THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can disown me Max, my feelings won’t be hurt at all.
Max,
You’re getting rattled! Have a cup of tea and take a deep breath.
Dalton minimum? That’s 1900 right. OK I can accept that TSI rose by about 1.6Wm^-2 in the 19th century, but, to say the least the measured data would be thin in the early part of the 19th C, then again by about the same amount in the 20th century. So Lean isn’t in disagreement with Wilson.
That’s good to know.
So, you still need to explain how 1.6W^m-2 change in TSI for the 20th century can produce the figures you claim.
I thought that you understood all this solar change stuff. It’s all a bit lame to suggest I just ‘take it up’ with someone else!
If you don’t understand it, how can you possibly know who to believe?
Sorry. Should be:
Dalton minimum? That’s 1800 right.
Max,
To answer my own question of “how do you know who to believe?”
You are saying
If you feel that these [several] solar scientists were all wrong, take it up with them, not with me.
(I wouldn’t have believed you could write that!)
So there is a consensus of several solar scientists who cannot all possibly be wrong? :-)
Hi Peter,
Let me explain my dilemma.
On the right side of the field I have the following solar scientists:
· Peter Dietze
· B. Geerts and E. Linacre
· M. Lockwood and R. Stamper
· N.Scafetta and B.J. West
· Nir Shaviv and Jan Veizer
· S.K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer
· Judith Lean, Juerg Boer and Raymond Bradley
· K. Georgiova, G. Bianchi and B. Kirov
· J.C. Gerard and D.A, Hauglustaine
(who tell me on average that unusually high solar activity – the highest in 11,000 years – resulted in global warming on average of 0.35C in the 20th century).
On the left side I have:
· IPCC (who tell me that they have a “low level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing, but have concluded nevertheless that it is unimportant)
· Peter Martin (who wants to run a new calculation to prove he knows better)
My dilemma: whom should I believe?
Get serious, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Forgot two more solar scientists on the “right side of the field” (where it’s getting a bit crowded):
– Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon
Regards,
Max
Dalton Minimum, roughly 1790 to 1840.
Radiative forcing from then to 1995 (Judith Lean) = 3.27 W/m^2, resulting in warming of 0.51C
IPCC tells us that radiative forcing from increased CO2 from 1750 to 2005 was 1.66 W/m^2, which translates into warming since 1750 of 0.3C
Both warmings exclude any imaginary feedbacks, of course.
All makes very good sense to me, Peter.
How about you?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Maybe I should remind that the ‘new calculation’ was actually your idea. So you should take some credit for that, even if you went slightly astray along the way.
Pity that the answer it should have led you to, the correct answer, was a lot closer to what the IPCC have been saying (where do they they have a low level of understanding on the solar question BTW?) than what you were saying previously.
Still I made a slip up too, which I was happy to correct. No-one is perfect. Mistakes do happen. You should be happy too. Now you know that solar warming accounts for about 15% of 20th century warming.
I’m not sure what all your eminent solar scientists are saying. Maybe they made the same mistake as you?
Still I’m pleased its now all cleared up.
Eco-Colonialism Degrades Africa
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/ecocolonialism.pdf
There is an interesting and thoughtful post about blogging by one of the masters of the medium here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5232
Robin: Concerning the Hansen article, I think that this is a very good example of something that I have mentioned before. Propaganda has its own tipping-point, when complacency about what the public can be persuaded to believe leads to intemperate statements that spread doubt among those that the message is intended to convince.
Concerning the BBC report on the Chris Field (Chris who?) address at the AAAS conference, he is of course an ecologist who has contributed to IPCC WGII, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, and not to WGI, The Scientific Basis. He is, therefor wholly concerned with prediction based on the work of his colleagues in WGI. Is he therefore suggesting that they have got things wrong, or that he and his colleagues were mistaken in their 2007 WGII conclusions?
These are aspects of the story which have passed the BBC by, although the opportunity to drop the word ‘Wildfires’ into the the article as a sub-head – although the story does not mention these – has not.
Over the last few years I have noticed that the AGU and the AAAS always use a really scary AGW story to publicise their conferences. And very successful it has proved, when they can rely on news outlets like the BBC to publish any press release that they are sent without critical editorial input. This is strange when you consider that the corporation employs science specialists like Richard Black, Pallab Ghosh and Susan Watts.
TonyN
Regarding scare stories-this really says it all;
“Chris field is one of the Stanford University Global-Warming-Alarm! team headed by Stephen Schneider, a lead IPCC author who says:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/5841
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both.”
