Brilliant Federico!
Vitezslav, Mike, this is the most comprehensive shut up that you will get.
Game on!

Eheh, thanks Hemant

Fine, Federico, you asked for it, fool:

1) First go to http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php and disprove all the peer-review papers, that prove, that MWP existed…

2) The “burden of evidence” is on the side of alarmists. The 1990 IPCC report (FAR) stated, that MWP temperatures were much higher than now. Hockeystick changed this view, but it has been disqualified due to unscientific behaviour of Mann and IPCC (it was not peer-reviewed). So until you persuade us otherwise, we stick to FAR.

2) Then go to my blog post “Climategate disproved” and listen to Mann confessing!

3) Do not attack strawmen: No climate realist denies, that climate changes from time to time and that we have had a warming period. The discussion in CRU is “are our temperatures higher than MWP?” It is a discussion about the hockeystick.

See, Federico. You lose.

Let’s see with kind of excuse they come up this time.

Maybe another post on how evil Mann is, or maybe they will bring the conspiracy of the vegan overlords.

Either way, I have the feeling that this is going to be quite fun. :D

Vitezslav,
Mmmm, all I read is:
- Mann is blah blah
[...]
- I don’t want to answer

Still waiting.

Oh, and by they way, about the debunking of publications, I asked you first, so please go ahead, once you are finished I will be glad to do my part.

Where’s your paper that proves CO2 causes significant global warming?

Where’s your paper that proves last century’s warming was historically unprecedented?

I refuse this challenge, as I never made such claims. Have nice day.

Ahahah, hilarious.

You never made such claims… what claims? That there are no independent publications supporting the IPCC position and that did not depend solely on Mann’s data? Or are you referring to other claims?

Your attitude to science is absolutely clear from one thing: You even failed to provide me with a link to the source, from where you got your list of articles (letter A) I am supposed to review.

Apparently you have no scientific background. Have you ever heard what “references” are? Or bibliography?

I do not believe, you are a “Bachelor” in compute science. Highly improbable.

Vitezslav, you have lost this one. And all the other ones too. But c’mon making personal attacks on Federico’s education?
You are just putting yourself down man.
Can we see some intellectual discussion from you?
If not, can you at least make us laugh?

Another proof, that you know nothing about scientific procedure is the Allen-Sherwood paper from your hilaraious LIST.

It is available here: http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/allen_sherwood_ngeo208.pdf

And it has nothing to do with the MWP/hockeystick debate. It does not assess the height of the MWP temperatures.

The paper deals with the problem, that satellites fail to show sufficient warming during the last decades.

So before you give me some lists to disprove, first read the papers yourself - you moron - and check whether the papers are even related to our debate!!

If I was your teacher, you would get no credits at the end of term!

What claim? The one pertaining to the “challenge”, obviously.

take every single peer review publication I posted in the comments and prove that they only used Mann’s data to evaluate their results.

Why isn’t the challenge this?:

Here is proof of anthropogenic global warming, try and refute it.

Vitezslav,
you suddenly turned the question of anthropogenic global warming to a mere “hockey stick” problem.

My statement was quite clear actually:

“Take every single peer review publication I posted in the comments and prove that they only used Mann’s data to evaluate their results, as part of “a list of peer-review publications that support the IPCC conclusions”.

I never mentioned that the focus was only the hockey stick issue.

If you were my teacher, I would bring you to the principal for an academic evaluation, since you don’t seem to be able to differentiate very simple issues.

And here is my challenge. You green monsters have been shouting for years, that there is a “consensus”, that our temperatures are higher than in MWP.

But:
1) Here is a long list of peer-reviewed literature which says, MWP did exist. go to http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php and disprove I have just proved, that your lies about consensus are just lies.

2) The flag ship of IPCC, the author of hockeystick, has been found guilty of cheating (see my blog post “Climategate debunked” - I have proved there that Hockeystick is a fraud)

3) Before you start criticising “climate skeptic” opinions, you should first learn, what these opinions are. If you can read, of course. Otherwise you want us to defend someone else’s opinions.

