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

Daft, I can’t believe you actually made this statement!

You did not read the article.

The peer-reviewed journals are referenced in the article.

Please learn to read correctly if you intend to play with the adults.



"Do I smell a lot of very poor reading at play here?"

 

Very true, Windigo.

Very true!

 

It may surprise you, but I actually agree with most of what you said in this post. I agree 100% that:

- The climate change debate is about politics, power, and money, not the science.

- That institutions asking for money and power should be regarded with suspicion

- That power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

- That you should never trade freedom for security.

- That a society under stress and gripped by chaos is extremely vulnerable to authoritarianism.

However, I do question the way you see these basic principles applying to the climate change debate. What institutions are asking for power and money? Who's doing this? How? It's easy to have a general feeling that there are people who are trying to gain power. I mean, there always are. but it's another to be able to specify that this particular group of people, these particular institutions are making a serious grab for power that is beyond the normal give and take of day to day politics. Think it through carefully. Have you been listening to people laying out a specific case with names and other details that can be independently verified, or have you been listening to people speaking in vague generalities designed to just stir up your emotions?

In my opinion, you shouldn't judge people by what they say about themselves, and you certainly shouldn't judge them by what their political rivals say about them. You should judge people by what they do. And what have Democrats actually done? What's the approach that Democrats have advocated and written into legislation? Heavy handed direct regulation? Excessive taxes? Government bureaucrats telling you how to live your life?

Nope.

Instead, Democrats have put forward cap and trade, a proposal specifically designed to avoid all of those things as much as humanly possible. A proposal designed around the conservative idea of using the free market to address problems. What is so unacceptable about that? How is that any sort of "creeping socialism"?

I assume that when you say, "We're well within the window of a worldwide economic and monetary collapse," you're saying that you think any sort of meaningful action to address climate change would cause an economic catastrophe, right? What basis do you have for that idea? Have you seen peer reviewed studies by hundreds of economists saying anything like that? Have you heard any professional economic organizations issuing position statements to that effect? Have you seen anything suggesting economic disaster with anywhere near the credibility of things like the AAAS statement and the joint academies statement?

I haven't.

In fact, one of the few detailed discussions I've come across comes from the Heritage Foundation in a commentary on the Kyoto Protocol back in 1998. Titled, The Department of Energy's Report On the Impact of Kyoto: More Bad News For Americans, the biggest, baddest, scariest number they could come up with, the one they chose to headline, was that if Kyoto were implemented, by 2010 the price of a gallon of gas could be as much as $1.91

$1.91 / gallon.

Think about that. If that's the worst doom and gloom scenario Heritage could come up with, I have to ask, just how flimsy are these claims of impending economic catastrophe? And warmers get accused of saying the sky is falling...
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1998/10/the-department-of-energys-report

On the other hand, the UK government commissioned an independent study on the economics of acting and not acting on climate change, called the Stern Report. From the executive summary: "Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....nomics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

So if one of your primary concerns is an economic crisis, which is the bigger threat?

And what exactly do you think the bill for cap and trade would be, Windigo? The US has had cap and trade for acid rain emissions since 1995, which mainly effects coal fired power plants. Are you having to auction off your firstborn to pay your electric bill?

 

Oh yeah it quotes peer reviewed journals, just like Young Earth Creationists quote evolutionists and palaeontologists. Just like Stalinists quote Lenin and Marx.


Your source:

"To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world."


Scientific American:

"...skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=behind-the-hockey-stick

 

Kessy, you literally believe in a "doomsday scientific theory"... and since it is packaged and sold as such, it will never, ever stop advancing governmentally.

Your "government programs and schemes are innocuous" tack is well???, wow, lol... it would be like arguing that the housing collapse was entirely the result of free market forces, b/c the transactions were carried out between a home buyer and a bank.

If cap and tax, is nothing more than a market driven (nonsense) mechanism that is somehow designed to allow industry to "self regulate", and the net result is nothing in terms of carbon emissions, then why have it??? if the net result is less carbon emissions, and increased production costs, which necessarily have to be passed on to the consumer in the price of the product, doesn't that burden go right back on the backs of the poorest citizens who can't afford to absorb the increased costs of consumer goods??? And since they will come under increased "market pressure" (nonsense), now we need to subsidize them further, right??? It's the only humane thing to do, right??? and since the "market" is causing all this mess, only government can provide the solution, right??? This is an old game Kessy.

