I have little doubt that it is. So what? It is also INconsistent with even the IPCC's early temperature reconstructions. It also "conveniently" leaves out the MWP and the Little Ice Age...
Good grief. After Jane objected to my statement that "Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science," I showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements are consistent with those from the NAS and several peer-reviewed papers. I also showed that Dr. Hayhoe's statements were more accurate than Jane/Lonny's repeated claims about the last 6,000 years.
As usual, in response Jane simply ignores all that and jumps to the next regurgitated contrarian talking point. Jane seems to have abandoned his objection to my statement that Dr. Hayhoe is presenting mainstream science. Now, Jane is claiming mainstream science itself is inconsistent.
Once again, Jane is fractally wrong. Long ago, I shared an IPCC graph of temperature reconstructions. Note that the axes of these temperature reconstructions are labeled with actual numbers. Despite Jane's claims, Marcott et al. 2013 isn't inconsistent with IPCC reconstructions, and both Marcott et al. and the IPCC show the MWP and the Little Ice Age.
Why does Jane dispute this? Asking Jane for a link is unpleasant and unproductive, but Jane seems to be confusing the IPCC 1990 Fig 7.1(c) hand-drawn cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Note that this cartoon cites two papers, both of which are mainly about the climate in Europe, and notes "... it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global...".
Why is Jane surprised that an actual global temperature reconstruction from 2013 isn't identical to a hand-drawn cartoon from 1990 which appears to be mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe? Maybe Jane's surprised because he used to cite the "Wegman Report" before he realized they had blatantly misrepresented this cartoon by (accidentally?) adding numbers to the scale and redrawing the curve to make it look less like a cartoon.
But Wegman's (accidental?) "mistakes" don't change the fact that it was a hand-drawn cartoon mainly based on temperatures in Europe rather than the globe, and that its axis wasn't labeled with actual numbers.
It's strange that Jane confused this unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction, because Jane often criticizes graphs with no numbers and no labels on the axes. Amusingly, TapeCutter showed Jane that he was complaining about a graph that had labels with actual numbers. It's even stranger that Jane/Lonny Eachus kept complaining about "unlabeled graphs" for years after being shown a screenshot disproving his claim.
And yet, after years of baselessly complaining about unlabeled axes that he'd already been shown really did have labels, Jane confuses an unlabeled cartoon with an actual temperature reconstruction. Go figure.
But why not humor Jane? What if Jane's accusation is right, that Marcott et al. 2013 really had "conveniently" left out the MWP and the Little Ice Age? What would that imply? When Marcott et al. 2013 was published, Richard Alley responded:
"... because the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes."
So if Jane insists that the MWP and Little Ice Age anomalies in Marcott et al. 2013 are too small, without corresponding errors in radiative forcings, that implies the Earth is more sensitive to radiative forcings than originally estimated.
... and is cherry-picked to evade discussion the Holocene Optimum. As I understand it, even Young Earthers are willing to accept that the Earth might be as much as 10,000 years old. So why leave out those 4,000 years? The answer is obvious: to avoid having to discuss periods of the past that don't fit her thesis. That's called cherry-picking. ...
Nonsense, Jane. What makes you think the Holocene Optimum doesn't fit her thesis (i.e. the thesis of mainstream climate science)? 6,000 years of data are more than enough. That's roughly as old as civilization. Despite Jane's vague insinuations, an extra 4,000 years of data wouldn't really change Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream conclusions. In fact, I've told Jane that adding an extra 500 million years of data just reinforces Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream concern about rapid CO2 spikes.
Since 500 million years+ of data supports the thesis of mainstream climate science, it's unbelievably silly to insinuate that a specific 4,000 years would somehow not fit that thesis. Does Jane seriously think that Dr. Hayhoe's mainstream climate science thesis would be busted if only she'd shown those exact years? If so... why? (Keep Richard Alley's words in mind.)
If Jane could quote Dr. Hayhoe making an absurd claim like "young-earthers have some evidence" then
Of course they do. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't good evidence, and I am pretty sure most if it is quite invalid. But even very poor-quality evidence is still evidence. You might be surprised learn that the "moon landing is a fake" crowd also have some evidence. Again, it isn't good evidence but some of it took quite a bit of effort to successfully refute. And no, I don't subscribe to their view either. But neither am I a reality denier who claims there is NO such evidence. ...
Since you're repeatedly accusing people of being "reality
d***ers" again and again, aren't you worried that by using that odious label you throw away any pretense at objectivity?
Let's pretend the "moon landing is a fake" crowd has a genuine scientific hypothesis rather than conspiratorial delusions. In that case, it's not a supernatural claim like creationism so it's possible to describe them as having some evidence... if one were especially gullible. Ditto with the Obama birther and 9/11 truther crowds. Of course, Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't subscribe to their views either.
