Sunday Times publish pseudo-science as it were fact – their “scientists” have links to big oil

“Sit down, man, you’re a bloody tragedy.”

The climate-skeptic movement is all over the place.

*Yawn*

Another shouty little article from the climate change camp.

Hang on a minute. I’m no denier, I am very concerned by the evidence that man is warming the planet, and by the efforts of oil-funded Deniers to distort the science. But this blogpost has left me totally confused. It says that this organisation, the SPPI, which is a “spin off” from an Exxon-funded group, is “named in the article as the source of the research”. I’ve just read the Sunday Times article and re-read it twice, and unless I’m blind, it doesn’t mention SPPI at all. Can you point me to the relevant paragraph please?

It does reference this Watts character but only in the 2nd half of the piece, after quotes from 2 other scientists, who are both mentioned as having had something to do with the IPCC process, but now have concerns about it’s methodology.

Overall I thought the Sunday Times article was very weak, it was poor journalism, and the headline was truly pathetic: “Scientists have concerns about temperature data collection” would have been far more accurate than “world may not be warming”. But your blog has also failed, nearly as badly, to convince me that all the people quoted are oil company stooges. Is it any wonder a lot of people are so confused on this issue?

@Tyler

Yes, how dare Dr Goldacre try to disprove spurious comments printed in a national newspaper with dirty money by using facts and evidence? Perish the thought!

Jesus fucking Christ, this old chestnut. How desperate are you?

RT @bengoldacre: Sunday Times publish some pretty desperate climate pseudoscience http://ow.ly/16zRNk

Joss Garman – Now you’ve lost the argument on Climate Change you now resort to the new left’s tactic of smearing the messenger. Congratulations.

Why not explain how one of the thermometers showing a rise in climate change was near to the exhaust vents of an air conditioning unit?

Whatever you do though never never never use science to prove your point…

Who pays your wages Joss? Can you at least answer that one?

RT @bengoldacre: Sunday Times publish some pretty desperate climate pseudoscience http://ow.ly/16zRNk

“Whatever you do though never never never use science to prove your point…”

Anon E Mouse the exact same thing could be said about the climate-skeptics, given what the majority of scientists think.

I have doubts about what impact, if any, the manufactured controvercy that ‘climategate’ has become.

RT @bengoldacre: Sunday Times publish some pretty desperate climate pseudoscience http://ow.ly/16zRNk

Mr.Sensible – You may have doubts about the impact but everyone else doesn’t. Only 24% now believe in (man made) climate change – down from 41% I believe.

It is in the interests of Joss Garman and his ilk who earn a living from this nonsense to perpetuate the whole thing.

This is going to go the way of GM food, cell phones causing cancer, MMR, Swine Flu, CJD and all the other scare stories that just get superseded by newer scare stories…

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/02/sunday-times-publish-pseudo-science-as-it-were-fact-their-scientists-have-links-to-big-oil/

[...] Foot Forward has some of the relevant background to Watts’ report, which he co-authored with another well-known climate change denier, Joseph [...]

This blog post does a real disservice to Climate Science and I’m surprised that Ben Goldacre promoted it.

What do the distasteful (Godwinesque) personal comments about a campaigner, and your other ad hominem attacks, have to do with the article, and why hold up the WMO and NOAA statistics as if they contradict the claim made (right or wrong) when, in fact, they don’t?

Don’t stoop to the opposing side’s level!

Sunday Times forgets to check extreme bias in sources when reporting the 'non-existence' of climate change: http://tinyurl.com/ykbfpo5

Leakegate is getting bigger and bigger.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_scandal_grows.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_scandal_gets_bigger.php?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_the_case_for_fraud.php?

Reading the thread on this Sunday Times piece http://ow.ly/17sLH and considering topping myself

So “only 24% believe in man made global warming”. So?
I like the idea that facts are determined by how many people believe in them. But I think religion already has the rights to that one.
And in the real world it doesn’t matter who believes what, so it’s not particularly impressive that 76% of the world’s population doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Similar numbers I’ll bet didn’t believe that tobacco smoke is the single biggest cause of lung cancer, or that tetra-ethyl lead in petrol cause drain damage, or that CFCs in the atmosphere destroy the ozone layer, or that asbestos particles in the air can kill you… all those silly scares.
It’s easy to talk about climate science and (and the work of thousands of scientist around the world) and compare it to MMR scares (and Saint Andrew Wakefield’s lying and conniving) and the like, but it’s also moronic and shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the scientific process works.

pv – You miss the point. The science clearly isn’t settled – if it was then the glaciers would be gone by 2035 and on and on. Your opinion is now in a minority which doesn’t make it wrong but without public opinion on your side you fight a losing battle.

