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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by James Cessna, Jun 4, 2011.

  1. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an excellent review of the rise and eventual demise of the "Hockey Stick" theory.

    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."

    Note: This review was inadvertently posted twice when the second reference was included.
     
  2. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've never heard a credible scientist deny that there was medieval warming or that it was followed by a period of cooling. That's what climate science predicts, that global warming can trigger ice-ages, but it can also cause drastic climate and oceanic change in the meantime. This is what you are talking about.

    [​IMG]

    The amount of atmosphere that mankind adds, on top of natural gasses from volcanoes, plants and animals, is significant and exponentially rising. There is only a finite amount of Co2 that the biosphere can absorb naturally. No matter what you might believe about how certain graphs are compiled, the fact remains that we are rapidly accelerating natural processes that will lead to major changes in our habitat.

    No intelligent person would deny that.
     
  3. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Way behind the curve once more, I see. Have you anything more up to date than 2002?

    Such as this?
    " ... The paper “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence” by Wahl and Ammann assesses the results of the MBH98 by using principal component analysis in the appropriate way. Wahl and Ammann also looked at the impact of removing the Bristlecone and Foxtail Pine proxy data which McIntyre and McKitrick had criticized the use of in both MBH98 and MBH99. They published the results of their work and you can see the impact that this had on the shape of the Hockey Stick in the graph below.

    [​IMG]

    http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/?p=323

    Or this:
    "An Investigatory Committee of faculty members with impeccable credentials" has unanimously "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities."

    http://tribes.tribe.net/altenergy/thread/0fa73841-c5a2-40f9-9bf1-5aa3705f3c1c
     
  4. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The amount of atmosphere that mankind adds, on top of natural gasses from volcanoes, plants and animals, is significant and exponentially rising. There is only a finite amount of Co2 that the biosphere can absorb naturally. No matter what you might believe about how certain graphs are compiled, the fact remains that we are rapidly accelerating natural processes that will lead to major changes in our habitat."

    JoeSixPack,

    If you are really convinced that man's contributions are this significant, please provide a credible source that supports your conclusions.

    Without reliable sources, these comments are mere speculation and unsupported conclusions on your part!

    Ahha!

    I knew you could not provide a reliable source that supports your conclusions!

    How did I know that?

    James Cessna
     
  5. technobabble

    technobabble New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe in Science...really I do.

    in fact, I like graphs which show time periods of 1000 or 2000 years...and sometimes even 600,000 years of "data"

    good stuff...all of it is.

    but does anyone have a chart showing "data" with something more than that mere .0002% of Earth's 4.5 billion year existence!??...so we can see a REAL and ACCURATE display of global temperatures over some actual relevant time period??

    no...didn't think so.

    I thought the AGW believers believed in science...

    15 million years ago, Science says there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now.

    When there were no people and no Industrial Revolution.

    What was the cause then...and more importantly, why is that not the cause now??
     
  6. frodo

    frodo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,685
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>> uncritically taking stuff from an astroturf website paid for by the coal and oil industry.:



    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/



    ...And the staff:


    Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.

    This guy runs with the Cato Institute.


    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels


    Robert C. Balling, Jr. accepts money from Coal and oil companies.


    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5

    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling


    A search for the address leads us to a post office box.
     
    Diuretic and (deleted member) like this.
  7. technobabble

    technobabble New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,201
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <<<Mod Edit: Response to Flamebait Removed>>> maybe you can help me with something that still puzzles me:

    15 million years ago, Science says there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is now.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

    When there were no people and no Industrial Revolution.

    What was the cause then...and more importantly, why is that not the cause now??

    This proves that even without Man's existence, Nature can indeed cause current CO2 levels...right?
     
  8. frodo

    frodo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,685
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes of course that is true because carbon and oxygen are elemental to the planet.

    However that is not the issue.

    Do you really think that we will survive unchanged in that atmosphere?
     
  9. Joe Six-pack

    Joe Six-pack Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    10,898
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's called Chemistry 101.

    But for further reading, try these:

    The US Department of Energy:
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

    NASA:
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
    ****MOD EDIT:p/A REMOVED****
     
  10. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Come now!

    Good Grief! ... Are you aware your data are nothing more than the discredited `Hockey Stick' data extended out two years by simple curve fit to the year 2002?

    Again, where is evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age?

    Answer: It's not there!

    Here is what these data should look like.

    [​IMG]

    Check this out and compare your graph to this famous graph of the "Hockey Stick" model. Guess what! Both graphs are the same from years 1400-2000!

    Nice try, but no cigar!

    [​IMG]

    The Discredited`Hockey Stick'. From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD.
     
  11. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, this statement is very incorrect.

    This is not what Michael Mann's leaked emails say!

    Check this out.

    The leaked email prove, without doubt, Mann and Jones manulipated their data data to mask the fact that global temperatures are actually falling.

    University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

    "Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Michael Mann and Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...nglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

    Your quote is clearly a whitewash by "unidentified" faculty members with impeccable credentials.

    Why are these people so reluctant to have their names identified with these conclusions?

