Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Original thread:
Post 20 made on Tuesday September 3, 2019 at 16:31
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
On September 1, 2019 at 20:39, tomciara said...
So I am very interested in your observations. Do you think the hockey stick graph is indeed the basis upon which all of this climate “science” rests upon? And since it has been thoroughly debunked, where does that leave the global warming believers? I am really interested in a non-emotional exchange of ideas here.

The Medieval Warm Period is known to science as a time when global temperatures were appreciably warmer than today (The Little Ice Age significantly colder). Indeed, the IPCC's First Assessment Report, in 1990, offered a graphic illustrating this. However, in the mid-nineties, Dr David Deming received an email from an IPCC scientist (later identified as Dr Jonathan Overpeck) essentially saying "We have to abolish the medieval warm period." Overturning a swathe of previous scientific research, the 2001 Third Assessment Report duly obliged: the reason being Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

"Do you think the hockey stick graph is indeed the basis upon which all of this climate “science” rests upon?"

No, but it's important to understand how it’s many shortcomings were overlooked because of the political ammunition it provided the IPCC in allowing them to promote their preferred narrative of alarmism. It's what brought 'global warming' into the mainstream, and along with it the UN inspired demands for political change to 'combat' it.

"And since it has been thoroughly debunked, where does that leave the global warming believers?"

As much as the term 'denier' has been deliberately misused, I believe one has to be careful about what one means by 'global warming believers' and the negative connotation it implies. I believe in global warming/climate change/whatever, though I also think it to be predominantly natural: a part of the cyclical variability seen over the many millions of years of Earth's existence. That, however, is not to say there's no anthropogenic component to the global atmospheric CO2 content seen today, though to suggest a minor trace gas has the ability to control Earth's climate is, to my mind at least, absurd. If it were the case, the Earth would likely have become uninhabitable those many millions of years ago.

Climate science is nothing like as straightforward as many have been led to believe, but having been fed MSM propaganda for so long, it’s hardly any wonder they have become sceptical (irony?) of challenges and challengers to it. That said, it’s still frustrating being confronted by the likes of those long-debunked 97% claims. And In explaining why they’re rubbish I sometimes wonder if I’d be better off talking to Michael Mann’s Bristlecone Pines.

Note:
Andrew Montford’s books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding The Decline" are well worth a read. And this podcast is also worth a listen.


Hosting Services by ipHouse