Climate change - Hoax ?

jimmypippa

johnfinch wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

More data massaging?
Antarctica
http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ghcn-antarctica-careful-selection-of-data/
Alaska
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/alaska-bodged-too/
IPCC suppressing awkward questions?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ipcc-shut-up-or-go-to-prison/
State of the US temperature monitoring stations?
http://www.surfacestations.org/

Good question as to why the amateur scientists are having to do this.
Nice to see that George Soros (Remember him, made billions by forcing Sterling outof the ERM) has chipped in http://rokdrop.com/2009/12/11/george-soros-demands-more-money-from-developed-nations-to-fight-global-warming/
I wonder what his rake-off will be?

Wow, congratulations, you really are digging up all the most reliable sources out there now.

Here's a piece of real evidence, investigating how the Bush administration tried to influence the climate change debate. It's a bipartisan House of Representatives Committee report initiated by Republican members.

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/gl ... erence.pdf

Just for fun here is one of my earlier posts.

jimmypippa wrote:

The case notes linked to in the top of this make pretty good reading too.


From the Guardian this week:

The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working

Think environmentalists are stooges? You're the unwitting recruit of a hugely powerful oil lobby – I've got the proof
Read the case notes for this article here

George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 December 2009 20.00 GMT
Article history

When you survey the trail of wreckage left by the climate emails crisis, three things become clear. The first is the tendency of those who claim to be the champions of climate science to minimise their importance. Those who have most to lose if the science is wrong have perversely sought to justify the secretive and chummy ethos that some of the emails reveal. If science is not transparent and accountable, it's not science.

Good article requesting the information, and then this bit:

The second observation is the tendency of those who don't give a fig about science to maximise their importance. The denial industry, which has no interest in establishing the truth about global warming, insists that these emails, which concern three or four scientists and just one or two lines of evidence, destroy the entire canon of climate science.

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

And for balance, here is wiki entry for a prominent "skeptic"

Views

In the 1980s and 1990s Singer became associated in the public eye with a number of controversial issues, including global warming. Singer has been described as a climate contrarian by advocacy groups,[17][18] the media,[19][20], and authors of books and journal articles.[21][22][23] He worked with the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy in the 1980s, before starting the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990 as an offshoot. He is the President of SEPP.

Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming[24],[25][26] the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion,[27] and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[28][29] Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute,[30] the American Council on Science and Health,[31] Frontiers of Freedom,[32] the Marshall Institute, and the National Center for Policy Analysis,[33].

There are plenty f documents showing how he took money from various industry groups (tobacco and oil) for attempting to discredit the research, I'll see if I can find that later.

jimmypippa

From the link johnfinch posted:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/gl ... erence.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has
been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change
science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the
Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative
hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made
available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before
the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has
engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead
policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

There has been a conspiracy to mislead, and it has been at the highest level of the US government, but it was to understate the case not overstate it.

This does make a bit of a mockery of the idea that sceptical scientists were too worried to speak out against the consensus, as they would have had the US government and oil industry supporting them.

finchy

jimmypippa wrote:

From the link johnfinch posted:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/gl ... erence.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has
been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change
science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the
Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative
hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made
available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before
the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has
engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead
policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

There has been a conspiracy to mislead, and it has been at the highest level of the US government, but it was to understate the case not overstate it.

This does make a bit of a mockery of the idea that sceptical scientists were too worried to speak out against the consensus, as they would have had the US government and oil industry supporting them.

But is the committee part of the Communist Conspiracy?

jimmypippa

So to summarize:

We know the world is getting hotter: there are plenty of direct measurements, and evidence of retreating glaciers; in Europe, some of these are smallest in 5000-years.

We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

We know that we are putting out carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that some is going into the oceans (causing an increase in acidity) whilst the level in the atmosphere is also rising. I can show the sums that ou can do, simply using wikipedia and google, that show we are emitting about twice as much carbon dioxide as the atmosphere is rising by. The rest is going into sinks, which include the oceans at the moment.

