Cohenite I pretty much give up on you attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

I do however fully support the other sceptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC's regular reports as much too conservative, and these are the scientists who have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately.

Unfortunately your sceptical view runs completely counter to the growing evidence that climate change is occurring. When will you admit you are wrong, all of the evidence is clearly against you and the wave of continuing scientific evidence further erodes all of your so-called four pillars of mis-truth.

cohenite,

You're right, of course.

The "skeptic" sites are "debunking" Marcott et al left right and centre, although they're putting a little more effort into it than you are.

But wait....here's a cogent rebuttal to Watts and Co.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html

And over at Jo's, she's thinks it "might" be cooling....'

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/has-the-world-started-cooling-hints-from-4-of-5-global-temperature-sets-say-it-might-have/

Good stuff!

keskingdom say: "That is possibly the explanation for the "summer record", but we don't know as it cannot be replicated without access to BOM's methodology."

First there was the High Quality network, a network of stations in use for over a decade, that was such low quality the Bomb replaced it with ACORN without even mentioning why. ACORN was supposed to use the latest technology for climate change monitoring. Now they use AWAP for the hottest summer day records. Q: If ACORN was supposed to be for climate change work, why substitute another, undocumented method? (A: Because it gave the result they wanted.)

You wouldn't see the ABS producing a new unemployment metric showing record high unemployment without at least a technical publication about its production. But the Bomb have no problem with such sloppy data handling, apparently, and neither do the warmists commenting here.

Dear kenskingdom,

You say;

“For the sake of peace and quiet, yes I agree, as does Anthony, that it is possible to have a national record without having component records.”

I think Anthony really needs to say this himself don't you.

If his wording was wrong, or incautious, or said through ignorance of statistics, or whatever he needs to acknowledge it. Then I think we can move on.

Otherwise it will continue to reflect badly, even terminally, on what he is asserting in the rest of his article, as you of course would expect it to do.

Poirot and Geoff do their usual thing: a lecture from Geoff and a link from Poirot; can either of you think for yourself?

Poirot's link is to some bister and bluster PC site which says Watts is wrong and that Marcott et al use "proxies from 73 sites around the globe, whereas previously much of what was known about temperatures in the early Holocene was based on ice cores or other more limited data."

That is not true. Much of the Paleoclimatic science uses a variety of proxies; previously the Hockeystick of Mann and Briffa etc used only tree-rings for instance. In respect of those 73 proxies only nine contained data that extend to 1950. Of those nine, only two contained data that extended to 2000. In addition the Marcott study conspicuously doesn’t show temperature data, spliced or unspliced. One reason may be a rather severe divergence problem. Their SH extratropics reconstruction maxes out at 1.22 deg C in AD1900, declining to the reference period 0 in 1961-90.

Similarly their NHX temperature increases all comes between 1920 and 1940.

That's right, the study finds no temperature increase in the modern era, that is, post WW11, the period of maximum AGW!

In respect of the past, apart from contradicting every other paleoclimatic study which has found the MWP and prior warm periods at least as warm as today, this one doesn't because the study uses statistical resolution which exceeds the period of known climate events like the MWP and therefore cannot statistically recognise them.

I mean even you, Poirot, a dyed in the wool fanatic, can see that elementary flaw in the study can't you? Or are you going to wait until Tamino tells you what to think again

Yeah, thanks for the running commentary, cohenite. Waffle waffle waffle.
Using ad homs to complain about ad homs, nice work.

Did you know that 1950 is the standard 'present' in BP (Before Present) reconstructions of paleo data? Especially those that rely on any sort of radioisotope dating.

I wonder why that is? I'll give you three guesses...

So, complaining that the proxies don't run past 1950 is being a bit naive. Just like Easterbrook's complaints that Marcott "didn't present the original data used", when in fact it is all presented in a supplemental database table. I bet that guy would be embarrassed if he could be, but he's a 'skeptic', and so as we all know, has no shame.

Oh yes, it's such a bad paper they published it in Science. So many flaws, goodness. Not like the old Journal of Geophysical Research, or Energy and Environment eh? Those guys have Standards. It's amazing how so many people from all walks of life are interested in being specialist subject reviewers for Science. Perhaps you could send in your resume.

Still no comment on the yellow line? Thought not.