with Peter Sinclair
If you’re teaching a class on climate change, not a bad place to start.
The guy who made his hockey stick graft by leaving out 80 years from one proxy and using a single tree in Siberia for another. Such science, such BS.
The guy whose hockey stick graph has been independently verified over and over again using many and varied data sets from different proxies and using different statistical methods. The only BS here is the nonsense you continuously dribble.
I saw Michael Mann give a talk in Sydney a few weeks ago. What he talked about was completely consistent with the science I learned in second-year Chemistry at UNSW in 1975. The greenhouse effect and climate change was on the sylabus.
The science of Climate Change is old established science that gets taught at universities around the world and has been for a very long time.
What is new is the manufactured doubt that comes more from an ideological position these days than any real investigation of the data from climate science.
What is being learned now from climate science, that is new is the details of how quickly the Earth is changing particularly at a regional level.
How quickly the seas are rising locally. What the current data are and how those predictions tell us of the coming decades.
What has stayed the same since the first IPCC report in the early 1990s is the predictions for what the world will be like in about 400 years.
Those predictions for temperature and sea level exclude the possibility of an advanced civilisation with command of its coastlines and the loss of most species, most fisheries, many areas of land that humans can now live without needing to live underground.
That picture of the results of business, as usual CO2 emission has stayed the same when I first heard it in 1975 and until now. The end of the growth and stability in the world of humans from the Holocene that enabled the growth of civilisation.
You actually believe that?
Deniers must be the most gullible dupes on the planet.
There are dozens of ‘Hockey Sticks’ now.
Independently produced by different teams in different countries using a wide variety of different proxies.
All of them verify and validate Mann’s original without even using bristlecone pine proxies.
For your sake get an education.
What is a ‘hockey stick graft’?
Your post reveals your deep ignorance or deep dishonesty.
Have a read of this:
Michael Mann on climate wars: ‘the hockey stick did not suddenly appear out of left field’
and then read the book, with understanding for you that latter may require extra source material.
How about this one then Master Bater:
Rex Tillerson ‘used email alias’ at Exxon to talk climate change,
lack of transparency a common theme.
And I have found people who criticize what Prof Mann did (a) do not understand the math methods involved, and (b) fail to understand that introducing these techniques in the field was completely new at the time, even if the methods were well known in other fields.
And it WAS NOT PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS, which is what people typically think when they see it. It’s a creative way of using the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD).
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,200 other followers