And this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3TS8TZ8UMBB04/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

"Then again, mhaze, it looks like you're in the minority - could be an uphill battle...."

Yes, its terribly important for you to not be in the minority, isn't it Poirot. The herd is the safest place for the ignorant. Of course, if things change around Poirot will be right there as the herd abandons the AGW story. Not in the forefront, mid you, because that would require thinking for yourself and ...well we all know Poirot.

I'm old enough to remember the days when the majority thought we were headed to a new ice age. The minority in those days were also told they were anti-science and that we should just believe what 'the science' told us. Now you'd struggle to find anyone who owns up to adhering to the then consensus view. The same will happen this time also and the myriad Poirots of this world will be right there telling anyone who'll listen that they never really believed the myth.

I think this nonsense has gone on long enough now. There is NO argument about AGW, it is a fact. All these people that keep coming up with new "proofs" that it is not happening are really just obstructing the course we have to take if we are to have any chance of surviving. A world with 4,5, 6, or as I have recently read 10C warming is just too high and we will not be able to survive with anything above 3C, so the rest is just to high to consider .
This will freak a lot of people out and is one of the main causes of denial.
Get over it and learn to live with the idea.

So, mhaze has been following the “debate” since 1993 and comes out with: “the Hockey Stick graph was finally destroyed”.

Which hockey stick is he referring to?

• Briffa – 2000

• Briffa – 2001

• D’Arrigo – 2006

• Esper et al – 2002

• Hegerl et al – 2006

• Huang et al – 2008

• Jones et al – 1998

• Juckes et al – 2007

• Kaufman et al – 2009

• Lee et al – 2008

• Ljungqvist – 2010

• Mann et al – 2008

• Mann & Jones – 2003

• Mann et al – 1998

• Moberg et al – 2005

• Oerlemans – 2005

• Pollack & Smerdon – 2004

• Rutherford et al – 2005

• Smith et al – 2006

• Tingley & Huybers – 2010

Or does he mean only one of them? If so, was it really “destroyed”?

Point is, while mhaze thinks McIntyre and McKitrick are the ant-pants in destruction – they really are not. In fact, their effort contributed very little to the temperature record of the contiguous USA (less so when you include Alaska) and had negligible effect on the global temperature record.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

There is a veritable team of hockey sticks - from corals, trees, stalagmites, ice cores, sediments, micro-flora, soil bore-logs, isotopes, etc., etc. Have they been destroyed? Absolutely not, but you wouldn’t think this by ‘following' mhaze.

Yes, there’s a whole lot of statisticians involved in ‘climate science’, more so than ever, and the stats are becoming even more robust: that the human contribution to global warming is real and contributes a significant portion to it (but not all).

If one has really been “following the debate”, one would know the human component is borne out in the literature – overwhelmingly.

If anyone (including Mr/Mrs/Mshaze) wants to opine about a policy response to AGW, fine - that's where the real problems lie, not the science.

Mhaze. On the way to work this morning I was listening to ABC talkback (adelaide) and listened to the presenter and several listeners earnestly discussing how the distribution of the 'yellow pages' each year was also contributing to climate change...... Ya gotta laugh!

Not being a climate scientist, like you, I just didn't know what to think.

All over the ABC and SBS this week is a 'push' for the warmista. Cringeworthy.

It gets more rediculous by the day.

qanda wonders which hockey stick I was referring to and then proceeds to show s/he knows exactly which one by linking to an article about Wegman.

When one is limited to 350 words, you tend to abbreviate on the basis that the reader has a passing knowledge of the issue and isn't going to try to deliberately find ambiguity so that they can demonstrate their smart-alec-ness.

Yes, indeed I was talking about MBH98 and its variants. This graph and the accompanying story it told was accepted with open arms by the warmist community in general and the IPCC in particular. That is until the two Macs started looking into it. Mann et al spent many many years trying to hide the data and their methods behind the graph so as to avoid scrutiny but eventually the truth was extracted, kicking and screaming. And the truth was that Mann's methods were designed to achieve the warmists desired goal of eliminating the MWP and the LIA. Subsequent examinations by other expert statisticians proved that the Mann methods, rather than adding anything to climate knowledge, produced a hockey stick style graph irrespective of what data was used. Several subsequent hockey stick style graphs made the same error.

qanda is utterly convinced that the literature proves CAGW. That's fine. I'm unconvinced. A decade ago people were also utterly convinced that the literature proved the temps would inexorably continue to rise. That's fine. I was unconvinced. I was right. Over the next decade we'll find out a lot more about whether those so easily convinced were right. I doubt it.

qanda says Moberg et al – 2005 was a hockey stick graph which may be justified if you look at through coloured glasses. It also confirmed that the MWP existed and that the temps around 1000ad were similar to those around 2000ad. I like that type of hockey stick.