Wrong again.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
Wow. Mann's original stuff was proven fake and wrong, but its real because he's published subsequent work vetted by his same friends that vetted the original work that agrees. BRILLIANT. I see you ignored the question on proxies...probably better for you. I'll be kind and not embarrass you by mentioning how wrong the climate models have been shown to be. And if you think any scientific work in which they say here are the results, but you can't look at the data used or the method used to calculate it (whether it be Mann's x, y, or z paper, Hanson's fake temperature data, etc. ) is legit then no one can help you.
Beyond all that...I'm sorry you don't have at least a rudimentary understanding of
thermodynamics and economics and at least have a grasp of understanding that if you wanted to do something spending money on wind or solar cells is about the dumbest economical way possible to do it because it doesn't remove the huge capital costs required to supply the grid when those sources are not available. At least get on board with the former founder of Greenpeace and admit that if you want to see these types of changes nuclear is the only realistic path, or Lomborg and realize the politics are drowning out more legit ways to spend money to help people.
Or keep repeating yourself over and over with false bravado about how right you are in your own mind...a lot of Ty's supporters did the same.
LOL I'm glad you brought up thermodynamics because now you're operating in my #Wheelhouse.
The thermodynamic mechanism of global warming could not be more clear to anyone with an understanding of basic atmospheric physics and molecular composition.
If you want to argue against laws of thermal physics like Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, and proven theories such as the greenhouse effect be my guest.
I can already bet you're going to say the first law of thermodynamics, "energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed," is proof that the CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. Fox News has actually trotted out a meteorologist to argue that this law is proof that AGW is impossible, not realizing that in doing so he is arguing against the greenhouse effect (which was actually developed a century ago). The CO2 emitted isn't the external source of heat, it's the sun. The increased CO2 traps the infrared rays reflected by the Earth's surface on a greater scale, which is then reflected in all directions (Kirchhoff's law) and in doing so warms the earth. In 2013 we passed 400 parts per million, an unprecedented number in all of the Holocene. It's only going to increase faster and you can guess what those ramifications will be.
If you want to argue against that go ahead, but trying to disprove the laws of physics is generally a losing battle, and you may want to save yourself the embarrassment.