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

These discussiions are excellent, FearandLoathing.

They are worth repeating.

"But, the “hockey stick” was remarkable. And as such, it will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight."

 

Avalanche o' crap data dumps are not debate, and I have no obligation to spend hours going point-by-point through a giant avalanche o' crap that someone took ten seconds to post. I mean, I could respond with my own avalanche o' crap, but that would prove nothing, other than I know how to cut-and-paste.

You've all shown you can cut-and-paste, but you've demonstrated no evidence that you understand what you cut-and-paste. If you want to show that you're not just a parrot, how about you explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, why you think the hockey stick is disproven. Please proceed. I'll leave you some space here:









Now, being I understand the topic, I have no trouble explaining things without retreating to an avalanche o' crap. The flaw in your avalanche o' crap is that your author cherry picks only data from northern europe -- the spot of the localized medieval warm period. Your author deliberately ignores the vast majority of the globe where their was no MWP, and thus distorts the data. Honest scientists who use all the data show the hockey stick clearly.

One of the videos I linked to directly addressed that. Pity you couldn't be bothered to spare the 5 minutes to look. And I expect you won't bother, ever. You guys don't seem to be able to deal with any data that contradicts your preconceived political philosophy, so you kind of just pretend such data doesn't exist.

 

The denialist "draw facts from conclusions" faith-based cult stands in stark contrast to the rationalist "draw conclusions from facts" scientific method.

Oh, given that the denialists here adore Patrick Michaels, here's a link which explains, in gruesome detail, just what a liar the guy is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=135&&n=1222

Patrick Michaels' most infamous big lie concerned James Hansen's famous 1988 prediction, which in 1998 had been shown to be spot on correct. For a denialist, that's a disaster, given that they consider James Hansen to be like Satan. Patrick Michaels had his work cut out for him. How could he lie about Hansen's prediction, given it had been proven to be correct?

He found a way. Hansen's graph made 3 temperature predictions based on 3 different CO2 emissions possibilities. A, B, and C. "B" was the CO2 emission case that ended up matching the real world, and Hansen's "B" temperature forecast that went along with it had made a nearly perfect prediction. Therefore, Patrick Michaels simply erased the "B" forecast, substituted in the "A" forecast in its place, and thus declared Hansen's forecast was totally wrong. And then Patrick Michaels went in front of Congress and repeated that shameless lie.

Patrick Michaels is a proven serial liar. And the denialists on this thread lick his keister.

It's important we get that straight. Denialists parrot liars, they know it, and they still do it. That's the kind of morality that defines the denialist side.

 

You are mistaken, mamooth.

 

Go on, start from scratch, state your case in your own words.

Is the world warming?

If so, what is causing it, if not CO2?

Has CO2 increased in the atmosphere? If so, which is undeniable, and it is caused by man, why is it not causing the warming as we would expect?

Why is it that you reject the most obvious cause?

What is you sensational alternative cause which makes you reject the obvious one?

 

Thank you, daft punk, for your reasonable questions.

Given, the polite, mature tone of your questions, I shall respond back in exactly the same way.

The world is warming, but global warming is not global. Our latest satellite data reveal the northern hemisphere with its high population density is warming slightly; the southern hemisphere is not warming at all.

Has CO2 increased in the atmosphere? Yes, but only slightly. Most of the CO2 created by man is absorbed by the world's great oceans. Oceans cover 75% of the earth's surface and are a remarkable sink for our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

Methane gas is of much more concern to global warming than carbon dioxide. Methane is 25X as effective in causing global warming as CO2.

Where does methane gas come from? It produced in copious amounts by farm animals and by rice patties that exist in third world countries. As the populations in these countries continue to dramatically increase, so will our contributions to the amount of methane gas released into the atmosphere.

What is the solution to limiting the contributions of this gas which is 25X as effective in causing global warming as CO2?

The solution to controlling higher concentrations of methane gas admitted to our atmosphere is world population control. Our human population is growing fastest in the third world countries. It is these countries who are hurt the most by uncontrolled growth in the amount of new people they must now cloth, educate and feed. In the future, these poor countries will need massive increases in the amount of land acreage to cultivate new rice fields, corn and other crops. They will also need massive increases in the numbers of farm animals if they are to successfully feed and nourish these huge, new populations.

 

Well, the non-global thing you are gonna have to support.

The increase in CO2 is not slight it is 35%, and all of it is caused by man. Man has produced more CO2 than this, so yeah, the difference is what the oceans and plants soak up.

Yes I know methane is a stronger greenhouse gas. But there is more CO2. You just admitted that both cause warming by the way!

Off the top of my head, CO2 causes about 10-20% of the greenhouse effect.

Yes humans do cause some of the methane emissions, it is part of the problem, but CO2 is the bigger part.

Population control is not likely to happen. Poor people usually have good reasons to have lots of kids, and lots of people are poor. Population is growing.

Besides, the problem isnt poor people it's rich ones. America has just 5% of the world population but causes 25% of greenhouse emissions.

