Say, About That “It’s Hottest In 4,000 Years” Study…

…it continues to fall apart, as do most activist studies. And, it is an activist study, with such prognostication as “Over the coming decades (temperatures) are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age.” That’s part of the “reproduction.” Shaun Marcott, the study author, referred to “skeptics” as a “troll army.” Obviously, like most Climate Astrologers, he’s not happy about seeing his work put under a microscope. You know, which is what science is about.

Anyhow, here’s Dr. Don Easterbrook at Watts Up With That?

As in Part I, this segment analyzes the Marcott et al. conclusions using the scientific method of Feynman in which conclusions are checked against well-established data from other sources,. As Feynman points out, if a hypothesis (conclusion) disagrees with observations and data, it is wrong. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful the hypothesis (conclusion) is, how smart the author is, or what the author’s name is, if it disagrees with data or observations, it is wrong.

Dr. Easterbrook compares the Marcott “data” to all the existing real world data, and finds

The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., it is are wrong.


The Marcott et al. conclusion that “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years” is clearly contrary to measured real-time data and thus fails the Feynman test, i.e., their conclusion is wrong.

All you Believers can certainly attack Dr. Easterbrook personally, but the data is the data. But, but, but, Easterbrook is a “denier”!!!! What about Warmist Steve McIntyre?

Marcott et al 2013 has received lots of publicity, mainly because of its supposed vindication of the Stick. A number of commenters have observed that they are unable to figure out how Marcott got the Stick portion of his graph from his data set. Add me to that group.

The uptick occurs in the final plot-point of his graphic (1940) and is a singleton. I wrote to Marcott asking him for further details of how he actually obtained the uptick, noting that the enormous 1920-to-1940 uptick is not characteristic of the underlying data. Marcott’s response was unhelpful: instead of explaining how he got the result, Marcott stated that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”. I agree that the 20th century portion of their reconstruction is “not robust”, but do not feel that merely describing the recent portion as “not robust” does full justice to the issues. Nor does it provide an explanation.

Virtually everything about the study is completely different from hundreds of other reconstructions (which all tend to be close to each other) based on real world data. Even NY Times Warmist Andrew Revkin wrote “This work is complicated, involving lots of statistical methods in extrapolating from scattered sites to a global picture, which means that there’s abundant uncertainty”. In other words, the science can’t stand under the sunshine of reality.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Say, About That “It’s Hottest In 4,000 Years” Study…”

  1. Gumball_Brains says:

    I read the article over at WUWT. Great analysis and takedown over sham feaux-science.

    It is rather amazing how far we have fallen once again to shaming people who believe the world is round instead of the consensus idea that the world is flat.

    And now, we are shaming scientists who claim that computer models are NOT real world data.

    And our media, ever the most knowledgeable ones, refuse to question how computer models can predict 100 years from now, when they can’t predict the past or 3 days from now.

  2. john says:

    hahaha look the US NAVY says that it is going to continue to get warmer and the reason is because of greenhouse gases. Until you climate change deniers can prove that the very conservative US Navy knows less about what is going on then D. Easterbrook, then I”m just gonna have to GO NAVY. The last Pope was a “warmist” who put solar panels all over teh Vatican. Dude EVERYBODY except for the same people who don’t believe in evolution, the actual age of the Earth, or think Adam and Eve were the first humans, realizes that the planet is getting wqarmer. And each degree warmer smalla s it may seem, has a big effect. if teh temp drops 4C we get a new ice age.

  3. Gumball_Brains says:

    The Navy is not conservative. It is not political, except for the highly political appointed senior administration officials. The same ones who now are trying to suck up to Obama for extra monies.

    if teh temp drops 4C we get a new ice age.

    It is strange that you feel this way since you are proclaiming global warming, yet our temps have actually been decreasing over the last decade.

    Funny thing data is.

  4. John, the data doesn’t lie. People do. And you are unable to provide scientific data that rebuts Easterbrook, just your tired old meme about the Navy, which I’m not going to bother with. Insults. Demagoguery. But no science.

  5. Gumball_Brains says:

    If anyone still thinks there is sanity left in the Navy, let this dispel those fool notions right now.

    In questions regarding the state of affairs surrounding North Korea, Iran, Mid-East, Afghanistan, Iraq, S. Pacific hostilities, his only response is to fret over the nonexistent island flooding.

    There is no sanity at play here.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6059 access attempts in the last 7 days.