Thomas Lindaman stated:
A few more links that explain the hockey stick graph and establishing that it has been debunked, by definition. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm - a good breakdown of the flaws with the hockey stick graph
Link by skeptic John L. Daly, who is not a climatologist. None of the links in THAT link are by climatologists. And it uses regional data instead of global data.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann%27s-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm - another good story, including this tidbit of information that should cause any AGW proponent to stop worshiping at the altar of Dr. Michael Mann for even a second: It was also prominent display in several places in the 2001 IPCC report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has now been removed from the latest 2007 IPCC report for policymakers because it has become to much of an embarrassment for the IPCC to include it. The graph was subsequently criticized by many global warming skeptics and historians, because weather events such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were absent. [emphasis mine] Hmmm...that's odd. A global warming graph that excluded periods of warming and cooling? Wouldn't that be cause to suggest that Mann's graph may be...inaccurate?
Considering that the "Medieval Warm Period" and the "Little Ice Age" are regional and NOT global, it's SUPPOSED to be excluded from the graph.
You see what happens when you use sources that aren't made by climatologists?
Oh, and by the way: If you had actually looked at the 2007 IPCC report, you would have seen that the graph was NOT removed.
But additional graphs from other researchers have been added (and there were other graphs before), totally independent from Mann. And guess what? They match Mann.
That's what happens when you take a denier blog at face value.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/ - a nice link...about the "hockey stick" being proven in ice levels. You know, the same ice levels that Mr. Leftist Blogger and others like him keep saying is declining?
Ice levels IN ONE AREA. Again, you can't just use one section of REGIONAL information for GLOBAL temperature.
What's funniest is that the results of that data show that southern Greenland glaciers were unstable in the recent past. Again, you drag in a link that accidentally supports AGW. Polar ice caps and glacial ice WORLDWIDE are shrinking at an ever increasing rate. The "The ice in this particular area here isn't declining, thus global warming is a fraud" argument is as laughable as those denier bloggers that say "Global warming is fake because it's colder this winter in Bumblefuck, Mississippi than it was last winter."
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/09/confirmed-global-warming-hockey-stick.html - providing more evidence, especially that Mann's original work showed cherry-picked data. Hmmm...isn't that a sign of blatant dishonesty? I mean, it was when the Left bashed George W. Bush for going into Iraq, but it's okay for an AGW proponent to do?
"Cherry picked data"? If he used the other data, it would be INACCURATE data.
You denialists are hilarious. They reject inaccurate data sources, and you say it's "cherry picked." If they DID use the inaccurate data, you would be screaming about how their data sources are inaccurate!
As far as Iraq: There was no proof whatsoever! But I will say this: The Downing Street Memo shouldn't be used to "Debunk" Bush. Because again, CLAIMING that things are manipulated, doesn't mean that they ARE manipulated.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf - A presentation given by Stephen McIntyre with a pretty extensive bibliography
Again, McIntyre IS NOT a climatologist! The very paper that published McIntyre's work discredited his "Mann is teh suxors" claims as unfounded!
Tell you what: When you need heart surgery, try going to an auto mechanic.
http://73wire.com/2009/11/the-famous-hockey-stick-graph-with-actual-data/ - not from a climatologist, but with two pretty clear graphs showing what Mann deleted and the impact it would have on the "hockey stick"
Yes, if you add the INACCURATE DATA.
A lot of these skeptic blogs are saying "You aren't taking into account this-and-that..." Yes, they ARE taking those things into account. It's DENIALISTS that aren't.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html - a nice summary of how two other AGW proponents went to unusual lengths to "prove" Mann right, in direct violation of academic standards. Gee, wouldn't that raise a red flag in even the most ardent AGW proponent?
What a scandal! Articles from NON-climatologists are being submitted to journals that are subject to peer review. Actual scientists call them out on the junk science. Article is rejected and/or refuted.
That's what pisses the conservative AGW deniers off the most, isn't it? They scream "liberal media" over and over again in the hopes that the neutral media will overcompensate and become conservative media. They try the same thing by submitting anti-AGW articles to journals in the hopes a few will slip through the cracks.
The difference is that the actual science will always prove you guys wrong.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/peer-reviewed-article-in-journal-science-says-sun-causes-global-warming/ - the link is self-explanatory, and might actually give a much more credible reason for the variations in the planet's temperature than AGW. Imagine that! The sun might cause heating! And since it's peer-reviewed, I'm sure Mr. Leftist Blogger will accept it as fact as he did with the "peer-reviewed" Mann work...
