Tom Nelson spots a gem in the Climategate 2 emails:
Hockey stick co-author Ray Bradley:
“it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right”;
“I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!”
…
Sorry this kept you awake…but I have also found it a rather alarming graph. First, a disclaimer/explanation. The graph patches together 3 things: Mann et al NH mean annual temps + 2 sigma standard error for AD1000-1980, + instrumental data for 1981-1998 + IPCC (“do not quote, do not cite” projections for GLOBAL temperature for the next 100 years, relative to 1998. The range of shading represents several models of projected emissions scenarios as input to GCMs, but the GCM mean global temperature output (as I understand it) was then reproduced by Sarah Raper’s energy balance model, and it is those values that are plotted. Keith pointed this out to me; I need to go back & read the IPCC TAR to understand why they did that, but it makes no difference to the first order result….neither does it matter that the projection is global rather than NH….the important point is that the range of estimates far exceeds the range estimated by Mann et al in their reconstruction. Keith also said that the Hadley Center GCM runs are being archived at CRU, so it ought to be possible to get that data and simply compute the NH variability for the projected period & add that to the figure, but it will not add much real information. However, getting such data would allow us to extract (say) a summer regional series for the Arctic and to then plot it versus the Holocene melt record from Agassiz ice cap….or….well, you can see other possiblities.
[……At this point Keith Alverson throws up his hands in despair at the ignorance of non-model amateurs…]
But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo reconstruction. First, I should point out that we calibrated versus 1902-1980, then “verified” the approach using an independent data set for 1854-1901. The results were good, giving me confidence that if we had a comparable proxy data set for post-1980 (we don’t!) our proxy-based reconstruction would capture that period well. Unfortunately, the proxy network we used has not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/ tree ring sites where there has been a “decoupling” between the long-term relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in recent decades….this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just claimed. We can only call on evidence from many other proxies for “unprecedented” states in recent years (e.g. glaciers, isotopes in tropical ice etc..). But there are (at least) two other problems — Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat, but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”). Furthermore, it may be that Mann et al simply don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info. in the (very few) proxies that we used. We tried to demonstrate that this was not a problem of the tree ring data we used by re-running the reconstruction with & without tree rings, and indeed the two efforts were very similar — but we could only do this back to about 1700. Whether we have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!). So, possibly if you crank up the trend over 1000 years, you find that the envelope of uncertainty is comparable with at least some of the future scenarios, which of course begs the question as to what the likely forcing was 1000 years ago. (My money is firmly on an increase in solar irradiance, based on the 10-Be data..). Another issue is whether we have estimated the totality of uncertainty in the long-term data set used — maybe the envelope is really much larger, due to inherent characteristics of the proxy data themselves….again this would cause the past and future envelopes to overlap.
…Ray [Bradley]
At 01:34 PM 7/10/00 +0200, you wrote: Salut mes amis,
I’ve lost sleep fussing about the figure coupling Mann et al. (or any alternative climate-history time series) to the IPCC scenarios. It seems to me to encapsulate the whole past-future philosophical dilemma that bugs me on and off (Ray – don’t stop reading just yet!), to provide potentially the most powerful peg to hang much of PAGES future on, at least in the eyes of funding agents, and, by the same token, to offer more hostages to fortune for the politically motivated and malicious. It also links closely to the concept of being inside or outside ‘the envelope’ – which begs all kinds of notions of definition. Given what I see as its its prime importance, I therefore feel the need to understand the whole thing better. I don’t know how to help move things forward and my ideas, if they have any effect at all, will probably do the reverse. At least I might get more sleep having unloaded them, so here goes……[Frank Oldenfield]
==============================================================
But wait, there’s more
Hockey stick co-author claims that after 1850, critical trees lost their alleged ability to record temperature
If you examine my Fig 1 closely you will see that the Campito record and Keith’s reconstruction from wood density are extraordinarily similar until 1850. After that they differ not only in the lack of long-term trend in Keith’s record, but in every other respect – the decadal-scale correlation breaks down. I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature. Not all high-elevation tree-ring records from the West that might reflect temperature show this upward trend. It is only clear in the driest parts (western) of the region (the Great Basin), above about 3150 meters elevation, in trees old enough (>~800 years) to have lost most of their bark – ‘stripbark’ trees. As luck would have it, these are precisely the trees that give the chance to build temperature records for most of the Holocene. I am confident that, before AD1850, they do contain a record of decadal-scale growth season temperature variability. I am equally confident that, after that date, they are recording something else. [Malcolm Hughes]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Minimum growth correlates with BOTH maximum warmth and maximum cold”
To expand on my above comment the consequence is that natural temperature variability is grossly understated by the tree proxies.