Like he thinks civil disobedience involves violence.
He would be a teacher of crazy fiction.

- you moron -
Until now, as far as I can remember, I kept insults out of the discussion, because I think it just brings it down to a level of idiocy, as well as not showing respect for your interlocutor.

I would appreciate you do the same, apologise, and stick to the discussion.

Once again, the list has about 30 publications, so please take them all into account and try to read the big picture, as you might not get it just by superficially reading he abstract and then accusing other people of not having read the papers.

Federico: “I never mentioned that the focus was only the hockey stick issue”

Sure, because you do not understand the problem we are talking about.

Nobody ever denied we have had some warming. But is this warming unique and alarming? Or is it lower than MWP?

This is the only question around Climategate. The facts that the “scientists” were avoiding peer-review, hiding data, silencing opposition… this is a proven fact and there is no discussion about it.

Who’s the one superficially posting a wall of papers without any supporting argument, expecting the opposition to read fully before they are allowed a rebuttal?

As I recall, it’s not the first time you insult somebody on this blog.

Just by memory, you insulted Joe by calling him “dumb”, then you immediately apologised.

I don’t know why, but after hearing you again here and I bet somewhere else I don’t remember at the moment, you apologies were not really sincere.

You know, people always make mistakes, it’s perfectly normal. But when they keep repeating the same mistake, you start to think it probably isn’t a mistake. It’s what they actually mean to do.

Federico, sorry if the term “moron” offends you. But I have no other word.

In your “list” I found this:

Bakke, J. et al., (2009) Rapid oceanic and atmospheric changes during the Younger Dryas cold period. Nature Geoscience 2.

How the hell do Younger Dryas periods have in common to current temperatures or MWP temperatures?

Do you even know, what Younger Dryas is? I do. I studied history.

Even if I proved or disproved this paper, it would have no impact on our Hockeystick debate. Can you even understand it?

One question: Did you even read the papers you put into your LIST? Answer me!

Nobody ever denied we have had some warming. But is this warming unique and alarming? Or is it lower than MWP?

This is the only question around Climategate.

Really? because I though you questioned the very fact that warming was caused by humans at all and the IPCC report in general.

How silly of me!
So this:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/ipcc
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/copenhagen_-_the_tomb_of_climate_change
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/humour_music_video_fun_with_climategate
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/even_if_it_is_cooling_it_is_still_warming

must be a product of my imagination!

First, you have no post called “Climategate debunked” (which makes me wonder, do you read your posts?).

Second, I’m still talking about climate change caused by human activities.

That’s the issue, so stop blathering and get to the job.

The list is taken from the Copenhagen Diagnosis report.

It is over three years since the drafting of text was completed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).  In the meantime, many hundreds of papers have been published on a suite of topics related
to human-induced climate change.  The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science
published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.  The rationale is two-fold.  Firstly, this report serves as an
interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle – IPCC AR5 is not due for completion until 2013. 
Secondly, and most importantly, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time
for Copenhagen in December, 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.

Now, I know what you thinking: ahah! The Copenhagen Diagnosis, that’s Mann and IPCC propaganda.

Actually, it’s based on a number of publications that mostly don’t have anything to do with the IPCC.

This is like talking to a deaf person.

I wrote: Nobody ever denied we have had some warming. But is this warming unique and alarming? Or is it lower than MWP? This is the only question around Climategate.

There are many questions around Climate Change in general. But only one real question around Climategate. Clear?

- we had some warming. Clear
-we know warming stopped in 1998. It is clear. The e-mails admit that.
-nobody knows, how strong is CO2 forcing. And the e-mails admit this uncertaintly. So it is clear.
-they were hiding data from verification. So it is clear.

But the question remains, whether their “deletion of MWP” is supported by any independent research. Because proxies are just proxies.