Two years ago everyone believed that MMR caused autism. At one time people believed the world was flat. Both opinions have been shown to be wrong and in time most people believe that this climate stuff will be proven wrong also.

As the oils runs out; by definition less can be used resulting in less CO2.

If you believe the change in climate is man made (I don’t know myself) shouldn’t you be angry that “scientists” at the CRU behaved so badly? Why not challenge the sceptics with science rather than the usual shoot the messenger stuff.

I was lead to believe that 1998 was the hottest year on record so for over a decade the planet has cooled. What’s the problem then?

RT @bengoldacre: Sunday Times publish some pretty desperate climate pseudoscience http://ow.ly/16zRNk

Anon E Mouse, how can you believe that a mistake in the WG2 report says that the Himalayan Glaciers were going to be gone by 2035, when it should have said 2350 means the science isn’t settled. Also note that this number is in the 1000 page impacts report. In chapter of the 1000 page (WG1) science report they have 45 pages on glaciers snow and ice. See http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter4.pdf where they got the number right.

There are very few medical research scientists in the peer review press believed that MMR caused autism. Just like in the 1970s there were very climate scientists who thought global cooling was the problem rather than global warming.

As to the scientists at CRU, throughout all the files and e-mails there is no evidence they tried to fix the data, commit scientific fraud. Hide the Decline was a non issue. Criticizing certain journals for their lack of full peer review rigour and discussing what to do about it and some of the poor quality articles that were published privately amongst colleagues seems not unreasonable, some of their comments were over the top but at least it was private unlike comments on blogs, but all the papers in question were fully covered in the IPCC reports. Just remember that at the time half the editorial board resigned from one of the journals in question after they found that the journal publisher in league with one of the editors were pushing poor quality climate skeptic papers through the review process behind the backs of the other editors.

As to what the temperature range is that the climate scientists would have expected for the last 10 years then check out the graphs linked to here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

By the way there is plenty of tar sands and coal to cook the climate. Conventional oil reserves maybe not.
Kevin

Kevin – I don’t know what causes climate change – I was lead to believe it has always changed – I’m old enough to remember the Global Cooling in the 1970′s.

My point is that silly alarmist scare stories from the climate change brigade do little to convince the public of your case – especially when a scientifically illiterate man like the Prime Minister calls me a “Flat Earther” and then taxes poor people on cheap holiday flights.

And those other idiot party leaders, Clegg and Cameron are no better.

Do you not think that having a Chairman of the IPCC like Dr Rajendra Pachauri is a mistake?

I have asked before but if this government really believed in climate change they wouldn’t have gone ahead with the third runway at Heathrow any more than Al Gore would step near a plane.

This whole thing has become a religion and until I see proof, not peer reviewed opinion, I remain to be convinced. The planet keeps cooling…

Fair point on the oil reserves though…

I do think that Pachauri was not the best choice, he was forced on the IPCC by Bush and co because Bush and Co didn’t like the Clinton incumbent who according to Bush was too alarmist. Bush wanted someone who was more “Business friendly”. You might remember the global cooling of the seventies, but a paper looking at the published papers of the 70s and whether they were for cooling or warming definitely showed the scientists were on the warming side by a big margin.

What did you think of the graphs of temperature change?

Kevin

By the way any theory, even obvious ones like the conservation of energy can never be proved, they can only be disproved. All science can do with any theory is improve their level of confidence in that theory. That is why we always have to make judgements, at what level of confidence do we decide to take action?

Kevin – I agree with the need to reduce fossil fuels – I have been composting etc as long as I can remember and I never use a car other than my journey to work.

What I don’t agree with is being dictated to by a hypocritical ruling class of elites who do not practice what they preach – particularly journalists such as Polly Toynbee who flies to a villa in Italy every other weekend or government ministers who clock up air miles on unnecessary journeys.

No matter what the latest scare is the poor get taxed to the hilt.

I’ll check the graphs later – got an important job on needed for the morning.

Have a good one dude…

RT @bengoldacre: Sunday Times publish some pretty desperate climate pseudoscience http://ow.ly/16zRNk

[...] Leftfootforward.org says the organisation named in the article is a global warming skeptics group, while one of the authors is “a leading climate denial blogger and somebody without any climate science credentials.” Share and Enjoy: [...]

