Also, what exactly is incorrect, shoddy, scandalous about the Mann et al reconstruction?
It's takes balls (or stupidity) to block someone then answer that person's question.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=temperature+reconstruction&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C6&as_sdtp=
Reconstructions of temperature, Pat, what else would I mean?
Gringo
Favorite Answer
Because they haven't got a clue what they are talking about and most of the time they just repeat the BS they read over at WUWT and other deniers blogs. The recent question here on the use of proxy data instead of publishing the real temperatures is a good example of just how incredibly stupid some of them are.
Edit: read Pat's very recent answer to that same question. It's hilarious: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agrejjo8HfJdYNC6pdTTPoj_5nNG;_ylv=3?qid=20120821223143AAidnSE
@ Ottawa Mike:
Your John Daly link features the very same schematic chart discussed here on YA only yesterday. Contrary to Daly's claim, the figure he displays at the top of his article was NOT presented by the IPCC in their 1990 report. You can check for yourself at page 202 at the link provided below. [1] The original chart published clearly noted that the time-scale used represented "Years Before Present" which in scientific terms mean "up until 1950". [2]
It therefor did not reflect the additional 40 years of warming up to 1990 as many, Daly included, wrongly assumed (and sadly many still do even when it clearly states "Years Before Present"). This minor misunderstanding is the whole basis of Daly's argument and that of a large part of the denial community who scream and shout that the hockey-stick is wrong and that IPCC suppressed the MWP in its next report (which did include the latest decades of warming). All because they do not comprehend a basic scientific term.
@Pat
Out of curiosity, why did you block me? You signed up to YA while I was virtually inactive here so it could not have been because of some encounter you and I have had.
Anonymous
It was a lie based on manipulated data, but this does NOT mean we should treat our planet with the contempt we do... however it does show that there is a VERY different agenda from the one we are being bullshitted with by the mainstream media, just underneath the surface. The J-curve hypothesis HAS been discredited, try the UK magazine New Scientist, which references sources from the Royal Society (a highly respected UK scientific body). The e-mails show that data is being suppressed, twisted and manipulated... WHY? The only thing we CAN all agree on is that our politicians have been lying through their teeth, THEY are responsible for the poor state of our planet, deforestation, species loss etc - and this proves they cannot be trusted as far as we can throw them!
ChemFlunky
Probably for much the same reason that a lot of them are still going on and on about Al Gore. If they can make it all about one old reconstruction, movie, et cetera that has subsequently been shown to have some flaws (like most science more than 10 years old... one of the cool things about science is that scientists keep going back and correcting past errors...), then they don't have to pay attention to all the *other* evidence saying the same thing.
And it is likely that the errors in the Mann reconstruction are the kind of minor errors (relative to current data) that you would *expect* of a graph that was using less data than is available today.
Anonymous
Denialists love to have a villain. They would rather pretend that the hypothesis of today being a period of rapid change after 1,000 years of climate stability is just something that Mann made up, rather than one which has been confirmed by many other studies.
OM
LOL! You use a link which shows an obsolete graph.
Anonymous
Don't worry Gringo, Pat has blocked me from answering their questions too ... would suggest that perhaps you got too many thumbs up, or didn't agree with his opinion.
What I love about the John Daly BLOG is that instead of publishing his results/critique of the graph in a respected scientific journal (which is the place for scientifically arguing such matters) he has gone to a blog post instead (where he has to face no scientific critique or credibility to defend). Could it be because he has no credenitals, experience or expertise in climatic sciences, mathematics, modelling or statistics?
Note most answers also haven't focused on the alternatives ... sort of says a lot doesn' it.