So please go read WEGMAN REPORT. Then come back to discuss it.

Furthermore, you will notice those publications are not referred as a a whole, but to specific segments, pages.

And to answer you question, yes, I did read the whole report and most of the original references, so please stop shouting nonsensical accusations and start to refute the paper itself, with all its refereced publications.

And also: We know, that IPCC reports cannot be taken seriously. They use articles without verification of data and without peer-review.

Do you any other - more reliable- source of info?

Vitezslav, what do you think are the qualifications of a “reliable” report?
Does it have to agree with you always. Or can it be science?
Just wondering.

Apparently you did not read your own LIST, because you put there a pile of crap, that is unrelated to the “hide the decline” debate.

Hemant, a reliable report is a report, that has been peer-reviewed. IPCC published Hockeystick in 2001 without verification of the data.

IPCC losts its credit, because it uses the dirty methods described in Climategate. Cannot be trusted. It is heavily politicised. Politics not science.

Did you read what Federico said: it’s based on a number of publications that mostly don’t have anything to do with the IPCC.

So that must be reliable for you.

Which means, you accept defeat.

The point of this “challenge is”: Is there any non-discredited research supporting the alarmist claims?

As soon as you admit, that Mann, Hockeystick and IPCC have been discredited, I will continue in this debate. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Until then you should react to my post “Climategate debunked” and “It was never peer-reviewed”. If you have the “cojones”, you deniers. I challenge you.

You lose. Have you heard about Climategate?

Which means, you accept defeat.
Pretty much.

And, makes up excuses such as “I wasn’t talking about AGW, I was only talking about MWP”, while I recall reading about 30 articles of his that were really about AWG.

Touché!

Just for the sake of the argument, so that it doesn’t look like he’s talking to a deaf person, although I’m begging to think I am…

Real Climate has a good piece called “The missing piece at the Wegman hearing”:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

Also, the Wegman report is now mostly irrelevant. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes published an updated reconstruction last year which nullifies the issues brought up by Wegman and the NRC. You can read the abstract here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.abstract

but… wait, I forgot! ANYTHING published by Mann is false, fabricated and should be discarded, right?

Haha, deny this:

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/mann_and_briffa_explaining_the_micks_nature_trick

or deny this:
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/hockeystick_it_was_never_peer-reviewed/

It is funny. From now on, anyone who wants to be trustworthy will have to prove, he has had nothing to do with IPCC or Mann.

Do you admit now, that Mann and IPCC cannot be trusted?

Much conspiracy, Vitezslav?

What happens, you can’t hold up to the fact that hundreds of reports not affiliated with the IPCC came out with the same conclusions?

The fact that they are mentioned on the Climate Diagnosis report does not mean that the IPCC fabricated those independent studies as well.

Face it, you don’t know what to answer, and instead you keep repeating the same old “spot-like” phrases.

Vitezslav. You are funny. All you have to link to is your crazy articles on this blog. They never made any sense.
Now prove me wrong.
try and make some sense for a change.
Go on.

Oh yes, and when you are in difficulty, you insult as well.

How brave, and what excellent quality for a journalist!

Why do I hear “deny this, deny that”, while I’m still waiting for a falsification of the sources cited by the Climate Diagnosis?

I’m sure they’ll be included in the next report, since everything is “worse than we thought”.

Poor fools that can’t grasp the concept of bandwagoning. Exactly what does any of this discussion prove? What is the point of it?

...will have proven that all your arguments are based on superficial analysis which ride on emotion, faith, conspiracy and generally speaking nothing to do with serious science.

Is it this? You’re trying to entrap Vitezslav with this bogus claptrap? Have you no shame?

Shame? For what? For asking solid, science-based answers? If that’s the shame I should feel, then I certainly do, I shamefully respect the scientific method and the actual facts, and I shamefully disrespect unsubstantiated credences.

What next? Will you try to disprove evolution? Or maybe the heliocentric theory? Or gravity?