We know that below the "greenhouse region" the atmosphere is warming, whilst above it the atmosphere is getting cooler. I would argue that this is the clincher that shows that the greenhouse is getting stronger. It also shows that solar activity can't be to blame for the warming, as in that case the stratosphere would also be warming as opposed to cooling.


I am interested in how using reasoning makes me one of the

"shrieking CC zealots here."

Could someone please point out the mistakes in my reasoning outlined above.

OffTheBackAdam

Glaciers are a balancing act between snowfalling and melting.
The much trumpeted retreat of the glaciers on Kilamanjaro is mostly due to deforstation on its slopes, causing a reduction in precipitation.
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/11/02/mount-kilimanjaros-glaciers-could-soon-vanish.html
Archaeological surveys have revealed Roman coins and neolithic arrow heads and items from the early Middle Ages in the moranes revealed by the retreating Schnidejoch glqcier.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7580294.stm
For those to have been found there, does rather suggest that the glacier has advanced & retreated many times.
We're also still coming out of the Little Ice Age, so is it a great surprise we're seeing a warming climate?
CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and a good job too, as otherwise we'd have a frozen planet, as it wouldn't be warm enough to release water vapour, which is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
The climate models used to "predict" future temperature have singualy failed to do so. They may be able to replicate past temperatures - but as noted several times before, the accuracy of these measurements is suspect, even in the "thermometer age".
Do you remember any predictions that "temperatures will peak in 1998, due to the effects of an El-Nino, then decline after that for x-years"?
These models predict a lower tropospherical "hot spot", no such beast has been found.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/
The "Deniers" say, that disproves the AGW models, the "Warmists" say it's because it's lost in noise or poor instrumentation.
What is being ignored, is that a warming world is a better world, more crops, more rain and lower human mortality.
Mortality last winter in the UK was 36,700 more than the year before's.

http://swem.wm.edu/blogs/government-inf ... and-200708
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/deaths1109.pdf
Cold = Bad, Warm = Good.
Now, all the models take inputs from similar sources, GISS does say how it adjusts the data it receives from the GHCN, the CRU won't.
GHCN already adjusts it's data - so called "Value Added"
Here's what it's done.
http://savecapitalism.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/ghcn-database-adjustments/

jimmypippa

OffTheBackAdam


As for glaciers, snowfall and temperature are both important, however given that the recorded temperature rises coincide with teh glacial retreat, we can be failry confident that we know the cause.

What is your explanation for the warming atmosphere below the main greenhouse region, and the cooling in the stratosphere, above it?

My explanation is that the greenhouse is keeping more heat close to the Earth.

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Glaciers are a balancing act between snowfalling and melting...etc etc

Bit of a tired tactic, evading the questions by posting loads of irrelevant links. Don't you people grow out of this stuff? Anyway, back to the matter in hand.

1) So a billionaire philanthropist who gives money away to the developing world is asking governments to give more money to the developing world. Would you care to point out how he'd get a 'rake-off'? Using actual evidence and facts and stuff.

2) You've effectively accused the UEA of fraud. Want to try and substantiate that accusation? Should be easy, you've got the emails.

When you've finished with those, perhaps you could explain clearly and succinctly the flaws in the AGW hypothesis by citing the very best evidence you have that casts doubt on it. And if the very best evidence you have is a few blowhard bloggers messing about with graphs rather than some actual peer reviewed science, then perhaps it's better if you went away and had a long think about the nature of evidence.

nicensleazy

I think we have got far more important things to spend our money on at the moment. How much have we promised to third world / developing countries towards climate change. Complete waste of money!

OffTheBackAdam

Best evidence?
How about historic CO2 & Temperature.


Anyone see even a remote link between the two parameters?
Now, the various GCMs used by the IPCC all assume that as the sea surface warms by 1C, outgoing radiation escaping to space decreases by 3W/sqm, due to +ve feedback from water vapour.
The work by Lindzen & Choi shows that it actually increases by 4W/sqm.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039628.shtml
Peer-reviewed paper.
So, rather than the IPCC's assumed warming of 2-4.5C per doubling of CO2, we have a warming of 0.5-0.8C.
So, we can all agree that mankinds' pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will, indeed, heat the world up.
For further on this, please read Dr Roy Spencer's work http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

finchy

I can't open that link to the peer-reviewed paper. What's the conclusion? Where was it published?

