Reference: Kobashi, T., Severinghaus, J.P., Barnola, J.-M., Kawamura, K., Carter, T. and Nakaegawa, T. 2010.

Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change 100: 733-756. According to Kobashi et al. (2010) “in Greenland, oxygen isotopes of ice (Stuiver et al., 1995) have been extensively used as a temperature proxy, but the data are noisy and do not clearly show multi-centennial trends for the last 1,000 years in contrast to borehole temperature records that show a clear ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998).” However, they note that nitrogen (N) and argon (Ar) isotopic ratios—15N/14N and 40Ar/36Ar, respectively—can be used to construct a temperature record that “is not seasonally biased, and does not require any calibration to instrumental records, and resolves decadal to centennial temperature fluctuations.” Kobashi et al. further describe the development of such an approach, after which they use it to construct a history of the last thousand years of central Greenland surface air temperature, based on values of isotopic ratios of nitrogen and argon previously derived by Kobashi et al. (2008) from air bubbles trapped in the GISP2 ice core that had been extracted from central Greenland (72 degrees 36 minutes N, 38 degrees 30 minutes W).

The figure below depicts the central Greenland surface temperature reconstruction produced by the six scientists; and as best as can be determined from this representation, the peak temperature of the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period—which actually began some time prior to the start of their record, as demonstrated by the work of Dansgaard et al. (1975), Jennings and Weiner (1996), Johnsen et al. (2001) and Vinther et al. (2010)—was approximately 0.33C greater than the peak temperature of the Current Warm Period, and about 1.67C greater than the temperature of the last decades of the 20th century. In addition, it is worthy to note that between about 1400 and 1460 there was also a period of notable warmth in Kobashi et al.’s temperature reconstruction, which aligns well with the “Little” Medieval Warm Period, the peak temperature of which was about 0.9C greater than the temperature of the last decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century.

Central Greenland surface temperature reconstruction for the last millennium. Adapted from Kobashi et al. (2010). Enlarged here.

These findings, the authors say, “show clear evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in agreement with documentary evidence,” and those data clearly show that the Medieval Warm Period was at times considerably warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date, and that even the Little Medieval Warm Period was considerably warmer than it was over the last decades of the twentieth century, as well as the first decade of the 21st century. Thus, there is no compelling reason to believe that the 20th-century increase in the air’s CO2 content (a 100-ppm rise above what it was during the warmer Medieval Warm Period) was the cause of 20th-century global warming, especially when climate alarmists claim that such warming, when it occurs, should be most evident and earliest expressed in high northern latitudes, and even more so in light of the fact that there is a millennial-scale climatic cycle that alternately brings the earth relatively warmer and cooler century-scale conditions throughout both glacial and interglacial periods alike.

Additional References
Dahl-Jensen, D., Mosegaard, K, Gundestrup, N., Clew, G.D., Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W. and Balling, N. 1998. Past temperatures directly from the Greenland ice sheet. Science 282: 268-271.

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reech, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28.

Jennings, A.E. and Weiner, N.J. 1996. Environmental change in eastern Greenland during the last 1300 years: evidence from foraminifera and lithofacies in Nansen Fjord, 68N. The Holocene 6: 179-191.

Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307.

Kobashi, T., Severinghaus, J.P. and Kawamura, K. 2008. Argon and nitrogen isotopes of trapped air in the GISP2 ice core during the Holocene epoch (0-11,600 B.P.): methodology and implications for gas loss processes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72: 4675-4686.

Stuiver, M., Grootes, P.M. and Brazunias, T.F. 1995. The GISP2 δ18O climate record of the past 16,500 years and the role of the sun, ocean, and volcanoes. Quaternary Research 44: 341-354.

Vinther, B.M., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Clausen, H.B., Andersen, K.K., Dahl-Jensen, D. and Johnsen, S.J. 2010. Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 522-538.

See post here. H/T SEPP

Icecap Note: In this story , Steve Bloom, of the SFO Sierra club who used to haunt the Climate Science blog of Roger Pielke Sr. when he allowed comments, asked in a comment on this alarmist friendly blog if there was any credible recon on the existence of the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age as depicted in the image there (below, enlarged here).