Of course the sun contributes to the planet's temperature! CO2 is not the only agent of climate change. And no climatologist claims that CO2 alone affects the planet's temperature. Only denier idiots are saying they're claiming that, because it makes a good strawman for them.
"Dr. R. Tim Patterson, PhD, is a Professor of Geology at Carleton University." - NOT a climatologist, again.
Patterson used CO2 reconstructions from rocks. And yes, it's pretty clear that there was a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere 450 million years ago. But guess what? The earth of today is NOT the earth of 450 million years ago!
Who in their right mind would really believe there's an exact ratio between CO2 and temperature for the past 450 million years? That's ridiculous.
The earth was a LOT different back then. Less plant life, the continents were shaped differently, the days were shorter. The sun wasn't even as bright!
You can read up more on this here. Be warned, it's very complicated (and I don't mean that in a condescending way):
Patterson's rock data is correct, but he's crediting all the variation he sees in his rock samples, to solar forcing. Cosmic rays have NOT been increasing in the last 30 years. So they can't be responsible for the recent warming, can they?
Peer-review is only the first filter. I'm only asking for peer-reviewed climatologists because I'm being generous.
You're going to have to try again.
http://www.lesjones.com/posts/002990.shtml - Just thought I'd throw this in so you can see how AGW has been hyped in the media year after year, pretty much all saying the same thing.
Did you even read the articles? They are NOT the same. Each one has new information! Let's look at them:
2001 - This link says Earth global temperature could increase by 5.8C by 2100, which is higher than earlier estimates.
2002 - This link says that Two British scientists state the rate of temperature rise could be more than the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's prediction of 3-10.5 degrees farenheit. They are saying it could be as high as 12.4 degrees. This isn't "the same thing," they're simply saying it's worse than the IPCC's prediction.
2004 - This link says that Climate change over the next 50 years is expected to drive a quarter of land animals and plants into extinction, according to the first comprehensive study into the effect of higher temperatures on the natural world. Again, this isn't "the same thing." This is about new predictions on global warming's effect on animal and plant life.
2006 - (This link was broken, but I found a copy of the article) This article says that UK scientists are saying that new studies reveal that the huge west Antarctic ice sheet is even more unstable than the IPCC report intially stated, and they are urging the IPCC to update their calmer information with this more urgent information. Again, this isn't "the same thing." Just because SOME of the information in the articles are the same, doesn't mean the articles are the same.
In each and every one of these articles, there's NEW information. Each one with more bad news than before.
http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2009/11/28/global-warming-scam-scientific-data-in-hockey-stick-graph-bogus-uh-fudged-video/ - more interesting information showing competing charts showing Mann's flaws That's not a "competing chart."
That's a chart of just EUROPE. Again, that is REGIONAL, not global. Sheesh!
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-hockey-stick-graph-methodological-comparison-graphs - more graphs showing that in three different studies, the results were the same, but the graph showing the "hockey stick graph" isn't one of them. It's the odd-graph-out. Funny how that works out...
That's because those other charts, all of which were cranked out by deniers' favorite non-climatologist McKitrick, have crucial data has either been removed and/or they're using a different standard that doesn't hold up to peer review. "Funny how that works out."
I do like the "three different studies", though. As if they were three independent studies. But more on McKitrick in just a moment.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15557/Nature_Admits_Widely_Cited_Global_Warming_Graph_Was_Erroneous.html - Hmmm...this link shows that Mann and the two other scientists quoted in a 1998 Nature magazine article admitted they made mistakes in the original article. And the Left still thinks this guy is credible?
Did you even read the correction? That Nature correction is simply a correction of the DESCRIPTIONS of SUPPLEMENTARY information for the reader. It was NOT a correction on the actual analysis.
Anybody that's claiming that the Nature correction means there's "mistakes" in the 1998 RECONSTRUCTION, is blatantly lying.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=94621 - A forum post, I know, but it contains much more damning information about the inaccuracy of the hockey stick graph.
I have no problem with someone using forum posts, as long as one is honest about the source.
In this case, the source "Andre" is not a climatologist, and is just dragging in links. And the main point he's making is (again) the removal of the "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warming Period", both of which are NOT global.
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3010.htm - What? A statistical error in the hockey stick graph? Why that's...completely expected! But surely the fact that there was a statistical error in Mann's original work doesn't mean it's wrong, right?
