Anyone who spends more than 1 second on Inhofe's ***** is either totally
uninformed regarding the size of his brain or totally idiot

Bama Brian wrote:

I suspect that Senator Inhofe was referring to IPCC's reliance on the
"hockey stick" graph created by Michael Mann. This graph has been
discredited recently.

Well, since you are a butt fucking dumb anti-science *****, I can see
how you might think that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Bama Brian wrote:

I suspect that Senator Inhofe was referring to IPCC's reliance on the
"hockey stick" graph created by Michael Mann. This graph has been
discredited recently.

Well, since you are a butt fucking dumb anti-science *****, I can see
how you might think that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:15:26 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@earthlink.com> wrote:

I suspect that Senator Inhofe was referring to IPCC's reliance on the
"hockey stick" graph created by Michael Mann. This graph has been
discredited recently. Here's the BBC's take on the controversy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm

Discredited recently? I don't think so. You should read the BBC
article one more time. It doesn't say anything about the "hockey
stick" graph being discredited.



http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22/global.warming.ap/

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad
review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday
that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400
years and potentially the last several millennia."

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is
running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of
the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface
temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the
20th century.

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes
had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in
2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic
because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent
uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of
previous climate stability.

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes
research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike"
Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of
Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research
"are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent
data, Wallace said.
...



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report#comment-14958

Stephen McIntyre told BBC News that he felt the report had upheld
"virtually all of our technical criticisms of MBH [Mann et al] and did
not reject or refute any direct points that we made."

What did those technical criticisms amount to, in terms of altering
the key findings of proxy reconstructions of past climate? Not much.
The NAS commission backs the key findings of the original study. The
report says it has very high confidence that the last few decades of
the 20th Century were warmer than any comparable period in the last
400 years, and "plausibly" in the last 1,000 years. The "alarming"
part of the hockey stick graph, the sharp upward spike in the late
20th century compared to the last 4 centuries, is vindicated with a
high degree of certainty.

McIntyre's technical criticisms of MBH 98 have provided cover for an
avalanche of irresponsible attacks on the credibility of climate
scientists themselves. Noisy complaints abound that the "hockey stick
is broken", MBH 98 is "rubbish", the hockey stick is "religion, not
science", or "politics, not science", a "scientific fraud", or merely
"alarmist scare tactics" by wild-eyed fanatics bent on extorting
lucrative grant funding from government bureaucracies.

The idea is widespread that attacking the credibility of this graph
undermines the scientific foundation of the AGW theory. This report
repudiates, once again, this flawed reasoning. But in the minds of the
public the hockey stick is about global warming, not arcane
statistical technicalities. The scientific credibility of human caused
global warming remains intact. The NAS report concludes that the
hockey stick graph is credible, legitimate science, not a scientific
fraud. That's why this report is widely seen as a vindication of
Mann's work, and McIntyre's criticisms are largely inconsequential.

--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--

The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm