Anti science L. A. Times hypes propaganda denying global wide Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Los Angeles Times is at it again hyping anti science climate alarmist propaganda trying to conceal the global wide Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are supported and justified by hundreds of scientific studies.


This climate alarmist propaganda Times article cites a new “study” that ridiculously attempts to deny these clearly established warm and cool periods in our past.

This alarmist hyped new “study” is addressed in a superb article at the JoNova website demonstrating the complete lack of scientific veracity of this studies claims. 

There is nothing I can add to show how politically contrived and inane the claims are from this new “study” beyond the excellent presentation in the JoNova article.

Provided below are excerpts from this excellent article which demonstrate the lack of scientific credibility of the new “study” as well as the politically driven anti science climate alarmism bias of the Times.












Nothing else needs to be said.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 6:12 am

Zombie theory indeed. If the MWP never existed, they don’t have to explain it away.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 8:46 am

If there were Megadroughts during the period of the MWP, and Megadroughts are brought on by extended warming periods, then the MWP must exist for the Megadroughts to exist

Reply to  Bryan A
July 28, 2019 11:49 am

Nice one!

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 9:37 am

This is called FAKE NEWS. That term sure drove them to madness when the President started affixing it to them. Huh, I wonder why? Stick Much?

Reply to  Jim
July 28, 2019 10:52 am

My dad would say “So-called journalist, so lazy he’d crap in bed and kick it out with his foot.”

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 9:56 am

“This is déjà-vu all over again.” (h/t Yogi Berra).

The warmist minions cannot even come up with new lies anymore – they are now re-cycling their old, discredited falsehoods.

Eliminating the MWP and LIA were core elements of MBH98, a great steaming pile of horse pucks published in Nature and the centerpiece of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).

MBH98 was falsified by diligent, time-consuming work by Steve McIntyre. Other scientists, including Baliunas and Soon, provided evidence that the MWP and LIA were real events of global scale.

The warmist minions viciously attacked anyone who questioned their alarmist nonsense – standard slimer Alinsky tactics.

I published this defence of Baliunas, Soon, Veizer, Shaviv and Lomborg in 2005:

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” … tabarnac!

Regards, Allan

The global warming debate heats up
Energy and Environment 2005
by Allan M.R. MacRae

Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.

These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional – often of little scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate and silence real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit the production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.

Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be dedicated to more important uses – such as cleaning up contaminated drinking water that kills millions of children every year in the developing world.

In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg’s book fell within the concept of “objective scientific dishonesty”. The DCSD made the ruling public at a press conference and published it on the internet, without giving Lomborg the opportunity to respond prior to publication.

In December 2003, The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation repudiated the DCSD’s findings. The Ministry characterized the treatment of the Lomborg case as “dissatisfactory”, “deserving criticism” and “emotional”, a scathing rebuttal of the DCSD.

But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.

Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.

Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.

In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.

In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.

Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been vindicated. As a result of a Material Complaint filed by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre, Nature issued a Corrigendum in July 2004, a correction of Mann’s hockey stick. It acknowledged extensive errors in the description of the Mann data set, and conceded that key steps in the computations were left out and conflicted with the descriptions in the original paper.

Hans von Storch et al further criticized Mann’s work in the September 30, 2004 issue of Science Express. Von Storch commented in a Der Spiegel interview: “We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.” Researchers from the University of East Anglia and the University of Utah have expressed similar concerns.

The truth is there never has been any solid scientific evidence in favor of Kyoto. From the beginning, Kyoto has been politically driven, replete with flawed science and scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Kyoto advocates should finally admit that their pet project is foolish and anti-environmental – Kyoto is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be used to alleviate real problems, not squandered on fictitious ones.


Tom Abbott
July 29, 2019 5:19 am

“Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

And James Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016, the so-called “Hottest Year Evah!” as claimed by the liars at NASA Climate and NOAA.

I agree we should vigorously push back on the alarmists trying to erase the MWP and other warm periods in history, but we have a much better example which much more accurate information about the example and that is the warm period of the 1930’s.

Tmax charts from around the world show that the 1930’s were just as warm or warmer than today and this show we are not experiencing unprecedented warming today as the alarmists claim. It’s no warmer now than in the 1930’s and the 1930’s warmth occurred at much lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. So here we are in 2019 with much more CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperatures are not any warmer than in the 1930’s. So where does the CO2 figure into this equation? Mother Nature heated things up in the 1930’s, and now has heated things up to the same levels again, just like in the past with no CO2 required.

We need to focus on the Twentieth Century Warming and Tmax charts which show this warming occurred across the entire globe. The evidence is right in front of our eyes. This debunks the claim that we are experiencing unprecedented warming today and shoots down the CAGW claims. We are not experiencing unprecedented warming, and the proof is in the Tmax charts.

Me and the Chinese think the Tmax charts are the best metric for determining past high temperatures. 🙂

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 10:02 am

Honestly, talk about ‘climate deniers’!


Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 10:06 am


I mean the MWP was postulated long before 20th century CAGW came along after the CGC of the 70’s failed to materialise. The MWP was always based on historical proxy data, how could it not be?

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 28, 2019 8:16 pm

The best proxy data globally would be what was happening to sea level for what the global climate was doing the last 2000 years. For example, during the LIA from 1350 to 1850, sea level wasn’t accelerating or rising, but it was actually falling globally. That should be the easiest to both prove and understand, that over longer time periods, we can see what the result of global climate was in the recent sea levels. It does match and the LIA was global in nature otherwise the general sea level wouldn’t respond as such.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 12:45 pm

Don’t go repeating the strawman lies Tom, nobody says the MWP never existed. All the data says is that
“only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures at the same time…so they are not as coherent as we thought”

Tom Halla
Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 1:37 pm

You don’t know the data very well, do you? Buying into Saint Michael Mann’s preaching is the mark of either a zealot, or someone deliberately ignorant.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 8:25 pm

I meant all the research paper said was…

Who sid it never existed Tom?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 8:32 pm

Loydo, do you have a bit of dyslexia? Michael Mann, who you seem to be blissfully ignorant of.

Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 10:11 pm

But you fail to provide the supposed quote that it “never existed”. Thats a fail. Stop waving your arms and support your claim with something that can be checked.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 7:30 am

Loydo is getting even more desperate.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 10:24 am

“But you fail to provide the supposed quote that it “never existed”. ”

Try to find it here:

comment image?itok=W4D7fsLC

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 12:31 pm

Um, no. No mention of anyone saying the MWP or the LIA never existed there. Thats because no one ever did. Ie. its a strawman lie so stop repeating it.

Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 2:02 pm

“All the data says”??? Didn’t read the article, did you? Again.

Why do you come here? You almost never have support for your claims. And when you do it’s always from a leftist rag.

Come on “Lloydo”. Open your mind and read the articles before you comment. And maybe even try to understand them. As Mr. Rogers said “I know you can”.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 7:29 am

Every place that’s been studied has shown the existence of the MWP.

