Posted on 02/14/2005 8:11:12 AM PST by animoveritas
One of the pillars of the case for man-made global warming is a graph nicknamed the hockey stick. It's a reconstruction of temperatures over the past 1,000 years based on records captured in tree rings, corals and other markers. The stick's shaft shows temperatures oscillating slightly over the ages. Then comes the blade: The mercury swings sharply upward in the 20th century.
The eye-catching image has had a big impact. Since it was published four years ago in a United Nations report, hundreds of environmentalists, scientists and policy makers have used the hockey stick in presentations and brochures to make the case that human activity in the industrial era is causing dangerous global warming.
But is the hockey stick true?
According to a semiretired Toronto minerals consultant, it's not.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Great article.
Repeat after me:
Man-made Global Warming is a MYTH!
Man-made Global Warming is a MYTH!
Man-made Global Warming is a MYTH!
www.junkscience.com has the best info I have seen on 'global warming'.
The bottom line on global warming - BUNK.
And even if it's not a lie it proves that evolution is a myth because the lieberals say we can not adapt to our (new) environment.
ping
Horse hockey!!
As part of natural quasi periodic oscillations in glaciation (mind you, we are STILL in the midst of TEMPORARY interglacial period) one can clearly see that the medeival optimum and little ice age are harmonics of the grand oscillation. In this context, the slight warming since 1850 appears to be either another optimum, or, more incidiously, the overshoot prior to the INEVITABLE return to glaciation. And mankind has had little if any impact on this. How could we, the forces responsible for these oscillations are so immense that we are simply not physically capable of modifying the atmosphere enough to change them. One other oft overlooked factor is that CO2 is only a miniscule component in the atmosphere and is constantly being precipitated out by phytoplankton via their shells.
After spending two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic, Stephen McIntyre says he has found significant oversights and errors. He claims its lead author, climatologist Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, and colleagues used flawed methods that yield meaningless results.
Dr. Mann vigorously disagrees. On a Web site launched with the help of an environmental group (www.realclimate.org1), he has sought to debunk the debunking, and counter what he calls a campaign by fossil-fuel interests to discredit his work. "It's a battle of truth versus disinformation," he says.
But some other scientists are now paying attention to Mr. McIntyre. Although a scientific outsider, the 57-year-old has forced Dr. Mann to publish a minor correction. Now a critique by Mr. McIntyre and an ally is being published in a respected scientific journal. Some mainstream scientists who harbored doubts about the hockey stick say its comeuppance is overdue.
The clash has grown into an all-out battle involving dueling Web logs (www.climateaudit.org2), a powerful senator and a score of other scientists. Mr. McIntyre's new paper is circulating inside energy companies and government agencies. Canada's environment ministry has ordered a review.
Many skeptics contend that liberal environmental agendas are behind alarming global-warming headlines, though often skeptics bring policy agendas of their own. Think tanks backed with funding from the energy industry have waged a wide campaign to cast doubt on key scientific results. "Climate science today is fully politicized," says Roger Pielke Jr., head of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Mr. McIntyre says he hasn't received any industry funding.
The hockey stick was a highlight of a 2001 report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is an advisory body through which the world's scientists try to reach consensus on man-made climate change and provide advice on how to limit it. Because the graph showed only minor temperature changes before the industrial age and then an upward slant -- the hockey-stick shape -- it became an oft-cited argument that human activity was raising temperatures.
The problem, says Mr. McIntyre, is that Dr. Mann's mathematical technique in drawing the graph is prone to generating hockey-stick shapes even when applied to random data. Therefore, he argues, it proves nothing.
Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong. Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.
Concession.
...says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong.
Hee, hee.
Indeed, Dr. Mann says he can create the same shape from the climate data using completely different math techniques.
That also are biased in favor hockey-stick shapes...
Executive summary of broken hockey stick:
We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick.
WEBPAGE OF STEPHEN McINTYRE
http://www.climate2003.com/
The silver bullet? Maybe.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents contains a
fairly good summary of global warmist theory. The attention to
detail shown by the following models:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xwiring.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xwiring-big.htm
perhaps portends eternal obstructionism:
[Arguments are] made up of words, and every word is a universe in
its own right. And every universe is filled with many, many
questions, all of which you can ask.How to hold off your opponent until the cavalry arrives.
http://expertpages.com/news/expert_ambush.htm
Yet another site that debunks global warming:
Myths and Frauds
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524861.400
Article Preview
Climate change: Menace or myth?
12 February 2005
Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2486
Global warming is a fantasy dreamed up by climate scientists, say the sceptics. Could they possibly be right, asks Fred Pearce
ON 16 FEBRUARY, the Kyoto protocol comes into force. Whether you see this as a triumph of international cooperation or a case of too little, too late, there is no doubt that it was only made possible by decades of dedicated work by climate scientists. Yet as these same researchers celebrate their most notable achievement, their work is being denigrated as never before.
The hostile criticism is coming from sceptics who question the reality of climate change. Critics have always been around, but in recent months their voices have become increasingly prominent and influential. One British newspaper called climate change a "global fraud" based on "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology". A London-based think tank described the UK's chief scientific adviser, David King, as "an embarrassment" for believing that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And the bestselling author Michael Crichton, in his much publicised new novel State of Fear, ...
The complete article is 2603 words long.
To continue reading this article, subscribe to New Scientist. Get 4 issues of New Scientist magazine and instant access to all online content for only $4.95
If you are in the UK please click here, if you are in Australia or New Zealand please click here
BUMP!
You might want to remove that petition link from OISM.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html
Hmm... Yeah, that's a bit flaky. Thanks for the heads-up.
Thank you...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.