Advertisements

PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE : The Medieval Warm Period Was Indeed Global And Warmer Than Today

THE Medieval Warm Period - A global Phenomenon - CLIMATISM

The Medieval Warm Period – A Global Phenomenon


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President UN Foundation

***

WHEN prosecuting the case for “unprecedented” man-made Global Warming, the first thing you need to make sure of is that no recent climate era was as warm or warmer than the present, even if that means having to rewrite the past to fit your narrative.

THE Medieval Warm Period, also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum (due to conditions favoured for crops, life and civilisation to thrive) existed a short time ago in the climate record, from c. 950 to c. 1250., and has remained a thorn in the side, ever since, for today’s Global Warming Climate Change activist movement.

*

IN the 1990 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm Period was much warmer than the late 19th century:

*

THE IPCC’s 1990 report dives deeper into the reality of the Medieval Warm Period and provides an insight into the cause of these warming periods:

“This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.

IPCC WG1 Report 1990 (p202)

*

BY the 2001 IPCC report, the Medieval Warm period disappeared and became much cooler than the late 20th century:

hockeystick

Mikey Mann Hockeystick

*

BY pure coincidence, in the year 1995 the IPCC made a decision to make the Medieval Warm Period disappear:

David Deming Senate Testimony

David Deming Senate Testimony

*

YOUTUBE clip of Dr David Deming’s US Senate testimony on the “disappearance” of the Medieval Warm Period (see 01m:50s) :

Video of Dr David Deming’s statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now throughly discredited hockey stick graph.

IN case you missed it…

“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.””

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.””

Statement of Dr. David Deming | U.S. Senate Committee

*

THE MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD : GLOBAL and PEER REVIEWED

ACCORDING to multiple lines of “peer-reviewed science”, the Medieval Warm Period was indeed ‘global’ and was as warm, if not warmer than today.

CLICK here for excellent interactive map of clickable peer-reviewed MWP studies in both North and Southern Hemispheres :

*

THE ‘INCONVENIENT’ PAST

THERE is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s so-called Global Warming aka Climate Change.

LOOK at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.

CIVILISATIONS flourished during those warm periods (“climate optimums”), and collapsed when they ended.

DID humans cause the Minoan warm period of about 3,300 years ago?

DID humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?

DID humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?

WHAT about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?

greenland-ice-core-proxy

via @BigJoeBastardi | Twitter

IF the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.

ALL this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.

* Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

UNRELIABLE Energy’s Dirty Dozen: 12 Reasons Why Chaotically Intermittent & Heavily Subsidised Wind & Solar Power Make No Sense

BRILLIANT ‘peer-reviewed’ list of 12 unequivocal reasons why weather-dependent wind and solar ‘power’ is guaranteed to wreck your economy and your livelihood…

ALWAYS like to highlight point 4 in debate with proponents of unreliables…

4. Renewable Energy Becomes More Costly The More It Is Deployed … Renewable Energy Expansion Ensures More Fossil Fuel Installation Is Necessary As Backup

IN other words, the more windmills or solar panels, the more *emissions!

(*If harmless CO2 emissions have been brainwashed into you as being the enemy within, that is.)

STOP THESE THINGS

It takes a special brand of delusion to believe that the world can run on sunshine and breezes. For wind and sun worshippers, disastrous examples like South Australia – where mass blackouts and load shedding have become the new normal – require not just practiced delusion but a form of self-flagellating stoicism, as well. Oh, almost forgot to mention, that RE superpower suffers the world’s highest power prices. And it reached that infamous status after it blew up its last coal-fired power plant.

The wind industry has had more than 30 years to get its act together. It was built on subsidies and wouldn’t last a minute without them. But, still, there are plenty happy to roll out the excuses and plead for more of the same.

When STT kicked off in December 2012, it was hard to find anyone with a harsh word to say about wind power. However…

View original post 5,039 more words


DISGRACE : Shameless Link Between Suicide And Climate Change, Circulating The Mainstream Media’s Echo Chamber

THE Death of Mainstream Media - Suicide blog CLIMATISM.png


SINCE Climatism reported on the lazy and disrespectful link between suicide and climate change two days ago, a study has now surfaced out of the warmist, Nature Climate Change…

*

NOT surprisingly, the mainstream media has jumped all over this single study like a pack of hungry wolves, in a blatant attempt to link their emotionally-charged climate change cause with the genuinely emotional and tragic issue of suicide.

“The study, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, concluded that projected temperature increases over the next few decades could lead to an additional 21,000 suicides in the United States and Mexico by 2050.”

Warming climate will likely boost suicide rates worldwide | Berkeley News

*

YET another study using the widely criticised UN IPCC CMIP5 climate models that do not accord with the stubborn observed reality of the current and inconvenient ~20 year global warming “pause”

CURRENT UN CMIP5 CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS Vs TEMPS

See : 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism

*

THE STUDY

PUBLISHED yesterday in the warmist journal, Nature climate change

*

THE studies “could, maybe, might” findings are based on the highest emissions scenario, RCP8.5, pushed out to the arbitrary, unaccountable and ‘sciencey’ date of 2050…

“We project that unmitigated climate change (RCP8.5) could result in a combined 9–40 thousand additional suicides (95% confidence interval) across the United States and Mexico by 2050, representing a change in suicide rates comparable to the estimated impact of economic recessions, suicide prevention programmes or gun restriction laws.”

