Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

  • Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
  • Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
  • Throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming’

By Ted Thornhill

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.

It then cooled down naturally and there was even a ‘mini ice age’.

A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.

In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experienced global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

Read the rest at the UK Daily Mail.

52 Responses to Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study

  1. Rob N. Hood March 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

    Yep- final proof! Close down the site- everyone go home now. Whew! Glad that’s over finally… now I can do some work and quit slacking off and watching over this site like some crazed mother hen. Might even manage to avoid termination. But! -Poor Neil… what will the lil’ tyke do now? And J/joe? Who will benefit from all his pent-up wisdom?

    • NEILIO March 27, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

      “Yep- final proof! Close down the site- everyone go home now.” Ok, you first.

  2. NEILIO March 27, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    I’m glad you posted this story Dan. I posted a snippet from it on the previous post. Funny how it’s not being talked about on CNN. This is positive evidence that destroys Mann’s “hocky stick” graph. I know it has been pretty well refuted anyway but this is just throwing the last clod of dirt onto that grave, and good riddence.

  3. Rob N. Hood March 28, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

    • NEILIO March 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

      That report is 5 years old.
      And it had such an impact when it came out didn’t it.?.? Don’t you have anything new? Oh, that’s right, everything coming out now about AGW is about how much BS it is. It’s no wonder that you can’t find anything recent.
      Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found out all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they really are has spiked.

      I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization. With pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts:

      Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address.

  4. Rob N. Hood March 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm #

    Umm, ok, Neil, great… I’m happy you are supporting the sciences and I’m sure your dog receives the monthly publication, just like any other SUBSCRIPTION recipient. Perhaps you will find it good reading- although I doubt it. Then again maybe your could buy a parakeet and line his/her cage with it? (In other words the info I presented, while OLD, is not valid? Is that what you are trying to say?). (Sorry about the parantheses, I know how much you dislike them).

    • NEILIO March 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

      Umm, ok, RNH, yes I am saying that the report from UCS is just as meaningless, or invalid if you like, now as it was when it was issued 5 years ago. In fact I’d say it is even more meaningless now. Unless you can convince me somehow of it’s alleged validity? Good luck with that!
      And the other thing about the dog, that was Anthony Watts dog, not mine. And it was not a subscription to a newsletter it was a full membership. I don’t know, maybe you could click the link I put there and read it yourself? Just a thought.

  5. NEILIO March 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    It is very common for people who are putting forward a claim to say something like, “you must consider this with an open mind”, or if their claim is rejected they will say something like, “well of course you don’t believe it, you’re closed-minded”.

    There are many ways that this ‘appeal to open mindedness’ manifests itself, so let’s have a look at why it is not usually a valid argument:

    What is an open-minded person?
    An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

    Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.

    Why do skeptics often get accused of not having open-minds?
    1.The accusers don’t understand what open-mindedness is.
    They confuse open-mindedness with being credulous. They simply don’t understand the difference between the two.
    If others do not ‘open-mindedly’ share their beliefs or accept their argument as valid, they accuse them of being ‘closed-minded’. This is simply a fallacious Ad Hominem argument.

    2.Those accusers don’t realise what skepticism is.
    Skeptics have to be open-minded. They test and examine claims in a scientific, objective way. To do this they have to be open-minded; this is the reason that skeptics are prepared to consider claims that may seem completely ridiculous to most people.
    Skepticism is not about rejecting ideas: it’s about testing them for validity.

    3.Those accusers don’t realise that open-minded people can reject claims.
    Being open-minded about something is a willingness to consider that it may be true: it also means considering the possibility that it may be false. A truly open-minded person’s mind is open to both possibilities.
    Disagreeing with a person’s position or argument after considering it does not make one closed-minded.

