Now we know who pays our trolls

[turtlehurricane]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Cheetah - did you actually read the article you linked to? Here are the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was

a time of

warm

climate

in the

North Atlantic

region,

that may also have been related to other

climate

events around the world during that time, including in

China

,

^[1]

New Zealand

,

^[2]

and other countries

^[3]

^[4]

^[4]

^[5]

^[6]

^[7]

^[8]

lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.

^[9]

It was followed by a cooler period in the

North Atlantic

termed the

Little Ice Age

. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.

^[10]

^[11]

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but

temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.

The heterogeneous nature of climate during the Medieval Warm Period is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.

^[12]

Warmth in some regions appears to have matched or exceeded recent levels of warmth in these regions, but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures.

^[13]

As your own reference states, there is little solid evidence that the MWP was global. There have been attempts to match up warm spells in different regions of the globe in order to show a global MWP, but nothing conclusive has been published. When you expand the definition of the time period involved to 500 years (10th through 14th centuries) you can fit a lot of regional warm spells into that envelope. Contrast that to today's warming during which greater warming has occurred in a matter of decades.

So thank you for showing that my assertion was correct - the myth of a global MWP with temperatures higher than today is just that - a myth. Regional does not equal global, and cooler does not equal warmer.

Congratulations on not being able to read with an unbiased view. You literally bolded the facts that were most against the MWP and ignored everything else. I read both sides and there is a chance that globally the MWP wasn't that warm. However, Europe was quite above average, and the U.S. is only a longwave Rossby wave or 2 from Europe.

[Snow_Miser]

I think I see your confusion - I'm asserting that the MWP was not warmer than today, and probably was not global in nature. I believe Terry's position is the same and I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken.

Those were some interesting charts and papers you linked to. Thank you for that info. But, once again, I have to ask a skeptic - did you actually read what you linked to?

There are many papers that use proxies all throughout the globe that documents the MWP was in fact Global.

http://www.agu.org/p...6GL026151.shtml

This paper used an Alkenone temperature proxy for Eastern China, and they find the MWP was significantly warmer than today by a good margin.

This paper used a Cedar Tree in Japan to find that the MWP was warmer, and existed in Japan.

http://www.agu.org/p...95GL02066.shtml

In New Zealand, the temperature proxies show the MWP was MUCH warmer than today.

http://www.nature.co...s/279315a0.html

In Switzerland, the MWP was MUCH warmer than today as well.

In Iceland, two distinct warming periods are found in the climatic history, both are warmer than the present warm period.

http://hol.sagepub.c...8/1201.abstract

In Canada, the MWP is also prominent, and lasted much longer than today's warm period, and was much warmer.

http://www.sciencedi...033589407000646

In California, the MWP also existed, and was also warmer than today:

http://www.sciencedi...040618207002546

In Greenland, there was also a MWP, and the late-20th Century held some of the coldest years in the proxy record.

http://hol.sagepub.c.../13/3/381.short

In Alaska, the temperature proxy looks the same as it does all throughout the globe- there was a MWP, and it was warmer than today.

In Venezuela, the MWP was also warmer than today's CWP.

http://www.agu.org/p...3GB002132.shtml

In Chile, the MWP was also warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP).

http://www.co2scienc...gunaaculeo2.gif

http://hol.sagepub.c.../19/6/873.short

In Southern South America, it's more of the same.

http://www.co2scienc...1_southensa.gif

http://www.springerl...058kj93562ru02/

As you can see, these are just a sample of hundreds of proxies across the globe that have come to the same conclusion- the MWP was warm, and as you can see from the proxies I posted, the MWP was warmer than today's CWP.

These proxies are scattered all throughout the globe, so yes, I think it's safe to say that the MWP was Global, and it was much warmer Global than today's CWP.

As you can see, your Wikipedia link was wrong when it came to the MWP, citing only the North Atlantic as being warmer than today's CWP and parts of Europe.

