Replies

However, your decision that the paper has a "devastating" number of errors is meaningless. Unless you have suddenly become a scientific reviewer in the field which doesn't seem to be the case.

I did not say it had a devastating number of errors. I did say that the errors it did have combined with poor methodology and a lack of understanding of what some of the papers were measuring to provide a devastating combination. Lets be clear. Any paper can have a small error. For example Soon classifies Mann'a 99 paper as a global indication when we have all agreed that it really is a reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere. That is a minor error.

However saying that a papers shows no climatic anomaly in the 20th century when the paper days that "the warming in recent decades is unprecedented relative to the past millennium." is beyond a minor error!

In regards to how we got onto S&B as opposed to the Hockeystick, again that was not me who changed the topic thread. S&B was presented as a solid piece of research by WOSG (and I believe you liked it the first read through). So I think it is fair of me to examine it.

The "complexity" of those statistics (which you first used as a sword and then as a shield) makes it impractical to critique them.

Impractical! Is that an appeal to ignorance as well? Now I don't feel so bad. However I can agree that we probably would not be able to go much further with Mann.

Instead I would like to address the concerns that you raised in post 140 by presenting the paper Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 years by Marcela A. Cioccale. I have just given the paper a read and I have found nothing to support a MWP warmer than today. As I said, it has been only a quick read so I am interested in your review.

Instead I would like to address the concerns that you raised in post 140 by presenting the paper Climatic Fluctuations in the Central Region of Argentina in the last 1000 years by Marcela A. Cioccale.

Fine with me. I haven't found the paper so if you have a link please post it.

It's better to debate these source papers than reviews like Mann's or Soon's so we don't get caught up in "what he said" games. I am interested in the facts not in reparsing Soon's words. But try to keep in mind there are a lot of papers representing a lot of climate anomalies including a fair number pointing to warming for MWP equal to or greater than today's. You are more than welcome to point out any that point to less warming or cooling in the MWP anywhere on earth, but naturally those should be source analyses of temperature proxies. In other words reread WOSG's post 101 and answer his points without evading the issue like you did in post #105.

In other words you have yet to show ANY evidence that temperatures were cooler in the MWP anywhere than they are today.