    Misuse of the term “open-minded”.
    It is the misuse of the term open-minded that the credulous hide behind. They use it as a shield against the use of critical thinking and logical analysis of their ideas, claims, and often bizarre beliefs.
    The “I’m open-minded” claim is used to counter the lack of evidence, or the quality of evidence supporting a claim.
    The appeal to open-mindedness is really an appeal to relinquish one’s rational integrity. It does not matter how or why something may appear to be true, that there is no credible evidence to support it, or even that it is demonstrably false; it should simply be accepted with an ‘open-mind’. In other words, with non-thinking credulity.

    Open-mindedness is considered a virtue, and true open-mindedness is.
    The claim to be open-minded is frequently used by people who wish to sound virtuous, and simultaneously make their opponent sound intolerant, while defending or promoting their ideas and beliefs.
    This appeal to be ‘open-minded’ is a fallacious one. Its message is simply: be credulous.

  6. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    Back to the old pissing match. Nice treatise on the virtues of close-mindedness… And so you’re also saying there just can’t be any truthfulness beind the claim that the fossil fuel industry doesn’t spend money on “propaganda” or whatever you want to call it. That they don’t use their muscle (money) to protect their industry (even at the expense of others and fact-blurring, not to mention out-right lies ala the Tobacco industry)?

  7. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 7:07 am #

    scratch that first “doesn’t”

  8. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 7:19 am #

    One could also “be credulous” to conspriacy and/or alternate theories as well, right? That is a form of credulousness is it not? You are a believer in the “AGW hoax”, you are open-minded to that are you not? I’m pointing this out to show the irrelevancy of your thesis. It’s all relative, and to what extreme one goes to is the issue; not to mention one’s ability to utilize logic and reason in the process.

    • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 8:19 am #

      Well, I believe that there is an AGW hoax because there is ample evidence of it. This is not something I have accepted out of credulity. In fact I used to believe in AGW, long ago. My problem was then that I did not accept that out of credulity either. I was open to the possibility that it may not be true, and as I did research on the subject I found that the evidence against it was volumous. I am actually open to the possibilty that I could be wrong now, but as it stands there is nothing that leads me to think that I am.
      In the case of Exxon Mobile using tactics that were employed by the tobbacco companies, I’ll ask you this: How did that work out for the tobbacco companies? Not so well. I think that is because they were wrong. But as for oil companies on AGW, I believe the evidence now is in their favor. As for the methods used, and I won’t defend them but, that’s how it is done. And those methods are not just employed by the oil companies, or the Right. They are employed by every entity engaged in any kind of public relations work, including companies and polititians on the Left. Give me a break.

  9. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 9:14 am #

    You are FULL of rationalizations that ease your own mind. That has been one of my main points throughout. You use hypocritical thinking virtually non-stop. Your first sentence above… totally based on credulity, and dare I say, open-mindedness of a sort. How is it not? If you can explain that logically, I’m all ears (eyes) but if not, don’t bother. This seems to be too deep. Your second paragraph… is firstly very illogically stated, overall. And being dismissive of unethical practices is nonsensical to say the least.

    • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 10:19 am #

      Wow, you didn’t even read what I said. Did you? Did you miss the part where I said I used to believe in AGW? Did you miss the part where I said that I was not going to defend those practices? And I do not dismiss those practices, I simply aknowledge that they are widely used by pretty much everybody, that is not a dismissal, or an endorsement. They are the very same tactics emplyed by the IPCC for crying out loud. It’s how the sausage is made. For you to hold a higher standard to the oil companies on this subject is disingenuous because the same tactics are used in the same manner by your side to promote causes you favor. So, get over it and move on. Your point is moot.

  10. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 11:19 am #

    Yeah I read your post. You seem to have mis-read mine. That happens a lot. It is your point that is mostly moot- was my point. Unethical behavior is what it is. I did not defend it or anyone using it in anyway. Show me where I did that. It is you who defend the indefensible, which is just more illogical, hypocritical and irrationalism. And you DID defend those practises… how can you say such a blatantly false thing after stating (“that’s how it is done” etc.)?! But apparently you either cannot see that or refuse to. And- it is your OPINION that the AGW promoters are using “the same tactics” (as if that assumption then absolves all others who use it). You have no real proof of a conspiracy at that type, such as used by big tobacco and big oil for just two EXAMPLES. But this is where reason, logic, and honesty comes into play. And that is really where we differ.

    • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm #

      There you go with the “I know you are but what am I?” routine again. It’s getting really old.

  11. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 2:27 pm #

    Not really. You say that when you want to cop out. Show me what I asked above- if you cannot then you are WRONG. You can NEVER be WRONG? I know that to be wrong re: me is a very bitter pill, but you could do it if you could, or so I believe. So I have to believe you cannot, thus you are wrong. That’s just logic- not a pissing contest. Stubborness yeilds NOTHING. SHOW ME WHERE I’M WRONG.

  12. Rob N. Hood March 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    Oh, and some cheese would go well with that whine of yours.

    • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 4:34 pm #

      What is the point? You’ll just come up with something else to argue about. I’m done.

      • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

        I’m not coming here to debate with you, though that’s what it seems to be all of the time. We are oil and water yet we keep trying to mix. I for one have had enough. Say what you want. I don’t care.

        • NEILIO March 29, 2012 at 8:06 pm #

          Let’s cut through the bull*hit. I am just a guy who has certain beliefs. One of them is that AGW is still just a theory and so far that theory has not been proven. That is the only reason I am here at this site. There is nothing you can say that will change my opinion. There are no facts that support the theory of AGW. There is only propaganda and rhetoric. The basic tools used by people who support the AGW theory is all propaganda, i.e. appeal to authority, appeal to fear, demonising the enemy, disinformation, labeling, name calling, half truths, scapegoating, red herring, repetition, slogans, and stereotyping. These are just a few of the propaganda techniques and they are used by both sides, and it’s all bulls*it. And absolutely none of it is why I think AGW is a scam. I think it is a scam because none of the predictions made from the beginning of the controversy have materialised, and the people who made those predictions keep changing them to suit what is happening out there in the real atmosphere. Period. There really is no more to it than that, and all this back and forth between you and I accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and in the overall discourse on global warming it is completely meaningless, moot, void, and nobody cares what you and I have to say about it.
          So prattle on if you must but don’t expect anything more from me because all I want to say is I think AGW is bulls*hit, and frankly I don’t care if you don’t.

  13. Joe March 29, 2012 at 8:34 pm #

    Enough said. Global warming is a moot point. Have business to attend to. Bye.

  14. Rob N. Hood March 30, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Bottom line seems to be, when the going gets tough, you bail. For someone who proposes to be so out-spoken and cock-sure it never ceases to amaze me that you cannot proceed beyond a certain point. It appears to be that there something blocking you. I have found this a lot with you people. Joe too of course, and even Mr. Almighty Dan too. But gosh golly gee I do prattle on, eh? I know by now what it is, at least a couple reasons. The depth of logic needed surpasses you, or while realizing you are incorrect you refuse to continue, and lay the blame on the other in one form or another to placate your own ego. I have tried coaxing you people out of your hard bitter shells, Lord knows I have, right? I admit failure. Can you, ever?

    • NEILIO March 30, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

      Ok fine you’re right about everything! You have no equal. Now please STFU.

      • NEILIO March 31, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

        I can’t believe that worked!

  15. George Montgomery April 2, 2012 at 5:13 am #

    Zunli Lu appears to have been misquoted by The Daily Mail report as evidenced by the following link, which states:
    “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
    Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”
    Says it all, doesn’t it?

  16. Rob N. Hood April 2, 2012 at 6:57 am #

    Lame and profane. The hallmarks of the Right.

  17. Rob N. Hood April 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

    America might be able to save itself if it decided to pay attention to its more serious critics. What would it take for most Americans to regard someone like myself as a patriot, and someone like Dick Cheney as a traitor? Or Ronald Reagan as a salesman who’s acting skills did the country enormous damage, and Jimmy Carter as a visionary who was trying to rescue it? This is not a matter of intelligence as “IQ”, because in America even the bright are brainwashed—just check out the New York Times. It’s more of an “ontological” problem, if you will. And that’s not about to change unfortunately- so the decline will continue. My guess is it will take at least two generations before some “old world” wisdom starts filtering into the American mind and some kind of positive equilibrium will then hopefully exist. Till then, on to the THUNDER DOME!!!

