Pants-of-dog wrote:My prediction seems to be correct.
No. You "predict" that I won't provide evidence, and then when I do, as in this case, you just claim I haven't. It's always the same.
Your ad hominem against Michael Mann and the infamous hockey graph also seems to be wrong:
No, it is not an ad hominem, and it is correct. You are simply making things up, or relying on things others have made up.
Reuters is nothing but an anti-fossil-fuel hysteria echo chamber.
Fact Check-'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change
Like most of these purported "fact checks," the one you have referenced is full of lies.
A video viewed thousands of times online disputes the reliability of an authoritative graph showing cooling global temperatures over 1,000 years and rapid warming in the 20th century. A speaker in the clip claims the chart falsely inflates the impact of man-made climate change. However, the graph is a reliable marker of warming temperatures largely as a result of human activity, climate experts told Reuters.
They mean climate liars.
He compares the earliest version of the graph published in 1998 to earlier illustrations of climate change, which the video lists as “unbiased”.
Which they were, because they were not created by liars to advance a lie.
It is false to say, however, that the graph is misleading or fabricates the impact of man-made climate change.
No, it is not. Lyin' Michael Mann deliberately fabricated the graph out of cherry-picked proxy data that were not sensitive to temperature, and thus did not show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; then when those proxy data also did not show any modern warming in the 20th century, he dishonestly removed them from his graph and replaced them with instrumental data with no correction for urban heating effects.
The "hockey stick" was originally authored by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues, and it was first published in Nature in 1998 (here).
And was a bald lie from the outset, as proved above.
It showed a reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures since A.D. 1400 alongside real-world data from available records.
No, that is another lie from your lying "fact checkers," as proved above. The "reconstruction" was created out of "proxy" data that showed little natural variation in temperature for the pre-modern period, and because those proxy data also showed no modern warming either, Mann removed the modern proxy data from the graph and replaced them with instrumental data uncorrected for urban heating effects.
Mann and his collaborators updated the graph in 1999 (here) to include representations of data from the years from A.D. 1000.
Using the same fraudulent method of cherry-picking insensitive "proxies" for the pre-modern temperature reconstruction, but removing the modern proxy data because they show no warming.
The moniker comes from the graph’s distinctive shape. It illustrates Earth’s temperature slowly declining from A.D. 1000 until the early-20th century when it increases relatively sharply.
Which is known to be a fabrication. We have known since long before Mann's fraud that temperature declined sharply in the 14th-16th century, when solar activity declined, and rebounded in the 19th and 20th when the sun became more active again.
The “hockey stick” featured prominently in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2001 (page 134, here).
Because it supported the fraudulent IPCC agenda.
“The trend is very clear which is why the graph became so well known,” an IPCC spokesperson told Reuters.
But was lying.
The spokesperson added: “It has never been corrected in 20 years.”
That is another flat-out lie. Many papers have proved Mann was lying, and that the MWP and LIA were real, significant, and global.
Earlier depictions of changing global temperatures, some of which Deniston features, have been altered and corrected as a result of more robust reconstruction methods.
No. The earlier depictions of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are known to have been correct, but have been retroactively altered and falsified to conform to the modern agenda of anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.
As a result of more ancient climate data becoming available, Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 (here).
And lied again.
The new graph confirms the reliability of the original, experts told Reuters.
No. It only confirms that Mann is able to get away with blatant scientific malfeasance as long as it serves the anti-CO2 agenda.
“The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years,” said Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London.
Which is another bald lie. The best radiosonde and satellite data confirm cooling since 2016.
Lamboll added: “The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.”
That is another bald lie. The most scientifically credible reconstructions confirm the MWP and LIA happened, directly refuting the hockey stick fraud.
As Mann outlined in a peer-reviewed article accompanying the 2021 version (here), the updated, longer reconstruction further strengthens the argument that Earth’s recent warming is a historical anomaly.
Because he is telling the same lies and using the same fraudulent methods.
Only man-made climate change could explain the “unprecedented warming trend” in studies using climate models, he wrote, citing the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2013 (here).
But that was just another bald lie from Lyin' Michael Mann, because the earth is known with absolute certainty to have warmed far faster at the onset of the Holocene, when many trillions of cubic kilometers of glacial ice melted. Nothing remotely comparable has occurred since people started using fossil fuels, and those who claim it has are just flat-out liars.
In addition to the “hockey stick,” several independent studies and climate scientists attribute the rise in global temperatures largely to man-made climate change (here).
Because they are telling the same lies.
False. The “hockey stick” graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change.
Already proved a lie. It is a complete fraud.
It shows temperatures rapidly rising since the 20th century.
There is no doubt that the multimillennium high in solar activity in the 20th century caused substantial warming. But CO2 from fossil fuels did not cause the sun to become so active.
Multiple studies and independent climate scientists support the findings depicted.
No. The hockey stick graph's depiction of climate history without any MWP or LIA is known to be fraudulent.
This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.
The article was produced by a team of professional liars for hire.
And your Climategate argument seems to be a manufactured controversy.
No, you will merely quote an absurd and dishonest whitewash:
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming.
No, that is just another bald lie. There has never been any claim that the climategate emails show there is no human component in global warming. It is a bald lie to claim that climate realists have made such claims. Your source is just baldly lying. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
We find that to be unfounded:
Because they lied about what climate realists say the climategate emails show.
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive.
And more importanly, dishonest.
An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
No, that is another bald lie from your source. There is plenty of evidence that the earth WAS getting warmer until ~2016, but no credible empirical evidence whatever that humans are largely responsible, given the multimillennium high in solar activity that occurred at the same time.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
Fraud taints all associated sources.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations.
But is still talking about scientific fraud.
These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded.
Because there are no instrument records from the far warmer climates that often prevailed before the LIA, even in the Holocene, and the multimillennium high solar activity through the 20th century has warmed the earth since the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- when, not coincidentally, the instrument record began. It takes a particular kind of dishonesty to claim that a temperature record that only begins in February and continues to warm into July is evidence that December will be roasting hot, when it is known that all previous Decembers were cooler than July even in the absence of any actual temperature records from such times.
The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
Right: the tree-ring data Lyin' Michael Mann REMOVED from his hockey stick graph because it showed no modern warming, and replaced with contaminated (if not falsified) instrumental data that showed spurious warming caused by urban heat island effects.