The Hockey Stick was important to the movement because it got rid of the Medieval Warm Period. I don’t care how many reconstructions they do which show a hockey stick. Have these studies been audited? Who did the study? What about all the other evidence of a world-wide MWP? Have they been taken into account? Seems to me evidence like a warm Greenland and other world-wide phenomena trump ideological-driven reconstructions using questionable statistics and dubious assumptions.
Sorry if I offended. I’ll be more cautious.
Climate scientists agree there was a MWP, though they point out it seemed to be more a regional, not world-wide, phenomenon – note that Greenland is in the North Atlantic, the region that experienced the warming. And just because there was a MWP (even if it were later found to be world-wide) does not mean there could not be any warming today. Or just because something else caused the warming back then, like wobble or orbit or solar irradiation (or whatever), does not mean it is impossible that our GHG emissions might be causing GW today.
There have actually been much greater warming periods than the MWP, like the PETM and end-Permian (during which over 90% of life on earth died out). This is not news to the climate scientists; in fact it helps them put parameters on the issue.
I find nothing seriously wrong with the climate scientists and their studies, except for a few mistakes that get corrected – nothing that disproves AGW. That’s the scientific process…it is on-going and advances over time with better data and better theories.
Climate scientists also helped correct a mistake made by a skeptic statistician (I think the same one who found the Mann mistake) who didn’t realize the celsius scale temps were interval data, not ratio (with at true zero), and did some wrong stats (supposedly disproving AGW) by not first converting the data to the kelvin scale. The help and corrections go in both directions. And since it seems God intended us to live in interdependent societies and help each other, I see nothing wrong in that.
(BTW, the hockey stick idea came well after I had come to understand AGW was real and dangerous back in the late 80s, so it is not really essential to my understanding about today’s current GW, which is based on my knowledge of the GH effect, which I learned about some 50 years ago, well before GW became an issue (political or otherwise); the temp data since the late 1800s; knowledge about past warmings and coolings; and how warmings would contribute to droughts in Africa, etc. That for me is plenty enough to turn out lights not in use – even without the hockey stick.)
I’ll continue to mitigate (not only to reduce my harm from AGW, but also doing so mitigates many other problems and has saved me $1000s over the past 22 years).
I would hope that you and others would join me in my effort to reduce GHGs (and other pollution), even though you may be skeptical of AGW, just to be on the safe side and to reduce other problems and realize the good savings to be had.
I wouldn’t ask anyone to sacrifice or lower their living standards, just the things that either have no cost, break-even, or save money in the short or long run. Whatever is doable and feasible.
