Reply #25

In the discussion thread: Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC [View all]

Fri Mar 23, 2012, 12:19 PM

25. so, would it then contradict the other data

were it found to be a valid climate proxy? i would think that it would not be able to be considered valid if it were contradictory to the other accepted proxies.

thanks for the info...quick question though...you copied and pasted some text from 'the article' but i don't see it in the OP posted article. where did it come from? would love to do some more reading when time permits.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

34 replies	Author	Time	Post
Medieval warming WAS global – new science contradicts IPCC [View all]	FarCenter	Mar 2012	OP
Extremely vague statement	tabatha	Mar 2012	#1
+1	ProfessorGAC	Mar 2012	#2
"warming-alarmist" in the first sentence immediately colours whatever this article is saying...	SidDithers	Mar 2012	#3
Precisely. n/t	ljm2002	Mar 2012	#9
Agreed.	mmonk	Mar 2012	#12
That's what	Bohunk68	Mar 2012	#18
More junk science from denier Lewis Page	JBoy	Mar 2012	#4
he has quite a record...,	G_j	Mar 2012	#19
LOL... good lawd	fascisthunter	Mar 2012	#5
Lewis page also believes	pscot	Mar 2012	#6
The term "climate change" is vague enough to allow for an ice age.	Boojatta	Mar 2012	#8
My understanding is that if the Gulf Stream fails	hootinholler	Mar 2012	#34
How quickly did the warming occur?	mmonk	Mar 2012	#7
while the author of the article is a bit of a kook...	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#10
The study probably does not say what the reporter/columnist asserts it says	Viking12	Mar 2012	#14
The study does claim in the abstract	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#16
"This ikaite record qualitatively supports..."	Viking12	Mar 2012	#20
yes...that is why i said IF...	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#21
Nope. No quantitative data at all.	Viking12	Mar 2012	#24
so, would it then contradict the other data	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#25
My super-fast reading is that it is in line withing existing proxy analyses back to at least the LIA	Viking12	Mar 2012	#26
ahhh, that would 'splain it	ProdigalJunkMail	Mar 2012	#28
If that story were any more slanted the words would slide right off my screen. nt	Codeine	Mar 2012	#11
What complete Bunk	Bandit	Mar 2012	#13
This is about temperature, not carbon dioxide	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#15
There are numerous methodologies to determine past climate changes.	DCBob	Mar 2012	#22
The statement that is being contested is the following:	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#29
The article referenced in the OP does nothing to 'contest' the IPCC	Viking12	Mar 2012	#30
The lead researcher was quoted in the Syracuse University release as saying:	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#32
So? That says NOTHING about your false assertions about the MWP and the IPCC.	Viking12	Mar 2012	#33
The Medieval Warm Period was actually cooler than what we considered "normal" temperatures	Lydia Leftcoast	Mar 2012	#17
I doubt that pre-fossil fuel populations would have influenced climate due to biofuel burning	FarCenter	Mar 2012	#23
Medieval Bikini Babe...	Tikki	Mar 2012	#27
It's F'n Lewis Page exagerating - again	intaglio	Mar 2012	#31

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.