[Zuben Elgenubi]

Doctor Michael Mann, blockhead:

[Red Badger]

It’s not a ‘hockey stick’, it’s a HOKEY SCHTICK!...........

[olezip]

3. It is often claimed by skeptics that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (from fossil-fuel burning) is tiny -- less than a percent. The data clearly show that the contribution is 400 minus 280 parts per million (ppm) -- roughly 30% of the current concentration.

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?

[Thud]

Keep in mind that Singer has been one of the leading atmospheric scientists in the world for at least forty years.

[jimfree]

“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.

[rlmorel]

"...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..."

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.