You show crank sites.

If you live in Melbourne within a winter or two blizzards might be a regular part of Melbourne winters.

“Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”

DR MADHAV KHANDEKAR, PHD Meteorologist and climatologist. Research Scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years. Editorial board member of The Journal of Natural Hazards, and former editor of Climate Research. Member of the American Geophysical Union, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and the American Meteorological Society. Former World Meteorological Organization lecturer in meteorology. MSc in Statistics from Pune University, PhD in Meteorology from Florida State University.

Before the hockey stick, climate science was a complicated business: a vast Amazonian river (as Professor Kiminori Itoh of Yokohama National University characterized it25) with many tributaries - from aerosols and volcanoes to solar variations and land surface modifications. What if all that complexity could be simplified? Really simplified - into “a nice tidy story” (in Professor Keith Briffa’s words) about “unprecedented warming in a thousand years” 26. In 2009 Dr Khandekar was interviewed by Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Asked whether Michael E Mann’s hockey stick was “a smoking gun that proves the alarmists right”, he replied27:

The hockey stick was a graph constructed by some scientists about ten years ago. What it was meant to show was that the earth’s temperature from about 1080 till about 1850 remained essentially constant and then it started to shoot up. Lots of problems have been found out in the graph. The most glaring error in the hockey stick was that it did not show the Little Ice Age, which was significant. It did not show the Medieval Warm Period from the 8th to 12th century, which was also significant. There were errors in the use of the tree-ring data and also other errors. So today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick. They do not consider the hockey stick graph to be a correct representation of the global mean temperature.

Can that really be true - that most scientists “dismiss” the hockey stick? As we shall see in the pages that follow, many scientists from around the world disagree with Mann’s science, and sometimes very forcefully - and they include not only “deniers” but full-scale “alarmists” and all points on the spectrum in between. These people reject not only his science but his style - the peculiarly vicious yet self-defeating “climate war” mentality so unsuited to a great grey blur of contradictory uncertainties. You can believe in anthropogenic global warming, an impending ice age, solar heating, natural variability or no big deal whatever happens, and still regret the appalling damage done to climate science by Mann’s total war in service of a piece of cartoon climatology by a one-stick pony. Yet the real question is not whether “most scientists” dismiss the hockey stock today, but why more scientists didn’t denounce it back then. Too many people who should have known better sat idly by as an obscure researcher, with the ink barely dry on his PhD, overturned the accumulated scientific wisdom of centuries - because it was convenient to the political goals of activists, bureaucrats, politicians - and above all an ambitious new transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Steyn, Mark (2015-09-01). "A Disgrace to the Profession" (Kindle Locations 396-423). Stockade Books. Kindle Edition.




Now debunk the Author of this - A Princeton Professor of Physics and US Government advisor

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:


Wow. In a forum full of truly amateurish or infantile arguments you have topped them all.  Scientists the world over tell you otherwise, but you know better?  They provide not opinion , but fact and still you insist on your own belief.

You have the mind of a child and not a particularly bright one.

YOU are the denier. A denier of fact, a denier of science and a denier of the value of an education.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:


And yet scientists from both sides of that debate DISAGREE with you.

I guess you still believe the Hockey Stick is great science, right?  And you forget the 450 scientists much brighter than you who confirm that the MVP was much warmer than today?

Why dont you produce some sources for your drivelling nonsense?

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

You say you've got an education yet you cannot think for yourself. Looks like you've got yourself an indoctrination.

Human contribution of atmospheric CO2 is 0.005% of total atmospheric gases.  Explain how that determines the climate.

mariacostel wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 6:22pm:


From Maria Costel's own reference a statement that debunks her contention:

Quote:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 6^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:


Gizmo's expert scientific evidence "...the multi-generational farmers around here...".

Gizmo forgot it's usual disclaimer: "I am not a scientist but." Gizmo's intellect would not compete with a scientist's butt.