesn't do research at all. They don't do the science, and they don't find the evidence. All they do is report it. The IPCC's only function is to collate and summarize the science that other people have done and is freely accessible to anyone who wants to see it because it was published in peer reviewed journals for the benefit of non technical people. That's it. All they are is the Reader's Digest of climatology. Completely tossing out everything the IPCC has ever done doesn't effect the original research at all.

And I have to admit that I'm one of the people who wouldn't know a singular value from a Cingular cellphone. I kinda dropped linear algebra when I switched majors, and never even got to the real statistics courses... So since I know I'm not qualified to go over the details of the research, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of everyone else here at Politicalforum aren't qualified either, how about we listen to the people who are qualified?

Like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), one of the most respected professional scientific organizations in the world.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml

Or the US National Academy of Sciences?

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence is conclusive, and the scientific consensus is nearly unanimous. Those sources who are saying otherwise are simply, deliberately lying to you.

The real issue here is not about the facts or the science, it's not about the reality of climate change. It's about what do we do about it. I apologize if I'm mistakenly misrepresenting anyone's views, but the impression I've gotten is that the real issue here is that many skeptics are worried that if they admit to the reality of climate change, that will automatically lead to drastic political changes they are entirely opposed to. Now I completely understand why you'd be concerned about heavy handed government regulation and excessive taxes on fossil fuels and similar things, and I share those concerns.

I would like to suggest to you that by taking the approach of denying there's a problem is actually increasing the risk of a bad outcome like that. Isn't it true that waiting for a problem to become a dire crisis pretty much always mean that you will wind up having to use a more draconian and expensive response then if you had dealt with the problem earlier? If the most severe consequences of global warming come to pass, we will most certainly have to take a far more drastic approach then anything being proposed today. Isn't taking a purely obstructionist approach essentially just gambling that the effects of climate change will be mild? And is that really a good bet?

If conservatives were to engage on the issue of climate change now, you'd be able to have a lot of input in shaping what the final deal looks like. You can lend us your expertise in making sure that any legislation has as little impact on businesses as possible, and that it protects the economy. I'm sure that conservatives can contribute many imaginative and creative ways to craft legislation so that it would rely on individual initiative and the free market rather then direct government intervention. I think that would be an extremely good thing for all of us. On the other hand, if we do nothing now and we are faced with a major crisis in the not so distant future, we'll be forced to take the most drastic actions in order to produce immediate results.

Besides, the solution to climate change is to find economical alternatives to fossil fuels. Does anyone really disagree that would be a good thing? Does anyone disagree that would help the US both economically and politically? Does anyone actually want to stay dependent on Middle Eastern oil? Think of all the things that tie in to oil in today's world, from terrorism to gas prices. Think of the benefits we could get from removing oil as a factor. Isn't a gradual, market based approach to finding alternatives worthwhile just on its own merits, climate change aside?

 

We did investigate further. We found that what Mann had done was quite simple. His original hockey stick relied 100% on his bristlecone series. Not only did McIntyre identify this Mann himself had identified it years earlier when he ran his algorithm without the suspect proxies and didn't get a hockey stick. Mann kept it to himself though and chose to call his reconstruction "robust". Meaning that it wasn't dependent on one set or small collection of sets. It wasn't until McIntyre found the runs buried in Mann’s FTP server did we learn that Mann knew full well that his reconstruction was dependent on one series.

In Manns second hockey stick the trick is the same but with one more player. The tiljander series.

You said

Now is that minus the tiljander series and the bristlecones or just the tiljander series? Well I know the answer because you are just copying what Mann said in his paper. Dr. Mann removed each proxy series individually. Every time the algorithm produced a hockey stick. The conclusion was that the hockey stick was "robust" because it depended on no single proxy. Well that is nice but to be "robust" a reconstruction shouldn't be dependent on any single proxy or set of a few select proxies.

We know for a fact that Dr. Mann's second hockey stick has two bogus temperature proxies. The bristlecone pines for Colorado, and the upside down tiljander lake sediment from Finland. What we skeptics found was quite obvious and also quite simple. When Dr. Mann removed the bristle cones the tiljander lake sediment dominated the series. When he removed the tiljander lake sediment the bristle cones dominate the reconstruction. When you removed both the hockey stick vanished. You had to as McIntyre put it "watch the pea under the thimble." Dr. Mann had finally figured out how to make his reconstruction "robust", instead of having just one bogus proxy use two. After all the 49ers would have never won 5 super bowls if they hadn't had Steve Young waiting in reserve.

Wow that is blast from the past! Boy you are so outdated. Its like I've gone in a time machine. Warmmongers like yourself haven't been using that line since the starbucks experiment.

For those of you who dont know hack warmmongers like caerbannog back in the early days of the blog wars liked to criticize skeptics for only analyzing their data and not doing the hard work of actually collecting their own series. We often criticized warmmongers for not updating their series and warmmongers responded by commenting on just how hard it was to collect series and that our demmands were unresonable. So Steve McIntyre and some other volunteer skeptics made the warmmongers eat their own words. It was the starbucks experiment.

The starbucks experiment was simple. It began with the hypothesis that McIntyre and friends could have their morning starbucks coffee, go to the original graybill site in Collarado where the bristle cone cores were collected, identify all the trees that graybill had taken cores from, take new cores from those trees, new cores from other trees as to create a more complete network, and get back to starbucks in time to enjoy an evening coffee.

The entire experiment was documented from the morning coffee, to the graybill site, to the evening starbucks. It was in fact possible to have a morning starbucks coffee, get out the site, update the entire series, and get back to starbuck in time for evening coffee. After the experiment the starbucks hypothisis was found to be a scientific fact and the earlier argument by the warmmongers that updating series was "hard" was falsified. In the years following that experiment I have not heard a warmmonger make that argument again until today. He must not remember all the egg the warmmongers had to wipe off their face after the starbucks experiment.

Nice graph, too bad I know what it is. Minus 7, hmm what does minus 7 mean. Well it means the reconstruction minus 7 problmatic series. Which problamatic series well we just need to look at the paper.

So we have the 4 Tiljander series, a series from Benson, a series from Isdale, and a series from McCulloch. 4+1+1+1 = 7. So those are the 7 in your Minus 7 series. Funny I don’t see Graybill in there. Tiljander isn’t' Graybill. Benson isn't Graybill. Isdale isn't Graybill. McCulloch isn’t' Graybill. No Graybill isn't in that list. That funny I thought that the Graybill series in the data set were also problematic after all bristlecones aren't temperature proxies. They are CO2 proxies. Graybill originally collected the series for that reason. Bristle cones weren’t responsive to temperature so they best served the analysis that Graybill was doing. You would think that Minus 7 should be Minus 8. That’s what a smart person without an agenda would do isn't it? It should be minus 8 TiljanderX4, Benson, Isdale, McCulloch, and Graybill. 4+1+1+1+1 = 8. Dr. Mann should be removing 8 series not 7 shouldn’t he? If he only removes 7 and keeps Graybill then Graybill will dominate the series just as it did in his original hockey stick. Oh wait what am I saying that is exactly what Dr. Mann wants. Pea under the thimble readers, you have to watch the pea under the thimble. When the tiljander series is removed Dr. Mann relies on the good old Bristlecones to create a hockey stick. When the bristlecones are removed he relies on the upside down tiljander. Neither of them are valid temperature proxies.

You just proved that whole approach is unworkable. No one has argued that bristle cones are noise. They aren't. They are actually a CO2 proxy. That is why Graybill collected them. And that is why they have a hockey stick shape. They have a large eigenvalue because they aren't noise but they also aren't temperature. The same goes for tiljander lake sediment. It’s not noise. It actually is a temperature proxy. If it is right side up that is.

I think you misread Kerfuffle. Its not that he is using red noise. Its that the algorithm that Mann uses does the same thing with red noise as it does with real series. That is statistics something you don’t understand. Sure you can run the numbers but you don’t understand why it is being done. If you want to show that your method is valid you have to show that it doesn't give you the same results when you run random noise though it. That is called verification something that Dr. Mann doesn't like and prefers to lie about. Never forget that MBH 98 said that they in fact did R2 statistical verification of their method and it passed. He lied. His method failed R2 verification it only passed RE verification which is a bogus verification invited by climate scientists because their methods cannot pass standards statistical verification.

I don’t really want to waste my time because it’s not the purpose of red noise verification the question is can Manns algorithm tell the difference. It cant. You're argument is a strawman based on a poor understanding of what statistical verification is.