What Loydo is doing here is assuming that every place that hasn’t been studied, there was no MWP.

Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2019 12:36 pm

That doesn’t even make sense. No all I’m doing is asking for a bit of evidence to a claim is true or not. Thats an anathema to you isn’t it?

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Loydo
July 31, 2019 7:16 am

One LIA data point from the Enciclapidia Britanica. This is from their discription of the History of Whaling:
“The demise of Arctic bay whaling in the mid-1650s owed less to overfishing than to a miniature ice age that lasted for the rest of the 17th century.”

Sun Spot
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 5:06 pm

Loydo you said ““only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures . . ” , care to explain the meteorological conditions where only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures, Loydo ??

Reply to  Sun Spot
July 29, 2019 11:53 pm

From the article the full sentence is:

“At the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures at the same time.”

Roger Knights
Reply to  Loydo
July 30, 2019 5:18 am

AFAIK, at least a third of the globe, and maybe half, isn’t warming in recent decades.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 5:43 pm

Science deniers, all of them!

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 6:24 pm

“In the article, Matthes stated that most of the glaciers in the western United States are not remnants from the Pleistocene Era, as had been previously held, but rather are “modern” and formed within the last 4000 years. He identified this phenomenon as the Little Ice Age.”

The “father” of The Little Ice Age, François_E._Matthes, stated that he regretted introducing the phrase LIA. He preferred the term neoglaciation. These days his original definition has been forgotten causing confusion among scientists and some lay people.

sir padre
Reply to  robl
July 29, 2019 5:23 am

In the meantime, they removed the signs from Glacier National Park that said the glaciers would be gone in 2020; actually, they’ve grown larger in the last few years.

Who could have guessed?

Reply to  sir padre
July 30, 2019 1:28 am

“they’ve grown larger in the last few years”

How do you know that?

July 28, 2019 6:58 am

The image says it all. All that lovely steam rising up to cool the planet. I expect the journalist thought it was CO2 just like Greta Lunberg.

The JoNova response is far too complex for those of little brain with minimal attention span and, of course, that is where the problem lies. The damage is done and the fractured science lies in pieces clogging up the thinking of the many for years to come.

Coach Springer
Reply to  Alasdair
July 28, 2019 7:08 am

There is a saying about how fast a lie can spread while the truth is just rolling out of bed. Activists look at like an opportunity.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Coach Springer
July 28, 2019 1:06 pm

A lie can travel half way around the world before the truth can pull its boots on.

Robert Thrasher
Reply to  Alasdair
July 28, 2019 7:34 am

Based on the charts and all know published climate data (worldwide), the earth has had substantial climate change (both hotter and colder) for thousanda of years. I am a believer that the sun’s activity has a greater affect on our temperature than any other activity (volcanic, man-made or climatic) here on our planet. I love when people say, “our planet is dying”. The truth is, our planet is changing (has been and always will be) and there is nothing we can do to stop that…if we spend trillion of dollars and cut all polluting activities on the planet…The earth will still change (temperature and other wise)….furthermore, after man kind has wiped its self off the planet, the earth will still be here and will evolve another species to dominate the planet (just look back on the history of living things on this planet)…Our (Humans) time here is a speck in time and will have no meaning in the bigher picture in the future…

Reply to  Alasdair
July 28, 2019 7:54 am

It’s infuriating and depressing at the same time. There’s no way to hold them accountable. This little rebuttal will be seen by almost no one compared to the original article.

Reply to  Alasdair
July 28, 2019 7:55 am


Had to laugh. Thank you for channeling your inner Winnie the Pooh (a “bear of little brain”….). 🙂

July 28, 2019 6:59 am

We can all hope that, after his review of Pages2K proxies, McIntyre at Climate Audit will put this one to bed with a thorough analysis.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  TomRude
July 28, 2019 7:19 am

With all due respect, the JoNova website has already put this one to bed . . . and washed the sheets afterward.

Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 28, 2019 9:00 am

I agree that the JoNova website already did a great job of debunking the LA Times article but I also look forward to Stephen McIntyre’s comments because of his past excellent work debunking “studies” from Pages2K.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  RicDre
July 28, 2019 10:05 am


Reply to  TomRude
July 28, 2019 8:59 pm

“We can all hope”

If wrote “We can all hope they don’t find evidence that the MWP and the LIA were globally coherent” I would rightly be excoriated. Why hope for a particular result?

Why not objectively see where the evicence leads.

The evidence suggests these events were significant, natural, climatic variation but that they are dwarfed by the scale, rapidity and global uniformity of AGW.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 5:02 am

What is global uniformity of AGW?

Is it global uniformity in all your science deniers dork heads. Or dreams?
Objectively the evidence leads right in your steamheads mantra. But it´s not enough.
To be global warming there must be first warming. Or accelerating sea level rise. There´s not and not.
Go play with your legos, maybe they can understand your empty head. Now.

With your kind of people we have no hope. Stupidity shines too much. Learn to read.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 7:33 am

Your paranoia is getting worse Loydo, perhaps you should ask you doctor to increase your dosage.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 9:47 pm

‘Because we don’t know that, Lloydo. Today’s “global” warming isn’t global either. And comparing supposed temperature proxies with actual measurements is a no-no. They are only approximations, mostly pretty bad approximations.

James A. Schrumpf
Reply to  Loydo
July 30, 2019 4:30 am

Here’s the NOAA GHCN-Monthly summary of TAVG for the contiguous USA from 1900-2019, charted using a 1981-2010 baseline.

Note the sinusoidal nature, clearly showing the hot 1930s, the cooling of the late 1970s, the rebound from that, and the cooling of the last 4-5 years.

Note also how the total warming since 1900 is about 0.5° C.

comment image

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2019 7:07 am

Yep, Warmunists are the true science and climate deniers.

Ulric Lyons
July 28, 2019 7:15 am

The warm spike in GISP2 from 1010 AD was the Oort solar minimum.

comment image

Ulric Lyons
July 28, 2019 7:18 am

The late 8th century AD was the coldest for 3450 years in the Greenland GISP2 series, but was the warmest part of the MWP for Northern Europe.

comment image

July 28, 2019 7:24 am

I learned to be a skeptic when someone produced a study that proved the gas chambers at Auschwitz couldn’t have worked because they were too porous. If you didn’t know anything else, you would think that was plausible.

The MWP-LIA deniers can produce evidence and theories, and if you didn’t know anything else, you might think it is plausible.

July 28, 2019 7:25 am

Someone should point out to the LA Times that a consensus of scientists believe that the MWP and LIA were, indeed, global events.

R Terrell
Reply to  jtom
July 28, 2019 8:35 am

Having lived and spent over 26 years in So. California, I can say that I NEVER put much stock in anything the LA Times said! My news paper of choice for the REAL news was the Orange County Register. Still is, in many cases. The big liberal papers are all alike, mouthpieces for the Left. I don’t think I ever read the LA Times more than two or three times, mostly for the ads and/or comics.T least THEY weren’t biased!

Reply to  R Terrell
July 28, 2019 11:16 am

The LA Times never met an illegal immigrant who wasn’t a Saint. The paper has spent a generation whining and moaning about how … open … and inclusive … all we selfish Americans need to be. Never once have I read an LA Times article suggesting problems might accrue from tens of millions invading our country. Least of all … how those illegals strain our limited natural resources. Nope. Instead, all you selfish Americans need to stop watering your lawns … so a new illegal immigrant can give their newest anchor baby a bath.

Alpha Bravo
Reply to  R Terrell
July 28, 2019 5:30 pm

I stopped reading the LA Times when they did a front page puff piece on the new artificial sweetener, Nutrasweet. A pure advert for the company….which meant that everything else in the paper was probably just as phony. It’s all about the $$$, after all.

Justin McCarthy
Reply to  R Terrell
July 28, 2019 9:08 pm

Sorry to say; but, the OC Register was bought out. It is now worse than the LA Times and written for someone barely out of Middle School. We had to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

John W Braue
Reply to  jtom
July 28, 2019 11:29 am

But is it a consensus of 97% of scientists?

Reply to  jtom
July 29, 2019 6:13 am

They already know that, it was included in their article!
“The traditional understanding was that climate over these periods were globally coherent, ” said Nathan Steiger, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia University in New York who worked on the paper with Neukom. “But when we looked at the PAGES data, we found they are not as coherent as we thought.”

After analyzing the data using multiple statistical methods, the authors found that what were previously assumed to be global temperature trends were actually regional trends for all known climate epochs except for one: the one we find ourselves in today.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Phil.
July 29, 2019 9:55 pm

Pages is notorious for leaving out data that doesn’t stay on message, as McIntyre has pointed out repeatedly. You’ll forgive if I call the Pages stuff nonsense.

July 28, 2019 7:39 am

The LAT may as well be the Taliban dynamiting ancient Buddhas…

Reply to  Wharfplank
July 28, 2019 2:13 pm

They’re dynamiting America. And America is more important to the world than ancient Buddhas.

July 28, 2019 7:43 am


July 28, 2019 7:45 am

The country is now so familiar with the sad fact that a great percentage of our “news” is FAKE, overpumped clickbait shock-value entertainment only, that I’m pretty sure most of these “study shows” articles are now dismissed as agendas. Just the contradictory “studies” on foods alone over the past 30 years have made people skeptics of what now passes for “science.” Anyone who pays REAL attention is well aware of how very corrupt it all is.

Few people read these articles anyway; “climate change” in broadcast media is well-known and admittedly a “ratings killer.” After 35 years, people are bored with the exaggerations and mostly ignore the articles. Even my mother, “Resist!” member in good standing and in thrall to green NGO’s ignores this stuff; says it puts her to sleep!

Windy Wilson
July 28, 2019 7:51 am

No “Little Ice Age.” Well, bless their black, totalitarian hearts. How do they answer all those medieval monks, writing in their monasteries, complaining about the ink freezing in their ink wells? Were they just sissies? Did Grandpa monk have a secret formula for non-freezing ink? Were the monks from previous centuries made of tougher stuff and could continue writing with frozen ink?
Scientific minds want to know. As opposed to fanatical doctrinaire minds who take every opportunity to explain problems out of existence with words, smiles, hand waving, and “trust me, I’m a scientist and practice Scientism.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Windy Wilson
July 28, 2019 6:49 pm

Any medieval monks writing in their monasteries complaining about cold would have been
doing so during the Medieval warm period. So the answer would presumably be that the Medieval
warm period didn’t exist. By the time of the little ice age the reformation had gotten rid of most
of the monks and the ones left were probably complaining about the awful protestants.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 28, 2019 7:01 pm

Silly straw man, as the historical periods do not totally coincide. The last 200 years or so of the Medieval period, in history, was part of the Little Ice Age, roughly 1300-1500. Periods have really loose definitions, whether in climate studies or history.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 11:46 pm

That was the entire point of the research. Both the medieval warm period and the little ice age are ill defined and neither happened simultaneously around the global. Your dates for the little ice seem off by centuries when other estimates put it ending in the 1800s.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 29, 2019 5:22 am

I was referring to the Medieval portion of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850. I mentioned the overlap, to answer your snark about monk’s ink freezing. Medieval times were roughly 950-1500 as a period.
Y’all can feign reading comprehension difficulties fairly well.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 29, 2019 7:36 am

Unless the starting and ending points were identical at every point on the earth, it didn’t exist.
Is that the story you are trying to push?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 29, 2019 7:35 am

In what passes for your mind, the winters in Europe weren’t cold during the MWP?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2019 11:36 am

winters in Europe were bloody cold during the European little ice age. But there were
spots of the globe during that time that were anomalously warm and so the average temperature was not as extreme as you would think if you only looked at Europe. The point
of the recent paper is that previously you could not find a long period of time where
temperatures rose or fell globally. In contrast the entire global is currently warming and
has been for nearly a century.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 29, 2019 10:05 pm

The entire glob is NOT currently warming. Over the last 150 years, some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. Averaging them all together doesn’t give you anything meaningful.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 30, 2019 1:34 am

Stretching the truth Jeff. The vast majority has warmed and precious little has cooled.
comment image

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 30, 2019 10:25 am

Here is a map showing 2000 stations in the US, that according to the NOAA GHCN-Monthly summaries have been cooling for the past four years.

Of course, there are also 6000 stations that are showing warming trends as well. But how can it be called “global” anything with such a mix of trends?

July 28, 2019 8:03 am

If these dishonest people persist in using the term “climate change denier,” I think the opposite epithet is appropriate for them: Climate Nazi. They just keep on earning it.

Reply to  damp
July 28, 2019 10:38 am

When I hear one crapping on like that I’ll interject with a look of surprise- ‘Oh you’re a climate changer! How are you getting along with changing the climate? It really throws them and shuts them right up as it points the hubris of it directly at them. You want to try it.

Robert of Texas
July 28, 2019 8:23 am

It’s only “anti-science” if it fails to support Global Warming.

J Mac
July 28, 2019 9:03 am

The LAT article serves up the alternative reality pablum necessary to keep the AOC’s (Alarmist On Climate) of the world ‘on message’.
“Repent! The End is Nigh! It’s just 30 years ahead! Really, believe us this time!”

J Mac
July 28, 2019 9:44 am

Climate is not static. It changes. Constantly and naturally over time. Denying the well documented Medieval Warm period and the following Little Ice Age, to serve the political agenda du jour, is just asinine. One day the ice age will return naturally, as it has repeatedly. Until then, wiggles in temperature are simply natural background noise during the continuing Holocene interglacial period of 14,000 years.

