Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists

[FiftyTwo]

"You forgot, all 800 scientists were paid to find only one result." - the trouble with this thread is it is littered with totally fallacious comments like this one based on a total disregard for who these people are and where they are and how the information they presented was gathered. It also fails to look at the plain simple truth that almost any scientist on the planet would agree with the principle of made made climate change - regardless of who's funding them.

However if you really examine the "anti" brigade you WILL find examples of "reports" that are sponsored by Oil companies and others who have a =vested interst in gainsaying what is now in reality a fait-accomplis.

I am a scientist, I don't agree (at least until my funding is approved).

I know many other scientists who don't agree (and won't until their funding is approved).

I'm thinking you aren't a scientist, and don't know any scientists either.

Edited October 13, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[RickBradford]

It also fails to look at the plain simple truth that almost any scientist on the planet would agree with the principle of made made climate change

No, it doesn't, it explicitly supports the idea of man-made climate change, as do I, and as I have repeated several times in this thread for the benefit of some posters, but, alas, not all.

Let me try again; from a post I made yesterday.

Lindzen believes that all else being equal, the extra CO2 which man puts into the atmosphere will have a gentle warming effect. So do I.

[wilcopops]

"You forgot, all 800 scientists were paid to find only one result." - the trouble with this thread is it is littered with totally fallacious comments like this one based on a total disregard for who these people are and where they are and how the information they presented was gathered. It also fails to look at the plain simple truth that almost any scientist on the planet would agree with the principle of made made climate change - regardless of who's funding them.

However if you really examine the "anti" brigade you WILL find examples of "reports" that are sponsored by Oil companies and others who have a =vested interst in gainsaying what is now in reality a fait-accomplis.

I am a scientist, I don't agree (at least until my funding is approved).

I know many other scientists who don't agree (and won't until their funding is approved).

I'm thinking you aren't a scientist, and don't know any scientists either.

No ....I"M a scientist!

[boomerangutang]

they dismiss the "Texas size islands of carrier bags" as a myth - as does every one else that has ever done any real research

Sorry dude, you're flat wrong. I don't know where you get the 'carrier bags' term. If you don't want to acknowledge the very real existence of the Great Pacific Trash Vortex, that's your prerogative - but it's very real. And, it won't show up on satellite images simply because it's a gargantuan loose hunk of plastic goo, suspended under the water. Goo doesn't show up on satellite photos - at least not in photos using the current available tech. Try researching what research ships in that region are finding.

reason for edit: trouble with quote

Edited October 13, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Johpa]

Climate change is not a science -- to be a science it would have to be 'falsifiable' -- that is, there would need to be a set of circumstances which would mean that the theory was proved wrong. There are none.

The climate models predicted continuous warming; Nature has shown that to be wrong, but even that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong.

The climate models predicted warm winters and less snow for Northern Europe; which has now had 5 brutally cold winters in a row, but that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong. In fact, they now tell us that they knew that all along, but for some reason decided to tell us the opposite.

The climate models said eastern Australia would suffer near-permanent drought. Now the place is awash with rainwater; they predicted the loss of all Arctic ice by now; tens of millions of 'climate refugees'; submerged Pacific nations; coral reefs will vanish.

None of these predictions has been anywhere near right, yet this evidence is not allowed to prove climatology wrong.

Climatology is cargo-cult science at best, a massive shamanistic fraud at worst.

The cargo-cultists are both the deniers as well as those who hope that technology will rescue us before our doom. Climatology is a true science that studies climate. You want people who study the weather than find a meteorologist. Climates change very slowly. That means in temperate zones (North America and Europe) where daily temperatues can vary significantly, even a one degree change in average temperature could take decades for beer swilling, bar stool scientists to take notice. Climate models do not predict continuous warming each and every year; rather, they highlight the trend. Warming climate models do predict, on average, more snow, and more rain, everywhere as the global warming increases evaporation over the oceans which implies more rain and more snow over land. And nobody predicted the entire loss of Arctic ice at this time.

What the deniers don't get is that the CO2 emissions, and yes these are caused by the very recent massive burining of fossil fuels, is only the trigger to the main event, the release of the frozen methane hydrates in the tundras and under the oceans. But really no use in trying to talk to these folks anymore than it makes sense in the US to engage in conversation with anyone who watches Rupert Murdoch's FOX news channel. I use to hate Aussies because of what Rolf Harris did to Stairway to Heaven, but now I hate them for breeding this modern anti-christ and unleashing him upon the world.

