re: #296 Obdicut

Let’s see:
Esper et al. (2002), Bradley et al. (2003a), Jones and Mann (2004), D’Arrigo et al. (2006)

You see those ‘et. als’ in there, by the way?

They stand for other people.

I asked for examples of charts showing we are in a period of unprecedented and continuing warming.

So why don’t you check things before you post ?

Your first example is Esper et al(2002) But that stopped at 1990. So where is the “continuing” part ? And Esper et al showed that the Medieval Warming Period was fact, that warming from mid-19th century up to their end-point of 1990 was not unprecedented. Which the work of Mann, Jones and Briffa (pivotal in IPCC reports) disguised.

co2science.org

You then mention Bradley, Jones and Mann - but they are all in the “clique” that pushed the hockey-stick case, Bradley is a supporter on various Mann papers and vice versa. Likewise Jones sometimes leads, sometimes supports - but those three names crop up time and time again as joint authors.

I was asking for examples not in the “club”. And in the context of the thread - the emphasis is on which scientists the IPCC turns to every time.

D’Arrigo et al (2006) goes up to 1997. It clearly recognises the Medieval Warming Period that is somehow “flattened” to the point of invisibility in papers by Mann, Jones, Briffa etc - and suggests that there was a minimal difference between the MWP and their reconstruction for the 1990’s. So that paper cannot be cited as support for the idea of unprecedented warming - and as it stops at 1997 it cannot be used to support the idea of CONTINUING warming.

…

I repeat. The work of Jones, Briffa and Mann (with Bradley as a collaborator) is seminal to the IPCC’s claim that we have global warming on a scale that warrants huge economic change. Leaving aside the questions that have been raised about how data points were selected, much of that work involves masses of statistical analysis. But their papers do not appear to have been verified by expert statisticians. Seldom if ever is there the sort of qualification one would expect in papers relying on statistical analysis - “these findings are subject to such-and-such a margin of error”

And if Jones/Mann/Briffa are unreliable - or unreproducable - why should there not be scepticism as to whether unprecedented and continuing Global Warming is happening ? Regardless of possible cause, regardless of suggested remedies.