1,600-year-old plants freed from ice caps

Yikes. Well, that solves our diminishing top soil problem... what with the new soil in the north.

What drivel.

If the climate change in warming is truly so unprecedented in scale then was not, too, the unprecedented scale of the cooling that took place 1600 years ago?

What utter propaganda.

Exactly. I can't believe they're trying to pass this off as evidence of human caused global warming. How dumb do they think people are?

It's like when the glaciers were melting in the Alps, and they were finding settlements from the Roman Warm period. How is that not evidence of natural periods of warming and cooling having nothing whatsoever to do with man-made CO2 emmisions?

And here's another one - "recent Arctic heat wave". The insinuation there is that this well documented northern cooling we're experiencing this winter isn't happening. They want us to believe the arctic is warming as we speak. It isn't. What's really happening is the unusual arctic warming we experienced this past arctic summer (most likely caused by natural Ocean oscillations), has been replaced by record fast refreezing of the ice pack.

Exactly. I can't believe they're trying to pass this off as evidence of human caused global warming. How dumb do they think people are?

It's like when the glaciers were melting in the Alps, and they were finding settlements from the Roman Warm period. How is that not evidence of natural periods of warming and cooling having nothing whatsoever to do with man-made CO2 emmisions?

And here's another one - "recent Arctic heat wave". The insinuation there is that this well documented northern cooling we're experiencing this winter isn't happening. They want us to believe the arctic is warming as we speak. It isn't. What's really happening is the unusual arctic warming we experienced this past arctic summer (most likely caused by natural Ocean oscillations), has been replaced by record fast refreezing of the ice pack.

A couple of days ago, you guys posted articles/vidoes explicitly acknowledging the relationship between anthrpogenic CO2 emissions and global temperature. Now it;s back to being ridiculous. That's the trouble with sceptics. They can't keep their story straight.

I did? That's news to me.

And there goes Mr. Smugface calling a misinterpretation a fact to make it personal again.

OK, I'll play.

This is my interpretation of what skeptic scientists, say, have always said, and will most likely continue saying...

There has been a warming trend in the last 100 years, or so after we came out of the little ice age. It's nothing we haven't seen before. No cause for alarm (it's been warmer), and possibly a good thing for us humans.

There is such a thing as greenhouse warming. C02 is a small part of that. There is laboratory proof of some C02 warming. In the natural world it exists, but science seems to suggest it's effect is only a nuisance level of warming. It's not even noticeable as a causal effect in the historical record.

I'll post the video for you again. Here's what it says. If I'm lying, I'm dying. It says even if you use the figures from the alarmist bible of the IPCC report (which probably are not correct), and compare them to the suggested predictions of catastrophic warming from climate models, the figures don't line up. What was supposed to happen, isn't happening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8

OK, so is he saying all warming over the last 100 years is caused by CO2? No. He's saying even if you accept the IPCC's interpretation of that, the figures still don't line up with the models prediction of climate catastrophe. In the real word there are negative feedbacks cooling greenhouse warming. Some of the man caused ones are mentioned in the video as excuses from the alarmists as to why the models which predict catastrophic warming don't line up with what's actually happening. There are different estimates from different climate skeptics as to how much actual warming can be attributed to C02, but the word I hear most often is miniscule.

This has to be the most ridiculous spin on observations yet.

Everything according to the enviro-nazi's seems proof of GW including our current cold snap.

This morning with 80k winds and -10C, I timed the dogs, the old dog did #1 and #2 and returned in 90 seconds......I wonder if she got a hernia. The younger one was back in a minuter later.....to be pitched out when I caught him attempting to finish in the house. He went and cuddled up to a tree.

GW is a big disappointment today.

That's another problem with the a sceptics. They're very grumpy.

It's not a "misinterpretation" at all. It's the crux of my whole theme. The sceptics constantly shift positions. Position Number 1 is that the very idea that CO2 could influence temperatures is preposterous. Position Number 2 is that, yes, the climate is warming but it's a natural occurrence and it is the temp rise causing the CO2 increases. Position number 3 is that, yes, anthropogenic CO2 emissions do cause a global temp rise, but only be a trivial amount. These are three completely different statements, scientifically, and the main reason, to my mind, that the sceptics do not deserve much credence is because they switch positions so readily.

Sure, you go on your post to say "what the sceptics have been saying all along" (Position Number 3, above). But in a couple more threads you'll be back to Position Number 1 or Number 2.

I did? That's news to me.

yes--from the opening post on the "Why Global Warming Is Not A Crisis" thread, the paper by Monckton:

N Fiddledog


I dunno but check out Benoit's post and you may have a clue.



That explains a lot! Remember the "hockey stick" proved the MWP never existed?

Those old Norse farms are still permafrost.......

Canary in a cage or a very local anomoly.....Greenland's coldest year was 1941.


Vinther et al

I did? That's news to me.

yes--from the opening post on the "Why Global Warming Is Not A Crisis" thread, the paper by Monckton:


I posted that a couple of days ago?

"Couple" usually means "two" but I'll allow three since I like you and you're still wrong.

I posted it on January 23rd. FYI.

I did? That's news to me.

yes--from the opening post on the "Why Global Warming Is Not A Crisis" thread, the paper by Monckton:


I posted that a couple of days ago?

"Couple" usually means "two" but I'll allow three since I like you and you're still wrong.

Me? Wonrg? Inconceivable. I don't think it's ever happened before. Cheers, mate!

And, Zip, man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 being made responsible for 100% of global warming is akin to you peeing in Lake Superior and claiming that you're responsible for flooding in Chicago.

I think it's a little more serious than that, but not as bad as Al Gore says. The thing I liked about Fiddledog's video is that teh guy talked about all the emphasis being on positive feedback mechanisms making AGW worse. But, as a student of natural science myself, I find that nature is resilient and almost always has ways of moderating extreme changes. Some of things they say will be positive feedback mechanisms may actually end up being moderating influences, in my opinion.