[isawasnake]

There are so many parallels with the evolution "debate" here, at least for me on a personal level. I mean it is just total, 100% deja vu. I used to argue with people about whether evolution or divine creation took place. Some of the arguments very much lacked sophistication and scientific knowledge. "Evolution is a myth" is an example, yet we could see evolution happening in a lab with some fruit flies. I eventually just stopped arguing, what was the point, I thought. If people are going to make statements equivalent to the "evolution is a myth" proclamation, what is the point of arguing with such nonsense? I, and many others I am sure, have reached that point with this "debate". And, over the years the creationists have gotten a bit more sophisticated with their arguments, which is progress I guess. But I don't hear people debating creation vs evolution like I used to. With greater overall knowledge and understanding, the debate has been settled in our collective conscious in my opinion.

This "debate" here is almost the same exact thing, and I bet it will follow the same pattern. The arguments will kind of taper off in the coming years, the extreme deniers will never stop of course, but the collective conscious will just kind of accept the truth.

Edited October 13, 2013 by isawasnake

[FiftyTwo]

There are so many parallels with the evolution "debate" here, at least for me on a personal level. I mean it is just total, 100% deja vu. I used to argue with people about whether evolution or divine creation took place. Some of the arguments very much lacked sophistication and scientific knowledge. "Evolution is a myth" is an example, yet we could see evolution happening in a lab with some fruit flies. I eventually just stopped arguing, what was the point, I thought. If people are going to make statements equivalent to the "evolution is a myth" proclamation, what is the point of arguing with such nonsense? I, and many others I am sure, have reached that point with this "debate". And, over the years the creationists have gotten a bit more sophisticated with their arguments, which is progress I guess. But I don't hear people debating creation vs evolution like I used to. With greater overall knowledge and understanding, the debate has been settled in our collective conscious in my opinion.

This "debate" here is almost the same exact thing, and I bet it will follow the same pattern. The arguments will kind of taper off in the coming years, the extreme deniers will never stop of course, but the collective conscious will just kind of accept the truth.

Off topic.

Evolution has never been observed in 'real life', certainly not in a lab with fruit flies.

Evolution is a Theory, that is why it is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution', if it had been proven, then it would no longer be called a theory.

There is equal evidence for evolution and divine creation, as in 'none at all'.

I suspect I could argue either position equally well, and win against you.

Edited October 13, 2013 by FiftyTwo

[wilcopops]

There are so many parallels with the evolution "debate" here, at least for me on a personal level. I mean it is just total, 100% deja vu. I used to argue with people about whether evolution or divine creation took place. Some of the arguments very much lacked sophistication and scientific knowledge. "Evolution is a myth" is an example, yet we could see evolution happening in a lab with some fruit flies. I eventually just stopped arguing, what was the point, I thought. If people are going to make statements equivalent to the "evolution is a myth" proclamation, what is the point of arguing with such nonsense? I, and many others I am sure, have reached that point with this "debate". And, over the years the creationists have gotten a bit more sophisticated with their arguments, which is progress I guess. But I don't hear people debating creation vs evolution like I used to. With greater overall knowledge and understanding, the debate has been settled in our collective conscious in my opinion.

This "debate" here is almost the same exact thing, and I bet it will follow the same pattern. The arguments will kind of taper off in the coming years, the extreme deniers will never stop of course, but the collective conscious will just kind of accept the truth.

Off topic.

Evolution has never been observed in 'real life', certainly not in a lab with fruit flies.

Evolution is a Theory, that is why it is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution', if it had been proven, then it would no longer be called a theory.

There is equal evidence for evolution and divine creation, as in 'none at all'.

I suspect I could argue either position equally well, and win against you.

"Evolution is a Theory, that is why it is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution', if it had been proven, then it would no longer be called a theory." - this post is a GEM! - it just about sums up in a nutshell the level of argument of so many of the anti-MMCCposts on this thread - totally wrong in almost every word - I can't imagine how to make the statement MORE wrong - it's an exercise in itself - and yet presumably the poster has no idea of how hilarious this post is!

