Quote:
Originally posted by Snakeeye@Sep 21 2005, 01:51 PM
I've read the same article, arsenal.# The argument was that Mann's program was designed to give the answer it gave, regardless of what was input.# Exluding the tree rings and coming up with the same results because of a flawed program doesnt constitute support for the science.
Hakan - On the fourth link I provided, the article discusses the mideval warm period, and the mini ice age that followed.# If man's polution is causing global warming, why is the average temperature today lower than the average temperature during the mideval warm period?# Not to mention that the existence of these two events destroys the hockey stick model.
|
Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time the Global Warming debate has come up on this board.
Here is my post from a
previous thread:
As you can see in the
United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change report, Mann's study was used and relied on, but it was far from the only source of data:
"Taking into account these substantial uncertainties, Mann et al. (1999) concluded that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium for at least the Northern Hemisphere. Jones et al. (1998) came to a similar conclusion from largely independent data and an entirely independent methodology. Crowley and Lowery (2000) reached the similar conclusion that medieval temperatures were no warmer than mid-20th century temperatures. Borehole data (Pollack et al., 1998) independently support this conclusion for the past 500 years..."
From that I'd say that the questions about Mann's work don't blow up the support for climate change the way the article [
edit: in the linked thread] implies.