I have to say that Anon E Mouse’s sharp turn from “don’t shoot the messenger” to doing nothing but shoot messengers provided me with a few minutes of entertainment.

@kayaburgess The chances of that are rather slim http://is.gd/8uyVX Vested interests shall we say?

Bob – Glad to provide the entertainment and I stand by everything I said about Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Regarding Phil Jones he should have been sacked. Now he has said:

1. The world may have been warmer in pre-CO2 days – he’s right. We used to grow grapes in Vine Street in Cardiff…

2. The temperature between 1920-1940 and 1975-1998 experienced similar temperature increases…

3. There has been no significant warming in the last 15 years – again we know that since 1998 was “The hottest year on record”…

That’s just Phil Jones the man who destroyed data that didn’t belong to him.

The problem with this subject is that people who advocate the incorrect position of Climate Change being man made will not engage with any science – they just produce flawed graphs made from unreliable data and then state computer models show blah blah or peer reviews opine blah blah.

Then they get on their high horses and refuse to engage in debate. Good. Especially from those who are paid to spout off their opinions…

Luckily the world seems to have woken up since that life wasting farce in Copenhagen and finally something can be done to help address the energy needs of poor people in Africa and China who just want to advance their societies as we have…

Mr Mouse,

Your point 3. Have you looked at the graphs I’d suggested because if you did, you would see that the temperature since 2000 has been exactly where the climate modellers would have expected it to be.

Your point 1. So are you saying that because grapes where once grown in Cardiff that, that proves that temperatures where higher globally?

Your point 2. Note how that the periods between the temperature rises did not decline anything like as much as they rose. Natural variations are quite large, global warming sits on top of that and it is clear that with climate features like the multi decadal oscillation their are natural variations that can last over 20 years and even 30 years. So this rise in temperatures followed by shallow declines, and then another rise in temperature can easily be seen as global warming overlaying the natural variation. Just because we have AGW doesn’t mean that the natural cycles disappear, they might change in frequency or pattern because of AGW factors but many of them remain.

Kevin

Mr Mouse,

In reference to your 8:02 am comment on the 15th.

You should read up about the impact of the temperature record of weather stations near air conditioning units. See this discussion: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/28/watts-not-to-love-new-study-finds-the-poor-u-s-weather-stations-tend-to-have-a-slight-cool-bias-not-a-warm-one/

You can download the original published peer reviewed paper here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

Unfortunately the reason for their poor locations is that they are part of the automated temperature measurement network, which means they need to be fairly close to a building with a phone line so that the results can be automatically sent to the met offices headquarters. The analysis by the paper mentioned compared the automated stations to the manual stations set far away from buildings and categorized by Watts as good quality location and found that the automated stations were recording lower temperatures than the nearby manual stations. Read the discussion and paper linked to find out why.

Kevin

Kevin – What’s your profession fella?

Why do you ask when you are only known as Mr Mouse?

Kevin – What does my name have to do with an interest in your job? Just interested is all. You seem to be pretty up to speed on this topic is all. Most people around here never seem to be able to present a case for their statements (even if that case may not be correct).

Me – I’m an engineer currently sub-contracted to work on two projects for energy saving and remote monitoring of gas, water and electricity and the control of those items via the internet.

We have just completed two 12 month test sites where we have cut electricity usage (with no effect on the users in the building) of 26% minimum. That includes outside lighting control and storage heaters remotely set by computer without the need of a timer locally.

We also take advantage of different electricity prices at different times and we can get immediate energy usage (plus csv’s into a spreadsheet) at any time from a website. It’s quite cool really.

Personally I program the embedded devices we use on the local circuits and physically (manually) populate the surface mount devices on the pcbs.

You?

@jasondlee Those "scientists" were funded by Exxon and not peer reviewed http://is.gd/8vJbo Got anything else?

Mr Mouse,

Why having a name matters is that in the past I have found that when someone anonymous starts losing an argument they disappear and a little while later a new anon e mouse turns up with a different argument and you realize from their writing style that they are the same as the first person. I have even had a switch happen on me where the two arguments were mutually exclusive, how can so little carbon have such a big effect, to the absorption bands of carbon are already fully saturated so adding more carbon makes no difference. So posting publicly makes a big difference.

I also find that people who post anonymously often find it easier to malign others.

I am a software engineer, but many years ago I worked for a government research organization, I have a degree in physics and a graduate diploma in robotics. Your work sounds interesting and I am glad to see that you are one of the recipients of the £300 million pounds being spent in Wales in the climate change industry that I couldn’t find anywhere when I checked all the university departments.