They don'y know what "theory" means in scientific terms

they don't know the processe involved in evolution

It's noot caleed "Darwin's Theory"

they don't know what evidence is.

...and clearly have absolutely no idea of how critical thinking works.

The problem with this kind of statement is of course that it is so utterly wide of the mark in all respects that it is quite impossible to argue with as there is nothing there.

PS - to the poster - NO theories are proved, they are just accepted as working models until they are shown not to work. I'm sure you can work the rest out for yourself.

OMG! Are you the one who claimed to be a scientist??????? - You've GOT to be kidding! you don't even understand basic scientific methodology.

Edited October 13, 2013 by wilcopops

[Johpa]

Off topic.

Evolution has never been observed in 'real life', certainly not in a lab with fruit flies.

Evolution is a Theory, that is why it is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution', if it had been proven, then it would no longer be called a theory.

There is equal evidence for evolution and divine creation, as in 'none at all'.

I suspect I could argue either position equally well, and win against you.

Au contraire, evolution has been observed in real life as in the case of the peppered moth. Not to mention traces of Neantherthal genetic material appearing even here in the general population.

[F430murci]

"You forgot, all 800 scientists were paid to find only one result." - the trouble with this thread is it is littered with totally fallacious comments like this one based on a total disregard for who these people are and where they are and how the information they presented was gathered. It also fails to look at the plain simple truth that almost any scientist on the planet would agree with the principle of made made climate change - regardless of who's funding them.

However if you really examine the "anti" brigade you WILL find examples of "reports" that are sponsored by Oil companies and others who have a =vested interst in gainsaying what is now in reality a fait-accomplis.

I am a scientist, I don't agree (at least until my funding is approved).

I know many other scientists who don't agree (and won't until their funding is approved).

I'm thinking you aren't a scientist, and don't know any scientists either.

Phd in Googliology.

[Scott]

I believe there has been enough off-topic posting. I do believe that we have some who are doing nothing more than trolling. Further such posts will be deleted.

By the way, one of my kids once got a sheriff's badge from a box of Cheerios. Didn't really make him a sheriff, though.

Now, back to climate change.

[RickBradford]

CO2 emissions, and yes these are caused by the very recent massive burining of fossil fuels, is only the trigger to the main event, the release of the frozen methane hydrates in the tundras and under the oceans.

Excuse me, but the IPCC, the UN body set up to examine climate matters, has explicitly dismissed this off-the-cuff factoid in their latest report:

Clathrate methane release: Very unlikely that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release (high confidence).

[boomerangutang]

Evolution has never been observed in 'real life', certainly not in a lab with fruit flies.

Evolution is a Theory, that is why it is called 'Darwin's theory of evolution', if it had been proven, thenit would no longer be called a theory. There is equal evidence for evolution and divine creation, as in 'none at all'. I suspect I could argue either position equally well, and win against you.

It may be interesting to note that all scientific studies (in the lab, in the field, etc.) related to the two above-mentioned 'theories' have been done by so-called 'evolutionists.' All the 'creationists' can do is philosophize and try to twist or disclaim findings by the other side. Creationists are like metaphysicists - they weave myth-like (and false) conclusions from the reams of data formulated by real scientists. Re; Evolution; there are so many tangible proofs, that it seems (to me) ludicrous to doubt its veracity.

CO2 emissions, and yes these are caused by the very recent massive burining of fossil fuels, is only the trigger to the main event, the release of the frozen methane hydrates in the tundras and under the oceans.

Excuse me, but the IPCC, the UN body set up to examine climate matters, has explicitly dismissed this off-the-cuff factoid in their latest report:

Clathrate methane release: Very unlikely that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release (high confidence).

And that shows the vigor of true scientific process. Scientists aren't expected to march in lock-step with each other. Indeed, they're encouraged to cross-check everything that comes down the tubes. Any scientist is welcome and encouraged to do his/her own research on any topic, and submit it for peer-review.

Methane is 24 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is currently being released, mainly from the deep sea, and from Arctic region tundra. The release rates could spike dramatically, as average world temps continue to increase. source

- modified for spelling

Edited October 14, 2013 by boomerangutang

[FDog]

And regardless of everything the flat earthers are saying, the fact still remains that the 800 scientists charged with studying climate change all agreed that it was real and man is having a real impact.

