http://www.thegwpf.org/ross-mckitrick-sc...
This question demonstrates you have no clue on what the issue is. Here it is in bullet points:
1. We know mean global surface temperature has risen sharply over the last 100 years from the instrumental record.
2. We know that rise looks fairly unique over the last 1500 years, the BEST study (among many others) demonstrated this.
3. The paleo reconstruction from Marcott et al. shows that comparing the recent rise to temperatures going back 10,000 years, it looks really anomalous.
4. The comparison in 3 is independent of whether or not Marcott got the last 100 years correct, because they got the previous 9900 years correct.
5. We know 4, or are fairly certain of it, because Marcott et al. compares well to BEST (among many others) over the period they overlap.
So, the question you should ask is even if Marcott et al. is wrong over the past 100 years, how is it wrong for the 9900 years before that? Are you in fact using something that isn't relevant to mask something that is fairly inconvenient for you? No, don't answer, you won't be honest anyway.
edit: Mike, you really aren't concerned that these are the people "in your corner?" Are you so far gone you don't follow the logic above and that this question and Jim's comment don't make you pause just a little and think "Wait. What did he just say?" Do you really want to be associated with this side of the issue? I mean, to find supporting information for my case I troll Science, Nature, GRL, JGR, Journal of Physical Chemistry and so forth. You quote blog posts by guys who believe in dowsing. There is a reason you are so defensive, and it's because deep down you realize you are being made a fool of by guys like McIntyre and Lindzen, who are making money off of your fear.
edit: it was the "among many others" you should have keyed in on. See here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
It's confusing, I know. See, I expect you to be able to reason, find data on your own, and draw conclusions from that data, stuff that real scientists do all the time, and I forget you all don't have the intellectual tools for that. It's more like dribbling information out of a rodent water bottle, where it has to come in manageable drops or you can't cope. So you're right, it's all the other reconstructions that show temperature back to 1500 years or so ago, of which BEST supports the previous 150 years, and that Marcott et al. are cross-calibrated by the others. So the train of logic is:
1. You should trust BEST because he was a skeptic
2. BEST shows the final 150 years of the 1500 year reconstructions are accurate
3. Nearly all of the 1500 year reconstructions demonstrate the warming is anomalous
4. Marcott and the 1500 year reconstructions agree where they overlap prior to 100 years ago
5. So the main conclusions in Marcott are correct, that in terms of the last 10,000 years, temperature is doing something funny.
This might still be too confusing for you, or a message you aren't ready to hear emotionally, like when you found out that Santa wasn't real, or that your dad had to have had sex with your mom to produce you (reportedly, anyway). Let me know if I have to simplify this further for you and I apologize for assuming you could add 2 and 2 on your own.
This is a trick question. Of course, the answer is to both re-date AND use different types of data.
With 2/3 of our CO2 emissions coming in the last 35 years but no warming for the last 17 years, it should be painfully clear to even the most die-hard adherents of CAGW that our CO2 emissions are not the primary driver of climate or even particularly significant.
What's my prize?
For me it is like you place the Piltdown Man Skull on a Neanderthal skeleton and name him Fred and then ask another paleontologist if his new fossil Neanderthal skeleton confirmed Fred.
GC, I am not in the least surprised my comment went over your head. You have no problem mixing proxies. You imply the recent rise is anything other than ordinary. That is because you blindly follow Mann and Hansen and drink any KoolAid they serve you because you don't have any intellectual curiosity or scientific skepticism.
gcnp58 recently asked if skeptics would reject the results if a BEST study confirms Marcott's paper.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al786vsW385wE9WA9qVr2RwHOXRG;_ylv=3?qid=20130402120957AANFg15
There are only two ways I could think of for them to get the same 20th century rise in temps like Marcott did.
1) Redate the alkenone core tops like Marcott did to get a false uptick in the 20th century. Since alarmists are so concerned with "science" (ha!), and most people would consider this fraud, would this be an acceptable way to "confirm" a paper?
(I guess it would confirm that the 20th century uptick was fraudulent and I would accept that)
2) String together short term instrumental data over long term proxy data like Mann did since "hiding the decline" using this method is also acceptable in climatology (you know, because they are so concerned with being scientificky like). I don't think it would confirm the results of Marcott since it is a different method than he used, but it would give an uptick to the 20th century temp reconstruction.
Which method do you think would be the best way to 'confirm' Marcott's paper. Fraudulently re date the core tops or string together two different types of data?
