I didn’t mean to say that the notion of man-caused warming itself has been disproved - at this point, I think there should be widespread agreement that this is in fact happening. I was speaking of one particular graph which seems kind of… extreme.
A global average increase of over 1[sup]o[/sup]C in mere decades is extreme, wouldn’t you agree?
Two scientists were wrong in the seventies. Ergo, they must all be wrong now.
Is that the argument here?
Right, but my point is that most of the claims made by the two Canadians (M&M) in regards to problems with that one particular graph have been shown to be incorrect. And, while it is true that some other research has suggested that the “handle” of the hockey stick may not be as flat as Mann et al. found, this is by no means settled one way or the other. And, even if (for example) the wavier reconstruction found by Moberg et al. is correct, it is still in line with the statement that the IPCC drew from the Mann et al. work that the late 20th century warmth across the Northern Hemisphere is likely larger than anything seen in the last millenium…although admittedly the visual picture presented by the Mann et al. graph, relative to the wavier Moberg graph, makes the 20th century warming seem more dramatically anomalous.
But, you do touch on another point worth emphasizing which is that, indeed, this is just one particular graph touching on one particular piece of evidence related to anthropogenic global warming…and, in fact, the most circumstantial piece of evidence. There is indeed a lot of other independent evidence to suggest that most of the current (latter half of the 20th century and into this new century) warming is anthropogenic and cannot be explained by natural causes.
I don’t get it - you’ve published peer reviewed papers on probability and statistics, you have a hypothesis that global warming is statistically insignificant, and yet you’re unwilling to post your calculations and instead ask other posters to:
You seem to be perfectly capable of performing these calculations yourself.
Why don’t you perform the calculations, and if you are willing to share them, post the work and we can discuss it and the relevance of the assumptions required to make those calculations. If you are unwilling to share them because you want to publish them, submit it to a journal for peer review. If you are unwilling to share them period, keep them to yourself and don’t take part in the scientific process. I don’t get the part about asking others to do what you seem to be perfectly capable of doing yourself. 
Slight correction, the CO2 levels are not increasing exponentially … Take a look at the Mauna Loa numbers, the increase has been no more than linear since about 1975.
Which of course makes me wonder about the reliability of your other info …
w.
Apologies, you’re quite right - I was using the word as a figure of speech rather than strictly mathematically. The ppm increase is not doubling every year, of course. But I’d disagree about it being “no more than” linear: 2005 saw the biggest ever increase.
SentientMeat, thanks, you are right about 2005. The rate of emission of CO2 has been rising slowly since about 1975, when it leveled off from its post-war burst …