Like the song says (and like I have mentioned on at least a couple occasions), I love a parade. Especially ones with lots of marching bands.
I love those parades where marching bands rule the day. I love to hear the different songs being played. I love to see the bands stepping in time to the beat. Mostly though, I love to hear the cadence. That beat the drums make while the band marches down the street. It makes me glad that my kids are in band and that I get to see and hear them play at parades.
Recently, we went to a parade where Thing 2 was playing. It was drizzling and wet, but we still had a good time. Even though people were standing in front of us the whole time.
Now I have been to enough parades to know that those in front usually sit down. Sometimes people sit on the curb and parade marshals tell them to keep their feet out of the gutters (while they are sitting) so the bands and floats and cars do not crush them. Unfortunately, those same marshals are not there to enforce the unwritten parade watching etiquette. Everybody just assumes people know that they are supposed to stay down in front and only stand when the flags go by.
At the September parade where we went, nobody near us sat down except us.
We had staked our claim to what we thought was a great vantage point to at least see our son in the band. One of the marshals even said that it was a good place to view the parade because it was near the judging stand where everybody would strut their stuff. And even if we could not see the street in front of the judging stand, we would at least get to hear all the performances.
Personally, I was fine with the whole situation. Not because I liked seeing the back sides of a bunch of people, but because I got to see at least part of the parade twice.
The parade did a switchback somewhere in the small town so I was able to walk up the street near the beginning of the parade to see and hear Thing 2 and his band. Then, I leisurely walked back to our seats in time to see the back pockets of a bunch of jeans when the band came by our spot.
I missed a few bands and floats because I was trading places up and down one block. But despite the view at our subprime location and going back and forth, I was still able to enjoy the music and take a few pictures. And I got to hear the cadence of many bands marching down the streets. Twice in many cases.
I am sure the reason people were not following proper parade watching etiquette by sitting down in front was because the sidewalks were wet from the rain that had poured all through the previous night and all that day. (It was amazing that it merely drizzled during the actual parade.) But it still did not matter all that much to me. I was happy to just sit and hear the bands play songs and march to their cadences. I was excited that I got to be at a parade with a bunch of marching bands. After all, I really do love a parade.


Taipei, July 19 (CNA) Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. said Tuesday that it is looking into reports that another one of its employees in China had fallen to his death.
The company was responding to a report out of China that a 21-year-old employee had died in an apparent suicide attempt after falling from the sixth floor of a building at the company's complex in Shenzhen.
Hon Hai, known in China as Foxconn Technology Group, has seen nearly 20 of its employees attempt suicide since the beginning of 2010, with the vast majority of the incidents occurring in the first half of last year.
The phenomenon tarnished Hon Hai's reputation and forced the company to reconsider its management policies and increase wages substantially, causing the company's share price to plummet.
As a result of its problems in Shenzhen, and the area's tight labor market and spiraling wages, Hon Hai has also invested heavily over the past 18 months in facilities in central and western China.


text:
**Open Terminal**: Win + Enter

**Close Window**: Shift + Win + Q

**Move Focused Window**: Shift + Win + Arrow Key

## Commands

Run these commands in a terminal!

Most commands involving files in /home/partimag will require root.

