Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Harry Passfield, if amending science to suit your needs is bollocks, then according to Phil Clarke 97% of climate science is bollocks.

Those who were not previously aware, are now. Taxpayer funding to 97% of Climate Scientists should be stopped. They can do something more honest like door-to-door sales of Green Energy

Sep 14, 2016 at 5:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Hilarious bullshit. Another of the studies that Gosselin wants to use as evidence of
'a near consensus of an imminent global cooling' is this one.

Yes folks, it is a scan of typescript thesis submitted by one Bonnie MacGill for her Masters. Probably read by Bonnie's degree supervisor, her Mum and nobody else. The title is 'Temperature Variations in Southern Saskatchewan 1921-1970 Regional Identification of Trends' though you'd never guess that from Gossy's quote, and Ms MacGill is clear that there is no way of determining if the current conditions (at the time) were no more than a pause in the warming trend. (Page 2)

I wonder how many people were terrified by Maggie's contribution to the Ice Age Scare (TM)? LOL.

Some severe confirmation bias on display here.

Sep 14, 2016 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

He's using bad information from MBH98 and other bogus sources. Here are some references that verify, for instance, the existence of the MWP. There are plenty of other peer-reviewed reconstructions out there that support the existence of the minoan, roman and medieval warm periods being as warm or warmer than the recent/current warm period.

No question there was a "large" recent uptick in temperatures just as there was a "downtick" from ~1940 - ~1970. If you consult temperature records you find that the warmest period of the 20th Century was the 1930s.

Some papers showing the existence of the Medieval Warm Period:

The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability
B. Christiansen1 and F. C. Ljungqvist2 1Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
2Department of History, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Reconstruction of the Earth’s surface temperature based on data of deep boreholes, global warming in the last millennium, and long-term solar cyclicity. Part 2. Experimental data analysis
V. A. Dergachev, O. M. Raspopov
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy June 2010, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 393–402

Two millennia of North Atlantic seasonality and implications for Norse colonies
William P. Patterson(L), Kristin A. Dietrich, Chris Holmden, and John T. Andrews
PNAS vol. 107 iss#12, 5306-5310

Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers
Håkan Grudd
Climate Dynamics, December 2008, Vol 31, Iss#7, 843-857

Short term climate variability during “Roman Classical Period” in the eastern Mediterranean
Liang Chen(L), Karin A.F. Zonneveld, Gerard J.M. Versteegh
Quaternary Science Reviews, December 2011, Vol 30, Iss# 27 & 28, 3880-3891

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur
Climatic Change, March 1994, vol 26, iss#2, 143-169

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber
Science 22 Mar 2002, Vol. 295, Issue 5563, pp. 2250-2253

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia
K.V Kremenetski, T Boettger, G.M MacDonald, T Vaschalova, L Sulerzhitsky, A Hiller
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, July 2004,vol 209 iss#1-4, 113-125

Also read this part of a paper by James Hansen et al which affirms the existence of the MWP and shows it as warm as today or warmer: Challenge_chapter2.pdf

Some stuff about problems with dendroclimatology and hockeysticks:

Potential bias in ‘updating’ tree-ring chronologies using regional curve standardisation: Re-processing 1500 years of Torneträsk density and ring-width data

Thomas M Melvin University of East Anglia, UK, Håkan Grudd Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, Keith R Briffa University of East Anglia, UK

A mathematical analysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology
Craig Loehle
Climatic change, June 2009, vol 94, iss#3, 233-245

further discussion of MBH98 (the hockeystick);

Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?
Gerd Buerger & Ulrich Cubasch
Geophysical research letters, vol 32,iss#23

And a must read:
David Holland
Energy & Environment, 2007, vol 18, iss#7-8

Plenty more if one looks for it.

Sep 14, 2016 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterchris moffatt

Phil Clarke, you have given up on Gergis and Connolley and now resort to mudflinging to change the subject.

It really is time for the honest 3% of climate scientists to get some taxpayer funding, as the dishonest ones have wasted it all, and still make everyone else pay for their mistakes and the lies to cover them all up.

Meanwhile, venture capitalist money is deserting Unreliable Green money making scams in the USA, as there is no money in it.

Soon Green Venture Capitalists will cut funds to Green bloggers too, and those Big Green cheques are going to end.

Sep 14, 2016 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Plenty more if one looks for it

Thanks for posting some peer-reviewed science there, Chris. The nine MWP papers are interesting.

Well, the seven MWP papers. The Hansen link is dead and Chen et al is about the Roman Warm Period. But the rest do indicate warmth, as the first says:

The two-millennia long reconstruction shows a well defined Medieval Warm Period, with a peak warming ca. 950–1050 AD

And the last finding

on the Kola Peninsula, northwest Russia, indicate a period of exceptionally warm and dry conditions commenced at ca. AD 600 and was most pronounced between ca. AD 1000 and 1200

But the Patterson et al paper shows a distinct RWP in Iceland and Greenland but a MWP starting earlier than most, and a minimum around about 1100.

In other words when it was warmest in NW Russia, it was bloody cold in Iceland. This study reinforces that possibility:

 We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland were at or near their maximum LIA configurations during the proposed general timing of the MWP. Complimentary paleoclimate proxy data suggest that the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP

Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the Medieval Warm Period coeval with Norse settlement

Just a couple examples of cool regional climate during the proposed MWP.

Plenty more if one looks for it.

Sep 14, 2016 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

This story is carrying wide and far

Sep 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke: You lied by selective quotation in the vain (good word for you) hope that no-one would check. You see, not many people bother, they tend to take the word of someone who seems to be in the know. Hah!

