Posted on 08/21/2013 1:20:27 PM PDT by neverdem
The false "hockeystick" graph with which (in 2001) the UN climate panel claimed that current surface temperatures are "unprecedented" in a millennium is at odds with hundreds of scientific papers and with their own previous position. There is nothing unusual about today's temperatures; the world was warmer in the Middle Ages. However, the "hockeystick" graph showing a rapid increase in 20th century CO2 concentration is genuine.
The Third Assessment Report (2001) of the UN-sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) espouses a temperature history over the last thousand years that resembles a 'hockeystick' (HS). The 'shank' is the smooth decline of temperature from 1000 to 1900AD, followed by an apparent sharp rise in the 20th century (forming the 'blade' of a hockeystick). IPCC-AR3 promoted this rise as definitive evidence of human influence on climate; emission of carbon dioxide was supposed to cause the 20th century warming. But this temperature history is fake; it is contradicted by much other evidence.
Top figure from IPCC-AR1 (1990) Bottom figure from IPCC-AR3 (2001) - does away with MWP and LIA
By "fake" I mean it is 'not real.' Please note that I do not use the term "faked." I prefer to believe that Dr. Michael Mann, creator of the hockeystick, simply made several scientific errors when he derived this notorious graph of global surface temperature from his analysis of 'proxy' data (tree rings, corals, lake sediments, etc) of the past millennium. Canadian scientists Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, as well as statistics expert Edward Wegman (of George Mason University in Virginia), demonstrated that Mann's data and statistical methods are both faulty; yet he has not withdrawn his HS paper -- though Nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
...Obama issues an Executive Order to the Sun...
....to increase it's magnetic field....
and make a good crop of sunspots before elections in 2016....
(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades.
The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age....and lasted 400 years.
Good luck surviving with no electricity and GE modified seeds.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news203746768.html#jCp
It’s not a ‘hockey stick’, it’s a HOKEY SCHTICK!...........
Informative article! We are curious about the data, assumptions, and methodology that went into the finding that 30% of the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil-fuel burning?
We have natural sources/sinks of CO2, volcanoes, seasonal variations, forest fires, even daily fluctuations, etc. Are these annualized numbers? It makes me wonder how the data "clearly" shows the contribution of man's burning fossil fuels?
How do the natural sources of CO2 stack up against fossil fuel burning?
Might we not also be provided the amount of CO2 that is derived from “fossil fuels” and that amount that is dereived from the respirative actions of all life on earth?
And follow up (after Mann sued the original satirists):
Hide The Decline II
Micheal Mann is now suing the Wall Street Journal for calling him a fraud. Should get real interesting.
The East Angola crowd’s actions were proof positive that they were dealing in POLITICAL SCIENCE. When the data didn’t pan out to the results they wanted they simply changed the data. There would be no reason to CHANGE DATA except for money and the political pressure from those that stood to gain something.
Keep in mind that Singer has been one of the leading atmospheric scientists in the world for at least forty years.
“Scientists agree...” If they are real scientists like Singer they do not simply agree and stifle dissent, they challenge each other to move knowledge forward.
Standing by for discovery. Popcorn stocked!
Good grief. "I prefer to believe" and "simply made a few scientific errors". Unbelievable. How the heck did this rubbish make it into American Thinker?
Mann and others knew damn well what they were falsifying. This just pisses me off.
I read this article, and near the end, the "...Upon reflection on these temperature and CO2 data of the last thousand years, I conclude that the evidence presented here will cause unhappiness for both extreme alarmists and extreme skeptics. Maybe that's a good thing..." statement is revealing.
Extreme skeptics aren't trying to extort trillions of dollars of money from the developed world and destroy industry in those areas in impinge on any freedoms those people might enjoy.
The Climate Alarmists are.
But Mann knew exactly what he was trying to do. It is disingenuous (since I don't think ignorance would be the primary foundation of the statement) of him to say that it was an honest mistake.
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.