This a nice example of the kind of lies you can expect from SkS.
Here is the REAL Vostok Icecore Record posted at Wiki (note that CO2 lags Temp):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-te...
Here is the Vostok Icecore Record according to SkS (note that Temp lags CO2):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags...
Did you catch the difference? You have to study closely because the graphs are on different time scales. But clearly SkS REVERSED the legends on their graph to make it appear that CO2 drives Temperature, which is of course is the opposite of what the REAL graph shows.
SkS is good for a laugh, but I advise you NEVER believe a single word they say.
-----------------------
I doubt that Dana is a racist and he isn't a female, but he is a wacko leftist. I remember long ago learning he was a tech at a very large environmental company up north. He once was gripping about his boss, a geologist, who didn't see things his way. Geologist rule the environmental world in California. Poor Dana. He couldn't sign any report of substance. Frankly Dana isn't fit to shine Montford's shoes.
I read Montford's book a long time ago and would highly recommend it. It doesn't go out of its way to slam Mann like I would have liked. I suppose that would probably have damaged his credibility in some circles. It was thorough and informative. It was a slap in the face of the "science" of the hockey stick. Clearly Mann was making it up as he went along.
Listen, listen up. I almost died during the fallout. I'm one of the few survivors left. We all went into tunnels. I've been in the tunnels for about 45 years. I finally came out. I am looking for my family. Are they made of ash, or ruins, or dust?
Ashes to ashes!
Dust to dust!
I have lost it all, oh the humanity, oh the humanity. Oh, God--no. No....
Given you supply no link to the claimed "dana" comment it's hard to say, certainly a nonsense denier blog is not going to give a fair comment.
This (without a link) seems to be about a book "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which by it title would seem to be a work of fiction, given deniers complete inability to ever produce any evidence to back the claim the hockey stick graph has even really been discredit, I should know I have been asking deniers for years to post any real evidence, all you ever get is the sort of empty.
Maxx talks of "good for a laugh" while using two different graphs one with double the time scale of the other, and the one he prefers is from a wiki page where anyone can publish.
The issue of the lag is an old and empty denier point as a natural glacial cycle is started by the Milankovitch cycle and as this warms the planet CO2 starts to add to the process that easily explains the lag and always did, if deniers had bothered to look at the full theory rather than the nonsense they get in rubbish sites like Bishop-hill. Of course had these deniers even basic math skills they might understand that on a graph with a time scale in the 100's of thousands of years a "lag" of a few hundred is will be barely different to the red and blue lines overlaping, had these so called "skeptics" bothered to read the SkS text it states as much i.e there is a lag of 600-1000 years before Co2 rises, it's right there in black & white in the first part of the comment in answer to the denier myth, so much for the claim SkS say Co2 drives the glacial minimums, but it certain adds to the effect of the Milankovitch cycle.
This is not the opinion of SkS but the position of the science community, the theory is in fact the same one deniers use to claim "the lag disproves AGW" they have just removed the part about the latter increase in Co2 adding to the the natural climate change, as that would destroy the rather silly myth deniers are trying to create. Here is the same point not in SkS but New Scientist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
I have seen deniers here try to claim the lag has never been explained to them, when I and a number of others here have explained it to them over and over and over again, that they either can't or don't want to understand this gives a pretty clear insight into the denier mindset.
As to the hockey stick (if that is what this is about)
Deniers claim it has been either discredited or disproved, but can't support that claim (now going back many years) outside it being an empty rant.
The reality is a series of following works have shown the hockeystick is correct
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
look for any scientific work that discredits it and you wont find it, as the denier claim is a fiction created in the alternate reality of denier blogs, it has no real evidence to back it.
As an example, I ask again (any denier here) to post this claimed evidence, please !!!
P.S. On jello's claim about dana, sorry it was the 'wobbly one' who was put on a long holiday, ~2 years for that sort of thing, and it was painfully obvious when he disappeared which of his twins also stopped answering here and it wasn't "a couple" but ~10.
Of the current posters here, Trevor and Pegminer are, I think, the most educated sources concerning global warming. Dana Nuccitelli is in that group. I note that you didn't (yet) post a link to what you're reading. Maybe you'll fix that.
However, is this the book/article you were talking about?
"The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science is a book written by Andrew Montford and published by Stacey International in 2010."
I see that Dana did actually review the book.
http://www.amazon.com/review/REJ48XB19P9...
Edit: Okay. Maybe he decided that the inaccuracies that the book promoted were far more important than the entertainment value of a work of fiction. I'd say that the same would be true of Crichton's 'State of Fear'.
And no link to Dana's "claims." It sounds like something that denialists have made up.
Condescention is the bastion of liberalism. The less they know about something the more certain they are it is bad.
Yes....very much so.
yes. your opinion is not important.
Dana N(top answerer in this section), posted the following review, ...The only problem is that the story claims to be true, but is filled with misinformation, lies, and nonsense. And for that, I can only give it 1 star. 12 months later, in Skeptical Science forum, Dana "Don't know his story, other than he wrote The Hockey Stick Illusion, which I hear is quite inaccurate. "
