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

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

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?

I've answered it for you already. You just didn't like the answer. The big con is not dependent on everyone being in on it. It is however dependent on marks like you thinking that everyone has to be in on it. The bigger the con and the older the con the easier it is to control. This con is big it is controlled by manipulating human nature not everyone has to be in on it the mark just has to think that everyone would have to be in on it. It is also very old "the sky is falling" and the "I can control the weather" are two of the oldest cons in existence if not the two oldest because they work.

How do you manipulate billions of people. You create a body with the air of being the absolute authority. The undecided middle will do what that body says. That is why protecting the hockey stick and the IPCC is so important. The success of the con is 100% dependent on the appeared authority of the IPCC.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I've answered it for you already. You just didn't like the answer. The big con is not dependent on everyone being in on it. It is however dependent on marks like you thinking that everyone has to be in on it. The bigger the con and the older the con the easier it is to control. This con is big it is controlled by manipulating human nature not everyone has to be in on it the mark just has to think that everyone would have to be in on it. It is also very old "the sky is falling" and the "I can control the weather" are two of the oldest cons in existence if not the two oldest because they work.

How do you manipulate billions of people. You create a body with the air of being the absolute authority. The undecided middle will do what that body says. That is why protecting the hockey stick and the IPCC is so important. The success of the con is 100% dependent on the appeared authority of the IPCC.

Yes, they're "all in" on the Hockey Stick and IPCC...

They've been selling this nonsense world wide for quite a while now, and have been using the HS as a weapon against the public, but then try to hide from true scientists. If they admit any of what they've previously done was innaccurate, then the fraud is up, and they've got a tough resell on their hands.

The fringe left will always go along with any scheme that grows the size and power of government - so they're always easy shills; but the squishy liberal, and suburban soccer mom will be harder to bring back.

The tide is turning though... the percentages are beginning to move toward more people being skeptical - which is progress. I give you a lot of credit for continuing to fight the good fight - I gave up years ago. I'm a chemist; I know many other chemists, and many people in other fields of science - physics, geology... actually know a meteorologist too - none of us, not one, believes that CO2 is a driver of climate. When the subject is brought up??? we all get a good chuckle at how they get away with selling it.

In reality, however, it is no laughing matter... the left is already doing tremendous damage to economies, and hurting the poorest of the poor in the world. Really, I don't know how they sleep at night - ignorance is bliss I guess.

Originally Posted by wist43

Yes, they're "all in" on the Hockey Stick and IPCC...

They've been selling this nonsense world wide for quite a while now, and have been using the HS as a weapon against the public, but then try to hide from true scientists. If they admit any of what they've previously done was innaccurate, then the fraud is up, and they've got a tough resell on their hands.

The fringe left will always go along with any scheme that grows the size and power of government - so they're always easy shills; but the squishy liberal, and suburban soccer mom will be harder to bring back.

The tide is turning though... the percentages are beginning to move toward more people being skeptical - which is progress. I give you a lot of credit for continuing to fight the good fight - I gave up years ago. I'm a chemist; I know many other chemists, and many people in other fields of science - physics, geology... actually know a meteorologist too - none of us, not one, believes that CO2 is a driver of climate. When the subject is brought up??? we all get a good chuckle at how they get away with selling it.

In reality, however, it is no laughing matter... the left is already doing tremendous damage to economies, and hurting the poorest of the poor in the world. Really, I don't know how they sleep at night - ignorance is bliss I guess.

You are very correct, wist43.

A recent MIT study also confirms anthropogenic global warming is not near the problem the IPCC (United Nations) has made it our to be!

"Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of carbon to the atmosphere are about 7 GtC. The ocean-atmosphere flux is about 90 GtC per year, with a net ocean uptake of 2 ± 0.8 GtC (IPCC, 1996). On a time scale of a thousand years, over 90% of today’s anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will be transferred to the ocean. Discharging CO2 directly to the ocean would accelerate this ongoing, but slow, natural process and would reduce both peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their rate of increase."

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/overview.PDF

ABSTRACT

The ocean represents the largest potential sink for anthropogenic CO2. Discharging CO2 directly to the ocean would accelerate the ongoing, but slow, natural processes by which over 90% of present-day emissions are currently entering the ocean indirectly and would reduce both peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their rate of increase. This paper discusses the options for finding ocean sequestration strategies that are environmentally sound, economically viable, and technically feasible. In addition, some current research projects in this area are highlighted.

INTRODUCTION

The ocean represents the largest potential sink for anthropogenic CO2. It already contains an estimated 40,000 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) compared with only 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 2,200 GtC in the terrestrial biosphere (IPCC, 1996). As a result, the amount of carbon that would cause a doubling of the atmospheric concentration would change the ocean concentration by less than 2%.

Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of carbon to the atmosphere are about 7 GtC. The ocean-atmosphere flux is about 90 GtC per year, with a net ocean uptake of 2 ± 0.8 GtC (IPCC, 1996). On a time-scale of a thousand years, over 90% of today’s anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will be transferred to the ocean. Discharging CO2 directly to the ocean would accelerate this ongoing, but slow, natural process and would reduce both peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their rate of increase.