    • NEILIO April 2, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

      You’re right. I bow to your wisdom and beg forgiveness for my ignorance.

  18. Joe April 2, 2012 at 10:01 pm #

    Suggest Hood guy looks at reality. Bye.

  19. Rob N. Hood April 3, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    What if, just what if… it is I (and others like me) who are indeed seeing reality, and it is you who aren’t? What would it take for you to change your narrow and stubborn paradigm? What would you do, if and when, that realization finally does come (not that it will)? Will your minds crumble? will you lash out and become even more irrational, like a cornered animal? What would it do to your egos to learn that you may be wrong, about many things? Accept it, along with your human potential to adapt, and process information using your big brains that God gave you? Or will you continue to stumble and thrash about, clinging to your beliefs as if they are sticks of a “life” raft upon the sea?

    Now it is I who is fantasizing and being irrational…

  20. Rob N. Hood April 3, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    After causing a worldwide financial collapse in 2008 with their extreme risk taking, tangibly fraudulent mortgage schemes, and reckless pillaging of their clients and the American people, Wall Street used their complete systematic capture of our political and economic system to shift $8 trillion of toxic debt from their books onto the backs of American taxpayers. They have since become even more flagrant in their disregard for human decency by using the hundreds of billions in free money funneled to them by Ben Bernanke to take even bigger risks and pay themselves grander bonuses. Total unregulated derivatives (real WMD) outstanding now exceed $700 trillion.

    The rich and powerful have pulled out all the stops and saved themselves at the expense of the many. Despite overwhelming proof of unabashed mortgage fraud, rating agency bribery, document forgery on a grand scale and insider trading based on non-public information, the brazen audacity of Wall Street oligarchs is reminiscent of the late stages of the Roman Empire.

    “Crime, once exposed, has no refuge but in audacity.”
    ? Tacitus, Annals

  21. Rob N. Hood April 4, 2012 at 2:24 pm #

    The upcoming presidential election will likely create the dynamic that propels the country into its apocalyptic regeneracy. IF the next downward blow (likely financial, but could be anything serious like another major terrorist attack) can be averted before the election, the country will have four more years of Obama. If the Crisis suddenly worsens before November, Romney, as unlikely a presidential personage as he is, will assume the mantle of leader in January 2013.

    The country’s reaction to an adverse financial event will be the likely regeneracy moment. The explosive mixture of the five D’s will provide the spark for the next phase: Debt; Derivatives; Default; Devaluation; and ultimately Depression. There is no way to deny the $15.6 trillion of debt this country has accumulated, with $10 trillion of it added since 2000. The debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion will be breached in October 2012 at the current rate of extreme spending. This should set up an interesting dynamic just prior to the November elections.

    A replay of the August 2011 showdown could be very unfortunate for Obama, especially if the stock market were to crater again. But whoever the next President is, he will be saddled with this almost unprecedented crisis (the Great Depression II). And be it either Democrat or Republican, the President and Congress will assume even more powers and control. And significant changes will occur, will have to occur. For good, or for ill, will depend upon the people’s reactions and actions.

  22. Joe April 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

    Nightmares are arising.

  23. Rob N. Hood April 5, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    IKR- either way. That’s my point… time to wake up. America’s dream is evaporating and taking the world down with it. Or not; just ignore the world-wide economic implosion and continue with your blinders on. Blame it all your enemies, as a child would. That’ll help!

  24. Rob N. Hood April 5, 2012 at 7:50 am #

    Wait- I know who and what you blame (joe, et al). I’m just saying this mainly for the benefit of others, hopefully. Because we will eventually need a whole new system, that may in many ways be similar, but in other ways not. We need to be open-minded to change as being not only necessary (nobody likes change) but also potentially very beneficial to all, or to most. Do we lemming-like continue down the same old path?! That would be delusional.

