Climate change seen as top threat, but U.S. power a growing worry - poll

[yogi100]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"You have your view and I have mine. "

Problem is your views are incorrect. We're not talking opinions but facts here.

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

OK, you've already told us you don't do science. 

 

No need to rub it in.

[stevenl]

39 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

My views are based on past observations and correct. Yours are based on expectations, prophesies and anticipations so are incorrect.

 

These climate change 'experts' are employed by organisations who often have a financial interest in the global warming and climate change agenda.

Sure mate, what you see exists, what you can't see doesn't.

[VincentRJ]

I should also mention that sea level rise is often confused with land sinking. Certain islands that are experiencing alarming sea level rise, are actually experiencing land sinking. The city of Bangkok is an example of this. Bangkok is sinking at a greater rate than sea levels are rising. ThaiVisa produced a news article on this, some time ago.

[metisdead]

Posts in violation of fair use policy have been removed. 

[johnnybangkok]

6 hours ago, yogi100 said:

"You'll be long gone by then and therefore probably don't care."

There's no need to be rude. Let's keep it civilised shall we.

 

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

You have your view and I have mine. Try addressing people as you would face to face rather than being insulting from behind the screen of a computer.

I wasn’t being rude, I was being factual. From your past post I’m guessing you’re mid 60’s at best, possibly in your 70’s. Unless you’re immortal I’m quite sure these changes will not impact you in your lifetime. I may not also see them in mine but it doesn’t mean my son won’t. At 9 months old he definitely will. It’s future generations we are talking about here. 

Your ability to “see things” does not mean it isn’t happening (seen much photosynthesis recently; personally seen the glaciers melting?) and when did we stop believing people who have devoted their whole life to become an expert in their field over your “view?” All opinions are not created equal. You dont question your doctor when he gives you a diagnosis because you have a different “view” but you readily dismiss individuals of equal professional standing over subjects you have a vague idea about and no other facts other than “you can’t see it”. 

And I guarantee I’m addressing you on “a computer” as I would exactly address you face to face (you probably wouldn’t like that either) but it is done with a hope that you may go and do your own research and get better informed about something that WILL impact our children and grandchildren if we don’t start listening more to the “paid professors”. 

 

[Cryingdick]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:53 AM, Ahab said:

Have the read the proposals put forward by the Democrats (US congress) "Green New Deal"? It makes a skittle sh$%^ing nuclear powered unicorn sound like a reasonable solution. When the eco-warriors stop flying on airplanes, heating their homes with fossil fuels in the winter time, and come up with reasonable solutions I might start listening to them, but I am not going to hold my breath until that time.

 

Yeah McConnell announced the senate will put the new green deal to a vote. He couldn't keep the grin off of his face while doing so. It was classic. But good let's see who votes yes for it so we can eliminate them as a presidential candidate. 

 

My husband who is an immigrant to the USA hates Trump. He didn't believe me before moving here when I told him wait until you see what the other side is like. He is truly in a state of disbelief that anybody over the age of 12 years old is ignorant enough to believe in the new green deal. He still hates Trump. lol 

[Ahab]

20 hours ago, Berkshire said:

About the author: Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

 

So clearly, he has an agenda.  For everyone in the fossil fuel industry/camp, they're about making money.  But for many who just blindly follow Trump....not sure what you're getting out of it. 

OK, the guy has an agenda, exactly in the same way people who support the theory have their agenda.

 

What is factually wrong with the article? The 97% is a claim that is not supported by facts.

 

The study that produced this sound bite actually found that less than 1% of scientific papers that were looked at actually stated that anthropogenic causes were the reason for the temperature rise observed since 1880. Less than 1% not 97% of the scientific papers supported the theory of anthropogenic global warming so you might want to ask yourself why John Cook published a BS paper with the 97% number in it (hint, he threw out a shitload of papers that did not say what he wanted them to say).

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

OK, the guy has an agenda, exactly in the same way people who support the theory have their agenda.

 

What is factually wrong with the article? The 97% is a claim that is not supported by facts.

 

The study that produced this sound bite actually found that less than 1% of scientific papers that were looked at actually stated that anthropogenic causes were the reason for the temperature rise observed since 1880. Less than 1% not 97% of the scientific papers supported the theory of anthropogenic global warming so you might want to ask yourself why John Cook published a BS paper with the 97% number in it (hint, he threw out a shitload of papers that did not say what he wanted them to say).

Having an agenda and having scientific evidence are not the same thing.

 

Check the science!