THE study also took into account seasonal variation, levels of poverty, the news of celebrity suicides and even depressive social media commentary that can lead to more death…

“Analysis of depressive language in >600 million social media updates further suggests that mental well-being deteriorates during warmer periods.”

Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico | Nature Climate Change

*

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER…

WHAT level of responsibility is the mainstream media itself willing to accept for stoking “global warming” fears – flogging every heatwave or extreme weather event leading to the collective mass hysteria played out on social media?

Read the rest of this entry »


“Saving The Planet” Update : Wind Turbines Destroy Local Farming Village And Bees 🐝

bees-on-honeycomb-2

Pic source – Beeline to Fury: Korean Farmers Declare War on Wind Power – For Wrecking Communities & Killing Bees – STOP THESE THINGS

CLIMATE alarmism’s primary objective is to scare you and policy makers into belief such that your taxes are effortlessly diverted, with little to no scrutiny, into research grants and green schemes and scams to supposedly stop bad weather by changing the temperature of the planet. Yet, no one can ever tell you by how much the temperature will change for each dollar spent. But alas, “Saving The Planet” is far more important than how your hard-earned money is spent, right?

CLIMATE research is paid for by you in the form of government grants. And, thanks to the system of pal peer-review, the most scary studies, prefaced by “anthropogenic” are given the green light, published in science journals with results interpreted by the compliant mainstream media and delivered back to you, to scare you even more such that you will happily donate more money to the scam research.

A google search with key words [climate research + climate change worse than we thought] illustrates 1,960,000 times in 0.45 seconds the effect that monopolistic or one-way funding has on published results…

Read the rest of this entry »


Understanding Peer Review


CLIMATE Money: Monopoly Science

62228379-AC75-4AD5-8DAE-BC969C8B73EA

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

 •••

A valuable post from Joanne Nova investigating the ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.

This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”

The systemic failure self-perpetuates :

  • Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
  • How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
  • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

•••

via JoanneNova.com.au

Climate money: Monopoly science

The scientific process has become distorted. One side of a theory receives billions, but the other side is so poorly funded that auditing of that research is left as a community service project for people with expert skills, a thick skin and a passionate interest. A kind of “Adopt an Error” approach.

Can science survive the vice-like grip of politics and finance?

Despite the billions of dollars in funding, outrageous mistakes have been made. One howler in particular, rewrote history and then persisted for years before one dedicated fact checker, working for free, exposed the fraud about the Hockey Stick Graph. Meanwhile agencies like the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, can’t afford to install temperature sensors to meet its own guidelines, because the workers are poorly trained and equipped to dig trenches only with garden trowels and shovels. NOAA “adjust” the data after the fact—apparently to compensate for sensors which are too close to air conditioners or car parks, yet it begs the question: If the climate is the biggest problem we face; if billions of dollars are needed, why can’t we install thermometers properly?

Screen Shot 2013-09-25 at , September 25, 12.30.46 AM

How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?

The real total of vested interests in climate-change science is far larger than just scientists doing pure research. The $30 billion in funding to the CCSP (graphed above) does not include work on green technologies like improving solar cells, or storing a harmless gas underground. Funding for climate technologies literally doubles the amount of money involved, and provides a much larger pool of respectable-looking people with impressive scientific cachet to issue more press releases—most of which have little to do with basic atmospheric physics, but almost all of which repeat the assumption that the climate will warm due to human emissions. In other words: a 30-billion-dollar cheer squad.

Lots of one-sided honest research does not make for fair debate

The scientists funded by governments don’t need to be dishonest for science to become distorted. They just need to do their jobs. If we ask 100 people to look for lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain? Few people are paid or rewarded for auditing the IPCC and associated organizations. Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change?

Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)

And scientists are human, they have mortgages and kids. If Exxon money has any pulling power, government money must also “pull”.

I can’t say it better than Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair, 1935

Ironically it was Al Gore himself who helped ensure there was copious funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) from 1993-2000. We’ve poured billions into focusing bright brains on one angle, one topic, one cause. That’s a lot of salaries.

The monopolistic funding “ratchet”

There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”
Ideas that question the role of carbon in the climate are attacked with a fine-tooth comb by large teams of paid researchers. If real flaws are found they are announced loudly and repeatedly, and if there are imagined or irrelevant flaws, these too are announced and sometimes with even more fanfare. But ideas that support the role of carbon in the climate are subject to a very different analysis. Those on Team-AGW check to see if they have underestimated the impact of carbon, or made an error so obvious it would embarrass “the Team.” Since there are few paid supporters of natural causes, or people who benefit from defending non-carbon impacts, there is no one with an a priori motive to dig deep for non-obvious mistakes. So the pro-AGW ideas may only be scrutinized briefly, and by unpaid retirees, bloggers running on donations, or government scientists working in other fields—like geologists, who have reason to be skeptical, but who are not necessarily trained in, say, atmospheric physics.

