It is very clear what you believe on this topic. I can't figure out why you care to repeatedly post what you believe on this topic without supporting your point of view with any facts when asked about it.
Gerry, This is the third time you site a recent article by Mr. Singer in American Thinker. They must be paying him well. :)
Regarding the content of the article, Mr. Singer starts off by blasting the “false” hockey stick graph. This is a common denier tactic. Please do a search on “hockey stick denier” and you will find many articles on this data and how the scientific process has been used to evaluate historic world temperatures and the independent analysis of the historic temperature record which have come to similar conclusions as the original and subsequent Mann graphs. Quite honestly this is old data which has been superseded by additional analysis You will also find many articles where deniers use the graph to inject “uncertainty” into the argument. Here is an article with Dr. Mann defending himself against the false accusations just like those presented by Mr. Singer. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-hockey-stick another defense is presented at http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Your author then posts two graphs but does not clearly state their relationship or post all the values for the x-or y-axis. Without the scale of the axis, how do we know these graphs are comparable? Trust Mr. Singer? I don’t know about you, but if you are going to shoot down someone else’s scientific results with a graph, you really ought to present solid and clear data to make your case. He also cites the MWP and LIA, which, as I understand it were primarily a change in the northern european climate. Does the other graph only apply to northern Europe? My understanding is the the MWP was a climate phenomenon in the north atlantic region, not worldwide. If this is the case, then no legitimate scientist would compare these graphs and reach any conclusion, unless they have a different agenda. I also find it interesting how the author makes a statement like “Mr. Mann quietly published a paper that documents the medieval warming period. I wonder how a scientist “quietly” publishes one paper versus any other? Why include such a strange statement except to cast some false insinuation about someone??
Your author then posts a couple of CO2 related graphs that clearly show a thousand years of record and huge increases in CO2 levels in the past 100 years. Please note that the second graph is one which demonstrates that the increase in CO2 is due to burning of fossil fuels (which your author affirms later). He then points out the little tiny blip in the graph for the medieval period and suggests that because there is not a synchronization of the CO2 increase and then warming that this somehow negates the possibility that the CO2 increase now could lead to climate change. In an earlier response to this claim posted by you I posted links to articles that respond to this often used climate denier argument regarding the medieval period and CO2 levels. Here is one again http://jcmooreonline.com/2012/04/01/...l-warm-period/
Mr Singer then goes on to try and say there is no relationship between the temperature and CO2 graphs. Gerry do you see one? I sure do but then again if you do not believe the data in the first graph you might not, but that is exactly the set-up here, isn’t it?. First, present the hockey stick as false, then compare to CO2 and discount the obvious relationship because the first graph is false and if you do not believe that because there is not perfect agreement in the relationship between the variables. SOme people take this hook, line, and sinker.
In the temperature record section he makes some claim about the real record but does not provide a citation for his data. At one point he questions why the Mann hockey stick stops at 1980 and insinuates it was purposely done to hide something. This is entirely disingenuous. I would think that Mr. Singer does know that the graph was published in 1989 and likely submitted for publication a year or two earlier and that it was based years of previous analysis. Raising this “1980” issue shows Mr. Singer’s true intent here which is to raise uncertainty. This is disingenuous just as is raising the climategate issue. It is red meat for fellow deniers.
The CO2 data is pretty clear and it is hard to argue with the conclusion that humans are causing it to rise. In point 6 he again is raising the uncertainty card which is kind of funny. He points out that CO2 started increasing earlier than temperatures which seems to suggest that he wants a more direct linkage and less lag time.
In his conclusion he jumps to talking about climate sensitivity. A bit of a disconnect if you ask me. Note that he carefully brings up some cherry picked data about the “near surface” and the “near-absence of tropical atmospheric warming”. I wonder what has been happening in the atmosphere as a whole an at the surface, and what is happening with ocean temperatures. Why is he only cherry picking these elements of the available data?.
Since you like Mr. Singer, and called him seemingly “fair minded” in an earlier post you may want to see a review of some of his tactics at http://grist.org/article/more-from-the-dark-side/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred...l-warming.html
The information on him at Wikipedia is also interesting especially who finances his organization and his established viewpoint on the relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer.
Maybe Mr. Singer should publish his theories and evidence in the scientific literature or take his time going through proper scientific channels to challenge what is being published.
This is the kind of stuff industries put up when their little rice bowl is threatened by scientific findings.
Remember smoking and cancer? 90% of the science must be wrong. .
Asbestos causing lung cancer? Nah, the science is all wrong.
Lead paint is responsible for brain damage in kids? Nah, the science is all wrong.
DDT wiping out eagles and contaminating mother's milk? Nah, the science is all wrong.
Industrial pollution into Lake Erie is responsible for fish die off or hepatitis in kids swimming in the lake? Nah, the science is all wrong.
Asbestos laden mine waste contaminating the whole Lake Superior Basin. Nah, the science is all wrong.
Germs cause disease? You kidding me? Something I can't see? I have to wash my hands every time I pick my nose before I grind hamburger? The science is all wrong.
Silica causing black lung disease? Nah, the science is all wrong.
Evolution? Preposterous. The science is all wrong.
Space travel? God won't let it happen. The science is all wrong.
A vacuum? No such thing, the science is all wrong.
The earth is a spheroid? Just look around you on that one. The science is all wrong.
The earth orbits the sun. That's a statement made by lens grinders to sell more telescopes. The science is baloney.
Or how about this one for those Down River Detroit and Lake Erie Catholics: You mean I can't eat muskrat on Friday? It lives in water. It must be fish. The science is all wrong.
I will say that if you read enough scientific studies on the subject it is obvious that picking the time frame for the study can significantly change the conclusion. I have an article which goes back 100's of million years using co2 content in glacial ice to determing global temperature.
There is one piece of data that I see missing from the pro man made global warming group and that is the percent co2 put into the atmosphere by man. I have seen it to be calculated a low as 7%, mening that if you got rid of all co2 emissions caused by man, you would reduce co2 by no more than 7%. Do you have any data on the 5 of man's contribution of co2 Henry or zeus?
Evolution - I don't believe anyone with a scientific background made that statement - In this case Sarge, what do you believe?
Since we are now 30% above stable historic concentrations this means that we humans are basically responsible for the entire amount above the long term average.Quote:
3. It is often claimed by skeptics that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 (from fossil-fuel burning) is tiny -- less than a percent. The data clearly show that the contribution is 400 minus 280 parts per million (ppm) -- roughly 30% of the current concentration.
The fourth graph that he presents also shows the signature of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and his text statesGiven this evidence, the data you requested is not missing. The measured and undisputed increase in CO2 is, in fact, mostly due to burning fossil fuels. Agreed?Quote:
The sharp decrease of C-13 in the 20th century indicates that its source is most likely biogenic; fossil fuels from ancient plant material and biota would fit this specification.