**Switch to root (admin)**: `sudo su`

**Leave root user**: `exit`

**Run *command* as root**: `sudo command`

**Change Directory**: `cd directory`

**Copy files**: `cp source target`  This will copy the file or directory source to the target location.

**Move files**: `mv source target`  This is also useful to rename files.

**Delete files**: `rm file`

**Delete populated directory**: `rm -fr directory`

## Seymour

**Begin creating image (as root)**: `createbaseimage`

**Recreate image image tree (as root)**: `createimagetree`  This should almost never be needed.

**Verify drive geometry change**: `diff path/to/folder/sda-pt.sf path/to/folder2/sda-pt.sf`  This should return the difference between lines.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Anti science L. A. Times hypes propaganda denying global wide Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age
Guest Blogger / July 28, 2019
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The Los Angeles Times is at it again hyping anti science climate alarmist propaganda trying to conceal the global wide Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are supported and justified by hundreds of scientific studies.
This climate alarmist propaganda Times article cites a new "study" that ridiculously attempts to deny these clearly established warm and cool periods in our past.
This alarmist hyped new "study" is addressed in a superb article at the JoNova website demonstrating the complete lack of scientific veracity of this studies claims.
There is nothing I can add to show how politically contrived and inane the claims are from this new "study" beyond the excellent presentation in the JoNova article.
Provided below are excerpts from this excellent article which demonstrate the lack of scientific credibility of the new "study" as well as the politically driven anti science climate alarmism bias of the Times.
Nothing else needs to be said.
July 28, 2019 in Climate Communications. Tags: LA Times, MWP
Rupert Murdoch's Son James Furious at Media Empire's "Climate Denial"
UK Anti-Terror Police Listed Extinction Rebellion in a Guide to Prevent School Atrocities
Fake News: "The idea that "greenies" … would oppose measures to prevent fires … is simply false."
← French Parliamentarians Heavily Critical of Greta Thunberg Invite
'You can't arrest us all': Extinction Rebellion respond to police saying they won't allow repeat of April protests →
161 thoughts on "Anti science L. A. Times hypes propaganda denying global wide Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age"
Zombie theory indeed. If the MWP never existed, they don't have to explain it away.
If there were Megadroughts during the period of the MWP, and Megadroughts are brought on by extended warming periods, then the MWP must exist for the Megadroughts to exist
Disputin says:
This is called FAKE NEWS. That term sure drove them to madness when the President started affixing it to them. Huh, I wonder why? Stick Much?
brians356 says:
My dad would say "So-called journalist, so lazy he'd crap in bed and kick it out with his foot."
"This is déjà-vu all over again." (h/t Yogi Berra).
The warmist minions cannot even come up with new lies anymore – they are now re-cycling their old, discredited falsehoods.
Eliminating the MWP and LIA were core elements of MBH98, a great steaming pile of horse pucks published in Nature and the centerpiece of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR).
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
MBH98 was falsified by diligent, time-consuming work by Steve McIntyre. Other scientists, including Baliunas and Soon, provided evidence that the MWP and LIA were real events of global scale.
The warmist minions viciously attacked anyone who questioned their alarmist nonsense – standard slimer Alinsky tactics.
I published this defence of Baliunas, Soon, Veizer, Shaviv and Lomborg in 2005:
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" … tabarnac!
DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS IN KYOTOVILLE
The global warming debate heats up
Energy and Environment 2005
by Allan M.R. MacRae
Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.
These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional – often of little scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate and silence real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit the production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.
Witness the attack on Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". While Lomborg did not challenge the flawed science of Kyoto, he said that Kyoto was a huge misallocation of funds that should be dedicated to more important uses – such as cleaning up contaminated drinking water that kills millions of children every year in the developing world.
In January 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) declared that Lomborg's book fell within the concept of "objective scientific dishonesty". The DCSD made the ruling public at a press conference and published it on the internet, without giving Lomborg the opportunity to respond prior to publication.
In December 2003, The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation repudiated the DCSD's findings. The Ministry characterized the treatment of the Lomborg case as "dissatisfactory", "deserving criticism" and "emotional", a scathing rebuttal of the DCSD.
But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.
Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the "hockey stick" temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.
Mann's hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: "Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."
Mann's conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.
Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann's conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann's hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today's levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received "special attention" from EOS.
In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.
Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been vindicated. As a result of a Material Complaint filed by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre, Nature issued a Corrigendum in July 2004, a correction of Mann's hockey stick. It acknowledged extensive errors in the description of the Mann data set, and conceded that key steps in the computations were left out and conflicted with the descriptions in the original paper.
Hans von Storch et al further criticized Mann's work in the September 30, 2004 issue of Science Express. Von Storch commented in a Der Spiegel interview: "We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish." Researchers from the University of East Anglia and the University of Utah have expressed similar concerns.
The truth is there never has been any solid scientific evidence in favor of Kyoto. From the beginning, Kyoto has been politically driven, replete with flawed science and scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Kyoto advocates should finally admit that their pet project is foolish and anti-environmental – Kyoto is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be used to alleviate real problems, not squandered on fictitious ones.
"Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence."
And James Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make 1934, 0.4C warmer than 2016, the so-called "Hottest Year Evah!" as claimed by the liars at NASA Climate and NOAA.
I agree we should vigorously push back on the alarmists trying to erase the MWP and other warm periods in history, but we have a much better example which much more accurate information about the example and that is the warm period of the 1930's.
Tmax charts from around the world show that the 1930's were just as warm or warmer than today and this show we are not experiencing unprecedented warming today as the alarmists claim. It's no warmer now than in the 1930's and the 1930's warmth occurred at much lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. So here we are in 2019 with much more CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperatures are not any warmer than in the 1930's. So where does the CO2 figure into this equation? Mother Nature heated things up in the 1930's, and now has heated things up to the same levels again, just like in the past with no CO2 required.
We need to focus on the Twentieth Century Warming and Tmax charts which show this warming occurred across the entire globe. The evidence is right in front of our eyes. This debunks the claim that we are experiencing unprecedented warming today and shoots down the CAGW claims. We are not experiencing unprecedented warming, and the proof is in the Tmax charts.
Me and the Chinese think the Tmax charts are the best metric for determining past high temperatures. 🙂
Komrade Kuma says:
Honestly, talk about 'climate deniers'!
I mean the MWP was postulated long before 20th century CAGW came along after the CGC of the 70's failed to materialise. The MWP was always based on historical proxy data, how could it not be?
Earthling2 says:
The best proxy data globally would be what was happening to sea level for what the global climate was doing the last 2000 years. For example, during the LIA from 1350 to 1850, sea level wasn't accelerating or rising, but it was actually falling globally. That should be the easiest to both prove and understand, that over longer time periods, we can see what the result of global climate was in the recent sea levels. It does match and the LIA was global in nature otherwise the general sea level wouldn't respond as such.
Loydo says:
Don't go repeating the strawman lies Tom, nobody says the MWP never existed. All the data says is that
"only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures at the same time…so they are not as coherent as we thought"
You don't know the data very well, do you? Buying into Saint Michael Mann's preaching is the mark of either a zealot, or someone deliberately ignorant.
I meant all the research paper said was…
Who sid it never existed Tom?
Loydo, do you have a bit of dyslexia? Michael Mann, who you seem to be blissfully ignorant of.
But you fail to provide the supposed quote that it "never existed". Thats a fail. Stop waving your arms and support your claim with something that can be checked.
Loydo is getting even more desperate.
tty says:
"But you fail to provide the supposed quote that it "never existed". "
Try to find it here:
https://news.psu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/threshold-992/public/hockeystick.gif?itok=W4D7fsLC
Um, no. No mention of anyone saying the MWP or the LIA never existed there. Thats because no one ever did. Ie. its a strawman lie so stop repeating it.
F.LEGHORN says:
"All the data says"??? Didn't read the article, did you? Again.
Why do you come here? You almost never have support for your claims. And when you do it's always from a leftist rag.
Come on "Lloydo". Open your mind and read the articles before you comment. And maybe even try to understand them. As Mr. Rogers said "I know you can".
Every place that's been studied has shown the existence of the MWP.
What Loydo is doing here is assuming that every place that hasn't been studied, there was no MWP.
That doesn't even make sense. No all I'm doing is asking for a bit of evidence to a claim is true or not. Thats an anathema to you isn't it?
Farmer Ch E retired says:
One LIA data point from the Enciclapidia Britanica. This is from their discription of the History of Whaling:
"The demise of Arctic bay whaling in the mid-1650s owed less to overfishing than to a miniature ice age that lasted for the rest of the 17th century."
Sun Spot says:
Loydo you said ""only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures . . " , care to explain the meteorological conditions where only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures, Loydo ??
From the article the full sentence is:
"At the height of the Medieval Climate Anomaly, only 40% of the Earth experienced peak temperatures at the same time."
AFAIK, at least a third of the globe, and maybe half, isn't warming in recent decades.
Science deniers, all of them!
robl says:
"In the article, Matthes stated that most of the glaciers in the western United States are not remnants from the Pleistocene Era, as had been previously held, but rather are "modern" and formed within the last 4000 years. He identified this phenomenon as the Little Ice Age."
The "father" of The Little Ice Age, François_E._Matthes, stated that he regretted introducing the phrase LIA. He preferred the term neoglaciation. These days his original definition has been forgotten causing confusion among scientists and some lay people.
sir padre says:
In the meantime, they removed the signs from Glacier National Park that said the glaciers would be gone in 2020; actually, they've grown larger in the last few years.
Who could have guessed?
"they've grown larger in the last few years"
Alasdair says:
The image says it all. All that lovely steam rising up to cool the planet. I expect the journalist thought it was CO2 just like Greta Lunberg.