    Because these conclusions are obviously untrue, that is why!
     
  12. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excelent response, technobabble.

    Excellent response!

    I am so tired of "eco-kooks" serving as the self-appointed spokespeople for science.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are correct, Sir.

    The liberals in this group believe in anthropogenic global warming in exactly the same way Christians believe in Jesus Christ.

    They would have to go to medically-certified withdrawal clinics before they could ever change their minds.

    Sad ... very sad.
     
  14. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The hockey stick isn't a theory, it's an observation of data. A theory explains data. A theory involving the hockey stick would explain why it looked like that.
     
  15. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In all due respect, you are very wrong.

    The "Hockey Stick" is a gross mischaracterization of scientific data!

    By the way, the" Hockey Stick" theory is the theory that explains the hockey stick data.

    It is as simple as that.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You want sources? Sure thing.

    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

    Now let me make a prediction. How will you respond to overwhelming evidence contradicting your position? Pretend it doesn't exist. How did I know that? Because that's what you've done every other time.

    The hockey stick is discredited? How strange, then why are there dozens of independent studies of paleoclimate that all show the same thing? The graph that Joe Six-pack is of some of those studies - each line on that graph is an independent temperature reconstruction. And why is there not a single professional scientific organization anywhere in the world that disputes the conclusion that we are currently seeing rapid and unprecedented warming, caused by human activities?

    (About the LIA and MWP: there is a lot of uncertainty about how widespread the effects of those events were. It is unclear whether they were world wide climate variations, or events localized to Europe and North America. This is reflected in the fact that some reconstructions show a very strong signal from them, while others do not.)

    The East Anglia CRU emails ("climategate")? Please, that's laughable. I have to give you credit for finding a source that uses six different emails from that group, almost every other ones I've seen cites exactly one or maybe two emails. Out of more then 1,000 emails, and thousands of other documents. Gee, a handful of emails out of thousands of documents that when taken out of context and given a heaping helping of innuendo can be made to sound bad. Yeah, that's real convincing. Tell me, Cessna, if I had access to thousands of your emails and private documents from the last decade and went through them looking for things that can be taken out of context and be made to make you sound bad, how do you think you'd wind up sounding? I bet I could make you sound like an ax murderer using those tactics. Those documents have been thoroughly investigated by the universities involved, scientific organizations, and even law enforcement. And none of them found any evidence of any wrong doing of any kind. All the people who sent those emails are guilty of is making disparaging comments about skeptics.

    Here's a database of the entire document dump.
    http://www.climate-gate.org/
    I dare you to go through them and try to find any real proof of any sort of fraud.

    And you can manipulate temperature reconstruction data as much as you want, but the only way you can deal with the historical, direct instrumental measurements of temperature is to simply leave it out and hope no one notices. The real data shows a dramatic rise in temperatures over the last century or two, and you can't wish that away no matter how hard you try.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    And your attempts to use climate from millions of years ago to say that what's happening now is of no concern is just plain stupid. The geologic record clearly shows that there have been massive natural explosions all over Earth as big as or far, far bigger then any nuclear weapon. Asteroid impacts, volcanism, etc. Can we then conclude from that that full scale nuclear war would not be anything to worry about?

    Here's some real history of Earth's climate for your consideration:

    2.4 billion years ago: The Oxygen Crisis.
    The evolution of a new organism that released massive amounts of a very reactive and highly toxic gas which had never previously been present in the atmosphere wipes out most life on the planet. The gas in question? Free oxygen. (O2)

    650 million years ago: Snowball Earth
    The Earth is gripped by an ice age so severe that the entire surface of the planet is covered with glaciers and solid sea ice, from poles to equator.

    250 million years ago: Permian mass extinction.
    A series of flood basalt eruptions in Siberia covering an area the size of Western Europe sets in motion a series of events leading to massive releases of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. This causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, wiping out 90% of all life on earth. This is the most severe mass extinction we know of in earth's history, and all complex, multicellular life nearly became extinct.

    85 million years ago: tropical paradise at the north pole.
    CO2 levels estimated at 4 -8 times preindustrial levels lead to a hothouse climate with a mysterious lack of temperature variation between low and high latitudes. Palm trees and crocodiles are found in polar regions. (well, close relatives, not actual crocodilians, but it's the same sort of critter)

    So it is clear that the climate can and has gone through natural changes that would wipe out humanity like crushing a bug underfoot. Does that make it any less stupid to purposefully shoot ourselves in the foot with our CO2 emissions?
     
  17. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Technosaurs. Must have been highly industrialized lizards. So advanced that when they finished screwing up the atmosphere, they had attained interstellar travel. They skedaddled off to Niburu leaving the mammals behind to rule the planet. They returned to mine gold 3 million years ago and genetically engineered some apes that evolved into Homo Sapiens. They'll be returning on Dec 21, 2012 when Niburu's orbit brings the giant planet somewhere between the Earth and the Sun. Technosaurs....I don't have a chart..sorry.
     
  18. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No one is not saying that climate can and has gone through in the past natural changes that would wipe out humanity like crushing a bug underfoot.

