The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

[orogenicman]

Your knowledge of the subject is remarkably limited then. Here are three of a bunch. Enjoy!

Paper claiming hottest 60-year-span in 1 000 years put on hold after being published online - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Frontiers Retraction Recursive fury Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation Personality and Social Psychology

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?

I know the English language is not a second language for you. Try reading the post. bubba.

 

[jc456]

The Hockey Stick has been proven to be a fraud, and that includes versions II, III and IV. The so-called "studies" that support the hockey stick are all done by Mann cronies who are in on the con. Their studies are also proven frauds.

Actually, no matter how many times you deniers make that claim, it is still not true. None of it. Nowhere in the peer reviewed literature is there any substantive paper that puts to bed the so-called hockey stick. And it is still being referenced in other works. Moreover, Mann isn't the only one who has generated such a pattern from various climate data. Again, none of your claims are true, but then, they rarely are.

All that shows is that the peer review process is utterly corrupt. That's why they call it PAL review. The "peers" doing the reviewing are the good buddies of the authors of the papers being reviewed. It's all a tight little cli

That is rule #2. Congratulations on proving my point.

You mean pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is "denial?" So was the DA who indicted Bernie Madoff also in denial?

Your tactic alleviates the requirement to support anything you claim facts or logic, doesn't it? You show all the classic symptoms of a conspiracy theorist.

If pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, why no mention of Anthony watt, Steve McInTyre, and a host of other con artists like you denying the facts? In fact, if pointing out obvious frauds and con artists is your goal, one has to wonder why you aren't looking in a mirror.

boring, still no facts to work with. Present some facts so we can all be on the same page.

 

[jc456]

Now that is Funny... Every single attempt to create a "link" so that they can scream that they have the high ground goes down in flames simply because they make up shit which has no basis in fact or science.. You would have thought that the failure of CAGW would have lent them a clue about who they are trying to belittle and marginalize..

The public has become desensitized to the Alyinsky tactics of marginalization and look beyond the hyperbole at the facts now. Alarmists have no where to hide now... and that simply makes me laugh at their stupid asses..

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?

I know the English language is not a second language for you. Try reading the post. bubba.

I did. No mention of a motive except the word transparent. hmmm.. seems again you post shit and can't back it up bubba!!! How's that Watt thing going, still going to deny you made the comment? I'm waiting.

 

[orogenicman]

B

Oh Billy Bob, we are well aware of who you deniers are, and what your motives are.

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?

I know the English language is not a second language for you. Try reading the post. bubba.

I did. No mention of a motive except the word transparent. hmmm.. seems again you post shit and can't back it up bubba!!! How's that Watt thing going, still going to deny you made the comment? I'm waiting.

Boo boo, erm, motive - "For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

 

[bripat9643]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

 

[jc456]

Ok sooth-sayer; what are my motives? I'm betting your clairvoyance is impeded by crap..

As with every other denier here, your motives are rather transparent. I'll quote from the Six aspects of Denial,

Six Aspects of Denial Watching the Deniers

"For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

And so, in order to combat such "evil liberal trappings", you people follow these rules:

1) Doubt the science – This is the standard tactic of all denial movements. Creationists attack evolution and geology as they contradict the belief a god/s created the world just under 10,000 years ago. Alternative health practitioners claim the science that demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of their treatments is at fault. On web sites, in books and on internet forums deniers attack the science by cherry picking data, misrepresenting research or making bogus claims.

2) Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results. They make up vast conspiracy theories in order to cast aspersions on the motives of climate scientists, physicists and biologists whose work confirms the reality of climate change. They use the “follow the money” argument, stating scientists are making up climate change in order to get research funding. All of these are simply ad hominem attacks: playing the man.

3) Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies – Again, one of the favourite tactics of the denial movement. The tiny percentage of actual scientists who express scepticism (Plimer, Lindzen) are dwarfed by the thousands of scientists who agree with the consensus that climate change is happening. But the denial movement exploits the media’s tendency to present “both sides” of the argument and thus help perpetrate the myth scientists are still debating climate change when in fact there is near unanimous agreement.

