Yes, the press release for the Marcott et al result was overblown.
The press release claimed that
“But when you combine data from sites around the world, you can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear sense of the Earth’s global temperature history.”
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit–until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.”
Of course, that goes beyond what the new research actually showed – its data for the past 100 years being inconclusive according to the authors. To actually attach the blade to the hockey stick, as shown in various schematics on this website and elsewhere, requires reference to other data, and extrapolates a bit beyond the information collected in the study.
This is scandalous, of course. The authors clarify:
Thus, 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. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval.
Roger Pielke Jr. is mild in his condemnation of this outrage:
the gross misrepresentation of the findings of a recent scientific paper via press release …appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC
But more courageous readers take it further:
I never ceases to amaze me by how much Real Climate Science (TM) is intellectually bankrupt.
Criticism by “he how[sic] must not be named” (“accusations from the usual suspects”) that forced them to react, yet they don’t even have the decency to link these “accusations”? So people would have a chance of finding out first hand what is “accusation” and what is valid criticism? To borrow a term I read from a proponent of RealClimateScience: “They rabidly hate linking to ClimateAudit.”
No word about the radio silence from RealClimate, yet “Readers will be aware of the paper”? I would say that even in their very first words they try to move the pea already.
Talking about the entire holocene, the holocene, and the early holocene in the intro paragraph, while linking to a hit-piece by the NYT that focuses on the blade of the hockey stick? Don’t look there, look here? Let the media focus on the (rotten) blade, we talk about how solid the rest of the stick is?
To paraphrase Bill Hicks:
Misrepresent your study like that, you’re off the scientific roll call forever. End of story. Everything you say is suspect. Every word that comes out of your mouth is like a t*rd falling into my drink.
But the defeat of climate science is only just beginning. A featured comment on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth comes highly recommended by readers. It says:
Ultimately, the real scandal here is not the Marcott paper alone. This is just one of several highly dubious papers coming out of the climatology profession, led, of course by Michael Mann’s thoroughly repudiated “Hockey Stick” theory of catastrophic global climate warming caused by the rise of a few hundred parts per million of CO2.
No wonder the public has tuned out global warming alarmism, followed by politicians who don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of so-called “settled science”.
And with this, the conspiracy crumbles.
There never was paleoclimate data showing that recent years have been very unstable compared to the Holocene. The Medieval Warm period turns out to have been global and worldwide, and its absence from any data is demonstrably a “trick”. What is more, CO2 only accounts for a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect, which is saturated anyway and in any case does not exist. The warming which has been melting glaciers and sea ice is absolutely normal and comparable to past warmings and does not exist anyway, as expanding Antarctic sea ice proves we are cooling. Climate models are absolutely wrong, except insofar as they show a tropical “hot spot” is a necessary consequence of global warming, and satellite remote observations are wrong insofar as they are based on the same theory as the greenhouse effect is, except insofar as they show there is no “hot spot”. Anyway it’s all due to the second derivative of phase shifted cosmic rays, and any correlation to CO2 is based on cherry picking. Also it’s all a hoax, which has led to unprecedented funding levels of climate so-called scientists, who all drive Ferraris between their luxurious laboratories and their various mansions.
Okay, guys, you win. There was a press release which went a bit beyond the paper itself, and lots of people, this site included, went along with that way of looking at it. That proves everything we ever said was wrong, and emitting CO2 is entirely safe, and the sensitivity is less than a fifth of the IPCC range if it exists at all, and it’s all a hoax whose main purpose is to embarass Senator Inhofe.
Pay no attention to the atmospheric circulation in the Arctic this winter. It’s in on the hoax too.
Also, even if human action were sufficient to disrupt climate that never ever ever has any effect on any weather event. And Malthus has been mathematically proven wrong, too.
What’s more, the RealClimate article was published on Easter Sunday, which proves something or other.
So everyone should be grateful that a little too much spin in a press release has finally, totally and ultimately revealed the intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called Global Warming hoax.
This site will now shift its focus to reviewing vintage video games. Coming up: QBert – hero or victim?
UPDATE: The conspiracy really is coming apart! Peter Gleick reportsa sign error has hidden the prospect of massive global cooling!