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

25 pages of giant graphs and multicolored fonts posted by people who think science is a consensus.

As Albert Einstein said "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

science should never be politicized

 

exactly, good post

I think we all agree that science is not a consensus. It just happens that 97% of the most active climate scientists agree with the AGW conclusion, and that cannot be ignored. This isnt the dark ages, dunking witches under water. This is 100 years of science.


"AGW is simply a political agenda disguised as a environmental movement and operated as a theological enterprise"

Political agenda? Yeah, right. So what is this secret political agenda, and how does it fit in with the accidental discoveries on global warming by space scientists in the cold war? Why are right wingers so keen to jump on every crackpot conspiracy theory?

SUPPORT

 

You are very mistaken, daft punk.

 

How does one explain how the polar ice caps continue to melt faster, on a yearly average, than ever documented before?

This isn't about politics, it's about observing nature. Science doesn't care whether we enact policies which force people to CAUSE global warming/cooling, or force people to do the opposite. It's indifferent

 

Your cites better be stronger than my cites.

Uh huh. We'll see how "not about politics" it is when your cites prove to not be as strong as you claim, but you continue to parrot the lines within them.

 

I'd like to see the peer-reviewdness of those studies and credibility not only of the researchers and how competent they are, but how much they fabricate things and the methods they used.

I couldn't care less if most of everyone on Earth died miserably tomorrow, so I wouldn't have any reason to care about what politics were enacted and which weren't, so long as it doesn't harm me. I care about myself, my family and sex and drugs and fun.

 

Because we didnt have documentation last time they completely melted and disappeared. Of course.

 

LMAO...The response is totally ignorant gibberish that betrays a profound ignorance of the topic at hand.
You might as well trot out the 'melting ice cubes in a glass of water' retort that the clueless climate change deniers are so fond of.

Get back to us after educating yourselves about how the climate changes throughout earth's history were accompanied by mass extinctions and global dislocations.

 

Ayuh,... 'n only a moron would believe that a government sponsored scheme of tax, 'n spend, wealth redistribution will change a danm thing...

 

Yeah, because that's the ONLY possible way to get us out of the tight tentacle grips of Big Oil companies.

:rolls eyes:

 

Uh-huh. "During October and November 2008 the extent of Arctic ice was 28.7 percent greater than during the same period in 2007." Yeah, right. Wait, remind me, what year is it? (Checks the handy-dandy calendar conveniently provided by Windows) Oh, right, it's 17 January 2012. Come on, Subdermal, you can do better then that. Even without bothering to look it up, that statistic screams cherry picking. If not outright fabrication.

When you get tired of living in cloud cuckooland and want to rejoin the rest of us here in reality, let us know. The fact is that when you have the AAAS issuing statements like this http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0218am_statement.shtml and there's not a single professional scientific organization anywhere in the world with a dissenting position, and you have Americans watching one of our major cities being destroyed by a climate change fueled monster hurricane, you're just in flat earth territory trying to say it's not happening. No amount of tinfoiler conspiracy theories and bogus fabricated "evidence" will make reality go away, no matter how afraid you are of the implications of that reality. Hiding your head in the sand only ever makes things worse.

 

You are very mistaken, Kessy_Athena.

 

It is not surprising that the "hockey stick" theory has been completely discredited. what is surprising is that it took so long.

What most people don't know is that the UN IPCC is NOT a panel of scientists and their endorsement of the "science" of climate change does not constitute "peer review".

First of all, the majority of members named on that panel are not scientists at all. They are activists, civil servants and politicians.

Of the scientists invited to join the panel, only a handful participated. of those who are named, many presented countra-indicatory findings, which were never used. Many have tried to have their names removed and the IPCC has refused. Some have been removed only after threat of lawsuit.

In one case, Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and neighbor of mine has completely dismissed the science behind man made global warming and the IPCC. Yet, this gets no attention in the press, while a "Scientist" who has no degree in anything can create an entire theory like the "hockey stick" and it becomes accepted fact world wide.

A very good film on this is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" produced by the BBC.

It shoots the hell out of all the theories.

 

The "hockey stick" has been reconfirmed time and again by others as well as Mann et al. The denial is empty political posturing.

 

Just found this spot, read the thread, laughed at seeing all the usual denialist fallacies repeated. The junk science, the bad logic, the cherrypicking, the "liberals are silencing us!" victimhood-seeking, the "It's a socialist conspiracy!" cult babbling, the tiresome "you must spend hours refuting my massive cut-and-paste data dump point-by-point yet another time, or you admit I'm right!" thing.

So, since denialists think avalanching is a valid tactic, the same from us is only fair. I'd like to point people to an index of Peter Sinclair's outstanding "Climate Crock of the Week" series.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

Each is just a few minutes long, and together they directly address all the denialist points that have been brought up here. No need to watch them all, just the one addressing your favorite denialist talking point. If someone is confident in their reasoning, they won't be afraid to take a look. If they declare it's all just a liberal conspiracy ... 'nuff said.

