With the publication of a new paper reconstructing the earth's temperature over the last 11,300 years, we now have a deeper look into earth's history.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/what-hockey-stick-graphs-can-tell-us-about-recent-climate-change

The view from here is startling - noting the hockey stick is replicated, and appears even more pertinent.

"...the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented since the end of the last ice age."(although the spacing of data points has been raised, the latter day spike is an extraordinary feature - especially on a graph that extends so far back)

Wondering what others think?

That's a bit naughty Poirot. Looks like cherry picking to me. One study comes out that contradicts previous studies, and you want us to hang our hats on it.

I can't access the part of the study that you quote from, but I note that we are just out of the coolest part of the holocene, and apparently 25% of the time it has been hotter.

Hard to say much more without access to the paper.

"That's a bit naughty Poirot...."

Er um....it's been all over the net for the last few days - I thought people might be interested to comment.

I'm not asking you to hang your hat on anything.

(mildly amusing that 11,300 years of data is presented in one graph - and I'm accused of a "cherry-pick"!)

It's just one graph. All the other graphs that I've seen for the period don't show anything unusual in the last 100 years. So yes, you are cherry picking.

The whole Hockey Stick fraud was based around a cherry pick. The one graph that showed a rapid uptick got adopted as the poster child of global warming, even though we now know that it depended on splicing the modern instrumental record on the paleo record when the paleo record wouldn't show what the author wanted.

Embarrasing, but the fraudster is still getting invites to academic conferences. Shows how careful you have to be in this space. It is totally corrupted.

Graham,

I'm not intending to get right into this with you.

Calling people fraudsters on your own blog is your prerogative.

http://www.desmogblog.com/review-michael-manns-exoneration.

I reject your assertion that I'm cherry-picking.

It's a new paper and a new graph.

Is it really so amazing that I would post on it? If I'd gone hunting way back for some obscure paper to support my view, you'd have a point. I think it's interesting and I'm interested in other views.

Impugning Michael Mann is just more of the same old same old...just one more tired cliche.

Poirot/GY I think in this world wide discussion, a fraud unequaled is in play.
But I think it is the anti climate change side that is at fault.
And that it is too late to truly change anything, the planet will warm and those that come after us will have every right to be unhappy, with us.
This country,s climate observers are telling us near weekly of the changes in our recent climate.
WHY do we ignore that.
And if not for climate change then for long term sustainability the move to clean energy is worth it surely?
America is about to move on this issue, why not us.
Poirot your task is massive, those opposing your view need no evidence just like sonofglion make claims based on pinion not science.

JOHN HOWARD IS A CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTIC.

Thanks Poirot, I think this thread has exposed what I long suspected, That many climate change 'skeptics' don't read the full literature, because they do not actually have access to it. So, they are reduced to either interpreting abstracts, which only gives partial information, or blogs that discuss the papers. There is a danger in that of course, in that many bloggers may introduce unintended errors, or extended misinterpretations of the data.

The blog you link to has one such unintended error, in saying that the data came from '73 locations from around the world', when actually they looked at 73 datasets (records) that were globally distributed.

Graham says that 'it's just one graph', and therefore a 'cherry pick'. Well, actually it isn't Graham, if anything it's a combination of 73 graphs using a variety of proxies and temperature data, including ice cores, pollen, diatoms, Mg/Ca Foraminifera, chironomid lake bed records and more. All the data is given in the supplemental materials.

So, if anything it is the complete opposite to a 'cherry pick'. So, good luck with that line of reasoning. I think it's funny that you say that "all the other graphs that I've seen for the period don't show anything unusual in the last 100 years". And that's not a cherry pick? Which graphs are these pray tell? Without access to the scientific literature, they must have been posted on those blogsites you love so much.

Why is it that all of this sort of stuff was common knowledge among undergraduates 50 years ago and is now all of a sudden NEW!

John Howard is a climate change skeptic! Don't you get it? It's all about a large and powerful minority wanting to ignore or wish away the problem all in the name of greed masquerading as progress.

Thanks Bugsy,

I take your point on unintended errors. When this paper broke, several media sites misconstrued "the unprecedented rate of temperature rise" and erroneously claimed that the earth was the hottest it's been in 11,300 years. Things do get skewed out here in layman's land.

It's so obvious that a scientist has a better handle on the processes involved and the meaning of the data. Hope you guys continue to make forays into the fray, even though it's frustrating.

I appreciate you contributing.

And the beat goes on...

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/10/climate-denial-industry-hits-courts-and-hollywood-threats-fly?utm

Hi there Titanic Deckchair attendants.
Still at it I see.
Not to worry the sea temps are rising rapidly, so it will be warm as it rises up to your neck.

is Climate Change (fomerly Global Warming - until it was 'conveniently' renamed) a description of the ever-changing theories of Tim (no-rain) Flannery?

Maybe his next 'prediction' will be an Ice Age. How can any of you blind believers take him and his type seriously? You are being led by the nose.

I get sick and tired of wan*ers swapping definitions between global warming, global climate change and particularly 'climate deniers'
Lord M has not nor has ever been a climate change denier' but is a feircy opponent who continually insist WE are causing it. In one famous speech he said 'global climate change happens, get over it and prepare for it" because you are never going to change it. That article reference
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/10/climate-denial-industry-hits-courts-and-hollywood-threats-fly?utm has the same sort of BS slanted and opinionated and refers to Lord M as a climate denier.

That should read - Lord M denies that WE are the cause but tish in reverse happens and there's is nothing we can do to stop it - adapt or die

AP,

Here you go....yada, yada yada.

Mr Luntz (of the George W. Bush administration) I believe has the honour of coming up with reframing global warming to "climate change".

Apparently because it "was thought to sound less severe".

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

Yep, hsit happens alright.

Dear Austin Powerless,

It is all very real. Global warming is just one part of an enromous environmental catastrophe that is happening in our era. Some man made, some naturally.

Heading into another "Ice Age" is actually one of several things that could happen. I read a paper by a couple of palaeogeolists several years ago on this and their argument was quite convincing. So don't rule it out yet.

But irrespective of what one may think the answer is, there remains the problem that something really bad is taking shape. I'm one of those who think it's too late to do anything about it: poor old Mother Earth can't take it any longer and we're all doomed for extinction.

By the way, did you know that John Howard is a climate change skeptic?

Poirot, DeSmog blog, apart from being a "blog" which isn't good enough for Bugsy, is a front for a PR firm. It spends its time defaming people who it doesn't like and defending people who it does. It doesn't have a lot of credibility in this space, and the article you reference is 4 years old.

Michael Mann grafted the instrumental record onto the proxy record because the proxy record didn't show the increase in temperature he wanted. He noted the splice, but not the reason. Why didn't he note the reason? Because he wanted his graph to be more robust than it was. That is fraud. His graph is the Piltdown Man of climate science.

Bugsy, just off the top of my head the Vostok Ice Cores show exactly what I am saying. So some peer reviewed science for you. I should also point out that using multiple proxies doesn't necessarily give one a clearer picture of anything. It does however provide lots of room for statistical manipulation.

Graham, apart from the fact that I don't really know what you are referring to when you say "just off the top of my head the Vostok Ice Cores show exactly what I am saying", what do the Vostok Ice Cores say that you think you happen to agree with?

I must say, I admire the swiftness that you can entirely dismiss a synthesis of so much data, even more so that you think that it is so flimsy that has been published in Science no less. The editors of Science know nearly nothing about 'statistical manipulation' when compared to the climate skeptics eh?. I guess it's nowhere near up to the standards of Energy and Environment.