By they way, here’s an interesting piece on the Hockey Stick graph.

MYTH #1: The “Hockey Stick” Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).

This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

We can do this all day, but I’m still waiting for the “debunking” of the independent sources cited by the Climate Diagnosis.

So, until you have that, please save your breath.

Thanks for support Mike. Before Climategate we had some smart discussions with these alarmists. But after Climate they went nuts. They degenerated into blind deniers of reality.

at Federcio and Pistono: Do you admit now, that IPCC and Mann are not to be trusted?

Mike, actually I am happy this blogging competition ends like this. It is so sweet and unexpected. Ends with our victory and a landslide defeat of the alarmist hoax.

Do you admit now, that IPCC and Mann are not to be trusted?
I admit that Mann operated in a non professional way, and that it’s not something to be proud of, as I already explained in my earslier posts.

But before we extend that to all of his research, and all of the IPCC, there’s a long way to go.

It IPCC is composed of dozeens of scientists and researchers, and to put them all in a big box and say “this is trash” is plain ridiculous, until a clar investigation is made.

Just curious, why Federico and Pistono? Last ime I checked I was only one person.

I will take it as a “YES”

Ends with our victory and a landslide defeat of the alarmist hoax.

What victory?

Until we solve the problems of the Earth, we all loose in this debate.

We need clean air, clean and plentiful water, arable land, and stable climate (natural factualtions allowed).

When we achieve that, we’ll all be winners.

I will take it as a “YES”
No, that’s what a person who only understand monosyllables would understand.

With a 50% chance.

Hate to repeat myself, but if necessary I will at infinitum.

Even if you suppose Mann can’t be trusted, I’m still waiting for the “debunking” of the independent sources cited by the Climate Diagnosis.

Great approach, Federico!

It’s funny how a couple of guys still take phrases out of context and expect others to suck everything up without any further research.

“Stable Climate” is an oxymoron.

Yes, we’ll all be winners in that case, but curbing CO2 emissions isn’t the answer. It is clear this thread is just an open attempt at the character assassination of Vitezslav, despite your “open challenge to all climate sceptics” headline. You are taking his arguments out of context and putting words in his mouth, then have the audacity to claim he must do this or that lest he be proven wrong for all eternity!

That, my friend, is what we here call a dick move

How quickly Mike and Vitezslav quickly resort to abusive language. We don’t call it d move. We call it losing dignity.

Hi Adela,
thanks, I wasn’t sure somebody else was reading the discussion through (it can be quite boring if you’re not into it), but then again, you are almost omnipresent in the think2 platform.

Hemant,
I could not have said it better myself.

Mike,
since I knew you would be using every single word against me, I tried to be very careful.

And I was.

I said </em>stable climate (natural fluctuations allowed).</em>

Now, what part of “natural fluctuations allowed” are not getting?

Natural? Fluctuations? Or allowed?

Or maybe you just missed to read them altogether!

If there is fluctuation, then it isn’t stable. Go ahead and say I’m arguing semantics, but my point remains.

Please note that my language here is not intended to be abusive

Your point seems to hinge on present climate being unstable, when Vitezslav and I have clearly demonstrated, thanks to co2science.org, that present climate (temperature) is within the parameters of natural climate variability. Therefore, the null hypothesis prevails. This is the driving factor of my conviction. This applies to both temperature and CO2 reconstructions. Both hockey sticks are demonstrably fraudulent, though the latter receives less attention since many like the champion human CO2 as “greening the planet”, when it is completely explainable by natural variation. Yes, I am even skeptical of the skeptics.

Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 771 individual scientists from 458 separate research institutions in 42 different countries ... and counting!

http://www.co2science.org/

Weighing this up against Mann and your “affirming” paper, as one who appeals to authority and consensus, do you still deny the medieval warm period exists and/or was warmer than today? Do you concede that today’s temperatures are therefore within the realm of natural variability that you say is “allowed”?

