The climate conspiracy nuts massive


by Sunny
29th December, 2008 at 11:00 am    

The FT’s Gideon Rachman wrote an article. It got ‘Drudged’. He writes about the experience on his blog. In it, he says:

1) There is an unbelievable amount of anger and hatred out there – directed at everything from the UN to big business to Barack Obama. These people can read, but they cannot think.

3) There are a lot of people who believe not only that global warming is a hoax – but that it is actually a conspiracy. The fact that the most influential reports on climate change have been produced by an intergovernmental panel (IPCC) – sponsored by the UN – fuels this theory. The idea is that the UN is perpetuating a climate-change hoax, to provide an excuse to impose a world government on America. I’m all part of it apparently.

Just American whackos? Actually, we have our own nutjobs here too. Christopher Brookes writes in the Telegraph: ’2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved’. LOL.

Earlier, I’d be annoyed. But now I think that despite their hysteria, the global warming deniers have lost all political support. They probably revel in the view that no serious politician in the major English speaking world: UK, USA and Canada even Australia, subscribes to this bullshit anymore, but the fact is the battle is over. The war is won, and I’m happy. These people are politically irrelevant. Soon they’ll be as regarded with as much contempt at the 9/11 ‘troofers’, as the case should be.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Environmentalism,Media






40 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Bert Rustle — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:15 am  

    For a rather different take on apparenly the same data see:
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/12/worse-than-we-think.html

    Booker … points out that all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare.

    … After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

    … 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

    Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world.

    As we saw in this month’s Poznan conference … panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for “combating climate change” with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times. …

  2. steve — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:44 am  

    As normal, your fundamentalist zeal for a man made ideal strikes again.

    You will find that not all “deniers” are nut jobs, some of us can interpret data and look at things objectively. It is a small blip in a large cycle of cooling.

    When has political support been needed to take a stand against those nut jobs who belive in man made global warming; I’ve said all along, it is a new religion and those who stand on the outside are the rational ones.

  3. MaidMarian — on 29th December, 2008 at 2:05 pm  

    I suggest a reading of the FT article.

    Too much weight is being attributed to the internet – that simple. The thing is just a haven for every axe-grinding bunch of psychos and pseudo religious cults. I include self indulgent middle-class whining as a religion.

    These people just get more or less horny at the thought of bullying someone to a faux global audience. And don’t get them started on boycotts! When an august and revered publication like the FT appears not to have the bottle to face down two hundred parodies of themself we know this has lost all sense of proportion.

    What I wold like to see in 2009 is all internet talkboards closed, serious journalists regaining something that vaguely resembles control and for the malcontents to be told that no one cares about them or their gripes.

    Well, that and a solution to I/P.

  4. Andrew Adams — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:03 pm  

    … After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

    I’m guessing that he means the 21st Century here, otherwise he is so wrong there is no point even continuing.

    Yes, temperatures did drop in 2008 – it was the coolest year since 2000, but there will always be variations in individual years. The important thing is to look at the long term trend and the five/ten year averages and these show that warming is still continuing – the last decade was still by far the hottest on record.

    The “after several years flatlining” claim is misleading because of the exceptionally hot year of 1998, which was due to the El Nino of winter 1997/8. The temperature dropped sharply again in the following year, as would be expected, but has continued to rise since.

  5. steve — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:08 pm  

    Part of the problem is, that people in the MSM see bloggers as somehow “intelligent” and worthy of bringing to a larger audience. Indeed , bloggers being invited to review papers, as though their thoughts are of any merit is the oddest of all.
    The bloggers then start to believe their own publicity and through the oxygen of celebrity deem themselves as somehow always right and above reproach. Next thing, comments get deleted and people banned for not toeing the party line.

  6. MaidMarian — on 29th December, 2008 at 3:30 pm  

    Steve (5) – ‘Part of the problem is, that people in the MSM see bloggers as somehow “intelligent” and worthy of bringing to a larger audience. Indeed , bloggers being invited to review papers, as though their thoughts are of any merit is the oddest of all.
    The bloggers then start to believe their own publicity and through the oxygen of celebrity deem themselves as somehow always right and above reproach.’

    I’m going to find a hat so I can take it off to you for expressing that so articulately!

    Having a good line in bitter, self-indulgent sarcasm is not the same thing as intelligence. It is a distinction that has, in the internet age, been totally lost. As has the concept that maybe, just maybe there are tough decisions and shades of grey.

    Whatever was wrong with a certain elitism in the print media – I actually quite like credentials!

  7. Bert Rustle — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:09 pm  

    Andrew Adams 4 wrote … I’m guessing that he means the 21st Century here, otherwise he is so wrong there is no point even continuing. …

    I suggest that you post a referenced comment demonstrating this statement at the link I provided above – Richard North will usually provide references to his assertions and it would be illuminating to compare the two.

  8. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:24 pm  

    For a rather different take on apparenly the same data see:

    In other words, here’s another nutjob we found earlier!

  9. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 4:52 pm  

    Bert,

    Please don’t muddy the waters around here by quoting stuff like this:

    … 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a “scientific consensus” in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world’s most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that “consensus” which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.

    without at least providing a smidgeon of background.

    The March 2008 ‘conference’ to which this refers was sponsored by a mob called the Heartland Institute, whose Wiki entry should set alarm bells ringing for more or less anyone. See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

    The section on Global Warming is particularily interesting, but the rest is good background.

    A bit more digging brings this up:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/heartlands_bogus_list_of_scien.php

    I think they are a shower of chancers, however everyone should, of course, make their own minds up.

  10. Bert Rustle — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:11 pm  

    douglas clark 9 wrote <… muddy the waters … In my opinion, linking to different conclusions from ostensibly the same data does not muddy the waters; rather that the ensuing debate should be illuminating to all.

    Presumably your links will be examined at eureferndum, if you post them there.

  11. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:14 pm  

    Presumably your links will be examined at eureferndum, if you post them there.

    Yeah right…

  12. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:32 pm  

    Bert,

    Why would I do that?

    As far as I’m concerned eureferendum is quite clearly a site with a political agenda and is quoting other folk with similar political agendas. Neither of the main editors appears to have any background whatsoever in climate science. But they appear quite happy to quote other folk who have no background in climate science either. It is a house of cards mate.

    So, what’s to be gained?

    It is you that is wasting your time, and more particularily other readers of this site, with the notion that eureferendum or Booker have anything meaningful to add to the debate. They don’t.

    Try reading this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/denialists_scraping_the_bottom.php

  13. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 5:46 pm  

    It’s actually worse that I thought.

    You are telling me how wonderful eureferendum is. The author of the post in question:

    “Worse than we think”,

    is signed off by some chap called Richard. On here, you say Andrew Adams should put his questions to a Richard North, who I am guessing is one and the same guy?

    Anyway, one of the editors of eureferendum is indeed a Richard North who has co-authored three books with a certain Christopher Brooker. With a fourth co-authored book entitled “Scared to Death” – an anatomy of the scare phenomenon pending. Guess that’ll have a chapter on global warming, huh!

    Back scratching, or what?

  14. Andrew Adams — on 29th December, 2008 at 6:16 pm  

    Bert Rustle, I’m not going to put any questions to Richard North as his statement is so obviously nonsense and in any case I don’t consider him a creditable commentator on any subject.

    I mean for his statement

    After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

    to be true global temperatures must have fallen since the end of the 20th century. However, even allowing for the fact that this year has been a relatively cool one global temperatures have overall risen slightly since 2000. See the chart here.

  15. Bert Rustle — on 29th December, 2008 at 7:55 pm  

    Andrew Adams 14 If one is better informed than than someone else then it benefits the commentariat to spread that knowledge and to debate with those who are unenlightened. In my opinion.

  16. Andrew Adams — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:03 pm  

    Sure, but that rather depends on the other person being willing to listen to contrary arguments. And whether you consider them worth debating with.

  17. asquith — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:07 pm  

    Don’t get your hopes up. The hardcore deniers were always fringe twats. Far more important are those who admit it is happening, but think it isn’t important/nothing can be done. They’ll tell you we can’t afford it. They’ll tell you we can’t reverse it. They’ll tell you the problem is quite easy to solve. They’ll spout mindless libertarian shite. They’ll get in the way of anything practical being done.

