The Global Warmers Have Lost the War

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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

And considering the fact that his work is still being referenced by he scientific community while none of your pals are says all that we need to know.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

And considering the fact that his work is still being referenced by he scientific community while none of your pals are says all that we need to know.

Yes, it says that the "scientific community," as you call it, is composed entirely of unscrupulous quacks.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit

McInTyred is a hack. But you knew that already.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit

McInTyred is a hack. But you knew that already.
So presenting the real hacks lack of facts has got your panties in a knot... Interesting how you wont discuss his methods or work but you will drop ad homenim bombs..
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit

McInTyred is a hack. But you knew that already.
So presenting the real hacks lack of facts has got your panties in a knot... Interesting how you wont discuss his methods or work but you will drop ad homenim bombs..

His method is to publish one single paper citing a tiny problem with one paper that had no bearing whatsoever on the paper's conclusion, and then using that one published paper as evidence that he knows what he is talking about in ALL OTHER AREAS. So is he a hack? Most certainly, he is.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit

McInTyred is a hack. But you knew that already.

Translation: He unmasked your warmist priest to be a fraud.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit

McInTyred is a hack. But you knew that already.

Translation: He unmasked your warmist priest to be a fraud.

yes, I'm sure that you get a rise out of believing such nonsense.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit
So he posts his nonsense on a blog. Anybody can do that for any kind of nonsense. If he had something real, he could publish in a real journal for the GSA, AGU, or the AIP.
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit
So he posts his nonsense on a blog. Anybody can do that for any kind of nonsense. If he had something real, he could publish in a real journal for the GSA, AGU, or the AIP.

Michael Mann also posts "his nonsense" on a blog.
 
Sorry Warmists, you were wrong. Please stop being hysterical ninnies......

------------------------------------------------------

It’s always nice to see a leftist outfit finally fess up to a lost cause. The global warming crowd has clearly lost, and this Mother Jones article makes this clear.

The governments of the world have not implemented the Kyoto treaty of 1992 or its 1997 update. The whole thing lapsed on December 31, 2012. It’s over. Kaput. Think of it as Al Gore’s presidential campaign. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Neither did Obama. It was allowed to die of old age.

In the latest article, we see that the far, far radicals of the global warming agenda had a metric of failure. If carbon dioxide reached a level of 350 parts per million, the end of the world would be in sight.

It is now at 400.

This 350 metric has been promoted for years by James Hansen. One of his acolytes is “deep ecologist” Bill McKibben, who has been sounding the alarm on the supposed ecological crisis ever since the 1980’s. He wrote a book on ecology in 1989: The End of Nature. (Note: nature is still here.)

All is lost! The end is near!”

When all is lost, the sensible response is to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Anyway, maybe by 2076. After McKibben has gone to his deep ecological reward.

We are beyond the point of no return. Right? I mean, if the metric had any validity in the first place, only one conclusion is sensible: “Head for the hills! It’s cooler there.”

So, will these people just go away now? Will they at least shut up? Not a chance. McKibben has created a cottage industry. He has a website: 350.org. The site does not tell us what 350 stands for: “All is lost! The end is near!”

The global warming movement has had no measurable political results, and also no measurable impact on temperature.


Yes, it’s true that global warming ended 18 years ago. But global warming activists do not take credit for this. In fact, they do their best to explain it away. That is because national governments have done nothing to stop CO2 emissions, yet global warming ended. No one needed the Kyoto Protocols or its 1997 update to stop global warming.
--------------------------------------------------------------


Game over.
uh excuse me its science...Bill Nye even said so and he should know as he is a science guy ...he even like proved it with an experiment you can try at home using a light bulb, vinegar and baking soda...
 
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.

Yes, it has been addressed. However, leftwing turds like you continue to claim that Mann was vindicated.

To date, as I recall, there have been 8 papers submitted in support of Mann's deception and to date all of them have been retracted because of fatal assumptions which render their outcome false.

Others have already posted retraction watch, so i wont rehash.

McIntyre tore all of them to pieces on his website.

Here's the URL, btw. I can never post that enough.

Climate Audit
So he posts his nonsense on a blog. Anybody can do that for any kind of nonsense. If he had something real, he could publish in a real journal for the GSA, AGU, or the AIP.

Michael Mann also posts "his nonsense" on a blog.

He also published his work in accredited peer reviewed journals.
 

Forum List

Back
Top