Lib Journalist: 'I Am an Intellectual Blasphemer' for Questioning Global Warming

Photo of Matthew Sheffield.

Despite their rants and raves about being America being scared and lied into Iraq, the media elites do more than their share of fearmongering. On no issue is this more apparent than the subject of the environment where "savvy" and "impartial" journalists act like modern-day inquisitors to defame anyone who dares question the prevailing leftish orthodoxy on the earth's temperature.

Not everyone on the media left is marching in lockstep on the issue, however. One such dissident is Alexander Cockburn, a former columnist for the Nation who has experienced nothing but hatred from the "tolerant" left for thinking for himself:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.

There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.

This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.

Great stuff. He also hits on another important point that many in the business-hating media always overlook when it comes to the temperature debate: This movement is being bought and paid for by the world's largest corporations:

For reasons I find very hard to fathom, the environmental left movement has bought very heavily into the fantasy about anthropogenic global warming and the fantasy that humans can prevent or turn back the warming cycle.

This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice.

This is a fantasy. In truth, environmental catastrophism will, in fact it already has, play into the hands of sinister-as-always corporate interests. The nuclear industry is benefiting immeasurably from the current catastrophism. Last year, for example, the American nuclear regulatory commission speeded up its process of licensing; there is an imminent wave of nuclear plant building. Many in the nuclear industry see in the story about CO2 causing climate change an opportunity to recover from the adverse publicity of Chernobyl.

Right on the money. In addition to scamming its investors, Enron was a huge booster of the global warming agenda. Across the globe, this pattern of deception continues as rich, large companies have figured out that environmental regulation is a great way for not only getting great publicity but also to shut out the competition.

Full article.

—Matthew Sheffield is Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Intolerant Left

There is nothing tolerant about the American Left.  Ideas such "fairness doctrine", "hate speech", campus speech policies, McCain-Feingold are not meant to foster honest discussion. Today's left seeks control by bullying, bluster and petulance.

The word intelligentsia was once used. These folks are the new intoleragentsia – as in intolerant. 

How many liberal journalist

How many liberal journalists have we read about experiencing the same kind of punishment from their liberal peers when they stray, even momentarily, from the liberal dogma? Bernard Goldberg, Christopher Hitchens, ...?I was watching "Gangland" on The History Channel last night. The liberals behavior reminds me of the "Blood In. Blood Out." rules of prison gangs.

Liberals are antichrists ...

... pure and simple.

You want Satan's take on world events? You want his viewpoint and his will on the issues of the day? Then listen to a liberal.

Liberals are Cain's, Lamech's, Esau's, Pharoah's, Phillistines, Moabites, Amalekites, 2-inch Goliath's, Doeg's, Herod's, Caiphases, Pharisees, false prophets, dissemblers, backbiters, murmurers, complainers, mockers, and ANTICHRISTS.

Everything these people did they DO ... INCESSANTLY.

"Liberals are antichrists

"Liberals are antichrists ..."

Misguided? Yes. Dangerous ideas and policies? Yes. Need to be defeated? Yes. Antichrists? Uh, I wouldn't go quite that far...

Why not! Hey, everybody!

Why not! Hey, everybody! Free Biblical hyperbole!

Environmentalism will be

Environmentalism will be our doom.

Here's an interesting article.

remember these?

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.

—Pentti Linkola

If you ask me, it’d be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.

—Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth–Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.

—John Shuttleworth

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.

—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.

—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”

—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.

—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered.

—Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don’t suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them.

—Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.

—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.

—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.

—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.

—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

 

http://www.friendsof...

Camps in our future?

"One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted." And if the left could they would pass just such laws with long prison sentences and reeducation camps. Soft Socialism becomes hard Communism real fast. Read Jonah Goldberg's new book: "Liberal Fascism"; he describes in detail the various despots and thugs the left is in company with.

"Global" Warming Auto Da Fe's

That's EXACTLY what "global" warming prophets like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen are conducting ... AN INQUISITION.