    I welcome Obama’s election & the utter discrediting of bloggertarians. But it’s not as if we’re magically going to get a healthy, liveable environment. The challenges are still there to be confronted & the “moderate” deniers will still have to be challenged.

  18. Rumbold — on 29th December, 2008 at 8:48 pm  

    Douglas:

    Foorgetting science for a moment, you should read this by Richard North:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-Union-Survive/dp/0826480144

    I got it for Christmas.

  19. Sunny — on 29th December, 2008 at 9:02 pm  

    asquith, good point.

    Andrew – I agree. North is a waste of time.

  20. maas101 — on 29th December, 2008 at 9:20 pm  

    It’s funny how those who are sceptical of AGW are reviled and pilloried with such vehemence. That only usually happens when someone is sceptical of faith rather than fact.

    I have no fixed opinion either way (and I have a pretty good understanding of the science and a very good understanding of computer models) but I do have a question for those who are so actively trashing the sceptics. Do YOU understand the science? Have YOU looked into it far enough to understand the limitations and variability of computer models?

    The argument is not won, there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate. I would much rather see intelligent debate leading to a consensus opinion but that doesn’t seem possible when there are people on both sides (but mostly upon the side of AGW) who prefer name calling to reasoned argument.

  21. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 9:31 pm  

    Rumbold,

    Heh! Doesn’t sound like my sort of book, to be honest.

    Although the guy does get some seriously high scoring book reviews on Amazon.

    It does worry me a bit that denying anything at all seems such a popular trope, and presumeably earner, for authors these days…

    Hmmm…

    I’m sure you and I could come up with a counter intuitive about something.

    Say, threads on the web about the I/P fiasco are fed by a global cabal who’s objective is forcing folk apart?

    Needs work.

    Too near true.

    Sorry.

  22. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 9:49 pm  

    maas101,

    I’ve pointed out many a time that I am not a scientist.

    But what is intensely frustrating for a reasonably engaged layman – me – is for someone like you to come along without a shred of evidence, either for your opinions, nor your credentials, and criticise me.

    It is fairly simple, but extremely time consuming, to argue the AGW case.

    As I have pointed out previously, idiotic folk can take up inordinate amounts of time by pointing to what they think are flaws, and after expending huge amounts of my time and others in refuting what they have to say, they run away into the shadows of the internet, their work done.

    So, let’s reverse the process.

    What’s your explanation for glacial retreat, artic and antartic ice melt, and other facts?

    Name some respected climate scientists that are on the anti side of the debate. (I can name two, how about you?)

    Explain why your knowledge of climate science programming is adequate for anyone to take you seriously.

    And, why should anyone believe a self declared expert, who as far as I can tell is just another horseman for the denialists, rather than genuine climate scientists.

    See? It’s easy to do. I think you haven’t a credential to your name.

    You are Devils’ Kitchen in disguise and I claim my £5.

  23. maas101 — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:04 pm  

    He he I’m not Devil’s Kitchen.

    I can name many scientists, for one well known one let’s start with Dr David Bellamy. But, I stated that I had no fixed opinions either way. You, on the other hand instantly started trying ad hominem attacks at my credentials.

    Let’s see, I understand the CO2 absorbtion spectra, I understand saturation and the sideband issues. I know there was a medieval warm period, I know that the glaciers have actually expanded this year. I understand the difference between El Ninio and La Nina.

    But I repeat ( as you are obviously a little hard of understanding ) I have no fixed opinions upon the subject. I do find however that the proponents of AGW tend to violently attack those who question their new found religion. You have merely reinforced that opinion.

    Sorry, you don’t get your £5

  24. Amrit — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:37 pm  

    Rumbold – this is what one reviewer had to say about your cherished tome.

    ‘I can only reaffirm some of the earlier reviews which state that this is a well written, enjoyable account of the history of European integration; however it is spoiled by some rather baffling conclusions concerning hidden agendas, conspiracy theories and downright biased analysis. It’s never given a full and detailed airing, but at its heart this book attempts to argue that some clique of Europhile plotters is attempting to hijack European democracies and force European citizens into a giant superstate against their will.’

    HA! A healthy scepticism is all very well, but shameless pandering to an agenda? BOR-ING.