 

Ah yes the Wahl-Amman approach. You know its not what you say but how you say it. There is nothing what Wahl and Amman found that McIntyre and Ross McKitrick hadn't said in MM03 and or MM05. Its all in how you say it. Wahl-Amman said that by including enough PCs they were able to get a hockey stick. Yay hockey stick is back. But MM05 had already shown that you can get the hockey stick to reappear if you include all the way to the 4th PC. But their analysis was the correct one. First, you shouldn't even include the 4th PC in a reconstruction such inclusion is very hard to justify. Second, if you do and the reconstructions shape determined by the 4th PC its obviously a spurious reconstruction. No reconstruction should have its shape determined by a 4th PC. Third but most certainly not last, the 4th PC is once again the Graybill bristlecone series a known bogus proxy so your reconstruction is just as bogus as the bristlecones. You warmmongers just want people to believe that a known bogus temperature proxy can produce a valid temperature reconstruction its downright insane.

You see its not what you say but how you say it. All Wahl and Amman did was copy McIntyre and McKitrick and put their own far less honest spin on it. They really did no real work.

 

The human must adapt, but if the change is to rapid, their latency of adaptation will fail. The change we see is a gradual one. It will not be for another generation or two that we see the significance of the effects these charts have.

 

Windigo, I do believe you've missed your calling. You should have been a script writer for The X-Files. Seriously, you seem to have a real talent for taking a handful of basic accusations and weaving them together to make it sound like something substantial.

But that's really all you've presented here, accusations. Have you done the math? Do you have the numbers to back it up? If you do, then I'd suggest you write it up and submit it for publication, like McKitrick did. If you don't, then please spare us the tirade.

McKitrick did do the math and did have the numbers, and as a result he got published and his criticisms looked at very seriously, and some of them were found to be entirely valid. But correcting those things did not get rid of the hockey stick.

I am not qualified to get into the nitty gritty of statistical analysis. And judging from the conspicuous lack of any sort of math from your posts, I strongly suspect neither are you. However, people who are qualified have been over this time and time again, and the result is many much newer reconstructions that all say pretty much the same thing. I count a dozen in the graph from the 2007 IPCC report I posted above. And let's not forget that the "blade" of the hockey stick is formed by the historical instrumental record.

No matter how hard you try, you can't make the instrumental record go away. And you can't make the unprecedented statements from the AAAS and National Academy of Science go away. And you can't make major corporations lobbying for taxes and regulations on themselves go away. And you can't make the fact that every single professional scientific organization on the planet agrees that climate change is real. Even if everything you said about Dr Mann turned out to be completely true, it wouldn't matter because that's just a tiny piece of the evidence that says unequivocally that climate change is real, that humans are responsible, it's going to be bad, and we'd better do something about it.

~_~ Dude...

I hate to break it to you, but going out and collecting the tree cores is the easy part. I can tell you from experience - at college I had a part time job helping a research project at the Ag department. Root growth in peach tree saplings. Going out in the field to collect the data was the fun part. The not fun part was spending hours of going over photos of tree roots growing one frame at a time, measuring root growth in each one. After a few hours of that, my back was killing me and my eyes felt like they were about to explode. And that's just the grunt work. The part that takes real expertise is taking all those reams of numbers I generated and turning them into something meaningful.

 

Tell that to New Orleans.

 

Actually they did get rid of the hockey stick. Its only when you correct the problems piece meal that you can still get the hockey stick. Aven the NAS found that the approach of trying to reverse engineer a hockey stick wasn't a valid one.

If you don’t do short centered PC analysis but still leave in the bristlecones and include all the way to the 4th PC you will get a hockey stick. MM05 showed this so did Wahl-Amman. The only difference is the spin that is put on it. Wahl and Amman lie to your face so you think that such an approach is valid MM tell you the truth. Its all in how you spin it. WA and MM say the same thing its just how its spun.

If you remove the bristlecones from the set entirely you will not get a hockey stick. Mind you this is something that MM didn't even realize until Mann let the importance of the Graybill series slip in his first response to MM03. It was Mann's own big mouth that put MM on scent of the importance of Graybill’s bristlecones to Mann's reconstruction. At the time of MM03 they had no clue. Warmmongers often like to time travel and create time paradoxes with MM03 and MM05 where they address MM03 and ignore MM05 in some instances and then do the opposite a few sentences later.