Now I can debate the science, but you need to support that warming is not global.

Obviously if the warming is global that doesnt preclude some areas cooling. The ocean currents etc can change.

 

Firstly, Athena is my patron goddess. My name is Kes.

Frankly, you can post all the graphs and figures you want. You can cite all the peer reviewed papers you want. In the end it doesn't mean a thing. Grabbing a few bits of data out of context and pasting them together is not an argument. I am not qualified to analyze the detailed data from various experiments. And I'll wager a very large sum that neither are you. Learning to take all the relevant data and put it into a meaningful context in order to draw conclusions that are not completely spurious is a difficult thing. That's why people spend years of their lives losing sleep and pouring over texts until their eyes explode to earn the right to put PhD after their name. climate science is a complex, difficult subject, which is why we have professionals who specialize in studying it. And those professionals are unanimous in their opinion on the subject.

So until you can come up with a reasonable response to why the AAAS, NAS, and every other professional scientific organization in the world all agree the climate change is real and a serious issue, you simply have no case whatsoever. You're like someone still denying that smoking causes cancer when the AMA and practically every doctor in the world says it does, and even the tobacco companies admit. Even Exxon isn't trying to deny the reality of climate change anymore.

If I took my car to a dozen mechanics and they all told me that the wheels are about to fall off, and then you come running up waving some magazine clippings and shouting, "Wait, wait, I have a study of the mechanical wear properties of nickle chromium steel alloy that proves that your car is just fine!" why in the world shouldn't everyone think you're just some crazy person who has no idea what you're talking about?

And the point is that the IPCC doesn't fundamentally matter. Even if you were completely right that it's a bunch of activists with an agenda, so what? Throw out everything the IPCC has ever done, and it doesn't change a thing. Why? Because the argument is based on the science, and the IPCC doesn't do science.

You will note that I do not cite IPCC reports, except where there are questions about what's actually in them. I do not use the IPCC as a primary source to support the reality of climate change. To be completely honest, I haven't even read all of the latest IPCC report. Because the IPCC is simply beside the point.

In the context of a discussion of climate change, "scientific community" basically means all those people who have published peer reviewed research on the subject, or been involved with a study that was peer reviewed, or in some other way is competent to comment professionally on the subject.

Yes, this can include dedicated individuals who have not been formally trained in the subject, if they have the data to back up what they say. For example, McKitrick is an economist by trade, and was not a part of the scientific community, until he put in the work to put together a paper criticizing Mann's work that passed muster with a peer review board. Peer review isn't actually a terribly high bar to pass. The process really does not make any comment about whether they think the paper is right or not. It is simply checking to see that yes, the paper is well enough put together with sufficient evidence to be worth looking at. If you can't pass that bar, you really have no business claiming to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject.

Now, I am not a member of the scientific community, on this or any other subject. I don't have the background and haven't done the work to pass peer review. I cannot and do not claim to speak authoritatively on the science. Which is why I defer to the people who can speak authoritatively, like the AAAS and NAS.

As for your claim to be a part of the scientific community... Obviously, I have no idea what your background might be, however I am highly skeptical. Have you ever been involved in any way with something that passed peer review? Or are you now involved with anything that could reasonably be expected to? Have you ever done post graduate work in a STEM field? What sort of a background do you have in climate science? Heck, do you at least read Science once in a while?

 

Actually, daft punk, I don't think we have to worry about global warming.

You and the others in our forum may be surprised to learn this, but “global warming" is not global.

The Latest satellite data show temperatures are increasing slightly in the northern hemisphere, but they have remained constant for many decades in the southern hemisphere. The reason the temperatures are increasing in the northern hemisphere is because most of these measurements are recorded and reported near the "hot" population centers. You would expect the average temperature to be slightly higher near these very active locations!

The same is true of the reported CO2 measurements. You would also expect the CO2 concentrations to be slightly higher near these very active locations!




Global Satellite Data

The following figure shows a more recent satellite data trend from the RSS analysis 1979 - 2008 [http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html]. The left-hand figure shows regional warming around the world, the right-hand figure shows the average warming by latitude – zero warming at 60 degrees S with increasing warming into the Arctic. This illustrates that recent warming is a northern hemisphere phenomenon.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm ... (See page 9)

 

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kxJGkbqx

 

And it's completely wrong, filled with cherrypicks and fabrications. Temperatures have been steadily climbing for the past 15 years.

(It is funny how a single nutty opinion piece is trumpeted by every conservative across the nation as proof of something.)

Here's the truth. In the deep recent solar minimum, temperatures kept increasing. That proves conclusively that any temp affects due to solar changes are very weak in comparison to other factors. Even if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum, global warming would continue.

That is, it's not the sun. Period. And there are no orbital factors at play. So, just how do you explain climbing global temperatures?

 

Actually, like the article said, there has been no statistically significant global temperature increase since 1997. Fascinating to watch your ideology actually alter your perception of reality.