EDIT: So basically you're agreeing that human activity can cause climate change, but you disagree with the amount that the IPCC predicted?

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Best evidence? How about historic CO2 & Temperature.Anyone see even a remote link between the two parameters?

So your best evidence is you looking at a graph and saying 'I can't see any correlation'? Great. Well done you. But an argument from personal incredulity won't wash, where's the peer reviewed science?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref2009/2009GL039628.shtml
Peer-reviewed paper

Ah, here it is. So, is it any good?

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/0 ... -feedback/

Probably not. I doubt it. Unlikely.

So, your best evidence against AGW is a flaky paper that doesn't contradict the fundamentals of AGW?

And you want me to read Roy Spencer, somebody who apparently "intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years" and came down on the side of the morons?

"I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism"

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spence ... ientist%29

You're not really covering yourself in glory here. Want to respond to my two questions?

Crapaud

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

... We're also still coming out of the Little Ice Age, so is it a great surprise we're seeing a warming climate? ...

If the Little Ice Age was global you'd have a point. Seems it wasn't global at all ...

New Scientist: Climate myths: We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age. And

New Scientist: Climate change sceptics lose vital argument

Crapaud

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

... CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas and a good job too, as otherwise we'd have a frozen planet, as it wouldn't be warm enough to release water vapour, which is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. ...

True enough. But...

[url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html]New Scientist, Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas[/url] wrote:

... So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up. ...

The article goes on to conclude:

What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.

The whole article puts it in better perspective than the selected quotes.

jimmypippa

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Best evidence?
How about historic CO2 & Temperature.

Nice pictures, however, if you look at the time period in your pictures, you are talking about over half a billion years.

The sun is slowly getting hotter, and the slow fixing of CO2 in rocks as coal, oil and limestone has acted to reduce the greenhouse effect over a timescale of hundreds of millions of years this has helped to keep the Earth cooler than otherwise.

We are not talking about hundreds of millions of years,but unprecedented levels of CO2 in hundreds of *thousands* of years. (I have seen data for 400,000 years).

Alain Quay

One only needs to use three words:

PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE

The deniers avoid it avoid it avoid it.

clanton

Alain Quay wrote:

One only needs to use three words:

PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE

The deniers avoid it avoid it avoid it.

ironically enough usually by calling it all a conspiracy theory.

jimmypippa

Good page from today's New Scientist, and some stonking non-sequiturs it is debunking

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/50-reasons-why-global-warming.html

The "newspaper" is the Express...

50 reasons why global warming isn't natural
Michael Le Page, features editor

A British newspaper today published a list of "100 reasons why global warming is natural".

Here we take a quick look at the first 50 of their claims - and debunk each one.

for copyright reasons I'll only post one that stood out:

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

Another good New Scientist article is here too:

Deniergate: Turning the tables on climate sceptics

"Climategate" has put scientists on trial in the court of public opinion. If you believe climate sceptics, a huge body of evidence involving the work of tens of thousands of scientists over more than a century should be thrown out on the basis of the alleged misconduct of a handful of researchers, even though nothing in the hacked emails has been shown to undermine any of the scientific conclusions.

If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar exampleswe did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.

OffTheBackAdam

Interestingly, a good correlation between Swiss glacier advance/retreat and the AMO.
Peer review, hmm, bit in the Climategate e-mails about that!
The peer review process isn't a guarantee of a good paper, give a paper by Lindzen to a panel of Mann, Scmidt & Steig and to another of Pielke, Spencer & Singer and it's highly likely that one lot will pass it through, the other won't.
This article is interesting.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gwuppsala.htm
Ferenc M. Miskolczi work on atmospheric water vapour is also of interest.