I have posted proxies that have come from Asia, Europe, South America, North America, and Austrailia.

The Pro AGW side claims that they do science by consensus.

In the case of the MWP, they refuse to accept the scientific consensus on the MWP in relation to today's CWP.

[Snow_Miser]

if they are fake, why have some who have taken HI money, and the HI itself, corroborated parts of the story?

it's not really. it's patently obvious to the non-denial community that the deniers are using all kinds of propaganda, including outright lies, in order to spread their message (which isn't based in science). they're making their case not in the peer-reviewed literature, but in non-peer-reviewed blogs, many of which are written by people who aren't trained in climatology research.

I didn't say they're all fake.

The document I'm suspicious of is the 2012 Climate Goals PDF, which I can explain for you why, if you'd like.

I don't know why you're al obsessed about what an advocacy think tank does or will do. They have their own personal agenda just like Greenpeace and WWF, and they do not impact the science of Climate Change whatsoever.

[TerryM]

There are many papers that use proxies all throughout the globe that documents the MWP was in fact Global.

As you can see, your Wikipedia link was wrong when it came to the MWP, citing only the North Atlantic as being warmer than today's CWP and parts of Europe.

The Pro AGW side claims that they do science by consensus.

In the case of the MWP, they refuse to accept the scientific consensus on the MWP in relation to today's CWP.

A few pertinent points:

1) This thread is about propaganda operations recently affirmed through E-Mail leaks.

2) The MWP Myth was perpetrated by 2 guys paid for by the Franklin Institute (see above)

3) This debunks the meme - I chose the 'intermediate' level assuming that you are capable of following it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

4) The link to Wiki was not from our side - that was your stooge.

5) Addressing MWP on this thread indicates a knowledge that MWP was in fact one of the propaganda memes used by Heartland.

6) your last bolded statement is of course a lie.

[TerryM]

I didn't say they're all fake.

The document I'm suspicious of is the 2012 Climate Goals PDF, which I can explain for you why, if you'd like.

I don't know why you're al obsessed about what an advocacy think tank does or will do. They have their own personal agenda just like Greenpeace and WWF, and they do not impact the science of Climate Change whatsoever.

Greenpeace & WWF spend funds to send scientists around the world to do research.

Heartland Institute spends money to send propagandists around the internet to misinform.

[FPizz]

Nice post snow....even though it is all a lie. All those papers you cited were paid for and written by stooges with an agenda. Don't even waste your time in these threads. Don't you know the 6 people that waste their lives in here know everything and all?

[cheetah440]

There are many papers that use proxies all throughout the globe that documents the MWP was in fact Global.

http://www.agu.org/p...6GL026151.shtml

This paper used an Alkenone temperature proxy for Eastern China, and they find the MWP was significantly warmer than today by a good margin.

This paper used a Cedar Tree in Japan to find that the MWP was warmer, and existed in Japan.

http://www.agu.org/p...95GL02066.shtml

In New Zealand, the temperature proxies show the MWP was MUCH warmer than today.

http://www.nature.co...s/279315a0.html

In Switzerland, the MWP was MUCH warmer than today as well.

In Iceland, two distinct warming periods are found in the climatic history, both are warmer than the present warm period.

http://hol.sagepub.c...8/1201.abstract

In Canada, the MWP is also prominent, and lasted much longer than today's warm period, and was much warmer.

http://www.sciencedi...033589407000646

In California, the MWP also existed, and was also warmer than today:

http://www.sciencedi...040618207002546

In Greenland, there was also a MWP, and the late-20th Century held some of the coldest years in the proxy record.

http://hol.sagepub.c.../13/3/381.short

In Alaska, the temperature proxy looks the same as it does all throughout the globe- there was a MWP, and it was warmer than today.