The JoNova response is far too complex for those of little brain with minimal attention span and, of course, that is where the problem lies. The damage is done and the fractured science lies in pieces clogging up the thinking of the many for years to come.
Coach Springer says:
There is a saying about how fast a lie can spread while the truth is just rolling out of bed. Activists look at like an opportunity.
Bill Powers says:
A lie can travel half way around the world before the truth can pull its boots on.
Robert Thrasher says:
Based on the charts and all know published climate data (worldwide), the earth has had substantial climate change (both hotter and colder) for thousanda of years. I am a believer that the sun's activity has a greater affect on our temperature than any other activity (volcanic, man-made or climatic) here on our planet. I love when people say, "our planet is dying". The truth is, our planet is changing (has been and always will be) and there is nothing we can do to stop that…if we spend trillion of dollars and cut all polluting activities on the planet…The earth will still change (temperature and other wise)….furthermore, after man kind has wiped its self off the planet, the earth will still be here and will evolve another species to dominate the planet (just look back on the history of living things on this planet)…Our (Humans) time here is a speck in time and will have no meaning in the bigher picture in the future…
Pittzer says:
It's infuriating and depressing at the same time. There's no way to hold them accountable. This little rebuttal will be seen by almost no one compared to the original article.
kwinterkorn says:
Had to laugh. Thank you for channeling your inner Winnie the Pooh (a "bear of little brain"….). 🙂
We can all hope that, after his review of Pages2K proxies, McIntyre at Climate Audit will put this one to bed with a thorough analysis.
With all due respect, the JoNova website has already put this one to bed . . . and washed the sheets afterward.
RicDre says:
I agree that the JoNova website already did a great job of debunking the LA Times article but I also look forward to Stephen McIntyre's comments because of his past excellent work debunking "studies" from Pages2K.
"We can all hope"
If wrote "We can all hope they don't find evidence that the MWP and the LIA were globally coherent" I would rightly be excoriated. Why hope for a particular result?
Why not objectively see where the evicence leads.
The evidence suggests these events were significant, natural, climatic variation but that they are dwarfed by the scale, rapidity and global uniformity of AGW.
F1nn says:
What is global uniformity of AGW?
Is it global uniformity in all your science deniers dork heads. Or dreams?
Objectively the evidence leads right in your steamheads mantra. But it´s not enough.
To be global warming there must be first warming. Or accelerating sea level rise. There´s not and not.
Go play with your legos, maybe they can understand your empty head. Now.
With your kind of people we have no hope. Stupidity shines too much. Learn to read.
Your paranoia is getting worse Loydo, perhaps you should ask you doctor to increase your dosage.
'Because we don't know that, Lloydo. Today's "global" warming isn't global either. And comparing supposed temperature proxies with actual measurements is a no-no. They are only approximations, mostly pretty bad approximations.
James A. Schrumpf says:
Here's the NOAA GHCN-Monthly summary of TAVG for the contiguous USA from 1900-2019, charted using a 1981-2010 baseline.
Note the sinusoidal nature, clearly showing the hot 1930s, the cooling of the late 1970s, the rebound from that, and the cooling of the last 4-5 years.
Note also how the total warming since 1900 is about 0.5° C.
https://jaschrumpf.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/us_stations_1900_to_2019_1981_2010_baseline.png
Yep, Warmunists are the true science and climate deniers.
Ulric Lyons says:
The warm spike in GISP2 from 1010 AD was the Oort solar minimum.
https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-13246-x/MediaObjects/41598_2017_13246_Fig2_HTML.jpg
The late 8th century AD was the coldest for 3450 years in the Greenland GISP2 series, but was the warmest part of the MWP for Northern Europe.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Europe-Esper-14.jpg
I learned to be a skeptic when someone produced a study that proved the gas chambers at Auschwitz couldn't have worked because they were too porous. If you didn't know anything else, you would think that was plausible.
The MWP-LIA deniers can produce evidence and theories, and if you didn't know anything else, you might think it is plausible.
Someone should point out to the LA Times that a consensus of scientists believe that the MWP and LIA were, indeed, global events.
R Terrell says:
Having lived and spent over 26 years in So. California, I can say that I NEVER put much stock in anything the LA Times said! My news paper of choice for the REAL news was the Orange County Register. Still is, in many cases. The big liberal papers are all alike, mouthpieces for the Left. I don't think I ever read the LA Times more than two or three times, mostly for the ads and/or comics.T least THEY weren't biased!
Kenji says:
The LA Times never met an illegal immigrant who wasn't a Saint. The paper has spent a generation whining and moaning about how … open … and inclusive … all we selfish Americans need to be. Never once have I read an LA Times article suggesting problems might accrue from tens of millions invading our country. Least of all … how those illegals strain our limited natural resources. Nope. Instead, all you selfish Americans need to stop watering your lawns … so a new illegal immigrant can give their newest anchor baby a bath.
Alpha Bravo says:
I stopped reading the LA Times when they did a front page puff piece on the new artificial sweetener, Nutrasweet. A pure advert for the company….which meant that everything else in the paper was probably just as phony. It's all about the $$$, after all.
Justin McCarthy says:
Sorry to say; but, the OC Register was bought out. It is now worse than the LA Times and written for someone barely out of Middle School. We had to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.
John W Braue says:
But is it a consensus of 97% of scientists?
Phil. says:
They already know that, it was included in their article!
"The traditional understanding was that climate over these periods were globally coherent, " said Nathan Steiger, a paleoclimatologist at Columbia University in New York who worked on the paper with Neukom. "But when we looked at the PAGES data, we found they are not as coherent as we thought."
After analyzing the data using multiple statistical methods, the authors found that what were previously assumed to be global temperature trends were actually regional trends for all known climate epochs except for one: the one we find ourselves in today.
Pages is notorious for leaving out data that doesn't stay on message, as McIntyre has pointed out repeatedly. You'll forgive if I call the Pages stuff nonsense.
Wharfplank says:
The LAT may as well be the Taliban dynamiting ancient Buddhas…
They're dynamiting America. And America is more important to the world than ancient Buddhas.
Deni*rs!
Goldrider says:
The country is now so familiar with the sad fact that a great percentage of our "news" is FAKE, overpumped clickbait shock-value entertainment only, that I'm pretty sure most of these "study shows" articles are now dismissed as agendas. Just the contradictory "studies" on foods alone over the past 30 years have made people skeptics of what now passes for "science." Anyone who pays REAL attention is well aware of how very corrupt it all is.
Few people read these articles anyway; "climate change" in broadcast media is well-known and admittedly a "ratings killer." After 35 years, people are bored with the exaggerations and mostly ignore the articles. Even my mother, "Resist!" member in good standing and in thrall to green NGO's ignores this stuff; says it puts her to sleep!
Windy Wilson says:
No "Little Ice Age." Well, bless their black, totalitarian hearts. How do they answer all those medieval monks, writing in their monasteries, complaining about the ink freezing in their ink wells? Were they just sissies? Did Grandpa monk have a secret formula for non-freezing ink? Were the monks from previous centuries made of tougher stuff and could continue writing with frozen ink?
Scientific minds want to know. As opposed to fanatical doctrinaire minds who take every opportunity to explain problems out of existence with words, smiles, hand waving, and "trust me, I'm a scientist and practice Scientism.
Izaak Walton says:
Windy,
Any medieval monks writing in their monasteries complaining about cold would have been
doing so during the Medieval warm period. So the answer would presumably be that the Medieval
warm period didn't exist. By the time of the little ice age the reformation had gotten rid of most
of the monks and the ones left were probably complaining about the awful protestants.
Silly straw man, as the historical periods do not totally coincide. The last 200 years or so of the Medieval period, in history, was part of the Little Ice Age, roughly 1300-1500. Periods have really loose definitions, whether in climate studies or history.
That was the entire point of the research. Both the medieval warm period and the little ice age are ill defined and neither happened simultaneously around the global. Your dates for the little ice seem off by centuries when other estimates put it ending in the 1800s.
I was referring to the Medieval portion of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from roughly 1300 to 1850. I mentioned the overlap, to answer your snark about monk's ink freezing. Medieval times were roughly 950-1500 as a period.
Y'all can feign reading comprehension difficulties fairly well.
Unless the starting and ending points were identical at every point on the earth, it didn't exist.
Is that the story you are trying to push?
In what passes for your mind, the winters in Europe weren't cold during the MWP?
winters in Europe were bloody cold during the European little ice age. But there were
spots of the globe during that time that were anomalously warm and so the average temperature was not as extreme as you would think if you only looked at Europe. The point
of the recent paper is that previously you could not find a long period of time where
temperatures rose or fell globally. In contrast the entire global is currently warming and
has been for nearly a century.
The entire glob is NOT currently warming. Over the last 150 years, some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. Averaging them all together doesn't give you anything meaningful.
Stretching the truth Jeff. The vast majority has warmed and precious little has cooled.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gXXOkhoki8s/maxresdefault.jpg
Here is a map showing 2000 stations in the US, that according to the NOAA GHCN-Monthly summaries have been cooling for the past four years.
Of course, there are also 6000 stations that are showing warming trends as well. But how can it be called "global" anything with such a mix of trends?
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1oNHU775GDXn8mCt3knxR3QTi9lWX4GfE&ll=32.73947494696075%2C-108.16125312499992&z=4
damp says:
If these dishonest people persist in using the term "climate change denier," I think the opposite epithet is appropriate for them: Climate Nazi. They just keep on earning it.
observa says:
When I hear one crapping on like that I'll interject with a look of surprise- 'Oh you're a climate changer! How are you getting along with changing the climate? It really throws them and shuts them right up as it points the hubris of it directly at them. You want to try it.
Robert of Texas says:
It's only "anti-science" if it fails to support Global Warming.
The LAT article serves up the alternative reality pablum necessary to keep the AOC's (Alarmist On Climate) of the world 'on message'.
"Repent! The End is Nigh! It's just 30 years ahead! Really, believe us this time!"
Climate is not static. It changes. Constantly and naturally over time. Denying the well documented Medieval Warm period and the following Little Ice Age, to serve the political agenda du jour, is just asinine. One day the ice age will return naturally, as it has repeatedly. Until then, wiggles in temperature are simply natural background noise during the continuing Holocene interglacial period of 14,000 years.
The end of the Holocene interglacial period and the inexorable return of continent spanning mile thick glaciers to the northern hemisphere is the catastrophic climate change we should fear.
+42!
Joe Jarrett says:
BRAVO. J. MAC
Well said, & accurate.
Your words mirror those of a person I deeply
admire, Dr. Lee Gerhard.
"Rational science for rational
If the general public just had
basic courses in geology, they would understand that there is NO climate nirvana.
They might also come to realize that the Sun,
geo-dynamics, ocean curtents