Their goal is to silence, discredit, defame, and eviscerate anyone and any evidence that shows global warming to be a lie based on biased, manufactured, cultivated, and doctored data.

 

Environmentalism is the New Fascism of the 21st Century

These people are a direct threat to not only our freedom, but our very nation.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe

"In addition to scamming

"In addition to scamming its investors, Enron was a huge booster of the global warming agenda."

 

Matt, would you be able to provide some links documenting the claim about Enron?  I would love to force feed it to some of my hysterical eco-friends.  Thanks for any help.

Lots of links

courtesy of Google

Enron/AGW

In one of these links, I'm sure you'll discover that Chris Horner at CEI, who wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)," worked at Enron in the '90s and witnessed this firsthand.

He's a great source to cite on this and has the double advantage of being someone who really p*sses the warmers off.

2007 Was Tied As Earth's Second Warmest Year

ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

http://www.scienceda...

→ lotr

Joking, right?

♣ a seal

Uh, no actually. Just

Uh, no actually. Just throwing it out there FYI.

ROFL

Okay...If this is true, then please explain to me how come, when the local weather report shows "record high/low temps for the day," MOST of the record highs took place in either the late 19th century (1890s) or the late 1930s??????

 

It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong

The GISS Also Says.....

lotr - The GISS data also say that the earth's ten year average temperature from 1998-2007 has not increased.

From 1999-2007, the GISS nine year average temperature has actually shown a statistically significant decline.

Since the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased for ten years, this is not the result one would expect. 

zeestephen, I'm not sure

zeestephen, I'm not sure where you are getting that information from. The temperature plot shown on the ScienceDaily site clearly shows a warming trend, and I have yet to see any data that shows otherwise.

I believe the real worry for us, however, is that fossil fuels will eventually run out. More nuclear plants would help (and are desperately needed) in the short term, but far more R&D is needed for developing new energy sources.

Thanks for your note, lotr

Thanks for your note, lotr.  I'm speaking of the "Ten Year Moving Average Temp," which has been calculated since about 1975.

For example, you would find the average temp for 1975-1984, plot that on a graph, then 1976-1985, plot that, and so on up to 1998-2007.  This long term trend line cancels out short term noise like the cooling effect of volcanic ash in the early 1990's, and clearly shows a trend line as up, down, or flat.  For 20 years, the trend was indisputably going up.  That trend line has flattened in recent years. Using smaller, but less accurate, data sets like 9 years or 5 years, clearly shows the moving average has begun to trend slightly downward.

For the first time, just after release of the 2007 temps, at least two "pro-global warming" climatologists stated this trend is "noteworthy."  One of them said if this trend continues for three more years, "We will have to go back and look at our models."

The 10 year moving average for atmospheric CO2 goes back to about 1966, I believe.  That trend line has been up continuously for about 20 years, although it does show some flattening when there is a USA recession, which always slows world wide energy use.

The theory is that man-made CO2 warms the earth, and that more CO2 causes more warming.  However, the earth's temp has been basically flat for ten years, despite record levels of CO2.

As to sources - lotr, I go through the web the same way I go through cable channels.....click.....click.....click.  I will try to track this stuff down for you.  There are several superb "Denier" websites, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

The quotes from "pro-warmers" came from the AP, I believe, which is completely shocking when you consider their usual bias.    

      

More Grist For All You James Hansen Admirers

I get the NASA TV channel at my house, which is often quite good, and very educational about astronomy and space craft engineering.

But.....this just in.

Hansen's group at NASA has finally acknowledged publicly that the Antarctic ice sheet has grown substantially in recent years. 

The reason?  Fasten your seat belts.....global warming has melted ice in the continent's interior, and that melt water has run off onto the glaciers and re-frozen.