I suggest that similarly natural CO2 variability is grossly understated by the ice core proxies due to the frequent melt/freeze cycles that occur before the ice is sealed into the column and due to the disturbances of the extraction and preparation processes.
Theo Godwin said:
“Before we can know, someone has to do the necessary empirical research on the selected variety of tree ring in the environments under study. As long as no one knows the relative contributions of temperature, moisture, sunshine, and you-name-it to growth of that variety of tree in the selected environments, no value can be assigned to temperature or any other variable. Once these matters are settled then your hypotheses can be assessed.”
I disagree. It is as obvious as the nose on one’s face.
It is accepted that during the late 20th century (at least) the climate zones moved poleward at about 1.25 miles per year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/
That implies increasing dryness as mid latitude regions moved more into and under the sub tropical high pressure cells. That must result in less tree growth despite higher temperatures.
I think that process has been going on since the depths of the LIA but was first picked up empirically in the above paper.
Obviously the reverse process would have applied MWP to LIA and I have commented many times that since the late 90’s we have seen a reversal which may or may not continue.
Tree growth does not measure temperature any better than it measures precipitation. It simply measures the distance of an individual tree from the geographical sweet spot where the combination of temperature and precipitation is ideal for that tree at that particular moment in time.
That distance constantly changes as the climate zone cyclically shifts latitudinally to and fro overhead.
Other factors relevant to the growth rate of the tree are on average relatively insignificant. Warmth and water trump everything else when averaged out over time.
The biggest surprise about climate that we are in the process of learning is that beyond a couple of human lifetimes the natural variability of climate is far greater than ever previously acknowledged yet the hockey stick exercise sought to tell us the exact opposite.
Even so, that natural variability does not in my opinion translate into a significant change in total system energy content. Instead, what happens is that the shifting of the climate zones alters the speed of energy flow through the system so as to maintain a relatively steady total system energy content.
The air temperature flowing across individual regions varies significantly but the temperature of the entire Earth system varies hardly at all.
That is why the changes recorded by satellite sensors are much less than those recorded in certain regions at the surface.
Merry Mithra day everyone!
Stephen Wilde;
That implies increasing dryness as mid latitude regions moved more into and under the sub tropical high pressure cells. That must result in less tree growth despite higher temperatures.>>>
I think it is FAR more complicated than that.
I grew up in a farming community in a high latitude (50 North) temperate zone that is mid continent (read: long cold nasty winters). Please allow me a single example from experience that is counter intuitive.
In Example1, snow arrives in large quantities at end of October. Snow continues to accumulate all winter, there are zero melting days until spring. By the first melting day, there is an average of 2 to 3 feet of packed solid snow on the ground.
In Example2, it gets cold but not until end of November. There’s not much snow at all, and the winter is very mild. By the first melting day in the spring, there’s only a few inches of snow on the ground.
Question: Which will be the earlier spring? Example1 or Example2?
Answer: Example1. Not by a little either, but by several weeks. How is this possible?
When there is little snow cover, the earth is free to radiate heat. The mild temperatures are due in part to the heat from the earth. When there is a lot of snow, the snow acts as an insulator and keeps the heat in. The mild temps in winter are a bit of an illusion because the truth is that the “cold” has gone deep into the earth. When spring arrives, there is very little snow to melt, but winter just seems to hang on…and on… and on. It takes a lot of energy to heat the earth back up.
In Example1, the earth beneath the snow is no where near as cold as it is in Example2. The snow keeps not only the earth warm, but the bulk of the snow too. The frost line might be only a foot or so down, while in the mild winter it might be several feet. When the snow finaly starts to melt, flooding is a serious concern because it all tends to melt in a short period of time. That in turn exposes the earth below, which promptly thaws and hits spring planting temperatures weeks earlier than the “mild” winter.
So…as your temperate zones move toward the arctic, and precipitation changes, does spring come earlier? Or later? Is the growing season longer? Or shorter? In any given year? As a trend? Is variability higher? Or lower?