  25. Rob N. Hood April 5, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Now, let’s chat about who will lose with Romney.. Who’s your choice?? I want Palin, but that’s just wishful thinking.

  26. Rob N. Hood April 9, 2012 at 9:59 am #


  27. Rob N. Hood April 10, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Anyone brave enough… dumb enough? (Ryan, Rubio?) The R ticket… sounds good Right?

  28. Rob N. Hood April 10, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

    Uh oh. Just heard a rumor about T Paw!

  29. Rob N. Hood April 11, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    I think we got the Man for the job!

    Rep. Allen West (R-FL) has done it again: At a campaign town hall event on Tuesday, the Palm Beach Post reports, West declared that he’s “heard” that up to 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party. However, he would not name any specific people.

    Big plus- he’s black, and a HUGE wingnut.

  30. Rob N. Hood April 11, 2012 at 2:23 pm #


  31. Joe April 11, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    After seven posts talking to yourself I suggest you take a nap. Yaaaghhhhhnnnn.

  32. Rob N. Hood April 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm #

    Not interested in who might run, or should, with Romney? Does democracy bore ya fella?! Maybe you should move to Russia, or China.

  33. Rob N. Hood April 16, 2012 at 7:15 am #

    Or perhaps you’d be more comfortable in some version of Right-wing Dictatorship. There are many of those to choose from. Although our own version of that is pretty comfy, eh?

  34. Rob N. Hood April 19, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    Right- better stick to AGW, don’t want to delve too deep into the Right-wing psyche. We may never be able to dig out of that black hole.

  35. Rob N. Hood April 19, 2012 at 7:33 am #

    The entire public indoctrination (mainstream media) is all about brainwashing. The middle class is not informed, or worse, misinformed – deliberately – to keep them ignorant, and believing harder work will get them where it got their predecessors. Not doing so carries with it psychological and social pitfalls that are totally unjustified and unwarranted.

    The bottom line is: Keep ’em dumb, and you’ve got your work force. Any pot-stirrers must be taken out of the collective (unless, of course, it is a profitable enterprise), to prevent ‘awareness’, whether it be by legal defamation, out-right murder, or the ever present and useful ‘blackballing’ recourse. Anyone outside of the collective is then branded ‘unsuitable’ for USE, and counted as the enemy.


  36. Rob N. Hood April 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

    The 21st Century is shaping up so far to being the return of the 12th Century, complete with indentured servitude and neo-feudalism. The power of Capital is ascendent today, the Velvet glove of Middle classism is off. The Oligarchs and their Plutocracy want a return to the “iron fisted” rule of the past.

  37. Rob N. Hood April 21, 2012 at 8:10 am #

    This is the same old battle, that has been occurring since the beginning of stable human habitats. And there are those same old wing-nuts that are the useful idiots of the elite, who perform the daily grind of maintaining or increasing oppression and servitude, for the benefit of the elite. The stable population of the right-minded and otherwise easily brainwashed are essentail for the elite. Without them we would be able to enjoy a different kind of world, the kind of world all of history’s philosophers and sages have spoken of.

  38. Mark May 30, 2012 at 9:06 am #

    Wow, looks like only two people in this whole discussion! In my opinion, yes it is likely that the Earth has experienced significant periods of warming and cooling in the past without human intervention, hence the ice age. That doesn’t mean to say that this period of warming has not been influenced by humans, merely that the planet has seen it before and survived.


  1. » Commercial Ships Spew Half As Much Particulate Pollution As World’s Cars - April 13, 2012

    […] Global shipping pollution ain't pretty ( Image via Wikipedia Commercial ships emit almost half as much particulate pollutants into the air g…mb/1/1f/Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg/202px-Carbon-dioxide-2D-dimensions.svg.png" alt="2D […]

  2. Global Climate Scam » Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global … | Political Blogs Watch - June 25, 2012

    […] Global Climate Scam » Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global … Go to this article […]

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.