In Venezuela, the MWP was also warmer than today's CWP.

http://www.agu.org/p...3GB002132.shtml

In Chile, the MWP was also warmer than the Current Warm Period (CWP).

http://www.co2scienc...gunaaculeo2.gif

http://hol.sagepub.c.../19/6/873.short

In Southern South America, it's more of the same.

http://www.co2scienc...1_southensa.gif

http://www.springerl...058kj93562ru02/

As you can see, these are just a sample of hundreds of proxies across the globe that have come to the same conclusion- the MWP was warm, and as you can see from the proxies I posted, the MWP was warmer than today's CWP.

These proxies are scattered all throughout the globe, so yes, I think it's safe to say that the MWP was Global, and it was much warmer Global than today's CWP.

As you can see, your Wikipedia link was wrong when it came to the MWP, citing only the North Atlantic as being warmer than today's CWP and parts of Europe.

I have posted proxies that have come from Asia, Europe, South America, North America, and Austrailia.

The Pro AGW side claims that they do science by consensus.

In the case of the MWP, they refuse to accept the scientific consensus on the MWP in relation to today's CWP.

Very impressive post with a lot of quality links. I'm sure those who espouse such a strong desire for fact based discussion will congratulate all the work you've done.

Of course there was a MWP. With a MWP, there is no unprecedented 20th century warming, one reason why climate scientists have assaulted the MWP..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

"G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."

Very easy to see why the MWP is such a pesky buggar.

And speaking of Jones, he's also on record admitting that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995:

"

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods"

Another very interesting remark:

"N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

Certainly not the impression you would get from reading the NYT, Time mag, watching NBC/ABC/CBS, listening to teachers in public schools etc.

[TerryM]

Why do some believe that repeating a lie often enough will cause a metamorphosis with the lie emerging as a truth?

It's a very old method of propagandizing, but not terribly effective. Children on the playground often use it in the 'it is too - it is not' form, but most grow out of this well before puberty.

If MWP was a fact, Friv's statements about aged things being found as glaciers retreat must be lies - however these are not terribly isolated instances, and some have held the public's attention for fairly long periods - Otzi comes to mind.

Rather than shouting IT IS TOO over and over on this thread, why don't you start a MWP thread and see how well it goes.

[dabize]

Why do some believe that repeating a lie often enough will cause a metamorphosis with the lie emerging as a truth?

It's a very old method of propagandizing, but not terribly effective. Children on the playground often use it in the 'it is too - it is not' form, but most grow out of this well before puberty.

Ah, Terry if only this were so. It is certainly childish, but unfortunately it is all too effective.

Not in changing the lie to truth, of course, but in having the lie ACCEPTED as truth, which is just as good.

Example - Ronald W. Reagan won the Cold War.

[TerryM]

Ah, Terry if only this were so. It is certainly childish, but unfortunately it is all too effective.

Not in changing the lie to truth, of course, but in having the lie ACCEPTED as truth, which is just as good.

Example - Ronald W. Reagan won the Cold War.

You mean to tell me Rompin Ronny didn't win it. I thought he did that just before he forgot that he funded the Contras - or was it just after conquering Grenada?

[Snow_Miser]

1) This thread is about propaganda operations recently affirmed through E-Mail leaks.

2) The MWP Myth was perpetrated by 2 guys paid for by the Franklin Institute (see above)

3) This debunks the meme - I chose the 'intermediate' level assuming that you are capable of following it.

http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm

4) The link to Wiki was not from our side - that was your stooge.

5) Addressing MWP on this thread indicates a knowledge that MWP was in fact one of the propaganda memes used by Heartland.

6) your last bolded statement is of course a lie.

Response to your 6 points:

1) The MWP is a topic highly debated in the Climate Change Forum, and all threads on the Climate Change Forum eventually go off topic discussing something else other than the intiial topic post. Look at the first few pages of the Sea Ice Thread for example.

2) Saying that the MWP was a myth implies that you are claiming that it doesn't exist at all, and you would be the only person that I have met on an internet forum that would have made such a claim.

3) The so-called "evidence" that disproves my claim relys on a low proxy model that reconstructed the past temperature.

That's not going to cut hundreds, even thousands of peer reviewed papers that all claim that there was a MWP, and it was warmer than today's current CWP.

4) I should have said "your quote that you selected from the Wikipedia link."

5) Doesn't mean anything of the sort. It's just another case of a climate change thread going off topic.

6) You're right- there is no scientific consensus on Climate Change, so it is impossible to do science by consensus.

[Snow_Miser]

Greenpeace & WWF spend funds to send scientists around the world to do research.

Heartland Institute spends money to send propagandists around the internet to misinform.

There's a clear double standard in your post above.

[WeatherRusty]

My take on this is that there was a MWP, just like there was a LIA. Was it global in nature? Was it globally warmer than today? I doubt it, but who knows for sure, maybe it was, but what does it really matter. Like I stated earlier in this thread, the MWP was definitely not warmer than the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Those that think AGW science hinges on the latter part of the 20th century being unprecedented as the warmest it has been in the last X years are mistaken. Go back far enough and I guarantee the world was hugely warmer than today. So what? How does that fact undo the physical basis for AGW?

[TerryM]

Lets start with

1) Just because other threads go off topic is no reason to deliberately derail this one.

2) Not true - The myth is that MWP was a global event.

3) The 'evidence' that disproves your claims is exhaustive, peer reviewed and obvious. Provide links to 10 peer reviewed studies that show MWP warming to be greater than todays.

4) Yes you should have.

5) See 1)

6) You're right - Science is done by peer review.

[TerryM]

My take on this is that there was a MWP, just like there was a LIA. Was it global in nature? Was it globally warmer than today? I doubt it, but who knows for sure, maybe it was, but what does it really matter. Like I stated earlier in this thread, the MWP was definitely not warmer than the Holocene Thermal Maximum 8,000 years ago.

Those that think AGW science hinges on the latter part of the 20th century being unprecedented as the warmest it has been in the last X years are mistaken. Go back far enough and I guarantee the world was hugely warmer than today. So what? How does that fact undo the physical basis for AGW?

Well put!!

[Snow_Miser]

How does that fact undo the physical basis for AGW?

It doesn't. Some may think that this does undo the physcial basis for AGW, so they try and argue that there was no MWP.

[Snow_Miser]

2) Not true - The myth is that MWP was a global event.

3) The 'evidence' that disproves your claims is exhaustive, peer reviewed and obvious. Provide links to 10 peer reviewed studies that show MWP warming to be greater than todays.

I have posted 17 different papers which use 17 different proxies all throughout the globe. If you want me to post more proxies that supports my position I am more than happy to oblige.

[TerryM]

I have posted 17 different papers which use 17 different proxies all throughout the globe. If you want me to post more proxies that supports my position I am more than happy to oblige.

I'll play - for a while

The paper you posted for Lake Silvaplana clearly states that the period they studied began in 1580, is this when MWP occurred - or is this paper irrelevant.

[cheetah440]

Response to your 6 points:

1) The MWP is a topic highly debated in the Climate Change Forum, and all threads on the Climate Change Forum eventually go off topic discussing something else other than the intiial topic post. Look at the first few pages of the Sea Ice Thread for example.

2) Saying that the MWP was a myth implies that you are claiming that it doesn't exist at all, and you would be the only person that I have met on an internet forum that would have made such a claim.

3) The so-called "evidence" that disproves my claim relys on a low proxy model that reconstructed the past temperature.

That's not going to cut hundreds, even thousands of peer reviewed papers that all claim that there was a MWP, and it was warmer than today's current CWP.

4) I should have said "your quote that you selected from the Wikipedia link."

5) Doesn't mean anything of the sort. It's just another case of a climate change thread going off topic.

6) You're right- there is no scientific consensus on Climate Change, so it is impossible to do science by consensus.

It's well known and has been widely published that the MWP has had a bullseye on it from Climate change cult scientists for a long time. It's all over the CRU emails. They obsess over it and there are dozens of emails from various scientists questioning the results of Mann and the work that dismissed the MWP. What you have is science that has a desired outcome in mind from the onset. "we have to get rid of the MWP". "“I would like to see the climate change happen,so the science could be proved right" - Phil Jones

Email exchange between: Michael Mann, Edward Cook and Tom Crowley, May 2, 2001, (Subject: “Hockey Stick” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=228&filename=988831541.txt]).

Cook to Crowley: “These chronologies are not good at

preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of

sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are

probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than

averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology

extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm

Period - Little Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong

decadal fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of

neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH …

the Esper series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period - Little

Ice Age - 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the

hockey stick. …

I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it

exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the

precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do

find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global

event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”

Mann to Christy: “I'll be very disturbed

if you turn out to have played into this in a way that is unfair to your

co-authors on chapter 2 [of the IPCC TAR], and your colleagues in general. This wouldn't

have surprised me coming from certain individuals, but I honestly expected

more from you”

Christy to Mann: “In one of the pre-interviews they asked about the "Hockey Stick". I

told them of my doubts about the intercentury precision of the record,

especially the early part, and that other records suggested the period

1000 years ago was warmer. …

I've been very disappointed with what has gone

on even with respect to some of the IPCC elders and their pronouncements

for forthcoming disasters. …

the dose of climate change disasters that have been

dumped on the average citizen is designed to be overly alarmist and

could lead us to make some bad policy decisions. (I've got a good story

about the writers of the TIME cover piece a couple of months ago that

proves they were not out to discuss the issue but to ignore science and

influence government.)

Regarding the IPCC. The IPCC TAR is good, but it is not perfect nor

sacred and is open to criticism as any document should be. …

Some of the story lines used to generate

high temperature changes are simply ridiculous.”

Email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones and others, Jun 4, 2003, (Subject: “Prospective Eos Piece?” [http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=319&filename=1054736277.txt]).

“it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet

have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back”

Email exchange between Keith Briffa and Edward Cook, Apr 12, 2005, (Subject: “Review” [http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=310&filename=1051638938.txt]).

Cook to Briffa: “as one is honest and open about evaluating the evidence (I have my doubts

about the MBH camp).

I just don't want to get into an open critique

of the Esper data because it would just add fuel to the MBH attack squad. They tend to

work in their own somewhat agenda-filled ways.”

Briffa to Cook: “Bradley still regards the MWP as "mysterious" and "very incoherent" (his latest

pronouncement to me) based on the available data. Of course he and other members of the

MBH camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view

their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective”

Email between Phil Jones and John Christy, Jul 5, 2005, (Subject: “This and that”

[http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt]).

Jones to Christy: “I would like to see the climate change happen,

so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This

isn't being political, it is being selfish.”

[Snow_Miser]

I'll play - for a while

The paper you posted for Lake Silvaplana clearly states that the period they studied began in 1580, is this when MWP occurred - or is this paper irrelevant.

Sorry, that's the wrong paper that I posted. I meant to post this paper:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r18305861087j242/

The title of the image for which the proxy is for does not match with the paper I linked to. The above link is the correct paper.

[Snow_Miser]

It's well known and has been widely published that the MWP has had a bullseye on it from Climate change cult scientists for a long time.

Cheetah, you and I probably agree on a lot of things.

We both agree that the MWP was real, was global, and was warmer than today.

We probably also agree that human influences on the climate are minimal compared to the very large natural variability that takes place within Earth's Climate.

It's good to have someone on this forum who shares such similar views to myself.

The aspect where we may diverge is on the issue of Climate Gate.

[TerryM]

Sorry, that's the wrong paper that I posted. I meant to post this paper:

http://www.springerl...8305861087j242/

The title of the image for which the proxy is for does not match with the paper I linked to. The above link is the correct paper.

When was the global manifestation of the MWP supposed to occur?

And how did a paper referencing 16th century material get included?

[cheetah440]

Cheetah, you and I probably agree on a lot of things.

We both agree that the MWP was real, was global, and was warmer than today.

We probably also agree that human influences on the climate are minimal compared to the very large natural variability that takes place within Earth's Climate.

It's good to have someone on this forum who shares such similar views to myself.

The aspect where we may diverge is on the issue of Climate Gate.

There's many who share the same views.

For the record, I don't think climate gate proves what some think it proves. Like "hide the decline", that sounds far worse than what it really means.

When I post the climate gate emails, I focus on issues such as the MWP for example. Because that shows THEY are focused on it and shows they acknowledge it and it's meaning. I do however think that some of Phil Jones writings are a bit damning on the overall objectivity of the "science". The emails show a ton of skepticism, healthy skepticism throughout by a number of scientists. For some reason they tend to stay quiet, it's like a handful of powerful people can keep them quiet. This worries me about the true nature of the science and again, their objectivity.

[Snow_Miser]

When was the global manifestation of the MWP supposed to occur?

And how did a paper referencing 16th century material get included?

It varies in different proxies, but they all agree that it was somewhere around 1000-1300 AD.

I searched the paper up on Google Scholar and I made a mistake by putting the wrong link down in my post.

That's all.

[TerryM]

It varies in different proxies, but they all agree that it was somewhere around 1000-1300 AD.

I searched the paper up on Google Scholar and I made a mistake by putting the wrong link down in my post.

That's all.

300 years is a wide window - are you claiming that the globe was warm for this entire period, or that somewhere within that period the globe was warmer than it is today?

[Snow_Miser]

300 years is a wide window - are you claiming that the globe was warm for this entire period, or that somewhere within that period the globe was warmer than it is today?

It is, but temperature proxies like everything else associated with measuring temperatures, have their uncertainties.

Some proxies show it being warm this whole period, while others show it being warm for a time in this period.

That is why you can't take a few proxies, with data that already has high uncertainty bars and extend them across the entire globe, because then you have created an even more uncertain dataset.

However, this is what Dr. Mann did when he tried to get a Global perspective of Sea Level Change over the past 2000 years.

[dabize]

There's many who share the same views.

For the record, I don't think climate gate proves what some think it proves. Like "hide the decline", that sounds far worse than what it really means.

When I post the climate gate emails, I focus on issues such as the MWP for example. Because that shows THEY are focused on it and shows they acknowledge it and it's meaning. I do however think that some of Phil Jones writings are a bit damning on the overall objectivity of the "science". The emails show a ton of skepticism, healthy skepticism throughout by a number of scientists. For some reason they tend to stay quiet, it's like a handful of powerful people can keep them quiet. This worries me about the true nature of the science and again, their objectivity.

The current state of warfare by denialists is responsible for this

The perpetual assault by paid shills of their political enemies has not exactly made private discussions a likely venue for judicious objectivity.

These folks would have to be both saints and ineffective losers to ignore what is around them. You are asking for the Moon.

But maybe you know that......

[Snow_Miser]

Heartland should take legal action on the faker. Many many people are able to recognize the basic fact that it is a fake and its only purpose was to make the Heartland Institute look bad.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/02/reality-is-not-good-enough.html?m=1

The entire Heartland document episode has become far more interesting than a typical tale of an advocacy group paying off shills now that it seems clear that one of the documents that was leaked was in fact a fake. Megan McArdle at The Atlantic does a heroic job examining the documents (something that apparently most reporters failed to do) and concludes that it is fake (I agree):

By the way the link that Dr. Pielke Jr. links to in the quotation is a good read.

[cheetah440]

The current state of warfare by denialists is responsible for this

The perpetual assault by paid shills of their political enemies has not exactly made private discussions a likely venue for judicious objectivity.

These folks would have to be both saints and ineffective losers to ignore what is around them. You are asking for the Moon.

But maybe you know that......

LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This post is a gem for the ages.

[BeastFromTheEast]

LOL, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This post is a gem for the ages.