  25. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 10:44 pm  

    I can name many scientists, for one well known one let’s start with Dr David Bellamy.

    Dr David Bellamy is a botanist. He was a great populiser of science, and for that I give him kudos.

    His views on AGW are as likely to be right as some-one you bump into in a bus queue. They are about as likely to be right as asking an astronomer about eukaryotes. He has, largely, withdrawn from the debate, although, as you say, his signature is a bit puzzling, given what he said in 2005:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article527565.ece

    Bellamy says

    There is an enormous body of opinion and information which could indicate that man is having an impact on the climate, but the counter view does not get much publicity. So, rightly or wrongly, I have recently been trying to provide some balance in this debate. However, as I have consistently said, I am prepared to change my mind should the evidence warrant it and that I may be wrong.

    The real climate debate will be resolved in the court of science, not in magazine articles, by the media nor on the rack of heresy. Celebrity can be both a blessing and a curse and in this instance it worries me greatly that my name and the headlines it inspires have been responsible for reducing this most complex of scientific issues to soundbites. I have therefore decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.

    I will carry on working to help stitch the natural history of the world back into biodiverse working order; creating the conditions to allow Mother Nature to better deal with the huge complexities of ongoing climate change.

    David Bellamy
    The Conservation Foundation
    London SW7

    So there’s your man, maybe aye, mibbee naw.

    You said:

    and I have a pretty good understanding of the science and a very good understanding of computer models

    and you think that’s adequate? My comment:

    is for someone like you to come along without a shred of evidence, either for your opinions, nor your credentials, and criticise me.

    leads to this!!!

    on the other hand instantly started trying ad hominem attacks at my credentials.

    ad hominem has a meaning you seem to fail to appreciate. It means ‘arguement against the man’. That is certainly not what I am about. I want you to flower here with your arguements.

    I want – seriously – for you to prove me wrong. As a starter for ten, what are your qualifications? How many peer reviewed articles are in your cv? How many on climate science, specifically?

    Else, I will take all of this:

    Let’s see, I understand the CO2 absorbtion spectra, I understand saturation and the sideband issues. I know there was a medieval warm period, I know that the glaciers have actually expanded this year. I understand the difference between El Ninio and La Nina.

    to bits.

    Meaning, that you don’t actually know what you think you are talking about. However, it will take some time, and as you are a very important climate change denialist you won’t be fucking hanging around, will you?

    No.

    Answer a few questions first.

    Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty years or so, and by how much?

    The escape pattern for the denialist is approximately now.

  26. maas101 — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:07 pm  

    I guess I won’t be taking the escape pattern. I stated repeatedly (yes that means I repeated myself) that I do not have a fixed opinion on AGW either way.

    Let’s reverse the argument, what are your credentials? I remain to be convinced. You obviously have assumed the mantle not only of being convinced but also qualified to convince others. That requires a far higher burden of proof. How many peer reviewed papers have you written? I require links to said articles, I will check the facts of the articles and the credentials of those who reviewed them. Once I heve done that I will report back here honestly my assesment of those articles. If you cannot provide the requested information then you have no basis for the arguments you have put forward.

    I came into this debate unconvinced but willing to listen to arguments from both sides. Now I require a far higher level of argument from you as all I have seem is bluster.

    I’ll even requote Bellamy that you quoted at me “However, as I have consistently said, I am prepared to change my mind should the evidence warrant it and that I may be wrong.”

    Give me evidence, give me your peer reviewed papers, or are you as I suspect an idiot who repeats the views of others with no real understanding.

  27. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:35 pm  

    Maas101,

    I guess I won’t be taking the escape pattern. I stated repeatedly (yes that means I repeated myself) that I do not have a fixed opinion on AGW either way.

    Good.

    Let’s reverse the argument, what are your credentials? I remain to be convinced. You obviously have assumed the mantle not only of being convinced but also qualified to convince others. That requires a far higher burden of proof. How many peer reviewed papers have you written? I require links to said articles, I will check the facts of the articles and the credentials of those who reviewed them. Once I heve done that I will report back here honestly my assesment of those articles. If you cannot provide the requested information then you have no basis for the arguments you have put forward.