NOT HUMAN HUBRIS, are the real deal climate drivers.
"Denying the well documented Medieval Warm period and the following Little Ice Age, to serve the political agenda du jour, is just asinine. One day the ice age will return naturally, as it has repeatedly. Until then, wiggles in temperature are simply natural background noise…"
Astonishing bi-polarity. MWP and LIA occuring hundreds of years ago are "well documented" but todays far more pronounced, widespread and rapid (and accelerating) changes are just "noise" and somehow political. You're in for an unpleasant surprise.
Loydo: "but todays far more pronounced, widespread and rapid (and accelerating) changes are just "noise" and somehow political."
Not noise, fraudulent would be a better word to use.
Loyd: "You're in for an unpleasant surprise."
Well, you are right, it will be a surprise if CAGW happens, considering the lack of evidence for it, despite the best efforts of fraudsters and legitimate scientists alike..
Loydo is well trained to ignore the problems with proxies. The first being that most of them don't record yearly, or even decadal length shifts.
He honestly believes that you can directly compare a proxy that has centennial resolution with yearly numbers gathered by satellites on an instantaneous basis.
MarkW,
You'll only confuse Loydo, bless his heart, trying to educate him about the differences in resolution of temperature proxies versus current temperature measurements. Science isn't his strong suit, as his comments demonstrate. It continues to provide unpleasant surprises for him.
This from the guy who takes every heat wave as proof positive of CO2 power to kill us all.
Loydo,
Part of the problem between prior warming signals (from Proxy data) and current warming signal (from thermometers) is Resolution of the datasets.
the MWP and LIA are measured from Low Resolution Proxy Datasets with resolve features in multidecade to century scale resolution while the current temperatures are measured in relative Ultra High Resolution of Minutes. There are global proxies that indicate both warming around 1000CE and cooling around 1500CE had impacts measurable in both hemispheres and on both sides of the Prime Meridian. To argue the they weren't global denies the truth that their impacts do appear in proxy data from studies on every continent.
A disingenuous tactic similar to using CO2 production tonnage "Per Capita" rather than Per Country annual totals or arguing that building windows or cats kill more birds than Wind Turbines (if there were as many turbines as cats or windows, Turbine Kills would dwarf both combined)
You're also forgetting about the other warm periods that were likely warmer than the MWP; like the Roman WP, Minoan, Holocene Climate optimum.
mikewaite says:
To what extent is the modelling announced in the Nature Geoscience paper that is the subject of this post dependent on the recently published updating of proxies published in Climate of thePpast :
https://www.clim-past.net/15/1251/2019/#bib1.bibx59
That paper linked to Pages2K database shows significant smoothing of the MWP (MCA) and LIA in global reconstruction curves .
https://www.clim-past.net/15/1251/2019/cp-15-1251-2019-f02-web.png
They also likely left out data they didn't like.
I read about this on the BBC , I think, which gave links to three articles. It is said that these have been thoroughly researched and all the data is available. The point is not that the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period did not exist, just that they did not occur simultaneously over the globe which is claimed to be the current situation. I have made no attempt to read the papers because I am completely unqualified to assess them.
It is probably best to reserve judgement on this till the data has been analysed by one of our expert colleagues and not to base arguments on a newspaper article. Past form makes me assume that there is some sort of fiddle involved but there is always a small possibility that this one might come up to proof.
Pat Frank says:
It's based on climate models that do not predict the climate and on proxy air temperature reconstructions that do not represent temperature, Susan.
It's all a crock decorated with mathematics. Meaningless nonsense made to look like science.
That is about the most sensible comment I've read on this thread.
Pat is not even wrong. The study is based on data (thats why they are referring to a database Frank).
"The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins. The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial."
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
Pat if in doing your rigouous analysis of the research paper you've found flaws in their methodology or inconsistancies in their technical validation or contradictions in their conclusions, please what are they?
HAS says:
~20 proxies covering the SH in the MWP, half in Antarctica where they say their results aren't robust.
Tree Proxy Data is about as reliable as YAD61 ala "Hide the Decline"
There are far too many influences to tree ring growth that just the magical CO2 as the control knob for temperature.
Rod Evans says:
Susan, a word to the wise, do not read articles on the BBC.
It will only confuse you.
The BBC claim to be accurate while all the time filtering the data in such a way the end information revealed, supports their singular objective. That objective, is to promote or propagandise the concept of man made climate change.
The BBC is now so dedicated to its task, it refuses to carry any comment from anyone who is not promoting man made climate change as a real phenomena.
The BBC's policy advisory/instruction to producers, is to only allow debate on how to mitigate man made climate change and never allow any debate on whether it is real or not.
NB climate change is real, thankfully. The real question is how much if any of that change is from man made contributions.
Those of us with open minds, remain open minded. We are grateful the changes to climate in the past 150 years have given us a much more comfortable world to live in.
Excellent limerick by Ruairi over at the JoNova site
Is it now a journalist's task,
To distort to twist and to mask,
The truth for their masters,
Such as warmist broadcasters,
And never the hard questions ask?
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/abc-climate-zombie-myths-and-fantasy-strawmen-whos-feeding-the-trolls/#comment-2169874
Phil Salmon says:
The inquisitors never relented
Till the palaeo record repented
Now the medieval's cooled
And the LIA's pwned
So our century's "unprecedented"!!
James Clarke says:
I made this same comment on Jo Nova's site:
The argument in the 'new' study revolves around the word 'coherent', which is science babble for 'global and synchronous'. Simply put, they are claiming that the current warm period is happening everywhere and at the same time, while the Medieval Warm Period was regional and occurred at different times in different regions. This argument has been floated around for decades. and studies making the claim all derive from the same scientific malpractice.
Temperature data from 1,000 years ago are derived from proxies. There were no instruments measuring temperatures around the globe until very recently. If we wish to compare previous periods that were measured with proxies to a current period, science demands that we use the same method to sample both periods. We cannot put satellites in Medieval skies or put a global network of thermometers in Medieval huts and sailing vessels, but we can still use proxy data to measure current temperatures. When we do that, we find that the current warming is no more 'coherent' than the Medieval Warming, or any of the other warming periods that are (almost) universally recognized from the past.
The illusion that the current warming period is more 'coherent' is a product of technology, not scientific understanding. When technology allows us to discover something that was previously unknown, real science assumes that the thing existed before, but was just unobserved. Climate 'science', however, often makes the opposite assumption, if it fits the desired narrative. In this way, weather events observed with the latest technology are deemed 'unprecedented', even when more primitive observations indicate the current events are completely mundane, including recent heat waves, droughts, tropical storms and forest fires. The argumentation in this study is akin to arguing that Jupiter's largest four moons formed 409 years ago when Galileo first saw them through his telescope, and that the other moons of Jupiter are even younger.
This practice in climate studies and press releases is scientific malpractice!
Krishna Gans says:
While France and Germany had a so called heat wave, Russia and Spain hadn't but ist was extremly cold.
So what ?
So the heat we had here wasn't coherent to other regions in the world.
Precisely. The argument of coherence is used by the warmests only if it fits their narrative. If it does not fit their narrative, it is rejected as a valid argument.
Not only do they cherry-pick their data, they cherry-pick their rationality. This practice is all to common in science, and happens in skeptical arguments as well. The good scientist constantly desires to be corrected. The bad scientist constantly desires to be 'right'.
Well thought out comment James. Thanks.
This "unprecedented" in this Age of Scientism crops up everywhere now from ozone holes over the Antarctic, to occasional warm "blobs" of ocean water somewhere, to in situ observations of underwater ice shelf melts during brief polar summers.
It's not some grand coordinated conspiracy on the part of individual researchers, except for the fact that all of them are constantly in need of funding that next research grant. Funding is the finite resource all the thousands of researchers are fighting for. And trying to draw attention to your work and novel "findings" above the noise of all the other thousands of annual claims has led to a Darwinian evolution of ever louder and louder screams of "unprecedented" to gain recognition, to find relevance to get above the funding cut-off line at the next grant renewal cycle.
Thus in the science world we hear the louder voices screaming the most unprecedented claims. Simple Darwinian selection. The victim in this of course is the truth. When truth is down-played because "it fits" a politically desired narrative, all sorts of perverse peacock strutting plumage claims are possible in an endless descent to ever lower forms of junk science.
You can see the problem if you look at the type, location, quantum and resolution over timd of the proxies used by them https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788/figures/1
However the paper does seem to make it clear coherence isn't a feature of anthropogenic warming, as they proudly say "Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence ….." and it's pretty common ground the early part can't have been anthropogenic.
"When we do that, we find that the current warming is no more 'coherent' than the Medieval Warming, or any of the other warming periods"
You say that but produce no evidence to support it. Is it not just your gut feeling? This study analysed a lot of data:
"The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations…"
But you dismis it all on a hunch or on Jo Nova's say so? Have you read it?
By my rough count < 200 proxies in the MWP biased to lower resolution ones, ~20 in the SH, 10 of those in Antarctica (wasn't there where they said their results didn't hold). So all those pixels you see across the balance of the SH are generated by perhaps 10 proxies.
Jim Veenbaas says:
Common sense has been totally abandoned by these useful idiots. We know trees have grown much farther north than the existing tree line right now. So obviously it was warmer in the northern hemisphere than it is right now. Yet somehow this extraordinary warmth was just limited to the arctic, even though it was clearly warmer than it is now. And somehow today's warmth is catastrophic.
We also know that it was warm, long enough for those trees to grow.
It takes time for the tree line to advance by miles.
Understanding the climate scam alarmism is to understand how all the money flows and who is looking to get richer.
The LA Times climate alarmism is ramping up even higher under new ownership.
LA Times was bought by billionaire Dr Patrick Soon-Shiong, a UCLA surgeon, turned startup entrepreneur. Made his fortune with selling a biotech he started about 12 years ago. He bought LA Times and San Diego Tribune at a fire sale in 2018.
He has another startup, NantEnergy. It's business is to bring made-in-China Zinc-Air rechargeable batteries to the market to pair with solar PV. It's part of Soon-Shiong's Nant Holdings IP, his umbrella LLC.
https://nantenergy.com/team/
As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now you know the rest of the story."
The best solution is to not buy or subscribe to the LA Times and hope it bleeds out.
Christ, Jesus says:
[pruned.] false email address, inappropriate user_id used. .mod
I'm in sympathy with the intent of the head post, but really having to yet once again see false proxy temperatures represented with an accuracy of 0. C is so very tiresome.
Not one of those proxy charts displays physically real temperatures. They're all just statistical constructs with no discrete physical meaning.
How are we supposed to stand against the fake science of AGW when so many otherwise skeptical people go right on a post fake proxy temperatures.
Koydo says:
The head post is a giant strawman Pat. No one is saying the MWP didn't exist.
RACookPE1978 says:
False. I read that claim (that the MWP does not exist – more often that it can be ignored because it was a local "northern European" event) regularly across many article in many journals and threads.
If you can substantiate the claim that someone said "the MWP does not exist" – with an actual quote, I'll withdraw my accusation of it being a baseless strawman lie. Good luck.
Loydo, your ignorant routine is getting old. Look at MBH98, and the notorious Hockey Stick graph.
Sunsettommy says:
I am increasingly developing a belief that you are under 25 years old, since you display deep ignorance over this and other topics on what warmists have stated in the past.
For years they have argued that it was a NORTHERN Hemisphere phenomenon, while skeptics in recent years have showed evidence that it was indeed warmer in various locations in the Southern hemisphere in similar time frames as the MWP period of the Northern part of the planet.
I have argued over this many times in many places over the last 20 years with AGW fanatics, who bow down to the never peer reviewed H.S. paper posted by Dr. Mann, that made hilarious claims that the MWP and LIA didn't exist.
"claims that the MWP and LIA didn't exist"
Flapping their arms so hard Tom and tommy fly off into the sunset.
Strawman bs. Produce something that can be verified. Anything.
you are pathetic since a sterling example was posted right in front of you:
Here is what YOU didn't read:
Climate change: We haven't experienced anything like this in the past 2,000 years
By Michael Collett, ABC, Environmental Copy and Paste Promoter
Climate scientists writing in the journal Nature have found there is no evidence for "globally coherent warm and cold periods" over the past 2,000 years prior to industrialisation.
That's significant, because climate change deniers have sometimes pointed to epochs like the so-called "Little Ice Age" or "Medieval Warm Period" to argue that the current global warming is one among multiple similar global climate events.
But what the research actually shows is that other "peak warming and cooling events" over the past two millennia appear to have been localised, whereas the human-caused global warming observed over the past 150 years is unparalleled in its global scale (not to mention its absolute temperatures).
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/erasing-2000-years-of-the-medieval-warm-period-little-ice-age-found-on-every-continent/
They are lying because it has NOT been warming in most of America since the late 1800's, as shown by the NOAA
You seem to think your opinion counts as evidence. I'm asking for a supporting quote. Is that so difficult to comprehend? If you can't supply one then just say so, instead of the insults.
Huuh? So Michael Mann and his acolytes are "nobody"? The "hockey stick graph" is a product of minions of the fossil fuel industry intended to make the CAGW advocates look silly?
Mann has never denied the Medieval Climatic Anomaly existed. He (like many others) simply said it…
a) wasn't global
b) doesn't match the present warming, either by area or temperature increase.
Based on the MBH98 "Hockey stick" graph, if that is not denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Perion, what is?
Simon, as someone pointed out above, comparing today's thermometer readings to supposed proxies of temperature isn't valid, period. Compare the same proxies today and see how they hold up. Ever heard of the Divergence Problem? Many of those proxies probably aren't even representing temperature.
All I see in the comments are ad hominum attacks and Special Pleadings. Not acknowledgement of the current out-of-bands measurements of Artic warming, opening of the Northwest Passage, that the last 15 years includes the warmest 15 years in the record (pick your geo area), etc.
You guys are trying really hard to earn your pay from the oil and coal companies, but you have been overcome by events. I'm guessing that in 15 years, as death rates spiral and Florida disappears under the surf, your will still will be saying "any day now. its all in the sun cycle. cooling is just around the corner"
Meanwhile, I morn for my grandchildren.
"Fifteen years? " But, but I thought we had less than TWELVE years before we're all dead! Thanks for the extension!
Seriously, if you want to learn actual science start reading here continually. And stick with it until you can make a coherent argument, for or against. Make your momma proud.
P.S. Tell me where I can get some of the "oil and coal money". I could really use it.
Ignoring your ad hom, you do know that 1940 had the then warmest period in the instrumental record and that was before GHGs could have had an impact?
"1940 had the then warmest period in the instrumental record and that was before GHGs could have had an impact?"
Warmest where? Oh you mean the US. So for 2% of the globe the 40's were a warm period. But now we have 98% of the globe showing warming you want to ignore it?
I was just referring to all the global temp series.
BTW where do you live that you didn't know the 1940s were at that time the hottest global temps in the instrumental period (c. mid 1800s)?
"Warmest where? Oh you mean the US."
The 1930's (Twentieth Century Warming) was global according to Tmax charts. They all (at least the ones I've seen) show the temperatures were just as warm in the 20th Century as they are in the 21st Century.
Look at the Tmax charts in the article linked below. The article doesn't show southern hemisphere charts but they look the same as the northern hemisphere charts, i.e., the 20th century was as warm as today.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/15/it-is-the-change-in-temperature-compared-to-what-weve-been-used-to-that-matters-part-2/
And, on top of that, unmodified charts (those not bastardized by the Keepers of the Data) from around the world show the 1930's to be just as warm as current temperatures, and in some cases, such as the United States, the 1930's were warmet than any year since.
Given that the Climategate Charlatans have turned the global surface temperature record into science fiction, we must fall back on judging the past temperatures by using the unmodified regional charts, including Tmax charts, from around the world. If they all agree that the 1930's was as warm as today, and they do, then that is a global temperature profile.
Let's see the alarmists try to deny that it was just as hot in the 1930's. They can't deny it, they just do like Simon did and claim it wasn't global but that's not what the unaltered data says. We have data on the 1930's. Let's argue about that.
It's been warming for almost 200 years, the vast majority of that warming happened before CO2 could have been the cause.
It's been warmer to much warmer 3 times in the last 5000 years. CO2 could not have been the cause for any of those warmings.
It's been warmer than it is today for 80 to 90% of the last 10,000 years. CO2 was not the cause for any of that warming.
Beyond that, during the warm times I previously mentioned, life flourished.
Add to that the greening of the planet that's being caused by CO2, why should anyone worry?
Bindidon says:
Soory, the denier of evidence is… Tom Abbott.
The only data you have:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
is a chart that you did either not understand at all or intentionally misinterpret.
I repeat what I wrote to you on this July 13: the only time series where the 1930's still happen to supersede today's temperature is that constructed out of over 8000 CONUS stations during the summer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V8_PJ3UP2rvpkt4v6ya9AsdieuSXwukp/view
And this is how land-only temperatures look like for the entire Globe, made out of the data from nearly 36000 stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1grvRgz59y4Jqa3WrdOMkAUbukezUm_Mq/view
You are absolutely unable to give valuable, reproducible information contradicting that.
J.-P. D.
"I repeat what I wrote to you on this July 13: the only time series where the 1930's still happen to supersede today's temperature is that constructed out of over 8000 CONUS stations during the summer"
That's not true [that it is the only time series]. Didn't you look at the Tmax charts in the link? Who is denying what?
All the Tmax charts resemble the Hansen 1999 U.S. surface temperature chart where the 1930's show to be as warm as current temperatures. And those charts cover areas all over the world.
Show me a Tmax chart that resembles the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
The Tmax charts resemble Hansen 1999, the chart on the left in the link above, and no Tmax chart resembles the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart shown on the right in the link. So which is the true global temperature profile, a Hockey Stick with no confirmation in history, or the Hansen 1999 chart with multiple confirmations of its profile? You know my answer.
Ignoring all the evidence available is not scientific. Instead, it's confirmation bias.
Kone Wone says:
How do you 'morn'? Is it something you can only do before midday?
I morn for your grandchildren also. Their grandpa is either trying really hard to earn his pay from the climate alarmist industry or he has been overcome by his irrational fears of natural events normal to the Holocene interglacial period of the last 14,000 years.
"Florida to disappear in 15 years?"
Your grandchildren are going to be just fine.
BTW "mourn" is spelt with a "u".
They will live in a vibrant healthy planet with vegetation and crop growth surging from CO2 fertilisation. And normally chaotic weather and climate, no catastrophe, 9 billion people on earth as a plateau-ed and better educated population.
Climate will have become a normal honest science again, and some of today's alarmists will still be in prison.
Only they will be embarrassed to have a grandfather who was one of the Luddite alarmist terrorists who tried to bring down the world economy.
Ronald Ginzler says:
Chris, if you are going to mourn, at least spell the word correctly. And I never mourn for people who are still alive. You are thinking of a future that hasn't happened and exists only in the minds of indoctrinated people who swallowed the propaganda. Give Earth a chance. Science is only what happens, not what hysterical people think might happen based on media who want you to be afraid. We will survive. Your grandchildren will wonder, "What was Grandpa so worried about? My vegetable garden is producing more than my family can eat. How can I give the surplus away?"
This comment was not paid for by oil or coal companies, but I do pay my electric bill, or else I could not post this. And if Florida goes under the surf, it was because of already existing geologic conditions, or the weight of retirees.
Your comment betrays YOUR ignorance on the climatology of the ENTIRE Holocene era.
It has been much warmer and little to zero summer ice cover for long periods of time than now, yet no calamity ever showed up.
Todays sea ice cover similar to the 1930's:
https://postimg.cc/vx4P56rb
Much less ice earlier in the Holocene:
https://postlmg.cc/RN8WX4th
It was warmer during the MWP, Roman and Minoan periods than now, since the Minoan warm period there has been a clear long term cooling trend that is now around 3,500 years long in the far north region.
Please show your evidence that any poster here is being paid by the oil and coal (or even gas ) companies. Then tell me how I get my cut!
Once again chris seagulls in to post the same lies. No doubt he will never read any of the comments responding to it.
No matter how much evidence is given, chris, and the other trolls will declare that nobody has presented any evidence.
Without the slightest bit of evidence, chris once again declares that anyone who disagrees with his church is in the pay of oil and coal companies.
Florida disappearing under the surf in 15 years? Even Saint IPCC doesn't make that claim.
Dementia has set in for chris.
PS: I morn for your grandchildren as well.
I bet you are a real downer at family gatherings.
Just one thing: "opening of the Northwest Passage"
It sure wasn't open last year. And ice conditions in the area were much the same in the nineteenth century as now:
https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
Also note that nearly all voyages through the NW Passage nowadays use the route through Bellot Strait, that was hardly usable before the satellite era. The strait is very narrow and has strong tidal currents that make it near-suicidal to use if you don't know about ice conditions at the other end. It is too narrow for sailing vesels to turn and tack back through. It was first used by Aklavik in 1937 (when Fort Ross trading post at the eastern entrance was manned, and so known to be passable). That was a two-way passage through the Northwest Passage that is almost invariably glossed over by the way.
Also note that we really have no idea whether the Nortwest Passage was open before the satellite era, simply because nobody tried it. After the Franklin relief expeditions of the 1850's nobody tried until Amundsen went through in 1903-06, and then again nobody until Aklavik in 1937 and St Roch 1940-42 and 1944, and then nobody until Labrador in 1954.
Eoin mc says:
The Irish Times also had another article earlier this year trying to demolish the notion that there was a Little Ice Age at all. It was penned by a well-regarded veteran economic academic, with a political dynastic pedigree, and who is now hugely involved in the official government climate think tank. His utterly risible thesis was that there were merely a few isolated cold pockets here and there but that the reason that the notion that there was a mini Ice Age was because there were a few failed grape harvests and this had knock-on economic effects in England and France! My letter to the editor opposing this nonsense was not published. On a continual basis I am learning that not only did the hype-believing general populace know very little about climate science prior to the emergence of St Greta but that they, along with the media, political and academic classes are now in the grip of hysterical climatemania.
MFKBoulder says:
No references provided for the pictures: mot worht discussing this.
GeoNC says:
OK, who's ready to sign up for the proxies 1,900 years ago have decadal resolution? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler?
Yeah, proxy resolution is a BIG problem. Some of them wouldn't even show our entire instrumental record.
I think the warmunnists have grown worried. People around the world are voting out the One World Order types, and they realize that the people coming in are inclined to ignore the big scare, so this sudden push to create urgency, and to try to force action in a very small window. Continue to emphasize all of the failed predictions of the last 20 years, and maybe we can be done with this over-hyped non-crisis.
Nick Stokes says:
This is the real anti-science, And anti-skepticism. "ridiculously attempts to deny" is the language of religion, not science.
In fact the LA Times article was a very reasonable review of evidence. And they pinpointed an issue with a lot of the LIA/MWP talk by "skeptics"; the time period is unspecified, and varies in different places. Now I see above that the expectation of coherence is "science babble", but it is critical. Every temperature series has its ups and downs. And if you look through every series and identify the peaks as MWP and th troughs as LIA, then sure, you'll find they are everywhere.
About a week ago, we had one of these articles here claiming LIA and MWP in Antarctica. But the featured graph actually showed a steady decline in temperature over the last 2000 years, interrupted by modern warming. It was actually taken from a different paper which was making exactly that point, that Antarctica was just showing late Holocene decline. But it was presented as a MWP/LIA story. In fact there were a few local peaks around 1400. But that is when the Vikings were freezing in Greenland.
Herbert says:
Read Hubert Lamb's " Climate, History and the Modern World"(1994).
Lamb believed on credible evidence that the MWP temperatures in Europe were 2 plus degrees Celsius warmer than the late 20th Century.
He quotes a Dr. Pugh as saying that ocean temperatures in a part of Scandinavia ( I will check passage and locale) were 4 degrees Celsius warmer than 20th Century.
It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Lamb was sceptical of the greenhouse warming theory then coming into vogue but not accepted in the AR1 findings in 1990.
It is likely that Lamb would not today get a post at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia.
He was a founder and first Director of that institution.
"He quotes a Dr. Pugh as saying that ocean temperatures in a part of Scandinavia ( I will check passage and locale) were 4 degrees Celsius"
Some of this evidence is of dubious quality. Here is what he actually said:
"Dr L.G.C.E.Pugh of the Medical Research Laboratories, Hampstead, has given his opinion, from studies of the endurance of Channel swimmers and others undertaking similar exploits, that 10 °C would be about the lowest temperature at which a strong person, even if fat, not specially trained for long-distance swimming, could swim the distance mentioned. As the average temperatures in the fjords of that coast in August in modern times have seldom exceeded 6 °C (+3 to +6 °C being more typical), it seems that the water must have been at least 4 °C warmer than this limit in the year in which Thorkel swam it and brought home his sheep."
So now it is 4°C on the authority of Dr Pugh!
But Lamb didn't say that either MWP or LIA were global. He stuck to what he had anecdotes about, which were basically Europe, with something of N America, China/Japan, India and the "hither East".
Well, it all fits then, since every single proxy is of dubious quality.
On the question of coherence it is pretty safe to say if we got an operational definition of what it meant, PAGES isn't going to be able resolve the issue.
But you'd have to admit that the inference about this being a reliable finger print for anthropogenic warming is a nice try. What next?
An event that lasted for hundreds of years, didn't start on the same year everywhere on the planet.
In the minds of some, this proves that it didn't happen.
The Antarctic and Southern ocean have not warmed in the last half century.
Nor have large parts of South America.
Nor has a large part of the Pacific Ocean.
Nor have parts of Asia and China.
The warming now is just as patchy and selective as in the MWP and other prior warm periods.
The website CO2 science has a database of hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed papers showing the reality and the global nature of the MWP. Attempting to cast doubt on the MWP is egregious denial.
Mark Gilbert says:
Nick – "This is the real anti-science, And anti-skepticism. "ridiculously attempts to deny" is the language of religion, not science."
Let me first say, I am pleased that you continue trying to be civil, even if I am completely surprised at your resistance to the avalanche of facts.
This is blatant denial of science in it's basest form.
If you believe that Global Warming or Climate Weirding or whatever the warmunists are calling it these days, I hope you are at least familiar with the supposed "scientism" behind it.
As you also said "Every temperature series has its ups and downs." this is true for the alleged justification made by warmunists.
It is all based on models of (incredibly tortured to match the desired model predictions) data, and why? Because at it's root, all CLIMATE is a very noisy and chaotic signal that must be filtered. The Models are a (very poor) attempt to winkle a trend out of the noise of the data.
Just because the MWP and LIA brutalize the basis of your religion… er hypothesis, you do not have the scientific basis to ignore data you do not like. Insert the real data, using like proxies, and POOF, the grandiose claims are revealed for the smoke and mirrors they always were.
David Wojick says:
The Guardian has published an article on a study that found something I pointed out two years ago, that YouTube is full of videos skeptical of climate alarmism.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/25/most-youtube-climate-change-videos-oppose-the-consensus-view
There are at least a thousand skeptical videos. I have begun collecting them at my Climate Change Debate Education website: (http://ccdedu.blogspot.com) and have about 300 listed at this point. That is a lot of skeptical science. Including a bunch from Judith Curry, Dick Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Will Happer, Roy Spencer and Marc Morano. Morano holds the record with his wonderful 10 million view video.
The Guardian says we skeptics are "hijacking" the science. Utter nonsense. The scientific debate is very real and this blog is a great place to see it.
Laughably, they try to climatesplain previous periods of cooling as being primarily due to volcanic activity, and warmups as the lack of volcanic activity.
Riiiiiiight.
Peter K says:
Australia has decommissioned 20% of it's 31 GW coal fired power stations since 2012. Another large coal plant will be decommissioned in 2 years time bring the total reduction to 24%. There is around 15 GW of Solar and wind farms in service today. There is another 25 GW of Solar and Wind farms currently in various stages of construction. Yet we still get our ill-informed students and school teachers blockading the streets in protest for more action on climate change.
pbweather says:
I love how the AGW scientists contradict themselves from paper to paper..
Firstly some say jet streams and storms will get stronger others say the Jet will get weaker and more wavy…but in the context of this article this from Nature
Which states
The observed pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that a weaker temperature gradient led to weaker mid-latitude westerly flow, weaker cyclones and decreased net terrestrial mid-latitude precipitation. Currently, the northern high latitudes are warming at rates nearly double the global average, decreasing the Equator-to-pole temperature gradient to values comparable with those in the early to middle Holocene. If the patterns observed during the Holocene hold for current anthropogenically forced warming, the weaker latitudinal temperature gradient will lead to considerable reductions in mid-latitude water resources.
So this article is suggesting temps in the arctic and N Hemisphere were indeed warmer in the past than now….
Somewhere above I read without surprise:
"Me and the Chinese think the Tmax charts are the best metric for determining past high temperatures. "
1. This is completely wrong at global level.
2. It is known sice decades that Tmin temperatures grow faster than Tmax.
At global level (no: I don't mean Illinois or Minnesota during a polar vortex intrusion) the winters and the nights become peu a peu less cold.
Me thinks that globally, we have less 'more warming' than much more 'less cooling'.
So? There's no evidence that slightly warmer is bad in any way. Skeptics don't expect climate to be static, unlike alarmist expectations.
What better way is there to measure the warmth in the atmosphere than to use the chart that shows the highest temperatures reached at any one time?
The problem with averaging today is the Climategate Charlatans take the Tmax and Tmin and average them and out comes Science Fiction. So if we want to use real data, not bastardized data, then we have to fall back on the regional unmodified charts to find the truth about how the climate behaves.
The temperature charts NASA Climate and NOAA and the other conspirators produce is not fit for purpose. Anyone who considers them valid is fooling themselves. Read the Climategate emails, the conspiracy to manipulate the surface temperature record is right there in black and white. Quoting their bogus figures is a waste of time.
12 new papers provide robust evidence that the earth was warmer during Medieval times:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/07/29/12-new-papers-provide-robust-evidence-the-earth-was-warmer-during-medieval-times/
David Zuckerman says:
Has anyone actually read that Los Angeles Times article?
I just read it and could not find anywhere the denial of the MWP
or the LIA.
The papers:
'Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions'
In fact the larger eruptions occurred just after the colder LIA winters, and slightly warmed the following N Hem winters.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0402-y.epdf
'No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era'
I do believe they have ENSO backwards, El Nino episodes normal double in frequency during centennial solar minima.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf
Isn't the basic premise of the scary global warming , (climate change) fraud that humans have the amazing ability to set the earths temperature to within a degree or two by cutting back on those evil fossil fuels ?
All we need to do is pay Trillions in more taxes to governments and the communist cover UN .
So who exactly who gets to pretend to set the goldilock temperature and how would it be measured ?
What if Canada wants it a smidge warmer and Nigeria says nah to hot ?
Are there any reputable scientists claiming humans can set the thermostat ? How are the natural variables netted out ?
On the other hand the truth is no one knows and the best thing to do is adapt like we are going to have to anyways .
Save the $trillions and put it to good use . I know all those corporate rent seekers will squeak a bit but so what .
$31 trillion hidden in tax havens now that is a problem .

