Links please. We would like to see what constitutes proof for the politically innocent.
Michael Mann: Harper's War on Science
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Becasue the Canadian government belongs to the Cadnian people. It is supposed of, by and for the people. The default position for government publications, correspondence, research and knowledge is that it should be available to the public, unless there is strong justification for keeping something private.
Adn regarding the hockey stick, from IPCC AR5:
And of course the thermometers a thousand years ago were as accurate as the ones we have now. And the people reading them were as diligent in their recording. RIght.
So they had no actual readings from 1000 years ago? How convenient when making a computer model fit your "facts"
Thermometers aren't really necessary. Wildlife provides a mass of info including temperature ranges they find tolerable, and temperature-dependent behaviors, etc. Crossmatch enough wildlife and it's possible to narrow down temps quite well. EG: http://www.utdanacenter.org/mathtoolkit/downloads/lessons/alg2_crickets_ans.pdf
Ice-core info also reveals a lot about temperature.
Ice-core info also reveals a lot about temperature.
Do you even have a clue what you're talking about? becasue you're not making any sense at all.
Wrong.
The first graph shows the "hockey stick" slope blasting skyward in the lare 90s, indicating steady and extreme temperature change.
The second shows that simply has not happened.
If you take the first "hockey stick" graph.........and eliminated everything before 1990, the discrepancy would look even worse.
Mann is a con artist, like Suzuki, like Al Gore.
Or....he is absolutely incompetent.......like Suzuki, like Al Gore
Take your pick.
Could he be simply wrong, like Suzuki and Al Gore? Or do you insist that everyone you don't agree with has to be a criminal and a fool?
My pick would be that you show your graph of a temperature reconstruction for the last 1000 years.
I get called ecotard an awful lot, which is pretty ironic since most of the guys who refer to me as ecotard tap out as soon as the discussion starts getting into the science.
Example:
Me: I'm interested in where the theory falls apart for you--it is the spectral physics invovled with greenhouse theory, or an issue with the general circulation models?
Guy who just callled me an "ecotard": AL GORE IS FAT!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, well, in your case. . .
Just funnin' ya there, Zip.
Yep, that's why I generally don't play in these threads. I started a thread on my questions about the climate change model. Didn't get much attention.
Guess you haven't been paying attention for a while. Mann and his "hockey sticks" were vindicated a few times. Of course the anti-science types will insist that the Att'y Gen. was out-to-lunch and science is conspiratorially backing Mann up, but what can you say about anti-science types, especially when they're fond of utilizing the results of science.
Six aircraft were abandoned in 43 or 44 in Greenland, they have been discovered under 250 to 265 feet of ice making trash of previous ice core data. A mile of ice might be deposited in relatively short order, similarly layers from cores from Antarctica are found to not represent years but individual snowfall events
So I see that you believe scientist must not differ in their beliefs. Of course this would be the end of science. Ah ha!!! I have accidental like uncovered your mission, the freezing solid of scientific advancement.
Actually, Mann is probably the only guy with the unmitigated gall to pretend he could possibly accurately extend a temperature graph back 1,000 years.
Now, let me make this clear to you....the HOCKEY STICK part of Mann's graph is the only part that is relevant. Is that clear?? There is no relevant debate over temperatures for the last 1,000 years........there can be none, because there is no way to ACCURATELY pin down temperatures 1,000 years ago.
That is a good part of what makes the entire "climate change" debate a farce. The world is billions of years old, and climate constantly changes........but we simply do not have the ability to track that change over any extended period of time with any accuracy, nor do we have the ability to compare change over the last couple of centuries to variations over tens of thousands of years.....which would be necessary to actually reach any real conclusion.......
But I digress.
It is clear to anyone that the relevant part of Mann's graph is at the extreme end......over the past 15 to 20 years, in which Mann's graph shows/predicts a radica jump in temperature on earth.
The graph of actual temperature readings proves he was wrong. The extreme increase simply has not happened.
Simple as that, and your silly complaints over the lenth of time graphed are totally irrelevant.
But maybe this one will make you happier. The hockey stick kinda went flacid, didn't it???
Well I think Manns been crushed enough for one evening, I'm off for some beers.
Hot off De Press
An Open Letter to CNN’s Carol Costello on ‘Why are we still debating climate change?’
Tags:
If the facts supporting Climate Change are so obvious, should not debating the facts of the matter strengthen those facts? Just as you would be eager to prove that you are not, in fact, stupid, should you not be equally as eager to prove your opinion by engaging in factual debate?
While you ponder that, and keeping in mind that I did say the answer to your question is in your article and I would get to that, let’s examine the only fact upon which your argument rests, which is that there is a consensus among 97% of scientists. Well Carol, I read that study. Did you? I’m guessing not.
Carol, that study was done by Margaret Zimerman, who sent the survey to 10,257 Earth Scientists. Of those, 3,146 responded. Of those, Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 77. That fact alone should have your journalistic instincts on high alert. But it gets worse. The two questions which lead to the 97% finding were:
Hot off De Press
An Open Letter to CNN’s Carol Costello on ‘Why are we still debating climate change?’
Tags:
If the facts supporting Climate Change are so obvious, should not debating the facts of the matter strengthen those facts? Just as you would be eager to prove that you are not, in fact, stupid, should you not be equally as eager to prove your opinion by engaging in factual debate?
While you ponder that, and keeping in mind that I did say the answer to your question is in your article and I would get to that, let’s examine the only fact upon which your argument rests, which is that there is a consensus among 97% of scientists. Well Carol, I read that study. Did you? I’m guessing not.
Carol, that study was done by Margaret Zimerman, who sent the survey to 10,257 Earth Scientists. Of those, 3,146 responded. Of those, Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 77. That fact alone should have your journalistic instincts on high alert. But it gets worse. The two questions which lead to the 97% finding were:
If you include social sciences, governments since at least Pearson have been launching a war on science. Just read some of the social 'studies' commissionned by the government going as far back as the 1960s. Maybe the only difference is that Harper is now extending it to natural sciences now. In some respects though, it's not much worse when you consider some of the racist conclusions government studies of the Pearson and Trudeau eras came up with, on which many of today's laws are based.
In which Don Johnson carried a Bren Ten pistol.......the best thing about the show.........
So, can you explain how ice-core data's been trashed? From here, it looks like your lack of knowledge of ice-cores is comparable to your abilities in physics and maybe even exceeds them. But the good news is you're vastly ahead of Colpy in knowledge of ice-cores and other methods of determining temps without using thermometers.
Nope.If their science improves accuracy, then i am fine with it (I'm presuming the usual rigor in testing).
? Taking a few things for granted, ain'tcha?