Feb 15 2010

The Great Mediaval Warming Lie

As Phil Jones finally spills the beans on the relative warming between 800-1300 AD and the last 100 years, it is worth noting why the lie about the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – perpetuated by the scientifically challenged liberal media – was bogus on the face of it. Here is the lie repeated again for those who can’t remember it:

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

Emphasis mine. First off, the current ‘warming’ is not global either, it is only seen in specific zones. It is evident in Europe and Africa, it is not evident in the Pacific or North America. But even worse is the idea a local effect (which Jones admits is seen in all across the Northern Hemisphere in proxy records) that lasts 500 years can’t be global! I mean really, did the ice melt and waters rise only in the Northern hemisphere? If something effects an entire hemisphere (half the globe) for 500 years its global.

Jones admits there is no record of the MWP in other areas because there are too few temperature proxies from that period for those areas. In other words they don’t know one way or the other. A lack of data does not mean you get to make up any old damn assumption you wish and pawn it off as science. If I said there is no evidence of human mind reading, therefore it exists, people would be rightfully skeptical.

For some reason, much of the planet put their brains in neutral when it came to warming alarmists and their tissue of deceit.

Update: Speaking of the scientifically challenged liberal media, the Washington Post comes out with a stunning propaganda piece trying to shore up the alarmists – and fails miserably because it is so transparently wrong. Let’s begin with the subtitle:

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda

It should read “Series of unscientific claims destroys false image of ‘settled science’, CRU head concurs”. But you know these journalists who struggled through high school math and science – they are geniuses in their own minds. Let me show how much so:

But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.

Typos? The cries that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was no typo – people within the IPCC tried to get that fixed. It was a deliberate lie. How do you typo the claim Africa is going to lose 50% of its food production in 10 years? Is that ‘sloppy’ sourcing (i.e., using green propaganda and claiming it is peer reviewed science)? These now proven false and unscientific claims did not give us math and science savvy skeptics an opening – it proved we were right.

There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics.

Talk about your delusional denial! If there was a consensus, why would these ‘impartial’ academics (whose entire careers and revenue sources rely on said consensus) need to prevent publication of countervailing science by other scientists? How can you have consensus and the need to suppress opposing science? Do these people even know how biased they have now shown themselves to be?

The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.

Yeah, in science you have to prove your claims and survive review – and that review is NOT limited to the lousy peer review of science journals. When you move from abstract theory to affecting human lives the review process gets very real and very stringent – as it should. You don’t have a theory about a new airplane wing design and then just throw it on a Boeing or Airbus plane full of people. You don’t take a theoretical new drug and just start selling it to people.

The laziness of the alarmists is only matched by their pathetic math and science.

Last week, Barrasso called for anindependent probe into the IPCC, suggesting that the United States should halt any action on climate until it verifies the panel’s scientific conclusions.

Absolutely – anyone planning on wasting billions of hard earned American tax dollars should not rely on journalists majors who struggled through math and science in public schools to determine whether the science behind the boondoggle is sound (forget ‘consensus’ – the consensus once was the Sun orbited the Earth and there were no such things as tectonic plates).

The IPCC climate assessments are, by any standard, a massive undertaking. Thousands of scientists across the globe volunteer to evaluate tens of thousands of academic documents and translate them into plain-English reports that policymakers can understand.

Pure claptrap. It has been ADMITTED by the IPCC folks themselves that they are a political propaganda machine which wraps its claims around scientific theories – almost all of which are unproven and have produced failed predictions. They admit they do not do science.

Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it.

Well duh – why would those who screwed up the science and are making buko bucks on it admit the screwed up? That’s like saying a thief claims he did not steal all the stolen goods found in his car.

This is pure propaganda coming from a company (the Washington Post) that should know better. But apparently they want their corporate credibility to go down the tubes with the serial exaggerators at the IPCC.

Update: You can read Ed Morrissey’s take on the WaPo disaster here.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “The Great Mediaval Warming Lie”

  1. Snapple says:

    Maybe you should learn to spell Medieval before you try to explain global warming.


  2. Snapple says:

    Denialist Christopher Booker can’t spell either.


    The Brits consider global warming a national security issues. They’ve been spying on hacktivists and have prepared a big trap for them.

    These denialists like Delingpole use the smear-tactics of the ruling United Russia party operatives.


  3. Layman says:

    Hi Snapple:

    Are you trying to say that lies, distortions, outright fabrications, cherry picking of data, smearing opponents, conspiring to quash dissenting views, etc. etc. etc. is OK because the people calling attention to it misspelled a word on a blog? Thought so.

  4. Layman says:

    The settled science of AGW is the “cold fusion” of our time. Of course that comparison is dreadfully unfair to the cold fusion guys because at least they shared their data and methodology so others could try to replicate thier results.

  5. […] with this headline, Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda, which A. J. Strata translates into plain English, It should read “Series of unscientific claims destroys false image […]

  6. Neo says:

    There have been a few “peer reviewed” papers showing MWP in other countries, including a paper which examined the creek beds in Peru

  7. Neo says:

    The pattern of change witnessed at Marcacocha in the centuries that pre-dated the imperial expansion of the Inca can be summarized as: (1) a period of relative aridity developing from ca. AD 880, characterised by low lake-levels and a limited arablebased economy in the valley that gave way to more pastoralism at the beginning of the second millennium AD; and (2) an interval of elevated temperatures from ca. AD 1100 that probably lasted for four centuries or more (the upper limit is difficult to define). This latter, warmer period is of particular interest, since it witnessed significant human presence in the basin in terms of agriculture, early landscape modification and later trading activity.

  8. rhorto01 says:

    uh Snapple…. I think what you are seeing there is a pun. You know, “media” “medieval”, in a discussion about the media…

    Anything clicking for ya yet?

  9. Alert1201 says:

    The really important question we should be asking in light of this and many other discoveries AJ has pointing out is this – can we start using more then one sheet of toilet paper?

  10. Redteam says:

    Alert1201: depends on whether you unroll from top or bottom.

    snapple: are you serious, the only thing you can find is a word misspelled?

    Why are you arguing Houghton’s case for him? He’s a big boy, let him make that case.

    Why don’t you quote a few of your hero’s; Mann, Jones, etc and tell us how they’ve been misquoted? Surely this whole crisis in the AGW crowd is all ‘just a misunderstanding’, why if they can just get ‘the truth’ out, then we would all be believers. Sure we would.

  11. Redteam says:

    Snapple: that quote of yours:

    “Reporter Christopher Booker misspells the name of the ICO’s Deputy Commissioner Graham Smith as Gordon Smith.”

    I don’t think that is a misspelling, it appears he spelled Gordon correctly. Perhaps you meant the used an incorrect first name? I’ll not attribute any intent to your misuse of the language, but when you’re pointing out errors someone made, you shouldn’t make your own in the process. Doesn’t look real sharp.

  12. sbd says:

    Copyright 1980 PennWell Publishing Company
    February 18, 1980
    LENGTH: 430 words
    HEADLINE: Popping the cork on CO[2]

    THERE must be something to this business of the world heating up. It’s from the carbon dioxide. Last summer a photographer actually recorded a drop of sweat on Bjorn Borg’s brow. It came during a 75-shot rally at Wimbledon.

    Then a month ago there was that vicious rumor of Ralph Nader sweating two drops on NBC-TV. Ralphhs press agent immediately denied it: “Those two drops were dew-drops. Ralph has no glands at all, not even adrenalin. He produces that psychosomatically by thinking of Big Business.”

    President Carter, on the other hand, perspires a lot. He wears a flesh-colored sweatband which blends into his forehead so no one can see him sweat as he jogs around the Oval Office.

    But the cause of all this heat and sweating may not come from exertion or nerves. CO[2], you see, may be the culprit. CO[2] comes from the fermentation of liquors, decay of animal and vegetable matter, and burning of fossil fuels. The theory is that if too much of it is released into the atmosphere, it may elevate global temperatures. In other words, if we quit drinking, bury our garbage, and stop burning oil and gas, the world will cool off.

    That’s the theory, anyway. But I think it’s shaky. In most primitive societies around the equator they don’t drink,
    they don’t have any garbage, and they never heard of oil and gas — yet the temperatures aren’t getting any cooler.

    Conversely, in Alaska they drink, they have garbage, and they burn oil and gas for heat — but no icebergs have melted.

    Of course, all this could change. CO[2] also is used in the carbonation of beverages, firefighting, and for inflating
    rubber rafts. Therefore, if people on a trans-Atlantic flight drink too much champagne and get rowdy and set the plane
    on fire and have to inflate their rafts after the plane is ditched, we could have a problem. There’ll be a CO[2] crisis right
    there in the lifeboats. It might waft back to the continents and cause international indigestion.

    Happily, that doesn’t seem likely. Even as the U.S. intelligently begins to move toward more use of gas and coal, the results should hardly be torrid. In fact, DOE recently cited a study in line with its role of gathering more CO[2] data
    which says, in part:

    “It is premature to implement at this time policy measures which require a reduction in the use of coal or other fossil fuels. Present knowledge does not warrant a policy of curtailment . . .”

    That’s cool thinking, even if it does make Nader break out in a cold sweat.