    You will agree that all of these dramatic changes you have cited were natural in origin and certainly did not include any influence contributed by man?

    Global warming does indeed exist.

    This principal cause, however, is scientifically attributed to increased solar activity, redirection of the ocean currents, erupting volcanoes, variations in global cloud cover and other natural events. Man's contribution to global warming is tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

    Check this out. There is no way man’s influence could have produced these changes. There were not that many people around back then and fossil fuels were unheard of.

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you make the leap from "we're adding CO2 the to biosphere" to "we are rapidly accelerating natural processes that will lead to major changes in our habitat"? Please connect the two lines of thought with something meaningful.
     
  20. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is a wonderful statement, Etheereal.

    What these self-styled “environmentalists” do not appreciate or understand is that methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that is over 22 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2).

    Methane is produced and emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources.

    Human-influenced sources of CH4 include urban landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, rice patties cultivated by third world countries, and livestock and other farm animals which are a primary food source for billions and billions of people now living in these improvished counties.

    If the self-styled “environmentalists” to do something important to prevent anthropogenic global warming, they should concentrate their efforts on limiting the population explosion in third world countries. Unfortunately, the world population is predicted increase to 10.1 billion people by 2100.

    This means billions of new livestock animals and millions and millions of new rice patties will be required to feed all of these new people. How will we deal with all the additional tons and tons of methane gas that these new sources will now generate?

    The self-styled “environmentalists" in this group need to seriously address this problem and stop worrying so much about our limited CO2 emissions that are easily absorbed by the earth's large oceans.

     
  21. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incidentally, where did you get that graph? You keep posting it but never give an attribution. And its y axis doesn't even have a scale. What exactly is that supposed to be, anyway?

    Obviously humans had nothing to do with any climate shifts from the distant geologic past. So what? How does that imply that the climate shift we're undergoing now is not being caused by humans?

    How about we let the scientists decide what can be scientifically attributed as the cause of global warming? According to the AAAS,
    http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml
    Although I honestly don't know why I keep reposting the link, since you obviously have never read it. You've obviously never read the NAS statement either, which says in part,
    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
    All of the natural factors you mentioned (which all do effect climate) have been thoroughly investigated for decades, and they can't even come close to accounting for the observed warming. And thank you for finally admitting that warming really is occurring. However that admission does imply an acknowledgement that the "hockey stick" is right.

    I think I've figured out your logic though. If dramatic and damaging climate change has occurred naturally in the past, then current climate change can't be caused by humans, right? Let's suppose that a multi-megaton explosion were to occur in the middle of New York City, leveling the metropolitan area and killing millions of people. By your logic, since natural explosion that large and larger have both been historically observed and detected with geological evidence, that explosion couldn't possibly have been caused by humans. Despite the amazing coincidence of such an explosion just happening to occur at such a strategic place as New York. And despite the complete lack of any evidence that suggests a natural cause. And despite the radioactivity being observed, which is completely consistent with the detonation of a thermo-nuclear device. And despite the radar tracking of a mysterious object that impacted the city at the time of the explosion, that just so happens to have acted exactly like a Russian ICBM. And despite the Russian invasion force now heading for the US...

    The evidence that global warming is occurring and it's being caused by human activities is now completely overwhelming. There simply is no even remotely reasonable case to be made that that isn't true. And trying to obstruct action to address the issue now is every bit as foolish as someone in that hypothetical scenario saying that we shouldn't mobilize the military to defend the country because the explosion couldn't possibly have been a nuclear attack.

    Happy to oblige, Etheral. Given the phrasing of your question, I'll assume that we can start with it being taken as fact that atmospheric levels of CO2 are rising, and that human activities are responsible.

    The EM absorption properties of CO2 are well known. They can be directly verified in any well equipped high school science lab. And the role of CO2 as an important greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere is also well known. Given that, how could you increase the CO2 levels by 39% (and counting) and not cause large scale warming? If you're going to say that increasing the second most important greenhouse gas in earth's atmosphere by that much isn't going to effect the climate, it's really on you to provide some sort of argument for why that would be.
     
  22. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just because A caused B in the past does not mean that the only way to cause B is by A. That's a logical fallacy.
     
  23. Kessy_Athena

    Kessy_Athena New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given that CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O, methane tends not to remain in the atmosphere for that long. Besides, the measured atmospheric levels of methane have not changed much. The measured levels of CO2 have.

    I happen to agree with you 100% about global population. And the population is a major concern for all sorts of reasons, not just having to do with climate change. Food production, water and land usage, pollution of all kinds, economic disparities and the political instabilities they breed, and a bunch of other issues are all tied in very closely to world population.

    That doesn't mean climate change isn't happening, or that humans aren't responsible, or that we shouldn't take action on the issue.
     
  24. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am very surprised you have asked this question.

    If was originally published by the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their now famous 1990 climate report.

    Check this out.

     
  25. Roelath

    Roelath Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,101
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But to skip over A and go directly to C without checking to see it was A is a bigger logical fallacy.
     

Share This Page