I've posted a couple of comments here (I am TomD)
cejournal.net
TomD
Posted November 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
Tom Says: I really don’t understand the persistent use of the hockey stick controversy to assault AGW (Orson).
TomD Says: If the hockey stick was so inconsequential, why was it used to make the AGW case?
Tom Says: However, in my view, the discussion is irrelevant since industrialisation did not start until the 18th century, so examination of the millennium is pointless in the context of AGW.
TomD says: The reason it is relevant is if it can be shown that our climate was cyclical with warming and cooling trends before industrialization, then it is important to understand the components that contribute to the cycles. That’s why it was important to hide or minimize the Medieval Warming Period as well as other instances where there is cooling in spite of increased CO2 levels. Here are the questions that I have. Of course, I realize that without a PhD my small mind won’t be able to comprehend the answers the big brains provide, but I’ll take my shot:
1. Were there warming and cooling cycles before our current warming trend?
2. If so, what caused the cycles?
3. Assuming that there were warming and cooling cycles within the interglacial period, are our current global temperatures within normal cyclical variations?
4. Are atmospheric CO2 levels cyclical
5. Is there an anomaly between atmospheric CO2 readings and ground CO2 readings? (ie is one growing while the other remains flat?)
6. If an ocean is warming, will it tend to be a CO2 pump or sink?
7. Is the fact that CO2 levels are rising at Mauna Loa indicate anthropogenic CO2 or can it indicate another source? If another source, what is the likely candidate?
8. Is global warming bad for Humans? What is the evidence to support the position?
9. Did anyone entertain the idea that the cause of the current (nominal) warming trend might actually have been the cooling trend that preceded it? (think along the lines of coyote/rabbit population cycles)
10. And finally, if the case for AGW was so strong, why was it necessary to “hide the decline” or put pressure on peer review journals or destroy data?
Tom Says: Such despicable abuse of netiquette,
TomD Says: Yes, it was very impolite.
Tom Says: combined with the theft itself,
TomD Says: But never mind the millions of dollars that has already been wasted because of this and the potential trillions of dollars that this fraud was going to cost the world through legislation and treaties based on this “peer reviewed science”.
Again, for the climatocologist out there, please use small words since I don’t have a PhD. |