But there is one thing I agree with. Even that 'blog' site is nowhere near good enough when discussing actual science. The opinions and de novo analysis that appear in them should not be taken as gospel, as they are generally not created nor reviewed by scientists before being published. I think of them as more like news sites. However, they are good for highlighting research that most people would not otherwise see.

When discussing science, reference and discussion on the published papers should be the prime consideration, that way at least we are discussing the same data.

Good afternoon to you POIROT...

As you had so shrewdly bought me to account on this specific matter, (rather comprehensively too !), I'm still undecided I'm afraid ? While I 'dithered' about the whole Climate Change phenomenon per se. Whatever the truth of it is; what's the harm anyway, if we DO take the additional measures to safeguard our planet anyway, Poirot ?

For myself, I'm still not sure, I must confess. There's a growing body of thought, that perhaps we're not actually under such immediate threat that some would have us believe.

There again, there are many other emminent scientists saying 'hand on heart' the planet IS undergoing a deleterious climate change ? Then why not have a bet each way, if for no other reason then a bit of insurance ? We plan for the worst, if nothing happens, we so what ?

I don't have much faith in the Climate Commissioner. It's my understanding, his academic qualifications are not directly related to that of climate science ? Therefore, he's merely a voice for Labour politics. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise unreservedly.

Thank you POIROT, and take care.

I wonder if we are focusing on the right thing? It seems reasonable that the end of the last ice-age, and reversion of the mini ice-age, would have been brought about by volcanic and/or sunspot activity? And, most probably a combination of these, since there is no reason to suspect greenhouse being responsible - save from the atmospheric resultants of volcanic activity. Either that, or a shifting of Earth's magnetic field, allowing the solar wind to temporarily bombard Earth, causing temporary unusual heating - with melting of ice sheets and resultant reduction in radiation reflection, more heat retention, and so on? (Or meteor, Factor x, Hand of God?)

So, has science specifically identified those causes, and their relative contribution to the measured results (heating) during those two significant heating events, and compared this evidence with records of related activity over the last 200 years - namely volcanic, sunspot and magnetic field variation activity?

It appears that a shift in Earth's magnetic field is predicted, but its timing and potential extent and impacts not specified. Also, we do not seem to have specific information of predicted or projected variations in Earth's volcanic activity, or of any unusual expectations of sunspot activity beyond its normal cycle.

In the absence of a scientific comparison of relevant volcanic, sunspot and magnetic field activity operating during those two significant warming events, with the equivalent data relating to the last 200 years, we have uncertainty as to human activity's contribution to recent warming. More importantly, we have only limited capacity to project the influence of future human activity, compared with anticipated 'natural' system variations.

Will future CO2 have significant influence, or will volcanic, sunspot or magnetic field variations overshadow and make meaningless any efforts we might make to limit or reduce CO2 concentrations?

BTW: How's the U.S. going building its underground Ark, stock piling oil and foodstuffs, and compiling the 'lucky list', in anticipation of the inevitable - either massive warming, a new ice age, or the nuclear holocaust last-resort for reducing human population to sustainable limits?

Dear Saltpetre,

If I was you I would go with the shifting of Earth's magnetic field.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed. But as Bugsy notes, we probably can't go very far into the science of the graph or the studies involved.

In the end blog debates always boil down to an impasse.

Bugsy is right that blogs have their limitations. My take has always been that they are where the majority of lay people congregate and discuss these issues - and it's the general population that has the voting power to effect change.

But it all usually ends up in a bun fight, and suddenly I think I'm somehow over it. Time to leave it to the scientists.

Adieu for now.

Poirot it always ends up in a fight.
Be content you and I are on the winning side, truth can not be buried.
Man, from the start of the industrial revolution, has impacted on the climate/environment/ planet.
And Science has not lent its good name to a fraud.
Flat earther,s aside time is on our side.
That by the way was a great song!