 

The "It's the Urban Heat Island effect!" thing is a denialist myth. Debunked here, and many other places. You should take 6 minutes to watch it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw"]Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock - YouTube[/ame]

If you think that's "propaganda", then here's the Koch-funded study that says the same thing. You know, the study that set out to prove the Urban Heat Island effect caused it all, and ended up proving the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

 

And it's already been pointed out the article lied. You can probably be excused due to your complete ignorance of science, logic and statistics, but the article authors are deliberately lying.

Belligerent ignorance like yours is annoying, which is why I point it out. If you want to be stupid, do so privately. Don't be out here shrieking hatred at the rational people. I understand statistics, so you can't snow me by parroting big lies.

 

That is incorrect and more of the same propaganda that has served for science for too many years. By the fact that the man made global warming empire - 25 million people make their living at it, more than all the employed people in Canada, has to identify anyone even questioning the data in protagonist terms such as "denialists" shows very strongly that is more religious cult than "science."


Never has that cult allowed an open and honest look at the facts, fears them so much that any credible scientist attempting to do so is attacked personally and usually falsely accused of being in the employ of "big oil"....or having at one time done research for "big oil"


I am old enough and been a journalist long enough to know that if you have to attack the person, if you have to use intimidation tactics of any kind, lie about your opponent, shout down questioners, then it is unlikely, no positively certain that the argument being so defended it complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

No we are not "all the same", the arguments against man made global warming are all the same. Shouting them down and using such cultist terms as "denialist" are not going to change them.

Live with it.

 

Its a fact. You are just too ideologically blinded to realize.

 

Not being an intelligent person myself isn't reason to claim that you are wrong but you must have seen some very intelligent people saying that man has not caused, in any meaningful way, the slight climate changes that we have seen.

In the 1970s some of the people claiming MMGW were predicting an ice age was only years away. Perhaps that Ice Age was prevented by our CO2 contribution but I doubt it. I think that those guys that were once on the "Ice Age" band wagon for a time and are now on the "MMGW" band wagon just like to get paid to look at ice cores and formulate computer programs that match their own predictions.

Do you really think that we can stop a natural planetary climate change??

What if a scientist told you that his computer program shows that if we add just a little more CO2 to the atmosphere the northern part of Africa would be tropical for centuries to come? Those starving people would but have to bend over and pick as much high protein grain as they could eat?

How about if you learned that we could eliminate 70% the CO2 produced by the industrialized world but it would impact a few cute animals?

 

So making up these deranged conspiracy theories really is the best you can do? Seriously, don't spout such a parade of idiocy and not expect to get called on it.

Do you even read your own posts? I mean, you've just described your own posting style.

The two sides are not alike. Your side is largely composed of dishonest thugs, and ours isn't. Your side is deeply ignorant of the science, the logic, the history, the ethics, and ours isn't. Your side constantly makes crap up, and ours doesn't. You get attacked because you are nasty pieces of work who constantly lie about our side. Whether you actually believe the big lies you repeat isn't really important -- at some point, you have to take responsibility for what you parrot.

 

Ayuh,... Unfortunately, you have that Exactly, Backwards....

 

No, they weren't.

If you believe otherwise, point to the papers stating an ice age was imminent. Pointing to an article in Newsweek will not quite count as support for your claim.

 

Really? Then demonstrate it.

It's a common demand from the denialist side that global warming scientists should be prosecuted and jailed. This culminated with the Virginia Attorney General attempting to do just that. Remind me, have there been any campaigns to have denialists imprisoned?

It was official Bush admin policy that AGW opinions be censored. Again, there is no such policy coming from our side. There are no restrictions on anti-AGW scientists getting published, as proven by the thread here which trumpets such papers. None of those scientists are being fired, censored or defunded.

Several denialists have attempted using lawsuits to silence their critics. No AGW scientist has issued such a lawsuit.

Every denialist here basically claims the AGW scientists are fabricating data for money. That's an obvious shameful lie, yet most of you still claim it.

If we want to go on, I can demonstrate endless bad behavior from your side, bad behavior which is supported by the rank and file on your side. You won't be able to do the same.

 

I dont know about that, but you cant demonstrate global temperature increase since 1998.

 

Your website is written by a bloke called Alan Cheetham, he says "I am not a "climate scientist"". Not sure why he has to put it in inverted commas.

You say that CO2 is incorrect because it is measured near cities. Is that an admission that man causes the CO2?

In fact the main CO2 measurement is done in Hawaii.

You say temp has only risen in the north in recent decades. Well there has been anomalous increases, but not because all the measurements are taken near cities.

Well the scientists are aware of that potential problem and have allowed for it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

You say the southern hemisphere hasnt warmed. Global warming does not imply equal warming everywhere. It means the planet as a whole has warmed. If I stick something in the microwave it has warmed even if there are some cold bits that need stirring in.

"there are actually good reasons to expect the overall rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere to be small"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/

this site is written by climate scientists.

 

Sure I can, simply by pointing to the temperature data. This is from NASA:

 

You cant read your own chart. It shows no increase in global temperature since 1998. Fascinating to watch your ideology actually alter your perception of reality.