Extremism: An environmental activist inspired by Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” takes hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters. This isn’t the latest example of eco-terrorism, just the latest to be ignored.

It got wide play when union boss Richard Trumka accused Sarah Palin of inciting violence every time she speaks. President Obama recently accused Fox News host Glenn Beck of “stirring up” a “certain portion” of the American people with his “Restore Honor” rally. Gender orientation and “sexual identity” were recently added to the hate crimes list.

Yet those who say man is a plague upon the earth, ravaging its resources, exterminating its endangered species and heating it into oblivion are never accused of inciting anything when those who hear their words respond by marching into an office building to save the earth at gunpoint.

The gunman who entered the Discovery Channel headquarters was killed after he entered with a handgun and what were believed to be explosive devices, took three hostages and pointed his gun at one of them. He identified himself as James J. Lee and said, “I have a gun and I have a bomb. ... I have several bombs strapped to my body ready to go off.”

In a rambling manifesto, Lee echoes the writings of President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, railing against “disgusting human babies” and “parasitic infants” and insisting people should “disassemble civilization.” His manifesto demanded that the Discovery Channel cease all programming about war, weapons or giving birth.

Court records show that Lee had been arrested on Feb. 21, 2008, on the sixth day of a protest at the Discovery building. Lee said at the time that he experienced an “awakening” when he watched former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental documentary ‘’An Inconvenient Truth.” Lee has said he was also inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn. “Nothing is more important than saving ... the Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears and, of course, the Squirrels. The humans? The planet does not need humans,” he wrote.

As scary as this sounds, it is scarier to consider that this sentiment can be found in various forms in the bibliography of what is considered mainstream environmentalism.

In a recently rediscovered book, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” co-authored with Malthus fans Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Holdren, who holds the post of presidential assistant for science technology, revealed his similar pessimistic and apocalyptic views on all three topics. They are disturbing.

Like Lee, Holdren hates people and views them as the root of all planetary evil. Big families are a target of Holdren and the Ehrlichs, who write that they “contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children” and “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”

Eco-terror groups such as the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front have long advocated violence, including arson and bombings, to save the earth and critters on it from the plague known as mankind. From firebombing ski resorts to torching medical labs, these environmental terrorists have been very active.

ELF’s Web site at one point offered pointers on “Setting Fires With Electric Timers.” The ALF posted commentary boasting that its “attacks on medical research continue today” and are aimed at producing “millions of dollars worth of damages and delays in the development of new treatments and cures.”

People must die, in their view, to save Bambi.

Of course, no one will blame Al Gore for inciting hate and violence. No one will worry about a vast left-wing conspiracy to save the planet at all costs or that James Lee’s extremist views are almost identical to those of the president’s science adviser.

Hate comes only from the right, and when you’re saving the earth, the end justifies the means. Neither human lives nor human freedom can stand in their way. H/T Climate Depot

-------------

Time for Rajendra Pachauri to go
New Scientist Opinion

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is in need of fundamental reform. Its organisation is outdated, and it has failed to follow many of its own procedures, a high-level review of the panel’s activities reported this week (see “Climate panel must ‘fundamentally reform’ to survive").

A central recommendation is that to encourage new thinking, senior management should only be allowed to serve for a single term. That amounts to a call for the panel’s chair, Rajendra Pachauri, to step down.

He should go soon. Pachauri has spent too much effort defending the indefensible, in particular when it emerged that the IPCC’s last report contained serious mistakes.

Those who strive to cast doubt on the reality of climate change will doubtless be delighted by his departure. But keeping Pachauri in place would undermine efforts to rebuild the panel’s authority, even if other recommended reforms are implemented.

When the IPCC’s governing body meets in South Korea next month, it should seek a new chair - preferably a scientist of stature from outside the climate research establishment. That will give it the best chance of re-establishing the credibility it must have. See post here.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Photo: EPA

A report on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on behalf of the world’s leading scientific academies, last week provoked even some of the more committed believers in man-made global warming to demand the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the IPCC. But is the report all that it seems?