Damned if I know. Or anyone else for that matter.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm
“It is accepted that during the late 20th century (at least) the climate zones moved poleward at about 1.25 miles per year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24228037/
That implies increasing dryness as mid latitude regions moved more into and under the sub tropical high pressure cells. That must result in less tree growth despite higher temperatures.”
So, you think that having this information about climate zones can tell you the effects that climate zone movement had on each and every environment that is under study. You imply that knowledge of climate zone movenment enables you to predict change in tree growth in dozens of rather different environments scattered around the world. Are you sure that you want to go this far?
davidmhoffer says:
December 24, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Your post is priceless. You provide several excellent examples of how local environment affects tree growth through causes whose existence cannot be known unless the causes are actually observed while they are causing the effect in question. Yes, if tree ring width proxies are to be used then local environments must be understood very well.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 24, 2011 at 8:41 pm
“Tree growth does not measure temperature any better than it measures precipitation. It simply measures the distance of an individual tree from the geographical sweet spot where the combination of temperature and precipitation is ideal for that tree at that particular moment in time”
You must be stating an assumption. I cannot believe that it is based on active or passive experimentation on a variety of tree in a given kind of environment. I would know any such research. This kind of non-empirical assumption about the local environment is what I have been criticizing in my posts.
I am also leery of the idea of “geographic sweet spot.” I believe that local environments vary way too much for that to be such a thing as a “geographic sweet spot,” unless you are talking about very unusual trees. For example, trees that are separated by 100 yards can be in very different kinds of soil. I cannot believe that you would think that soil quality is less important to tree growth than moisture or temperature.
As someone old enough to have survived the great projected famine, and then “we’re all going to die from cancer”, and then we’re all going to dissolve in acid rain and now burn to death in a fiery climate- I can tell you only one thing– facts are not relevant. Toxics, acid rain, climate change and its replacement the nitrogen cascade are simply emerged solution of a system that funds science as a means to justify predetermined regulatory policy and goals. This system is now highly buffered making it highly resistant to change.
Climate was not my area of specialty however in my areas of acid rain, nutrients and fishery management I can show you abuses that are far greater (except in monetary terms) than what we see in climate. Abuses exposed raw and naked and not a damn thing changed other than the destruction of the poor souls that exposed them.
Take a look at the conclusions of the final acid rain report (NAPAP) It may be hard to find because its no where on the web and locked away in a few repositories where you need to make an appointment to read it. (Go ahead and try and find it on line). Despite the fact that the report blew away the hype surrounding acid rain- Congress never read it before passing the Clean Air Act because the science was never relavent. (EPA wouldn’t release the report until after Congress passed the legislation and then went on a campaign smearing and destroying the career of one of its lead authors. In fact the “joke” after the NAPAP (acid rain project) was EPA would never again take the risk again of allowing independent science to contradict its narrative. There would be no NAPAP for climate. Its why it was given to the UN where the results were a foregone conclusion.
This is not a conspiracy -but a highly complex and iterated self organizing system. The system selects for science and scientists that support the aims/culture/ideology of its funding agencies. Both grow as a result. Those that do not support the narrative- don’t receive funding and in turn fail to receive tenure and are winnowed from the system. Think of any corporation where an exec stood up and said the Board of Directors was a misguided bunch of fools. His expected rapid firing sends the message to perhaps thousands of other employees that such conduct is not in ones self interest. There is no conspiracy needed- those that go along get promoted- those that don’t get fired. Scientists are smart people– it doesn’t take too many grant denials before they get the message.
We continue to fight the science and perhaps with climate we can push it back– but as stated earlier- climate is simply an emerged solution of this system–and the system will simply emerge a new solution to replace it. (Nitrogen seems to be in the batters box) An algorithm that says pollution and human misery is the result of excess economic activity “fueled” by cheap energy. (Think about it- every EPA campaign fits this algorithm)
We used to say its the Economy Stupid–what it really is- Its the System stupid! Unless we find a way to change the system by adding controls, limiting energy, altering incentives etc- we will simply see new reincarnations of acid rain and climate change. Meet the new crisis- just like the old crisis.
“polistra says:
December 24, 2011 at 8:42 am
“After 1850 the trees stopped recording.”
Well, if you’re a Druid, I suppose this could make sense. Sort of like the way God changes his views every time the Pope speaks ex cathedra, or every time the Church Elders receive a new revelation.