Now you're using a source that is a financial statician and AGW denier that's using claims by McIntyre and McKitrick to support HIS claims. Do you have ANY climatologists on your side?
Do you really want me to start doing what YOU are doing? Dragging in links by non-climatologists? You do NOT want me dragging non-climatologist links to rebut yours. Because that would open up TONS more links.
You'll wind up with revelations like these:
Among all the other problems with his code for a different paper, McKitrick didn't even convert degrees to radians, thus fucking up HIS ENTIRE MODEL.
He also claims there is no physical basis to average temperature, so much for thermodynamics, right? So, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, all sources that use M&M are now "debunked." (No, not really)
Well, I think I've proven my point. The hockey stick graph has been debunked on several fronts,
Nope, just deniers claiming it.
and the creators of it have admitted errors,
Where? Are you referring to that 1998 Nature article correction again? You know, the one that only corrects the READER SUPPLEMENTS?
while others have proven errors that Mann, et al, have yet to explain away in the context of whether the graph was right to begin with.
"Proven errors"? You honestly will believe ANYTHING those denier blogs will tell you, won't you?
You can spin it, you can dodge it,
Ah, yes. Using climatologists as sources for climate change is "spinning and dodging." Using non-climatologists as sources on climate change is TOTALLY NOT SPINNING AND DODGING!
you can make up silly pseudo-definitions,
"Pseudo-definitions"? Because I'm stating that claiming to debunk something is not the same as debunking it? If I claimed I cured cancer, does that mean I cured it?
but the truth is out there,
as I've proven.
See this link? Now I've totally PROVEN aliens!
The hockey stick graph is bogus,
and those who cling to it like a security blanket (like a certain Leftist blogger who hates me, but can't stop talking about me) are mere lemmings.
"Cling to it like a security blanket"? I said in the VERY LAST POST, you can throw out Mann's hockey stick if you want to, liar. Because it's clear that you'll believe anything EXCEPT peer-reviewed climatologists. Because even if you throw out Mann's hockey stick: The hockey stick is still there, and it was replicated in other studies and affirmed by the NAS (which has no political affiliation). Are you saying climatologists Wahl, Ammann, Moberg, Rutherford, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko, and Karlin are also in on the conspiracy? Because they have NOTHING to do with Mann's research and coding, and came up with pretty much the same goddamn thing.
Wahl and Ammann, who used their own method, support the Mann Hockey Stick and they even freely released their code and data, and challenged other researchers to use the code THEY used for their own evaluations. Where's the outcry? The silence is deafening. Do you know why? Because their graph wasn't in Al Gore's documentary.
Hell, throw out ALL the hockey sticks. You STILL have lots of evidence.
Hell, here's two AT RANDOM:
Are they in on the conspiracy, too?
Consider the hockey stick graph debunked, Mr. Leftist Blogger.
Right, because you say it is. Get back to me when you have something by an actual climatologist that's peer-reviewed. And that's being generous, since peer-review is only the first filter. Oh, but they're all in on a conspiracy, because the climatologists actually have standards.
Enjoy this poster [Epic Fail poster] "But Michael Mann said it would work!"
To a denier, a round wheel is a square.
"Hey, Podium guys! I totally pimp-slapped that leftist blogger by showing a whole bunch of non-climatologist links!" "Way to go, Ace! Screw that Algore and Odumba! Hehe, isn't that clever? I combined Obama and Dumb! Odumba would've been wringing his hands like a scaredycat when Saddam attacked the World Trade Center!"
Again, get back to me when you have something by an actual climatologist that's peer-reviewed. And again, that's being generous.
If I WASN'T being generous, I'd hold it to the same rigorous standards that are held to the Mann Hockey Stick, and tell you to get something from an actual climatologist that's been peer-reviewed AND approved by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. That holds up just a LITTLE bit better than denier blogs that think Europe is the globe, and that constantly quote a rejected statician that can't even label a Y-axis. But I guess all them there egghead organizations are in on it, too. Apparently they're all like the Masons.
UPDATE: Lindaman clammed the fuck up after this post. He never responded back again on this issue.
You're a proven liar, Lindaman. As stated before: When it comes to manmade global climate change, you and your ignorant ilk have repeatedly been proven...
You'll have to steal some other picture, now. God forbid you come up with something ON YOUR OWN.
I got the last word, again. Because you've got NOTHING.