Leo

If you had followed up on the article Rose wrote you would understand that as per usual he got it wrong.
Once again the matter has already been discussed on On Line Opinion.

You don't provide science do you ?

Here is an example of a critique of his nonsense:

Quote in relation to a Rose article:

"This article is a textbook case of cherry picking—it selects only one record, ignores the limitations of the data it comments on, and forms an argument based on only a few months of a much longer record. This is akin to claiming that sea level rise has ended because high tide in one area has ebbed."

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/stunning-new-data-indicates-el-nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-david-rose-daily-mail/

The claims made by Rose and mate Delingpole (same matter) have been analysed and found to be wrong in relation to the matter you raised.

"“I’m a little confused as to why this is a big deal,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, a California nonprofit climate research group that has examined surface temperatures. He’s the lead author of a paper published in January in Science Advances that found Karl’s estimates of sea surface temperature—a key part of the work—matched well with estimates drawn from other methods."

From:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Deniers keep regurgitating matters that have already been dealt with and found to be wrong.

Dear Leo Lane,

The question my dear fellow is whether or not the now departed gent was a climate scientist as you had claimed? He was not. We have ascertained that you appear to be one of the few who continues to fly this flag even though you have no evidence to sustain it.

It is funny but it doesn't matter how many times you claim the sky is green it seems to remain blue.

Ultimately this leaves you either a pathological liar or an outright loony. I'm at a loss to decide for certain so perhaps we settle on a measure of both.

Leo

Re Baffin Island

Good try in relation to your Gilbert quote, Leo.
Where is the lack of science in ... "In addition to measuring changes in the ice cap’s height, researchers used ice-penetrating radar aboard the aircraft to reveal its hidden, sub-glacial topography."

Previous science provides building blocks for subsequent research:

"We use cosmogenic beryllium-10 dating to develop a moraine chronology with century-scale resolution over the last millennium and show that alpine glaciers in Baffin Island and western Greenland"

Those quotes can be found in the references provided and deal with collecting data; that is, science.

As we know Leo, you cannot provide information previously requested:

Please provide a reference displaying Dr Ball's graph in a peer reviewed Journal.
Where did Dr Ball obtain his pollen samples, and coral samples etc from to produce his graph?
What evidence has been left of storm surges during the medieval period?
What evidence has been left of rain bombs? Rain bombs are created through a warming atmosphere being able to carry more water vapour; as a result, huge amounts of rain can fall in a very short period causing severe flooding

No ,Reflux, in your delusional state you have overlooked the fact that the question is whether you fabricated the scurrilous lies you posted about Professor Carter, or had a source for them, which , in your incompetent manner, you neglected to supply. You have been asked a number of times, and in your ill-bred, uncivil way, have ignored this most relevant question.
.The US Senate heardProfessor Carter’s sworn evidence on climate. They apparently did not seek advice from a boofhead who could tell them Carter was not a climate scientist. They apparently only sought the opinion of informed people, who knew that he was.
In an important Court case where Carter’s evidence showed the lies in Gore’s film, the Court relied on Carter’s status as a climate scientist, no doubt relying on sworn evidence when he was qualified as a witness. I wonder why the opposition did not rake up a dishonest boofhead like you to give evidence against his qualification as a witness on climate science. No doubt because your dishonesty stands out like a warning beacon. You would not be believed.

The flea asks another stupid question:”
Please provide a reference displaying Dr Ball's graph in a peer reviewed Journal”
Even an ignoramus like the flea should understand that a graph prepared by Ball for the purposes of the case will be examined and criticised by Mann and his scientific team far more critically than in peer review.Of course it would be impractical to have a graph, prepared during the course of a case, peer reviewed before submission .
Dealing with the flea’s ignorant nonsense is like taking out the garbage

Leo

So what Journal did Ball have his graph published in, you provide a supposition which is not proof. Dr Mann will no doubt examine the graph presented by Ball; but, that is not peer review, it is preparation for a legal case.

Summary:

You have not been able to defend a reference you provided in relation to sea ice extent in 2016 which was subsequently published in WUWT. It was completely nonsensical and at best could be seen to emanate from ignorance.

In commenting about Dr Carter you provide an example of appealing to authority.
Dr Carter and the IPCC are old news, tens of thousands of research papers have been published since (Powell et al).

Taking inferred temperature from satellites involves computer processing ( modelling) to take into account changes in flight path and synchronisation from one satellite’s data to another. Even Christy and Spencer have had to alter their modelling in relation to interpreting satellite data. There is no direct measure of temperature.

In relation to climate science you bring in the notion of a null hypothesis, it produces the responsibility to provide evidence.

You commented on NOAA etc providing data from 1979 as though it was some kind of conspiracy; that was when satellites began to be utilised. A newspaper clip part of the reference you provided did not uphold the comments being made. Data derived from submarines dating back to 1958 showed your reference to be wrong.

Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist working for a non-government Agency has debunked the Rose article you referred.

Two references in relation to Baffin Island were provided. They showed how quite current research displays how the medieval warming period has been completely overstated by deniers. Greenland is adjacent virtually to Baffin Island and Greenland is seen to prove the medieval warming period was warmer than currently. Baffin Island research shows that to be a nonsense.
The inane response was that it was not science, shown to be wrong.