The IPCC models assume water vapour as a constant, Miskolczi shows it isn't.
Review here. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

Paper here.
http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
There's also the question of past CO2 levels, Beck et al present evidence that levels have been higher than presnt and not in the deep, dark and sometimes ice-bound at the time, past!
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf
Anyhow, leaving aside the science bit, any of you actually believe that the beanfeast in Copenhagen will reduce CO2 by so much as a molecule?

rake

it wont matter when oil and coal run out soon.

Crapaud

jimmypippa wrote:

for copyright reasons I'll only post one that stood out:

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 per cent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the Earth during geological history.

Misleading comparison. Since the industrial age began human emissions are far higher than volcanic emissions.

The one that stood out for me was ...

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on Earth took place around 700 million years ago.

So what?

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Peer review, hmm, bit in the Climategate e-mails about that!
The peer review process isn't a guarantee of a good paper, give a paper by Lindzen to a panel of Mann, Scmidt & Steig and to another of Pielke, Spencer & Singer and it's highly likely that one lot will pass it through, the other won't.

Do you know anything about the peer review process? Do you understand that it doesn't work like this?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

This article is interesting.

What's interesting about it? Explain what the paper is about and how it supports your position.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The IPCC models assume water vapour as a constant,

Really? Let's have a link then. If you can't back up stuff like this with actual evidence people will be disinclined to believe you.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

There's also the question of past CO2 levels, Beck et al present evidence that levels have been higher than presnt and not in the deep, dark and sometimes ice-bound at the time, past!

And? Explain what the paper is about and how it supports your position.

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Anyhow, leaving aside the science bit

Adam, you haven't addressed the science in the first place. Randomly linking to some papers that you don't understand to bolster a position that you haven't arrived at by a rational thought process doesn't constitute addressing the science in my book.

But if you do want to dodge the science (I would if I were you) then you could answer the two questions I put to you some time ago:

1) So a billionaire philanthropist who gives money away to the developing world is asking governments to give more money to the developing world. Would you care to point out how he'd get a 'rake-off'? Using actual evidence and facts and stuff.

2) You've effectively accused the UEA of fraud. Want to try and substantiate that accusation? Should be easy, you've got the emails.

Seanos

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Ferenc M. Miskolczi work on atmospheric water vapour is also of interest.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

Wow Adam, that Friends of Science website is a riot of mismatched Times New Roman fonts, almost a guarantee of crank content. I'd rather go to some more credible sources for a review:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.p ... _Miskolczi

Towards the end of this “proof” site, [Miskolczi] lists comments from some of the referees of journals that rejected his paper. I don’t know why; the referees seem to make very strong points. On this particular point, one said: ”The overall concluding statement that ‘the existence of a stable climate requires a unique surface upward flux density and a unique optical depth of 1.841’ makes absolutely no sense at all. An atmosphere can be in stable radiative equilibrium for any LW optical depth, but the equilibrium surface temperature will monotonically depend on the value of the optical depth….” Quite right - the radiative balance can’t remove or add gases to the atmosphere.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/gigo ... -that.html

A. Miskolczi does not understand Kirchoff's Law. As Stokes puts it:
"His invocation of K’s Law isn’t saying that up and down radiation is equal. The balance at the surface is expressed in his Eq 2. What he is equating is down radiation E_D and an absorbance A. Why I say that this isn’t Kirchhoff is that, in any statement of K that I have seen, emissivity is equal to absorptivity. These are coefficients, properties of objects. A body has much the same emissivity regardless of how much it IR is emitting. But no, M equates an actual emittance E_D with an actual absorption A, which I think is quite wrong. He then says “The physical interpretations of these two equations may fundamentally change the general concept of greenhouse theories.”

Do you exercise any quality control when you are googling this stuff?

OffTheBackAdam

Dear me, Seanos, you critice me when I quote from Blogs and then you go an do it yourself.
More data.

