Obama wins Nobel Peace prize

Bogus spin. Most of the worlds research money goes to legitimate scientists and university research, so it is not surprising that most scientists have government research funding from NSF and similar research funding agencies.

You suggest that global warming special interests are paying the IPCC scientists, which is patently false.

This is a classic example of misleading graphics. The graph offered by the McIntyre/ McKitrick as evidence against Mann's graph contains two intentionally misleading factors.

1. They changed the scale of the graph to emphasize the early differences between the curves by a factor of 3.

2. They conveniently eliminated the last half of the 20th century in their graph! That was the part that had the "hockey stick" feature that proves that current temperatures are in fact higher than the MWP. They also left out the earlier cooler period to make the curve appear to begin at the highest point.

Mann's Graph --the hockey stick




McIntyre/ McKitrick reconstruction -- oops left out the last 50 years!



The actual graph from the 2007 IPCC Report showing the MWP clearly and also clearly showing the "hockey Stick" rise in the last 20th century.



So the answer is . . . Yes the Mann graph did not show the MWP accurately, but the difference was not as big as claimed and it in no way invalidates the NOAA conclusion that "In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. " Furthermore its depiction of the actual "hockey stick" rise is completely valid.

Hearsay. There is no record of anyone stating that "we must get rid of the MWP". That is an unsubstantiated allegation from a critic!

That's your allegation, it isn't proven that the graph was made to fit an agenda, only that it was made using incomplete data.

Hans Von Stork in Nature reviewed the hockey stick controversy.

 

Bring it on! martin and I will tag team you into submission.

 

Climate models and weather forecasting are two different things, child.

If your common sense doesn't tell you something about that, there are plenty of studies out there to convince you. Dust bowl--1930'? ring a bell?

Irrelevant to the issue.

Because warm equatorial water causes hurricanes to form. Warmer earth=warmer oceans=more hurricanes. Studies are available for you to ignore.

Once again . . . who are "They"?

Irrelevant to the issue of the legitimacy of AGW.

 

Evidence?

Heat.

You are digging up old questions I've already answered for you many times. I ain't going there for very long. Obviously any fool should realize that the existence of AGW does not stop natural processes. Come up with something new and document it or be ignored.

Accompanied by a very bad climate related drought.

Then you should have no trouble proving it. I won't hold my breath.

Get serious or be ignored.

There are two issues and you know it. You just realize that you can't win the scientific issue but the political issue is subjective, so you keep trying to steer it there. Tuffghi chitski. I defend science on this issue not Al Gore.

You understand little about government and less about science.

 

We already know how ancient geologic processes work, we just don't have climatological data for it, so nobody knows, one way or the other. Such is the way of paleogeology. But, due to ice core and tree-ring studies, we can now know with great confidence the climate changes in the last 10,000 years. We have good human records for the last few centuries.

It's not hard to understand that the existence of natural cycles does NOT preclude the existence of human-cased warming. The conclusions of the IPCC demonstrate why this is so.

It's not on yours either. As your link points out, the debate continues and neither side has prevailed.

You lie. I have said none of these things. None of it has a damn thing to do with global warming.