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


NICE FAMILY HOME IN DOWNTOWN MANLEY This is a fully scribed 800 sq. ft. Log cabin with an 8 ft. covered porch. 2-sheds. Electric, telephone, well, septic, cellar, 2 bedrooms, bathroom. Wood and oil heat and some furnishings. Nearby school, also right down the road from the the store and airstrip.


Van Kinh Duong (L) and girlfriend Hoang Anh Ngoc (R). Photo courtesy of the police.
Van Kinh Duong's life of crime included document forgery, fraud and breaking out of jail.
When Ho Chi Minh City police recently called for prosecution of Van Kinh Duong, Vu Hoang Anh Ngoc and Nguyen Duc Ky Nam for producing, trafficking and storing narcotic substances, it signalled curtains for a long life of crime.
Seven other gang members are also facing prosecution.
Van Kinh Duong, the ringleader, faces prosecution for additional crimes including document forgery, fraud and escaping from detention facilities.
Duong's brushes with the law goes back to 2008, when he was sentenced to jail for robbery and storing narcotics.
But in 2010, when his sentence was still in effect, Duong broke out of prison along with three other inmates.
He returned to his life of crime, this time delivering drugs for Hoang Phuong Lam, another drug lord based in Hanoi, from the capital to southern Vietnam.
In 2012, Lam's ring was busted by the Ministry of Public Security, but Duong managed to slip through the cracks and disappear once more.
It was later found that Duong was residing in Saigon after changing his name to Tran Ngoc Hieu. In Saigon, he is said to have met a mysterious patron, Tom, in a bar in 2016. Duong neither knows Tom's real name nor where he lives.
Tom taught Duong to create narcotics from scratch, and provided the substances to make them.
In the beginning, Duong was only in charge of finding locations and hiring workers to construct drug-producing facilites. Later, he created his own drug ring, with his cousin Nguyen Duc Ky Nam joing him as a manager for one facility in Dong Nai Province, which neighbors HCMC. Nam was also in charge of creating new types of drugs.
As his business boomed and other drug rings stepped up their game, Duong decided to expand his empire. New facilities in the central regions and HCMC were constructed for this purpose. He took great care to avoid detection, passing orders to his underlings remotely.
But Duong lived a high life in Saigon with his girlfriend Hoang Anh Ngoc, who also helped him to store narcotics until the ring was busted in April last year.
Duong and his ring had already been on the police's radar for more than a year by then. In the raid that busted the gang, police seized more than 500,000 ecstasy pills, 120 kilograms of powdered drugs, seven cars and over VND10 billion ($446,000) in cash, along with numerous machinery and real estate properties in several cities and provinces including HCMC and Nha Trang.
Investigations have revealed that the ecstasy powder was first made in Nha Trang, before being delivered to Dong Nai and HCMC to be molded into pills and stored in coffee packages.
Each package contained 500 to 1,000 pills. Each pill could fetch VND50,000 ($2.14) to VND200,000, depending on the location and the buyers.
Police are searching for Duong's mysterious patron Tom.


