Posted on 07/13/2004 8:18:23 AM PDT by presidio9
WASHINGTON, July 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) exposes serious problems with the historical climate trends reconstruction published by the United Nations (news - web sites)' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- the primary evidence used by policy makers and activists who espouse the theory that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.
"The IPCC claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all the earth's recorded warming during the past two centuries," said NCPA Adjunct Scholar David Legates, the report's author and director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. "Yet the primary assessment they use as support appears to be more junk science than solid evidence."
At issue is what is commonly referred to as the "hockey stick" -- a widely circulated image that depicts a 700-year period where temperatures remained relatively constant followed by the last 100-plus years where temperatures have shot upwards. The "hockey stick," created by researchers Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, is used by the IPCC and environmental activists as proof of human-induced global warming.
The NCPA report cites findings from five independent research groups that have uncovered serious problems with Mann and Jones' methodology and calculations, which call into question any of its conclusions. For example:
-- Several researchers found Mann and Jones made errors in the collection and use of varying data from multiple sources, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations, inappropriately eliminated specific proxy records that they felt were inaccurate and employed statistical methods that removed long time period trends, such as the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).
-- Mann published a retraction in the June 2004 issue of Geophysical Research, in which he admits underestimating the temperature variations indicated by the proxy data by more than one-third since 1400, which accounts for why he missed the Little Ice Age. Strangely, Mann still argues this considerable error doesn't impact his conclusions.
-- Further, Legates found the "blade" (or sudden rise in temperature) of Mann's hockey stick could not be reproduced using common statistical techniques, or even employing the same techniques as Mann and Jones.
"Mann's claims that human's have caused tremendous warming over the last 100 years and that the 1990s were the warmest decade are untenable," said Legates. "Looking at the data, the global warming scare appears to be merely 'Mann made' junk science."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
bump
One article suggests a solar output increase is causing global warming. I remember reading that solar variability can account for maybe 0.4 of a degree of temperature change, but the alleged present 1 degree increase is said to be greater than what solar can account for.
But Mother Nature can definitely throw us some wicked curve balls. The volcano Tambora produced an eruption in 1815 that caused the famous "year without a summer" in 1816, when a snowstorm hit New England in June.
That is an unproveable hypothosis. Unless you know something the rest of the scientists don't.
Sorry, one per customer only. Please read the fine print.
been_lurking: That is an unproveable hypothosis. Unless you know something the rest of the scientists don't.
I saw an episode of NOVA a couple of years ago that examined the theories of what caused the extinction of the mammoths. The two theories under consideration were climate change (end of the ice age) and human predation.
Plausible computer models say that human hunting combined with climate pressure could explain the demise of the mammoths, which would have happened in several centuries. The die-off of mammoths and the other pleistocene megafauna in North America occurred over a 400 year period coincident with the arrival of humans, about 11,000 years ago. The climate changes that enabled humans to cross the Bering land bridge must have played a role, but another theory is that humans brought diseases with them that killed the animals. But again, hunting is known to be capable of causing these extinctions. Yet, you are right, proof may be hard to come by.
You must have been staying at a Holiday Inn while watching Nova.
Note that in your own reply, you used the term "theory." A theory is an idea to be tested and proved. A theory is not a fact. There used to be a bunch of scientists that had theories about a flat planet and a sun that rotated around the earth. Eventually these theories were proved wrong.
Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.
?
Note that in your own reply, you used the term "theory." A theory is an idea to be tested and proved. A theory is not a fact.
Yes -- a theory in science is a testable hypothesis that explains observations. Sometimes "theory" is applied to things that are completely accepted as fact, such as the "theory of relativity" (this particular theory made a number of predictions which have all been abundantly verified). Sometimes "theory" is applied to things generally accepted as true but perhaps still controversial (the theory of evolution might be an example of this), and sometimes to things which are as yet completely unproved. In the case of our dear departed mammoths, there are competing theories that offer good explanations for their extinction but no convincing test available for eliminating the one theory or the other. I think, however, it is clear that humans were capable of causing the extinction (whether or not they were guilty).
Be that as it may, my original premise was that humans can have no lasting impact on the earth, climate or otherwise. As the earth has continued to survive, even without the presence of Mammoths, then I will stand by my original premise.
By the way, many of these same scientists have a theory that 99.99% of all living species that ever existed on the planet earth are now extinct. If that is true, then any effect man may or may not have on the extinction of species is really quite trivial.
![]() |
The Real Environmental Crisis: Why Poverty, Not Affluence, Is the Environment's Number One Enemy by Jack M. Hollander |
![]() |
Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate: How Truth Became Controversial by M. Mihkel Mathiesen foreword by Zbigniew Jaworowski |
![]() |
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg |
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.