However, you can remove the bristlecones so long as you go out and find another hockey stick proxy like upside-down tiljander. And then you will once again get a hockey stick so long as you include enough PCs and ignore the fact that a 4th PC is determining the shape of your reconstruction.

There are lots of ways to skin a cat, just as there are lots of ways to get a hockey stick. But none of them are accurate or particularly honest.

I wish I could but the fact of the matter is that Dr. Mann is just an arrogant yet absent minded intellectual. He just forgot that the runs where there. He tried to delete a few things from the FTP server early on like his pcproxy.txt file so he could argue that MM didn't use his exact data. To bad there were already multiple copies and it was quite clear that they did.

 

Which is all entirely beside the point. If you really want to convince yourself that Dr Mann is some nefarious character, well, you go right ahead. But it's simply not relevant to the political question of what to do about climate change now. Throw out Dr Mann's entire life's work if you really want to. That doesn't change the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and humans are causing it. It doesn't change what the NAS and AAAS have said. Dr Mann is simply one contributor among many, and throwing out his work does not change the balance of evidence.

BTW, the argument you're making about the proxies rather sounds to me like, "Well if you take out all the data that indicates an increase in temperatures, the hockey stick disappears." Well I would certainly hope so.

Incidentally, have you ever met Dr Mann? If you haven't, don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to make personal statements impugning his character? You really need to stop obsessing over the poor guy.

 

#1 Take out all the data? I'm asking for two count em two bogus proxies to be removed. Two out of over 1000. If the hockey stick was so robust it woudn't need those two proxies would it?

#2 Show a increase in temperatures? Are you not paying attention? Bristlecones don’t show an increase in temperature. They are CO2 proxies. Graybill collected the series for that exact reason. And Tiljander lake sediment also don’t show a 20th century increase in temperature. If anything they show a decreasing temperatures because its bogus. That’s why its upside down. Scientifically speaking lake sediment density should inversely correlate with temperature. The more snow there is the more runoff and the denser the lake sediment. Got it yet! Dense sediment equals cold, thin sediment equals warm. Density is inverse to temperature. The upper layers of the sediment the 19th and 20th centuries are contaminated by human activity, road building bridge building etc.that has lead to increased sediment build up.

When Dr. Mann plugged in the Tiljander series into his algorithm it was processed with no care in the world about the science behind it and how it actually correlated to temperature. The algorithm saw the artificial increased density in the contaminated 19th and 20th century and calibrated the series so that the density positively correlated with temperature instead of inversely. So it flipped the data! That is why I say upside down Tiljander. The medieval warm period which is quite present in the data became an ice age and the little ice age became a warming that has continued to this day. Move over bristlecones upside down Tiljander is the super hockey stick. It totally bogus but no other series can survive the Tiljander medieval ice age.

Why do you keep arguing that bogus temperature proxies can show the real temperature? We know for a fact that they are wrong and we know why they are wrong.

 

To be honest? No I'm not paying attention. Because I really don't care that much about highly technical arguments about a 15 year old study. Yes, problems were found with Dr Mann's original methodology. So what? No one's ever found any evidence of deliberate malfeasance or misconduct. What possible difference does it make to anything other then to Dr. Mann's personal career and those directly involved in it? This study has long since been superseded by newer, more robust reconstructions. You'll notice that the IPCC graph I put up a few posts ago doesn't even use Mann's original "hockey stick" at all. In fact, the oldest reconstruction they use is from 1998, just nine years before the report was published.

You are relitigating something that has long since ceased to be relevant and consigned to history. And I really honestly just don't care. I care about what's going on now, about the state of climate science today. And today the evidence is crystal clear that climate change is real and humans are causing it. So the question now is what are we going to do about it, if anything?

BTW, have you actually read the 2007 IPCC report? You might want to see what's actually in it before you make up your mind about it.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

 

If only the liberals in this group would get this angry over being duped and misled by the evangelists and profiteers of the great global warming hoax!

 

Actually when I'm referring to tiljander I'm talking about Mann 08 not MBH 98. Tiljander wasn't in MBH 98. I'm sorry if you are too ignorant of the subject to keep up.

 

Its fundamental to the con. The mark would rather lose everything than admit that they were dumb enough to fall for the con in the first place. There isn't' a con ever been run where the mark at one point in time didn't at some level realize that they were being conned. But the ego gets in the way and prevents them from backing out. Once they are in the con they are 100% committed on the slim hope that they weren't stupid and that their ego can survive intact.

 

If only the conservatives in this group would get this angry over being duped and misled by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and company...

Pot, kettle, anyone?

Which is more likely? That certain news outlets known to be beholden to certain corporate interests and that have been known to blatantly make up "facts" in the past would lie about the state of the science, or that there would be a conspiracy involving millions of people around the world at the highest levels of science, industry, government, academia, and the military?

If there are problems with Dr Mann's newer work, then where are the papers demonstrating the problems? Or have Dr Mann's nefarious agents broken McKitrick and McIntyre's writing hands or something?

 

Just to keep things in perspective here, there haven't been any legitimate "highly technical arguments" advanced here against Mann's original work. All I've seen here is "skeptics" copying and pasting techno bafflegab that they don't understand.

It takes a lot more than "Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V" to compose an intelligent technical argument.

 

Copying and pasting? I can do this from memory. I've been following this before there was a realclimate, or climate audit. I've been part of this since fights on usenet. I can do this from memory since I understand it perfectly. The problem is you dont. Or do you still not know why we use red noise for verification?

 

Oy vey, not the grand conspiracy bit again. For the umpteenth time, how can someone perpetrate a con when they have to publish a detailed account of how exactly they did it in a magazine? and explain the involvement of the AAAS, NAS, US-CAP, DOD, the national academies of a dozen major nations and every professional scientific organization in the world.

Answer the questions or admit you can't.

If you understand this perfectly, then it should be easy for you to show us the math. Show your work, Windigo, like actual scientists do.

Hmmm, constantly shifting goalposts, elaborate conspiracy theories in response to logical holes in your argument, and simply ignoring questions you can't answer. Tell us, Windigo, who exactly is acting like their ego is committed to their position here?

 

Kessy_Athena,

You are not being fair and objective in this debate.

Why should Windigo be required to show his math when you will not show YOUR math?

Do you not see you have set an unfair double-standard for people who do not agree with you?



"It seems to be getting much colder! ... Not warmer!"

 

You are funny!

You ignore the valid technical and scientific arguments and endorse all the "arm waving" that supports Michael Mann's deceptive work!

 

You're right, the way I put it does sound unfair, and I apologize. I misspoke. I didn't mean to sound like Windigo should have to personally do the math themselves. I meant to say, "Show that the math has been done by someone." And that is not a double standard at all. The peer review process is basically an exercise in showing your work and showing your math. And the science behind climate change is all in peer reviewed journals and freely available for anyone to see. Including you and Windigo. If you want to see the math supporting climate change science, then just go through the archives of Science http://www.sciencemag.org/ or Nature http://www.nature.com/ Or you could always just go and read the IPCC report, which summarizes the evidence nicely. Which is why it exists in the first place. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

So what I'm saying is that others have already shown the work on proving climate change, and it's freely available to anyone who wants to see it. It's only fair to ask you guys to do the same, isn't it?

 

I'm new here. Is it safe for me to assume that the opening post has been thoroughly debunked?

 

Kessy, the alarmists haven't "freely" shown anything; they've obstructed FOIA requests, deleted emails, conspired to intimidate, "lost" documents, and then covered it all up by having their buddies "absolve" them (what you call "peer review").

And what were they covering up??? At best data manipulation, in reality scientific fraud. Read Windigo's posts - he's doing a pretty good job of exposing the shenanigans... but as you've all but admitted, you don't care about prosecutorial evidence which shows guilt, all you care to "believe" is the snake oil salesmens pitch and cover up.

You're a juror who is so biased, you can't possibly render an honest, accurate verdict.

Scientific theories are supposed to be torn apart. If they stand up, they stand up, and the "debate is over"; if they don't stand up, it's back to the drawing board.

The scaremongers have far too much invested, and have made far too much progress in achieving their ultimate goal, i.e. political power, to ever turn back now.

Michael Mann, Jones, et al... and now Hansen exposed as a profiteer as well... they all belong in jail. They have committed fraud, and have clearly violated FOIA laws. They have a lot of money and political clout behind them though... so nothing will happento them, nothing will change; they'll continue to peddle their snake oil, you'll continue to buy it, and the honest and informed will continue trying to stop you.

 

No but if you want to try I'll whoop your ass. Good luck, you're going to need it. Its always hard to argue from a false position.