Occasionally, ecomyths are not just about interpretation. They also are foundationed on poor science, selective science and/or incorrect science.
The major narrative in environmentalism over the past decade has been global warming. In large part, a fundamental part of that narrative has been the assertion that climate today is both unprecedented in its high temperatures and alarming in the rate of change in those temperatures. The selling of this narrative by global warming advocates relied heavily on the infamous hockey-stick graph.
That graph has been thoroughly discredited but proponents of global warming persist in denying this fact, variously reasserting that the graph is "basically still correct", "substantiated by other data" and/or seeking to downplay its role just as vigorously as they sought to promote its use when it was in vogue.
The graph that appears here comes from this post on ClimateAudit. It should forever conclude debate about the veracity of the hockey stick. For those not familiar with the issues, it comes to this:
- the hockey stick relies heavily on one or two series of data
- uses statistical methods incorrectly
- presents a false representation
- confirms a Medieval Warm Period comparable to today's temperatures, and
- fails to suggest any alarming upswing in temperature this century.
Not only is the science not a self-evident as proclaimed, our experience does not seem to suggest catastrophic warming:
- Global warming? Not in South America, not this year.
- It is enough that people are beginning to question the IPCC and what it doing.