[gamb00ler]

15 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

 

I hope you don't apply that same standard "common sense" to your health care.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Having an agenda and having scientific evidence are not the same thing.

 

Check the science!

Read the paper that my post is based on. John Cook is a scientist (allegedly) and he has an agenda which is to try to convince people that 97% of scientists buy into the manmade global warming hysteria. The actual number of studies that stated this as a conclusion was less than 1% of the papers on the topic. 97% of scientists do not agree that anthropogenic CO2 is the sole cause of global warming. It is a myth and always has been a myth based on a single flawed paper produced by Mr. John Cook. A single scientific paper on any topic does not make it a fact, and there are not any other evidence to support this false claim.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Check the science!

 

Excellent advice! That's what I do, and that's why I'm very skeptical about the mantra which demonizes CO2.

 

10 years ago, or so, I used to accept that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were a real threat to the climate, and that we should move to renewable energy as quickly as possible. I was puzzled why governments were not taking swifter action.

 

I recall listening to interviews of James Lovelock, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other so-called authorities who made alarming statements about unprecedented rates of climate change, ocean acidification that would destroy the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, sea level rises that would destroy many coastal cities and submerge many islands, melting ice in the arctic which would cause the extinction of the polar bear, and so on, and so on.

 

When I began searching on the internet, and in Google Scholar, for more information on the issues mentioned in these interviews, such as ocean acidification, I began to realize how totally biased and non-educational such interviews were.
For example, if a scientist gives a talk on Ocean Acidification, and explains that CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid which makes the oceans more acidic, wouldn't you think that person would also mention what the current pH of the oceans are, and how much the pH as changed since the industrial revolution?

 

In order to get this information, I had to do my own research. After checking a number of scientific papers, it became clear why the pH of the oceans was never mentioned when 'alarmist' scientists discussed this issue during interviews in the media. Such facts would have undermined the alarmist message.

 

Here is some of the information I discovered.
(1) The average pH of the surface of the oceans is estimated to be 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline, or basic.
(2) This average pH, only of the surface and which can only be approximate, is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution.
(3) The pH of the oceans has a natural variability according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean. This variability is greater than the predicted changes to the pH of the oceans during the next century, and sea life is well used to adapting to such changes.
(4) There is constant upwelling and downwelling in the oceans causing changes in temperature and alkalinity.
(5) There are possibly millions of volcanoes on the sea floor, some of which will be active at any given moment, producing heat and carbon dioxide. It's not known exactly how many submarine volcanoes there are. Estimates vary between 1 million and 10 million.

 

By the way, James Lovelock, as he got older and wiser, realised his mistake regarding predictions of catastrophic climate change due to man's CO2 emissions. This is now his current view.

 

"Climate alarmism, he says, is not “remotely scientific”; one volcano could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could; the computer models are “unreliable”; greens have behaved “deplorably”; and anyone who tries to “predict more than five to ten years is a bit of an idiot.”

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

[wilcopops]

18 hours ago, yogi100 said:

I prefer to base things upon what I can see for myself and draw my own conclusions rather than what some professor is paid to tell me.

Well, you're on a hiding to nothing then.

[Chomper Higgot]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Excellent advice! That's what I do, and that's why I'm very skeptical about the mantra which demonizes CO2.

 

10 years ago, or so, I used to accept that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were a real threat to the climate, and that we should move to renewable energy as quickly as possible. I was puzzled why governments were not taking swifter action.

 

I recall listening to interviews of James Lovelock, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other so-called authorities who made alarming statements about unprecedented rates of climate change, ocean acidification that would destroy the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, sea level rises that would destroy many coastal cities and submerge many islands, melting ice in the arctic which would cause the extinction of the polar bear, and so on, and so on.

 

When I began searching on the internet, and in Google Scholar, for more information on the issues mentioned in these interviews, such as ocean acidification, I began to realize how totally biased and non-educational such interviews were.
For example, if a scientist gives a talk on Ocean Acidification, and explains that CO2 dissolves in water to form Carbonic Acid which makes the oceans more acidic, wouldn't you think that person would also mention what the current pH of the oceans are, and how much the pH as changed since the industrial revolution?

 

In order to get this information, I had to do my own research. After checking a number of scientific papers, it became clear why the pH of the oceans was never mentioned when 'alarmist' scientists discussed this issue during interviews in the media. Such facts would have undermined the alarmist message.