The NASA GISS plot also

The NASA GISS plot also shows the 5-year moving average.  I now understand what you are talking about, though -- that the trend may be flattening out, something that would not be expected (without a volcanic eruption like in the early 90s).  I will take another look at the plot (or others if you point me to them).  But, nevertheless, there has been an observed warming trend over the past 100 or so years.  Of course, that doesn't mean it will definitely continue to rise, or that we should commit to draconian measures to curb CO2 without also carefully considering the inevitiable economic consequences.  Bush was right to reject U.S. commitment to Kyoto.

Here is a recent graph from

Here is a recent graph from Icecap.org. Comparing Hansen's GISS with UKMET, U of Alabama Huntsville (Christy and Spencer), and Remotes Sensing (satellite). We're talking about close to a .3 variance from RSS. And the supposed increase is what .6-.8. That's a good chunk of the supposed increase.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

These datasets agree fairly

These datasets agree fairly well.  They only go back to 1990 probably because they are considering satellite data -- I am guessing that the RSS data are microwave sea surface temperatures.  They show a cooler 2007 -- not sure what may have caused that.

Look again. The others show

Look again. The others show no warming since 1998.

RSS is Remote surface sensing. also called satellite.  

"They show a cooler 2007 -- not sure what may have caused that." Venture a guess? Maybe Hansen is full of it?

It coes back to 1990 because that's when IPCC projected the warming. All but GISS are way below the IPCC projections.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

RSS stands for Remote

RSS stands for Remote Sensing Systems -- they are a private company on the West Coast that specializes in satellite microwave products, particularly sea surface temperatures.  All the datasets show a warming trend over the relatively short period of 17 years.  All datasets I am aware of, satellite or otherwise, show a warming trend in surface temperatures, not inconsistent with model predictions. 

lotr.....

lotr - I don't pretend to be a scientist or a statistician.  I also completely agree that the earth is warming and that the rate of warming clearly accelerated from 1975-1995.  What's important to remember is that the total warming and the rate of warming in the last century are completely consistent with totals and rates from earlier times when man was not a factor in CO2 levels.  From 900-1200 AD, the Vikings grew crops and raised farm animals on the coastal plains of Greenland.  Greenland is too cold to do that in 2008, in spite of dramatic pictures of melting glaciers.  It is entirely plausible that man has affected earth's climate, but, today, the evidence for that theory is based on political emotions, not science.  One last note - all major news sources imply that Bush rejected Kyoto.  In fact, Kyoto was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998.  When the US Senate indicated it would defeat Kyoto by 95-0, Clinton shelved the treaty and never submitted it.  Bush simply followed Clinton, and I'm not aware of any leading Democrat who has asked Bush to submit it.  Also, via Investors Business Daily, in multiple editorials, since 1998 the USA has cut its CO2 rate of increase almost to zero, a rate which is dramatically lower than in Europe, which signed Kyoto.   

zeestephen, interesting

zeestephen, interesting about Kyoto -- thanks for clarifying and pardon my ignorance.  The media led me to believe that Bush rejected it, but that's whole point of this blog, isn't it?

All very true about the natural variability of climate.  Everyone knows about "the Ice Age," and there were actually many of them.  Climate changes probably played a role in the demise of several localized cultures in the past (e.g., the Anasazi Indians).  That would not happen today, thanks to a highly advanced technology.

I'm not not advocating that continued global warming is an inevitability, and I'm certainly not suggesting that we all vote for Al Gore.  The atmosphere-ocean system is highly complex -- several important feedback mechanisms (e.g., clouds) have not been completely accounted for, and these introduce uncertainty.  But, by the same token, one cannot deny that there has been an observed warming, and that climate models predict continued warming due to the greenhouse effect.  Even if the models are correct, which they may not be, global warming is lesser concern for the future -- new energy sources (including nuclear power) are a far greater concern.

lotr - One Last Anecdote

Re: "the Ice Age"

I live in Seattle, world HQ for Extreme Greens.

