Hogeye wrote: Therefore, all his published reconstructions contradict the Hockey Stick theory.
DAR
Of course that's false. See the chart I provided and the link to the other one, representing the work of ten different studies. And there are others. There is very strong consensus. You don't have that for your position. Not even close. You quote one sea captain, with one unreferenced chart.
HOGEYE
Yet Stefan illogically concludes, "Even without Mann et al, we’d still be stuck with a “hockey stick” type of curve."
DAR
That's obviously a logical conclusion considering the evidence. See above. Your rebuttal is basically a non-response, well except for your sea captain.
And this, from the link I provided above but you apparently didn't read.
***
In each case, the authors find that the most widespread warmth by far is evident during the mid and late 20th century. The conclusion is not especially surprising, as nearly all previous peer-reviewed studies over the past decade find that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a millennial or longer context. Indeed, the curve they produce (Figure 2)--with a modest negative trend over most of the past millennium ending in a dramatic positive 20th century spike--might be likened in shape to a certain implement used in a popular North American winter sport. But we digress...
It is not so much the conclusion, but the approach that the authors use to reach their conclusion, that is most important about this latest study. The authors take advantage of a very straightforward analysis of climate proxy data, avoiding the highly technical and arcane issues of statistical calibration and methodology that are so frequently seized upon by those who dispute that recent large-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term context. This paper adds to the mounting weight of evidence that such warmth is indeed anomalous in at least a millennial context. We doubt that this, or for that matter, any study will silence the increasingly small but persistently vocal minority of contrarians who continue to challenge this conclusion. But to them, we offer the reminder that paleoclimate evidence comprises only one of many independent lines of evidence indicating a primary role of human activity in modern climate change. If the only line of evidence that remains in dispute pertains to estimated millennial temperature histories, then the case for denialism appears extremely weak indeed.
Source
***
HOGEYE
While it is true that his cherry-picked reconstructions show the MWP peak less than the end-20th century peak, he conveniently ignores this one and others like it:
[img]snip%20sea%20captain%20chart[/img]
DAR
You mean he ignores your sea captain's unreferenced chart and instead refers to the pile of work done by real scientists? I am shocked.
The references for the chart provided above are as follows. Try showing they are "cherry-picked" rather than just asserting this as a matter of convenience:
***
The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:
1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814 .
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046
HOGEYE
(Note: the RealClimate critique of McIntyre and McKitrick ducks M&M's main objections.)
DAR
Your miner and economist, are both connected to money from Exxon and the stated goal to muddle the debate by confusing the public. To quote Exxon, from the site you provided:
"Victory will be achieved when uncertainties in climate science become part of the conventional wisdom" for "average citizens" and "the media."
This fellows are nicely dealt with here in a polite and professional way:
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
And here:
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
More roast here:
"The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998) temperature reconstruction have recently been discredited by the following peer-reviewed article to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate":
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, in press (2005)."
LINK
More here from Nature magazine:
"The 10th Feb edition of Nature has a nice paper "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data" by Anders Moberg, DM. Sonechkin, K Holmgren, NM Datsenko, & W Karlin (doi:10.1038/nature03265). This paper takes a novel approach to the problem of reconstructing past temperatures from paleoclimate proxy data. A key result is a reconstruction showing more century-scale variability in mean Northern Hemisphere temperatures than is shown in previous reconstructions. This result will undoubtedly lead to much discussion and further debate over the validity of previous work. The result, though, does not fundamentally change one of the most discussed aspected of that previous work: temperatures since 1990 still appear to be the warmest in the last 2000 years."
LINK
This discussion of the above is useful too:
LINK
And of course you beating on the hockey stick with the little sea captain article just shows you like to repeat the Hockey stick Myth #1:
"MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in "Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called 'Hockey Stick'").
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
In fact, you keep repeating all of these myths about the hockey stick over and over again. Why do you do this?
There have been at least 27 back and forth exchanges between M&M and real climatoligists so it is important to stay up to date on the latest. I have shared this link with you before so no need to send it along again.
HOGEYE
I provided you with a list of scientists.
DAR
I wish you were joking. You, quite foolishly and no doubt by accident, provided a list of people who were compiled into a list for one specific reason: they are to some degree on the dole of Exxon money. Perhaps that is an important qualification for you. And how embarrassing! These people shill for the oil industry and get some bucks, yet you are such a true believer, you ply this crap for free!
So you think you have a list of scientists. Okay let me grab one at random from your list and check them out. Jeff Keuter, president of this Marshall Institute, which according to your link shows:
"The George C. Marshall Institute received $185,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for "Climate Change Public Information and Policy Research" in 2002-2003."
First google hit on Jeff the "scientist" gives:
"Jeff Kueter. President, The George C. Marshall Institute. Mr. Jeff Kueter received his BA in Political Science and Economics at the University of Iowa"
Perfect credentials for a rightwing oil industry
bullshit artist. Nothing whatsoever to do with climate science or anything close however. Try again. Should I check the others? What's the point? Ever wonder why the oil industry has to pay people to believe this poop? Far right freemarket types do it for free.
HOGEYE
So you moved the goal posts and ask for climatologists only now.
DAR
No, one wouldn't need to be a climatologists, but don't you think it would be appropriate to have someone with proper training in the field in question? I certainly do but since you have almost none, this is perhaps a clue to why you instead appeal to economists, sea captains, miners, political science majors and any rightwing crack pot who can paste a chart together. Good grief.
HOGEYE
And then engage in argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. I'll admit, I kind of baited you - just to see if you could resist the ad hom thing.
DAR
Sorry. I'm not buying it. I have seen too much sloppy research from you to think you didn't just google something close to "climate skeptics", grabbed this list and didn't bother to read that they were actually all on this list only because they are connected to Exxon money.
HOGEYE
Obviously, where someone's paycheck comes from is irrelevent to the truth or falsity of their claims.
DAR
Sorry, in the real world, money talks and profoundly influences things. Reality does not always proceed along in nice precise syllogisms. This "sprinkling of the latin" (I have long noticed how professors of philosophy often use the English titles or common expressions for fallacies because they are trying to teach rather than posture) is just a (rather common) debate tactic you hide your junk science behind. At least I now have you spelling your fallacies correctly.
A good analogy here would be the tobacco industry who similarly funded scientists to provide bogus information. And the pool of whores got smaller and smaller until I think there is just one left ("Colonel Joe" in Pea Ridge still denies there is a link between cigarettes and cancer. He regularly appears on a local radio show). While of course, in a strict syllogism, it does not follow necessarily, without exception, that the millions Exxon has invested in this overt and well exposed propaganda and bogus research effort has influenced this fine group of rightwing think tank political science majors (LOL), but only a fool would think it has not. Ditto the tobacco industry efforts which are now routinely laughed at. And with good reason.
And do remember, to quote your link:
"The company [Exxon] would recruit and train new scientists who lack a "history of visibility in the climate debate" and develop materials depicting supporters of action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as "out of touch with reality."
HOGEYE
Saying that Mann gets money from the NSF (or Baliunas from Exxon) and therefore everything they say is wrong would of course be classic poisoning the well.
DAR
I would never, ever, say "everything they say is wrong." But in these cases of demonstrated Exxon payola, it is prudent to be
extra, extra suspect of their claims. Oh, and their consistent lack of expertise on the topic in question is a red flag too. That's a no brainer. Comparing Mann's receiving funding from a science foundation to do his work, is simply laughable. People driven by money and greed (I know that is a virture in the Ayn Rand cult) usually don't sign up for the hard and tedious work of being a scientist. Whoring for rightwing industry pays much better.
D.