No amount of bleating will change that.

[RickBradford]

the fact still remains that the 800 scientists charged with studying climate change all agreed that it was real and man is having a real impact.

Nobody is disputing that.

The important questions are: a) what will the impacts be, b ) will they be beneficial or harmful, and c) what is the best way to deal with the downside of any impacts?

The current best answers are: a) Minor, b ) Beneficial (in the short to medium term), and c) Adapt, if and when necessary.

Edited October 14, 2013 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

the fact still remains that the 800 scientists charged with studying climate change all agreed that it was real and man is having a real impact.

Nobody is disputing that.

The important questions are: a) what will the impacts be, will they be beneficial or harmful, and c) what is the best way to deal with the downside of any impacts?

The current best answers are: a) Minor, Beneficial (in the short to medium term), and c) Adapt, if and when necessary.

may I add for C) ....have less babies. Is it too early to start planting banana plantations in Scotland?

[wilcopops]

CO2 emissions, and yes these are caused by the very recent massive burining of fossil fuels, is only the trigger to the main event, the release of the frozen methane hydrates in the tundras and under the oceans.

Excuse me, but the IPCC, the UN body set up to examine climate matters, has explicitly dismissed this off-the-cuff factoid in their latest report:

Clathrate methane release: Very unlikely that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release (high confidence).

OK - that's it! All postulation about man made climate change has just fallen flaton it's face.....due to two posts on TV.....one with a theory not supported by the UN and the other dismissed by an erudite, or rather vociferous, denier.

Or maybe it's just another example of the paucity of the arguments presented here?

Edited October 14, 2013 by wilcopops

[francescoassisi]

52 you tell of meteor strikes etc yet this would indicate that you have completely missed the point - the wholeb thing about the current situation is that it is AVIODABLE,because it is man made.

[wolf5370]

they dismiss the "Texas size islands of carrier bags" as a myth - as does every one else that has ever done any real research

Sorry dude, you're flat wrong. I don't know where you get the 'carrier bags' term. If you don't want to acknowledge the very real existence of the Great Pacific Trash Vortex, that's your prerogative - but it's very real. And, it won't show up on satellite images simply because it's a gargantuan loose hunk of plastic goo, suspended under the water. Goo doesn't show up on satellite photos - at least not in photos using the current available tech. Try researching what research ships in that region are finding.

reason for edit: trouble with quote

Sorry dude, but we will have to leave this here - you seem persistent in taking my comment out of context of the post it was responding to. I even posted a link to an ecology site stating that there is a (likely) aqueous goo (plastic particulates in suspension) etc - but not a "Texas sized plastic island made form carrier bags and other discarded undegradable plastic garbage". It was this specifically I was replying to and still stand by - this is nothing to do with the "goo" and everything to do with mythology put about by those with agendas (both camps are guilty of this). Therefore, the inability to satellite photo "goo" is as relevant as their inability to photograph Big Foot.

As far as the "Goo" goes however, plastics that are oil based are derived from crude. However, the crude oil is separated (fractional distillation) and plastics come from a derivative called Naphtha. Degrading plastic therefore can never degrade back to "oil" as it does not have the right chemistry to do so - it breaks down to at the most Naphtha, which is toxic - and worse still (especially polystyrene) into Bisphenol A (BPA) which is less toxic, but causes reproduction problems in animals if digested. Polystyrene, incidentally, does not usually make up part of the "goo", but sinks as small heavy particles - these are then ingested by bottom feeders and deep sea creatures.

[boomerangutang]

they dismiss the "Texas size islands of carrier bags" as a myth - as does every one else that has ever done any real research

Sorry dude, you're flat wrong. I don't know where you get the 'carrier bags' term. If you don't want to acknowledge the very real existence of the Great Pacific Trash Vortex, that's your prerogative - but it's very real. And, it won't show up on satellite images simply because it's a gargantuan loose hunk of plastic goo, suspended under the water. Goo doesn't show up on satellite photos - at least not in photos using the current available tech. Try researching what research ships in that region are finding.

reason for edit: trouble with quote

Sorry dude, but we will have to leave this here - you seem persistent in taking my comment out of context of the post it was responding to. I even posted a link to an ecology site stating that there is a (likely) aqueous goo (plastic particulates in suspension) etc - but not a "Texas sized plastic island made form carrier bags and other discarded undegradable plastic garbage". It was this specifically I was replying to and still stand by - this is nothing to do with the "goo" and everything to do with mythology put about by those with agendas (both camps are guilty of this). Therefore, the inability to satellite photo "goo" is as relevant as their inability to photograph Big Foot.

