No, because the Milankovitch cycle we are in – means we should be cooling not warming.<quoted text>
Proof one, two, and four actually disprove your points and prove that climate change is natural.
It was not found to have serious errors. Which is why you have a BLANK SLATE for giving any details.<quoted text>
Three is based on a single study that was later found to have serious errors.
No study has disproved AGW. There is not one world renown, respected (not even a petroleum based) science organization that rejects global warming. Not one! There is not one well respected science magazine or science journal that rejects it. They might cover a skeptic, but they will make it clear it is not the editors' position.<quoted text>
That was also the year the first study disproving AGW came out.
You must be listening PURELY to anti-science right wing ideological sites.
Yes. The Chinese and Japanese kept sunspot records going back that far is why. Next?<quoted text>
Notice that they talk about sun activity all the way back in 850 AD.
In addition to sunspot records, his paper clearly says he used Be10 and C14 isotopes can be used as proxies for solar activity.
Wow, do you only read right wing soundbites, or what.<quoted text>
Not much was being recorded about the sun at the time. In fact some of the study was based on Dr Mann's data which was later discovered to have errors as well.
Steve Mcintyre challenged the statistical results of Mann’s hockey stick as not having enough diversity – which I agreed was a proper challenge by the way.
He's backed off now. Mann still resoundedly won the debate after:
--The Nationaly Academy of Sciences (NAS)--which was asked by Congress to do a formal review of Mann’s work, said they concurred it was accurate. It based its conclusion largely on the fact other types of proxy studies (and not tree rings) were finding same hockey stick shape as Mann’s work.
and I can give a citation.
Here is there graph the NAS used to conclude, Mann’s accuracy was likely very high in the last 400 years, and the previous 600 years was likely accurate as well, but with less certainty.
Here is New Scientist covering it:
Therefore Mann has been officially recognized as having one ofbest data set for the last 1000 years for the temperature side by the NAS and the scientific community.
Usoskin correlated it with proxies for solar activity [I’m assuming you know why sunspots is a proxy too].
And you missed the boat– i.e., you messed up!! Usoskin came up with a conclusion you should be applauding from the last 1000 years up to 1975 – that solar radiation WAS the largest contributor to the change in temperature.
Before you get too excited. You have to explain why this sun/temperature correlation broke down in 1975.
And remember we have had weather station data going back to 1880. So that’s where you would fail.
So this has nothing to do with Michael Mann. You seem to go purely by slogans. Shame on you.
Really, then what would cause the declines – wouldn’t CO2 still be locked in permafrost? You know the ice cores sediments keep growing.<quoted text>
Five and six deal with CO2 and they discovered where much of the CO2 was coming from and it turns out it was locked in permafrost. Which concured with the fact that every time the temperature rose the CO2 levels rose. Which also means the CO2 is an effect and not a cause.
Got a peer reviewed SCIENCE citation for that? and do I need to add-- I don’t mean a “guest” on Rush Limbaugh, or equivalent.