http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl......y-stick/

"More recently, Mann battled back in a 2004 corrigendum in the journal Nature, in which he clarified the presentation of his data. He has also shown how errors on the part of his attackers led to their specific results. For instance, skeptics often cite the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period as pieces of evidence not reflected in the hockey stick, yet these extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena. "From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there's no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever," Mann says. "But they're very skilled at deducing what sorts of disingenuous arguments and untruths are likely to be believable to the public that doesn't know better."
Mann thinks that the attacks will continue, because many skeptics, such as the Greening Earth Society and the Tech Central Station Web site, obtain funds from petroleum interests. "As long as they think it works and they've got unlimited money to perpetuate their disinformation campaign," Mann believes, "I imagine it will go on, just as it went on for years and years with tobacco until it was no longer tenable--in fact, it became perjurable to get up in a public forum and claim that there was no science" behind the health hazards of smoking.
As part of his hockey-stick defense, Mann co-founded with Schmidt a Weblog called RealClimate (www.realclimate.org). Started in December 2004, the site has nine active scientists, who have attracted the attention of the blog cognoscenti for their writings, including critiques of Michael Crichton's State of Fear, a novel that uses charts and references to argue against anthropogenic warming. The blog is not a bypass of the ordinary channels of scientific communication, Mann explains, but "a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues."
The most challenging aspect today, Mann thinks, is predicting regional disruptions, because people are unlikely to take climate change seriously until they see how it operates in their backyard. In that regard, he has turned his attention to El Nio, a warming of eastern tropical Pacific waters that affects global weather. In discussing the issue with his students over their Coronas, Mann notes that comparisons with the paleoclimatic record seem to confirm a mechanism proposed by other researchers. Specifically, radiative forcings--volcanic eruptions and solar changes, for instance--do in fact alter El Nio, turning it into more of a La Nia state, with colder sea-surface temperatures. Understanding how El Nio has changed with past radiative forcings is a first step to understanding how it will change in an increasingly greenhouse-gassed world.
Mann remains somewhat mum on whether the U.S. should join the Kyoto Treaty, an international agreement to limit fossil-fuel emissions: "It's hard enough predicting the climate. I don't pretend to be able to predict the behavior of politicians." He sees the Kyoto accord as an initial step that is unlikely to curtail emissions all that much, but it will at least set in motion a process that can be built on with other treaties.
Such efforts are essential, because the blade of Mann's hockey stick will get longer. He notes that "we're already committed to 50 to 100 years of warming and several centuries of sea-level rise, simply from the amount of greenhouse gases we've already put in the atmosphere." The solution to global warming, he observes, "is going to be finding an appropriate set of constraints on fossil-fuel emissions that allow us to slow the rate of change down to a level we can adapt to."

Http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405......84751830

At least he doesn't take money from big oil.

Jon, I was simply clarifying my earlier comment, which RNK had misrepresented. Please don't you start doing the same. It comes across as a sort of continued scoffing each time you respond with your questions, as though you presume to know I'm a "believer" or a dictator. I'm a student and a world citizen, that's it. If I choose to do things that I consider to be environmentally friendly, that's entirely my prerogative and that's as far as it goes.

Can I join your camp? I really like that idea. Seriously.

I do environmentally intelligent things because I know it is what I believe is right for me.

http://www.desmogblog.com/latest-smear-c......ael-mann

I can't help wondering if GW, Climate Change, or whatever it's called at a given time, would be the President's number one threat to the world if everyone merely chose to do the right thing ( and I'm in favor of that ) and if taxing individuals and businesses were not options.

He cautions about alarmism. He warms of people using public panic to establish expenisve, socially regressive and envionmentally inneffectual public policy.

Stalking horse.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/state-of-fear/

Crichton's January 2003 lecture at California Institute of Technology is in the ebook version of his novel "State of Fear" as an addendum.

Then it's already your camp, too, Danny.

I linked to the Porter Fox story because, with the U.S. East Coast blanketed in snow once again, it’s hard to imagine that climate scientists and environmentalists predicted years ago that the “end of snow” was nigh and not one climate hysteric disagreed. Because even recently climate hysterics like New York Times writer Porter Fox have wrote things like “End of Snow?” which argued that global warming meant that there could be no more snowy areas to hold future Winter Olympic game. Who in the piece references so called climate scientists and the like to support his argument. That is why I am quoting Porter Fox at all. But I don’t know what Magnus Eisengrim excuse is at all for his snide and false insulation that I said Porter Fox was a scientist.

Http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

According to climate hysterics, some people cause some places to get more colder the more global warming they cause.