The end of the Holocene interglacial period and the inexorable return of continent spanning mile thick glaciers to the northern hemisphere is the catastrophic climate change we should fear.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  J Mac
July 28, 2019 11:17 am


Joe Jarrett
Reply to  J Mac
July 28, 2019 11:43 am

Well said, & accurate.
Your words mirror those of a person I deeply
admire, Dr. Lee Gerhard.
“Rational science for rational
If the general public just had
basic courses in geology, they would understand that there is NO climate nirvana.
They might also come to realize that the Sun,
geo-dynamics, ocean curtents
NOT HUMAN HUBRIS, are the real deal climate drivers.

Reply to  J Mac
July 29, 2019 12:10 am

“Denying the well documented Medieval Warm period and the following Little Ice Age, to serve the political agenda du jour, is just asinine. One day the ice age will return naturally, as it has repeatedly. Until then, wiggles in temperature are simply natural background noise…”

Astonishing bi-polarity. MWP and LIA occuring hundreds of years ago are “well documented” but todays far more pronounced, widespread and rapid (and accelerating) changes are just “noise” and somehow political. You’re in for an unpleasant surprise.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 6:09 am

Loydo: “but todays far more pronounced, widespread and rapid (and accelerating) changes are just “noise” and somehow political.”

Not noise, fraudulent would be a better word to use.

Loyd: “You’re in for an unpleasant surprise.”

Well, you are right, it will be a surprise if CAGW happens, considering the lack of evidence for it, despite the best efforts of fraudsters and legitimate scientists alike..

Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 29, 2019 7:40 am

Loydo is well trained to ignore the problems with proxies. The first being that most of them don’t record yearly, or even decadal length shifts.
He honestly believes that you can directly compare a proxy that has centennial resolution with yearly numbers gathered by satellites on an instantaneous basis.

J Mac
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2019 6:28 pm

You’ll only confuse Loydo, bless his heart, trying to educate him about the differences in resolution of temperature proxies versus current temperature measurements. Science isn’t his strong suit, as his comments demonstrate. It continues to provide unpleasant surprises for him.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 7:38 am

This from the guy who takes every heat wave as proof positive of CO2 power to kill us all.

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 10:15 am

Part of the problem between prior warming signals (from Proxy data) and current warming signal (from thermometers) is Resolution of the datasets.
the MWP and LIA are measured from Low Resolution Proxy Datasets with resolve features in multidecade to century scale resolution while the current temperatures are measured in relative Ultra High Resolution of Minutes. There are global proxies that indicate both warming around 1000CE and cooling around 1500CE had impacts measurable in both hemispheres and on both sides of the Prime Meridian. To argue the they weren’t global denies the truth that their impacts do appear in proxy data from studies on every continent.
A disingenuous tactic similar to using CO2 production tonnage “Per Capita” rather than Per Country annual totals or arguing that building windows or cats kill more birds than Wind Turbines (if there were as many turbines as cats or windows, Turbine Kills would dwarf both combined)

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 10:09 pm

You’re also forgetting about the other warm periods that were likely warmer than the MWP; like the Roman WP, Minoan, Holocene Climate optimum.

July 28, 2019 9:51 am

To what extent is the modelling announced in the Nature Geoscience paper that is the subject of this post dependent on the recently published updating of proxies published in Climate of thePpast :
That paper linked to Pages2K database shows significant smoothing of the MWP (MCA) and LIA in global reconstruction curves .
comment image

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  mikewaite
July 29, 2019 10:10 pm

They also likely left out data they didn’t like.

July 28, 2019 10:23 am

I read about this on the BBC , I think, which gave links to three articles. It is said that these have been thoroughly researched and all the data is available. The point is not that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period did not exist, just that they did not occur simultaneously over the globe which is claimed to be the current situation. I have made no attempt to read the papers because I am completely unqualified to assess them.

It is probably best to reserve judgement on this till the data has been analysed by one of our expert colleagues and not to base arguments on a newspaper article. Past form makes me assume that there is some sort of fiddle involved but there is always a small possibility that this one might come up to proof.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Susan
July 28, 2019 12:04 pm

It’s based on climate models that do not predict the climate and on proxy air temperature reconstructions that do not represent temperature, Susan.

It’s all a crock decorated with mathematics. Meaningless nonsense made to look like science.

Reply to  Susan
July 29, 2019 12:34 am

That is about the most sensible comment I’ve read on this thread.

Pat is not even wrong. The study is based on data (thats why they are referring to a database Frank).

“The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins. The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial.”

Pat if in doing your rigouous analysis of the research paper you’ve found flaws in their methodology or inconsistancies in their technical validation or contradictions in their conclusions, please what are they?

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 2:42 am

~20 proxies covering the SH in the MWP, half in Antarctica where they say their results aren’t robust.

Bryan A
Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 10:20 am

Tree Proxy Data is about as reliable as YAD61 ala “Hide the Decline”
There are far too many influences to tree ring growth that just the magical CO2 as the control knob for temperature.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Susan
July 29, 2019 1:25 pm

Susan, a word to the wise, do not read articles on the BBC.
It will only confuse you.
The BBC claim to be accurate while all the time filtering the data in such a way the end information revealed, supports their singular objective. That objective, is to promote or propagandise the concept of man made climate change.
The BBC is now so dedicated to its task, it refuses to carry any comment from anyone who is not promoting man made climate change as a real phenomena.
The BBC’s policy advisory/instruction to producers, is to only allow debate on how to mitigate man made climate change and never allow any debate on whether it is real or not.
NB climate change is real, thankfully. The real question is how much if any of that change is from man made contributions.
Those of us with open minds, remain open minded. We are grateful the changes to climate in the past 150 years have given us a much more comfortable world to live in.

July 28, 2019 10:25 am

Excellent limerick by Ruairi over at the JoNova site

Is it now a journalist’s task,
To distort to twist and to mask,
The truth for their masters,
Such as warmist broadcasters,
And never the hard questions ask?

Reply to  RicDre
July 28, 2019 12:11 pm

The inquisitors never relented
Till the palaeo record repented
Now the medieval’s cooled
And the LIA’s pwned
So our century’s “unprecedented”!!

James Clarke
July 28, 2019 10:31 am

I made this same comment on Jo Nova’s site:

The argument in the ‘new’ study revolves around the word ‘coherent’, which is science babble for ‘global and synchronous’. Simply put, they are claiming that the current warm period is happening everywhere and at the same time, while the Medieval Warm Period was regional and occurred at different times in different regions. This argument has been floated around for decades. and studies making the claim all derive from the same scientific malpractice.

Temperature data from 1,000 years ago are derived from proxies. There were no instruments measuring temperatures around the globe until very recently. If we wish to compare previous periods that were measured with proxies to a current period, science demands that we use the same method to sample both periods. We cannot put satellites in Medieval skies or put a global network of thermometers in Medieval huts and sailing vessels, but we can still use proxy data to measure current temperatures. When we do that, we find that the current warming is no more ‘coherent’ than the Medieval Warming, or any of the other warming periods that are (almost) universally recognized from the past.