    Uh. Uh. Don’t try to play judo with me.

    Lets not reverse the arguement. You show first.

    I did, after all, ask you first.

    No?

    That’s what you lot do. I am not calling you out on my knowledge, I am calling you out on the fact that I doubt you have any knowledge whatsoever.

    Answer that.

    ‘Cause you can’t answer, you try to attack me. But I am not the target you have to hit. It was you that said you were the expert, the font of all knowledge.

    Prove it.

  28. douglas clark — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:47 pm  

    Maas101,

    So, perhaps you’d like to answer the questions?

    They are ridiculously simple:

    1 – Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no.

    2 – Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no.

    3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no.

    Your the fucking expert.

  29. maas101 — on 29th December, 2008 at 11:57 pm  

    What do I have to prove?

    As far as I can see the level of warming that has to do with CO2 resolves to the black body radiation of CO2 in the upper levels of the stratosphere that is outside of the saturation spectra of CO2 yet also outside of the absorbtion spectra of H2O.

    But that’s irrelevant, I’m not the one who is arguing for a dramatic shift in the economy of the planet. As I have repeatedly (ad nauseum) stated I am not convinced.

    You are convinced, you are willing to impose your new version of reality on the entire planet. You are the one who requires proof. All I need is convincing.

    So far you have failed to convince me, in fact if anything you have moved me further towards the sceptics corner.

    Those who are sceptics do not need to prove their position. They need to be convinced that thay are in the wrong by those who have the arguments and evidence to back up their position.

    If your arguments are an example of the pro-AGW fraternity then count me in to the sceptics corner.

    I’d like to see some pro AGW science from you, argued rationally and with a level of knowledge. If you can’t provide then what the hell are you doing arguing for a position that you patently do not understand.

  30. douglas clark — on 30th December, 2008 at 12:29 am  

    maas101,

    You said:

    It’s funny how those who are sceptical of AGW are reviled and pilloried with such vehemence. That only usually happens when someone is sceptical of faith rather than fact.

    I have no fixed opinion either way (and I have a pretty good understanding of the science and a very good understanding of computer models) but I do have a question for those who are so actively trashing the sceptics. Do YOU understand the science? Have YOU looked into it far enough to understand the limitations and variability of computer models?

    The argument is not won, there are respected scientists on both sides of the debate. I would much rather see intelligent debate leading to a consensus opinion but that doesn’t seem possible when there are people on both sides (but mostly upon the side of AGW) who prefer name calling to reasoned argument.

    As far as I recall, that was your opening statement here. You were the one claiming expertise.

    Demonstrate it.

    Answer the simple questions:

    1 – Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no.

    2 – Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no.

    3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no.

    You are getting nothing out of me until you answer my, deliberately, simple questions.

    Your the fucking expert.

  31. douglas clark — on 30th December, 2008 at 12:37 am  

    Oh, and,

    So far you have failed to convince me, in fact if anything you have moved me further towards the sceptics corner.

    Cry me a river.

    You were there already.

  32. Sunny — on 30th December, 2008 at 12:53 am  

    It’s funny how those who are sceptical of AGW are reviled and pilloried with such vehemence. That only usually happens when someone is sceptical of faith rather than fact.

    It’s not funny – they deserve all the abuse they get. And I will keep dishing it out. Just like the ‘troofers’.

    I wonder if ‘maas101′ also goes around questioning people believing the 9/11 conspiracy theories as trying to find ‘facts’ rather than ‘having faith’.

  33. maas101 — on 30th December, 2008 at 9:56 am  

    Douglas

    1. Have glaciers retreated over the last twenty year or so? Yes or no. – Yes

    2. Has artic ice retreated over a comparable time scale? Yes or no. – Yes

    3. Has antartic ice retreated too? Yes or no. – Yes

    There you are, your questions answered. Now – a couple of mine.

    1. Did the artic ice retreat during the medeival warm period? – You don’t know and neither do I

    2. Did the vikings call Greenland green ‘cos it was covered in snow? – Probably not

    3. Were the same scientists who are crying doom and destruction over global warming predicting the next ice age during the late 70′s?