I understand why most people struggle to argue a case in comments on sites like leftfootforward. Like me they mostly accept that the scientific process of peer review publication and scientific competition mostly keeps scientists honest. So unless there is actual evidence of scientific fraud, and there is absolutely no evidence in any of the stolen e-mails and files that the scientists in question were trying to cook the data, then they will mostly accept the conclusions of the scientists.

For this very reason I hadn’t thought a lot about the science of climate change since I finished my degree more than 20 years ago, when at that time from my understanding the science was in, and that the warming we have seen since confirms that conclusion.

A few years ago I started following the debate quite closely, but felt that I could not really join in. Though I had read a lot it is very hard to find information that you remembered reading on the internet previously to counter various points. The climate skeptic noise overwhelms the google results. So after a time I started collecting a file with links etc. of what to me is the rational responses to the many skeptic topics that were repeated over and over again. What I have come to describe as zombie talking points because no matter how many times zombie talking point are killed they rise again. What you are seeing now is a consequence of that.

I don’t believe that any discussions like this makes a difference to the science. All that it does is to have a very small impact on public opinion. This in turn makes it hard to provide the motivation you need to not only read a lot but keep track of what you have read, and keeping track of records, and data and links is something which I am poor at.

If you want to read my thoughts about how the process should work then read this piece about http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/?p=48 on my blog.

So it is unsurprising that most people on websites like this fail to make much of a case, the science is complicated, it is done by professionals who work for many years in a narrow speciality, it is very difficult for outsiders to judge what the science means and in reality for nearly all of us we can only choose to believe what the scientists working in the field say or don’t say. Why then should we bother to learn some of the finer points of climate science just to counter the skeptic arguments purely to stop one more person becoming a skeptic because they see skeptic arguments going unchallenged. Especially when it is meaningless in terms of what the scientific research says.

There are so many things you have said on this thread that I know how to challenge but I just don’t have the time to do so. Your lack of understanding of the scientific process as demonstrated by your “proof” comment demonstrates this, and this is reflected in your other statements. Also rather than address the issues I specified you just said that I was wrong when in previous posts I have tried to respond directly to the points you made.

Oxford Kevin

“We used to grow grapes in Vine Street in Cardiff…”

Mr. Mouse, there are many vineyards in Wales.

Jeeves – The point was not just Cardiff – it was that Northern Europe was once far hotter than it is now, there were many more grape growers and there was no man made CO2 to contribute to that hotter climate.

Kevin – I’m not losing the argument for a start and if I was I certainly wouldn’t disappear. I do not malign anyone for anything that I cannot substantiate but I am a realist and not one who is impressed with silly scare stories about anything generally like Millennium Bug – whatever.

I also do not have time to respond to items people post and often on this site you will find people, including the moderators, will argue black is white / night is day which I also do not do. If something is true then it’s true. If it’s not then it’s not.

If I say anything in life I always have a basis for making that remark or I don’t make it. My name is James as I stated to another regular contributor here (Liz McShane) when asked but I like Anon.

On the climate change money, the company has a grant (not taken yet) but because I personally do not believe this change is all man made we are trialling the system on the basis of saving money which it certainly does.

And regarding “proof” if I see a rock fall I believe it has fallen under the influence of gravity. That is proof to me. It may have fallen due to some “sub vortex atomic localised time shifted anomaly” (joke statement) but to me it’s just gravity.

Also if I lack an understanding of the scientific process then so do the “scientists” at the CRU and their so called findings have resulted in the Prime Minister calling me, an ex-Labour voter now, a Flat Earther, a denier and taxed me on my overseas trips which I really object to.

Finally you are the one trying to prove your case on this “science”. It is a battle you are rapidly losing judging by the numbers of people who support your views (that doesn’t make you wrong) so if you did learn the finer points as you put them you may win more people over.

Not me though Kevin – the temperature has gone down since 1998 it may continue downwards – no one knows.

As I said there is no evidence at all the scientists at CRU fiddled the data.

Here we have the temperature record for the CET. http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/index.html
Looks pretty much to me that during the 351 years of the longest measured series that temperatures during the 2000s were warmer than at any other time. This is purely localized, but demonstrates why we it is possible for a number of vineyards to be successful in Northern England.

As to the global temperature record. Since you condemn those at CRU, and I disagree with your assessment, I’ll choose an alternate instrument temperature record. See the temperature data for GISS.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
This is a global record. Secondly they have had their raw data, their processed data, their code for processing the data, the peer reviewed journal articles which describe the methodology for processing the data publicly available for sometime. McKintyre found a small error in the numerical calculations for the processing of some of the records in the US, this made little difference to the US data and statistically its impact on the global temperature record was nil (ie so far within the error range that it means nothing).
Note how this temperature series shows 2005 as the warmest year with 2007, 2009, 1998 as the next warmest years in order but 2007, 2009 and 1998 are so close they are also numerically tied. please note 2005 is shown as the warmest year.

If as you say you have evidence for all your claims, please show the evidence for the number of vineyards during medieval times, and now in the uk, and their location in the uk, if you also have the evidence for vineyards during Roman times that would be nice to see as well. Then perhaps we can make a judgement.

We may as well keep to the theme of leftfootforward of being an evidence based blog.

Kevin

Kevin – The code they used in their climate model was commented (It was the source) I have posted links directly previously on this blog where I was immediately condemned by some guy called Rupert Read – his attitude stopped me voting Green locally. I don’t think he has any formal education in science but seemed keen to attack me for showing the data.

On the climate temperatures I have a file on my lappy at home with the data from the ice cores that shows concentration of CO2 at certain times – I’ll dig that up when I get a chance – really time poor this week.

Regarding vineyards are you suggesting it wasn’t warm enough at that time to grow grapes?

As for being evidence based this is a blog where they claim that Spain is in the G20 so don’t pay too much heed to the title.

The code I refer to is not the climate modelling code. It is the code for making adjustments to the temperature data based on the methodology described in the published peer reviewed paper.

In relation to vineyards I’m not saying anything of the sort. You said that Northern Europe was far warmer during medieval times than it is now. If you are basing your statement on the growing of grapes, then I thought a comparison of the number and location of vineyards now and then in the uk would be a good evidence based way to see if your statement held up. Since you say that you always have a basis for anything you say, I assume that means you have the evidence handy for the number of vineyards grown then and now to be in a position to claim it was much warmer in medieval europe than now. That is quite a big claim so requires strong evidence.

What did you think of the graphs of temperature by the way.

Apologies Mr Mouse, you said it was far hotter and I misquoted you as saying it was far warmer. I think though that it reinforces my statement that you have made a big claim. So I am waiting for the evidence from you to provide the basis for your claim.

[...] recently, following Left Foot Forward’s blog by Joss Garman revealing the “pseudo-science” with links to Big Oil behind a Sunday [...]

Kevin – Actually I think you are trying to convince me of your case – I disagree with your conclusion that the increase in CO2 is causing the climate change. It may be one of the factors which is why I always use (man made) in brackets when I comment.

I assumed you’d know about the MWP with the data from ice cores and tree rings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Unless of course you’re suggesting the data is wrong Kevin…

Kevin – And before you say “But the IPCC has questioned it” – well they would say that wouldn’t they – IPCC and we’re back on the treadmill again.

It’s a good time to be a sceptic….

Mr Mouse,
Mr Mouse,

I fail to see how the wikipedia article shows that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than today, and the text at the bottom of the article makes it clear that the evidence in Australia and Antarctica is that during the time of the MWP temperatures were cooler. It seems clear to me from the graph in the wikipedia article that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are warmer today than in the MWP. Yet you state that temperatures were far hotter during the MWP in the Northern Hemisphere than they are today. I’ve yet to see the basis on which you have made this claim.

I’m still waiting for your information about vineyards and grapes, the number of, the locations etc. during medieval times and now.

Kevin

Kevin – The reason I posted the Wiki entry was because you seemed not to accept the MWP was known about. And please do not try to suggest that I have made up that MWP as a means of furthering a case I have. I don’t believe in (man made) global warming and have seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

The vineyards I do not have to prove existed any more than I have to prove the Thames once froze over and people had fun fairs and markets on it. They just did.

For me to list them is nit picking.

I do not believe your case is correct Kevin. Sorry but I share the majority view in this country for reasons (I believe) of common sense.

You are trying to forward a minority opinion (one which our leaders use to tax us)and you have produced nothing pre 1800′s to show that your increased CO2 affects the climate.

It is up to you to convince me surely (if you want to do that) and my point is that any data that was manipulated by the CRU should be treated sceptically yet you seem willing to believe what they say without challenge?

[...] up controversies about things that aren’t very controversial. For example there is a good analysis of a recent Sunday Times piece [...]