So as long as its in a ‘good cause’ anything seems to be acceptable.
Tonyb
John Holdren, Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Nomination for Director White House Office of Science and Technology
Senate Commerce Committee ? February 12, 2009
Vitter: Dr. Holdren, one of the lines in the President’s Inaugural Address which I most appreciated was his comment about science, and honoring that, and not having it overtaken by ideology. My concern is that as one of his top science advisors, that many statements you’ve made in the past don’t meet that test, and so I wanted to explore that. One is from 1971, an article with Paul Ehrlich, titled Global Ecology, in which you predicted that, “some form of eco-catastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” Do you think that was a responsible prediction?
Holdren: Well, thank you, Senator, for that…, um…, for that question. First of all, I guess I would say that one of the things I’ve learned in the intervening nearly four decades is that predictions about the future are difficult. That was a statement which at least, at the age of 26, I had the good sense to hedge by saying “almost certain”. The trends at the time were not, ah…, were not positive, either with respect to the dangers of thermonuclear war or with respect to ecological dangers of a variety of sorts. A lot of things were getting worse. I would argue that the motivation for looking at the downside possibilities – the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time. In many respects there were changes in direction which reduced the possibility of nuclear war through arms control agreements and there were changes in direction in national and international policy with respect to environmental problems, including a good many laws passed by this Congress.
Vitter: Given all that context, do you think that was a responsible prediction at the time?
Holdren: Senator, with respect, I would want to distinguish between predictions and, ahh, description of possibilities which we would like to avert. I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces, so we’ll make the investments and make the changes to reduce those dangers.
Vitter: Well, I will call “seems almost certain” a prediction, but that’s just a difference of opinion. What, specifically, what science was that prediction based on?
Holdren: Well, it was based in the ecological domain on a lot of science, on the evidence of the accumulation of persistent toxic substances in the body fat of organisms all around the planet, on the rise of the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, of sulfur oxides, of particulate matter, on trace metals accumulating in various parts of the environment in large quantities, on the destruction of tropical forests at a great rate…
Vitter (interrupting): Is all of that dramatically reversed since this “almost certainty” has obviously been averted?
Holdren: Some of it has reversed, and I’m grateful for that. And, again, I think that it’s been reversed in part because of sensible laws passed by the United States Congress and signed by various Presidents. Some of it has not reversed. We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that one reversed as well.
Vitter: OK. Another statement. In 1986, you predicted that global warming could cause the deaths of one billion people by 2020. Would you stick to that statement today?
Holdren: Well, again, I wouldn’t have called it a prediction then, and I wouldn’t call it a prediction now. I think it is unlikely to happen, but it is …
Vitter (interrupting): Do you think it could happen?
Holdren: I think it could happen, and the way it could happen is climate crosses a tipping point in which a catastrophic degree of climate change has severe impacts on global agriculture. A lot of people depend on that…
Vitter (interrupting): So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort – considerable effort – to reduce the likelihood further.
Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and …
Vitter (interrupting): One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.
Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged “a decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” What would your number for the right population in the US be today?”
Holdren: I no longer think it’s productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population for the United States. I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time period. But I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have been calling for years ‘sustainable prosperity’.
Vitter: Well, since we’re at 304 million, I’m certainly heartened that you’re not sticking to the 280 million figure. But, much more recently, namely a couple of weeks ago, in your response to my written questions, you did say on this matter, “balancing costs and benefits of population growth is a complex business, of course, and reasonable people can disagree about where it comes out.” I’ll be quite honest with ya. I’m not concerned where you or I might come out. I’m scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government, which is what that sentence clearly implies. You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?
Holdren: No, Senator, I do not. And I did not, certainly, intend that to be the implication of that sentence. The sentence means only what it says, which is that people who have thought about these matters come out in different places. I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well being of the citizens we have. I also believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates. Because when you provide health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend to have smaller families on average. And it ends up being easier to solve some of our other problems when that occurs.
Hi Peter,
Your 4259 raises serious questions in my mind whether you are still interested in discussing the solar impact on 20th century climate change rationally or just in fogging up the issue with endless waffles and side-tracks.
I have cited for you several studies by solar scientists based on actual physical observations of solar activity; these studies agree on average that the solar impact on 20th century “global” temperature was a warming of 0.35C; these studies show how solar forcing has changed and how these changes in solar forcing translate into global temperature change.
Rather than acknowledging this message for what it says or challenging the views of these many solar scientists with specific scientific objections, you come with silly talk of making a “new calculation”. Will your “new calculation” refute the many studies I have cited and their conclusion that, on average, the solar impact on 20th century “global” temperature was a warming of 0.35C? Of course it will not.