Mike,
you are just playing with semantics, and you have no point.

Natural fluctuations allowed means that we should be within the range of temperatures that were observed over the last 1000 years, playing along with solar cycles and every other cycle that the Earth has.

Meaning: we can’t be responsible for what the Sun does, but we are responsible for what we do with the resources on our own planet.

If you take away human impact, then the climate is stable, natural fluctuations allowed.

Both hockey sticks are demonstrably fraudulent

Oh really? How do you plane on showing that? Did you miss MYTH #1: The “Hockey Stick” Reconstruction I posted earlier, by any chance?

You are exciting! As more I read as more it makes me smile! Just smile!

Federico, you are a real ...

Situation: X is caught cheating. And you say, that I must prove, that he cheated also in other cases???

Where is your logic?

Wrong. The caught cheater lost his credibility. Right? So if X wants to get his credibility back, X MUST PROVE, that he did not cheat in the other cases.

Nobody trust cheaters. And they must work hard to regain trust.

So please take your LIST and prove, that the listed papers did not use Mann’s data or methods. It is your job. If you want your “science” to be trusted again.

Yours, Vitezslav

Vitezslav,
Please, don’t ever use the word logic again, unless you show some knowledge of it.

I don’t expect you to understand Gödel’s incompleteness theorems or read Douglas Richard Hofstadter’s books, but at least the basic concept posed by Aristotle, yes.

When you go back and take some schoolbooks you may understand this:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis report cites sources that have nothing to do with Mann or his friends. These sources are then, by you reasoning, trustworthy, regardless of the fact that he’s using them.

So, since there is a report showing the reality of anthropogenic global warming, and this report also uses sources other than Mann and his buddies, and since you’ve been claiming that these independent research never existed, I have now proved you wrong.

Therefore, it’s up to you to disprove them now.

Come on, it’s not that difficult to understand, Vitezslav.

Instead of playing this idiotic game of “your turn, no, your turn!” just answer the question.

Can you or can you not disprove the paper and its sources?

My argument for the paper is, well, the paper itself. If you can find another paper that disproves the Copenhagen Diagnosis, you may have a point.

But if you don’t, you are just making up excuses, taking about conspiracies, getting irritated, and consequently insulting (this is what happens when people don’t know what to say).

Just show some dignity, will you?

I think the burden of conviction lies with the people who say that I can go skiing this year like I could when I was a kid.

If we agree that I can’t (I don’t really need to do any research for that) We have two hypotheses:

a) The world changes dues to laws of cause and effect. Show me a cause that is more likely than co2 emissions.

b) The world is managed by something else than cause and effect/is a mere chaos. In this case we can continue burning fossile fuels like we always did, because nothing really matters.

Finally, climategate has proven that casality doesn’t exist. How nice it feels to drive my car and eat my beef without a bad conscience….

You asked for it, Federico. “Bring it on?” So here you are:

The Copenhagen Diagnosis was written by Stephen Schneider. The moron who predicted cooling in 1970s. It was him who openly said in 1989 that he wants to lie and exaggerate on purpose. Plus a bunch of other IPCC buys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science

But IPCC lost its credit. Because it published Hockeystick without verification, when its data sources were unavailable for verification.

IPCC and Stephen are discredited. Until you prove otherwise.

That you can cite such crap after Climategate is really hilarious.

If you look here: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/authors.html

See? I responded to your little “challenge” and turned it against you. Next time try something more clever.
you will see, that most of the authors are IPCC lead authors. Which means they are memebers of the Climategate cabala of swindlers.

If you want some research which is not discredited (not connected with Climategate), go to http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

So far you have not responded to my latest two articles about
a)no peer review of HOckeystick
b) the Mann’s Nature Trick

Coward. You are avoiding a discussion.

