Comment Re:Not climate 'skeptics' (Score 1) 504
http://www.psycontent.com/content/x005l73742463114/ Mr. BCGumby, Climate Scientist
Nothing you say is supported by the paper. The fact that it makes absolutely no statement about the last 2000 years (only 1700) should tip everybody off.
Right, I'm the one misreading the paper. Here's a direct quote:
The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly.
I said the last century's temperatures where found to not be anomalous over the last 2k years, as opposed to Mann's earlier work which found that they were. So, which method does Mann endorse?
we find in these experiments that the EIV reconstructions are significantly more skillful
So, the new EIV set is endorsed as the more accurate recreation by Mann himself.
I stated that the last century was shown in this paper to have been matched in temperature previously over the last 2k years, and I've quoted where Mann stated such about the period from 1000 through 1500.
I additionally stated, and now quoted that Mann declares ONLY the last decade to be an anomaly over the last 2k years. The SOLE extrapolation I make beyond what Mann has openly and unmistakably declared is to comment on the last decade of data available to him. I made the observation that proxy data was absent for that decade. It is noted repeatedly in the literature, if you're familiar, that proxy sources frequently have sensitivity limits. What does that mean? Simply that proxy records for the last decade could very easily be in line with the last 2k years, we don't actually know. What we DO know is that for 100% of the proxy data that Mann DID have access to, NONE of it showed anomalous warming...
Oh, and if your truly out of touch with the science, make the additional note that Mann's work is a poster child for the most pro AGW crowds out there and by nobody's imagination any form of 'questionable' nutty skeptic.
Please, point out where I misrepresented the basic science here. I haven't, and crying it's too complicated for you is evidence of nothing but your own ignorance of the matter.