If they want to know more about this issue from the sceptical side, then I recommend they go to either
http://wattsupwiththat.com/ or
http://climateaudit.org/ and enter "Marcott" in the search box.
The 'wattsup' site is run by a
weatherman and 'climateaudit' was founded by a long-time
mining industry executive, both of whom have ties to the fossil fuel industry.
For those interested in genuine scientific inquiry and analysis as it relates to global warming, I highly recommend
Skeptical Science and
RealClimate. Skeptical Science has a some useful pages that list the common climate myths that the skeptics frequently promulgate. There are three pages with different formats:
Argument,
Popularity, and
Taxonomy. If someone tries to con you with lies about global warming you can go to one of those pages to look up what the truth actually is. As of today there's 154 myths listed.
Of course, you yourself wouldn't resort to mudslinging about McKitrick, who besides being an economist is a rather good statistician, and climate science could do with a lot more of those.
Pointing out McKitrick’s profession and affiliations isn’t “mudslinging”, it’s stating undisputed facts. If you were truly proud of his background you would have said my pointing out his allegiances was a
compliment. You didn’t do that.
If not arguing in good faith means I don't have faith in the church of global warming, paint me pink with purple stripes and call me guilty, for I certainly don't.
No, that’s not what it means. It means: not obfuscating. You’re a flagrant violator in that regard as I pointed out in my previous posts.
Your faith is touching, but it shouldn't be a matter of faith at all.
Huh? You mean my
good faith? That just means I debate honestly.
Save your faux and stilted indignation on this issue, it doesn't wash.
Why so skeptical about my “indignation”? It’s one of my emotions that I don’t have any trouble genuinely feeling and expressing. Trust me, it’s real.
Whatever you say, Marcott created the impression that the graph came solely from the proxy data, and that was the thing that everyone got excited about: for if it could independently duplicate the actual C20th instrumental record, that would validate the pre-C20th proxy record he came up with.
You might have gotten that "impression", but how would you
know, really? You obviously didn’t read their paper. As far as “everyone” getting “excited about” it is concerned, I think we all know by now who those people are. You cite them exclusively all the time…they're the ones that bring conclusions that don't have any scientific merit. Also, Marcott was specifically asked about this just a couple of weeks after the publication of his paper and he unequivocally stated that the 20th century data came from the instrument record as I previously pointed out. The fact that denial blogs didn't discuss it is their own doing. I'm certain that it was premeditated...or was that also a conspiracy?
But Marcott says the record shows just how unusual our current warming is. "It's really the rates of change here that's amazing and atypical," he says. -- NPR
The above is a true statement based upon best available evidence that we have today.
Marcott neglected to tell NPR his methodology did not recognize ‘fast’ century changes at all–until recent thermometer records were spliced onto the 73 paleosites. -- Rud Istvan
That above assertion is incorrect. I’m sure that
some "fast" temperature excursions go undetected with the methodology that Marcott et al. used. However, given a large enough spike the signal can be detected. Instead of Rud proclaiming "at all", he would have been more correct to say: "...not recognize 'fast' century changes
less than X degrees".
"Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper." -- Marcott
The question is how big of an uptick is required to register? I don't know the answer to that. I saw that Taminio posted some
interesting work that he's done in that regard which may provide further insight into this.
Michael, I've linked to that
ridiculous video that you previously posted along with the recent
Shakun-Marcott reconstruction (Figure 1) that I posted in response to it so people can see the genesis of the current debate that we're having.