>Trying to fix something that isn’t broken! At our expense

Written by on August 13, 2009 in Rest of Europe with 2 Comments


From a man that clearly manipulates data for an agenda-driven cause and clearly does not have clear factual evidence to prove such a statement, you shouldn’t say anything, plus I am only one of probably thousands that aren’t buying this one, just like I don’t buy the original hockey stick graph!

The fact that Mann “believes” that the current trend is most active in the last 1,000 years is complete nonsense purely because how can we possibly know what was going on back 5,6,7,8,900 years ago, just like better coverage an accurate ocean SST measurements, the more warm of a result, but this cannot draw a conclusion based on just a few years when you are talking thousands of years. It’s like throwing in half the ingredients and wanting a fast and easy conlusion, one of course that will bring you money, popularity and the feeling of “godliness”. Mind you, this is the same guy that deliberately left out the warm period and ice age from his graph so the world could buy the global warming “theory”… Why should we believe his latest INVENSION and that is more or less what this latest piece of “Evidence” is. As i’ve stated before global warming is real, but the evidence is co2 is not the main cause of it and we most certainly aren’t outwith the boundary of natural or cyclical, but as the boat sinks on the alarmists, people like Mann come up with new marketing tools to try and sell or bring back custom from the skeptical comunity that is falling away to the truth of the science as nature reveals reality. It has been warmer before and we have basically been persistently rising up from the little ice agae some 140 years ago.

Thanks for reading.

Follow us

Connect with Mark Vogan on social media to get notified about new posts and for the latest weather updates.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

2 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. Andrew says:

    >Leif-the problem really is not Mann's use of sediments-paleotempestology is a legitimate pursuit. The problem is that the paper is absolute bunk. It makes use of various data sets which have serious questions around their historical homogeneity, and totally nonsensical methods. At best the sediments might tell you about historical landfalls of hurricanes…but it is being used to reconstruct Basin-wide frequency of TROPICAL STORMS!!!! That is just ridiculous. If you want to know why it is totally appropriate to dismiss this, read this:


    And tell me how such utter bunk could get past peer review!!!

  2. Leif says:

    >I don't think it is right to declare many years of dedicated research as 'rubbish'. This is only a newspaper article perhaps it would be best to read the actual scientific paper these researchers have published before dismissing them.

    The climate is difficult enough to understand and we cannot afford to dismiss any source of information, sediment cores can be used to give a great historical record of many trends in all fields of science – why not storm occurrence?

Leave a Reply