Max,

Who said conspiracy? It looks to me that you have a series of go-to arguments and use them whether or not they are relevant. Oh, I'll mock him for thinking there's a conspiracy even though he didn't say that. Oh, I'll mock him for thinking the pause relies on an exceptional El Nino year even though he said the opposite.

I note you didn't show any satellite data in your list of approved databases. I can't imagine why.... :)

"Are you aware that Mhaze makes outrageous claims without linking to a shred of data 99% of the time?".

Sorry I thought you be up on this. But alas.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history."
Warmer 75% of the time = not as warm 25% of the time

By the way, Marcott is not a denier but very much part of the Hockey Team.

I can provide dozens of similar papers showing past temperatures. Last time I did that poor old 'ant' decided he had no choice but to leave the group for a while. Please don't feel so compelled.

If you duck off to RealClimate you'll find a few reasons why you should ignore these facts about the past. Basically they boil down to - 'I don't want it to be true, therefore it isn't'.

Maze,
you’re the one suggesting something very like a conspiracy when you say there are other databases that tell a different story to the ‘homogenised’ databases. ;-) But hey, don’t worry, you’re not suggesting a conspiracy: just that you don’t trust the world’s top 4 databases because they’ve been ‘homogenised.’ Go ahead and get all offended about the conspiracy accusation. Just don’t explain WHY you don’t trust the world’s top 4 databases! ;-) If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

By the way, we note that you failed to link to those databases that you *do* trust. Failure to link 99% of the time, or what? ;-)

Your attitude to Real Climate is real interesting. So you don’t like the peer-reviewed process? See, peer-review is how science moves forward. It’s how we discovered “Glacier-gate” — that one of the thousands of papers that got into the IPCC was actually suspicious. I like peer-review. Why don’t you?

Anyway, you raised Marcott. Whatever the story about an earlier Milankovitch variation in temperatures, which are of course what you want us to focus on, his PROJECTIONS are 100% with us, and are of course what you WANT TO IGNORE.

“Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack, regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has already been exceeded). By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean for the A1B scenario based on our Standard5×5 plus high-frequency addition stack.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/the-two-epochs-of-marcott.html

Oops. Forgot to read that did we? ;-)

Max,

Although I don't think there is a conspiracy in the homogenising process I do think there is a degree of confirmation bias. So if, for example, someone who believes in warming comes across the raw data like, say, Rutherglen which shows a cooling, they homogenise until it shows a warming. They aren't trying to fudge the data but to correct what they think is an obvious error.

I have much more faith in the satellite record.

I don't see where you got the idea that I don't like peer review. I think its a great idea and works well most of the time. Just another of those things you've just made up out of whole fabric.

As to Marcott13, its strange that you think I hadn't read it since I bought it to your attention. I'm aware that the paper talks about temperatures through to 2100. But that entirely misses the point I was making.

You're running around clucking that this or that or every problem is caused by the recent warming and I simply use Marcott13 and many other papers to show that the CURRENT warming is unexceptional and that we obviously survived (indeed thrived in) those previous and comparable warm periods. If the Himalaya glaciers didn't melt then, why do should we believe they'll melt now. And if the arctic did melt then without undue problems, why should we think it'll cause problems now. If Siberian anthrax is caused by warming why (1) did it occur during a cold period and (2) how did Siberians survive previous warm periods.

I accept that a warming over the next century of say 3c might cause some problems. But I don't accept that the current warming is the cause for the postulated problems ascribed to it by the perennial chicken-littles.

Finally you said my claims about previous warm periods was "outrageous" and required linked data. Which I provided. But we see no acknowledgement that you were wrong to say it was outrageous or wrong to think that the data wasn't there. Not exactly honourable my good man.

re Marcott, mhaze, he also demonstrates that the rate of surface temperature increase since the industrial revolution is the sharpest it has ever been in the Halocene.

It's the trajectory that is the problem, not where we are right now.

Just a reminder that the average global surface temperature during the last ice (when Europe and north America New york were a mile under ice was 4 or 5 degrees below today's. We're heading for a similar differential above today's temperature, which will hit the southern hemisphere (Oz) particularly hard.

Nice if you live in Greenland or Siberia. Hey, but it's OK, we've got air conditioning, right?

BTW, love it or hate it, here's some of Marcott's work incorporated into an awareness poster:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4M05NNmsyRXQxWm8/edit

Given what Arrhenius discovered re CO2 and heat retention, and Marcott's work, the CO2 hypothesis cannot be blithely pushed aside without putting up something else up to fit the facts beyond ye olde natural variation.

I don't want all this to be true, just as much as the next bloke. Adapting to higher temperatures is a nice idea, if we can limit the rise, but we aren't doing anything about it that works, i.e. nuclear.

mhaze
Firstly, my apologies for misattributing a series of advertisements to fossil fuel companies. The advertisements do come from a conservative source. The adverts fully support the science of climate change.

Secondly, you stated: "PS. last time you graced these pages you asserted that "Paleoclimatologists indicate that temperatures were not warmer in previous historic times." Since that was patently wrong, I (1) showed you 10 or papers which showed the opposite and (2) invited you to support your claims with evidence."

That is not true, I provided a quote in relation to Marcott which you suggested was fraudulent.
I suggested you sign up with AAAS to confirm the truth of my quote and to obtain references to science. WUWT tries very hard to push the proverbial uphill.
Now, you have also been caught out by Max Green and Luciferase in relation to the Marcott study. At the time I also wrote about Lonnie Thompson as he was meant to support your point of view through the poor reference you gave.
Also, I have responded to a number of articles since we had that discussion.
And you write about confirmation bias.

In the past we have discussed permafrost; what is happening in the Arctic does not suit your point of view, and down played the impacts. Your comment about confirmation bias gave me quite a chuckle.