As far as the "Goo" goes however, plastics that are oil based are derived from crude. However, the crude oil is separated (fractional distillation) and plastics come from a derivative called Naphtha. Degrading plastic therefore can never degrade back to "oil" as it does not have the right chemistry to do so - it breaks down to at the most Naphtha, which is toxic - and worse still (especially polystyrene) into Bisphenol A (BPA) which is less toxic, but causes reproduction problems in animals if digested. Polystyrene, incidentally, does not usually make up part of the "goo", but sinks as small heavy particles - these are then ingested by bottom feeders and deep sea creatures.

It sounds like we're mostly on the same page. I still haven't grasped the 'carrier bags' moniker. Maybe I'll get it at 3:30 am some morning, and bolt upright in bed.

The satellite thing is also out of left field. It doesn't matter whether the 'goo' that I refer to, can be imaged by satellite. What matters is it exists, and research vessels can attest to that. You're right that there are various types of plastics, and none revert to their base atoms. All retain their 'plasticness' no matter how small their components. That's a big reason why the Pacific Trash vortex is so dire. That gargantuan mass of goo and particulates isn't going to degrade to natural components. Another dire affect is the chemicals inherent in plastics, which leach out. All sorts of mal effects ensue, not just for people (who ingest sea creatures/seaweed/shellfood, etc) but for every other organism in the vicinity.

[MJP]

I highly recommend watching the documentary Chasing Ice by James Balog and his Extreme Ice Survey team and National Geographic.

It shows the pace of glacial retreat using time-lapse photography.

Whether you believe in man made climate change or not, it's still a great piece of journalism.

[davetrout]

All these specialists have had big uni degrees but cannot agree who is right.

Edited October 21, 2013 by Scott
All caps removed

[wilcopops]

ALL THESE SPECIALIST HAVE HAD BIG UNI DEGREE BUT CANNOT AGREE WHO IS RIGHT

Well your perception is way off the mark there is a perception that advances in science come from one very clever man who has one vey revolutionary idea that comes from a Eureka moment - this couldn't be further from the truth. The process is long, detailed and involves intensive scrutiny by others.

So those who say that CC is "wrong" are not just flying in the face of scientific consensus they are in fact making a case that by seeing things in terms of black and white they are in fact not presenting a proper argument - their whole premise is flawed and their argument invalid.

- the truth is that broadly speaking the "science community" (I take it this is what you mean by "specialist?) is in agreement over the concept of man made climate hang. As it has repeatedly been said science is a process of skepticality and critical thinking. So any theory or part of a theort is scrutinised and challenged, the evidence, methodology and interpretations are reviewed by others in detail - the "others" are scientists not involved in the original research and those who may be in different fields or countries......and the situation now is that like so many great theories before the theory is generally accepted by the vast majority of scientists around the world.

BTW - there is also the perception that this is some "new" theory. In fact it is based on scientific knowledge gathered over the centuries even from before the days of Darwin.

Darwin is a case in point - his theories on evolution are also accepted by the science community at large - the original idea is old and based on an accumulation of scientific knowledge that started centuries back too. ....in science these ideas may be accepted as fact by the public at large, but in science they are still theories ("proved" is not semantically the same word here as common usage). Read any newspaper, sciene journal etc etc and you will still find that scientiusts are still engaged in gathering evidence that supports this theory and also challenges it. Usually filling in the gaps on how the process actually works. (e.g. recent research on penguins is reviewing the rate at which genetic change occurs in a species - this may well be applied to other species later and in turn will need testing.... the process continues.

[canuckamuck]

It is tedious how the MMCC side must always call the other side climate change deniers. I may deny the level of concern, but never climate change itself. There has never been a period of time where the climate was in stasis. No thinking person would ever claim there is no change.

I would like someone to tell me what the average global temperature is supposed to be today if man hadn't invented fire.

And if you do come up with the figure, Please tell me the percentage of accuracy for the figure.