But once again none of that applies to creationism because it's a supernatural claim. Once again, evolution is testable science but creationism is religion. It's simply not possible for creationists to have any evidence, because creationism isn't testable science. Actual competing scientific hypotheses might be described as each having some evidence, but creationism doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis.
In fact, I've explained that treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science.
... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...
Huh? Jane, I simply gave you links to my previous refutations of your examples when I was responding to an actual young-earth creationist. Those examples, and all the other creationist examples I'd already refuted on that page, should suggest who's rigorously addressed the issue.
Again, I've already explained why your accusation of arguing against "very basic knowledge of statistics" is wrong: treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis would destroy science. Anyone who vaguely appeals to "basic statistics" to justify treating creationism as a scientific hypothesis which can have some evidence obviously hasn't rigorously addressed the issue of how to falsify a supernatural hypothesis.
... while you may dislike the Cornwall Alliance for whatever reasons of your own, the only "religion" in their actual position, as stated in their "what we believe" section, is here:
1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
Now, other than the stated belief that God created the world -- which, again, is central to all Christian belief -- I see nothing in that statement which is radical or unreasonable, or which actually mixes science with religion. Nor do I see such in the rest of their "What We Believe" or "What We Deny" sections. I see no evidence in those passages that the religious beliefs and the science are getting crossed up at all in the way Hayhoe garbles them together. Now, to be clear, I'm only going by that page you linked to. I know nothing else about them. Nor do I really care, since I've seen nothing to indicate the scientific position is being driven by the religious position.
Jane, you just quoted Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick and the rest of the Cornwall Alliance saying they believe recent global warming is a benign "natural cycle" because God.
Under any other circumstances, Jane would recognize that such a silly "belief" is unscientific. But it's not surprising that Jane can't recognize the divine benign "natural cycle" belief held by Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick et al. is unscientific. After all, Jane's already said: "Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact."
Once again, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane/Lonny Eachus, Dr. Spencer and Dr. McKitrick, etc.
Anyone who claims (as you have) that the creationists and young-earthers have NO evidence, is a reality-denier. They don't have much evidence, and they sure as hell don't have much if any GOOD evidence, but they do have some evidence.
... claiming that even the young-earthers have NO evidence to support their position, is just false. It might be sparse, and it might be bad evidence, but even bad evidence is still evidence. ...
... your implication that you "taught" me Young Earthers are wrong is another example of your subtle distortions. I've known they were wrong since I was in grade school. And I have never (except perhaps in jest, but I don't even recall that) claimed their view was correct. In fact I've publicly denounced it many times in many places, including here earlier. It's really quite fascinating to see you distort things so far that you're actually defending someone who caters to young-earthers, then try to imply that somehow I might be defending them. I'm not and I haven't.
Jane, Dr. Hayhoe never said that "young-earthers have some evidence" which is "catering to young-earthers" much more than simply not wanting to "provoke" even more misogynist hate mail. It seems like many guys (and guys posing as gals) are easily "provoked" into attacking female scientists simply for presenting mainstream science that challenges the guys' preconceptions. (For instance, Jane/Lonny Eachus will also deny attacking Dr. Naomi Oreskes.)
So I understand Dr. Hayhoe's desire to avoid unnecessary conflict, but once again if you could quote Dr. Hayhoe making an absurd claim like "young-earthers have some evidence" then I'd finally agree with your accusations that she's an enemy of science who caters to young-earthers, spreads scientific falsehoods and makes demonstrably false claims. But you can't, can you?
It's really quite fascinating to see you distort things so far that you keep insisting that only a "reality d***er" would claim "young-earthers have NO evidence" and simultaneously object to implications that you're defending young-earthers. But you can't say both and remain self-consistent. Choose one. Or keep "pulling a Jane".
Of course I have, above. You just can't accept that your insults are unprovoked and your regurgitated accusations are false.
Again with the distortions. You haven't demonstrated anything about provocation, in either direction. ... you've shown us absolutely no -- not one word -- of actual evidence that any of my comments were "unprovoked". ...
Once again, it simply doesn't matter to Jane/Lonny Eachus that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults. Once again I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that all his unprovoked insults are justified. Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus will coyly insinuate (without links, of course) that Dr. Hayhoe really has contacted him and "provoked" him into baselessly accusing Dr. Hayhoe of being a flake with no credibility who spreads scientific falsehoods and makes demonstrably false claims. Maybe Jane/Lonny will simply claim that he was provoked into making all these baseless accusations because something Dr. Hayhoe said publicly really hurt his feeling. Who knows?
The one thing we can rule out is Jane/Lonny admitting that his baseless accusations and insults were unprovoked. Not just to Dr. Hayhoe, but to everyone on that growing list. (Now including "the Red Pope", CSI, Barry Bickmore, etc.)
Anyone who doubts that cynical viewpoint should read this exchange. All the stars would burn out before Jane/Lonny Eachus admits his insults are unprovoked.