Leo

Via Facebook, even flora and fauna are committing fraud:

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/talking-point-scientists-reveal-life-on-the-move-on-rapidly-warming-planet/news-story/bebdcffe28ae669b32df86a75c72e9b1

The flea says:” favourite words you use are "fraud" and "lies" in relation to climate science. Those who accept climate science are "fraud supporters".
Those who accept climate science, which is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate, are truth supporters. People like the flea, who have no science to support their position are supporting a fraud.
Where is the science to show that there is a measurable human effect on climate, flea?
You have no science but have the brazen, baseless, dishonest temerity to use the term “denier”. How can non-existent science be denied? Yet another of your lies, flea

mhaze, I typed “Marcott climate change” into Google, this is the first entry.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html

It is a fairly common occurrence that deniers often misunderstand a paper ( e.g. isoprene ), or misrepresent a paper by cherry picking.

The hockey stick view of temperature change Dr Mann created has been investigated a number of times and vindicated. Dr Mann has stated that far more sophisticated subsequent studies have shown the same conclusions that he had derived.

http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/http://grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee/

In trying to retrieve a document which had Professor North’s investigation vindicate Dr Mann, I came across a World Meteorological Organisation document:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/documents/wmo_1152_en.pdf

Think Progress reports that January 2016 has been the warmest recorded:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/16/3749815/carbon-pollution-hottest-12-months-january/

Leo

Thank you for proving my point with your last spray.

The origin of CO2 can be identified by its isotopes.
The relationship between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves has been established.

So ant,

You claimed to have spent a deal of time two years ago looking into the issue of historic temperatures, but, miraculously, were blissfully unaware of the most important paper on Holocene temperatures of the last decade. Does anyone see a flaw there?

So then, you decide to belatedly look in Marcott et al 2013 which in your terms involves reading a Google headline about the paper. Some people might think it might be important to actually make some effort to read the paper or just some portion of it. But those people would be interested in getting the fatcs and ant isn't. ant is anxious to find some way to avoid the facts that doesn't suit.

So based on what has to be called the most inane checking of the paper ant decides I've misunderstood it. What a dill.

ant, the quote I showed above (I won't repeat it cos you really don't care anyway) ...that quote was directly from the abstract of the paper. So if I misunderstood the paper then so did Marcott and his pals. But then they didn't read the Google headlines so maybe they didn't understand what they wrote. What a dill.

fin

mhaze

There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in relation to climate change every year. Deniers have given the Marcott metal paper undue emphasis after misinterpreting its content.
The second entry from Google :

Quote:

"The study... confirms the now famous “hockey stick” graph that Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat temperatures. . .

“What’s striking,” said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University in an interview, “is that the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.”"

From:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html

A quote from Marcott's paper:

"Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction; both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a warm interval (~1500 to 1000 yr B.P.) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 yr B.P.), which is approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age (Fig. 1A). This similarity confirms that published temperature reconstructions of the past two millennia capture long-term variability, despite their short time span (3, 12, 13). Our median estimate of this long-term cooling trend is somewhat smaller than in Mann et al. (2) though, which may reflect our bias toward marine and lower-latitude records."

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

ant,

I could walk you through the various criticisms of Marcott2013 which resulted in them issuing addenda to the original paper and finally admitting that the devices they used to get a HS were invalid and ought not be relied upon. But that would presuppose that you were interested in getting to the truth and we both know that's not going to happen.

But the original point was that temperatures over the past 11000 yrs were higher than now 25% of the time. That was my point and I used Marcott2013 as one piece of evidence to support that. There is plenty of other papers and databases making the same point. You simply asserted the opposite, have not attempted in the slightest to refute what Marcott himself said about past temperatures, have not bothered to read the actual paper and have provided not a skerrick of evidence to support you ludicrous assertions that Marcott/my original point was wrong. Nothing.

You are exactly the type of disciple the AGW movement lives off. Someone who believes everything he is told that suits the 'theory' without bothering to check for himself, and searches for any reason to reject things that don't suit no matter how silly or anti-intellectual those reasons might be.