At some point in every local conversation I have about Global Warming, I find it necessary to say this:

"For 100,000 of the last 120,000 years, this spot, where we are now standing, was buried under 2000 feet of glacial ice.  You are going to have a difficult time convincing me that Global Warming is a bad thing."

A valid point.  You should

A valid point.  You should also advocate nuclear power to them -- zero greenhouse emissions.  Seattle is a lovely place (been there once), but I feel your pain having to deal with the Left Coast mindset.

Don't you have anything

Don't you have anything better to worry about than one day "fossil" fuels will run out.

What are you? In your 30's. You might as well worry that even if you live to the average life expectency of an adult male in the US, you're gonna be dead pretty soon in cosmic terms. Earth and its constantly changing climate: about 4 billion years old. You: 80 years. 

But think of all the CO2 that won't be expelled from your lungs when you're rotting in the ground. That should help.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

The grave awaits us all,

The grave awaits us all, Jack.

According to articles I have read (e.g., one in a recent issue of Physics Today -- I can provide you the exact citation on Monday at work if you want), fossil fuels are projected to be depleted within our lifetimes, and that's assuming stable demand.  Oil prices are now at near-record highs, and this is certainly felt in my wallet; and I wouldn't expect them to come down anytime soon.  Even if you don't believe that, be assured, they are not in infinite supply.  Unfortunately, wind power ain't gonna cut it when it comes to powering cities, automobiles, etc., the engines of our industrialized society. 

Not to worry. I'm in my

Not to worry. I'm in my 60's. When I was in grade and high school, they were telling me the oil would be gone in 10-15 years. they were kind of wrong. We have more now than we had then. You guys just won't let us get it. So we have to import it.

And when I was a kid the old folks claimed they were told the same thing when they were kids.

The term fossil fuels may be incorrect.  It may be inorganic in origin. And is coming from the mantel or the core. And seeping up to pools closer to the surface. They're finding it very deep in the southern gulf off Yucatan. In a fractured section of igneous and sedimentry rock. My understanding is that oil has been found in archeozoic rock which formed before plants and animals are known to exist.

If this is correct. Oil may be virtually limitless. And we may also be able to find it on places like the moon, Mars etc. Remember, methane is known to exist on Titan.

But if it helps your guilt feelings. Worry.

But, excuse me if I don't.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

guilt?

Don't know who you are referring to by "you guys," and my postings have nothing to do with "guilt" -- not sure what it was that I wrote that caused you infer that.

That's an interesting hypothesis, one that I've never heard of, that fossil fuels aren't organic in origin.  Believe you me, I would love nothing more than to find out some scientist has discovered that there is an inexhaustible source of oil available to us -- let the prices fall and the economy soar!  Only a strong committment to science and R&D in this country (ethical/moral, that is), however, could confirm or discredit the "unlimited oil" hypothesis.  Unfortunately, we don't hear anything about this from any of the major candidates, even the conservatives, whom typically are more pro-R&D.

It's called the  Abiotic

It's called the  Abiotic theory of oil production.

Evidence:

Oil has been found at 30,000 feet. Deeper than the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.

Wells that are pumped dry are later replenished. So apparently oil seeps up from a deeper level.

Methane has peen produced in the lab by subjecting materials found deep in the earth to the pressures and temps found there.

We've been told for over half a century we were running out of oil. And still have it.  

That's more evidence than AGW has.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo, thanks for bringing

danbo, thanks for bringing this to my attention -- I will check it out in my spare time.

You have James

You have James Hansen declairing 2007 was the 2nd warmest year.

 James Hansen. The king of adjusted data. The same man who told us 2005 was the warmest year. The creator of the Y2K error. 

No one else bought into 2005, I doubt many will buy into 2007. Even NOAA and CRU with their adjusted data disagree with him.

Does this mean, that Hansen is admitting he was full of it in 2006. When he called 2005 the warmest year?

Here

No warming since 1998. "There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Was he censored?