I would also like to know when the planet, if man hadn't intervened, should have been expected to start cooling again. Because in all seriousness, if we are on the verge of a cooling, wouldn't our efforts be better spent preparing for that?

Imagine 200 years from now, where global governments are giving out grants to return to fossil burning as a means to negate an impending Ice age.

[RickBradford]

The notion that climate change qualifies as one of the "many great theories" of science is absurd.

The great theories had no need of manipulation like this:

That is "Mike's Nature trick" aka "hide the decline", a deliberate deception designed to save the theory from some very inconvenient facts, thus:

The data from the reconstruction (tree growth used to estimate temperature) extends all the way to 1995 (red curve). But the red part of the curve (1961-1994) gets deleted because it does not show any real warming and gets replaced by instrumental data from weather stations (green, 1871-1997) . This trick was used to conceal the drop in temperature at the end of the reconstruction and to cover up the considerable discrepancy between the theory and the reality.

With shoddy hucksterism like this rampant throughout climate science, it dishonours the names of some of the great scientists of the past to mention climate change in the same sentence.

[MJP]

This really is worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHOboZykZdI

[francescoassisi]

The notion that climate change qualifies as one of the "many great theories" of science is absurd.

The great theories had no need of manipulation like this:

That is "Mike's Nature trick" aka "hide the decline", a deliberate deception designed to save the theory from some very inconvenient facts, thus:

The data from the reconstruction (tree growth used to estimate temperature) extends all the way to 1995 (red curve). But the red part of the curve (1961-1994) gets deleted because it does not show any real warming and gets replaced by instrumental data from weather stations (green, 1871-1997) . This trick was used to conceal the drop in temperature at the end of the reconstruction and to cover up the considerable discrepancy between the theory and the reality.

With shoddy hucksterism like this rampant throughout climate science, it dishonours the names of some of the great scientists of the past to mention climate change in the same sentence.

I'd say the only person hoodwinked here is Mr RB - and I think he's doing it to himself.....he repeatedly cherry picks, overlooks the big picture and dismisses sound science as hucksterism.

I'd like to say I admire his persistence, but it saddens me to see someone flogging a dead horse.

[canuckamuck]

The notion that climate change qualifies as one of the "many great theories" of science is absurd.

The great theories had no need of manipulation like this:

That is "Mike's Nature trick" aka "hide the decline", a deliberate deception designed to save the theory from some very inconvenient facts, thus:

The data from the reconstruction (tree growth used to estimate temperature) extends all the way to 1995 (red curve). But the red part of the curve (1961-1994) gets deleted because it does not show any real warming and gets replaced by instrumental data from weather stations (green, 1871-1997) . This trick was used to conceal the drop in temperature at the end of the reconstruction and to cover up the considerable discrepancy between the theory and the reality.

With shoddy hucksterism like this rampant throughout climate science, it dishonours the names of some of the great scientists of the past to mention climate change in the same sentence.

I'd say the only person hoodwinked here is Mr RB - and I think he's doing it to himself.....he repeatedly cherry picks, overlooks the big picture and dismisses sound science as hucksterism.

I'd like to say I admire his persistence, but it saddens me to see someone flogging a dead horse.

I disagree. I would say that RB's arguments have been clear well thought out and consistently backed with sources.

Can you show me where he has dismissed sound science. I would say that he is passionately defending science.

[RickBradford]

You have a very odd idea of "sound science" if you think that splicing together two completely different lines of evidence in order to produce a coherent narrative is "sound science." Or using datasets upside down because it made a better fit with his pet theory (the "upside down Tiljander" study to the initiated),

Climate science, yes, but not sound science.

Dr Mann's work has consistently been prey to a gory list of problems: inappropriate data, infilling of gaps, use of poorly replicated chronologies, flawed PC (principal component) analysis, data and code withheld until prised from the grasp of the principals. All thoroughly documented by multiple researchers.

The IPCC has finally became so embarrassed by the flood of criticism of Dr Mann's work that they have pulled his infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph out of their reports.

Great theory, indeed.

[francescoassisi]

It would be nice if you eventually saw what a blinkered and slanted view you have of the subject. Your arguments are so baseless and off the mark, they are little more than clutching at straws.

Edited October 21, 2013 by francescoassisi