Al Those Great Scientists Here

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
different countries ... and counting!

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by
> 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> different countries ... and counting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that
the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was
warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what
those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century
periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer
than in the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from
ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

your friend in science
/dave a

"dave a" <blkcatREMOVETHIS@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> different countries ... and counting!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.

So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?

On May 6, 9:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>
> > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
>
> So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?

Kun-Kun,

Your original post doesn't sound like something
a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
though it's just a slickly designed climate
disinformation website. Most people agree there was
a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

Still, not quoting and naming your sources is plagiarism
by most university standards. I'm afraid I'm going to
have to give you zero credit for your term paper and
you're going to fail the class. But I don't think this
case rises to the level of reporting as an honor code
violation, so the Dean and I have agreed that you
can stay enrolled for the fall semester. I'm going to
recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks" rather than
taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for
your distribution requirement, though.

Ben

In article <d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> On May 6, 9:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> > >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> > >> different countries ... and counting!
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
> >
> > > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
> > > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
> > > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
> > > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
> > > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
> > > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
> > > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
> > > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
> > > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
> >
> > So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?
>
> Kun-Kun,
>
> Your original post doesn't sound like something
> a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
> a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
> from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
> from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
> though it's just a slickly designed climate
> disinformation website. Most people agree there was
> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
>
> Still, not quoting and naming your sources is plagiarism
> by most university standards. I'm afraid I'm going to
> have to give you zero credit for your term paper and
> you're going to fail the class. But I don't think this
> case rises to the level of reporting as an honor code
> violation, so the Dean and I have agreed that you
> can stay enrolled for the fall semester. I'm going to
> recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks" rather than
> taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for
> your distribution requirement, though.

What? No Double Secret Probation?!?!?! I'm shocked at how lax this institution has
become.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> I'm going to recommend that you try "Rocks for Jocks"
> rather than taking Professor Asher's earth sciences class for your
> distribution requirement, though.

No doubt Professor Asher will be glad to hear he won't be pushing
any more rocks up a mountain in the underworld.

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in news:48215cc2$0$25773
$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com:

>
> No doubt Professor Asher will be glad to hear he won't be pushing
> any more rocks up a mountain in the underworld.
>

That stuff is for Sisyphuses anyway.

--
Bill Asher

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Most people agree there was
> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies
attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people like you
that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the time.

But it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable about
something you know nothing about.

On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> different countries ... and counting!

NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

On Tue, 6 May 2008 22:49:23 -0700 (PDT), "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

>On May 6, 9:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "dave a" <blkcatREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fvr4q9029s3@news1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> >> different countries ... and counting!
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period
>>
>> > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the
>> > "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer
>> > than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those
>> > "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods
>> > when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in
>> > the 20th century". Indeed, global temperature records taken from ice
>> > cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth was
>> > actually slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval
>> > Warm Period' than in the early- and mid-20th century.
>>
>> So NOAA trumps 532 scientists. Who knew?
>
>Kun-Kun,
>
>Your original post doesn't sound like something
>a person would just write and post to Usenet. In fact,
>a simple Google reveals that you cut-and-pasted it
>from http://www.co2science.org/ , which is a step up
>from stealing your material from couplescompany.com,
>though it's just a slickly designed climate
>disinformation website. Most people agree there was
>a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

I just looked at the web site cited above and it's clearly right out
of the Rush Limbaugh School of Climate Science.


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

"Robert Chung" <rechung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
>> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
>> different countries ... and counting!
>
> NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute

Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

"John Everett" <jeverett3@sbcglobal.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net> wrote in message
news:4he324dqc5l0g05tm4af1q2ml1e2njvtsa@4ax.com...
>
> I just looked at the web site cited above and it's clearly right out
> of the Rush Limbaugh School of Climate Science.

I like your science:

"we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of
significant climate change from other than natural causes." Frederick Seitz
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, Past President, National Academy
of Sciences, Past President, American Physical Society, Chairman, Science
and Environmental Policy Project

The fact is that there are hundreds of scientists that have signed onto the
Kyoto Protocols and backed the IPCC who haven't the slightest training nor
education in the questions at hand. And of course those same sort of
uneducated dolts such as our own Benny here are perfectly willing to support
politicians who promise policies which would essentially cause mass societal
destruction and starvation of the third world.

But just go right ahead and believe people screaming that you have to throw
all of your money at them and then live like a pauper. Seems like your kind
of thinking.

On May 7, 10:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about...
>
> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Let's see. You plagiarize a portion of a reactionary site's article
that apparently uses a bot to collect climate scientists names at
random and stick them on a list, which is beyond stupid for them and a
ME TOO! I'M WITH STUPID! for you. That about sum it up?