Daniel, your conviction seems to hinge on some notion that climate was at some point “stable”. We have shown beyond almost a shadow of doubt that:

a) Last century’s warming was not unprecedented in the past 2000 years.

b) Present temperatures are within the bounds of natural climate variability, therefore the null hypothesis prevails (natural variation, business as usual).

We don’t have to prove anything. You must show evidence that we can reject the null hypothesis, and furthermore, that CO2 was the primary driver of late 20th century warming.

Please note that failure to explain warming with “natural forcing” as according to IPCC models does not prove anything. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam and all that. Funny how they claim they have accounted for all natural variability when they can’t account for the “lack of warming” this decade.

Oh, and please stop citing RealClimate, it is the quintessential non-scientific website.

Your a) and b) are the same right? That what we are experiencing now is a natural change. Science Daily does not think so: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm

It is obviously difficult to verify what historical temperatures were valid in Sweden - and this is why I think the culture of skiing is a good indicator. There is no reason to believe that in large parts of Sweden people have used skis since the beginning of written history. But we are now facing a situation where skiing becomes a luxury for Swedes living in the very north of Sweden.

Well I’d be very careful to use skiing/snow as a proxy for past temperature. As demonstrated by Kilimanjaro.

Make no mistake that humans have an influence on local climate as a result of land use changes, however one localised example is not going to topple the comprehensive, global compilation of historic proxy temperature reconstructions from CO2science.org. Mann’s hockeystick throws all of that out history out and substitutes its own. Clearly, there was a MWP, it was global in scope, it lasted several centuries and it was much warmer than today.

One could go back just a little further to the roman warm period and the holocene climatic optimum, altogether several thousand years of warmer climate by several degrees! Don’t worry, I won’t go into why it’s called the climatic “optimum”.

That you can cite such crap after Climategate is really hilarious.

If you look here: http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/authors.html

Are you kidding? I know where the Copenhagen Diagnosis comes from, but that’s not what I asked.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis does no original research, so it’s irrelevant who compiled it, as long as its sources are reliable.

If you can’t understand the difference between original research published paper, and summary based only on other researches, then you need to go back to primary school and get a few of the many lessons you missed.

So, if it’s just a summary of other research papers, most of which do not come from Mann and friends, you have to disprove those.

See? I responded to your little “challenge” and turned it against you. Next time try something more clever.

No you didn’t. You didn’t even understand the request.

I don’t pretend you to be clever, that would be unfair, I just ask you to read properly. Apparently, even that is too much of an arduous task for you.

you will see, that most of the authors are IPCC lead authors. Which means they are memebers of the Climategate cabala of swindlers.

Do you even know what cabal means?

Cabala (alternately Kabbala(h) or Qabala(h)) may refer to one of several systems of Mysticism:

  * Kabbalah, the religious mystical system of Judaism
  * Practical Kabbalah, an agglomeration of all the magical practices that developed in Judaism from the Talmudic period down through the Middle Ages
  * Christian Kabbalah, the Christian application of Jewish Kabbalistic methods
  * Hermetic Qabalah, a Western esoteric and mystical tradition drawing on Jewish Kabbalah and other sources
      o English Qabalah, one of several different systems of Hermetic Qabalah that interpret the letters of the English or Latin alphabet as number and symbol

[edit] See also

Cabala may also be a variant spelling of:

  * Jableh (Gabala), a Christian city in Syria during the Middle Ages
  * Karbala, a city in Iraq that is holy to Shiite Muslims
  * possibly a misspelling of Cabela’s, the outdoor specialty retailer

If you want some research which is not discredited (not connected with Climategate), go to http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Ahahahahahahahahah!

You are soooo funny.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2003
$40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2005
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
DISCREPANCY: 2005 Corporate Giving Report: no description. IRS 990 form 2005: Climate Change Activities.
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

Clearly, there was a MWP, it was global in scope, it lasted several centuries and it was much warmer than today.

I’m sure you will have solid data for that “much warmer than today” part.

Much warmer? How much is “much”? Five degrees? Two degrees? Can you prove it?