The Medieval Warm Period – unprecedented global warming, or scientific manipulation?

Thanks, Inquisitor.

You have provided some excellent information for our group to consider.

The "warmists" in this group insist that a paper be "peer-reviewed". But then if you ask them to expalin the science discussed by the paper, they are usually at a complete loss to do so.

These people are pretty good at "game playing", but that is about all!

 

I would refer to a sunburn. Most everyone knows that if you stay out in the sun too long, you will get burned.

Some people would need a peer-reviewed paper to believe it.

 

And you know that how?

Proxy data, seeds, tree rings etc??

 

Only if you want to quantify it - how long does the exposure take before burning? How much does "tanning" protect you from burning? What degree of melanin offers protection? Are you more likely to get burnt on a cloudy day than a sunny one?

But don't believe any of the peer reviewed papers on this subject - after all all the scientists want to do is make you believe that you will get skin cancer from sunburn so they can sell more sunscreen

 

And scientists are too dumb to notice the difference? REally?

You are kidding about this right?

Do you honestly believe that weather bureaus throughout the world are too dumb to notice a mistake like this?

Honestly?

 

Ha-Ha!

This is very true, Hoosier!

People who always insists on peer-reviewed papers are people who don’t trust this own judgment and common sense!

It is also a convenient way for them to reject the truth, the actual truth they never wanted to accept any way!

 

There is a certain elitism in the AGW community as found also in the gun control crowd or most progressive communities but the end result is not arguable, control of other people by elitists.

 

Well then, would you be so kind as to provide one over view of the continued pronouncements that has been "peer" reviewed?

for the record, no periodical is in an of itself, a 'peer review". A peer review is a calibration by scientists in the field have reviewed the work and the process by which the claims are made.

To date, the most significant peer review of any global warming has come from the UN's IPCC, the majority of whose members are not scientists; two thirds of is members are laymen.

An undetermined number of leading ecological scientists have submitted to the IPCC , however their work was not used and many have asked that their names be removed.


So, if you have a "peer review" please provide one.


For that matter, if you have even one study that is not based on false hypothisis, deliberately skewed data, bot based on the bull (*)(*)(*)(*) fake hockey stick lie please provide it.

 

Yeah. Right wing denier blogs are so much more reliable.

 

my comments.
How's Inhofe's promised investigation of fraud against climate scientists coming along?
How are those glaciers doing? How is the sea ice in the Arctic doing? Temperature of the stratosphere warming yet? Seen any peer-reviewed papers without a hockey stick? Maybe by heartland ?

 

You don’t understand the point.
Let me bring it to you slowly.

A handful of scientists disregarded all scientific ethics and opinions of other participants and reported AGW in the IPCC report.


The hysteria then started spreading by means of MASS MEDIA, including Times (2006). This is how you and all other warmists came to know about AWG and believe in it.
.
People who lived in 70th pointed that in 70th AGC was spreading by MASS MEDIA as the prevailing theory in the same manner.

Both in 70th and now the MASS MEDIA reported findings brought to it from the same type of sources and in the same manner. (then media was not as corrupted)

Many people did not live in 70th and couldn’t recall the truth.

In order to counter the contradiction and convince people who did not witness 70th, 3 overwhelming majorities of the scientific community, a graduate student, his professor receiving grants from a certain organization and a representative of the organization made a scientific research and published the findings in a peer reviewed publications, - the findings you are posting here.

The finding by James proves in a simple and clear way that the peer reviewed process is garbage and scientific research is garbage and the findings of the student who did all the work is garbage and all your graphs and sources are garbage.
Scientific majorities have been proven to be a disgrace and profanation of science, for all science unfortunately.

The only hope now, this year is that they've overstepped all boundaries of any decency and sanity declaring that an MIT technology professor or an MIT physics professor cannot be qualified to estimate their climate science. I hope there would be a backlash and climotologists will be put were they belong to - mental institutions and jails.

 

If you have any proof for these claims please provide it

 

Or they are science-minded and prefer actual evidence and studies to blathering blogs based on delusions of some guy's mind.

 

The liberals in this group seem to forget that Michael Mann and Phil Jones of East Anglia University and notorious "Climategate" fame did their very best to keep the science papers that challenged their discredited views of global warming completely omitted from the peer-review process!

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

 

I once again challenge the most articulate and well versed global "alarmists” in our group to correctly and objectively answer the following scientific questions.

Did man and his deliberate combustion of fossil fuels like bituminous coal, gasoline, aviation fuel and natural gas cause the earth to warm to much higher global temperatures at the first part of the Medieval Warm Period and the conclusion of the Little Ice Age?

None of the usual unprovoked insults and accentuated "arm waving" please. We are looking for scientific answers to these very reasonable questions.

Please provide reliable references that support your figures, data and illustrations.

 

See I can do these too and even post in blue!

Sorry but the same side that keeps posting about the, investigated and cleared, emails gleefully quote

Oregon Petition
"Lord" Monckton
Marc Morano
James Inhofe
Koch brothers
Heartland insititute
ICECAP

And all the others who have time and time and time again been shown, and been shown by people without climate degrees, because the manipulation of data is so bloody obvious, to have lied, and obfuscated

It is like comparing someone who has forgotten to pay for a lolly in a shop to a mass murderer

 

I will as soon as you respond to these requests:

 

So you will NOT provide reliable references that support your figures, data and illustrations because somebody did not respond to your request like this

FYI it is not a request but a logical fallacy used when one has no valid arguments.

I guess james is a bad guy and you may be excused for being a bad guy because james is a bad guy and you may be excused for being a bad guy because james is a bad guy and you may be excused for being a bad guy because james is a bad guy

and we are stuck like my keyboard above.

 

1. can you prove that only the named by you keep on posting?

2. can you prove that if the named by you have been proven bad in claiming their arictocracy title thier posts about e-mails are invalid?


I dare you

1. post e-mail which were investigated, their authors and affiliations.

2. post names and affiliation of investigators

3. post their anouncement about the results of the investigation by investigators.

that's all.
let the people decide who is bloody lying straght through their teeth.

I dare anyone who is doubting if climate scientists are lairs or not to do that on his/her own.

I do believe that more people have common sense and decency than believers in AWG think .

Please confirm that an MIT physics professor and an MIT technology professor cannot have a valid judgement of findings and reports of those who have degrees in climate science, and their judgement has less wight than a judgement of a PhD in climotology.

 

Inquisitor, the liberals in this group worship false "gods". They conveniently seem to forget that Michael Mann and Phil Jones of East Anglia University of notorious "Climategate" fame are thoroughly discredited. They did their very best to keep the science papers that challenged their discredited views of global warming completely omitted from the peer-review process!

University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

 

I am not a true believer but wish to correct something here. One of the problems Mann had was the limited proxy data he used. Since then other proxy data has been used supporting the original science.

That said, I do believe there has been warming and that man contributes, I just don't agree how much or buy into the doomsday approach to warming.

I say bring on the warming. Scotland's Islay had forests 7000 years ago that disappeared and now is covered with peat bogs due to the cooling since then. It was warmer than it is now 7000 years ago.

 

Still trying to change the subject

Mannie asked you a question
http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...scientific-manipulation-7.html#post1060936011

Care to answer because I would like to hear the answer as well

 

No, your contention appears to be that warming is "just happening 'coz climate changes you know"

And Scotland MAY get warmer - those nice peat bogs of course, will then be insect infested swamps

Where I live in the tropics our summers are pretty hard to tolerate so when it gets hotter a lot of us might like to move to more temperate climes

And then of course there is the effect on agriculture - like to eat do you?

 

You mean instead of what they actually were when it was warmer, forested?

See, you warmers are doom and gloom buzz kills that really don't understand what warming in the northern hemisphere would mean to those in the cold and desolate north. For instance, grasslands in Iceland would be cool.

You also don't understand that as it warms in the northern latitudes and makes living easier, the equatorial regions don't warm correspondingly. Sure, waters may rise, but that means more ocean and more ocean life.

What is it you warmers have against life, besides scabies?

Warming, where would we be without it?

 

james answered 5 times. please pay attention. Reread this again: http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1060948508 If you have question I will gladly answer.

No. It is N-O.

Mann has been proven to be a sharlatan.

N-O.
The reference 9 is not justified.

"radiative forcing changes involving Ocean bottom currents and ice melting/freezing." is.... I am sorry... is a sign of an unadequate perception of reality.