Being Hansen complains about being censored? Did he get approval to announce this? Or, are his complaints of being censored as real as his claims about climate. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

The jackass who blackmailed ...

... and extorted NASA and NOAA for weather data that he could manipulate into evidence for global warming?!!

He's the only global warming prophet more biased and more deceived than Al Gore.

 

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 17,

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) — Climatologists at the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that
2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since
1990."

And yet, somehow, the earth wasn't destroyed in the process. How can that be??

Meanwhile, Arctic Sea Ice Expanding at Record Pace. Once Algore gets hold of this information, he'll be telling everyone that Florida and NY will be under 20 feet of ice instead of water. Nothing a little socialism and a tax increase won't solve though.

Exactly -- the earth wasn't

Exactly -- the earth wasn't destroyed in the process, nor will it be (nor will life as we know it cease to exist).

Algore is an opportunist and no scientist.  It is a sham that he gets a Nobel prize, whereas someone like John Paul II does not.

Warmest year on record - 1934

Actually, 1934 was the warmest year on record.

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

The eight warmest years

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."

That's simply untrue. This is the Clinton method of discourse. Just make something up. I'd like to see GISS's records for July 1066 AD. Or maybe August 1451 BC.

Oh that's right. They don't have any. What a load of manure.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Unfortunately, directly

Unfortunately, directly measured surface temperature records don't extend back that far.  Of course, there are plenty of ways of inferring relative temperatures from geological evidence, but not on a monthly scale.

For those with aversion to Hansen, here's another interesting article: 

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroom/press-releases/20050707.htm

The AGW Web.

National Academy of science (NAS) reviewer              WMConnelly
Wikipedia  Global warming  editor                            WMConnelly
RealClimate.org  M Mann G Schmidt and contributor WMConnelly
IPCC reviewer: G Schmidt...MBH98(Hockey stick) M Mann.
NASA J Hansen's.. employee G Schmidt.

NASA Web site Contributors Gavin Schmidt and M Mann.

NASA Web site scientific reference. RealClimate.org run by M Mann and Gavin Schmidt. 
GISS Modeler Gavin Schmidt.

here's a good start.

NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures

By Steve McIntyre

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2536

 

 

The 1450's? Try 2008, Mr. Cockburn

Alexander Cockburn says the "hysterical outrage" and "self-righteous fury" directed against his challenge of global warming dogma has helped him "understand" what it must have been like to be a "blasphemer" in the 1450's.

Mr. Cockburn, in 2008 we call that feeling "what it's like to be a Conservative."  

Hear hear!! Conservatives

Hear hear!!

Conservatives are constantly being blasted for all the stereotypical reasons the left always blasts us for. What’s worse is that they do not see their actions as being oppressive or intolerant, but rather make those specious claims about us with no evidence to back them up. The common leftist tactic is to accuse the other side of similar transgressions, so that those engaging in the questionable conduct themselves can deflect attention from their actions. It also helps to get the accusation out there first so they can muddy the waters so that the general populace can’t tell one from the other, and while the Conservatives try and appeal to the voting public’s logic, the Liberals go straight for the emotional ploy… Conservatives want to starve old people, or they want to tell you what to do with your womb etc…. and conveniently leave out why these issues are being debated in the first place. It's not about issues, it's about convincing people from an emotional point of view rather than the logical one.

 Conservatives think first and let feelings come in later, Liberals feel first and think little later since emotions are always easier to justify than logical actions. Liberalism is easy, and hence, most Liberals are just intellectually lazy.

____________________________________________________

"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine

Maybe Mr. Cockburn will have an epiphany...

about the differences between conservative and liberal discourse? nah...

>>I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical
reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the
consensus.

Consider us the choir.

>>This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been
like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the
summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring.

You might consider what it's like to be a conservative and that the present day is a dark period as a result of the progressive movement.

 

Welcome to the club Mr. Cockburn