Slashdot Mirror

Yes, Michael "Hockey Stick!" Mann.... Others say it was global. And if you dig, you'll also find the Little Ice Age was generally global as well.

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yep. A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud, and somehow everyone throughout the globe, and all incoming students are inducted.

They're total crackpots.

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding?

No, denialists aren't scientists. They're PR professionals. They get plenty of PR funding though.

Does they even get published?

Yes, they're well over-published. This is what PR is all about these days. What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

Somebody has.

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yep. A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud, and somehow everyone throughout the globe, and all incoming students are inducted.

They're total crackpots.

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding?

No, denialists aren't scientists. They're PR professionals. They get plenty of PR funding though.

Does they even get published?

Yes, they're well over-published. This is what PR is all about these days. What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

Somebody has.

The Heartland Institute's NIPCC reports use the same research papers cited by the IPCC and shows how the IPCC conveniently skews data and ignores all the data in between.

There is a difference in semantics between "shows" and "claims" that you seem to not be aware of. The so-called NIPCC is a front for Heartland, and consists of a changing but minuscule group of well-known deniers. Their report is a transparent piece of propaganda for everyone who has at least a basic scientific understanding.

Wooo! It just keeps getting better. Enjoy your little isolated enclave, dude. The irony of YOU telling ME about ignoring (supposed) "uncomfortable fact" is ... entirely laughable. You're deluded, there's not really any point in reading more of your propaganda-induced fantasy, I couldn't go on after that one.

majority of credible climate models support the "hockey stick"

Sure - if you want to create a hockey stick, it can be easily done, but it's still just a trick. Add that to the complete failure of the climate models to make accurate predictions, and you have a lot of shrill propaganda drowning out the reasoned science.

Here's some "uncomfortable facts" for you: "the models are in significant disagreement when it comes to their SLP, SAT, and precipitation community structure," (2) "none of the models comes close to the community structure of the actual observations," (3) "not only do the models not agree well with each other, they do not agree with reality," (4) "the models are not capable to simulate the spatial structure of the temperature, sea level pressure, and precipitation field in a reliable and consistent way," and (5) "no model or models emerge as superior."

Mann's agenda is a political one, not a scientific one. That's why he had to produce a graph that showed something dramatic, so he manipulated the data, with some statistical errors that have been pointed out and never correct (I won't go into all the shenanigans again), to show "WHOA! IT'S A NEW HORROR!".

The issue is what is the scale of impact that this CO2 warming is having on the overall climate system. Is the effect of the CO2 so big that it can drive the temperature of the whole planet up in a way that is big enough to actually alter the climate? Mann the shrill alarmist publicity hound needed to show something dramatic to demonstrate his own opinion that the answer is "Yes". But this is a much harder question to answer because no one has a model of the total climate system that actually works and which verifiably produces even remotely accurate forecasts about climate trends.

So without a working model of the total climate system the only way to “prove” that CO2 is driving climate change is to prove that something truly unique is happening to the climate, that there is unprecedented warming occurring, and and then propose man made CO2 change as the only candidate as the cause of this ‘unprecedented’ warming.

Between the 1995 second IPCC report and the 2001 third IPCC report there was a complete revision in the way that recent climate history was portrayed. The supporters of the theory that CO2 changes were driving temperatures up had succeeded in their goal of eliminating the Medieval Warm Period. This rewriting of climate history and the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period was achieved through the famous Hockey Stick graph.

Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events.In the new Hockey Stick diagram the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900 AD after which the Mann’s new graph showed the temperature shooting up in the 20th century in an apparently anomalous and accelerating fashion.

Apparently, you've never even tried to read any of the papers about the statistical tricks Mann used to generate "hockey-stick" graphs. You should at least examine Ross McKitrick's analysis.

you could try this web site as a start... http://nipccreport.org/

i think i'd rather go here for analysis of data http://nipccreport.org/ as its collated data from thousands of reports by thousands of scientists rather than someones blog.

Giveaway upon giveaway. "Hand tuned" CAGW models have been reality constrained GIGO now for decades because they do not represent a full set of physics. Glad AMD has stuck x86 processors out this far but not so much for this boondoggle.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497.short

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/sep/15sep2010a2.html

Oh, and that data is all accessible through standard FOIA procedures :)

Yes rain and snow attenuates radio waves. But not by a huge amount. The human race would likely go extinct from Heat stroke before anybody noticed any real decline in WiFi connectivity. This article smacks of "the sky is falling" fearmongering. Like this:

"On March 20, 2000, The Independent, a British newspaper, reported that the Dr. David Viner of the UK's Climate Research Unit warning within a few years snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event." Indeed, Viner opined, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." Similarly, David Parker, at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said that eventually British children could have only "virtual" experience of snow via movies and the Internet.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists opined confidently in 2004 scientists claim winters were becoming warmer and less snowy. In 2008, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bemoaned that children would be robbed of the childhood joys of sledding and skiing in the DC area due to global warming. A year later, the area set a new seasonal snowfall record with 5 to 6 feet of snow and sleds and skis were the only way to get around." http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/apr/13apr2011a3.html

If the models can not predict snowfall, how can they be counted-upon to predict anything else in future weather?

So, it's your turn: write a 3,000 page report with dozens of claims per page without a single error ...

Disproving a theory doesn't require coming up with an alternate one. You just need to show that the theory fails to explain reality. Furthermore there is in fact an independent scientific report and it is called the Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change Report.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why not one scientific organization has produced a convincing argument against the existence of global warming, while many other scientific studies have.

Hmmm.... Here's a scientific organization that doesn't take money coerced from taxpayers, and it actually uses scientific evidence in its conclusions: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

And if that's not enough for you, how about a scientist, journalist, and educator who actually thinks that science should be based on evidence, not psychic prognostications of computer programs and scientific "consensus": Joanne Nova.

And yes, the "built-in bias" is billions of dollars of money coerced out of the pockets of impoverished taxpayers. When a "scientist's" job depends on continued political support, he'll ignore and distort data in order to produce the result his political handlers are looking for. Those political handlers want a result that allows them to control ever more of the world's economy to their own benefit and the impoverishment of everyone else.