4) Exaggerate potential harm – This normally takes the form of “harming” the economy if the government intervenes. This is why opposition to cap-and-trade (or emissions trading schemes) are anathema to some parts of the denial movement. They also claim a climate change is an excuse to usher in a “world government”. The denial movement plays up to these fears, playing on the anxiety that they will lose their freedoms (see below).

5) Appeal to personal freedom – One of the great fears of the denial movements is a loss of freedom. Whether economic or political, they have a paranoid fear that someone (government, scientists, greens, politicians) are going to restrict their right to unlimited consumption or their freedom of speech. But reality is not a democracy. We don’t get to choose the truth about climate change, just as a popular debate about evolution does not decide the scientific facts. The denial movement loves to frame this as a “debate” when none exists, claiming they have a right to doubt the science. Of course they do. But it does not mean they are correct.

There isn't a single denier on this forum who doesn't do these things. Not a one.

nice post except you didn't answer the question on what the motive is. it is transparent? What the f is that? come now, what is the motive?

I know the English language is not a second language for you. Try reading the post. bubba.

I did. No mention of a motive except the word transparent. hmmm.. seems again you post shit and can't back it up bubba!!! How's that Watt thing going, still going to deny you made the comment? I'm waiting.

Boo boo, erm, motive - "For libertarians and free market advocates, climate change is a direct challenge to their assumption of unlimited growth. Any response to climate change will involve government intervention and global governance structures (such as a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions). To such ideologues, it is axiomatic that such responses are “bad”. And yet the “market” can’t fix climate. Caught between accepting the science and what it entails and rejecting it in favour of their faith in the market, they reject the science. The same could be said of religious conservatives: like evolution, climate change is a direct challenge to the idea that a god/s has a governance role and is directly responsible for managing the day-to-day affairs of the world. That a god/s would let climate change happen and not intervene is deeply challenging to the idea that a) they would allow such “evil” and b) the god/s is omnipotent."

so you're saying there is no motive except to stop warmers from pushing the extreme methods to punish mankind?

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

LOL. A second rate stastician against all the geologists, geo-physicists, and atmospheric physicists in the world.

 

[Zander]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

LOL. A second rate stastician against all the geologists, geo-physicists, and atmospheric physicists in the world.

A lie is a lie even if it fools a lot of people....

 

[jc456]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

LOL. A second rate stastician against all the geologists, geo-physicists, and atmospheric physicists in the world.

That all lie yep! Get bent

 

[bripat9643]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

LOL. A second rate stastician against all the geologists, geo-physicists, and atmospheric physicists in the world.

None of them have demonstrated his criticism of the hockey stick to be wrong, have they? Even the NAS acknowledge that he was right about Mann's statistical methods.

Furthermore, what's the basis of your claim that he's a "second rate statistician?"

 

[Old Rocks]

NAS stated that they thought there was a better stastistical method than the one that Mann used. They used it, and got essentially the same graph.

National-Academies.org Where the Nation Turns for Independent Expert Advice

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.

Now this is what the NAS said.

 

[Old Rocks]

And for those really interested, here is where you can get the most recent reconstruction from the National Academies of Science;

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2 000 Years The National Academies Press

 

[bripat9643]

NAS stated that they thought there was a better stastistical method than the one that Mann used. They used it, and got essentially the same graph.

National-Academies.org Where the Nation Turns for Independent Expert Advice

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.

Now this is what the NAS said.

You quote a press release on the NAS website, not the report. Here is where you can find that actual report, numskull:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2 000 Years

Here are some important excerpts:

“(p 107) Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated. Methods for evaluation of uncertainties are discussed in Chapter 9.”

"(111) The observed discrepancy between some tree ring variables that are thought to be sensitive to temperature and the temperature changes observed in the late 20th century (Jacoby and D’Arrigo 1995, Briffa et al. 1998) reduces confidence that the correlation between these proxies and temperature has been consistent over time. Future work is needed to understand the cause of this “divergence,” which for now is considered unique to the 20th century and to areas north of 55°N (Cook et al. 2004)… also that the difference between northern and southern sites found after about 1950 is unprecedented since at least A.D. 900."​

 

[orogenicman]

NAS stated that they thought there was a better stastistical method than the one that Mann used. They used it, and got essentially the same graph.

