RightWinger:
Though I don't see it as a "global conspiracy", I do see how statistical data and other information that is purposely skewed at the source, to generate a pre-conceived result, and then used for further research conducted by other, more ethical, scientists, could certainly make it seem so.
The dirty little secret is that it does not have to be a large conspiracy. For the simple reason that all the sources they use are based upon the same historical (and as we see, erroroneous) data! So of course all the others are going to come to the same conclusion. They were spoonfed the same tricked data!
The conspiracy invoves just the creators of the historical hoax (the elimination of the MWP and LIA). Unfortunately, those events transcend climatology and the scientists (the real scientists) involved with those events do not like being told they do not know what they are talking about. Mann, Jones, et. al. overstepped their range when they told all the other disciplines they were ignorant.
Bunnahabhain:
What I've never understood is this: the earth is 4.5 billion years old; it's been 2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo; thermometer-based recorded temperatures go back at most 150 years; most people are lucky to live for 100 years - and we think that we know what's happening to the climate by looking at even 1000-year trends?
I understand it. It is man's hatred of the unknown. In old times, most of the unknown was explained by "God's Will", but man has grown beyond that to now look to science to explain. So we try to reason on what is happening with incomplete data, and then extrapolate that which we do not know. And as we see, at times, that causes people to commit fraud and perjury when they make a mistake and try to cover it up. I beleive in time, we will know, with probably 80% certainty, the true history of the planet. But we will never know (barring a time machine) the facts as science defines facts.
Sheesh! Even going back over the 2.5 million years since our ancestors started to roam the earth would suggest that we look at a minimum of 10,000 year intervals.
You hit on the reason it does not work that way. Someone projecting out 10k years, will never hear the words "Schlem is right!", only history will record it. So they want to hear it today, and so make shorter projections.
I'd say that the best way to describe the earth's climate is that it is always in a state of flux.
You just hit on the achillees heel of the hockey stick! If they had been more honest, no one would have probably thought to question them (even McIntyre admits he believes AGW is happening). But by showing NO change over the last 1000 years (until now), they betrayed one of the maxims of life - nothing stays the same, life/history is constant change.
