If this temp graph is true, it would sure seem we are no where near record high temps?

okay so central Greenland was warmer than it is today. It is a little misleading to talk about the Vikings since they did not live in central Greenland and probably never even visited there. They lived on the coast. But the question you have to ask yourself is Greenland representative of the entire globe?

You're looking for answers on a skeptic's website !!!

Have another look at the graphs and ask yourself why they stop about 100 years ago. How convenient that they somehow managed to forget to include the data for the last 100 years - the period when the vast majority of warming has occurred. Who are those morons trying to kid?

They are trying another favourite trick of the skeptics which is to look at one piece of the puzzle whilst ignoring all the others. In this instance they're looking at just one ice core record taken from one location. Conveniently the location they have chosen is Greenland and conveniently they have chosen a record which only goes back 50,000 years. Nothing like a bit of cherry picking to present a distorted view of things.

Here are two much more representative graphs showing an average of many global temperature records...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Yea...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Holocene...

I wouldn't say that the site has made errors or that it's perhaps a bit confused, more that it's full of deliberate and blatent lies and obsessed with spreading propoganda.

The reason they chose Greenland is bacause it's in the North Atlantic and during the Medieval Warm Period this is the part of the world that warmed up - hence the peak in the graph. On a global scale the MWP was more of a blip. The reason they omitted the most recent 100 years is because if they had included it then you would see that temps now are higher than during the MWP.

Talking of Greenland, don't be fooled if anyone tells you that it was originally named because it was green. It was so named by Eirik Raude in 983 to attract settlers.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

Interesting that you made no attempt to defend the sources you used. I guess even hardened skeptics and deniers have to admit that they're a blatent attempt at deception.

You claim that the graqphs I linked are the work of scientists involved in Climategate. There are over 70 named contributors to those graphs. If we're being honest here then how many of them are involved in Climategate? 3.

You state that their work has become the laughing stock of scientists. Perhaps you had hoped it would but your aspirations have failed to life up to reality. No real scientist is paying the slightest bit of attention to the claims of the skeptics. I would invite you to name just one credible scientist who has given any credence to anything to have come out of Climategate.

And if you don't trust the graphs then you could always create your own. Despite the lies perpetuated by some of the skeptics and deniers you'll find all the data needed is available online for free. You may wish to save yourself some time, I can tell you now that should create your own graphs you'll find that your results will simply replicate the results of climate scientists.

Most of GreenLand is high-altitude (platau of ice)

The climate prediction include that at higher altitudes, the temperature will actually go down.

I don' think Vikings lived "in central Greenland". The ice is hundreds of feet thick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera...

Same graph, different source.

When dealing with the Global Warmists, keep in mind, they will not acknowledge any temperature records further than 150 years. 150 years accounts for nothing on a geological timescale.

Artic ice is good for pointing at to prove AGW is real, not so good for extrapolating temperatures of the past. It just doesn't cooperate with the set agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Thank you for your history of Greenland climate. However, you put your question in the global section. I understand that the spelling is difficult, both starting with the letter G and all, but one is Greenland, in the North Atlantic, and the other is global -- that includes everywhere. Anyone who draws global conclusions from just one place and tries to extrapolate to the globe will be mislead.

You can now take Anthony Watt's hook out of you mouth and start reading what climatologists are saying.

Very little posted on wattsup (a site for like-minded conspiracy clowns) is ever true. What is true is severely spun to fit a political agenda.