Then, after you've taken a look and educated yourself, put your best single point forward, and we can discuss it. Not a cut-and-paste data dump, but a single point, clearly stated and reasoned. Just please avoid repeating the same fallacies a second time.

 

Err, do you have any idea at all what the IPCC actually is? Because you don't seem to. The IPCC takes the best current published science and collates it and writes it up in a form accessible to policy makers and other non technical people. That's all they do. They do not do any of the science, they do not publish research studies, and they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the peer review process. What in the world made you think they do? That's kind of like criticizing Reader's Digest for not publishing original stories.

And the fact is that the only people still pushing the denialist line are those who are blatantly doing so out of economic and political self interest and a bunch of tinfoilers. The scientific community has been virtually unanimous in saying that climate change is real, we're the ones doing it, it's going to be bad, and we need to do something about it for years. The AAAS and NAS - two of the most well respected scientific organizations in the world - have had official positions to the effect since the middle of the last decade. There is not a single professional scientific organization anywhere in the world with a dissenting position. Not one.

Dude, it's really not cool to wish poverty, starvation and death on huge numbers of people, even if it's just rhetorical hyperbole. Remember that the vast majority of people working for the oil industry are just ordinary working people trying to make a buck and support their families. No matter how slimy some of their bosses may be, they really don't deserve that sort of venom directed at them.

 

I found the latest peer-reviewed data available. You didn't offer a counter.

My links clearly expose the cherry-picking - and it isn't on my side of this debate. Cherry-picking happens when left-wing sources caterwaul about a shrinking ice-shelf on one side of the Arctic, and completely ignore the massively growing opposite side.

Along with utterly ignoring Antarctic ice formation.

You care to tangle with me on this topic, Athena? Bring it.

 

I haven't checked the thread in a while - and (apparently), neither has Athena.

My post completely corroborates Joe's here, and utterly smashes Athena's claims. Read the rest of the thread, Athena, and then slink away. Your side of this argument is being ground into powder, which is why AGW alarmists are scattering like roaches under an incandescent light bulb.

 

I am are of it. Can you tell us who is on the IPCC? Who among them are impartial and who among them are even scientists? Who among the panel members are politicians and who among them are activists?

Your phrase "Scientific community" is typical of the propaganda perpetrated by the global warming goons. "Scientific community" means about 150 million people, including me. And there is not "consensus" among us. In fact there is extreme difference of opinion from the base line data through to the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere through to the actual cause. However, those who so much as question the means of gathering data and who might agree with the findings get shouted down as "denialists" and even threatened with loss of tenure.


and as to economic self interest, how many of the people on the IPCC make their living from global warming.

And for the record, if you were to do some checking, you would find that the likes of David Suzuki have more to gain from global warming than Dr. Patrick Moore does...and I will give the advantage to Moore, he's been in the environment business since the late 1960's.


And thanks for confirming that global warming is a religion = "denialist"

 

This Ottmar Edenhofer is an economist, sounds more like an activist.

“climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth”
“it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”
"The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."

 

Often, the two are one in the same.

If you look at the transcripts of Kyoto, it is filled with communist rhetoric.

Many of the activists are the same people who were involved in the so-called peace protests, which were fronts for advancing communist and Marxist ideology. When the cold war ended, they just shifted their organizations over to global warming, taking donations from the same sources.

 

Yeah well hopefully, capitalist social selection will weed them out whenever oil runs out. Taste of their own medicine

 

You are indeed correct, FearandLoathing.

Are you aware Obama agrees with and endorses the Kyoto accords?

These foolish and cynical comments by Barack Obama are almost identical to the transcripts of the Kyoto Agreements.

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

^

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4"]Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube[/ame]

 

Wow. Just came here, checked it out, read the thread. Nothing new. Denialists are the same the world over. Fabricated junk science, whackaloon conspiracy theories about socialists stealing their precious bodily fluids, dumping avalanches of garbage and demanding it all be refuted, Obama Derangement Syndrome, bizarre alien logic where the conclusions don't follow from the premises, bullying and dogpiling, "THE DIRTY LIBERALS ARE CENSORING ME!" victimhood tantrums ... yep, standard boring denialist tripe.

Where to start ... I suggest a quick refresher course on facts and logic for them. A good start is Peter Sinclair's excellent "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" video series. There's an index to them here.

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

Each one just takes a few minutes, and every bogus denialist talking point I've seen here gets addressed head-on and torn to pieces. If denialists are confident in their reason, they won't be afraid to take a look. If they declare it's all a liberal conspiracy ... 'nuff said.

Oh, this just out today.

WMO: 2011 one of the hottest years on record.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/29/us-climate-conference-idUSTRE7AS0MQ20111129

It's good to be on the side of reason. I just have to point to the data, over and over. I don't think I could contort my reason into the required pretzel shapes that it would take to embrace denialism.