In light of the above, your next statement is obviously misguided: “Pity that the answer it should have led you to, the correct answer, was a lot closer to what the IPCC have been saying (where do they say have a low level of understanding on the solar question BTW?) than what you were saying previously.”
As far as IPCC is concerned, you should check AR4 SPM 2007 report, Figure SPM.2 (p.4). Here IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of the radiative forcing impact from changes in solar irradiance is “low”. From this I conclude that I should look elsewhere for information on solar forcing from solar scientists whose “level of scientific understanding” of the solar impact is not “low”.
Then you come with the (pardon me) dumbest statement of all (or is it shrewdly disingenuous?) when you write, “Now you know that solar warming accounts for about 15% of 20th century warming.”
If the observed 0.35C warming based on all these solar studies represents “15% of 20th century warming” (as you write), then it warmed 2.3C over the 20th century! Get serious, Peter. It actually warmed 0.65C over the entire period 1850-2008 according to Hadley, so 0.35C represents a bit more than 50% of total 20th century warming, not 15%, as you wrote.
Your last waffle has shifted from the ridiculous to the absurd, “I’m not sure what all your eminent solar scientists are saying. Maybe they made the same mistake as you.”
You know G.D. well what they are saying (all you have to do is read the reports).
Peter, I know that it will be painful for you to absorb this information as it does not support your “disastrous AGW mantra”, but bite your lip, be a man and read the reports in order to open your mind to this important new information, which will help you better understand what is going on with our climate than you do now.
I do encourage you to study the reports in detail, but to make it easier for you to grasp, I will repeat it one more time: based on actual physical observations of solar activity, solar scientists agree that the solar impact on 20th century “global” temperature was a warming of 0.35C on average; these studies show how solar forcing has changed and how these changes in solar forcing translate into global temperature change.
Come back to me once you’ve studied the reports I cited, if you have any specific technical objections to the measurements made, the calculation methodology used or the conclusions reached.
Otherwise, our discussion on this point is closed as it has become fruitless.
Regards,
Max
The discussion above on “the big lie” is interesting. Since my scientific contribution here is limited by my limited intelligence on the matter, I can really only contribute on the politics of it.
Particularly, Robin, your post 4231. Hansen’s position as described is, unfortunately for us all, the position far too many in both science and the news media find themselves on AGW. For the scientists, their reputation among peers is at risk, as well as—and even more importantly—the source of their grant money.
The relationship between those scientists who are in support of the theory of AGW, the news media, and the politicians who stand to gain from the “crisis” is much like a hurricane. The three stand much to gain from their cyclonic relationship; the scientist gains in reputation, grant money, and status, the media gains from the profits to be made exploiting the ‘crisis’ as well as confirming their innate sense of the unfairness of our modern society, and the politician gains by telling his constituency that he (and big government) are ‘working against all odds’ (and those kooky skeptics) to “solve” AGW, as well as the opportunity to remake society in a “fairer” and “equitable” way. The three groups need each other, and—just like a real hurricane—the AGW “hurricane” gains strength as it passes over the “warm water” of ‘favorable’ scientific AGW-supporting studies.
However, lately it appears as though the hurricane has been moving over cooler water, and the cyclonic effect is slowing down, if ever so slightly. The bitter cold winter this year (we are getting battered right now here in California), along with those stubborn facts of the temp anomaly dropping for almost 10 years now has the troika on edge and getting more shrill in their warnings.
And to understand their dilemma vis-à-vis the “Hansen Position” described in Robin’s 4231, you simply have to follow the money, as they say. Aside from assuaging their consciences, what does any of the troika of AGW have to gain by coming out AGAINST the notion of AGW? There is no gain! The research money dries up for the scientist, the scary articles on polar bears and penguins would no longer be there to sell newspapers, and the politicians have a much weaker case for prying ever more tax dollars from us, and even dimmer hopes of remaking the global social structure into the Leftist dream.
But it’s not really just about money. Ultimately it’s about power. AGW gives many people lots of power. Power over economies, power over societies, power over other people’s lives. Power to control who does what, who gets paid, what businesses survive, and what industries fail.
They even want to ban hamburgers!
Max
you might find the march issue of sky and telescope interesting as it covers the increasing importance of solar radiation
tonyB
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/skytel/beyondthepage/38004069.html
Whoa!
Scary looking Broad…….maybe just a bad photo…
Hi Brute,
Your Holdren/Vitter transcript is a bit scary.