Spot the hockey stick?
Now, Peer review.
From the e-mails.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
Prof Jones passes a copy of paper he's received for peer review over to Dr Mann. Is that acceptable?
Then this gem.
"
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
A couple of peer-reviews papers that they don't want the IPCC considering.
Prof Pielke Jnr's take on this.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html
"Now back to the CRU emails. The emails show a consistent pattern of behavior among the activist scientists to redefine peer review in accordance with their own views of climate science. In doing so, they sought to turn the entire notion of peer review on its head."
Also read response #4 for an idea of more shenanigans involving peer review and the IPCC's pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Wiki, not the best source for climate matters.
Beck has shown levels of CO2 higher than those seen today, back in the 1800s.
Since the bulk of the warming that is alledged to be due to CO2 emmissions occurs in the latter part of the last century and supposedly in this, why aren't we seeing a huge rise in temperature back in the 1800s?

finchy

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Dear me, Seanos, you critice me when I quote from Blogs and then you go an do it yourself.
More data.

Spot the hockey stick?
Now, Peer review.
From the e-mails.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt
Prof Jones passes a copy of paper he's received for peer review over to Dr Mann. Is that acceptable?
Then this gem.
"
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
A couple of peer-reviews papers that they don't want the IPCC considering.
Prof Pielke Jnr's take on this.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html
"Now back to the CRU emails. The emails show a consistent pattern of behavior among the activist scientists to redefine peer review in accordance with their own views of climate science. In doing so, they sought to turn the entire notion of peer review on its head."
Also read response #4 for an idea of more shenanigans involving peer review and the IPCC's pressures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Wiki, not the best source for climate matters.
Beck has shown levels of CO2 higher than those seen today, back in the 1800s.
Since the bulk of the warming that is alledged to be due to CO2 emmissions occurs in the latter part of the last century and supposedly in this, why aren't we seeing a huge rise in temperature back in the 1800s?

The question though is whether the researchers DID actually try to prevent work getting into the IPCC report. They may just have been engaged in idle, p*ssed-off e-mail talk. As there is going to be an independent review, we will know the answers to this.

If they did try to go against normal scientific practice in order to boost their own views then that is a serious matter, although not one which disproves AGW, just as the Bush administration's consistent attempts to silence scientists don't disprove the views of the sceptics. It's not like the CRU are the only scientists in the world who are engaged in climate change research.

By the way, check out the profile of Roger Pielke Jr whose blog you linked - he's a professor of environmental science who believes that climate change is mainly caused by human activity and that CO2 emissions should be cut.

For the last part of your post, you're putting words into the mouths of others. The views on climate change are nowhere near as simple as you suggest.

Crapaud

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Spot the hockey stick?

Nope, I can't say I do. But then I can't see a pic. Why would we expect to see a 'hockey stick' on a graph for - and I'll take a wild stab in the dark here - Central England. It's Global Warming and Global Climate Change, not regional warming.

Seanos

Dear me, Seanos, you critice me when I quote from Blogs and then you go an do it yourself.

If I had done that then I would be a hypocrite. As I haven't then I'm not and you've made a strawman argument. I criticised the quality of your links.

More data.

Spot the hockey stick?

Just for a change, why don't you explain what the paper is about and how it supports your position. Otherwise we don't have any idea what point it is you're trying to make.

+1 to what johnfinch said about the emails. If you've got any real evidence to back up your accusation of fraud then I'd be interested to see it.

Beck has shown levels of CO2 higher than those seen today, back in the 1800s.
Since the bulk of the warming that is alledged to be due to CO2 emmissions occurs in the latter part of the last century and supposedly in this, why aren't we seeing a huge rise in temperature back in the 1800s?

Because his 'paper' is cack?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-future/

Firecrakka

Like Christians arguing with Atheists.
Do you people enjoy playing 'Ring around the Rosie'?

Yawn.

Seanos

Firecrakka wrote:

Like Christians arguing with Atheists.
Do you people enjoy playing 'Ring around the Rosie'?

Yawn.

Like an only child desperate for attention.
Do you not have any real friends to talk to, so find you have to leave comments on threads that don't interest you?

Bless.

Firecrakka

The topic interests me, your useless back and forth does not.

And yeah, I have no real friends, thats why I'm busy arguing on the internet with strangers for 14 pages. :roll:

Homer J

On thing is for sure and that's hoax or no hoax it's here to stay, because the govenment(s) is not going to give up the revenue it's making from it.