 

Here is some of the information I discovered.
(1) The average pH of the surface of the oceans is estimated to be 8.1. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic. Above 7 is alkaline, or basic.
(2) This average pH, only of the surface and which can only be approximate, is estimated to have fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution.
(3) The pH of the oceans has a natural variability according to the season of the year, the location of the ocean, and the depth of the ocean. This variability is greater than the predicted changes to the pH of the oceans during the next century, and sea life is well used to adapting to such changes.
(4) There is constant upwelling and downwelling in the oceans causing changes in temperature and alkalinity.
(5) There are possibly millions of volcanoes on the sea floor, some of which will be active at any given moment, producing heat and carbon dioxide. It's not known exactly how many submarine volcanoes there are. Estimates vary between 1 million and 10 million.

 

By the way, James Lovelock, as he got older and wiser, realised his mistake regarding predictions of catastrophic climate change due to man's CO2 emissions. This is now his current view.

 

 

 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

You should have spent half the time you wasted on that post actually reading some scientific research reports.

 

Had you done so you’d have come across thousands of research papers addressing ocean acidification that are stuffed full of data on the changes in the pH.

 

The Great Barrier Reef being one of their favourite study areas.

[VincentRJ]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You should have spent half the time you wasted on that post actually reading some scientific research reports.

 

Had you done so you’d have come across thousands of research papers addressing ocean acidification that are stuffed full of data on the changes in the pH.

 

The Great Barrier Reef being one of their favourite study areas.

I know there are many thousands of reports in each of the many different disciplines of climate research, and I know that I don't have the time to read them all. I don't think anyone has.

 

The information I provided on ocean acidification is what I understand to be reasonably factual. If you think it isn't, then I would be grateful if you could show contrary evidence from a reliable source.

 

Ultimately, everyone has to rely upon what makes sense to them. If you have little understanding of the methodology of science, then it's difficult to be skeptical, and it's much easier to just accept the news reports of the bogus 90% or 97% consensus.

[yogi100]

This climate change malarkey is being used as a money making operation by big companies and politicians associated with them.

 

The last British Prime Minister (Call Me Dave) Cameron was all in favour of alternative energy and had jumped determinedly on the global warming band wagon. We eventually discovered why although he kept it quiet right up until the press got wind of the story. Strangely after that happened he kept it even quieter.

 

His father is a very wealthy landowner and owns acres and acres of open land on the East Coast of Britain mainly in Lincolnshire. It often gets very windy by the North Sea which was to prove very convenient for CMD's dad and his chums.

 

Old man Cameron was being paid millions by a wind farm organisation to set up windmills on his land and that's why CMD, his boy was so enthusiastic about promoting alternative energy and 'saving the planet'.

 

Once the press including those 'right wing' Tories at the Daily Mail exposed this nice little earner CMD and his dad had going we never heard another peep from CMD on the clean air subject. Whatever way you want to look at it that was corruption at the highest level in our political system but it soon got brushed under the carpet.

 

Another prominent politician who expressed concern about the same subject was exposed as having family interests in the solar panel industry. Neither was that common knowledge till a journalist found out about it. That was also a prime example of political corruption.

 

Whatever steps we take in the UK will have not effect whatsoever on sea levels, ice caps and rainforests etc while the US, China and India are pumping noxious fumes and gases into the atmosphere as if their very lives depend on it.

 

There are genuine well meaning eco warriors but  a lot of these businessmen and politicians simply regard the issue as a licence to print money. Like the last British Prime Minister did. Accordingly many of us take this global warming business with more than just a spoonful of salt.

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

This climate change malarkey is being used as a money making operation by big companies and politicians associated with them.

 

The last British Prime Minister (Call Me Dave) Cameron was all in favour of alternative energy and had jumped determinedly on the global warming band wagon. We eventually discovered why although he kept it quiet right up until the press got wind of the story. Strangely after that happened he kept it even quieter.

 

His father is a very wealthy landowner and owns acres and acres of open land on the East Coast of Britain mainly in Lincolnshire. It often gets very windy by the North Sea which was to prove very convenient for CMD's dad and his chums.

 

Old man Cameron was being paid millions by a wind farm organisation to set up windmills on his land and that's why CMD, his boy was so enthusiastic about promoting alternative energy and 'saving the planet'.

 

Once the press including those 'right wing' Tories at the Daily Mail exposed this nice little earner CMD and his dad had going we never heard another peep from CMD on the clean air subject. Whatever way you want to look at it that was corruption at the highest level in our political system but it soon got brushed under the carpet.

