Washington Times
Roger Dewhurst
"They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
They can not hide the medieval warming period. It was much, much warmer
during the medieval warming period than it is today. This is not so
complicated There are Vikings that were buried (interred) in the
permafrost in Greenland. The permafrost was not disturbed since it
froze. It was not frozen when they were buried. I would call that warmer
then today, a lot warmer. They chipped those �anecdotes� out from the
permafrost! This was hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.
They tried to hide this. The ironic thing is that this evidence of the
medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen. The Fate of
Greenland's Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland Also, the medieval warming
period was global. Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data For a
satirical look at the climategate computer programming (hiding the
decline): Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/comments/
From Hot Air:
Wheels of Fire
posted at 6:44 pm on November 30, 2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh
[ Enviro-nitwits ]
I love beginning posts with personal anecdotes, which you can
deduce from the fact that I never do it. No time like the present to start!
One week in high school, my all-time second-favorite social studies
teacher, Lyle Thornton Wolf, presented us with a fascinating unit:
On Monday, he passed out forty-eight distinct high-school and
college level American history textbooks (there being 48 students in the
class). Each of us got a different textbook, though some were merely
later versions of an earlier text that somebody else had. Each of us
took his book home with instructions to read and �brief� (like a lawyer
would) the factual events � not interpretations or speculations �
recounted in his book about the Boston Massacre.
Then on Wednesday, Mr. Wolf began going through the incident,
student by student, making a �comparison table� on the blackboard using
every important fact from each book� e.g., the number of colonists
killed by the redcoats, the number wounded, how many lobster-backs and
Yankee doodles were present, what provocation (if any) did the colonists
give to the soldiers, how long the shooting lasted, who was the first
shot, and so forth.
As a court trial followed the shootings, and that trial took
eyewitness and forensic evidence (future President John Adams defended
the soldiers), one would expect nearly all the facts to be reported the
same way in every textbook. Not so; there was significant variation in
the details taught to students about that infamous eruption of
anti-democratic violence.
But Mr. Wolf didn�t stop there, and this was his genius; he was
more interested in teaching us good researching skills than specific
numbers of people killed in the Boston Massacre. Thus he also made each
of us read the footnotes, endnotes, and any other errata indicating the
source of the supposed facts reported in his assigned book; he then put
up a posterboard list of all the textbook titles arranged like a matrix.
As we reported the sources for each book, Mr. Wolf drew an arrow
from the source to the book that cited it. After about ten books, we
quickly realized that not a single one of the 48 textbooks cited any
primary document or original source material; each cited only other
high-school or college textbooks. In fact, only a couple of them cited
texts not already in our hands (both times older editions of books we
did have).
Worse, the entire set of citations was a snarl of textbook �daisy
chains�: Textbook A (let�s say it was the 1962 edition) would have an
arrow pointing to B (1964); B pointed to C (1965), which pointed to D
(1968)� but D then pointed to a later version of textbook A, say the
1970 edition.
In other words, there was no �ultimate source�: The books just
referenced and reinforced each other.
Thus it was hardly a surprise that, variations aside, all the books
agreed on the core issues: The colonists were disorderly but didn�t
provoke the shooting; no colonist used a firearm; the British were
almost entirely to blame; and they only got off because of the eloquence
of Adams. The issue was closed; no need to rethink any basic premise.
After all, if that interpretation of the data wasn�t perfectly true,
what are the odds that all those textbooks would just happen to agree
with each other?
~
On Saturday, as Climategate really began to heat up, the princes of
the University of East Anglia�s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) started to
get their backs up. They were driven to agree, at long last, to release
the raw data behind their predictions� or as much of it remained after
they deliberately destroyed most of it in the 1980s.
Faced with the charge that the data they destroyed could have shown
that globaloney theory was built on sand (and fabricated sand at that),
one of the university�s vice chancellors concocted a novel counterargument:
Professor Trevor Davies, the university�s Pro-Vice-Chancellor,
Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: �CRU�s full data
will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have
the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions
correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data
sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.�
Like a speech by Barack H. Obama�s teleprompter, it sounds good out
of the corner of your ear; but in reality, this argument is a complete
non-sequitur. And the inability of Professor Davies to apprehend his own
paralogia speaks volumes about the real failure of the anthropogenic
global climate-change (AGCC) cabal�.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/11/30/wheels-of-fire/
thingy
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>
> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
You could try the truth...
say,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU
and you could watch the 26min onwards piece on the denial industry who
have managed to hoodwink the intelectually challenged,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
6500 scientists with peer review papers v 3 with no peer review and a
political laisez faire agenda.
regards
Roger Dewhurst
Rubbish
Here is an objective account of the colonization of Greenland.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland
Bodies were buried in ground that is now permafrost. They were not
buried in permafrost!
The evidence for colonization of Greenland is now in Danish museums and
doubtless the science and anthropology are written up in Danish.
R
>
>
>
> regards
Roger Dewhurst
> On Dec 28, 11:09 am, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>
>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>
> You could try the truth...
>
Keith Briffa:
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
�apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the
[temperature] proxy data� but in reality the situation is not quite so
simple. We don�t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right
up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree
proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match
the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored
in the chapter.
...
I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
ago.
Roger Dewhurst
> On Dec 28, 11:09 am, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>
>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>
> You could try the truth...
>
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Rich...@hotmail.com
<dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>thingy wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 11:09 am, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>>
>>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>>
>> You could try the truth...
>>
>
>Keith Briffa:
>I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
>�apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the
>[temperature] proxy data� but in reality the situation is not quite so
>simple. We don�t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right
>up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree
>proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match
>the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored
>in the chapter.
>...
>I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
>ago.
There have been a number of periods with large changes in temperature
in different parts of the world - usually associated with large
numbers of deaths, including extinctions of various species. The
difference now is that we have large human populations in many of the
areas that are likely to have problems. I guess it is politically
acceptable to you to do nothing to try to either plan for likely
change, or to try to avoid catstrophic change - dropping the top tax
rate is much more important to you, isn't it Roger?
Roger Dewhurst
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:56:12 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
> <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> thingy wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 11:09 am, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>>>
>>>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>>> You could try the truth...
>>>
>> Keith Briffa:
>> I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
>> [temperature] proxy data� but in reality the situation is not quite so
>> simple. We don�t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right
>> up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree
>> proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match
>> the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored
>> in the chapter.
>> ...
>> I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
>> ago.
>
> There have been a number of periods with large changes in temperature
> in different parts of the world - usually associated with large
> numbers of deaths, including extinctions of various species. The
> difference now is that we have large human populations in many of the
> areas that are likely to have problems.
If you have a good estimate of the probabilities and a good estimate of
the costs arising from those probabilities you can make a rational
decision on a course of action. At the moment we we have no good
estimate of the probabilities, no good estimate of the timeframe and no
good estimate of the costs. On those grounds the rational decision is
to do nothing.
Furthermore the self evident and historically demonstared downside of
cooling is far worse than any hypothetical downside from warming. On
those grounds, if we are to do anything at all, it should be to prepare
ourselves for cooling.
I guess it is politically
> acceptable to you to do nothing to try to either plan for likely
> change, or to try to avoid catstrophic change - dropping the top tax
> rate is much more important to you, isn't it Roger?
Dropping the top tax rate means nothing to me personally. I am not yet
persuaded that a flat tax is the best option. Neither am I persuaded
that it is not. I am firmly convinced that the government should spend
the money extorted from the taxpayer in the most cost efficient manner.
This, by and large, does not include the sale of major assets overseas.
R
hellicopter
> Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:56:12 +1300, Roger Dewhurst
>> <dewh...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> thingy wrote:
>>>> On Dec 28, 11:09 am, Roger Dewhurst <dewhu...@wave.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>>>>
>>>>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>>>> You could try the truth...
>>>>
>>> Keith Briffa:
>>> I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards
>>> ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the
>>> [temperature] proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so
>>> simple. We don’t have a lot of [temperature] proxies that come right
>>> up to [today] and those that do (at least a significant number of tree
>>> proxies) [have] some unexpected changes in response that do not match
>>> the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored
>>> in the chapter.
>>> ...
>>> I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years
>>> ago.
>>
>> There have been a number of periods with large changes in temperature
>> in different parts of the world - usually associated with large
>> numbers of deaths, including extinctions of various species. The
>> difference now is that we have large human populations in many of the
>> areas that are likely to have problems.
>
> If you have a good estimate of the probabilities and a good estimate of
> the costs arising from those probabilities you can make a rational
> decision on a course of action. At the moment we we have no good
> estimate of the probabilities, no good estimate of the timeframe and no
> good estimate of the costs. On those grounds the rational decision is
> to do nothing.
>
> Furthermore the self evident and historically demonstared downside of
> cooling is far worse than any hypothetical downside from warming. On
> those grounds, if we are to do anything at all, it should be to prepare
> ourselves for cooling.
Cooling will occur after the warming, it will be harsher.
A few points, populations in the middle ages rose and then
crashed, as cultures would endanger themselves, e.g. with poor
hygiene, poor sewage. Basically as the population rose so
did the sewage and so the ensuring plague. Noe just as
we now find out today that changing diets have led to
vitamin D deficiency, could it be we are missing something
else about middle ages. The population needed fuel,
just as the population needed to find ways to rid
itself of sewage. So they cut up the forests and made
it into charcoal. Now remember they were doing this for
hundreds of years and could explain any warming during the
middle ages. Think about it, where did all the forest go?
Burnt into CO2! of course brought on by burgeoning populations.
ChristianKnight
Wheather or not it is proven either way and in my reakoning it leans
toward Global warming getting hotter.
Why we need to go clean and green is to uplift the life of the people
in crowded cities where in some it is so bad they wear mouth masks to
filter the coal and car fumed air.
If we can run our cars on a clean sorce and industry then the
inventiveness and intuition from those right through primary and
secondery industry shall I have no doubt be in a terrific postion to
thrust humanity past dangers Global and from Space with time to spare.
Christ's love
Geoff Rait
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-c...
>>>
>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/11/the-tip-of-the-climat...
>>>
>>> "They say the evidence for the medieval warming period is anecdotal.
>>
>> You could try the truth...
>
>http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
And yet, the science academies of every country and every major
scientific society that's published a position statement on the matter
have concluded that the earth is warming and that human activity is
largely responsible. Perhaps those people don't read? Or perhaps they
read those articles (many of which, by the way, are not in peer-reviewed
journals) in their proper context...
Besides, Roger, I thought you considered the peer-review process to be
broken. What do you care about peer-reviewed papers?
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.