The illusion that the current warming period is more ‘coherent’ is a product of technology, not scientific understanding. When technology allows us to discover something that was previously unknown, real science assumes that the thing existed before, but was just unobserved. Climate ‘science’, however, often makes the opposite assumption, if it fits the desired narrative. In this way, weather events observed with the latest technology are deemed ‘unprecedented’, even when more primitive observations indicate the current events are completely mundane, including recent heat waves, droughts, tropical storms and forest fires. The argumentation in this study is akin to arguing that Jupiter’s largest four moons formed 409 years ago when Galileo first saw them through his telescope, and that the other moons of Jupiter are even younger.

This practice in climate studies and press releases is scientific malpractice!

Krishna Gans
Reply to  James Clarke
July 28, 2019 11:26 am

While France and Germany had a so called heat wave, Russia and Spain hadn’t but ist was extremly cold.
So what ?
So the heat we had here wasn’t coherent to other regions in the world.

James Clarke
Reply to  Krishna Gans
July 28, 2019 12:16 pm

Precisely. The argument of coherence is used by the warmests only if it fits their narrative. If it does not fit their narrative, it is rejected as a valid argument.

Not only do they cherry-pick their data, they cherry-pick their rationality. This practice is all to common in science, and happens in skeptical arguments as well. The good scientist constantly desires to be corrected. The bad scientist constantly desires to be ‘right’.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  James Clarke
July 28, 2019 12:16 pm

Well thought out comment James. Thanks.

This “unprecedented” in this Age of Scientism crops up everywhere now from ozone holes over the Antarctic, to occasional warm “blobs” of ocean water somewhere, to in situ observations of underwater ice shelf melts during brief polar summers.

It’s not some grand coordinated conspiracy on the part of individual researchers, except for the fact that all of them are constantly in need of funding that next research grant. Funding is the finite resource all the thousands of researchers are fighting for. And trying to draw attention to your work and novel “findings” above the noise of all the other thousands of annual claims has led to a Darwinian evolution of ever louder and louder screams of “unprecedented” to gain recognition, to find relevance to get above the funding cut-off line at the next grant renewal cycle.

Thus in the science world we hear the louder voices screaming the most unprecedented claims. Simple Darwinian selection. The victim in this of course is the truth. When truth is down-played because “it fits” a politically desired narrative, all sorts of perverse peacock strutting plumage claims are possible in an endless descent to ever lower forms of junk science.

Reply to  James Clarke
July 28, 2019 3:18 pm

You can see the problem if you look at the type, location, quantum and resolution over timd of the proxies used by them

However the paper does seem to make it clear coherence isn’t a feature of anthropogenic warming, as they proudly say “Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence …..” and it’s pretty common ground the early part can’t have been anthropogenic.

Reply to  James Clarke
July 29, 2019 12:46 am

“When we do that, we find that the current warming is no more ‘coherent’ than the Medieval Warming, or any of the other warming periods”

You say that but produce no evidence to support it. Is it not just your gut feeling? This study analysed a lot of data:

“The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations…”

But you dismis it all on a hunch or on Jo Nova’s say so? Have you read it?

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 2:37 am

By my rough count < 200 proxies in the MWP biased to lower resolution ones, ~20 in the SH, 10 of those in Antarctica (wasn't there where they said their results didn't hold). So all those pixels you see across the balance of the SH are generated by perhaps 10 proxies.

Jim Veenbaas
July 28, 2019 10:40 am

Common sense has been totally abandoned by these useful idiots. We know trees have grown much farther north than the existing tree line right now. So obviously it was warmer in the northern hemisphere than it is right now. Yet somehow this extraordinary warmth was just limited to the arctic, even though it was clearly warmer than it is now. And somehow today’s warmth is catastrophic.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
July 29, 2019 7:45 am

We also know that it was warm, long enough for those trees to grow.
It takes time for the tree line to advance by miles.

Joel O'Bryan
July 28, 2019 10:56 am

Understanding the climate scam alarmism is to understand how all the money flows and who is looking to get richer.

The LA Times climate alarmism is ramping up even higher under new ownership.
LA Times was bought by billionaire Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, a UCLA surgeon, turned startup entrepreneur. Made his fortune with selling a biotech he started about 12 years ago. He bought LA Times and San Diego Tribune at a fire sale in 2018.
He has another startup, NantEnergy. It’s business is to bring made-in-China Zinc-Air rechargeable batteries to the market to pair with solar PV. It’s part of Soon-Shiong’s Nant Holdings IP, his umbrella LLC.

As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now you know the rest of the story.”

The best solution is to not buy or subscribe to the LA Times and hope it bleeds out.

Christ, Jesus
July 28, 2019 11:33 am

[pruned.] false email address, inappropriate user_id used. .mod

Pat Frank
July 28, 2019 11:58 am

I’m in sympathy with the intent of the head post, but really having to yet once again see false proxy temperatures represented with an accuracy of 0. C is so very tiresome.

Not one of those proxy charts displays physically real temperatures. They’re all just statistical constructs with no discrete physical meaning.

How are we supposed to stand against the fake science of AGW when so many otherwise skeptical people go right on a post fake proxy temperatures.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 28, 2019 12:49 pm

The head post is a giant strawman Pat. No one is saying the MWP didn’t exist.

Reply to  Koydo
July 28, 2019 6:27 pm

False. I read that claim (that the MWP does not exist – more often that it can be ignored because it was a local “northern European” event) regularly across many article in many journals and threads.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
July 28, 2019 8:39 pm

If you can substantiate the claim that someone said “the MWP does not exist” – with an actual quote, I’ll withdraw my accusation of it being a baseless strawman lie. Good luck.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 8:42 pm

Loydo, your ignorant routine is getting old. Look at MBH98, and the notorious Hockey Stick graph.

Reply to  Loydo
July 28, 2019 9:06 pm


I am increasingly developing a belief that you are under 25 years old, since you display deep ignorance over this and other topics on what warmists have stated in the past.

For years they have argued that it was a NORTHERN Hemisphere phenomenon, while skeptics in recent years have showed evidence that it was indeed warmer in various locations in the Southern hemisphere in similar time frames as the MWP period of the Northern part of the planet.

I have argued over this many times in many places over the last 20 years with AGW fanatics, who bow down to the never peer reviewed H.S. paper posted by Dr. Mann, that made hilarious claims that the MWP and LIA didn’t exist.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 12:56 am

“claims that the MWP and LIA didn’t exist”

Flapping their arms so hard Tom and tommy fly off into the sunset.

Strawman bs. Produce something that can be verified. Anything.

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 7:46 am


you are pathetic since a sterling example was posted right in front of you:

The Los Angeles Times is at it again hyping anti science climate alarmist propaganda trying to conceal the global wide Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are supported and justified by hundreds of scientific studies.

Here is what YOU didn’t read:

Climate change: We haven’t experienced anything like this in the past 2,000 years

By Michael Collett, ABC, Environmental Copy and Paste Promoter
Climate scientists writing in the journal Nature have found there is no evidence for “globally coherent warm and cold periods” over the past 2,000 years prior to industrialisation.