There's nothing I can do to help you understand any of this... you're either a naive acolyte, or some sort of left-wing cell member (in which case you do understand, and are deliberately driving the destructive agenda)... I will go with acolyte. Either way, you will continue to saber rattle for more regulation, more government interference and control; and you will continue to cheer on our nations disasterous economic course.

 

Kessy, interestingly enough, this story came out yesterday... I'm sure you would be very supportive of the EPA's actions here.

According to a Congressional study, The EPA has spent approx. $100 million in foreign countries over the past 10 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nts-in-last-decade-study-finds/#ixzz1QZqxqy80

"EPA defended the projects, noting that pollution is a global problem and describing the foreign initiatives as in the United States' interest.

"Pollution doesn't stop at international borders, and neither can our environmental and health protections; the local and national environmental issues of the past are now global challenges," EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said in a statement."

EPA protectors of us all, "think globally, act locally", right???

Authority to do such things??? Pay no attn to the man behind the curtain... the EPA doesn't have the authority to do most of what it does here in the U.S.; so, since they already operate outside the law, why not do so on an international scale???

So, how much do I have to pay??? It's not a tax though right??? there's no danger of regulatory or governmental creep, right??? I should just pay with a smile, and be grateful my betters are "protecting" me???

Who do I make the check out to??? No worries there... you're just going to take it out of my check??? and what isn't covered with direct taxation??? you'll just have your buds at the FedRes print some more $$$??? Sounds like a great plan.

 

James, I'm afraid that if you track down the references on this page, they really do little to bolster the denier position. The basic premise of the argument the site is advancing is fundamentally flawed - proving the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and proving that changes in solar activity have driven climate changes in the past do not in any way disprove current anthropogenic climate change.

No one has ever disputed the existence of the MWP and LIA. What is an open question (and it is still an open question today - we don't have a definite answer one way or another) is to what degree these events were truly global climate events or more regional in nature. If you look at the current state of paleoclimate reconstructions, you'll see that some reconstructions show a very strong signal from the MWP and LIA while others do not.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-10.html

It has always been acknowledged that there's a lot of uncertainty in any reconstruction like this. But one thing the reconstructions and the historic instrumental record all show is the the warming we're experiencing now is drastic and far outside the error bars of past climate events. In any case, paleoclimate studies help put the current warming in context, but do not directly tell us about what's happening now. Even if it turned out that the MWP was warmer then today (which there seems to be little evidence to support right now) so what? If you drive your car into the mountains and wind up going off a cliff, it's hardly reassuring to note as you're falling that you were actually at a lower altitude just a few miles back.

In the same way, to my knowledge, solar variation has been regarded as the likeliest cause of the MWP and LIA for quite some time. Saying that proves that human CO2 emissions are not causing the current warming is kind of like saying, "Well, my car's stopped. But it's stopped lots of times before, and it's never been for lack of gas. Therefore I can't possibly be out of gas now." Solar variation is a good candidate for being responsible for early 20th century warming. But what we've been seeing since the mid 20th is just far too much to be accounted for with solar forcing alone. the rise in temperatures has closely tracked the rise in CO2, but there hasn't been a corresponding rise in solar activity. According to the satellite data, there hasn't been a significant rise in solar irradiation since at least 1978, when temperatures have been rising the fastest.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

 

Kessy_Athena,

You are very correct.

There is no dispute that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did indeed exist, and proving that changes in solar activity have driven climate changes in the past do not in any way disprove the theory of current anthropogenic climate change.

And I agree that "anthropogenic" climate change does indeed exist. The problem is its contributions amount to no more than 5-10% of the contributions from natural sources of climate change ( the terrestrial biosphere) that will be with us for centuries to come.

Why turn human civilization upside down on its head when we know for a fact that 90% of man's contributions to global warming will continue to be effectively absorbed by the world's vast oceans?


Check this out.

 

So a quote from Dr. Mann is evidence to support Dr. Mann? Dr. Mann claim that the MWP and LIA were local is based solely on some pine trees in Colorado and some lake sediment in Finland. That is hardly what I would call a global analysis. Once more the sediment in the Finland that Dr. Mann relies on actually shows the MWP and the LIA when correctly analyzed. The dip(*)(*)(*)(*) Dr. Mann accidently turned it upside down. See my previous posts for a clear irrefutable scientific explanation as to why Dr. Mann made this mistake. A mistake he has yet to even correct or apologize for. While other scientists who made the same mistake have.

 

other scientists like who?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ast-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/
Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and the so-called "Hockey Stick"

 

Wow Mann's own blog and Mann's own reconstructions defend Mann. What a shock. And no Esper and Briffa are not independent. Ill address the reconstructions you posted in full later and you will run with your tail between your legs.

 

Very good, Windigo.

I am looking forward to enjoying your rebuttle text!

JC

 

Wist, I can tell that this is touching on some pretty strong emotions for you, so I want to take a minute to address that first. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to speak for you, but if I may, I'd like to tell you some of what I'm hearing in your posts. I apologize in advance if I'm off base on any of this.

It sounds to me like you feel like you've lost some control of your life because of the exercise of government powers. It sounds like you're nervous about your future, like you're afraid that what you have could be taken away and given to others. I hear resentment at being forced to pay for things you feel like you have no control over. I hear frustration at a system that's big and often unresponsive to the individual.

Am I anywhere close to the mark?

Those are very understandable feelings, and I think we all feel that way from time to time. I know I do. While it's tempting to just act on instinct to push back against the causes of those feelings, I think we all know that can have some pretty unfortunate consequences. When it comes to making decisions about something as big and complex as our society, I think we really need to think more practically then emotionally. Isn't it better to face our fears head on and find the best way to deal with them, rather then just running blindly?

Government does have necessary and proper duties to perform in society. Just because it's government doing something does not automatically mean it's being botched. And just because something is a government regulation doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. After all, it's a government regulation that you can't run around town killing people.

Environmental protection is one of the things that we've found the government simply does better then the market left to its own devices. We've made tremendous improvements in this country since the 70's. I mean, at least we aren't having rivers in major cities catching on fire all the time anymore.

Yes, government overreach is always a concern. Yes the government can, and has, and undoubtedly will in the future botched things up. But is that a reason to say the government should do nothing at all? As flawed as the government often is, it's not uncommon for the alternative to be far from perfect as well. I think that you and other conservatives would be much more effective at keeping a close eye on what the government does by being active participants in making policy rather then simply making a blanket decision to oppose everything, regardless of its relative merits. I think of the policy making process as being a bit like the way we have both a prosecution and a defense in a trial. Regardless of what the final outcome is, we need both to make the best case they possibly can to make sure that both sides get heard. One side or the other deciding to boycott the proceedings unless they're guaranteed to get everything they want is not helpful.

As I've said before, cap and trade is not perfect, either as a general concept or as any particular proposal for its implementation. But don't you think it would be better to suggest improvements to be made, preferable alternatives to be taken, rather then just complaining about its flaws?

Cap and trade is not cap and tax. The only point in the process that could involve any sort of tax is if the government decides to charge companies for the initial dispensation of emissions credits. And there's no reason such a charge has to be part of it. This is not a scheme to fill the government's coffers. And if you're saying that you think that it's not market driven, then please explain how. I mean, it's kind of hard to respond to a parenthetical "nonsense." The system was actually invented by conservatives as an alternative to conventional environmental regulation, and has already been used successfully to control acid rain emissions.

I think it's a fair statement that neither of us is infallible, and that neither of us can be absolutely certain about the future. If I concede that there is a chance that there might be no significant impact from climate change, will you concede that there is a chance that there might be significant impact? So we have to make a choice in the face of uncertainty - which is what risk management is for. Risk management is how insurance companies and casinos stay in business, so it ought to work for us, right? The basic idea is you look at each course of action and all its possible outcomes. You assign a probability to each outcome and multiply the expected cost of each outcome by its probability, adding up the results for each course of action and getting an expected value for each choice.

In the case of climate change, the costs of doing nothing and having sever consequences is really really big. No, not end of the world big. But still big. So unless you can say with great confidence that the probability of it happening is extremely small, that's going to make the expected cost of doing nothing very high. On the other hand, what would the expected cost of taking action be? Yes, cap and trade would increase production costs, and yes, that would be a drag on the economy. The question is how much of a drag? Also consider that the intended consequence of cap and trade is to spur the development of new technology, which will be a boost to the economy. So there's also uncertainty about how much economic impact there would be. And considering that I already pointed out that the case for there being any severe economic consequences at all is a bit flimsy - certainly much flimsier then the case for the reality of climate change - how is this math going to work out? The cost of unmitigated climate change is very high, the cost of emission regulation seems to be lower. And the experts - the people who study this stuff and are in the best position to assess the chances - are quite solidly behind climate change having a high probability, while there is very little support for economic catastrophe. So what's the most rational decision to make?

 

Kessy, while I do not agree with your position on AGW, I will give you credit for being one of the very few proponents who does not resort to insulting your opponents. This way of debating is much more effective at making me consider your statements than if you simply called us all flat earth deniers.

 

Actually it shows it is no more drastic than what we experienced in the medieval warm period.

 

Thank you, Iakovas, I consider that a really big compliment. ^_^ And I'm glad that you'll take a look at what i say. Even if I don't change anyone's mind, I still feel that if I can get people to really think through their opinions and reconsider their assumptions, I'll have accomplished something.

 

Once again, that article is about the possibility of artificially injecting CO2 into the oceans as a way to mitigate climate change. So you're saying that AGW is enough of a problem to make it worthwhile to invest the large amount of money to develop the technology and put the infrastructure in place to do this sort of carbon sequestration on an industrial scale?

And again, the absorption of 90% of the CO2 we've put in the air is something that will take a thousand years. And that's just what we've put in the air so far.

Where did you get that anthropogenic CO2 only accounts for 5-10% of the warming we're seeing? I haven't seen anything along those lines before. In fact, my understanding is that no one has been able to account for the warming we're seeing now without a large contribution from human CO2 emissions.

In any case, the real question here is about turning human society upside down, isn't it? The thing is that I don't want to turn society upside down. I want to avoid things that will cause massive disruptions. That's why I like cap and trade, because it is designed to have a minimal impact. And that's why I wish conservatives would stop simply saying "it doesn't exist" and engage on the issue; we could really use your help in finding ways to do something about it without turning society upside down.

I really think you guys are fighting the wrong battle. Even if you really believe the chances of climate change having any real impact on us is slight, if it does happen, that'll turn society upside down far more then any mitigation plan would. I really think you'll do far better for your principles and for the nation if you put your efforts into developing a mitigation plan that doesn't turn society upside down.

 

Actually, Kessy_Athena, the calcualtions are very straight forward.

• Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of carbon to the atmosphere are about 7 GtC.

• The total ocean-atmosphere flux is about 90 GtC per year, with a net ocean uptake of 2 ± 0.8 GtC (IPCC, 1996).

90 GtC per year (total ocean-atmosphere flux) = 7 GtC per year (man's contribution) + 87 GtC per year (nature's contribution from the terrestrial biosphere)

Therefore, man's contribution = 8% of nature's contribution (7 GtC per year/87 GtC per year)

Again, why do you want to turn human society upside down on its head when its contribution to greenhouse gases and global warming is only of 8% of nature's contribution to global warming?

I really think you guys are fighting the wrong battle. Your emphasis should be on reducing nature's contribution to global warming by planting millions of more trees in the world and not turning a blind eye to the destructible effects of deforestation and very inefficient farming techniques that are presently underway by many third-world countries.

This is so typical of most liberals. They want to punish the producers in society and reward the non-producers in society!

 

The Global Warming crew has become a loony Cult at this point. It's the Left's Religion. Not much Science involved anymore. They've actually become pretty laughable.

 

You are very correct, Libocalypsenow.

The liberals cannot bring themselves to believe the Ocean itself represents the largest potential sink for anthropogenic CO2.

Instead, they are like the creationists who believe the world is only 6000 years old. The rely on "junk science” and self-styled evangelists like Al Gore and Michael Mann to support their views on man-made global warming!

 

You are very correct, wist43.

The Obama administration is assuming and usurping national powers it does not have! And then they tax us to pay for their unlawful overreach to clean up air and water pollution in foreign countries!

If Obama had his way, he would be president of the world! Infortunately, Jimmy Carter was the very same way!

JC



"I am a liberal and I detest people who do not agree with me!"

 

Never, in the history of mankind, has so much bull(*)(*)(*)(*) been written by so few, to the horror of so many.

97-98% of the most actively publishing climate researchers "support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...g.2C_Prall.2C_Harold.2C_and_Schneider.2C_2010

 

I believe your information may be out of date.

The number of articles in support on man-made global warming is way, way down these last several years.

 

You are very correct, Libocalypsenow.

 

2010 is several years out of date? Is that how you septics do your maths?