Anybody see any direct correlation of the CO2 "control knob' CO2 and temperature in these graphs? I don't.
Note that the graph is just for one location on Earth and that the graph doesn't show the approximate 0.7C of warming that has occurred in the last 150 or so years. And the bottom graph doesn't show the CO2 going up to 400 ppm, if it did, it would extend to about the top line of the top graph.
Notice also that the past 11,000 years of temperature in Greenland has been anything but stable. And warmer than today when CO2 was well below 300 ppm.
- Scientist James Lovelock
They don't agree with those actually educated scientists claims, do they? (And I did not post them to disprove AGW, just to show a non-correlation)Fordama wrote:Hot dang, two graphs undo hundreds of studies over decades by hundreds of actually educated scientists! Wow!
And what about some of these actually educated scientists? Here's a few perspectives on the hide the decline by other actually educated scientists:
And Judith Curry of Georgia Tech:
Bottom line is, these scientists were dishonest and mislead the public and other scientists.Bad science and/or dishonesty?
There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not.
- Scientist James Lovelock