I was not trying to be a 'spoiler' with my last post, but posing what I see to be genuine areas of inquiry. I see the factors mentioned to be directly relevant to any meaningful comparisons of past and current events. And, I think it realistic that some future event may make the whole question academic, but at least we could have opportunity to better evaluate our options if there were reliable forecasts of the potential for such future events - volcanic, sunspot/solar-wind or magnetic field variations. But, I guess many may feel this is all cut and dried, or else just more hypothetical gesticulating?

Temperature variation taken out of context of surrounding natural events is fairly meaningless, and no basis for sound judgment of future progression.

That said, the recent obvious rapid upward temperature trend, can only be seen as startling, and is not explained by any unusual natural occurrences in this relevant recent period. Therefore, by exclusion, the only remaining gross determining factor is the massive combustion of fossil fuels in this period. I say again, millions of years of fossil fuel generation (and that generated in periods of prolific growth of forests/plants and marine fauna) dug up and combusted in a mere 200 years - one has merely to do the math. Resultant: CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations at levels one would equate with very significant volcanic activity. Only the most obtuse could disregard this trend.

However, with some others I must agree that it is the overall trend of human activity which is the major worry - upward population and consumption - and the increasing difficulty in balancing demand and supply of natural and increasingly scarce resources.

Japan, Germany, and possibly others, may wish to discontinue nuclear energy, but is there any reasonable alternative over the long haul, irrespective of AGW? Any viable technological alternative will take time to develop and implement. When should this need be taken seriously? To me the answer is obvious.

Lyn Bender's article on the psychology of 'disbelief' (Climate Change: our willful blindness) is quite possibly portentous.

Saltpetre,

You might be interested in this article by Clive Hamilton.

http://theconversation.edu.au/nature-v-technology-climate-belief-is-politics-not-science-12611

Thanks Belly : )

It seems that this thread has run its course. But for the sake of good order, I just thought I make a few notes on the subject paper now that we've had a chance to look at it rather than the initial headlines.

Just a couple of pertinent points will do:

* it seems, in the tradition of all good hockey sticks(HS) , the authors intend to keep their data and methods secret. And they call this science!

* Like most other HS they just paste the thermometre record onto the proxy data and hope that they are compatible. At least the don't try to hide this, unlike Mann who sought to "hide the decline".

* although they agree that, with the data being so fragmented, the data resolution is 120yrs at best and 2000yrs at worst (“…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”) they nonetheless assert that they can make claims about the last century and even more absurdly, the last decade. If your data (at best) has a 120yr resolution how can you assert that the last decade is unusual? Being a climate scientists means never having to be logical.

* even so they admit that over the last 11300 yrs, temps have been higher than the last century for fully one quarter of the time and higher than now for more than 18% of the time ie in the last 10000 yrs, there have been almost 2000 yrs hotter than now! So why the alarm.

There's much more that makes this paper worse than useless but these are the highlights.

What Mark said. Haven't had time to contribute to this debate, but the ability of the IPCC cheer squad to be completely unscientific never fails to amaze me.

Coincidentally, today is the 200th anniversary of the birthday of John Snow who invented epidemiology by following the facts and for his trouble was excoriated and shunned by the scientific "consensus".

Of course, they said, cholera is caused by fumes rising from the Thames, because people closer to the Thames are more likely to contract it than those further away - correlation equals causation. Snow delved deeper and found it was actually a function of water supply, and where the various suppliers were drawing their water.

Ooooh, someone hasn't read the supplementary materials. Nice fail.

Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson Graham, most interesting.

Also born today was American conservationist, George Perkins Marsh, whose book Man and Nature, or Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action (1864) was one of the 19th century's classic influences on geography, ecology, and resource management. Marsh demonstrated a remarkably wide range expertise in philology, etymology, the study of reptiles, engravings, music, the artificial propagation of fish, comparative grammar, physiognomy, and geography. In his extensive touring of the Mediterranean world, Marsh became convinced that human civilization had remade the natural world but reshaped the face of nature with disastrous consequences.
http://todayinsci.com/3/3_15.htm

Graham,

I posted this with links a while back on another thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241034

How is climate science different from medical science in the modern era?