That’s significant, because climate change deniers have sometimes pointed to epochs like the so-called “Little Ice Age” or “Medieval Warm Period” to argue that the current global warming is one among multiple similar global climate events.
But what the research actually shows is that other “peak warming and cooling events” over the past two millennia appear to have been localised, whereas the human-caused global warming observed over the past 150 years is unparalleled in its global scale (not to mention its absolute temperatures).
They are lying because it has NOT been warming in most of America since the late 1800’s, as shown by the NOAA

Reply to  Loydo
July 29, 2019 8:09 pm

You seem to think your opinion counts as evidence. I’m asking for a supporting quote. Is that so difficult to comprehend? If you can’t supply one then just say so, instead of the insults.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Koydo
July 28, 2019 6:54 pm

Huuh? So Michael Mann and his acolytes are “nobody”? The “hockey stick graph” is a product of minions of the fossil fuel industry intended to make the CAGW advocates look silly?

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 28, 2019 9:00 pm

Mann has never denied the Medieval Climatic Anomaly existed. He (like many others) simply said it…
a) wasn’t global
b) doesn’t match the present warming, either by area or temperature increase.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2019 11:03 am

Based on the MBH98 “Hockey stick” graph, if that is not denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Perion, what is?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2019 10:16 pm

Simon, as someone pointed out above, comparing today’s thermometer readings to supposed proxies of temperature isn’t valid, period. Compare the same proxies today and see how they hold up. Ever heard of the Divergence Problem? Many of those proxies probably aren’t even representing temperature.

July 28, 2019 1:21 pm

All I see in the comments are ad hominum attacks and Special Pleadings. Not acknowledgement of the current out-of-bands measurements of Artic warming, opening of the Northwest Passage, that the last 15 years includes the warmest 15 years in the record (pick your geo area), etc.

You guys are trying really hard to earn your pay from the oil and coal companies, but you have been overcome by events. I’m guessing that in 15 years, as death rates spiral and Florida disappears under the surf, your will still will be saying “any day now. its all in the sun cycle. cooling is just around the corner”

Meanwhile, I morn for my grandchildren.

Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 3:06 pm

“Fifteen years? ” But, but I thought we had less than TWELVE years before we’re all dead! Thanks for the extension!

Seriously, if you want to learn actual science start reading here continually. And stick with it until you can make a coherent argument, for or against. Make your momma proud.

P.S. Tell me where I can get some of the “oil and coal money”. I could really use it.

Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 3:22 pm

Ignoring your ad hom, you do know that 1940 had the then warmest period in the instrumental record and that was before GHGs could have had an impact?

Reply to  HAS
July 28, 2019 4:39 pm

“1940 had the then warmest period in the instrumental record and that was before GHGs could have had an impact?”

Warmest where? Oh you mean the US. So for 2% of the globe the 40’s were a warm period. But now we have 98% of the globe showing warming you want to ignore it?

Reply to  Simon
July 28, 2019 10:22 pm

I was just referring to all the global temp series.

BTW where do you live that you didn’t know the 1940s were at that time the hottest global temps in the instrumental period (c. mid 1800s)?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2019 6:43 am

“Warmest where? Oh you mean the US.”

The 1930’s (Twentieth Century Warming) was global according to Tmax charts. They all (at least the ones I’ve seen) show the temperatures were just as warm in the 20th Century as they are in the 21st Century.

Look at the Tmax charts in the article linked below. The article doesn’t show southern hemisphere charts but they look the same as the northern hemisphere charts, i.e., the 20th century was as warm as today.

And, on top of that, unmodified charts (those not bastardized by the Keepers of the Data) from around the world show the 1930’s to be just as warm as current temperatures, and in some cases, such as the United States, the 1930’s were warmet than any year since.

Given that the Climategate Charlatans have turned the global surface temperature record into science fiction, we must fall back on judging the past temperatures by using the unmodified regional charts, including Tmax charts, from around the world. If they all agree that the 1930’s was as warm as today, and they do, then that is a global temperature profile.

Let’s see the alarmists try to deny that it was just as hot in the 1930’s. They can’t deny it, they just do like Simon did and claim it wasn’t global but that’s not what the unaltered data says. We have data on the 1930’s. Let’s argue about that.

Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2019 7:54 am

It’s been warming for almost 200 years, the vast majority of that warming happened before CO2 could have been the cause.
It’s been warmer to much warmer 3 times in the last 5000 years. CO2 could not have been the cause for any of those warmings.
It’s been warmer than it is today for 80 to 90% of the last 10,000 years. CO2 was not the cause for any of that warming.
Beyond that, during the warm times I previously mentioned, life flourished.
Add to that the greening of the planet that’s being caused by CO2, why should anyone worry?

Reply to  Simon
July 29, 2019 8:07 am

Tom Abbott

“Let’s see the alarmists try to deny that it was just as hot in the 1930’s. They can’t deny it, they just do like Simon did and claim it wasn’t global but that’s not what the unaltered data says. We have data on the 1930’s. Let’s argue about that.”

Soory, the denier of evidence is… Tom Abbott.

The only data you have:

is a chart that you did either not understand at all or intentionally misinterpret.

I repeat what I wrote to you on this July 13: the only time series where the 1930’s still happen to supersede today’s temperature is that constructed out of over 8000 CONUS stations during the summer:

And this is how land-only temperatures look like for the entire Globe, made out of the data from nearly 36000 stations:

You are absolutely unable to give valuable, reproducible information contradicting that.

J.-P. D.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bindidon
July 30, 2019 6:58 am

“I repeat what I wrote to you on this July 13: the only time series where the 1930’s still happen to supersede today’s temperature is that constructed out of over 8000 CONUS stations during the summer”

That’s not true [that it is the only time series]. Didn’t you look at the Tmax charts in the link? Who is denying what?

All the Tmax charts resemble the Hansen 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart where the 1930’s show to be as warm as current temperatures. And those charts cover areas all over the world.

Show me a Tmax chart that resembles the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.

The Tmax charts resemble Hansen 1999, the chart on the left in the link above, and no Tmax chart resembles the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart shown on the right in the link. So which is the true global temperature profile, a Hockey Stick with no confirmation in history, or the Hansen 1999 chart with multiple confirmations of its profile? You know my answer.

Ignoring all the evidence available is not scientific. Instead, it’s confirmation bias.

Kone Wone
Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 4:11 pm

How do you ‘morn’? Is it something you can only do before midday?

J Mac
Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 4:15 pm

I morn for your grandchildren also. Their grandpa is either trying really hard to earn his pay from the climate alarmist industry or he has been overcome by his irrational fears of natural events normal to the Holocene interglacial period of the last 14,000 years.

Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 4:35 pm

“Florida to disappear in 15 years?”
How exciting!

Your grandchildren are going to be just fine.
BTW “mourn” is spelt with a “u”.
They will live in a vibrant healthy planet with vegetation and crop growth surging from CO2 fertilisation. And normally chaotic weather and climate, no catastrophe, 9 billion people on earth as a plateau-ed and better educated population.

Climate will have become a normal honest science again, and some of today’s alarmists will still be in prison.

Only they will be embarrassed to have a grandfather who was one of the Luddite alarmist terrorists who tried to bring down the world economy.

Ronald Ginzler
Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 5:09 pm

Chris, if you are going to mourn, at least spell the word correctly. And I never mourn for people who are still alive. You are thinking of a future that hasn’t happened and exists only in the minds of indoctrinated people who swallowed the propaganda. Give Earth a chance. Science is only what happens, not what hysterical people think might happen based on media who want you to be afraid. We will survive. Your grandchildren will wonder, “What was Grandpa so worried about? My vegetable garden is producing more than my family can eat. How can I give the surplus away?”
This comment was not paid for by oil or coal companies, but I do pay my electric bill, or else I could not post this. And if Florida goes under the surf, it was because of already existing geologic conditions, or the weight of retirees.

Reply to  chris
July 28, 2019 9:20 pm


Your comment betrays YOUR ignorance on the climatology of the ENTIRE Holocene era.

It has been much warmer and little to zero summer ice cover for long periods of time than now, yet no calamity ever showed up.

Todays sea ice cover similar to the 1930’s:

Much less ice earlier in the Holocene:

It was warmer during the MWP, Roman and Minoan periods than now, since the Minoan warm period there has been a clear long term cooling trend that is now around 3,500 years long in the far north region.

Reply to  chris
July 29, 2019 5:21 am

Please show your evidence that any poster here is being paid by the oil and coal (or even gas ) companies. Then tell me how I get my cut!

Reply to  chris
July 29, 2019 7:50 am

Once again chris seagulls in to post the same lies. No doubt he will never read any of the comments responding to it.

No matter how much evidence is given, chris, and the other trolls will declare that nobody has presented any evidence.

Without the slightest bit of evidence, chris once again declares that anyone who disagrees with his church is in the pay of oil and coal companies.

Florida disappearing under the surf in 15 years? Even Saint IPCC doesn’t make that claim.
Dementia has set in for chris.

Reply to  chris
July 29, 2019 7:51 am

PS: I morn for your grandchildren as well.
I bet you are a real downer at family gatherings.

Reply to  chris
July 29, 2019 10:50 am

Just one thing: “opening of the Northwest Passage”

It sure wasn’t open last year. And ice conditions in the area were much the same in the nineteenth century as now:

Also note that nearly all voyages through the NW Passage nowadays use the route through Bellot Strait, that was hardly usable before the satellite era. The strait is very narrow and has strong tidal currents that make it near-suicidal to use if you don’t know about ice conditions at the other end. It is too narrow for sailing vesels to turn and tack back through. It was first used by Aklavik in 1937 (when Fort Ross trading post at the eastern entrance was manned, and so known to be passable). That was a two-way passage through the Northwest Passage that is almost invariably glossed over by the way.

Also note that we really have no idea whether the Nortwest Passage was open before the satellite era, simply because nobody tried it. After the Franklin relief expeditions of the 1850’s nobody tried until Amundsen went through in 1903-06, and then again nobody until Aklavik in 1937 and St Roch 1940-42 and 1944, and then nobody until Labrador in 1954.

Eoin mc
July 28, 2019 1:33 pm

The Irish Times also had another article earlier this year trying to demolish the notion that there was a Little Ice Age at all. It was penned by a well-regarded veteran economic academic, with a political dynastic pedigree, and who is now hugely involved in the official government climate think tank. His utterly risible thesis was that there were merely a few isolated cold pockets here and there but that the reason that the notion that there was a mini Ice Age was because there were a few failed grape harvests and this had knock-on economic effects in England and France! My letter to the editor opposing this nonsense was not published. On a continual basis I am learning that not only did the hype-believing general populace know very little about climate science prior to the emergence of St Greta but that they, along with the media, political and academic classes are now in the grip of hysterical climatemania.

July 28, 2019 1:41 pm

No references provided for the pictures: mot worht discussing this.

July 28, 2019 1:54 pm

OK, who’s ready to sign up for the proxies 1,900 years ago have decadal resolution? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  GeoNC
July 29, 2019 10:21 pm

Yeah, proxy resolution is a BIG problem. Some of them wouldn’t even show our entire instrumental record.

July 28, 2019 2:17 pm

I think the warmunnists have grown worried. People around the world are voting out the One World Order types, and they realize that the people coming in are inclined to ignore the big scare, so this sudden push to create urgency, and to try to force action in a very small window. Continue to emphasize all of the failed predictions of the last 20 years, and maybe we can be done with this over-hyped non-crisis.

July 28, 2019 2:40 pm

“This climate alarmist propaganda Times article cites a new “study” that ridiculously attempts to deny these clearly established warm and cool periods in our past.”
This is the real anti-science, And anti-skepticism. “ridiculously attempts to deny” is the language of religion, not science.

In fact the LA Times article was a very reasonable review of evidence. And they pinpointed an issue with a lot of the LIA/MWP talk by “skeptics”; the time period is unspecified, and varies in different places. Now I see above that the expectation of coherence is “science babble”, but it is critical. Every temperature series has its ups and downs. And if you look through every series and identify the peaks as MWP and th troughs as LIA, then sure, you’ll find they are everywhere.

About a week ago, we had one of these articles here claiming LIA and MWP in Antarctica. But the featured graph actually showed a steady decline in temperature over the last 2000 years, interrupted by modern warming. It was actually taken from a different paper which was making exactly that point, that Antarctica was just showing late Holocene decline. But it was presented as a MWP/LIA story. In fact there were a few local peaks around 1400. But that is when the Vikings were freezing in Greenland.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 28, 2019 6:09 pm

Read Hubert Lamb’s “ Climate, History and the Modern World”(1994).
Lamb believed on credible evidence that the MWP temperatures in Europe were 2 plus degrees Celsius warmer than the late 20th Century.
He quotes a Dr. Pugh as saying that ocean temperatures in a part of Scandinavia ( I will check passage and locale) were 4 degrees Celsius warmer than 20th Century.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Lamb was sceptical of the greenhouse warming theory then coming into vogue but not accepted in the AR1 findings in 1990.
It is likely that Lamb would not today get a post at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.
He was a founder and first Director of that institution.

Reply to  Herbert
July 28, 2019 8:48 pm

“He quotes a Dr. Pugh as saying that ocean temperatures in a part of Scandinavia ( I will check passage and locale) were 4 degrees Celsius”
Some of this evidence is of dubious quality. Here is what he actually said:
“Dr L.G.C.E.Pugh of the Medical Research Laboratories, Hampstead, has given his opinion, from studies of the endurance of Channel swimmers and others undertaking similar exploits, that 10 °C would be about the lowest temperature at which a strong person, even if fat, not specially trained for long-distance swimming, could swim the distance mentioned. As the average temperatures in the fjords of that coast in August in modern times have seldom exceeded 6 °C (+3 to +6 °C being more typical), it seems that the water must have been at least 4 °C warmer than this limit in the year in which Thorkel swam it and brought home his sheep.”
So now it is 4°C on the authority of Dr Pugh!

