This is an impressive article dealing with part of the climate science that Professor Mann based his ‘hockey stick’ “global temp” /CO2 relationship, on which, in turn, the whole world, or that part which is supported by catastrophic global danger beliefs, seems to feel comfortable with.
Here is a great example of science discussion in action. Devoid of political agenda and financial interests, impartial and covering a range of possibilities. No narrow-minded focus on achieving a pre-empted outcome, no ignoring of conflicting evidence, no changing or selecting evidence that fits the preferred conclusion. Just good old honest, principled science.
To tempt you to spend the time, and effort, of following this through closely, some extracts:
“Tree rings most certainly do not show us cooling or heating alone.”
“The simple fact of the matter is that there was a body of climate scientists — a substantial body — in direct communication with one another and at the very least displaying their utter lack of scientific objectivity as they were “gunning” for the MWP and LIA in order to support their assertions of catastrophic warming..”
“AFAIK, they have all to a Mann completely, utterly, totally neglected the effect of CO_2 itself on growth rates of the very plants they are using as proxies.”
“1 to 1.5 billion people.
That’s how many people would potentially starve if we waved a magic wand and dropped CO_2 right back to 280 ppm tomorrow. “
It goes without saying, ?, that my own beliefs are allied to this type of science and commonsense.
Beliefs that have changed from acceptance of what I now deem as propaganda, because surely “they know what they are talking about” -“global warming is real and a threat” to extensive reading from many sources and a conclusion that “global warming” activism is completely unsupported by valid science and completely explained by alternative motivations.
In this link in comments on WUWT:
Is a wonderful comment by RBGatDuke. I’ve edited things a little bit. I included the preceding and responding comments, and there was a correction by RBGatDuke that I’ve ‘inlined’ for easier readability. (You can always hit the link to see the actual unchanged version if this bothers you).
First up, the lead in:
Abram March 25, 2015 at 8:21 am
Here’s a guy who thinks he’s the worlds #1 climate scientist, but his experience is in dendrochronology. Really, there shouldn’t be a link between these two as the tree rings give an approximation of the “sum of conditions” not necessarily climate, but he already knew that.
emsnews March 25, 2015 at 8:30 am
Quite so, Abram. Mann thinks he is #1. Tree rings show not just temperature but also rain amounts and incidentally, insect attacks. Yes, we have regular years every 20…
View original post 2,882 more words