Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (97)
I stuck a fiver in and, incidentally, my copy of THSI just arrived. Keep up the good work!
Fiver paid for that lost bet; I can't remember what it was tho'.
Why are you pushing this book? This is not science.
"Why are you pushing this book? This is not science." I see we have a visitor from the Grauniad, welcome Bluecloud. On this site we tend to keep away from words like "moron", "idiot", "denier", "liar", "creationist" etc. This may limit your vocabulary somewhat, but if you stick around and make your points in the way you would if we were all in a bar, or cafe, face to face, you may teach us something, and you may learn something.
Hi Geronimo,
I am concerned about this book. I do not intend to insult anyone, so let's just stick to the facts.
This review id cited on wikipedia:
"Alastair McIntosh, writing in the Scottish Review of Books, criticised the book as only being able to "cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists." Noting that Montford has not made any relevant scientific contributions, he commented that the book "might serve a psychological need in those who can't face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it's exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else's blog" and criticised the book as "at worst, ... a yapping terrier worrying the bull; it cripples action, potentially costing lives and livelihoods."[18] Montford's book was also reviewed unfavorably for similar reasons by Bob Ward in The Guardian, Chemistry World and in a second Prospect review."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#Reception
So what was your motivation for writing this?
Bluecloud -
I can't speak for the Bishop but I suggest you read this post regarding Mr McIntosh. There must be real doubt whether he read the book. You'll find many positive reviews on Amazon and I personally can thoroughly recommend it. After you've read it, come back and tell us what you think.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/17/did-he-read-it.html
As far as Bob Ward is concerned Bluecloud I can only suggest you look at any of the posts on Bishop Hill showing on the following page -
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/display/Search?searchQuery=bob+ward&moduleId=1282578&moduleFilter=&categoryFilter=&startAt=0
Bluecloud,
Did you actually read the "The Hockey Stick Illusion"? One would expect a book with such political implications to draw bad reviews from "the usual suspects". On the other hand there are any number of good reviews including a recommendation from Dr. Judith Curry (hardly a denier) to read the book before forming an opinion.
Bluecloud
Have you read the HSI? If so, you would know that the reason for writing the book is to be found in the Preface.
If you haven't found time to read the book, try some reading some alternative reviews that take a different view to that of Alistair McIntosh;
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/
for example or the many 5-star ones on Amazon.co.uk
Bluecloud -
From the same wikipedia article one might also quote
Perhaps you should read it and make up your own mind?
Perhaps BlueCloud isn't aware that the good Bishop has personal reasons for pushing this book.
It's abundantly clear that
1/ Bluecloud hasn't read the book, and
2/ doesn't need to do so to form an opinion on it.
Ignore the troll, I have fallen into their traps before.
Peter Walsh
THSI is currently number one in the Amazon Bestsellers List in the Global Warming category (Followed by 2 "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?", Christopher Booker, 3 "Climate: the Counter-consensus", Bob Carter, and 4 "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory").
In view of this, I wonder why there is a need for a tip jar?!
Sorry Bluecloud been away. It's not a science book it's the story of the Mann et al 1998 hockeystick. It's written really well and there are clear explanations for the non-cognescenti. If you can bear to you should read it, it's well written and will indeed be the definitive history of the Hockeystick argument.
Thanks for being polite.
Your Grace,
Tip sent. A Canadian thanks you for your efforts. Am well into THSI and am thoroughly enjoying it. Who would believe that the machinations of paleoclimatologists could be so gripping? The gnashing of teeth by people like Bob Ward and Alastair McIntosh is just added savoury sauce.
Bluecloud. Did you find anything of substance in the reviews, you know refutations of some of the claims in the book. I doubt it, they will all be similar to Alastair Macintosh's, long on vitriol but short on criticism because Montford has written the story and quoted all his sources in a quite exhaustive references. Anyway as I say read it, if you want one for Christmas let me know.
Odd thing is, I've met Alistair McIntosh and he seemed a decent bloke. I even bought his book - Soil and Soul - and I read it (which is quite important if you're to have a valid opinion about something, I've found).
He's appears well-intentioned, but sees the future as quite a lot like the past, where people share perishable goods such as fish because they don't have modern technologies like refrigeration. Given my impressions of him as a person I was appalled by his (alleged) review of the Bishop's book - what is it in the psyche of even mild-mannered and apparently intellectual greens that so blindly accepts being lied to without ever thinking of asking questions? Why do they NEED so much doom in their lives, unless it's all a power game?
