[Bagor]

Originally Posted by TheU

This part of your post here demonstrates you don't know what your talking about. Read about the hockey stick graph from any website you choose after googling it, and you will read about how the peer review process was bypassed completely.

I refrained from replying to your earlier rant because it came across as idiotic. I'm going to suggest for your benefit if you want to debate with me, might you refrain from referring to those that disagree with you as
"liberal tree hugging bleeding hearts and team them up with evil scientists who take a result and fit the theory to match it. These greedy climate change scientists who are reading results and running projections in such a way to get scary predictions are literally raping science. Jail time should be in order as far am I'm concerned"

Doesn't further nor strengthen your argument no more than if i was to think of you as a red neck uneducated h-i-c-k, that's doing poitical science.

Anyways from Nature for your reference:

Nature 441, 1032-1033 (29 June 2006)

It's probably the most politicized graph in science — an icon of the case for climate change to some, and of flawed science in the service of that case to others — and it has coloured the climate-change debate for nearly a decade. Now the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has weighed in with a report on the 'hockey-stick' plot, which it hopes will finally lay the controversy to rest.
The graph purports to chart global temperatures over the past millennium; a sharp rise at the current end is the 'blade' that makes the otherwise flattish line look like a hockey stick. Climate groups have claimed it as evidence of dangerous global warming; sceptics, especially in the United States and Canada, have questioned the study's merit and statistical methodology.


In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph. But it criticizes the way that the plot was used to publicize climate-change concerns. And it leaves open big questions about whether researchers should be obliged to make their data available (see Plotting a course)."We roughly agree with the substance of their findings," says Gerald North, the committee's chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a "high level of confidence" that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a 'little ice age' around 1600. Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a two-to-one chance of being right.

Originally Posted by TheU

Fascinating. Care to comment on the fact that global average temperature hasn't gone up in 10 years?

Or that carbon dioxide has been historically proven to go up AFTER the increase in temperature?

Anyone wanna take a shot at either of those questions?

Yes.
First: Whoopee effin dooo. Care to defract from yout defraction and discuss sea level rise, perma frost ....
Secondly: You haven't the sweetest clue what you're talking about. Start a new thread with your question. Be my guest.