 

Another prominent politician who expressed concern about the same subject was exposed as having family interests in the solar panel industry. Neither was that common knowledge till a journalist found out about it. That was also a prime example of political corruption.

 

Whatever steps we take in the UK will have not effect whatsoever on sea levels, ice caps and rainforests etc while the US, China and India are pumping noxious fumes and gases into the atmosphere as if their very lives depend on it.

 

There are genuine well meaning eco warriors but  a lot of these businessmen and politicians simply regard the issue as a licence to print money. Like the last British Prime Minister did. Accordingly many of us take this global warming business with more than just a spoonful of salt.

So erm....

 

What about all the big businesses with a vested interest in halting, delaying, frustrating efforts to tackle climate change?

 

Did the motives and actions of these never enter your head?

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, yogi100 said:

This climate change malarkey is being used as a money making operation by big companies and politicians associated with them.

 

The last British Prime Minister (Call Me Dave) Cameron was all in favour of alternative energy and had jumped determinedly on the global warming band wagon. We eventually discovered why although he kept it quiet right up until the press got wind of the story. Strangely after that happened he kept it even quieter.

 

His father is a very wealthy landowner and owns acres and acres of open land on the East Coast of Britain mainly in Lincolnshire. It often gets very windy by the North Sea which was to prove very convenient for CMD's dad and his chums.

 

Old man Cameron was being paid millions by a wind farm organisation to set up windmills on his land and that's why CMD, his boy was so enthusiastic about promoting alternative energy and 'saving the planet'.

 

Once the press including those 'right wing' Tories at the Daily Mail exposed this nice little earner CMD and his dad had going we never heard another peep from CMD on the clean air subject. Whatever way you want to look at it that was corruption at the highest level in our political system but it soon got brushed under the carpet.

 

Another prominent politician who expressed concern about the same subject was exposed as having family interests in the solar panel industry. Neither was that common knowledge till a journalist found out about it. That was also a prime example of political corruption.

 

Whatever steps we take in the UK will have not effect whatsoever on sea levels, ice caps and rainforests etc while the US, China and India are pumping noxious fumes and gases into the atmosphere as if their very lives depend on it.

 

There are genuine well meaning eco warriors but  a lot of these businessmen and politicians simply regard the issue as a licence to print money. Like the last British Prime Minister did. Accordingly many of us take this global warming business with more than just a spoonful of salt.

Your non sequitur is something truly to behold.

So because David Camerons dad and a few other people benefited from wind and solar power initiatives, climate change/global warming has to be taken with a pinch of salt? (which is the phrase I think you were striving for).

The vast majority of climate change scientists (yes, we know the 97% is disputed but it's still the VAST majority whichever way you hack it) are all in agreement that climate (not the weather as Trump loves to keep quoting) is being adversely effected by mankind's influence. But you would rather believe they are creating an imaginary crisis that is only being exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, crooked politicians and oil companies! 

There's no reasoning with people who think just because they have an opinion on a subject it supersedes the opinion of experts. As the famous quote goes, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson. 

I'm going to go with Neil on this one.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So erm....

 

What about all the big businesses with a vested interest in halting, delaying, frustrating efforts to tackle climate change?

 

Did the motives and actions of these never enter your head?

I'm sure they did enter his head. Conforming to the ethos of the company or organization one is working in, is standard practice. It's a requirement if one wants to get promotion, and/or avoid the sack.

 

Can you imagine a scientist employed by a tobacco company, in the days when the health dangers of smoking began to be recognized, but were not certain, declaring that he was in complete agreement that smoking was bad for the health and that it would very likely increase the risk of lung cancer? He would immediately get the sack.

 

A scientist in that position has to make the decision, does he resign from his job, which he possibly enjoys, and which pays him a good salary so he can support his family in relative luxury, or does he continue working in the company to help support and contribute to the profits which pay his wages?

 

This is an extreme example, and those scientists who denied the harmful effects of smoking, in order to keep their jobs, have now lost their reputation. However, this type of bias can apply to many people in many organisations, whether they are scientists or not.
The current research on climate is funded by governments only because a major concern about the effects of rising CO2 levels has been created. Everyone working in a government-funded Climate Research Centre must surely understands that the funding will only continue as long as the alarm continues.

 

The leaked Climate-gate emails provide an insight into the sorts of things that have occurred in order to maintain confidence in the mantra that the current warming is unprecedented, and is due to man's CO2 emissions.

 

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is another extreme example, equivalent to the fraud perpetrated by some of those tobacco scientists. In his Hockey Stick graph, he wiped out the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, claiming such climate changes were local events, restricted to Europe.