text:
Bible > Commentaries > Matthew 19:24
And again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Jump to: Alford • Barnes • Bengel • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Chrysostom • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Exp Grk • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • ICC • JFB • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Meyer • Parker • PNT • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • VWS • WES • TSK
(24) It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.—Two explanations have been given of the apparent hyperbole of the words. (1.) It has been conjectured that the Evangelists wrote not κάμηλος (a camel), but κάμιλος (a cable). Not a single MS., however, gives that reading, and the latter word, which is not found in any classical Greek author, is supposed by the best scholars (e.g., Liddell and Scott) to have been invented for the sake of explaining this passage. (2.) The fact that in some modern Syrian cities the narrow gate for foot-passengers, at the side of the larger gate, by which wagons, camels, and other beasts of burden enter the city, is known as the "needle's eye," has been assumed to have come down from a remote antiquity, and our Lord's words are explained as alluding to it. The fact—to which attention was first called in Lord Nugent's Lands, Classical and Sacred—is certainly interesting, and could the earlier use of the term in this sense be proved, would give a certain vividness to our Lord's imagery. It is not, however, necessary. The Talmud gives the parallel phrase of an elephant passing through a needle's eye. The Koran reproduces the very words of the Gospel. There is no reason to think that the comparison, even if it was not already proverbial, would present the slightest difficulty to the minds of the disciples. Like all such comparisons, it states a general fact, the hindrance which wealth presents to the higher growths of holiness, in the boldest possible form, in order to emphasise its force, and leaves out of sight the limits and modifications with which it has to be received, and which in this instance (according to the text on which the English version is based) were supplied immediately by our Lord Himself (Mark 10:24).
19:23-30 Though Christ spoke so strongly, few that have riches do not trust in them. How few that are poor are not tempted to envy! But men's earnestness in this matter is like their toiling to build a high wall to shut themselves and their children out of heaven. It should be satisfaction to those who are in a low condition, that they are not exposed to the temptations of a high and prosperous condition. If they live more hardly in this world than the rich, yet, if they get more easily to a better world, they have no reason to complain. Christ's words show that it is hard for a rich man to be a good Christian, and to be saved. The way to heaven is a narrow way to all, and the gate that leads into it, a strait gate; particularly so to rich people. More duties are expected from them than from others, and more sins easily beset them. It is hard not to be charmed with a smiling world. Rich people have a great account to make up for their opportunities above others. It is utterly impossible for a man that sets his heart upon his riches, to get to heaven. Christ used an expression, denoting a difficulty altogether unconquerable by the power of man. Nothing less than the almighty grace of God will enable a rich man to get over this difficulty. Who then can be saved? If riches hinder rich people, are not pride and sinful lusts found in those not rich, and as dangerous to them? Who can be saved? say the disciples. None, saith Christ, by any created power. The beginning, progress, and perfecting the work of salvation, depend wholly on the almighty power of God, to which all things are possible. Not that rich people can be saved in their worldliness, but that they should be saved from it. Peter said, We have forsaken all. Alas! it was but a poor all, only a few boats and nets; yet observe how Peter speaks, as if it had been some mighty thing. We are too apt to make the most of our services and sufferings, our expenses and losses, for Christ. However, Christ does not upbraid them; though it was but little that they had forsaken, yet it was their all, and as dear to them as if it had been more. Christ took it kindly that they left it to follow him; he accepts according to what a man hath. Our Lord's promise to the apostles is, that when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, he will make all things new, and they shall sit with him in judgement on those who will be judged according to their doctrine. This sets forth the honour, dignity, and authority of their office and ministry. Our Lord added, that every one who had forsaken possessions or comforts, for his sake and the gospel, would be recompensed at last. May God give us faith to rest our hope on this his promise; then we shall be ready for every service or sacrifice. Our Saviour, in the last verse, does away a mistake of some. The heavenly inheritance is not given as earthly ones are, but according to God's pleasure. Let us not trust in promising appearances or outward profession. Others may, for aught we know, become eminent in faith and holiness.
It is easier for a camel ... - This was a proverb in common use among the Jews, and is still common among the Arabians.
To denote that a thing was impossible or exceedingly difficult, they said that a camel or an elephant might as soon walk through a needle's eye. In the use of such proverbs it is not necessary to understand them literally. They merely denote the extreme difficulty of the case.
A camel - A beast of burden much used in Eastern countries. It is about the size of the largest ox, with one or two bunches on his back, with long neck and legs, no horns, and with feet adapted to the hot and dry sand. They are capable of carrying heavy burdens, will travel sometimes faster than the fleetest horse, and are provided with a stomach which they fill with water, by means of which I they can live four or five days without drink. They are very mild and tame, and kneel down to receive and unload their burden. They are chiefly used in deserts and hot climates, where other beasts of burden are with difficulty kept alive.
A rich man - This rather means one who loves his riches and makes an idol of them, or one who supremely desires to be rich. Mark says Mark 10:24 "How hard is it for them that trust in riches." While a man has this feeling - relying on his wealth alone - it is literally impossible that he should be a Christian; for religion is a love of God rather than the world - the love of Jesus and his cause more than gold. Still a man may have much property, and not have this feeling. He may have great wealth, and love God more; as a poor man may have little, and love that little more than God. The difficulties in the way of the salvation of a rich man are:
1. that riches engross the affections.
2. that people consider wealth as the chief good, and when this is obtained they think they have gained all.
3. that they are proud of their wealth, and unwilling to be numbered with the poor and despised followers of Jesus.
4. that riches engross the time, and fill the mind with cares and anxieties, and leave little for God.
5. that they often produce luxury, dissipation, and vice. that it is difficult to obtain wealth without sin, without avarice, without covetousness, fraud, and oppression, 1 Timothy 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:17; James 5:1-5; Luke 12:16-21; Luke 16:19-31.
Still, Jesus says Matthew 19:26, all these may be overcome. God can give grace to do it. Though to people it may appear impossible, yet it is easy for God.
Mt 19:16-30. The Rich Young Ruler. ( = Mr 10:17-31; Lu 18:18-30).
For the exposition, see on [1330]Lu 18:18-30.
Ver. 23,24. Mark saith, Mark 10:23-25, And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Luke saith, Luke 18:24,25, And when Jesus saw that he was sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Our Lord, seeing the young man that came to him so briskly, with such a zeal for his soul, and appearing warmth of desire to be instructed in the right way to heaven, and asking for a task to be set him; first, what good thing he should do in order to that end, then calling for more; when our Saviour had reckoned up some commandments to be observed, What lack I yet? saith he; go away quite damped and sorrowful when our Saviour said not to him, Give thy body to be burned; no, nor yet, Cut off a right hand or foot, or pluck out a right eye; only part with some of thy circumstances, Sell that thou hast and give to the poor; a thing he might have done, and have been a man still perfect, both as to his essential and integral parts: he hence takes occasion to discourse with his disciples the danger of riches, and the ill influence they have upon men's souls, with relation to their eternal welfare. Luke and Mark say he spake it by way of question, How hardly? Matthew delivereth it as spoken positively,
A rich man shall hardly enter, & c. The sense is the same, only the interrogation seems to aggravate the difficulty, and to fortify, the affirmation, as much as to say, A rich man shall very hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The disciples were astonished at this, (saith Mark), which made our Saviour say it over again, with a little exposition, How hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! Which exposition is so far from a correction or abatement of the severity of his former speech, that some judge it rather a confirmation of it, for he goes on with saying,
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. But why should this astonish the disciples, who had no reason upon this account to fear for themselves, who had forsaken all to follow Christ? Possibly, because it was so contrary to the common opinion of the world, who did not only, as in Malachi's time, call the proud happy, but thought God had scarce any favour for any but the rich; in opposition to which Christ, Luke 6:20,24, blesseth the poor, and pronounces woes to the rich, as having received their consolation. As to the words themselves, the design of our Saviour in them was not to condemn riches, as in themselves damnable; nor yet to deny salvation to all rich persons: our Lord knew that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, were all rich persons, and yet in heaven; so was David and Solomon, &c. He also knew that riches are the gifts of God, good things, not in themselves pernicious. His design was only to show that they are dangerous temptations, soliciting and enticing our hearts into so great a love of them, and affection to them, as is not consistent with our duty with reference to God; and giving the heart of man such advantages for the lusts of pride, covetousness, ambition, oppression, luxury, (some or other of which are predominant in all souls), that it is very hard for a rich man so far to deny himself, as to do what he must do if ever he will be saved. For those words in Mark, them that trust in riches, I take them rather to give the reason of the difficulty, than to be an abatement of what he had before said; for to trust in riches, is to place a happiness in them, to promise ourselves a security from them, so as to be careless of a further happiness, Psalm 49:6 52:7 1 Timothy 6:17. That which makes it so hard for a rich man to be saved, is the difficulty of having riches and not placing our felicity in them, being secure because of them, and having our hearts cleave unto them, so as we cannot deny ourselves in them to obey any command of God; and the suffering them to be temptations to us to pride, luxury ambition, oppression, contempt and despising of others, covetousness, &c. Upon these accounts our Saviour goeth on and saith, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Which doubtless was a proverbial expression, in use then amongst the Jews, to signify a thing of great difficulty, by terms importing impossibility: or else the phrase may signify an impossibility without the extraordinary influence of Divine grace, as our Saviour seemeth to expound it in the next verses.
And again I say unto you,.... After the apostles had discovered their astonishment at the above expression, about the difficulty of a rich man entering into the kingdom of heaven; when they expected that, in a short time, all the rich and great men of the nation would espouse the interest of the Messiah, and acknowledge him as a temporal king, and add to the grandeur of his state and kingdom; and after he had in a mild and gentle manner, calling them "children", explained himself of such, that trusted in uncertain riches, served mammon, made these their gods, and placed their hope and happiness in them; in order to strengthen and confirm what he had before asserted, and to assure, in the strongest manner, the very great difficulty, and seeming impossibility, of rich men becoming followers of Christ here, or companions with him hereafter, he expresses himself in this proverbial way:
it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God: thus, when the Jews would express anything that was rare and unusual, difficult and impossible, they used a like saying with this. So speaking of showing persons the interpretation of their dreams (g);
"Says Rabba, you know they do not show to a man a golden palm tree i.e. the interpretation of a dream about one, which, as the gloss says, is a thing he is not used to see, and of which he never thought, , "nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle".''
Again, to one that had delivered something as was thought very absurd, it is said (h);
"perhaps thou art one of Pombeditha (a school of the Jews in Babylon) , "who make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle".''
That is, who teach such things as are equally as monstrous and absurd, and difficult of belief. So the authors of an edition of the book of Zohar, to set forth the difficulty of the work they engaged in, express themselves in this manner (i):
"In the name of our God, we have seen fit, , "to bring an elephant through the eye of a needle".''
And not only among the Jews, but in other eastern nations, this proverbial way of speaking was used, to signify difficulties or impossibilities. Mahomet has it in his Alcoran (k);
"Verily, says he, they who shall charge our signs with falsehood, and shall proudly reject them, the gates of heaven shall not be opened to them, neither shall they enter into paradise, "until a camel pass through the eye of a needle".''
All which show, that there is no need to suppose, that by a camel is meant, not the creature so called, but a cable rope, as some have thought; since these common proverbs manifestly make it appear, that a creature is intended, and which aggravates the difficulty: the reason why instead of an elephant, as used in most of the above sayings, Christ makes mention of a camel, may be, because that might be more known in Judea, than the other; and because the hump on its back would serve to make the thing still more impracticable.
(g) T. Bab. Beracot fol. 55. 2.((h) T. Bab Bava Metzia, fol. 38. 2.((i) Prefat. ad Zohar, Ed. Sultzbach. (k) Chap. 7. p. 120. Ed. Sale.
And again I say unto you, It is {o} easier for a {p} camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(o) Literally, it is of less labour.
(p) Theophylact notes, that by this word is meant a cable rope, but Caninius alleges out of the Talmuds that it is a proverb, and the word Camel signifies the beast itself.
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 19:24. "Difficultatem exaggerat," Melanchthon. For πάλιν, comp. Matthew 18:19. The point of the comparison is simply the fact of the impossibility. A similar way of proverbially expressing the utmost difficulty occurs in the Talmud with reference to an elephant[4] See Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 1722, and Wetstein. To understand the expression in the text, not in the sense of a camel, but of a cable (Castalio, Calvin, Huet, Drusius, Ewald), and, in order to this, either supposing κάμιλον to be the correct reading (as in several cursive manuscripts), or ascribing this meaning to κάμηλος (τινές in Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus), is all the more inadmissible that κάμηλος never has any other meaning than that of a camel, while the form κάμιλος can only be found in Suidas and the Scholiast on Arist. Vesp. 1030, and is to be regarded as proceeding from a misunderstanding of the present passage. Further, the proverbial expression regarding the camel likewise occurs in Matthew 23:24, and the Rabbinical similitude of the elephant is quite analogous.
εἰσελθεῖν after ῥαφ. is universally interpreted: to enter in (to any place). On the question as to whether ῥαφίς is to be recognised as classical, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 90. To render this word by a narrow gate, a narrow mountain-pass (so Furer in Schenkel's Lex. III. p. 476), or anything but a needle, is simply inadmissible.
The danger to salvation connected with the possession of riches does not lie in these considered in themselves, but in the difficulty experienced by sinful man in subordinating them to the will of God. So Clemens Alexandrinus: τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος. Hermas, Pastor, i. 3. 6.
[4] The passage in the Koran, Sur. vii. 38: "Non ingredientur paradisum, donec transeat camelus foramen acus," is to be traced to an acquaintance with our present saying; but for an analogous proverb concerning the camel which. "saltat in cabo," see Jevamoth f. 45, 1.
Matthew 19:24. πάλιν δὲ λέγω: reiteration with greater emphasis. The strong language of Jesus here reveals a keen sense of disappointment at the loss of so promising a man to the ranks of disciplehood. He sees so clearly what he might be, were it not for that miserable money.—εὐκοπώτερον, etc.: a comparison to express the idea of the impossible. The figure of a camel going through a needle-eye savours of Eastern exaggeration. It has been remarked that the variation in the parallel accounts in respect to the words for a needle and its eye shows that no corresponding proverb existed in the Greek tongue (Camb. G. T.). The figure is to be taken as it stands, and not to be "civilised" (vide H. C.) by taking κάμηλος (or κάμιλος, Suidas) = a cable, or the wicket of an Oriental house. It may be more legitimate to try to explain how so grotesque a figure could become current even in Palestine. Furrer suggests a camel driver leaning against his camel and trying to put a coarse thread through the eye of a needle with which he sews his sacks, and, failing, saying with comical exaggeration: I might put the camel through the eye easier than this thread (Tscht., für M. und R.).—τρήματος from τιτράω, to pierce.—ῥαφίδος, a word disapproved by Phryn., who gives βελόνη as the correct term. But vide Lobeck's note, p. 90. It is noticeable that Christ's tone is much more severe in reference to wealth than to wedlock. Eunuchism for the kingdom is optional; possession of wealth on the other hand seems to be viewed as all but incompatible with citizenship in the kingdom.
24. easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle] An expression familiar to Jews of our Lord's time. The exaggeration is quite in the Eastern style. It is unnecessary to give other explanations, as that camel is a Greek word meaning "a rope," or that "the eye of a needle" is a gate so called.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 19:24. Κάμηλον, a camel) i.e. the animal of that name; cf. ch. Matthew 23:24. It is not a rope[875] that is compared to a thread, but the eye of a needle to a gate.
[875] Bengel alludes to a reading which is evidently corrupt, and an interpretation which is manifestly erroneous. "Some ancient and modern commentators," says Bloomfield, "would read κάμιλον, a cable, rope; or take κάμηλον in that sense. But for the former there is little or no manuscript authority, and for the latter, no support from the usus loquendi." For interesting illustrations of the subject, too long to insert, see Kitto, and Wordsworth, in loc.—(I. B.)
Verse 24. - Again I say unto you. The disciples, St. Mark notes, "were astonished at his words," so he proceeds to state the startling proposition more unreservedly and energetically. It is easier for a camel, etc. This is a proverbial expression for an impossibility. A similar proverb is found in many countries, only substituting another great animal instead of the camel, e.g., the elephant. From taking a too literal view of the passage, some commentators have invented a gate at Jerusalem, low and narrow, designed only for foot passengers, which was called "the needle's eye." Others have remedied the supposed absurdity by reading κάμιλος (if, indeed, there is such a word) "rope," for κάμηλος, as if we were to say cable instead of camel. But there is no difficulty in the expression. Such hyperboles and paradoxes are common in all languages (comp. Matthew 23:24). The impossibility, indeed (as ver. 26 shows), is relative, but the warning is none the less real and terrible. The Lord says that the possession of riches prevents the owner from following him, and endangers his eternal salvation; for that is what it comes to. In St. Mark (whether the words are genuine or not is uncertain) we find a limitation introduced: "How hard it is for them that trust in riches!" Now, this is the effect of riches; men learn to trust in them, to deem that their earthly state is secure, that change and chance will not affect them, that they are, so to speak, independent of Providence; they love the world which is so good to them and so pleasant in their eyes, and they have no earnest longing for a better home. Such is the natural consequence of the possession of wealth, and that which makes the impossibility of entrance into the kingdom.
Camel - through a needle's eye (κάμηλον διά τρύπηματος ῥαφίδος)
See on Mark 10:25; and Luke 18:25. Compare the Jewish proverb, that a man did not even in his dreams see an elephant pass through the eye of a needle. The reason why the camel was substituted for the elephant was because the proverb was from the Babylonian Talmud, and in Babylon the elephant was common, while in Palestine it was unknown. The Koran has the same figure: "The impious shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter there till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle." Bo-chart, in his history of the animals of scripture, cites a Talmudic passage: "A needle's eye is not too narrow for two friends, nor is the world wide enough for two enemies." The allusion is not to be explained by reference to a narrow gate called a needle's eye.
Matthew 19:24 Interlinear
Matthew 19:24 Parallel Texts


Originally from Brooklyn, New York. I have no credits.
The 12 Million Dollar Movie On Paper Budget: $0 - $100K | Comedy A "B" movie actress gets conned into getting others to invest in a movie. The con artist has disappeared and the actress does what she normally does in a crisis. She goes to her cousin, whose husband is alsoa fan, for help. The husband comes up with the crazy idea of making a movie so the investors won't know they've been scammed.