Why is their a movement to label climate scientists (en masse) frauds, but not an equivalent movement to label medical scientists frauds?

Why is there a movement that employs, for the most part, amateur opinion and conspiracy theory to howl down the findings of climate scientists? Why don't they dish out the same treatment to scientists in other disciplines. Why should it be that only climate "scientists" are likely to be fraudulent?

I'll tell you why. Because the things that climate scientists warn of, using the best of their abilities, are not felt immediately - and the systems are more complex. If you develop Type 1 diabetes and I diagnose you and give you some insulin and knowledge, you will recover from your acute trauma and learn to manage your condition. You can't argue with that sort of advice and treatment because it produces immediate results. What if there was a movement to denigrate endocrinologists in the same manner as climate scientists, pushed by amateurs hollering "Conspiracy - they've got their noses in the trough?

I'm not sure what your point is Poirot. Medical scientists frequently disagree with each other and what you call "amateurs" frequently disagree with what is asserted to be correct and go and get a second opinion. This is nothing like climate science where we're all supposed to sign-up for the most extreme scenarios, whatever they may be.

We've just seen an example of that with the Climate Commission making unscientific pronouncements that don't even line up with the IPCC, and you'll get howled down for disputing them. That there is no agreed upon set of results that arise from CO2 emissions underlines how absurd and arbitrary pronouncements like yours are.

And the reason most medical scientists aren't called frauds is because they aren't frauds. And when they are caught out, like William McBride, they end up being prosecuted. Again, quite different from climate "science".

Just done a bit more Googling on the subject of Marcott et al. I think you need to go and wipe the egg off your face Poirot and find another drum to torture. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/#more-81951 has graphs of all of the proxies and not one of them forms a hockey stick that I can see.

So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?

This is yet more garbage being promoted by partisans without any regard for the probability that it is right or wrong.

I was right to withhold judgement until seeing the details, and my skeptical default position has been vindicated.

Hi Graham,

"So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?"

Its the beauty of these HS calculations. This sleight-of-hand is covered in lots of places but the best is Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which contains a thorough explanation of how it works and why its wrong.

Basically what is done is that you take a range of proxies that are all measuring somewhat different things in different ways with different results (as you've seen). Then you average these and all the bumps and nuances are removed providing what appears to be a benign and smooth temperature record. Finally you plunk the thermometer record on the end with all its bumps and lumps and then proclaim that it's different to the rest of the historic record and therefore AGW is proven.

This one is a little different to Mann's original HS (MBH98),as best we can work out given the lack of information as to methodology. In MBH98 they also did some fancy data selection that eliminated any proxy data that didn't concur with the thermometer record thus almost ensuring a HS. Indeed as McIntyre was to prove, using Mann's methods any random data yielded a HS. Put the phone book into a computer and Mann's methods will give you a HS.

People like Poirot buy the line that this is climate science and only climate scientists can critique it. But it is actually statistical analysis and when statisticians like McIntyre and Wegman looked at the methodology they were amazed at the ineptitude of the scientists. Nothing's changed.

Yet even after all that they still find that around 3000 of the last 11300 yrs have been hotter than the 20th century. And most of the times when that happened coincided with peaks in man's development. So where is the cause for concern?

By the way, who's Mark? :)

Bugsy, I have seen the SI but it is unclear about methodology. And now we find that the authors are running for cover when McIntyre asks one simple question on that point.

In related climate news, FOIA has released the zip file password thus allowing people to see the 220000 or so Climategate emails that were previously unavailable. Climategate 3 is off and running.

Not much has come out yet and when it does we should start a thread on it. But in the meantime and apropos this thread, a comment from a fellow warmist scientist explaining in private what they wouldn't say in public as to why they left the Mann's HS out of their analysis..."I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!"

