medieval warm period

MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages

Sen Inhofe shows an obsolete, false-cited graph

On January 21, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) again displayed the same deception/incompetence that pervaded his book, The Greatest Hoax (2012).
In this video segment (3:00-5:20), he presented a poster on the Senate floor that matches the image below from “Kyoto by Degrees,” an anonymous Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Opinion piece, June 21, 2005.  Both contained claims plausibly called academic or journalistic deception, created for public confusion.

Regardless of ancient tempreatures, modern temperature rise is human-caused, not just natural variation: you damaged your furnace so it now ignores the thermostat.  Heat varies erratically, room by room, and day by day,  but each week the house  is overall wamer than the last. Your attic Arctic fridge's ice cubes are melting and even the basement freezer is starting to struggle. The furnace will take months to fix, and you need to start, whether or not you believe rumors that some previous owner experienced warmer weather.

Following is the WSJ image Inhofe used without mentioning that source:

WSJ image from 2005.06.21Trend in average” : Deception.
The original curve was sketched in 1965 by Hubert Lamb, who grafted estimates of 900-1680AD with 1680-1961AD measurements compiled by Gordon Manley.   It covered  a 21x34-mile patch of England.


exactly as shown”: Falsification. false citation. Real science uses captions and caveats,  ignored here by cherry-pickers who plucked the graph out of context and even altered the image.

“mean”: Fabrication to explain an unprovenanced image.
Someone just made it up. 
The IPCC wrote: The dotted line “nominally represents” the start of the 20th century.”  


Lamb MWP curve never global, real science improves

The real IPCC 7.1(c) with caption

The attached 4-page excerpt from IPCC(1990) includes the real p.202 image in context, shown below for easy comparison with this altered version.  Someone changed “Years before present” (sic) to “Year,” deleted (c), capitalized all words and  converted sans-serif to serif font. 

The resulting image was copied along murky paths, including onto p.33 of Inhofe's Greatest Hoax book, which cited it as “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment 202 (1990).  His story is clearly refuted by IPCC's surrounding text pp.199-203. 

The real image was clearly captioned a schematic, i.e., a sketch. The 1990 scientists said the LIA was global, but they stated clear reservations about MWP as global and synchronous.  IPCC(1992) had other curves, not this. 

George Will’s Incorrect Claim on Historical Climate Change

This is a guest post by Climate Nexus.

Syndicated columnist George Will's latest piece, “Climate change's instructive past” is more carefully written than previous columns (see Media Matters Misinformer of the Year), but it still requires correction. Contrary to his claim, past changes in our climate should be understood as a warning, but shouldn’t be seen as evidence that current climatic change is naturally occurring, as he suggests.

The problem with this claim is that human-made emissions have increased exponentially since Will’s historical examples.  Science has clearly shown how current human-made climate change is very different from earlier slower natural changes, something Will failed to factor.

More accurately, historical climate change provides insight into problems we can expect in the future as greenhouse gases are increasingly amplifying variations in our climate. Historical trends should, instead, serve as a stark warning of what we can expect from the emission-driven warming we’re experiencing now.

Jim Puplava

James Joseph “Jim” Puplava


  • Graduated cum laude in Political Science from Arizona State University.
  • Master's Degree in International Management, the American Graduate School of International Management (Thunderbird).

Source: [1]

GWPF & The Hockey Stick Curve

The previous post in this series examined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Briefing Paper No3 “The Truth About Greenhouse  Gases”. Despite its title, Briefing Paper No3 said very little about such gases. Yet one subject (not directly to do with greenhouse gases) was discussed at some length within the paper. As it is also discussed in other GWPF papers, the subject will be examined in this fourth post of the series.

In Briefing Paper No3, perhaps the strongest accusation made by the author Professor William Happer concerns the IPCC who allegedly “rewrote the climate history” by deleting the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (MWP & LIA) from the climate record.

Happer tells us that both MWP & LIA were “clearly shown in the 1990first IPCC report. Then eleven years later, according to Happer, they were both simply expunged from the climate record for no valid reason.

Indeed, within the 2001 third IPCC report the MWP & LIA are entirely absent from the graph that according to Happer is “not supported by observational data.” This is the dreaded “Hockey Stick” curve.

Can the IPCC really be responsible for such skulduggery?

A skeptics guide to the "Medieval Warming Period "

Our friends at Grist Magazine have been spending a lot of time updating their guide on “How to talk to a Global Warming Skeptic.” Here's the latest entry dealing with the “Medieval Warm Period,” an oft-quoted favorite of those who continue to ignore the scientific consensus on the realities of global warming.
Subscribe to medieval warm period