Checking out Holdren more closely, I get this info:
John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Dr. Holdren is also director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
Dr. Holdren’s work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.
Dr. Holdren is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).
The Woods Hole Research Center addresses pressing environmental issues, including climate change, through scientific and policy initiatives. The Center has projects in the Amazon, the Arctic, Africa, Russia, Alaska, Canada, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic, working in collaboration with a wide variety of partners ranging from NGOs to governments and the United Nations.
Holdren has been named by President Obama to the post of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Here are some of the points that might raise some eyebrows:
· He’s a “Professor of Environmental Policy” (Hmmm… What is that?)
· He’s director of the “Public Policy Program” at Harvard
· He’s director of the Woods Hole Research Center, which “addresses pressing environmental issues, including climate change, through scientific and policy initiatives” and “works in collaboration with… the United Nations”.
· His work has” focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change” and “interaction of content and process in science and technology policy”
The American people (and the world) will undoubtedly hear more from this guy.
Golly! Why couldn’t Obama have picked Bob Greco, environmental engineer, EPA veteran and current Group Director for oil and natural gas exploration and production operations at the American Petroleum Institute. A natural choice to help solve the “energy crisis”.
But there is good news. At least the guy he selected wasn’t James E. Hansen!
Regards,
Max
Max,
I’m surprised at you deferring to a so-called ‘consensus’ of solar scientists. The main consensus, as represented by the IPCC, has a reported range of 0.1 – 0.3 Wm^-2 for the solar forcing of the 20th century.
Using your method oof calculation, not mine, I just made a couple of basic corrections, you’ve come up with a figure of 0.28Wm^-2 which is towards the top end of the IPCC range but still within it.
Aren’t you happy that the gap has been closed? Isn’t this what rational debate is supposed to be about?
Hi Peter,
It appears that you have not yet read and absorbed the studies I cited by several solar scientists, which all agree that 20th century solar warming was around 0.35C. Too bad.
Had IPCC read (and understood) these studies, their “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing would not have been “low” (as they, themselves, admit).
Same goes for you, Peter.
Don’t go putting the word “consensus” in my mouth. It has been mis-used so often that it has a decidedly bad (dark brown) taste.
You asked, “Aren’t you happy that the gap has been closed? Isn’t this what rational debate is supposed to be about?”
Yep, Peter. Those ten or so studies by specialists who have a HIGH “level of scientific understanding” of the subject, unlike yourself and IPCC, have definitely “closed the gap” on this discussion.
I agree it was a great “rational debate”.
Regards,
Max
February 15, 2009
Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely
By George Will
WASHINGTON — A corollary of Murphy’s Law (“If something can go wrong, it will”) is: “Things are worse than they can possibly be.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu, an atomic physicist, seems to embrace that corollary but ignores Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong.
Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California’s snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean “no more agriculture in California,” the nation’s leading food producer. Chu added: “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going.”
No more lettuce for Los Angeles?
Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.
In the 1970s, “a major cooling of the planet” was “widely considered inevitable” because it was “well established” that the Northern Hemisphere’s climate “has been getting cooler since about 1950” (The New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975).
Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a “basket” of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.
An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama’s science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too — actually, especially — illustrate Montaigne’s axiom: “Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.”
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints, and if government will “remake” the economy.
Because of today’s economy, another law — call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities — is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government’s top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.
Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.
Max,
If you don’t understand the references from the ‘solar consensus’ that you are quoting to me , how do you know they, rather than the IPCC solar sources, are correct? If you do understand them, why can’t you explain them simply, so that Brute and TonyB can understand them?
A characteristic of a climate sceptic might be a rejection of others’ calculations in favour of his own. To be a true denier, he would have to reject his own calculations too!
JZSmith
Looks like these eggheads from Dalhousie University (who want to abolish hamburgers) must have seen my curve, which I posted here a few months ago, pleading for a “hamburger tax” to reduce the world’s “hamburger footprint” and stop the runaway global warming directly caused by hamburger consumption.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/3028632192_46f9b0c53c_b.jpg
Drat it! That’s what happens when you do some scientific research and post it on a popular site. It gets stolen!
Max
Reur 4272 waffle.
Sorry, Peter, this conversation is over.
Regards,
Max
Peter
Even Michael Mann admits to the sun being responsible for 20% of the warming (as you would see if you had read the recent links)
As you previously admitted he underepresented the impact of the MWP its more than likely he has has tried to minimise the suns effect also in order to fit in with his hypotheses.
Speaking of sun, I’m off for a few days. I hope Max starts talking to you again soon.
tonyB