I'm getting fed up waiting for the Kun-bot upgrade. It's long
overdue. I'm afraid that the Alzheimer's organizations are going to
have the current one removed for being demeaning to real people with
real memory problems. Is there an open source Kun-bot project in the
works? Please let me know where to PayPal my three dollars.

R

RicodJour wrote:
> I'm getting fed up waiting for the Kun-bot upgrade. It's long overdue.
> I'm afraid that the Alzheimer's organizations are going to have the
> current one removed for being demeaning to real people with real memory
> problems. Is there an open source Kun-bot project in the works? Please
> let me know where to PayPal my three dollars.

The open source version is going to be embedded into a
powermeter and programmed to attack Iran when it takes
a natural break.

On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 532
> >> individual scientists from 325 separate research institutions in 38
> >> different countries ... and counting!
>
> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>
> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about...
>
> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
beginning.

On May 7, 10:00 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> And of course those same sort of
> uneducated dolts (snip)

Mirror time, TK (IRT the usual bail-out when your game is called on
you-- this time, a "source" getting both its titties caught in the
proverbial wringer)!

Where was it you got your engineering degree from, again? What year?
TIA! --D-y

Paul G. wrote:
> If anything, primitive simians evolved from Kuntitch.

Degenerative Genetic Algorithms (DGA) is a trademark of SchwartzSoft.

Tom Kunich wrote:

> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>>
>> Most people agree there was
>> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
>
> Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies
> attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people
> like you that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the
> time.
>
> But it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
> about something you know nothing about.
>
>

Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate
physicists in terms of their h-indeces:

The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known, well-
funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and compared
that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would there
be any significant difference? (Sidebar: the h-index is one measure of a
scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact their
publications have in terms of citations. There is a wikipedia entry on the
h-index, googling h-index will turn it up. It is also discussed on the ISI
website.) So, I took the staff of WorldClimateReport.com (Michaels,
Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared
their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann, Ammann,
Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig, deGaridel-Thoron
(maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)). One issue with
this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.
This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so I
also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since Ph.D.
(the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims for
physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal scientific
productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat lower
for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)). Here are the
results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):

WorldClimateReport (Skeptics)
Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since PhD)
P.J.Michaels.............11........1979..............0.38
R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992..............0.56
R.E.Davies...............13........1979..............0.65

Average...................13.........................0.56


RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
Name..............h-index.........PhD Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
Schmidt............18.............1996..............1.5
Mann...............29.............1998..............2.9
Ammann.............17.............2002..............2.8
Archer.............24.............1990..............1.3
Benestad...........8..............1997..............0.73
Bradley............31.............1974..............0.91
Connolley..........14.............1996..............1.2
deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
Rahmstorf..........22.............1990..............1.2
Steig..............24.............1995..............1.85

Average............18...............................1.53


So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific productivity.
Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of three
greater than the skeptics. This is why the skeptics are simply getting
savaged scientifically. They just aren't good scientists, they're just
media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.

CO2Science is run by the Idso family. Craig Idso has an h-index of 5 and a
yearly average of 0.5. Keith Idso has an h-index of 4 and a yearly average
of 0.16. Sherwood Idso (daddy) has an h-index of 43 for an average of
1.05 (I guess we know who weilds the big stick in that clan eh?), so he is
comparable to the guys at realclimate.org, but that is a rare exception
among skeptics. Fred Seitz, who you cite as an authority, has an h-index
of 14 but has a career spanning over 50 years so his average is very low
(you can't argue that he did most of his work early either since most of
his publications are in the back half of his career (when he became a
climate skeptic)).

It's not that people like Ben or I are pretending to be knowledgable, it's
that the skeptics are pretending to be knowledgable. Why people like you
and Jack can't figure out that you are being used as inflatable sheep with
life-like sucking mouth action is something I cannot figure out.

--
Bill Asher

Paul G. wrote:

> Uh... there is a GLARING error there- how can it be true that "It is
> very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379
> ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last
> 650 kyr" when according to right wing biblical experts the earth is
> only 6000 years old? See how easy that was? No need to go to the
> trouble and expense of fooling around with core samples. If you need
> any more help with scientific facts me and Kuntitch will be happy to
> help. This global warming nonsense is as absurd as the idea that
> Kuntitch evolved from primitive simians. If anything, primitive
> simians evolved from Kuntitch.
> -Paul

Right. I keep forgetting the planet was created to make us think it was
obeying laws of physics to test our faith in god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUW1SGF7bR8

--
Bill Asher

Robert Chung wrote:

> On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:79e117f9-8f78-4c19-b440-3c2a7859c903@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>
>> > On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >> Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
>> >> by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research
>> >> institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting!
>>
>> > NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:
>>
>> >http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about
>> >...
>>
>> Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?
>
> Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
> Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
> beginning.
>

Not according to Schwartz. It's more like donating money to the EDF, which
only guarantees you'll be asked to donate more money to the EDF.

--
Bill Asher