Re: OT: Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Alistair wrote:

I'd be glad to comment on the "hocky stick curve."

For those not familiar, a graph of the earth's temperature takes a
big jump in about 1950 from a relatively flat history.

There are two problems associated with the "hocky stick" theory: The
first is that it is hailed as proof of anthropogenic (man-made)
warming inasmuch as the graph coincides with human's increased use
of energy. The second problem is that the "hocky stick" hypothesis
is wrong.

That the earth has been warmer in the past - without man's copious
use of energy - is evidence sufficient that the earth's temperature
is not necessarily dependent on man's activities. Further, even if
the graph is correct, there is no showing of cause and effect. In
fact, increased energy use may be the RESULT of global warming, not
the cause (think air conditioning).

No, once upon a time, wine was produced in the British Isles and
Greenland got its name because, well, it was GREEN. The earth was
warmer then than now.

That the "hocky stick" graph is based on bad data, bad proxies, bad
theory, bad computational models, and bad methodology has been
called into question. One can easily do a Google search to ferret
out the applicable discussions.

So, your answer is that the hockey stick curve is entirely due to
solar variations?

What's the question? We WERE talking about the validity of the "hocky-stick"
curve. I merely commented on how fucked-up some think the original Mann
study was.

Or are we all farting too much (there was a theory
that the dinosaurs died out because they produced too much methane
resulting in a global temperature rise)?

I don't think I fart TOO much. Can't say about you.

Maybe someone should do a peer reviewed study. I think Michael Mann is
available.


.

Quantcast