I’m not sure who would fill the same role for Gaians; perhaps a time-transported 1850 hologram of Margaret Mead ordered the trees to shut off their Temperature Input Channels and start recording other data instead.
”
Well in 1959, the first oil well was drilled for the sole purpose of obtaining oil. The “Drake Well”. This unnatural insult of the body of our Mother Goddess Gaia combined with the increased CO2 due to the burning of oils, not whales incited the Mother Goddess Gaia to prevent all trees from only temperature. In her wrath she forced the trees to also record rainfall, shade, and TSI reaching the earth’s surface until man cease his sins against her. – Book of the Gore Gaia chapter 23 verse 15.
Tom Moriarty,
now that is a great answer to the appropriately named DIzzy. They really do seem unable to understand some pretty clear cut concepts such as honesty, good faith. openness etc. Unfortunately I think your sterling efforts will have about the same impact on DIzzy’s understanding as trying to explain the difference between red, purple , and blue to a blind person.
dizzy says:
December 24, 2011 at 10:02 am
Written with Mann, et. al. Available online. Includes a hockey stick graph. Read some real science.
………….
Anyone who seriously quotes Mann et al, Jones et al or any of the other global warming alarmists is not just dizzy, he is delusional.
Just assume that nothing these people have ever written, or will ever write, is worth reading. The probability is you will be more right than wrong, and just think of all the time you’ll save.
Theo Goodwin and davidmhoffer
I am simply stating the null hypothesis.
Tress grow best and fastest where the local combination of temperature and precipitation suit them best. Other factors intervene but on average globally for the entire tree species the null hypothesis holds.
So if one shifts the climate zones poleward or equatorwatd different trees will benefit or suffer depending on their individual locations relative to the climate zones.
Generally, on average, trees that get shifted further away from the best conditions will grow less. Trees that get shifted closer to the best conditions will grow more.
Clearly the best conditions will be ‘spotty’ and not entirely climate related but the effects of temperature and precipitation changes will show up in every location nonetheless.
Even if a tree is in a soil rich environment it will grow better if it gets shifted closer to a climate zone with optimum balance between rainfall and temperature.
Likewise even a tree in a poor soil environment will grow better if it gets shifted closer to such an optimum climate.
It must be self evident that temperature and rainfall on average overall are by far the most dominant factors influencing tree or plant success.That is why most plants and trees of a single species are limited in their regions of successful growth and why we see growing regions move ,grow, shrink and change shape with the seasons and with longer term climate changes.
Anyway, whether you find that convincing or not the fact remains that the trees are not measuring temperature because the growth rate slows down when there is less rainfall and less rainfall occurs under the sub tropical high pressure cells than under the mid latitude depression tracks.
Thus does growth slow down even as temperature increases because rainfall reduces at the same time due to latitudinal shifting of the climate zones.
To show that null hypothesis to be false one would have to propose permanently fixed climate zones (subject to the same seasonal variation year by year) but we know from the circulation patterns of the MWP and LIA and the Current Warm Period that that is not so.
@Patrick Guinness Moffitt December 24, 2011 at 9:50 pm:
I well recall the study of acid rain. I am pretty certain it was in the 1980s, though, because I recall where I was and what I was doing when it was happening, so I think you might be confusing the timing relative to the Clean Air Act, which was in 1970 or 1971.
But you are right about the results. As I recall, Congress funded the study to the tune of $30 or $35 million. The purpose was to test the acidity in the lakes in the northeast states in the U.S. It might have included more than that region, but it was mostly there. The Clean Air Act decreed that stacks on factories be taller (I believe that was supposed to put the emissions up where dissipation was better). Then, a few years later the enviros ran around claiming that the tall stacks emissions were creating acidic conditions which came down with the rain in regions downwind. With the Midwestern factories, that meant the prevailing westerlies were aiming that acidic rain at the Northeast states.
Anyway, the enviros got to pick the people to go out to all the lakes and ponds in the NE and take samples, all of which (I think) were sent to a central lab for testing. I distinctly remember that of all the thousands of lakes and ponds in the NE, only one remote and nearly inaccessible pond in western New York state was found to be acidic. I totally remember at the time thinking this was a great victory for real science, and a defeat for the climate exaggerators. I thought it would teach them a lesson about lying. But I agree with you, Pat, that the lesson they learned was to not allow independent science into the discussion.
The reason I recall the dating of this (within 1 year of 1984) so well is that a friend of mine was the county Coroner for that short period, and, as such, he directed the county lab for testing such things. The Coroner told me that at one County Board meeting a young man stood up and asked what they were going to do about the acid rain in our county (in NE Illinois). No one on the board had any idea that there was acid rain locally. The Coroner, wanting to get to the bottom of it and fix it if it was happening, told the young man that he (the Coroner) would have the water in the lakes in question tested before the next County Board meeting. The tests all came back negative. The young man attended the next meeting and was told the negative results, and he stood up and declared, “Those results don’t mean anything! The acid rain is happening, and we need to do something about it.” The Coroner looked at me, still puzzled, and asked me what in the heck was he supposed to do, with someone who denies when actual quantified facts are put right in front of him.
Climate claims, once believed in, are nearly impossible to dislodge from believers’ minds. I’ve seen it a lot. It was certainly a case of negative confirmation bias – the guy wasn’t going to accept rebuttal evidence, no matter HOW strong it was.
Well in 1959, the first oil well was drilled for the sole purpose of obtaining oil.
I think you mean 1859.
(And “first” if you exclude the claims of Baku and Galicia.)
I am no scientist, but I would like to propose the following real life experiment.
Get a surface station set up in this so called ‘geographic sweet spot’, then use the temperatures to accurately predict tree growth for every tree and plant around the world.
Need to know how your tomatoes will do this year ? worried about that cactus in the town square ?
will I be gettting a good crop of apples this year ? it would have enormous benefits for the wine regions
I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!).
Now why should Mann have been irritated? Surely an objective scientist should search for knowlege as an end in itself, and not want it to lead to a predetermined outcome.
Merry Christmas, peace and goodwill to all….
There are three related issues. The first is whether or not a relatively few samples of tree rings, ice cores, and bottom sediments reflect global temperature. The second is whether or not tree rings can be used to isolate temperature. The third deals with the math used to produce the hockey stick. McIntyre and McKitrick showed in 2003 that Mann’s math would produce a hockey stick from red noise.
It would be refreshing and enlightening if someone who wanted to defend the hockey stick would address the technical aspects of those three issues without hand waving and ad hominem.
OTOH there is a nearly eight year record of attempts to do that on Climate Audit. What is new is the evidence that those on the inside were not nearly as convinced as that record would indicate,
There may be ways to establish the history of global temperature —or there may not be. It would be more productive to look for a way to do that then to continue to try to ride a horse that is, if not dead, very close to it.
What so many fail to recognise here is that science has moved on significantly and there are two main streams in existence nowadays. Coupled and decoupled science and far too many of us have become decoupled for our own good. The coupled stream is merely calling for some balance here or the overall funding and science itself could suffer.
Steve Garcia,
1990 was the date of the major amendments of the Clean Air Act and a gift to the unions representing high sulfur coal. The law forced scrubbers to be put on all utilities whether or not they used low sulfur western coal and thereby protection the unions mining eastern coal while forcing the rate payers to pay for it all. Like climate change- acid rain played games with the name. All rain is acid- always has been always will be. What was being argued by scientists was the change in acidity and its ecosystem impacts. The Press and NGOS played games by saying all scientists believed in acid rain– of course they did- they just didn’t believe all the rest of the BS.
In 1988 Rep Scheur (D-NY) and Chairman of the House Committee blasted the interim acid rain report which was not going according to plan resulting in the resignation of its chief scientist. The new director then was made to promise to Scheur and his subcommittee that he would indeed find that acid rain was harming northeastern lakes in the future. (But they still couldn’t twist the science enough to make it happen – so EPA and Congress ignored the report and then buried it.
The scientific findings summarized in Driscol et al. in their survey “Chemical Response of Lakes in the Adirondack Region of New York to Declines in Acidic Deposition” (2003) directly contradict Pat Moffitt’s claims.
Either Mr. Moffitt’s claims are simply mistaken, or else there exists a well-organized scientific conspiracy, global in scope, extending over many decades.
It is significant too that America’s non-partisan organizations that support hunting, fishing, and conservation — Isaac Walton league, Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservancy, etc. — are unanimous in broadly endorsing the correctness of the science.
