"Marcot's paper showed early Holocene warming that is massively dwarfed by our warming by 2050. Conclusion?"

Here's what Marcott said about the instrument data he tacked onto the end of his data....
"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Conclusion?

"Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century."

"We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution. "

But what would he know? He's just the lead author of the paper.

I know you need to find some way to reject this data. You need to get more creative. I heard that his dog once smelled the butt of a dog owned by a bloke whose girlfriend's father worked for an oil company. Doesn't that prove he's a denier? or something?

" he shows us how to "Do the Math!" on the amount of fossil fuels left."

Careful there Max. Remember the last time you started down this "do the Math" rubbish. I did the math...and showed you to be an utter nong...and a little while later you skedaddled the site.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18793#335172

"4 degrees would be WAY bad!"

Well if you understood anything about the whole RCP issue, you'd realise that 4c is only predicted by RCP8.5 (you know, the one you thought was the more recent one...still laughing about that one) and that RCP8.5 is an utterly unrealistic scenario that is roundly debunked. Its just a scary fairy-tale used to frighten the children.

"But how wonderfully narcissistic of you to assume I was talking about you! No dude."

Well you addressed the post to me AND you used the second-person pronoun AND you used the second-person possessive determiner. Wow, I wonder why I thought you were talking to me </sarc>.

Really, is it so hard to just say "whoops" and move on?

Every year there are thousands of papers written and published on climate science and the whole AGW saga.

The vast majority are published in journals that are paywalled or are in other languages. Even then there are literally dozens of such publications, too many to monitor.

Soooo, we are all reliant on others to draw our attention to important new papers and data and to summarise the findings when its in other languages or paywalled sites.

Now, it ought to be very obvious that sites that lean alarmist are unlikely to cover or draw attention to any paper that might challenged the alarmist's dogma. Equally, sites that lean skeptic are unlikely to cover or draw attention to any paper that might support the alarmist's dogma.

Therefore, to fully understand what's going on, you have to look at sites that are from both angles. If you want to understand religion from all viewpoints, you don't just go to Vatican.com, n'est pas?

But when you have someone (let's call him Max), who simply refuses to look at any site that leans skeptic, that Max is basically cutting himself off from all non-alarmist data. So he can't possibly see any of the significant number of Chinese papers that challenge alarmism, or the Russian scientists, or any of the large number of western scholarship that challenges the IPCC-worldview.

Its no longer a search for truth but instead a search for confirmation. And it means that lots of data gets missed. I'd imagine that the vast majority of skeptic sites I've seen cover the RCP issue at some point. But clearly the alarmists don't cover it, because it causes one to question the IPCC projections.

The thing is that its no real value discussing these issues with the likes of Max, especially when the attitude is that not only does he dispute the data, he refuses to even look at the data. If he just regurgitates the stuff from a few selected alarmist sites and abhors all other data, I'm better off just going directly to those sites and cut out the middle man.

Fin.

The thing that constantly confuses me is that mhaze has no training in science yet puts himself forward as the great messiah of the scientific world.

In fact, outside of accountancy or something like that, he has absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to a genuine scientific debate. He is an absolute joke to the scientific community. He is what I now call a climate witch.

All the little Greta Thunbergs who are now pouring into the streets will be looking for every climate witch they can put their hands on. The days of the climate witches are coming to an end. Goodbye Hasbeen, Goodbye ttbn, individual, Loudmouth, mhaze, Bazz, and the long list of other denialists. Your days of fake science are over.

MHAZE,
POST 1: DO THE MATH
just a few posts back you had issues grasping context I attacked your leaders’ conspiracies and you made it all about you. Today you're doing the same thing.

Deniers have a common strawman argument where they say “OK, show me the workings!” and demand laypeople like myself run out the climate math. If I can’t do it, victory! That’s about the same as if MHAZE had cancer and I tried to refer him to the oncologist that saved me and MHAZE returned the favour by saying “Go on, show me the chemical pathways behind every chemo drug he gave you or I’m not believing it!”

MHAZE, if you want to gloat at my climate ineptitude go ahead. Let me shout it from the rooftops!

DISCLAIMER: I NEVER SAID I WAS AN EXPERT, JUST THAT I READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF THE EXPERTS!

Happy now? I’m not a scientist, but a layperson with a humanities background. I have always said this! I have a background in welfare work. My main qualification is an Advanced Diploma in the Social Sciences, some time as a Child Protection Officer, and even time in the army.

Go ahead, gloat away! But any time you do I’ll just call you “Context boy!” because that’s where you seem most challenged. Post 2 will show how utterly wrong you are to suggest I EVER claimed I could run the math!

....

Mr O you need to understand, some Queenslanders are indeed many years behind the rest of the country
Truth is regarded as an illness if it is not your version of truth
How can I put this? been for a Sunday drive, in to not coastal shopping center then round scrub forest and farmland
Some grazing property see the grass gone, whole paddocks dead stubble not a thing to eat
Cattle on the roads eating the always better roadside grass it too will soon be gone
By this long hot summers end [it has been 5 months old now] this country will ask why no sub tropical rainfall in the north
Why is the water so cold off Indonesia? they say no meaningful rain until February!