It’s illuminating that you would go to Real Climate for guidance. As an aside, the name “Real Climate” reminds me of the Communists’ nomenclature for their dictatorships: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” is one of the last of what once was a long list of “Democratic People’s” Republics.

Real Climate is the spiritual (and actual) home of many of the “scientists” implicated in the Climategate scandals – Phillip Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Kevin Trenberth, et al. (Go to http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N3/EDIT.php for their latest attempt to wipe out the MWP)

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 801 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43 different countries. (See the Medieval warm period project; http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php )

Fortunately for AGW skeptics, there is a huge and growing body of knowledge confirming the existence, global distribution, and greater warming of the MWR compared to current warming.

This information has been available for many years but has been ignored and suppressed by AGW activists. “Smithsonian astronomers Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with co-authors Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso (Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change) and David Legates (Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware), compiled and examined results from more than 240 research papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. Their (2003) report, covering a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators, provides a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1000 years. Soon and his colleagues concluded that the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1000 years, nor is it the most extreme.”
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html

The existence of the MWR and Little Ice Age makes all other arguments about AGW academic. No catastrophes happened then, none should be expected now.

‘Maxwell, I suggest you publish your stuff. Have cliamte scientists review it. Get it peer-reviewed. Prove them wrong. No offense, but so far you are making statements on a blog thread. Have you actually done the research to know what you are talking about?’

All I was pointing out is that the RealClimate gang, their collective expertise and all, are simply making statements on a blog thread as well. If it is a matter of peer-review, then let that standard stand for itself.

I have read some of the literature and it is mired, like most research literature, in uncertainty. As a scientist, I know firsthand that this uncertainty is where all the action is. One question breeds another and so on. The authors at RealClimate, I’ve noticed, do whatever is necessary to play down the uncertainty in their arguments however. That’s what makes the essence of most of what they say, including much of the quote you provided above, closer to conjecture and speculation than truth.

Now, I’ll admit that some of what Warren writes is simplistic and maybe even naive. But there is room for everyone in this discussion. He’s at least asking questions. Any researcher knows that are no stupid questions. The fact that researchers, like the authors RealClimate, get so upset at ’stupid’ questions tells me that either they don’t have the temperment for teaching or don’t have as strong a grasp of their argument as they would like to put on. I know that from many similar situations in the lab with colleagues who become increasingly agitated with simple question they cannot answer.

But the point is, put your money where your mouth is. What are some journal articles that provide proof of your position on this issue? How ’bout we try some constructive criticism of them?

So here I’m going to quote you to yourself: “you only report what scientists you agree with say.” This much better describes you and not me, hunter.

But I must say this is a heartening improvement! To my recollection, hunter, this is the FIRST time that you have posted a peer-reviewed source. Yay!!!

This is all I’ve been suggesting all along – that the good people here simply listen to the scientists [of BOTH sides of the debate] and not the yahoos and wingnuts that tend to populate the blogosphere. Doesn’t it feel good, hunter, to have faith that the people you are quoting are the real deal? I see that I am doing some good after all!

Now, I do have to point out that, while Nature is a legitimate high-impact journal, this is only a single limited study, so I’m not so sure it puts AGW “in the trash can” – it is simply one of the valid, peer-reviewed sources in the debate, not the single defining study that concretely proves anything (note the word “suggests” repeated over and over in the summary).

But you make me happy, hunter. Good job.

Max, I’m not sure exactly what “standard” you think I follow, but my problem with places like CS is the one I just (sort of) described above. I would tend to follow the ideas of RC – even though it is a blog – simply because it is written by scientists as opposed to a blog written by a small-business-owner from Phoenix (or wherever). I don’t think RC is “just opinion,” but the commentary of experts. All is not equal in the online world. So I am confident enough in the work of scientists so that I am willing to take their word and need not necessarily hunt down all their peer-reviewed sources. This bothers the people here who feel that, sometimes literally, amateur opinion gleaned from primarily bother blog postings is of equal value to the opinion of professional scientists. CS and I have been debating this at some length now.

Hi Adiff, long time. I suspect this statement “subsequently observation demonstrates that none of those things are actually happening” is actually completely inaccurate. It would seem there is a good deal of observable evidence that something is happening. I know you don’t accept that…but the evidence is there.

Happy days!

The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.”

Let us see….peer review? check
published? check
level of confidence? check

Note that the AGW promoters never achieved more than a 90% confidence level. 90% confidence, until the agw of AGW, was never considered to be the threshold of scientific confidence.
Now we have 95% level of confidence. The normal standard.
And it shows the hype to be…….hype.
Batting average of apocalyptic cults remains…. .000

I’ve also discovered that Dr. Pachauri, the IPCC chair, has written at least one forward for a Greenpeace publication. Which strikes me as rather cozy… I’m still working out the ethical/political implications of this in my own mind. Would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html

Cheers!