You just made an assertion. You didn’t provide evidence. If it’s all natural, then modeling the climate with or without greenhouse gases included, tracking over the last century or three, should make no difference on the output.
So far as I’m aware, there’s a good several dozen global climate modeling systems and not a one gives the same output regardless of the concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Hardly a “myth”:
"The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm weather around AD 800-1300 during the European Medieval period. Initial research on the MWP and the following Little Ice Age (LIA) was largely done in Europe, where the phenomenon was most obvious and clearly documented." Although it apparently was not a world wide occurrence.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
“As with the “Little Ice Age”, the posited “Medieval Warm Period” appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures.”
Still, he is Lord Monckton, not “Lord” Monckton. And cite for he’s trying to pass himself off as a Member of the Lords? Your cite “Private Eye” is more or less like citing “the Onion”. A search of Google News has turned up nothing esle on the subject.
Way to miss the point, the evidence is not there to show that it was a global phenomenon. The deniers used what it was an European phenomenon and have done their damnedest to make it global.
Please check the logo Monckton uses in his paper against Al Gore:
Compare it with the Official House of Lords one:
http://www.nio.gov.uk/media-detail.htm?newsID=7705
Dodgy indeed.
And it is noticeable that you are ignoring how unreliable Monckton is with his research.
The IPCC report indicates solar output, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases as being the largest factors on the global temperature at any given moment. Changes in volcanic activity during the 1900s caused a drop of -0.5C between the first and latter halves of the century.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch06.pdf (p. 477)
Sigh. You have no idea about heraldry do you? You found a attack site about Lord Monckton, one that cites a “fact” that no other source does, and you think that somehow that makes him not a “Lord”. If Lord Monckton is violating the rules of Parliament and Heraldry, they will let him know. The British equivalent of “The Onion” is not a place for you to garner legit info or cites. Lord Monckton is indeed a Viscount, and thus he is entitled to use that crown.
And yes, I know I have not talked about his scientific work, but that’s because somehow you think that attacking his title as spurious makes him a bad scientist. Which it does not.
Let me make this point bigger for you “Although it apparently was not a world wide occurrence.” I hardly missed it, I said it.
The only thing I notice is that you do not read the cites.
And no, the science blog is not looking at “The Onion” only.
The computer scientist at Deltoid has Monkton’s number:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future.php
God knows that I would prefer to see Monckton interviewed by the Onion rather than a Lyndon Larouche publication. 
So what is the problem? The myth the article was dealing with was that deniers have used the Medieval warming period to say things like:
When it is clear that that warming period was mostly an European phenomenon. Not specifying that it was in Europe is just an effort to lead others into thinking that the same warming was taking place in the whole world. That is the myth.
Here’s your post *"It seems to me that that is doubtful, like his work.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ing_things.php
Quote:
With his latest shenanigans in the US, Monkton managed to catch the attention of Private Eye (a satirical current affairs magazine in the UK).
In the latest issue 1235, they noted several things (quite apart from his dodgy science).
One is his reference to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to two American senators. He is not of course and never has been. As Private Eye notes: “Since inheriting the title, Christopher has stood at a “by-election” for a hereditary Tory seat in the Lords, following the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton two years ago. He received precisely zero votes.”
The other thing Private Eye notes is his logo, which he is using on his graphs and letters - a portcullis topped with a crown, bearing a striking resemblance to the insignia of the House of Parliament. This is also very dodgy indeed as the official parliamentary guide states very clearly that “the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by the others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House”. *
That is a quote from scienceblogs.com, but their only **source **is " Private Eye" which is the UK equivalent of “The Onion”. (It even sez so in your quote!) In other words, their source is worthless. No other news source has any issue with Lord Monktons arms or him supposedly claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords. Yes, you have found sources that show the badge to be similar. Now, try to find a reputable news source that sez that’s not perfectly OK. Got it?:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Incredible.
**
That was not their only source.**
Your solution was to cut from the complete cite the other link:
The link that shows the testimony of Monckton where the quote from Deltoid comes from:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php
(that BTW is the correct link as it seems you also would prevent others from seeing how wrong you are)
That science blog has the images of the logos **separated **from the Private Eye quote.
**The cites I gave you showing the logos in a different location are not from Deltoid or Private Eye.
**
Also separated from the Private Eye quote is the quote from Monckton to congress.
And to top it off, even if it is satire, the quote from Private Eye does include a direct quote to the British Parliament site! regarding the rules.
Now kids, how many fallacies you can see **DrDeth ** committing in the previous post?
Thanks for shitting in my thread fellas.
“Private Eye” is BTW being accurate on the quote mentioned:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g09.pdf
(Warning, PDF file.)
Can we expect an attempt to discredit the British Parliament site?
Nothing will surprise now.
It is noticeable that skeptics, even in the SDMB, told us that scientists had no explanation for that drop, when it was already already on record.
IMO the history of how AGW became accepted by most scientists shows that on many occasions components of the theory, like the one that mentions that “man made CO2 is the main reason for the recent increase of it in the atmosphere” could had been discredited in the past and by now we could forget about the whole thing; unfortunately the evidence and experiments showed that it was a keeper.
Sigh, yes, the quote “I BRING fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments….” is in another source. But I didn’t think anyone was foolish enough to consider that evidence that Lord Monkton was claiming he was part of the House of Lords, he was claiming to be "a Prime Ministerial policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher", which he was, and the PM is part of Parliament.
The Logos are not a big deal as he is a Viscount and is allowed to use that. It is true that the symbol is reserved but again, he is a Viscount.
Sorry dude. 
Hey Gigo, no more of this here, start another thread, OK?
I hesitate to ask this question as I don’t want to get my head bit off, but why wouldn’t a reverse in the warming trend (or current temperature plateau) falsify the AGW theory? Let’s say we go into another cooling phase similar to the Little Ice Age. If this happened despite the continued rise in CO2, wouldn’t that falsify the theory? If not, then why not?
-XT
Regarding the projections, this comment from the scientist at Real climate deals with the falsification of them:
We don’t even need to reach an ice age for the falsification of it.
This discussion seems to head into the wrong direction, IMHO (be gentle, I am new here): The question whether “AGW is science” has nothing to do with if we can falsify it now. The question is :Is it in principle falsifiable? If not (like the answer “but God created it that way”) then it is not science. if it is, but we can not falsify it now, then it is just currently a good theory which covers the facts as we know them. That’s the way it is in science as far as I see it. It is not in principle infalsifiable, so it is science, but not necessarily true. Or false.