[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 26, 8:42*pm, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-26, Andre Jute wrote:

*Ben C wrote:
[...]
So far the closest thing to an actual experiment is the one we've been
doing on ourselves for the last century. If you're right about the
isotopes, it looks like the CO2 has gone up because of human activity.
If McKitrick and McIntyre are right about the temperature record, the
only consequence of that seems to have been a growth spurt of some
bristlecone pines, and maybe half a dozen trees in Siberia.

Those clowns Jones, Mann and Briffa spent their entire careers
seaching for *precisely* those six unsuitable trees that can be
manipulated to show a hockey stick graph! We should give them some
award for mindless persistence in the cause of their religion.

Actually I should say that M&M don't attribute the growth spurt of those
trees to CO2 fertilization. It's unknown what caused it. Since it only
affected a few groups of trees, it was presumably something local.

Ah, all the times we heard the global warmies sneer that someone was
mistaking a little local weather for global climate, while they of
course did the same thing with monotonous regularly. Now we catch the
boss climate scientists out a) presenting a little local weather on an
obscure Colorado hilltop as global weather (Mann) and b) making out
that a few trees on an icy slope in Siberia is indicative of global
weather (Briffa). And in both cases they searched so hard for the
hockey stick (no, I tell you, it was Colonel Mustard in the library,
with the knife!) but found it not, except in the despicable,
unreliable bristle cones!

A little local weather up a deserted Colorado mountain, and a little
local weather on a deserted Siberian slope a thousand miles from
civilization, are setting global policy. I wonder if anyone has
explained that to world leaders at Copenhagen.

Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. It still will
long after Man is gone.