    And Sunny, I took you for having a little more intelligence than this but apparently not. Just because I am on the fence about the anthropomorphic part of AGW does not mean I’m a conspiracy theorist or a ‘troofer’.

    Neither of you have the slightest clue about the ‘facts’ behind the position you have taken. My initial post was about asking those who pillory others with a different viewpoint whether they had actually followed and understood the arguments.

    My answer has become clear during subsequent posts; you haven’t.

    I stated that I wanted to see rational debate between both sides. You have both displayed stunning arrogance coupled with ignorance that perfectly demonstrates why this won’t happen.

    Oh well, no matter. I’ll continue reading research papers etc. looking for the A in GW while you can go on calling people who do not share your views ‘troofers’. I may eventually agree with your position but at least I’ll have done it armed with facts and knowledge rather than blind faith.

  34. Rumbold — on 30th December, 2008 at 10:42 am  

    Douglas and Amrit:

    I only started it yesterday, but it is more balanced than you think. For example, it decisively rejects the notion that the EU was originally some sort of Nazi plan, pointing out that its origins derive from idealists in the 1920s.

  35. steve — on 30th December, 2008 at 1:38 pm  

    What’s next? Stoning the unbelievers?

    Just because someone does not conform to your worldview they are somehow deniers. Jeez, and you are the people who call the Pope when he says gays are bad*

    * Yes I know the Pope is wrong and he is just a religious nut job.

  36. Andrew Adams — on 30th December, 2008 at 10:04 pm  

    maas101, I would hazard a guess that none of us here are climate scientists and thus able to argue from a position of particular authority on this. Personally I consider myself a reasonably well informed layman – I try to understand the science as best I can and can argue the toss on some points, and a lot of arguments come down to factual or logical errors rather than the underlying science. Ultimately though I defer to expert opinion, which is overwhelmingly in favour of AGW. That’s why some of us get impatient with the deniers – I can’t think of any other area of science where non-experts feel so entitled to dismiss expert opinion out of hand.

    You shouldn’t need to ask Douglas or myself to provide the evidence for AGW, it’s out there – read the latest IPCC report if nothing else.

    As for your questions –

    1. It has no relevance to modern AGW, but it is worth pointing out that the MWP was largely a regional rather than a global phenomenon and even then temperatures were lower than they are now.

    2. There is no real evidence to support the contention that Greenland was vastly different to how it is now. It may have been slightly warmer but such regional variations prove little.

    3. There was never any widespread scientific support for the notion of a “new ice age” in the 1970s.

  37. Andy Gilmour — on 31st December, 2008 at 12:36 am  

    maas101,

    On the Norse naming/settlement of “Greenland”, best information we have to go on at present is that it was partially Eirik the Red’s propaganda (the place was a bit more severe than Iceland, judging by Danish archaeological research, letters,etc), but also the climate there was warmer than today between C9th & C12th…only in the C14th that shipping routes had to change due to encroaching polar ice.

    max population was roughly 3,000, and they even found the time to build a stone cathedral.

    hope that helps…? :-)

  38. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2008 at 10:34 am  

    maas101,

    Perhaps one of the better scources for the arguements pro AGW is to be found here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

    Using that resource the answers to your second and third questions can be found:

    2) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644

    3) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

    Your first question about the extent of Artic sea ice is more intractible, so, on a slightly lighter note I’ll give you this:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/chinese_navy_sails_again.php

    If you look through these links and still can’t find an answer that satisfies you, Real Climate will usually go out of their way to tell you what they know.

  39. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2008 at 5:19 pm  

    I found the first version of this pretty convincing.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

    This takes it a stage further…

  40. douglas clark — on 31st December, 2008 at 9:40 pm  

    Dear reader,

    You ought to ask why, the likes of maas101 comes on here, writes shit, and runs away?

    ’cause that is what he does. Maas101 being no more than a flea about your ear. He is a denialist, true and simple. He will never be persuaded by evidence. He is hung up on a politic, rather than any sort of worry science might suggest.

    Devils Kitchen, a moron of the first order, is hung up on a similar philosophy, absent sense, from a long time ago.

    These folk, especially DK, are liars and reprobates, toothless morons and, probably, incredibly stupid. They assume knowledge of climate science that they, frankly do not have.

    You have been warned.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.