 

There are hundreds of scientific studies which indicate that both the MWP and the LIA were global events, affecting South America, China, and New Zealand. Crikey! Talk about denial! ☹️

[bristolboy]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm sure they did enter his head. Conforming to the ethos of the company or organization one is working in, is standard practice. It's a requirement if one wants to get promotion, and/or avoid the sack.

 

Can you imagine a scientist employed by a tobacco company, in the days when the health dangers of smoking began to be recognized, but were not certain, declaring that he was in complete agreement that smoking was bad for the health and that it would very likely increase the risk of lung cancer? He would immediately get the sack.

 

A scientist in that position has to make the decision, does he resign from his job, which he possibly enjoys, and which pays him a good salary so he can support his family in relative luxury, or does he continue working in the company to help support and contribute to the profits which pay his wages?

 

This is an extreme example, and those scientists who denied the harmful effects of smoking, in order to keep their jobs, have now lost their reputation. However, this type of bias can apply to many people in many organisations, whether they are scientists or not.
The current research on climate is funded by governments only because a major concern about the effects of rising CO2 levels has been created. Everyone working in a government-funded Climate Research Centre must surely understands that the funding will only continue as long as the alarm continues.

 

The leaked Climate-gate emails provide an insight into the sorts of things that have occurred in order to maintain confidence in the mantra that the current warming is unprecedented, and is due to man's CO2 emissions.

 

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph is another extreme example, equivalent to the fraud perpetrated by some of those tobacco scientists. In his Hockey Stick graph, he wiped out the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, claiming such climate changes were local events, restricted to Europe.

 

There are hundreds of scientific studies which indicate that both the MWP and the LIA were global events, affecting South America, China, and New Zealand. Crikey! Talk about denial! ☹️

As anyone who actually followed and followed up on the so called "Climategate" scandal knows, the Times actually had to apologize for the dishonesty of its articles that alleged dishonesty on the part of climatologists.

And as for what other climatologists conclude about the "hockey stick", by now there have been many other independent studies confirming that the hockey stick is real.

[RickBradford]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And as for what other climatologists conclude about the "hockey stick", by now there have been many other independent studies confirming that the hockey stick is real.

And there have been a great many confirming that the 'hockey stick' is a statistical abomination which would have failed in a  high-school class.

 

Even the IPCC threw it under the bus in 2007 with their AR4 report, when they admitted the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, which Michael Mann had tried to disappear. That was a wake-up call for the scientific community.

 

Much of the chicanery is exposed in a book called The Hockey Stick Illusion, a forensic examination which casts a bad light on Mann's science, as well as his motives.

 

Sensible activists now avoid mentioning the hockey stick altogether....

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And there have been a great many confirming that the 'hockey stick' is a statistical abomination which would have failed in a  high-school class.

 

Even the IPCC threw it under the bus in 2007 with their AR4 report, when they admitted the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, which Michael Mann had tried to disappear. That was a wake-up call for the scientific community.

 

Much of the chicanery is exposed in a book called The Hockey Stick Illusion, a forensic examination which casts a bad light on Mann's science, as well as his motives.

 

Sensible activists now avoid mentioning the hockey stick altogether....

And once again, you're lying. The latest studies. which draw on much larger collections of data, have repeatedly confirmed the reality of the hockey stick and answered earlier critiques of Mann's work.

"New studies using different methods continued to extend the period covered by reconstructions. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with Mann et al. 2008, though it used different methods and covered a different area.^[212] Studies by Christiansen and Ljungqvist investigated previous underestimation of low-frequency variability, and reaffirmed Mann et al.'s conclusions about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.^[213] as did Ljungqvist et al. 2012 which used a larger network of proxies than previous studies. Marcott et al. 2013used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.^[214]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

And there have been a great many confirming that the 'hockey stick' is a statistical abomination which would have failed in a  high-school class.

 

Even the IPCC threw it under the bus in 2007 with their AR4 report, when they admitted the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, which Michael Mann had tried to disappear. That was a wake-up call for the scientific community.

 

Much of the chicanery is exposed in a book called The Hockey Stick Illusion, a forensic examination which casts a bad light on Mann's science, as well as his motives.

 

Sensible activists now avoid mentioning the hockey stick altogether....

And you have repeatedly asserted that the public's belief in global warming and climate change and the need for action are in a massive decline. You still sticking with that?

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Much of the chicanery is exposed in a book called The Hockey Stick Illusion, a forensic examination which casts a bad light on Mann's science, as well as his motives.