Last winter, the progress of this belief - that the world faces catastrophe unless we spend trillions of dollars to halt global warming - suffered an unprecedented reverse. In Copenhagen, the world’s leaders failed to agree a treaty designed to reshape the future of civilisation. This coincided with a series of scandals that blew up around the IPCC’s 2007 report.

Budget 2009: Labour is desperate, and fighting to the endSince then several inquiries, including three into the leaked “Climategate” emails, have tried to hold the official line, all following a consistent pattern. Each has made a few peripheral criticisms, for plausibility, while deliberately avoiding the main issue. Each has then gone on to put over the required message: that the science of global warming remains unchallenged.

At first sight, last week’s Inter-Academy report on the “processes and procedures of the IPCC” seems to have played it more cleverly. It criticises the IPCC’s abuse of its own procedures in very trenchant terms, and suggests some radical reforms to them. Passages on “conflict of interest”, and a recommendation that top officials should serve only one term, seem to hint that Dr Pachauri, reappointed to serve until 2014 after presiding over the IPCC’s last controversial report, should step down. But, as with the reports that preceded it, this one also tiptoes round a mighty elephant in the room, in order to put over the familiar message: the IPCC has generally “served society well”, the science remains unchallenged. It is as one might expect of a report produced on behalf of bodies such as Britain’s Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, which have long been leading advocates for the belief in global waming.

When, some years ago, I began the research for my book The Real Global Warming Disaster, nothing surprised me more than discovering how widely the nature of the IPCC is misunderstood. It is invariably portrayed as a body representing the top scientists in the world, objectively weighing the complex forces that shape Earth’s climate. In reality, it’s nothing of the kind.

The men who set up the panel - led by its first chairman Bert Bolin, a Swedish meteorologist, and John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office and first chairman of the IPCC’s scientific working group - were already believers in what they called “human-induced climate change”. The IPCC was, from the start, essentially a political pressure group, producing evidence to support the view that global warming was the most serious crisis facing the planet. This guided the selection of all the key scientists chosen to compile the IPCC’s findings (such as those involved in the Climategate affair). And this explains all the searching questions that have built up around its hugely influential reports ever since.

The first major row over the IPCC came when it was revealed that the most widely publicised and alarmist claim in its second report, in 1995, was inserted after the text had been signed off by the other scientists involved - while 15 passages which countered alarm over climate change had been excised. This famously provoked Professor Fred Seitz, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to say that in 60 years as a scientist he had never seen a “more disturbing corruption” of scientific procedure.

Perhaps the most telling controversy arose over the notorious “hockey stick” graph, the centrepiece of the IPCC’s third report in 2001. It rewrote climate history to show a world that was now dramatically hotter than it had been for at least 1,000 years. Promoted by Houghton and others as the ultimate emblem of the cause, it was eventually shown to have been no more than the result of trickery with a computer programme. But even after it been exposed, the IPCC establishment made the most tortuous efforts to defend it for their fourth report in 2007.

This became the most comprehensively discredited IPCC report of all. It was the first produced under the chairmanship of Dr Pachauri, who was appointed in 2002. One after another, its scariest and most widely publicised predictions - such as that Himalayan glaciers would largely have vanished by 2035, that climate change would kill off 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, that African crop-yields would be halved by 2050 - were found to have been based not on science at all, but on the reckless claims of environmental activists.

Not the least indictment of the IPCC’s 2007 report was the revelation that, in clear breach of its own rules, more than 5,000 of its supposedly scientific claims were not peer-reviewed but came from advocacy groups, press releases, newspaper articles, even student theses. Yet Dr Pachauri himself has repeatedly insisted that everything in his report was based on “peer-reviewed” science.

