Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
> >
> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >
> >
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have
been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer
during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than
ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars
and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are
pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's
accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s
had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study
yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings
of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing
at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <bpg9t30i20@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> I wish you wouldn't get your "facts" from right-wing propaganda sources.>
> >
> >As opposed to what, your lefty friends in academia, the socialist press,
> >looney-left websites, etc.?
> >
> >
> No, peer-reviewed scientific journals and groups like NASA, NOAA, EPA,
> National Aacdemy of Sciences, etc.

Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 06/04/2003)

Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have
been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer
during the Middle Ages.

From the outset of the global warming debate in the late 1980s,
environmentalists have said that temperatures are rising higher and faster than
ever before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars
and power stations are causing these "record-breaking" global temperatures.

Last year, scientists working for the UK Climate Impacts Programme said that
global temperatures were "the hottest since records began" and added: "We are
pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's
accelerating."

This announcement followed research published in 1998, when scientists at the
Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia declared that the 1990s
had been hotter than any other period for 1,000 years.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study
yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240
scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest
over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in
stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings
of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and
historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing
at sites around the world.

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the
ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than
today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...06/nclim06.xml

 

In article <bpitoc02mob@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <
>
>Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
>refutes your claims.
>

If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.

>> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
> some little child.<
>
>No, you call them "right-wingers".
>
>

 

In article <bpitoc02mob@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <
>
>Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
>refutes your claims.
>

If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.

>> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
> some little child.<
>
>No, you call them "right-wingers".
>
>

 

In article <bpitoc02mob@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> No, we look to science -- peer-reviewed scientific journals, groups like
>EPA, NASA, NOAA, etc. <
>
>Seems they've been referred to several time here by others in a manner which
>refutes your claims.
>

If you think so, you're ignorant then. Go to the agencies and read what they
say. Go to the scientific literature and read what's being published.

>> We don't just call people who disagree "socialists" like
> some little child.<
>
>No, you call them "right-wingers".
>
>

 

In article <bpitqk02mra@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <
>
>But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
>of co2.

No. Isotope dating works very well.

>
>> (2) The world of science disagrees. <
>
>No, only the world of science you chose to quote.
>
>
No, the scientific literature and agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC,
National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union...

Find me some sources to the contrary.

 

In article <bpitqk02mra@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <
>
>But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
>of co2.

No. Isotope dating works very well.

>
>> (2) The world of science disagrees. <
>
>No, only the world of science you chose to quote.
>
>
No, the scientific literature and agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC,
National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union...

Find me some sources to the contrary.

 

In article <bpitqk02mra@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Jerry McGeorge" <gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> (1) We measure air trapped in arctic ice cores. <
>
>But your methods of dating them are complete conjecture, as is the sources
>of co2.

No. Isotope dating works very well.

>
>> (2) The world of science disagrees. <
>
>No, only the world of science you chose to quote.
>
>
No, the scientific literature and agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA, IPCC,
National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union...

Find me some sources to the contrary.

 

In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>
>No we don't!
>
>Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
>of CO2. They may be right or not.

Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as much
unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.


>Your agreement with their belief does not prove
>it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything.

Uh, the data does.


>The
>global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at
one
>input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.

No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.


>As a
>scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't
even
>have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
>They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
>it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
>associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
>claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed
the
>data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated
as a
>loon.

Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
Sciences report?

>
>Ed
>

 

In article <3FBD08A4.14331320@mindspring.com>,
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >Fact: we don't *know* why there were warming periods in the past.
>>
>> Irrelevant. We know why there's one now.
>
>No we don't!
>
>Some scientist believe the reason is an increase in the atmospheric
concentration
>of CO2. They may be right or not.

Actually, I'd say more like 99% of scientists so believe. And that's as much
unanimity as you'll find on anything in science.


>Your agreement with their belief does not prove
>it. Citing papers, even peer reviewed papers, still doesn't prove anything.

Uh, the data does.


>The
>global climate is a very complicated system with lots of inputs. Looking at
one
>input and one change and declaring they are cause and effect is BS.

No it's not. It's done all the time. It's called factor analysis.


>As a
>scientist you should know this. The scientist doing climate research don't
even
>have really good data on the solar constant for more than the last few years.
>They are estimating historic temperatures from sketchy data or trying to
infere
>it from effects that they believe are related to the temperature. The errors
>associated with these measurement are much greater than the changes they are
>claiming. It is junk science. They decided on the conclusion and then groomed
the
>data to fit it. Anyone that doesn't agree with the establishment is treated
as a
>loon.

Simply not true. Have you read the IPCC report? The National Academy of
Sciences report?

>
>Ed
>