National-Academies.org Where the Nation Turns for Independent Expert Advice

The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."

The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.

Now this is what the NAS said.

You quote a press release on the NAS website, not the report. Here is where you can find that actual report, numskull:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2 000 Years

Here are some important excerpts:

“(p 107) Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated. Methods for evaluation of uncertainties are discussed in Chapter 9.”

"(111) The observed discrepancy between some tree ring variables that are thought to be sensitive to temperature and the temperature changes observed in the late 20th century (Jacoby and D’Arrigo 1995, Briffa et al. 1998) reduces confidence that the correlation between these proxies and temperature has been consistent over time. Future work is needed to understand the cause of this “divergence,” which for now is considered unique to the 20th century and to areas north of 55°N (Cook et al. 2004)… also that the difference between northern and southern sites found after about 1950 is unprecedented since at least A.D. 900."​

This has been addressed at least a dozen times in this forum. That you bring it up yet again is rather desperate, I should think.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that the developments in science and the ongoing El Nino are leaving these people a bit desperate. For five years, a barrage of "we are in a cooling trend", has been posted here. 2010, record year, 2014, record year, and now 2015 shaping up to really establish a new high mark. All their flap yap is coming back to them.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks thinks ENSO is caused by CO2. hahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

The hockey stick graph was fake. What is so hard to understand about that?

Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (shown in red) appears to show that the Earth's temperature was stable from 1400 to 1900. There is then a dramatic rise (like the end of a hockey stick) that was claimed to be due to (gasp!) carbon dioxide emissions. This graph was heavily promoted by Al Gore and his supporters, and by the IPCC whose 2001 Summary for Policymakers claimed "that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium".

It is now known that the data had been carefully fudged to remove an inconvenient truth, namely the Medieval Warm Period, when the world was warmer than today. The true variation (shown in blue) includes the tail end of the Medieval Warm Period centuries before carbon dioxide reached its present levels. It is easy to see the problem.....

----------------------
unless you're an enviro-nutter with an agenda.......

Another dumb little corksmoker has flapped yap. How cute.

What evidence is there for the hockey stick

Figure 6: Composite Northern Hemisphere land and land plus ocean temperature reconstructions and estimated 95% confidence intervals. Shown for comparison are published Northern Hemisphere reconstructions (Mann 2008).

Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
Hockey Stick Studies

LOL. A second rate stastician against all the geologists, geo-physicists, and atmospheric physicists in the world.

None of them have demonstrated his criticism of the hockey stick to be wrong, have they? Even the NAS acknowledge that he was right about Mann's statistical methods.

Furthermore, what's the basis of your claim that he's a "second rate statistician?"

His whole assessment is premised on his dislike of someone who challenges his religion. Steve M is one of the leading statisticians in the field. His credibility lays the alarmist drivel waste and that is what they fear... The truth.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think that the developments in science and the ongoing El Nino are leaving these people a bit desperate. For five years, a barrage of "we are in a cooling trend", has been posted here. 2010, record year, 2014, record year, and now 2015 shaping up to really establish a new high mark. All their flap yap is coming back to them.

Too Funny... Old Crock thinks the ENSO is controlled by... Wait for it.... CO2....

 

[Billy_Bob]

Old Rocks thinks ENSO is caused by CO2. hahahaha

You beat me to it!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I think that the developments in science and the ongoing El Nino are leaving these people a bit desperate. For five years, a barrage of "we are in a cooling trend", has been posted here. 2010, record year, 2014, record year, and now 2015 shaping up to really establish a new high mark. All their flap yap is coming back to them.

Old Crock appeals to the authority of his made up data from homogenization and fantasy models....



Yet Satellite Terrestrial data which covers the whole globe tells us that it never happened..