There's also an exchange where Tom Wigley (who comes out of Climategate with a reasonable reputation) complains that "there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC" and Mann admits its true.

Pull up a comfy chair and get some popcorn...this is gunna be fun.

"So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?"'

That's like the question, 'if no single state recorded a record high, how come the whole of Australia did?'

The education system is a big fail when it comes to arithmetic and statistics.

The paper describes the methodology. Here is a simplified explanation that most who are numerate will follow and it doesn't require any paranoid conspiracy ideation.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/03/13/art-of-the-anthropocene-the-scythe/#.UULiYRxHK_R

I am quite mystified by the lengths that deniers go to to accuse one of the top ranking journals of not understanding science! Read why one would *expect* the different proxies not all go up and down at the same time - (it's a bit different now of course, with global warming):
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/still-more-denier-weirdness-from-wuwt.html

and more here (as quoted by Phil Plait/Bad Astronomy on Slate)
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html

With The Auditor (McIntyre) there is no 3rdchoice:

You're in real trouble now, Professor. You've come to the attention of The Auditor. He has asked you Questions. You now have two choices:-

(1) You could assume the questions are posed in good faith, The Auditor is genuinely interested in the knowing the answers, and will make constructive and reasonable use of the information. This would be a category error. It's like those email scams where if you respond the spammers know the address they've hit is real. Next thing you know there will be a second round of followup questions, and so on ad nauseum. Dr Gerald North writes:-

"This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”

Do you really want that?

(2) You ignore the questions. This will lead to a post at the Audit weblog using words like 'stonewall', 'petulance', 'refusal'. You won't be directly accused of malpractice or fraud, naturally, however the comments will be a playground where those with a desire to speculate about 'What is Lewandowsky hiding?' will be given free rein. There will then be a short hiatus during which you may think your life is getting back to normal, but then the orchestrated FOI requests for any and all emails relating to the paper will start ...

Do you really want that?

There is no 3rd choice.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=5&t=209&&n=159#674

Except that pjclarke got number 2 wrong, McIntyre doesn't hesitate with direct accusations. (Another DuKE sufferer)

Sorry for interrupting, people. I wasn't aware this was a 'reason-free' zone. (The QUT logo made me think it was for educated people.)

My mistake and apologies for the intrusion. You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=0

"Pull up a comfy chair and get some popcorn...this is gunna be fun."

Also, make sure you have plenty of tissues, drawn the curtains and wash your hands afterwards.

mhaze, please don't complain that Marcott et al didn't post their datasets, other people seem to have no trouble finding it. Your lack of understanding their methodology is not a reflection on them.

Jolly good show, Sou....."You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now."

Ain't that the truth!

You know, I think you're onto something there, except you've realised the futility a lot faster than I have.

Arguing with deniers is the most pointless task in the world - and for some unknown reason I've been doing it for yonks.

What do we get on OLO?

We get OLO's very own dedicated band of deniers.

We get links to Anthony Watts and links to Jo Nova...not to mention sundry other no science "skeptic" sites.

That's what you get....

...on OLO.

Clive had it right.

Bye

I'd beat a hasty retreat too Poirot. Who's your new colleague with the nickname Sou? He apparently thinks that an average can be higher than any one of the figures being averaged. I think that's what they call an #epicfail.

"I was right to withhold judgement until seeing the details, and my skeptical default position has been vindicated."

Of course it was Graham, of course it was.

I would have expected nothing less than complete reinforcement of your own views, after all that is what always happens.

"You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now."

The only people using the word conspiracy here are Sou and Poirot. Its a standard ploy...accuse others of being believers in conspiracy (without the slightest evidence) so as to avoid having to engage. I guess it helps to avoid all that pesky thinking.

Few, if any, leading skeptics (and none that I'd take notice of) think there is a conspiracy here. As the movie said, "Not evil, just wrong". On the other hand, any vaguely familiar with the Climategate emails knows that there is a certain collegiate solidarity among the Hockey Team.... a term they themselves created. The quote I mentioned earlier shows how they keep doubts about each others research in-house - hardly the way science should work.