Think on that Bluecloud - and please don't rely on other peoples opinions - you have a mind of your own - the stuff in Andrew's book is truly jawhanging - if you can read from cover to cover and tell us yourself what YOU think about it, I think you'll gain from the experience.
For my part, and in contrast to people who claim otherwise, this IS about the truth.
Bluecloud
I have loaned the HSI to two people so far and neither of them had a prior interest in climate matters. They are now taking an interest in the climate debate and reading other books on the subject.
Both readers commented on the quality of the writing style which they said was very readable. It's a page turner about a graph. Who would have thought that you could write a thriller about a graph.
I am at a loss to explain Alister Mcintoshe's eview but if you do read HSI i think that you might equally bemused by it.
Bluecloud the facts are in the book, while your quote from wikipedia consists entirely of opinions. In Bob Ward's case, it is the opinion of someone who is a salaried PR man for an organisation that is institutionally hostile to our host.
You will find it helpful to learn the difference between facts and opinions.
"On this site we tend to keep away from words like "moron", "idiot", "denier", "liar", "creationist" etc."
Dec 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM | geronimo
'Eco-fascist' seems to be fine though. That crops up all the time.
I can also see why you'd be wary of comparison to creationists.
Here be Trolls :)
"You will find it helpful to learn the difference between facts and opinions."
David S
Please share some facts with me. The hockey stick has withstood the test of time and is still reliable science. I see nothing that seriously challenges the science Mann used and it seems that the hockey stick is now confirmed:
"In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[71] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. In this work, they again said that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
What facts does your book add that have not been aired already?
Hallo ZDB, you don't like the site? Not noticed the eco-fascist tag, but I was simply welcoming Bluecloud who I know from the Guardian has, shall we say, a "robust" debating style, although from what I've read of his posts seems to have been delving into the scientific background, albeit relying too much for my taste on realclimate. Anyway, that said if we have someone else on this site who can challenge our ideas without resorting to personal attacks I'll welcome him/her as I do you.
Referrring to eco-fascists whilst tarring a lot of people with the same brush isn't the same as referring to morons, or liars, but I guess you know that and are putting the case for balance, when there is no need to do so.
Facts are wonderful things aren't they!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
I don't need to read your book, I just need you to state the facts.
"I was simply welcoming Bluecloud who I know from the Guardian has, shall we say, a "robust" debating style, although from what I've read of his posts seems to have been delving into the scientific background, albeit relying too much for my taste on realclimate."
Thanks Geronimo,
I trained as a scientist, but I am a teacher by profession. I make se of RealClimate as they are climate scientists.
"Referrring to eco-fascists whilst tarring a lot of people with the same brush isn't the same as referring to morons, or liars, but I guess you know that and are putting the case for balance, when there is no need to do so."
Let's discuss the facts, and not stoop to the level of posters who swap insults.
Bluecloud: Welcome back. The questions you'd be asking if you'd read the HSI are:
1. Does the 2008 paper use short-centring?
2. Does the 2008 paper use bristlecone pines?
3. Does the 2008 paper use the tijander series in the correct orientation?
4. Why does this paper differ from the hundreds of peer reviewed papers that have been published since 1998 that show a MWP?
5. Was Dr. Phil Jones wrong when he said; "Of course there was a Mediaeval Warm Period?
6. Was Michael Mann wrong when he said that the IPCC ought not to have put so much into publicising MBH 1998?
Read HSI, then make your judgements, come here and argue them, I'm sure Andrew will not allow anyone to tear into you on a personal basis. Argument, as they say (actually it's me) is the asymptotic path to truth.
@Bluecloud
Read HSI and this will answer your question.
Mann + co. have lost all scientific credibility. If they now try to revive their piece of junk science with a new piece, this will no longer work (except possibly for IPCC, who fell for the first piece of junk science, simply because it conveyed the desired message of unprecedented 20th century warmth).
There are dozens of independent scientific studies from all over the world, using various different paleo-climate techniques, which all confirm that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than today.
The world does not need another "hockey stick". It was thoroughly discredited and is dead and buried. Let it RIP.
Max
"There are dozens of independent scientific studies from all over the world, using various different paleo-climate techniques, which all confirm that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than today."
