
The death of the climate "hockey stick"? - geekpressrepost
http://sonicfrog.net/?p=2849
======
diego_moita
Welcome to Hacker News, where the conspiracy theories roam wild and free.

There's something funny about GW deniers. They call themselves "skeptics".
But, by definition, "skeptic" is someone that doesn't believe in something,
not someone that strongly believes in its opposite. They're not "skeptics" in
the sense of "not-yet-convinced" but rather deniers as in true-believer on the
opposite.

~~~
anamax
Yup, skeptics like John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. He now
says "The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global
change" and "The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a
lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local
factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article702...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)

Meanwhile, Phil Jones has admitted that the hockey stick didn't happen and
that the medieval warming period probably wasn't a local abberation.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm>

However, Jones is simply wrong when he says "Solar influence was about flat
over this period." (recent years).

------
rmason
They say the first step is denial. You can't yet admit that you were lied to
by the proponents of global warming.

How about letting the scientists who are critics have access to the data?
Seeing as how the warming trend isn't supposed to start again until 2060 I
think we have the time. Let data and not emotion rule this debate.