But Lamb didn’t say that either MWP or LIA were global. He stuck to what he had anecdotes about, which were basically Europe, with something of N America, China/Japan, India and the “hither East”.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2019 10:24 pm

Well, it all fits then, since every single proxy is of dubious quality.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2019 3:00 am

On the question of coherence it is pretty safe to say if we got an operational definition of what it meant, PAGES isn’t going to be able resolve the issue.

But you’d have to admit that the inference about this being a reliable finger print for anthropogenic warming is a nice try. What next?

Reply to  HAS
July 29, 2019 7:57 am

An event that lasted for hundreds of years, didn’t start on the same year everywhere on the planet.
In the minds of some, this proves that it didn’t happen.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 29, 2019 8:41 am

The Antarctic and Southern ocean have not warmed in the last half century.
Nor have large parts of South America.
Nor has a large part of the Pacific Ocean.
Nor have parts of Asia and China.
The warming now is just as patchy and selective as in the MWP and other prior warm periods.

The website CO2 science has a database of hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers showing the reality and the global nature of the MWP. Attempting to cast doubt on the MWP is egregious denial.

Mark Gilbert
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 30, 2019 4:53 am

Nick – “This is the real anti-science, And anti-skepticism. “ridiculously attempts to deny” is the language of religion, not science.”

Let me first say, I am pleased that you continue trying to be civil, even if I am completely surprised at your resistance to the avalanche of facts.

This is blatant denial of science in it’s basest form.

If you believe that Global Warming or Climate Weirding or whatever the warmunists are calling it these days, I hope you are at least familiar with the supposed “scientism” behind it.

As you also said “Every temperature series has its ups and downs.” this is true for the alleged justification made by warmunists.
It is all based on models of (incredibly tortured to match the desired model predictions) data, and why? Because at it’s root, all CLIMATE is a very noisy and chaotic signal that must be filtered. The Models are a (very poor) attempt to winkle a trend out of the noise of the data.

Just because the MWP and LIA brutalize the basis of your religion… er hypothesis, you do not have the scientific basis to ignore data you do not like. Insert the real data, using like proxies, and POOF, the grandiose claims are revealed for the smoke and mirrors they always were.

David Wojick
July 28, 2019 4:16 pm

The Guardian has published an article on a study that found something I pointed out two years ago, that YouTube is full of videos skeptical of climate alarmism.

There are at least a thousand skeptical videos. I have begun collecting them at my Climate Change Debate Education website: ( and have about 300 listed at this point. That is a lot of skeptical science. Including a bunch from Judith Curry, Dick Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Will Happer, Roy Spencer and Marc Morano. Morano holds the record with his wonderful 10 million view video.

The Guardian says we skeptics are “hijacking” the science. Utter nonsense. The scientific debate is very real and this blog is a great place to see it.

Bruce Cobb
July 28, 2019 4:21 pm

Laughably, they try to climatesplain previous periods of cooling as being primarily due to volcanic activity, and warmups as the lack of volcanic activity.

Peter K
July 28, 2019 10:53 pm

Australia has decommissioned 20% of it’s 31 GW coal fired power stations since 2012. Another large coal plant will be decommissioned in 2 years time bring the total reduction to 24%. There is around 15 GW of Solar and wind farms in service today. There is another 25 GW of Solar and Wind farms currently in various stages of construction. Yet we still get our ill-informed students and school teachers blockading the streets in protest for more action on climate change.

July 29, 2019 6:49 am

I love how the AGW scientists contradict themselves from paper to paper..
Firstly some say jet streams and storms will get stronger others say the Jet will get weaker and more wavy…but in the context of this article this from Nature

Which states
The observed pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that a weaker temperature gradient led to weaker mid-latitude westerly flow, weaker cyclones and decreased net terrestrial mid-latitude precipitation. Currently, the northern high latitudes are warming at rates nearly double the global average, decreasing the Equator-to-pole temperature gradient to values comparable with those in the early to middle Holocene. If the patterns observed during the Holocene hold for current anthropogenically forced warming, the weaker latitudinal temperature gradient will lead to considerable reductions in mid-latitude water resources.

So this article is suggesting temps in the arctic and N Hemisphere were indeed warmer in the past than now….

July 29, 2019 8:44 am

Somewhere above I read without surprise:

“Me and the Chinese think the Tmax charts are the best metric for determining past high temperatures. ”

1. This is completely wrong at global level.
2. It is known sice decades that Tmin temperatures grow faster than Tmax.

At global level (no: I don’t mean Illinois or Minnesota during a polar vortex intrusion) the winters and the nights become peu a peu less cold.

Me thinks that globally, we have less ‘more warming’ than much more ‘less cooling’.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bindidon
July 30, 2019 6:47 am

So? There’s no evidence that slightly warmer is bad in any way. Skeptics don’t expect climate to be static, unlike alarmist expectations.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bindidon
July 30, 2019 7:30 am

What better way is there to measure the warmth in the atmosphere than to use the chart that shows the highest temperatures reached at any one time?

The problem with averaging today is the Climategate Charlatans take the Tmax and Tmin and average them and out comes Science Fiction. So if we want to use real data, not bastardized data, then we have to fall back on the regional unmodified charts to find the truth about how the climate behaves.

The temperature charts NASA Climate and NOAA and the other conspirators produce is not fit for purpose. Anyone who considers them valid is fooling themselves. Read the Climategate emails, the conspiracy to manipulate the surface temperature record is right there in black and white. Quoting their bogus figures is a waste of time.

July 29, 2019 10:27 am

12 new papers provide robust evidence that the earth was warmer during Medieval times:

David Zuckerman
July 29, 2019 6:32 pm

Has anyone actually read that Los Angeles Times article?
I just read it and could not find anywhere the denial of the MWP
or the LIA.

Ulric Lyons
July 30, 2019 4:20 pm

The papers:
‘Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions’

In fact the larger eruptions occurred just after the colder LIA winters, and slightly warmed the following N Hem winters.

‘No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era’

I do believe they have ENSO backwards, El Nino episodes normal double in frequency during centennial solar minima.

July 30, 2019 7:25 pm

Isn’t the basic premise of the scary global warming , (climate change) fraud that humans have the amazing ability to set the earths temperature to within a degree or two by cutting back on those evil fossil fuels ?
All we need to do is pay Trillions in more taxes to governments and the communist cover UN .

So who exactly who gets to pretend to set the goldilock temperature and how would it be measured ?
What if Canada wants it a smidge warmer and Nigeria says nah to hot ?
Are there any reputable scientists claiming humans can set the thermostat ? How are the natural variables netted out ?
On the other hand the truth is no one knows and the best thing to do is adapt like we are going to have to anyways .
Save the $trillions and put it to good use . I know all those corporate rent seekers will squeak a bit but so what .
$31 trillion hidden in tax havens now that is a problem .

%d bloggers like this: