5 ms·

Right, I'm going to wade in here. Tichy I completely agree with you, the evidence exposed by these leaks is very, very weak. Basically there is already existen

by tezza 17y ago

Right, I'm going to wade in here. Tichy I completely agree with you, the evidence exposed by these leaks is very, very weak. Basically there is already existent a lot of evidence that many scientists disagree strongly about Climate Change. People who have doubts should not need to lower their arguments to a shrill 'Aha I see a smoking-gun'. This morsel of evidence is tiny by comparison to more eminent disagreement. --- For more weighty disagreements see amongst many more: S McIntyre and R McKitrick 'Corrections to the Mann et a. (1998) proxy data base and northern hemishpere average temperature series' [1] as Nigel Lawson[2] says: 'it turned out ... that crucial data for the period before 1421 was based on.. one single pine tree' ----- [1] http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html [2] p126 note 39 of A Call to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming by Nigel Lawson. The 2009 release has lots of up to date information in a foreword

Retric 17y ago
"many scientists disagree strongly about Climate Change." I think many misrepresents the level of conflict. There are plenty of people that think man made impact on Climate is negligible. However, most people with a strong and relevant scientific background acknowledge, the heat island effect around city's and or desertification which are less controversial man made impacts on local Climate. CO2's absorption spectrum is different than other atmospheric gasses and it's low over all percentage in the atmosphere magnifies it's importance. And there is little debate over the quantity of CO2 released by human activity's. But, quantifying the effect of CO2's impact on global climate with high precision is hard, so there is debate about the magnitude of it's impact.
Tichy 17y ago
Frankly I am a bit surprised at seeing the hockey stick again. I thought that had been written off years ago. Which wouldn't mean that there is no warming going on. In any case, it might once again be nitpicking about unimportant details.
- tezza 17y ago
  This email trail disection involves data from around the Hockey Stick time, so I felt okay to list the historical disagreement. Time does not age the fact that shoddy practices were used as recently as 2001. The book mentioned has quite up-to-date info.

by tezza 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

"many scientists disagree strongly about Climate Change." I think many misrepresents the level of conflict. There are plenty of people that think man made impact on Climate is negligible. However, most people with a strong and relevant scientific background acknowledge, the heat island effect around city's and or desertification which are less controversial man made impacts on local Climate. CO2's absorption spectrum is different than other atmospheric gasses and it's low over all percentage in the atmosphere magnifies it's importance. And there is little debate over the quantity of CO2 released by human activity's. But, quantifying the effect of CO2's impact on global climate with high precision is hard, so there is debate about the magnitude of it's impact.

Tichy 17y ago

Frankly I am a bit surprised at seeing the hockey stick again. I thought that had been written off years ago. Which wouldn't mean that there is no warming going on. In any case, it might once again be nitpicking about unimportant details.

tezza 17y ago
This email trail disection involves data from around the Hockey Stick time, so I felt okay to list the historical disagreement. Time does not age the fact that shoddy practices were used as recently as 2001. The book mentioned has quite up-to-date info.