Again and again the 2007 report has been found to be in flagrant breach of the IPCC’s own rules. For instance, it cited no fewer than 16 articles from a single issue of one climate journal - which had been published after the IPCC’s official cut-off date and should therefore have been disallowed. In each of the thousands of instances where the IPCC broke its rules, the claims it made were all in one direction: to hype up alarm over the extent and effects of climate change beyond anything science could justify. The most shameless instance was the claim about Himalayan glaciers, which two of the IPCC’s own expert reviewers had pointed out was ridiculous even before it was published. Dr Pachauri dismissed this criticism as “voodoo science” (having employed the author of the claim at his own Delhi research institute).

Through all this the IPCC has been exposed for what it truly is: not a proper scientific body but an advocacy group, ready to stop at nothing in hijacking the prestige of science for its cause. But little of this might be guessed from the Inter-Academy report (jointly commissioned by Dr Pachauri himself and Ban Ki-Moon, the UN’s Secretary General). Even if Dr Pachauri is forced to resign at a UN meeting in Korea next month, as seems possible, he will merely have been thrown off the sledge so that the all-important cause can survive.

Yet the IPCC is the body on whose authority our Parliament voted for the Climate Change Act, passed all but unanimously two years ago. This will land us, on the Government’s own figures, with by far the biggest bill we have ever faced: up to 18 billion pounds every year for the next 40 years - 734 billion pounds in all - in order to cut our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, something impossible to achieve except by closing down virtually all our industrial economy.

On the same authority, the rest of the world is being told that it must take similar steps, to avert a catastrophe dreamed up and promoted by no one more than those joint winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore and the IPCC. Does this not all add up to the most bizarre and outrageous scandal in the history of the world? Read post here.

Regarding Eric Felten’s “Morality Check: When Fad Science Is Bad Science” (Taste, Aug. 27): Apparent differences in how “scientific misconduct” at Harvard University is handled, and how it has been handled at the University of Virginia in the matter of climatologist Michael Mann are illustrative.

Harvard professor of psychology Marc Hauser was found “solely responsible for eight instances of scientific misconduct” involving the “data acquisition, data analysis, data retention and the reporting of research methodologies and results” in the Aug. 20, statement by Harvard Dean Michael Smith. Three published papers by Mr. Hauser now need to be corrected or retracted, according to Mr. Smith. This finding was based on a faculty investigating commission study in response to “allegations of scientific misconduct” (and, I’d say, suspicions of monkey business in his research on monkey cognition).

An “inquiry phase,” similar to the Harvard protocol, was initiated by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli into the possible misuse of public funds by Michael Mann in his pursuit of employment and his use of such funds in his research activities when he was at the University of Virginia. The university and its supporters met this request with claims of impingement on sacred academic freedom and chilling the environment for academic research. Rather than welcome the chance to dispel the suspicion of scientific misconduct and protect its academic reputation, the university enlisted a high-powered Washington, D.C. legal team to fight the AG’s request in court.

While this legal process proceeds, the court of public opinion wonders why the openness and direct dealing with such allegations exhibited by Harvard is not the Virginia way. Harvard demonstrated a scientifically open and self-policing protocol; Virginia offers claims of academic freedom and erects legal barricades. Whose research will the public more likely trust?

Australians are fortunate that they can freely choose whoever they wish to support them in the parliament and to govern this once great country.

This choice is usually made on the basis that the voter has studied his party’s choice and is WELL AWARE of their policies and what that party stands for. But I find it hard to believe that the people who voted for the Greens are aware of all their policies.

So why did you vote for the Greens ?

Was it as one voter said ‘I thought they were nice people.’ Another said it was ‘because they care about the environment.’ As if no one else does.!!!!

Perhaps you were disenchanted by the major parties and thought you would give your vote to the greens instead, without even knowing their policies or how dangerous they are. I find it impossible to believe that anyone in their right mind would vote for the Greens if they knew the truth. Instead of all the lies they have told and policies that would put the fear into the devil.

Did you know they want to introduce death duties. That horrible archaic tax from the past that has caused an overwhelming amount of misery and grief to so many families. Rich and poor, it makes no difference. Everything is frozen till the tax man gets his share. In the mean time families are torn apart.