Bugsy wrote: "mhaze, please don't complain that Marcott et al didn't post their datasets, other people seem to have no trouble finding it. Your lack of understanding their methodology is not a reflection on them." Unfortunately for Bugsy, I never did complain they didn't post their data....but then for him facts are a second order issue.

I did however point out that we are uncertain of their exact methodology. Bugsy seems to think that a rough idea of how they went from raw data to HS is good enough and I'm sure for most alarmists being assured that they don't need to look further is second nature. But again, if you are familiar with the original HS and how it was finally shown to be wrong, it was really all about the minute detail of how data was selected and rejected and how data and uncertainties within it was combined and manipulated.

/cont

/cont

Mann sought to keep much of that secret and it basically took an act of Congress to pry it out after which various statisticians were able to show the errors of logic. Until ALL the processes involved in Marcott et al are revealed such that others are able to replicate their results we can't be sure they've found something real as opposed to some artefact of the data.

In proper science, replicating results is absolutely critical. In climate science alone, they demand the right to stop people trying to replicate their results.

Frankly I'm perfectly comfortable if it turns out that they are right or even in the ballpark. Anything that says that 3000 of the last 12000yrs were hotter than now is fine by me and fits very well with my view that the current warming is largely or entirely natural.

If there is a paradox between Quantum Mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity, why should it be surprising that there would be apparent paradoxes between various theories of Climatology?

The physical world is telling us a story, if only we were bright enough to join the dots.

Causation and the mechanics of Entropy and Resilience - the human experiment is not a one-sided equation, nor in a vacuum. Action begets reaction. If it quacks like a duck .... A knife will cut you, no matter how many times, or how fervently you try to convince yourself you are impervious. Time we worked harder to join those annoying dots.

So what did you mean when you wrote " the authors intend to keep their data and methods secret", mhaze?

It's pretty clear that they are doing neither.

There is a difference between reproducing results and duplicating the same result using exactly the same code etc. There is no point in duplication, as that proves nothing. But if you run through a similar analysis using different code and the same datasets, and come up with the same answer, then that becomes more robust. And publishable. But that would require work and actually thinking through the problem, which you guys couldn't be bothered doing.

Bugsy wrote: "So what did you mean when you wrote " the authors intend to keep their data and methods secret", mhaze?"

By "their data" I meant the raw data after it'd been through their adjustment mechanisms.

After questions raised by McIntyre and others and potential discoveries of errors and/or rather questionable practices in regards to this new HS graph, the authors are now writing and new set of FAQ's to explain what they did. Some are already calling for the paper to be withdrawn.

Several questions arise from the need for this new FAQ posting:

* if, as you previously snidely asserted, they had fully published their methodology, why the need for this 2nd supplementary paper? I accept your apology with grace. :)

* the bigger question is why they only now have to do this? Why didn't the reviewers raise these same questions? I'm assuming that, as with much of climate science, peer review will turn out to be peer rubber-stamping.

"There is no point in duplication, as that proves nothing." Oh dear Bugsy, you really don't understand, do you? It is vital to duplicate (replicate) results to check the methodology. By using the same data and same processes, checkers can determine (1) if there were errors in the calculations (2) if the processes where correctly applied and (3) fully understand the validity or otherwise of the processes. Most science relies completely on replication of results to ensure experiments and results are valid. Climate science on the other hand....

The best example of this was the recent Gergis et al paper which was finally pulled after checkers (ie McIntyre again!) found errors that the peer reviews somehow missed.

These people (the warmists) are becoming desperate as the climate refuses to tow-the-line. If they issued a paper saying the sun rises in the east, I'd want it checked.

bugsy wrote :Also, make sure you have plenty of tissues, drawn the curtains and wash your hands afterwards."
Very evocative prose there. Do I detect the voice of experience?