"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

See the Medieval Warm Period Project
athttp://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jspwhich refutes the scientific
consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last
150
years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)


Those guys need some serious web help... yikes!

Interesting position -- the historical record supports the notion that
a resurgent Europe was the direct result of a (at the very least
continental) warming after a cooling episode...


Yes, but look at the other data from sites around the globe; kinda trashes
the notion that the warming was local, rather than a global trend.

Remember that a tenant of the alarmists (that makes quite a bit of hay with
the MSM) is that the MWP didn't exist, or that it was local. This is the
empirical data and it's analysis, that Dan Luke speaks so fondly of.

In that CO2 site (if you can bear to sift through it :~) , is that CO2
reading throughout time, have been much higher at the same time it was MUCH
colder, and that CO2 levels FOLLOW, rather than LEAD, temperature increases.

Right now were at about 380ppm CO2, but at 140-160ppm, plants don't grow
(they suffocate). Just how low do the alarmists want to go, and how much do
they think they can tweak a gas that is 0.01% of the atmosphere?

Look, too, at motivations when the data gets deliberately garbled, and the
conclusions don't fit the "empirical data". As you mentioned, "consensus
science" is an oxymoron. Science, too, (a method, not a body of knowledge)
is deliberately skeptical.