They want to allow the boat people and other so called ‘environmental refugees’ free access to Australia without any limitations or health and security checks within two weeks of arrival. Allowing them to live freely in our country, and worse to give them financial aid and housing.

The flood of millions from Asia and everywhere else would totally devastate our country and terrorists would be free to attack us from within the country , tearing us apart from the inside. They want to increase taxes on large and small businesses by another 5%. As if small businesses are not already hanging on by their fingertips desperately trying to survive through a global financial crisis and the painfully slow recovery. This could be a possible death blow to many small businesses.

They will demand farmers “remove as far as possible” all genetically modified crops, which includes cotton worth $1.3 billion a year.

They want to end “the mining and export of uranium”, worth $900 billion a year.

They want to introduce a carbon tax on everything destroying whatever businesses that survive their other holocausts and force the cost of electricity (if we still have any) and other products through the roof.

They intend to lift foreign aid to a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP, which means an instant rise in handouts to their fanatics overseas of $4 billion a year. This is partly due to the fact that their Copenhagen handout of seven thousand million dollars a year, thankfully failed, and this is another way of getting that money

They want to close down all coal mines in Australia and wipe out an industry that brings to the Australian people over $64 billion a year to help pay for our hospitals, road, schools, family and child care, pensions, national defence, etc. etc.

Not only that but it would completely alienate our trade relationship with China, the backbone of our export economy.  Without China purchasing our resources our economy would be in total collapse and so would this country.

They want to close down all coal fired power stations and replace them with “Renewable energy”. Which might be O.K. if it was at all feasible but it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to even achieve 5% renewable energy. Let alone 100% renewable energy.

It has been tried over the last thirty years or more in many countries with the resultant abject failure.

California has gone bankrupt trying with over 14000 wind generator failures and a return to thermal power generation. The total ‘renewable energy’ in California after 31 years is 2.3% and falling.

Spain is also bankrupt because of their renewable energy fiasco and are importing power. The cost of which has doubled and they now have an unemployment rate of over 20%.

Germany has over 7500 wind generators of which 2500 failed last year and they have returned to Thermal power which saved them last winter from total collapse.

With Denmark’s 5000 wind generators of which 2000 failed last year they are yet to reduce so called ‘CO2 emissions.’ By one gram and like the other countries rely on thermal power generation for backup.

The resultant failures in various countries are always the same from many countries but the Greens flatly refuse to see the failures because they want to bring Australia to its knees and under their communist globalisation control.

They have NO interest in our well being, only in their communist ideologies and are determined to destroy our economy.

Under that very thin cover of green is a very bright red of the communist, lead by the fanatical Bob Brown, who is a liar and one of the worst perpetrators of this world scam and he wants total control.

If the extremists called ‘greens’ should bring their policies to fruition it will destroy our economy and our country.

To the point it could bring about an extremely violent reaction from the Australian people when they finally realise that the Greens are deliberately trying to tear our country apart.

By that time it could be too late. The only consolation would be that every Green would pay severely for their treachery.

Now that you have read their policies, and this is not all of them. Are you still proud you voted for the greens. Will you stand up and accept the blame when this country is devastated for this communist agenda.

Or will you do the right thing by your country and help get rid of these destructive vandals and traitors.

When you voted for the greens you were given a Poison Chalice that we may never recover from. Remember that 173 people were burnt to death because of ‘greens’ policies forced on councils who were too weak to deny them.

Also the destruction of over 300 homes and the displacement of over 7000 people. The Greens have NOT been responsible for even one environmental improvement. They are a farce and liars.

If Australia could reduce its total CO2 emissions (a harmless gas essential to all life) by 20% as they want to, it would make a difference of .00000016% or 16 parts per ten millionth to the increase of CO2 in air per year. NOT even measurable.

Following are two similar reports and I urge you to read them and realise this is not some ‘Wild story’. Our future is now in your hands. You are the ones who MUST REJECT the greens and do everything to revoke your vote and stop the communist greens before it is too late.