And yet every predictions made by Al Gore and others have yet to come true. Hmmm...

It's even funnier when you keep in mind that folks here do mentalism and some narrate their procedures. I'm about to type the next topic sentence at the start of a new paragraph.

There's some of climate in this year's DAVOS. How are folks doing reading books written by those who are fretting our future with regard to living with a changed climate? Fear, then famine, then much tougher times await those who tamper with what we have working today.

It's one thing to be coming into a discussion a hundred years late. It's another thing to expect others to get excited about things which have been in the works for almost a century. You know folks who smoke tend to get coughing type sick yet it's okay to grow tobacco. Same for liver failure, diabetes... yet this is where folks 'gotta do' and claim public policy is distinct from private action. Even when there is yet no pattern of private action which looks useful as model for public policy. Oversight and verification. Ignorance and blame. We have the latter. mire infirmed discourse is Crichton's suggestion using the firmer.

Beyond citing agitprop, what do you have to offer? I saw a puddy tat. You did. What are you doing to lower the puddy tat menace?

AgitPop... Maybe that shoe fits someone in particular?
.
@Laurie, it's ALL about what you choose and what you find that works...and how it would be if everyone did similar. Do you have some environmentally sound practices which others could explore in their neighborhoods?

Recycle. Separate garbage whether you are required to or not and if not ask your town why not? Some towns do not.

Your house does not have to be cool when you are not in it. Invest in good windows to help on heating and cooling bills. Every efficient appliances. All these things help you save money and energy. Less energy used then less coal burned to run them so win win. Think about water. Don't let sinks run whole brushing your teeth for example.

Fuel prices have dropped but that does not mean increased driving is necessary. Support companies that are trying to move forward. Pizza boxes made from recycled paper is one example, but they're are hundreds.

I am buying a Tesla. Admittedly because it is REALLY cool but it still helps.

All these from a guy who is NOT an alarmist or left wing anything. Others have done then for sure.

The interesting thing is that no agenda is attached to ANY of it! Most of it saves money in the long run. and helps the environment.

I know you asked Laurie, and she probably has more. These are just things I do personally.

The problem is what the climate hysterics are getting out of their computers is not fitting with what's actually happening. Of course, that's been the problem with the climate hysterics hypnosisl from the beginning. Lest we forget it was not NASA that first used computer models to predict catastrophic environmental futures but the Rockefeller & Co Club of Rome. The Limits to Growth is a 1972 book about the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with finite resource supplies. Funded by the Volkswagen -the NAZI peoples car eh - Foundation and commissioned by the Club of Rome it was first presented at the St. Gallen Symposium. Its authors were Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book used the World model to simulate the consequence of interactions between the Earth's and human systems. The hand of Rockefellers and their fingerprints are all over climate hysteria.

Limits to Growth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

What is life? Growth! Thus it is really all about Limits to Life.

How much life, how many lives, are climate hysterics willing to sacrifice for their hypothesis?

Climate hysterics might answer that question with a question to avoid answering it or ignore it if they please. In any event the correct answer is much and many, as the puddy tat menace, according to climate hysterics, is man and life as we know it.

Recycling is a worthwhile challenge. Styrofoam can be recycled using solvents and burned cleanly in high temperature flame. Coated paper cups don't decompose as quickly as we might like in landfills. Learning is good though.

What is it vs producing me things? Isn't that the comparison? Yes learning is good.

Tommy, should there be no limits to growth in your opinion?

From your own article:

"In 2014, The Guardian published an article about a new Graham Turner review - 40 years later of "The Limits to Growth" according to which the actual data and the 1972 forecasts still match."

Linking to an article does not make it ones own and anybody that thinks The Limits to Growth forecasts were accurate is wrong although some right. As to the question should there be no limits to growth in my opinion, Well it is not a matter of opinion because the fact is there is limits to growth. There is a natural equilibrium. I think it is good question which deserves some thought and I stew it over. I think balance is important anyhow.

What's irritating me with your approach, Jon, is you accuse folks of claiming to be concerned but, according to you, they don't actually do anything in keeping, which indicates, to you, rather obviously, they don't actually have any conviction in what they're saying. At the same time you continue to state that no one knows what is the right thing to do, so why are the concerned trying to impose their own ignorance and, quite likely further destruction and oppression, on the world? Then you go around asking us all what we think others ought to or might possibly try. Baiting and scoffing is how that comes across. Playing both sides to your own advantage. I say and have said I am me, I make my own choices, I'm allowed to be. I'll let others do the same. And whether it's what you're after or not, it's enough because it's as far as my jurisdiction extends and I don't presume otherwise.