Name one.
Bluecloud:
"I make se of RealClimate as they are climate scientists."
For climate science they would be a good source of climate science knowledge, however, with the exception of the bristlecone pines, which climate scientists know are poor proxies, and the tijander series which was a poor proxy and used upside down in Mann 2008, the arguments around the hockeystick are about statistical analysis, so you'd need to update your statistical analysis skills to join the debate. Read HSI it really does simplify the argument.No need to give in on your opinion but get up to date on the SA side of the debate and the poor proxies before telling us you have the facts. Got to go now, welcome, ZDB needs a colleague with scientific skills.
Geronimo,
My reply to your questions lies in the response made by Mann:
In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia. This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. In this work, they again said that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset. In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down. Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as their methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result."
None of your questions detracts from the robust nature of the (reconfirmed) hockey stick. Please try to refrain from posing obscure and lisleading questions. The MWP was never global and I challenge you to prove it.
Bluecloud
"I don't need to read your book, I just need you to state the facts."
The facts are stated in the book, lucidly, at some length and with plenty of references. Read it.
"There are dozens of independent scientific studies from all over the world, using various different paleo-climate techniques, which all confirm that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than today."
Name one.
"There are dozens of independent scientific studies from all over the world, using various different paleo-climate techniques, which all confirm that the MWP was global and a bit warmer than today."
Name one.
"Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley, South Africa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51.
Description
Maximum annual air temperatures in the vicinity of Cold Air Cave (24°1'S, 29°11'E) in the Makapansgat Valley of South Africa were inferred from a relationship between color variations in banded growth-layer laminations of a well-dated stalagmite and the air temperature of a surrounding 49-station climatological network developed over the period 1981-1995, as well as a quasi-decadal-resolution record of oxygen and carbon stable isotopes (MWP: AD 800-1100): Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean)."
Don't ask me to name 2, go to COScience.org where you can get access to them all. Hundreds of them written by genuine climate scientists going about their business.
Geronimo,
You have not added any verifiable facts to the debate. Mann points out in his 2008 revision that the hockey stick is robust without the tree ring set and that the orientation of data are: "are insensitive to the sign of predictors."
So please try to address these issues instead of telling me my statistical skills are not up to scratch.
And BTW I am even less convinced now about reading your book as you have so far not said anything that helps clarify the issue.
Bluecloud
Aren't you even slightly apprehensive about stating an opinion on a book in a language you clearly know but haven't read?
Geronimo,
Your reference does not prove that the MWP was global.
And BTW. COscience.org is a dead end. No info is available on this site...
Bluecloud: "In a PNAS response, McIntyre and McKitrick said that they perceived a number of problems, including that Mann et al used some data with the axes upside down. Mann et al. replied that McIntyre and McKitrick "raise no valid issues regarding our paper" and the "claim that 'upside down' data were used is bizarre", as their methods "are insensitive to the sign of predictors." They also said that excluding the contentious datasets has little effect on the result."
Well let's take this one step at a time:
1. The use of short centring (a technique unknown and unpublished in statistical literature) the presence of a proxy with a 20th century upswing is essential, the Tijander series, if reversed had just such an upswing. Steig et al 2009 used the Tijander series in just such a way, but when it was pointed out to them that they had immediately set the record straight;
2. To prove that the Mann 2008 series gave a 20th century upgrade without the Tijander and bristlecone pines the team took out the inverted tijander series and left in bristlecone pines. Then they took out the bristlecone pines and left in the tijander series. Hey presto hockeysticks. But you do need to read the HSI to understand what short-centring is if you don't already.
Now I really have to go the Mem is looking decidedley miffed.
Gerry
"Bluecloud - Aren't you even slightly apprehensive about stating an opinion on a book in a language you clearly know but haven't read?"
Do you need to read the Qur'an to comment about islam?
Can you comment on evolution without reading Darwin?
So why do you insist I read a book (in fact all books) about the Hockey Stick before I defend it?
Bluecloud - Your concentration on the need for facts and your enthusiasm for Realclimate are contradictory.