Screen Shot 2013-09-25 at , September 25, 12.40.08 AM

Normally this might not be such a problem, because the lure of fame and fortune by categorically “busting” a well-accepted idea would attract some people. In most scientific fields, if someone debunks a big Nature or Science paper, they are suddenly cited more often; are the next in line for a promotion and find it easier to get grants. They attract better PhD students to help, are invited to speak at more conferences, and placed higher in the program. Instead in climate science, the reward is the notoriety of a personal attack page on Desmog1ExxonSecrets2 or Sourcewatch3, dedicated to listing every mistake on any topic you may have made, any connection you may have had with the fossil fuel industry, no matter how long ago or how tenuous. The attack-dog sites will also attack your religious beliefs if you have any. Roy Spencer, for example, has been repeatedly attacked for being Christian (though no one has yet come up with any reason why that could affect his satellite data).

Ironically, the “activist” websites use paid bloggers. DeSmog is a funded wing of a professional PR group Hoggan4 and Associates (who are paid to promote clients5 like David Suzuki Foundation, ethical funds, and companies that sell alternative energy sources like hydro power, hydrogen and fuel cells.) ExxonSecrets is funded by Greenpeace6 (who live off donations to “save” the planet, and presumably do better when the planet appears to need saving).

Most scientific fields are looking for answers, not looking to prove only one side of a hypothesis. There are a few researchers who are paid to disprove the hypothesis of Global Warming, and most of them are investigated and pilloried as if they were a politician running for office. This is not how science works, by ad hominem attack. The intimidation, disrespect and ostracism leveled at people who ask awkward questions acts like a form of censorship. Not many fields of science have dedicated smear sites for scientists. Money talks.

Respected MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen7 has spoken out against the pressure to conform and laments the loss of good researchers:

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

The combination of no financial reward, plus guaranteed hostile scrutiny, and threats of losing employment would be enough to discourage many from entering the contentious side of the field or speaking their mind if they question the “faith.”

Continue Reading »

•••

UPDATE

Salient words and a brutally honest appraisal from Climatologist Judith Curry on the institutionalised and defunct IPCC ~ Suffering, more than anything, from the monopolistic funding syndrome discussed above …

via Joannenova.com.au

Kill the IPCC says Judith Curry. After decades and billions there is nothing to show for it.

And the public conversation finally starts to move on to discussing not whether the IPCC is wrong, but why it was wrong, and what we need to do about it. Credit to Judith Curry and the Financial Post. I’ve posted a few paragraphs here. The whole story is in the link at the top. – Jo

Judith A. Curry, Special to Financial Post

Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming

 The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution

The IPCC has given us a diagnosis of a planetary fever and a prescription for planet Earth. In this article, I provide a diagnosis and prescription for the IPCC: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.

In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.

We tried a simple solution for a wicked problem:

We have wrongly defined the problem of climate change, relying on strategies that worked previously with ozone, sulphur emissions and nuclear bombs. While these issues may share some superficial similarities with the climate change problems, they are “tame” problems (complicated, but with defined and achievable end-states), whereas climate change is “wicked” (comprising open, complex and imperfectly understood systems). For wicked problems, effective policy requires profound integration of technical knowledge with understanding of social and natural systems. In a wicked problem, there is no end to causal chains in interacting open systems, and every wicked problem can be considered as a symptom of another problem; if we attempt to simplify the problem, we risk becoming prisoners of our own assumptions.

As I’ve been saying, monopolistic funding doesn’t work in science any more than it works in business:

The large investment in climate modeling, both in the U.S. and internationally, has been made with the expectation that climate models will support decision making on both mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change. So, are these complex global climate models especially useful for decision makers? The hope, and the potential, of climate models for providing credible regional climate change scenarios have not been realized.

With the failure of climate models to simulate the pause and regional climate variability, we have arguably reached the point of diminishing returns from this particular path of climate modeling – not just for decision support but also for scientific understanding of the climate system. In pursuit of this climate modeling path, the climate modeling community — and the funding agencies and the policy makers — have locked themselves into a single climate modeling framework with a focus on production runs for the IPCC, which has been very expensive in terms of funding and personnel. An unintended consequence of this strategy is that there has been very little left over for true climate modeling innovations and fundamental research into climate dynamics and theory — such research would not only support amelioration of deficiencies and failures in the current climate modeling systems, but would also lay the foundations for disruptive advances in our understanding of the climate system and our ability to predict emergent phenomena such as abrupt climate change.

As a result, we’ve lost a generation of climate dynamicists. We have been focused on climate models rather than on climate dynamics and theory that is needed to understand the effects of the sun on climate, the network of natural internal variability on multiple time scales, the mathematics of extreme events, and the predictability of a complex system characterized by spatio-temporal chaos.

Judith A. Curry is Chair and Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.

•••

UPDATE

via Real Science

Shock News : Big Government Money Is Corrupting Climate Science

Posted on September 30, 2013

“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”

That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.

“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”

UN’s massive new climate report adds little explanation for ‘pause’ in warming | Fox News

•••

Climatism Links: