I took a statisitics course at PSU from Dr. Michael Mann (the guy who came up with the hockey stick theory) and he actually told the class any set of data can be manipulated/analyzed any way one chooses to draw whatever conclusions one chooses... He also taught a class on climatology where he never factored wind - definitely a Nobel prize-worthy scientist. In other news 2008 coldest year in the cotiguous U.S. since 1997.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
BS ALERT .... al gore's chart is in the october issue of national geographic magazine ... i looked very carefully for the slight discrepancies pointed out by the stossel ... i could not find any sign of temperature leading co2 levels ... if there were any, it is probably just a random error ... al gore's interpretation is great ... that co2 and temperature rise and fall together ... and the alarming co2 hockey stick that stossel did not mention but got gore the nobel prize
I listened to the video again. Where does Stossel talk about National Geographic and CO2 levels? What, specifically, does he claim here that you're taking issue with?
YES, the above post needs a BS ALERT. The poster is so ignorant of the basic GW debate, it isn't funny. The 'hockey stick' graph Gore used was proven to be utter garbage. All the scientific community had accepted that the maker of the 'hockey stick' graph had made a horribly embarrasing math mistake (or he lied purposely), PRIOR to Gore using the graph in his propaganda piece. Shows how dumb he is (or what a LIAR gore is).
Additionally, the CO2 leading temp debate is real. Scientists have published papers on this, but this poster has never read them obviously. The graph in question covers so many years that individual dips and rises cover centuries and millenia, therefore just looking at the graph itself is hard to say whether temp lead CO2 or CO2 leads temp. You have to look at the raw data!
I took a statisitics course at PSU from Dr. Michael Mann (the guy who came up with the hockey stick theory) and he actually told the class any set of data can be manipulated/analyzed any way one chooses to draw whatever conclusions one chooses... He also taught a class on climatology where he never factored wind - definitely a Nobel prize-worthy scientist. In other news 2008 coldest year in the cotiguous U.S. since 1997.
GreenRiver72 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BS ALERT .... al gore's chart is in the october issue of national geographic magazine ... i looked very carefully for the slight discrepancies pointed out by the stossel ... i could not find any sign of temperature leading co2 levels ... if there were any, it is probably just a random error ... al gore's interpretation is great ... that co2 and temperature rise and fall together ... and the alarming co2 hockey stick that stossel did not mention but got gore the nobel prize
AgnesBojaxhiu2000 4 years ago
I listened to the video again. Where does Stossel talk about National Geographic and CO2 levels? What, specifically, does he claim here that you're taking issue with?
kraorh 4 years ago
you are barely coherent
XanatharEye 3 years ago
YES, the above post needs a BS ALERT. The poster is so ignorant of the basic GW debate, it isn't funny. The 'hockey stick' graph Gore used was proven to be utter garbage. All the scientific community had accepted that the maker of the 'hockey stick' graph had made a horribly embarrasing math mistake (or he lied purposely), PRIOR to Gore using the graph in his propaganda piece. Shows how dumb he is (or what a LIAR gore is).
Jaycephus01 3 years ago
Additionally, the CO2 leading temp debate is real. Scientists have published papers on this, but this poster has never read them obviously. The graph in question covers so many years that individual dips and rises cover centuries and millenia, therefore just looking at the graph itself is hard to say whether temp lead CO2 or CO2 leads temp. You have to look at the raw data!
Jaycephus01 3 years ago
Well-balanced...thoughtful.
jscottupton 4 years ago