As to your pathetic cobbling together of a phrase that uses the word 'may' in a piss-take against Chris Monckton, you, above all the anal-retentive alarmists, would know that you used it in an ironic, if not pejorative fashion; totally at odds with the way PG used the word, as an expression of possibility.

But still, you lied - and you may have done so in many previous posts. Thing is, now we know.

Sep 14, 2016 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

GC: Thanks for the link to Dellers. quite hilarious that when I started to read it a pop-up advert came on the screen asking me to celebrate: "Wikipedia is 15 today!". Then it came to me: Not so very mature after all. Not even old enough to smoke - at least not the legal stuff.

Sep 14, 2016 at 7:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Ok, Harry, it makes no sense but even the assertion that Connolley may have authored 5,428 original articles is bollocks.

He made 5,000 edits so the raw number is meaningless.

And the paper is still bollocks.

Sep 14, 2016 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Much as I enjoy XKCD’s quirky humour and interesting take on science, this was ruined by XKCD splicing on “Mike’s nature trick” at the end (i.e. “Stuff the proxies, let’s put on some instrument readings, as we can make them far more scary!”). Also, it is well accepted that the Holocene Optimum was several degrees warmer than today, which they also managed to gloss over give completely wrong data. Finally, they point out the limits of the data, with short warming and cooling spikes “smoothed out” – then conveniently fail to apply that logic at the end! Sorry, I love the humour, but not, in this instance, the science.

Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, how very nicely put.

Phil Clarke, William M Connolley is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy

Sep 15, 2016 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The climatocracy obsession with editing history was one of the big signs that the social movement us very dysfunctional.

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:32 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Gosselin makes the claim that Connelly has

written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes

This is of course, bollocks. In fact the whole thing is BS in various degrees from start to end

Sep 14, 2016 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil, it was Lawrence Soloman who blew the whistle.

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe


Sep 15, 2016 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

Phil Clarke, where did you get the "only 5,000 edits" figure from? Surely you didn't trust William M Connolley? Were the remaining 428 other peoples articles he just deleted because he decided he didn't like them?

The Green Party's image as dishonest, is safe. Are their other experts more trustworthy?

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:46 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Gosselin makes the claim..."


Sep 15, 2016 at 2:42 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe
Sep 15, 2016 at 2:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterclipe

clipe doesn't it make you proud to see Climate Scientists still tripping up over the Medieval Warm Period, that Connolley failed to smooth away to comply with Mann's HockeyStick?

As for the attempt to hide evidence of the 70s Ice Age Scare.

It just PROVES that Climate Science is riddled with untrustworthy science.

fraud: noun, wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

synonyms:fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing,duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement; 

Sep 15, 2016 at 4:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Yes, Solomon first excreted the brown smelly stuff, Delingpole, Gosselin and Richards just spread it around.

Sep 15, 2016 at 7:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

To be strictly, pedantically accurate the claim was most recently parroted by Ken Richards, in a piece published by Gosselin:

William Connolley may have successfully erased the Medieval Warm Period and 1970s cooling concerns from the pages of Wikipedia.  He may have successfully written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes.

Even with the weasel word 'May' (well, did he or didn't he?) it is bullshit. The reality is circa 5,400 edits, which may be anything from a complete article to correcting a typo and on subjects from
Aesop, Berkhamstead Castle to XAP2.

And, to repeat, this claim is utter bullshit:

What follows is a list of over 285 papers published during the 1960s, 70s and 80s showing there was a near consensus of an imminent global cooling

But it includes this which says the exact opposite

there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future

Richards is a liar and people propagating this crud lose any claim to the title 'sceptic'.

Sep 15, 2016 at 7:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke. So now you even take responsibility for defining who is an acceptable sceptic. Do tell us what other roles you wish to assume. Doesn't it get rather boring to assume (as you appear to do) you are always correct when posting here - even when you are demonstrably wrong ?

Sep 15, 2016 at 8:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Phil, I'm all for accuracy, but your claims here are a little extreme. The article you link to is titled "cause and effects of global cooling". It does use the words you (selectively) quote, but it also says "The observed cooling corresponds to a re-establishment of the 'Little Ice Age' which persisted for several hundred years up to the end of the nineteenth century;" That would be the Little Ice Age that MBH98 etc try to write out of history. Yet you link to this article to support your arguments. Careless!

You're in danger of going down a little in my estimation, if you're not careful.

Sep 15, 2016 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson


The paper was being promoted as supporting 'imminent cooling' when it did no such thing. This establishes that Richards is capable of dishonesty, and those parrotting his claims have not actually scrutinised them.

Also, it dates from 1975, nearly a quarter century before MBH98. I am not aware that anyone tried to delete the LIA. Evidence?

Sep 15, 2016 at 8:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke


I accept that using the paper to support a claim of "imminent cooling" was stretching things, and it should perhaps not have been included. It is clear, however, that despite a degree of scepticism, the paper did accept that global cooling had recently taken place, and also that perhaps it was a cause for some concern. To accuse Richards of being capable of dishonesty on the back of this is, I think, going too far. The paper can fairly be included as one which accepts that global cooling was taking/had taken place, but not one that supports a claim that further cooling was imminent. And it is one paper out of 285 - what of the other 284? If the boot were on the other foot (an alarmist playing similar games) I'm not sure you'd be so quick then to accuse them of dishonesty.

I do agree, however, that the claims should be scrutinised and not simply parroted (would that Petersen's UHI paper in 2003 had received such scrutiny from the alarmists rather than unsceptical glorification and repeated citation with approval!).

As for the final point, it's an old one, so perhaps best not to go there (again!) but I don't remember the hockey stick having a downtick to represent the Little Ice Age...

Sep 15, 2016 at 9:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson