GlobalWarmingAlarmists.com

[Co2sceptic]

Hi Gropes

One question on this for you, were the 1930's warmer then the 1990's?

[Gropes]

Hi Gropes

One question on this for you, were the 1930's warmer then the 1990's?

Oh right, are we leading up to infamous 1934 thing? Wonderfully misreported by FOX news that NASA now reassess 1934 to be globally the hottest year? I can't believe this disinformation is still doing the rounds.

[Ravenna]

Yes I'm sure, I've been told many times the MWP was warmer than today because Vikings called Greenland 'green'. But in that cause I wonder why they called Iceland 'ice' even though its supposed to be warmer there? Anyway, it's good because history books and swords and sandals movies really give you an accurate log of past climate.

As if a blogspot is going to convince anyone that the hockey stick is phoney. Get real people. The hockey stick has been investigated and independently assessed. The NAS report largely agrees with it, i.e. the 20th Century most likely warmest.

I never talked about Greenland or Iceland at all.It is obvious that you quickly ran short of any credible counterpoint comeback and used the DEFLECTION gambit in the desperate hope to throw me off the track.

It is obvious that you can not deflect Dr. North's statement,thus you just try the run around baloney.

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

Did you use your glasses this time?

[Gropes]

:lol:

Yes I'm sure, I've been told many times the MWP was warmer than today because Vikings called Greenland 'green'. But in that cause I wonder why they called Iceland 'ice' even though its supposed to be warmer there? Anyway, it's good because history books and swords and sandals movies really give you an accurate log of past climate.

As if a blogspot is going to convince anyone that the hockey stick is phoney. Get real people. The hockey stick has been investigated and independently assessed. The NAS report largely agrees with it, i.e. the 20th Century most likely warmest.

I never talked about Greenland or Iceland at all.It is obvious that you quickly ran short of any credible counterpoint comeback and used the DEFLECTION gambit in the desperate hope to throw me off the track.

It is obvious that you can not deflect Dr. North's statement,thus you just try the run around baloney.

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

Did you use your glasses this time?

Sure, post selected texts, just like the emails. I'm aware Mann methodology came in for some criticism. But the NAS reports conclusion are the same. The 20th century most likely warmest. Which part of '20th century most likely warmest' do you not understand?

[Gropes]

I never talked about Greenland or Iceland at all.It is obvious that you quickly ran short of any credible counterpoint comeback and used the DEFLECTION gambit in the desperate hope to throw me off the track.

Well you did say MWP was warmer than now. The evidence for that in the denilaist world is the fact Vikings called Greenland green? Or have you some other evidence you saw in some other movie?

[Mike Davis]

Groupie:
You continue to attempt to mislead with Myths>
For you I found a quote that is appropriate to the situation:
Excerpt:
Contrary to a myth believed in by the climate science “community”, most recent multiproxy reconstructions are not “independent” – they merely recycle the same stereotypes with slightly different weighting methods. In an email (1140039406.txt) in which Briffa urges Overpeck not not to “over egg the pudding”, he stated: “Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re “hockey stick” and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal.”
That was from the latest thread at Climateaudit:
I am glad you brought up your myth about Greenland being thought to be warmer during the MWP because the Viking called it green. See the way I first heard the myth was that Iceland got that name to make people think that was not a good place and greenland got that name to attract settlers because it was not green. It appears that recent retreat of the glaciers proved that Greenland was green during the MWP because shrubs and farm sites are being uncovered from beneath the ice. The tree lines in northern Canada were further north than they are now. Records from the time of the Vikings do provide anecdotal evidence of a warmer climate and retreating glaciers provide real world supporting evidence of that.
See the thread on the Swiss Alps here and feel free to join on the discussion there about the MWP:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=504
Of course if needed I could provide evidence from NOAA regarding the MWP also and how the climate was in the Arctic region. But the evidence is a bit thin so it may be hard for you to find here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/
Or maybe here for research into glacial interglacial;
http://www.clim-past.net/5/21/2009/cp-5-21-2009.pdf
I will provide more as I find them and I know others will also but it seems you are the one adicted to fantasy movies such as AIT and 6 degrees or the Day After Tomorrow.
I forgot an important site:
http://theresilientearth.com/

[Ravenna]

:lol:

Yes I'm sure, I've been told many times the MWP was warmer than today because Vikings called Greenland 'green'. But in that cause I wonder why they called Iceland 'ice' even though its supposed to be warmer there? Anyway, it's good because history books and swords and sandals movies really give you an accurate log of past climate.

As if a blogspot is going to convince anyone that the hockey stick is phoney. Get real people. The hockey stick has been investigated and independently assessed. The NAS report largely agrees with it, i.e. the 20th Century most likely warmest.

I never talked about Greenland or Iceland at all.It is obvious that you quickly ran short of any credible counterpoint comeback and used the DEFLECTION gambit in the desperate hope to throw me off the track.

It is obvious that you can not deflect Dr. North's statement,thus you just try the run around baloney.

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield who Mann says above came to the opposite conclusions as Prof Hand, were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

Did you use your glasses this time?

Sure, post selected texts, just like the emails. I'm aware Mann methodology came in for some criticism. But the NAS reports conclusion are the same. The 20th century most likely warmest. Which part of '20th century most likely warmest' do you not understand?

What you really mean is that you have no reasonable couterpoint to make,just this evasive factless reply is all you can dredge up.

Sad.

[Mike Davis]

Groupie:
Just for you!
For a little light research you could try here:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Tech ... topic=2050
This paper refers to your obsession with Vikings and Arctic weather/ climate:
http://paleoforge.com/papers/EnvironArchaeo.pdf
I will provide a teaser quote for you:
Both sites record temperature variations of 2–4°C corresponding to changes in hunting modes and occupationabandonment
cycles on Devon and Ellesmere Islands. Our data show that from ~6500 to 2600 BP, there were large
oscillations in summer SST from 2–4°C cooler than present to 6°C warmer and SIC ranged from 2 months more sea
ice to 4 months more open water. The warmer interval corresponds to the period of pre-Dorset cultures that hunted
muskox and caribou. Subsequent marine-based Dorset and Neo-eskimo cultures correspond to progressively cooler
intervals with expanded sea ice cover. The warming took ~50–100 years and lasted ~300 years before replacement
by colder intervals lasting ~200–500 years. These climate oscillations are more rapid than the archaeological cultural
changes, but are of similar length to successive Palaeoeskimo occupations in the Nares Strait region.

[Ravenna]

I never talked about Greenland or Iceland at all.It is obvious that you quickly ran short of any credible counterpoint comeback and used the DEFLECTION gambit in the desperate hope to throw me off the track.

Well you did say MWP was warmer than now. The evidence for that in the denilaist world is the fact Vikings called Greenland green? Or have you some other evidence you saw in some other movie?

I never stated that Greenland being green was evidence of a MWP.

You are full of crap here because you are so desperate with creating arguments that does not exist and then try to slap me with it.It is so stupid!

[Gropes]

What you really mean is that you have no reasonable couterpoint to make,just this evasive factless reply is all you can dredge up.

Sad.

Which particular counterpoint do you want me to make? That Mann was criticised in his methods? Yes thank you, I'm aware of that. But the NAS conclusion is, the 20th Century most likely warmest. That's what the conclusion of the report says, why don't you read it, it's on the last page? What more do you want me to say? Do you want me to make something up to please you?