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/overview.PDF

The hockey stick, far from being debunked, has been confirmed by several independent studies. The premise of the thread is false.

Originally Posted by Colonel K

The hockey stick, far from being debunked, has been confirmed by several independent studies. The premise of the thread is false.

Name said independent studies? I'm willing to bet the authors were all parties to climategate. I dont think we can use the world independent anymore. If climategate showed us anything it showed us that this small field, and dendroclimotology is small, works together. We can argue accuracy. And you will lose of course because you cannot beat me I know way more about this than you do. But you cannot argue that they are independent. Such an assertion about the field is a total joke. The correct world for the field does beging with an "I" but the word is not independent. Inbred is the correct term to use when describing the field of dendroclimatology.

Lets use a better term about the hockey stick. Mann made many errors that produced a spurious results. Several of Mann's friends and I use that term loosely because behind closed doors most team does not like the man, have also produced hockey sticks using either the same methods and data or by finding other methods and other data that will produce the same result. None of these methods or data like Briffa's Yammal chronology are any more accurate than the original flawed hockey stick. There are other reconstructions that do not show a hockey stick but we will ignore those because they do not show what we want. So the hockey stick has been verified by Mann's friends with the exception of when it hasn't. If that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by Windigo

Name said independent studies? I'm willing to bet the authors were all parties to climategate. I dont think we can use the world independent anymore. If climategate showed us anything it showed us that this small field, and dendroclimotology is small, works together. We can argue accuracy. And you will lose of course because you cannot beat me I know way more about this than you do. But you cannot argue that they are independent. Such an assertion about the field is a total joke.

You are very correct, Windigo.

People who blithely make the following statements are "arm waving" and “cheer leading” and that is all. They are not scientists and know just enough about the subject to be dangerous.

“The hockey stick, far from being debunked, has been confirmed by several independent studies. The premise of the thread is false.”

Originally Posted by wist43

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.

You say you're a chemist and yet describe the peer review process as being absolved by your buddies? I hope you'll forgive me if I say that rather strains credibility. Just what sort of chemist are you? What field? What sort of work do you do? Do you belong to the American Chemical Society? You do realize the ACS's official position on climate change is as follows:

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.”

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/cor...4-c665b30697e5

And I am not biased. Personally, I would be overjoyed to find out that global warming wasn't a real problem. I do not enjoy contemplating the possible repercussions of a change in the environment that could land a succession of heavy body blows to our society. I want to believe that the issue has been overblown and isn't really any big deal. But I've seen quite a lot of compelling evidence that says otherwise. I am entirely open to real evidence to the contrary, but frankly, you have a very high bar to pass when you're going up against things like absolutely definitive statements from the AAAS and NAS, major corporations like Chrysler and DuPont and Shell Oil saying not only that climate change is real but that it's so serious that they're asking the government to regulate and tax them, the Pentagon actively planning for the national security consequences of climate change, and the fact that there's not one single professional scientific organization anywhere in the world that is disputing that climate change is real.

The phrase "prosecutorial evidence which shows guilt" implies evidence of sufficient quality that you could use it in court. I think it's a safe bet that if you tried to take this stuff about bristlecones into any courthouse, the judge will read you the riot act for wasting their time and through you out on your butt. And considering that Dr Mann and others have already been investigated by the Attorney General of Virginia who came up with a big goose egg (and not for lack of trying) my question is, what prosecutorial evidence? I haven't seen any.

What I don't care about is trying to use technical criticisms of particular studies to imply that climate change doesn't exist at all. I am not qualified to evaluate the technical details of paleoclimate reconstructions. I don't know how to take a ceiling high stack of raw data and turn it into a statistically valid reconstruction of global trends. So I leave it to the people who are qualified to evaluate it, like the AAAS and NAS. If you have a real, valid criticism of a particular study, then write it up and submit it for publication. That's what McKitrick and McIntyre did. And if your arguments can't meet the very basic requirements of rigor to get published, don't expect me to take you seriously.

All I've seen from the deniers in this thread so far are vague accusations, technobabble quibbles that I strongly suspect you lot don't really understand yourselves, and whenever I ask a probing question or two, all I get is a lot of handwaving and "It's a conspiracy!" If that's all you've got, I think I'm entirely justified in outright laughing at you. That's not bias, that's a realistic assessment of the strength of the "evidence" submitted so far.

Originally Posted by wist43

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.

You're absolutely right, that is exactly how science works, and that's exactly the process that climate change science has gone through over the last few decades. And the fact is that the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis has not only stood up to everything anyone could throw at it, but it's only gotten stronger as more research has been done.

Originally Posted by wist43

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.

Errr, thanks for the pack of Morely's, but honest, I don't smoke. Did you fall asleep watching an X-Files marathon or something? You do realize that FOIA applies to government agencies, not private individuals, right? In any case, if this is all some grand scheme to seize political power, who exactly is it trying to gain power? Michael Mann? You really think he wants to be the Emperor of Evil or something? The guy's a professor at Penn State - not exactly a career track noted for leading to the seats of power. Seriously, how exactly is this power grab supposed to work? I don't exactly see people winning elections on climate change.

Originally Posted by wist43

Yes, they're "all in" on the Hockey Stick and IPCC...

They've been selling this nonsense world wide for quite a while now, and have been using the HS as a weapon against the public, but then try to hide from true scientists. If they admit any of what they've previously done was innaccurate, then the fraud is up, and they've got a tough resell on their hands.

The fringe left will always go along with any scheme that grows the size and power of government - so they're always easy shills; but the squishy liberal, and suburban soccer mom will be harder to bring back.

The tide is turning though... the percentages are beginning to move toward more people being skeptical - which is progress. I give you a lot of credit for continuing to fight the good fight - I gave up years ago. I'm a chemist; I know many other chemists, and many people in other fields of science - physics, geology... actually know a meteorologist too - none of us, not one, believes that CO2 is a driver of climate. When the subject is brought up??? we all get a good chuckle at how they get away with selling it.

In reality, however, it is no laughing matter... the left is already doing tremendous damage to economies, and hurting the poorest of the poor in the world. Really, I don't know how they sleep at night - ignorance is bliss I guess.

So if the AAAS and NAS aren't "real" scientists, then who exactly is? And since when do good scientists refuse to admit they were wrong? Okay, scientists are as human as everyone else, but the field is driven by the evidence. If the evidence says undeniably that you're wrong, then you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Windigo

I've answered it for you already. You just didn't like the answer. The big con is not dependent on everyone being in on it. It is however dependent on marks like you thinking that everyone has to be in on it. The bigger the con and the older the con the easier it is to control. This con is big it is controlled by manipulating human nature not everyone has to be in on it the mark just has to think that everyone would have to be in on it. It is also very old "the sky is falling" and the "I can control the weather" are two of the oldest cons in existence if not the two oldest because they work.

How do you manipulate billions of people. You create a body with the air of being the absolute authority. The undecided middle will do what that body says. That is why protecting the hockey stick and the IPCC is so important. The success of the con is 100% dependent on the appeared authority of the IPCC.

ROFLMAO That's your "answer"? Seriously? That's hilarious. That's not an answer, that's running around waving your arms shouting "It's a conspiracy!"

The AAAS and NAS have both made absolutely unambiguous position statements that as far as they are concerned climate change is real, humans are responsible, it's going to be bad, and we need to start doing something about it right now.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...tatement.shtml
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Now if you are correct that global warming is all a giant con, then logically that would mean that the AAAS and NAS must either be in on the con, or have been taken in by it, yes? If they're in on the con, why? What do they have to gain from such a thing? If they've been taken in by the con, how? These are about the most respected professional scientific organizations in the world. The AAAS has 125,000 members, and the NAS has 2,000 members, about one in ten of whom have a Nobel Prize. These are some of the smartest, best informed, most qualified people on the planet. How exactly were they duped? If you can't make some sort of case for one of these alternatives or make a case for a reasonable third choice, then how does your argument have any credibility at all? Why should anyone believe such a conspiracy exists when you can't even venture a guess about the most basic aspects of its operation? How is your so called con any more credible then theories involving aliens and CIA mind control rays?

Now your basic argument is that Dr Mann and assorted conspirators are simply lying and making up evidence in order to promote their political agenda, correct? How is that any more supportable then the argument that Fox News and assorted conspirators are simply lying and making up evidence in order to promote their political agenda? If you can take an argument and simply reverse the proper nouns and have it still sound just as credible, it's really not much of an argument, now is it?

Originally Posted by James Cessna

You are very correct, wist43.

A recent MIT study also confirms anthropogenic global warming is not near the problem the IPCC (United Nations) has made it our to be!

"Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of carbon to the atmosphere are about 7 GtC. The ocean-atmosphere flux is about 90 GtC per year, with a net ocean uptake of 2 ± 0.8 GtC (IPCC, 1996). On a time scale of a thousand years, over 90% of today’s anthropogenic emissions of CO2 will be transferred to the ocean. Discharging CO2 directly to the ocean would accelerate this ongoing, but slow, natural process and would reduce both peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their rate of increase."

http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/overview.PDF

So, James, what you're saying now is that climate change is enough of a concern that we should invest in equipping power plants and other such facilities with technology to capture the CO2 and further invest in the infrastructure to artificially inject that CO2 into the deep ocean? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

You are very correct, Windigo.

People who blithely make the following statements are "arm waving" and “cheer leading” and that is all. They are not scientists and know just enough about the subject to be dangerous.

“The hockey stick, far from being debunked, has been confirmed by several independent studies. The premise of the thread is false.”

So the AAAS and NAS aren't scientists and know just enough to be dangerous? Then who exactly are scientists? Glenn Beck?

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

ROFLMAO That's your "answer"? Seriously? That's hilarious. That's not an answer, that's running around waving your arms shouting "It's a conspiracy!"

Its not a conspiracy. Its a con. Learn the difference. The con is dependent on you thinking it has to be a conspiracy. You really are the perfect mark. You think everyone has to be in on it. They don't. They are just as much of a mark as you are.