Realclimate was established in November 2004 with financial support from EMS (Environmental Media Services), owned by David Fenton who was responsible for the Alar apple scare in the 1980's which needlessly impoverished many farmers. Nature Magazine welcomed it with a supporting editorial. The original contributors included William Connolley (recently banned from Administrator privileges by Wikipedia), Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Ray Bradley (MBH98 co-author). Realclimate was never impartial and almost exclusively pushed the work of the Hockey Team, for instance Rutherford et al 2005, being the Hockey Team of Scott Rutherford, Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, plus the British scientists Keith Briffa, Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, all of whom became notorious folowing the leak of the CRU emails (Climategate). Rutherford et al used Mann's PC1 so could not be regarded as independent. Neither can Realclimate.
The above facts are all in the Hockey Stick Illusion, together with thousands of others. Please do read it.
Bluecloud, are you looking at a different site?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Medieval Warm Period Project
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Overview
Study Description and Results
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia/New Zealand
Europe
North America
Northern Hemisphere
Oceans
South America
All peer reviewed and published. Gotta go, life threatening situation coming my way.
Welcome to the bishop's domain.
How do you explain the hockey team that is represented in the 1000-year temperatue comparison then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046
Are they all wrong?
I checked out http://co2science.org/
Seems they are set up to counter climate science!
The are not recognised as a serious journal. Strange you should rely on such pseudo-science websites for your information.
bluecloud, lots of reason not to read a book...
Have you read Fred Pearces's 'The Climate Files'?
Lot's of crtiticsims in that one, that I have been caled a deniar for mentioning?!
No-one here owes an anonymous person, that apears to be here to 'stir things up' ie be continually obtuse, until soemone is rude. so that the person can go away happy, and tell all there friends how 'ignorant ryde sceptics are'
You would appear to want towaste people's times with endless questions and distractions. yet put no effot in..
Forgive me if that is not ypur intention, but is how you might be perceived..
go on read the book... it would give you much more credibility...
even if you are then able to attempt to pick holes in it..if only so that 'sceptics' cannot say ' why won't you read a book..
what are you scared of...
of course you might say, ' I don't want to waste my time'''
that would get as big a laugh here... as when Bob Watson, at the Guardain Climatgate debate said when asked ' I haven;t read the climategate emails'
this drew a laugh from the audience... 'do you often forget to do your homework!
Don't become a laughing stock.
@Bluecloud
You asked for studies showing a MWP warmer than today.
There is the 2007 summary by Craig Loehle
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025
In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.
Data: http://www.ncasi.org/programs/areas/climate/LoehleE&E2007.csv
Then there are these independent studies from all over the world:
China
De'Er Zhang
Henan Province
0.9-1.0°C warmer than present
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
Eastern China
Ge, Q., Zheng, J., Fang, X., Man, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, P. and Wang, W.-C.
0.4°C higher than today's peak warmth
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_easternchina.php
Pearl River Delta, S. China
Honghan, Z. and Baolin, H.
1-2°C higher than that at present time
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pearlriver.php
Japan
Adhikari, D.P. and Kumon, F.
warmer than any other period during the last 1300 years
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N13/C3.php
Yakushima Island, S. Japan
Kitagawa, H. and Matsumoto, E.
about 1°C above that of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_yakushima.php
Sargasso Sea
Keigwin, L.
~1°C warmer than today
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
Tropical Ocean (Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Caribbean)
Alicia Newton, Robert Thunell, and Lowell Stott
0.4°C warmer than today
http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/stott%20papers/Newton%20et%20al.,%202006.pdf
New Zealand
Cook, E. R., J. G. Palmer, and R. D. D'Arrigo
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580.shtml
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf
New Zealand
Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P
0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nzcave.php
Barrow Strait, Canada
Vare, L.L., Masse, G., Gregory, T.R., Smart, C.W. and Belt, S.T
(MWP confirmed but no temperature difference cited)
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_barrowstrait.php
Northern Gulf of Mexico (Pigmy Basin)
Richey, J.N., Poore, R.Z., Flower, B.P. and Quinn, T.M
about 1.5°C warmer than present-day temperatures.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasin.php
Coastal Peru
Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C
Medieval Warm Period for this region was about 1.2°C above that of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_perushelf.php
Venezuela coast
Goni, M.A., Woodworth, M.P., Aceves, H.L., Thunell, R.C., Tappa, E., Black, D., Muller-Karger, F., Astor, Y. and Varela, R.
approximately 0.35°C warmer than peak Current Warm Period temperatures, and fully 0.95°C warmer than the mean temperature of the last few years of the 20th century
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php
Lake Erie, Ohio, USA
Patterson, W.P
both summer maximum and mean annual temperatures in the Great Lakes region were found to be higher than those of the 20th century; mean annual temperatures were 0.2°C higher
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lakeerie.php
Chesapeake Bay, USA
Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A.
mean 20th-century temperatures were 0.15°C cooler than mean temperatures during the first stage of the Medieval Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_chesapeake.php
Greenland Summit
Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J.
temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_gripsummit.php
Sweden (Central Scandinavian Mountains)
Linderholm, H.W. and Gunnarson, B.E.
Between AD 900 and 1000, summer temperature anomalies were as much as 1.5°C warmer than the 1961-1990 base period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_jamtland.php
Finnish Lapland
Weckstrom, J., Korhola, A., Erasto, P. and Holmstrom, L.
0.15°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_tsuolbmajavri.php
Ural Mountains, Russia
Mazepa, V.S.
Medieval Warm Period lasted from approximately AD 700 to 1300 and that significant portions of it were as much as 0.56°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_polarurals.php
Altai Mountains, S. Siberia, Russia
Kalugin, I., Daryin, A., Smolyaninova, L., Andreev, A., Diekmann, B. and Khlystov, O.
mean peak temperature of the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.5°C higher than the mean peak temperature of the Current Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_altaimountains.php
NW Spain
Martinez-Cortizas, A., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C. and Shotyk, W.
mean annual temperature during this time was as much as 3.4°C warmer than that of the 1968-98 period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_nwspain.php
Antarctica (Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica)
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T
The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_ameryshelf.php
Bahamas
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/paleoclimate-scientists-find-proof-of-medieval-warming-in-waters-off-the-bahamas-climategate-scienti.html
MWP (1200 years BP) roughly 0.2C warmer than today
Enjoy!
Max
Bluecloud,
Interesting that you should ask. I did read the Qu'ran shortly after 9/11. It didn't look like many of the people who "quoted" from it here in the US had read it. Same with Adam Smith. I doubt if one person in a hundred who thinks he knows what Smith wrote has read it - and it ain't what most of them think. Clausewitz is another - widely quoted and seldom read.
So I wouldn't find it unreasonable to have an opinion on a subject area without having read a particular book, I do find it odd that you should feel comfortable criticizing a book you clearly have not read nor for that matter have begun to comprehend the nature ot its contents. Please read it and when you have come back and fill us in on your conclusions.
There certainly is a lot of preaching to the choir on both sides of this great divide we're in and it would be an absolute delight to read the observations of someone of your apparent view having read his book. It does appear that the preponderance of negative views on Andrew's book comes from people who haven't read it.
Please....
Or have some people been sent on a mission..
I stil can't get a comment onto the Guardian....
George Monbiot's (of the Guardian), Campaign against Climate Chnage 's latest sceptic alerts email...
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384
---------------------
Climate Change sceptic blog alerts
Wednesday, 22 December, 2010 15:36
From: "Campaign against Climate Change aggregator"
<xxxxxxcampaigncc.org>Add sender to Contacts
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Climate Change sceptic blog alerts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Hill: Tip jar live again
Posted: 22 Dec 2010 06:32 AM PST
...if anyone fancies it...
Bishop Hill: The Quarmby audit
Posted: 21 Dec 2010 12:26 PM PST
I am grateful to commenter "hmc" for pointing out that David Quarmby has also produced an audit on the country's response to the start of the cold weather a month or so ago. This includes some further interesting information about the Met Office's advice to government:
@Bluecloud
CO2Science is not "set up to counter climate science!" (as you say "it seems")
They state one opinion, just as RealClimate states another.
I read both, then do some more checking and make up my mind after checking out as many sources of info I can get. (It's called "rational skepticism").
Gotta keep an open mind, Bluecloud, or folks will think you are being "dogmatic" (instead of "scientific").
Max
Bluecloud:
“The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” Sun Tzu
Bluecloud
"Can you comment on evolution without reading Darwin?"
I think we can safely assume that even Wilberforce read The Origin before he attacked it in The Quarterly Review. He didn't say "I don't need to read your book Mr. Darwin. Just give me the facts."
In passing, have you read The Origin?
Welcome to this dark place, friend Bluecloud.
Together we shall spread enlightenment.
Better to fight them here then at the Guardian.