 

A book by Andrew Montford who is an accountant by profession. His book was subject to how much peer review, exactly? And it was published in 2010. Huge amounts of data have been gathered since then that contradict his conclusions.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As anyone who actually followed and followed up on the so called "Climategate" scandal knows, the Times actually had to apologize for the dishonesty of its articles that alleged dishonesty on the part of climatologists.

 

I presume you are referring to the NY Times which is very obviously a 'pro alarmist' newspaper with regard to climate change. Attached are a few links which reveal this.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nytimes-sets-new-record-for-nutty-climate-alarmism/
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/climate_alarmism_at_the_new_yo.html
https://defyccc.com/ny-times-suspends-use-of-the-phrase-climate-change-denier/
https://principia-scientific.org/nytimes-climate-alarmism-is-good-because-scaremongering-fixed-y2k-bug/

 

[/quote]And as for what other climatologists conclude about the "hockey stick", by now there have been many other independent studies confirming that the hockey stick is real.[/quote]

 

I agree with Rick. You'd better inform the IPCC about this, because they stopped using the Mann Hockey Stick graph years ago. ????
The conversations in the hacked Climategate emails strongly imply that the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, and the following Little Ice Age, were seen as very problematic for some of the research scientists, because as soon as you reveal that there have been other warm periods in the past that could not have been caused by human emissions of CO2, you cause people to become skeptical and encourage them to wonder if the current warming might be mostly natural.

 

The Hockey Stick was designed to solve this problem, and maintain or increase the alarm. The justification was not so much that the MWP and LIA didn't exist, but that they were not global events and were confined mostly to Northern Europe.
Many studies since the publication of the Hockey Stick have implied that both the MWP and the LIA were very likely global events. Here's one study from China. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233596026_Key_points_on_temperature_change_of_the_past_2000_years_in_China 

 

"(1) The Little Ice Age (LIA) in China began in the early of the 14th century (1320s) and ended in the beginning of the 20th century (1910s), which was composed of four evident cold stages and three short warming stages. The cold period in the Wei, Jin and South-North dynasties (210s–560s) was the only one comparable with LIA for the past 2000 years. (2) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in China began in the 930s and ended in the 1310s, which was composed of two warm stages over 100 years and a cold stage less than 100 years."

 

But that's not conclusive. The problem that many people seem unable to appreciate is that climate does not change uniformly across the entire planet at the same time. Whilst one part of the world might see an increase in average temperatures, another part will see a reduction in average temperatures. Whilst one glacier in a particular location retreats, another glacier in another country advances. Whilst the Arctic loses ice over a certain period, the Antarctic gains ice over the same period, and so on.

 

Getting a precise average of the entire process is extremely difficult. There's always a degree of uncertainty.
 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.^[214]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Even schoolchildren are taught not to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. That's especially true of the climate change pages, which for a long time were effectively run by an activist called William Connolley as his personal climate crusade.

 

Null points.

[tlandtday]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Even schoolchildren are taught not to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. That's especially true of the climate change pages, which for a long time were effectively run by an activist called William Connolley as his personal climate crusade.

 

Null points.

There have been large paid groups orgainized with the specific task of editing Wikipedia pages to their agenda... people really need to wake up.

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Even schoolchildren are taught not to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. That's especially true of the climate change pages, which for a long time were effectively run by an activist called William Connolley as his personal climate crusade.

 

Null points.

Perhaps schoolchildren don't understand what footnotes are about. Clearly you don't. This Wikipedia is well documented with voluminous footnotes. But this comment of yours is typical of your unproveable character assasination comments.

[RickBradford]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A book by Andrew Montford who is an accountant by profession. His book was subject to how much peer review, exactly? And it was published in 2010. Huge amounts of data have been gathered since then that contradict his conclusions.

What was true in 2010 is still true today. That is, that Mann's original execrable paper was a downright shoddy piece of work which should never have seen the light of day, let alone be shoved onto the front page of an IPCC report.

 

The reason it did so can only be because it said what so many people were desperate to hear.

 

 

[bristolboy]

23 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

What was true in 2010 is still true today. That is, that Mann's original execrable paper was a downright shoddy piece of work which should never have seen the light of day, let alone be shoved onto the front page of an IPCC report.

 

The reason it did so can only be because it said what so many people were desperate to hear.

 

 

An execrable shoddy piece of work that has been repeatedly confirmed. Once again, all you do is use name calling unbacked by facts.