WUWT folks are encouraged to read the Driscoll survey and decide for themselves, whether the science is simply correct, or whether the conspiracy is even more vast than Mr. Moffitt’s post suggests.
@ur momisugly Pat Moffitt –
I was busy being a single parent in 1990, so I missed that major amendment to the Clean Air Act.
As to the law in 1990 forcing scrubbers to be put on “utilities”, I can say that 20 years earlier I worked on the design of massive, massive scrubbers in the mid-1970s, as well as huge double-width fans for scrubbers (two different jobs) – also in the 1970s. My first few jobs were basically funded by efforts to comply with the 1970 law. The 1970s was a heyday for steel fabricators all over the U.S. because of it (and most of them went out of business not so long after that all ended). As apolitical as I was then, I still distinctly recall news reports about the hollering and screaming among industrialists, about how the Clean Air Act was going to make American industry uncompetitive, due to all of the huge costs involved in cleaning up what came out of stacks.
I have no idea how old you are, but the air quality really WAS pretty horrible for a long time prior to that. By the 1980s, as I recall, the quality of the air was beginning to be appreciably improved. Prior to that, our cities’ were next to unlivable, IMHO. Certainly few cities were vacation destinations like they later became. If anyone asked me to go back to that time and breathe that air, I think I’d take a pass on it.
In the mid-1990s, I also worked on projects for cleaning up emitted volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using catalytic oxidizers. Though I worked for one of the bigger suppliers of such systems, the systems at that time were considerably smaller than the projects in the 1970s. They were still good-sized systems, just not even close to the earlier ones. That may or may not mean anything, but it was my experience in my workaday world.
My take at the time on the acid rain study was that all of a sudden, acid rain was not in the news anymore, and it basically never was again. It seemed it shut the enviros up, big time – instantly and for good.
There had been some considerable exaggerations in the run-up to the Clean Water Act of ~1971, too. I lived in Cleveland, which is on Lake Erie, and the oft-repeated claim then was that if not one more drop of pollutants were put into Lake Erie, it would take 10,000 years to clean up. That was reported as fact, over and over. Well, the exaggerations worked, because the act was passed.
How do I know they were exaggerations? In about 1980 the waters of Lake Erie were tested. I laughed out loud when I read them: The polluting effluents had been reduced by 75%, and the lake’s pollution level had dropped by 90%. Going from “zero effluent = 10,000 years” to “25% effluent still going into the lake = 90% reduction in about 10 years” was a considerable difference. That was my first experience with enviros lying to get their way.
If I had lied like that as a kid, I’d have gotten a big bar of soap in the mouth.
But the big clean-up was, as I saw it more or less first-hand, was in the 1970s.
JUST TO GIVE A HEADS UP TO EVERYONE: “A PHYSICIST” IS A TROLL.
I recommend to all to ignore him. His being here is an attempt to hijack the thread.
He did that recently here, and it took people a while to recognize him as a troll.
****
A physicist says:
December 25, 2011 at 6:04 am
The scientific findings summarized in Driscol et al. in their survey “Chemical Response of Lakes in the Adirondack Region of New York to Declines in Acidic Deposition” (2003) directly contradict Pat Moffitt’s claims.
Remember the 60-Minutes show (after the acid-rain crap passed) presenting a study that showed it had no significant effect other than on a few NE US lakes? And that nobody in Congress or otherwise paid the slightest attention to? Maybe you’re too young…..
and:
Either Mr. Moffitt’s claims are simply mistaken, or else there exists a well-organized scientific conspiracy, global in scope, extending over many decades.
You misspelled one word. It’s culture, not “conspiracy”. Conspiracies aren’t done in the open. Your statement is like saying the communists in Russia were partaking in a “conspiracy” under Lenin, Stalin, etc.
Paul Homewood says:
December 25, 2011 at 3:02 am
Because Mann isn’t a “scientist”; he’s a “climate scientist”, which means he puts his ideological (politicized & grant-seeking) version of “climate” before “science”. And I submit as Exhibit A his behavior since he became a “player” in “The Cause”.
@ur momisugly Steve Garcia RE “a physicist”. Yeah, I’ve noticed that too. Anthony should place a list of trolls on the right sidebar for reference before anybody attempts to respond to such nefarious mis-direction. That would by my New-Year’s wish. And in the meantime, today is Christmas, and I wish everybody (even the trolls) a Merry one!