Mr Mouse,

I never said the MWP existed anywhere, dont use the strawman argument. You stated that during the MWP it was far hotter in the Northern Hemisphere than it is now. You also said that you say nothing without having a basis for it. Please provide a basis for your claim.

One of the forms of the methods of discussion that skeptics often use is that when they are losing a particular argument they try to switch the discussion to something else. You have been trying to do that whilst not dealing with the issue at hand, which I have pushed on is your claim of the MWP being far hotter in the NH than now.

I think the best way of resolving an argument is to resolve each issue one at a time where possible, in this way each issue can be left as resolved and then move on to the next argument, otherwise the discussion just swings back and forth between different issues and gets nowhere.

One point that you have made in your last comment I can’t let go of though. You don’t trust the CRU data set, do you believe that the data set was intentionally manipulated to provide the result of global warming or do you think the figures have been manipulated badly out of incompetence? To demonstrate why I am reasonably confident in their results in a discussion with you would take a discussion longer than the one we already have.

That is why I used a different data than the CRU data set to demonstrate warming and as part of that to demonstrate that 2005 rather than 1998 is the warmest year. As I pointed out then the raw data, the processed data, the code for processing the data, the peer reviewed article describing the methodology for processing the data has all been publicly available for sometime.

A correction. Where I said “I never said the MWP existed anywhere”, I meant to say.

“I have never said anywhere that the MWP never existed”

I imagine if Johnathan Leake was reading this mistake of mine he would be claiming global warming alarmist says that the MWP never existed. I must be more careful with my words.

Kevin

Kevin – Generally I tend to go on cock up rather than conspiracy but this weekend I’ll grab a couple of beers, dig out the some files I have regarding the CRU and see what you think…

I am genuinely pressed at work and not deliberately not responding: please do not assume that I do not have a response by any lack of one.

Why would Johnathan Leake be interested in your comments particularly btw?

(Oh and I don’t get hung up on little things like the structure of a sentence being incorrectly put – I’m not that petty)

Jonathan Leake wouldn’t be interested in my comments, I am not important enough for him to worry about. I was just referring to his ability to misrepresent what people say.

I’m not sure if you should bother spending your time looking into the CRU e-mails. It has taken so long to not even get evidence that I am still waiting as to whether or not the MWP was far hotter than today or not.

Kevin – (With respect to you) I am actually busy at the moment and digging out the computer is going to be a hassle!

It wasn’t the CRU emails I was going to mail – just some ice core data that I have for you to agree were correct (or not agree of course).

As for the MWP, since we don’t have thermometer based temperatures how can I prove to you that it was hotter?

Why do you think it wasn’t? How could one grow grapes in a colder climate?

We can grow grapes today. The plot in wikipedia article you referred to definitely showed that in the Northern Hemisphere it is warmer today than during the MWP, yet you have stated it was far hotter during the MWP than today. I just want to see the basis for your claim as you said you don’t say anything without a basis.

Kevin

Kevin – The basis for my claims are obviously on items I have read elsewhere, since like yourself I am not directly involved in the analysing of data in this field so you may believe one thing and I may believe another.

You may say that “So and so is wrong” (I mention this as I read Leake in papers regularly) but I would make any statement or post in bad faith…

Also it is you who is trying to forward a minority view that (man made) CO2 causes global warming. As I have always stated I just don’t know but I agree the climate is/always has changed and your data sets only go back to the 1800′s.

However I will at this point say that I am actually unable to find a graph or data that shows the MWP was hotter but I will continue to look.

That statement about vineyards in the MWP is actually a given but seems not to (at present)be supported by any facts (I can currently find).

I don’t say anything without a basis for comment and I could point you to several websites where that claim is made but I have to (presently) admit that where they got their data from to make those claims I do not know.

But I will find it Kevin so just hang in there.

I do not accept your case but (as it stands as I make this post) I have to concede that (perhaps) it wasn’t warmer in the MWP…

Perhaps…

[...] Sunday Times, who last Sunday published pseudo-science as fact, claiming the “world may not be warming”. As if that [...]

[...] Foot Forward has some of the relevant background to Watts’ report, which he co-authored with another well-known climate change denier, Joseph [...]

Hi Mr Mouse, I think I might have tracked down the data you were looking for, but perhaps not. Anyway I have written a blog piece that you can view with my thoughts on what I think it means.

http://oxfordkevin.carbonclimate.org/?p=176

[...] is not, of course, to forget one of the most ominous figures at GWPF, Dr Benny Peiser, notorious for his ties to institutions in the US such as the Heartland Institute which have, over the years, [...]