Now how can you call it a 100
year warming curve if one third of it is actually cooling, not warming?
In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous «hockey stick» graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the
global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity.
Wouldn't a proper scientific observation start from that point, as a matter to criticize Mike's work, rather than nit picking details which seem at first glance totally irrelevant to the main issue, the recent
warming curve with reconstructions corresponds exactly to what is happening.
I have demonstrated graphically how these
phony warming curves were derived by distorting real temperature measurements.
Isn't it a little dicey then trying to get ahead of the global
warming curve at * precisely * the time that:
Like blind people, they felt each other's body, lingering in
the warmest curves, making the same trajectory each time; knowing by touch the places where the skin was softest and tenderest and where it was stronger and exposed to daylight; where, on the neck, the heartbeat was echoed; where the nerves shivered as the hand came nearer to the center, between the legs.
And even should one be passed, its immediate impact would be — most likely — merely an upward inflection in
the warming curve, not an obvious discontinuity.
«Whether there's a little more oil or a little less oil will change the details, but if we want to change the overall shape of
the warming curve, it matters what we do with coal.»