The Marcott “Abrupt Warming” Meme Dying A Slow Death

Will The AP, NY Times, and others (The Global Warming Policy Foundation has an interesting list with quotes) who published the findings of the Marcott paper retract their stories and publish updates, since the “science” of the Marcott paper are entirely in question? Here’s Bjørn Lomborg

3 weeks ago, a paper in Science showed the last 11,000 years of temperature. The claim, that went around the world was one of “an abrupt warming in the last 100 years”, as the New York Times put it.

Today, the researchers admit this claim was wrong. The last hundred years is not only below the resolution of the reconstruction, but also not representative:

the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

If you don’t want to believe, Lomborg, how about the NY Times’ resident Warmist, Andrew Revkin? That quote comes from Revkin’s NY Times article. What we were told was that the warming over the last 100 years was the biggest and most abrupt during the last 11,000 years. Now, after all the media pushed that meme, one of the authors, Jeremy Shakun, has told us “well, not so much.”

That’s UN IPCC lead author Richard Tol.

Roger Pielke, Jr, says the paper comes close to gross scientific misconduct, and Anthony Watts wonders when it will be retracted. And, per Pielke, Jr, here’s what happens when you removed the portion that is “not statistically robust”

To wrap up, let’s be clear: most Climate Realists are not arguing that there has been no warming (and I’ll argue with any who say there hasn’t been any): we’re arguing causation. We’re saying it is mostly or solely natural. Just like it has always been. Warmists claim it is mostly or solely anthropogenic. Why? Their main reason seems to boil down to “because we say so”.

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

8 Responses to “The Marcott “Abrupt Warming” Meme Dying A Slow Death”

  1. john says:

    Teach what “natural” causes do you think have caused this fast climate change? Certainly if you rule out greenhouse gasses you MUST provide an alternative reason for the increase.

  2. gumball_brains says:

    what “natural” causes do you think have caused this fast climate change?

    So, johnny, you read an article that states that the authors admit that their whole point of their paper was false, that they could not show any clear sign or proof of their major uptick in warming, that without that false information added on, their graph shows what is imaged in the above article, and yet you still demand reasons for why a nonexistent thing exists?

    And, after proof after proof, with even the major Global Warming Priests now coming out and saying that their models are incapable of measuring climate changes, that the warming over the last nearly 20 years has been nonexistent, you still hold on to the cultish dream that man is causing excessive warming of our global radiative ecosystem?

    Or do you just like being the antagonist? Do you get paid to antagonize against whatever position someone takes?

    Certainly if you rule out greenhouse gasses you MUST provide an alternative reason for the increase.

    That is true john. Yet, no one alive today is able to truly model the effect of today’s atmospheric gases upon our global ecosystem. We don’t fully understand the role clouds play. We don’t understand fully the role of volcanos or galactic radiation. If you can’t understand the natural process, how can you point a finger at the unknown and blame man for it?

    You and your cult are just like the witch doctors and mystics of the days of caveman and fire. You try and blame people for when it thunders as the gods reigning down judgement upon an unjust people for their unjust actions. You blame a man flapping his arms in America for hurricanes in Asia.

    You and your cult, who truly don’t understand the grand scale, the shear immensity of our wondrous known and unknown universe, try to make man to be the controllers of that universe. We are but flyspecks upon the traveling windshield of time.

    Here is a question for you johnny boy. If you and your cult blame all of the warming only on man’s CO2 production, then please explain the dips in temperatures during the 40’s, the 70’s and the last 20 years? If man is the SOLE reason for increasing warmth due to CO2, then why hasn’t the temperatures continue to climb during those periods?

    And, if CO2 and warmth is so bad, then how come life existed and came about during times when temps were 2x hotter and CO2 50x the amount of today?

    You claim to be an evolutionist. You must then believe that life evolved from a caustic soup, and that life continued and evolved during much harsher conditions than we could survive. So, if life can start and evolve and thrive then, then how come man can’t survive a 2C temperature increase in the future – if it comes at all?

  3. gumball_brains says:

    sorry for the rant, ya’ll.

  4. Excellent rant, GB. I see no need to add anything to it.

    Excpet that I’ve seen lots of Warmists try the same route as John does in comments about the story. Apparently, there must be a talking points memo going around.

  5. john says:

    Of course man is not the sole reason son. I never said it was the sole reason. Perhaps someone once said that but not me. You must be a bit well confused about that. Now some to think that snow in Denver refutes the fact that the earth is getting warmer.
    Ohh Gummie its that whole religion thing isn’t it. Religion v. science sure does get some upset especially around the Holy Day of Easter. And many humans will in fact do better if their local environments warm 2C. BUT many more will have a hard time adjusting to that change. The last ice age had temps about 4C colder and we got ice sheets to New York City. But of course humans survived that. But I think that we would both agree that an ice age is not really wanted by many.
    People have adjusted to the current temps. Stability makes life easier, instability makes things more difficult. Yes if it gets warmer we can grow crops further north but it will be more difficult than on our already established farms.
    For myself in my mid 60s it will not personally make much of a difference any changes that happen in the next 20 years will not be personally difficult for me to adjust to.
    Let’s see fewer cold water fishes and lobsters around New England (New Jersey already lost most of their lobsters in my own lifetime) more mosquitoes and other assorted bugs do to milder winters, bears not hibernating or for shorter periods, of course skating on pond ice has been over for decades, maybe bigger storms but my boat is 80 years old she has gone through enough so I am not so worried about that,
    But you know I do worry about what changes humans that already live a marginalized existence will have to go through. No I don’t worry about the top 1% but certainly the bottom 10% of the planets humans should not have to under go any more tribulations than they already do. And if that means i have to use a CFL with a cold white light instead of an incandescent with a warmer glow, well i am ready to do that.

  6. gumball_brains says:

    Comment by john
    2013-04-02 09:02:19

    Teach what “natural” causes do you think have caused this fast climate change? Certainly if you rule out greenhouse gasses you MUST provide an alternative reason for the increase.

    Ok, john. What do you propose to be the “other” reasons besides natural and man-made that could potentially cause earth to warm?

    Ok. you agree that the climate of the earth changes. Do you agree that the climate of the earth has changed prior to 1850?

    And if that means i have to use a CFL with a cold white light instead of an incandescent with a warmer glow, well i am ready to do that.

    OH COME ON! You can’t be that shallow can you? You really think that changing your bulbs to CFL will allow someone, whose mere existence is a hairs-breadth away from death due to impact\changes from nature, that your CFL bulbs will keep those changes low enough to keep from killing that person?

    You really believe that a bulb in America affects the strength of an already formed Asian Monsoon to the point that it determines if Person A will live or die?

  7. gumball_brains says:

    heh.. another post of yours now gonna be nuthin but spam.

  8. Yeah, had to go and clean, tons of spam, lots directed to this post.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6420 access attempts in the last 7 days.