That's nice. Did you even read the article?
Yes I did read the article and predominately it seemed to be a reasonable and fair explanation of the process by which the graph was constructed, … as long as you ignored the subtle but ever present biases.
However the fact that it was reasonable and fair made the biases that were introduced that more subtle and insidious. Take for example the introduction of the graph early in the article that shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA). The article doesn’t discuss much specifically about this graph however anyone looking at the graph would notice the large temperature increase during the MWP and corresponding decrease during the LIA.
Of course nothing is mentioned about the fact that although pretty much everyone agrees that there was a MWP it’s also true that everyone pretty much agrees that the MWP was not a global event but was in fact limited to only some regions of the northern hemisphere, predominately costal regions surrounding the North Atlantic ocean.
A similar argument applies to the LIA which again was a regional event, not a global event. The regional graph of temperatures with exaggerated MWP and LIA is simply presented as factual with little discussion so when the MBH1999 graph listed right after this shows virtually no corresponding MWP increase or LIA decrease the uneducated reader’s automatic response is “how can this be right”?
Of course no mention is made of the fact that what MBH1999 and all similar graphs display is a “global average temperature.” Clearly you can’t point to the temperature in the Sahara 40 years ago and say that because that’s warmer than the temperature in Boston last Tuesday that therefore proves that the Earth is not warming. Neither can you simply take the temperature in Boston 40 years ago and compare it to the temperature in Boston on that same day 40 years later and make any reasonable conclusion. Global warming is a global problem not simply a regional problem and while temperature streams from any one region are useful they are by no means the complete story.
Add to that the fact that the MBH1999 chart is introduced with the caption, “Wow!” Science-y!” Hardly a neutral introduction of a chart that is in fact accepted as the scientific consensus opinion of working scientists in the field.
Before leaving the regional graph of temperatures with exaggerated MWP and LIA I want to point out two lies that further mislead. One is the implication by the regional graph that temperatures in the MWP were warmer than they currently are today. Again what you’re comparing is the temperature from a specific region to a global average temperature; this is comparing apples to oranges.
In fact based on MBH1999 along with dozens of other reconstructions we know that it is warmer today that it was during the MWP.
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/mwp/ipcc_6_1_large.jpg/image_large
The second lie that is mentioned in conjunction the regional graph is that the LIA ended in 1950. In actuality the accepted end of the LIA is that it ended in 1850. That’s only 100 years different which is not all that big a deal on the timescales being discussed here but it does plant the seed in the readers mind that their own anecdotal experience that it’s warmer today than it used to be during their childhood is merely the result of the climate returning to it’s nominal values after being so recently depressed by a temporary event.
So the article goes on from there. For one thing the article is tainted with all sorts of derisive comments way too numerous to fully recount. Such phrases as “settled science”, “foul play”, “a delicate, wobbly, equilibrium balance”, “silly you”, “J-school stunted math skills”, “brainiac”, “puny simian mind”, “au contrarie!” and “garbage data” permeate the discussion.
Of course he also adds a snide comment or two related to other standard and debunked skeptic talking points to further muddy the issue knowing full well that it would take another full paper or two to fully address but will add just that much more doubt into those that haven’t heard these claims before.
Then the article gets down to the real work but at each step it pretty much derides the step with the unspoken but well illustrated idea that there’s something untoward going on and/or that it’s unnecessarily complex. What’s particularly interesting is how the author introduces the idea of Principal Components, casts doubt and incredulity on it but then finally mentions that there’s nothing nefarious about it.
Similarly in the conclusion of the article he says the following.
“Is there anything wrong with this methodology? Not in principle. In fact there's a lot to recommend it. There's a strong reason to believe that high resolution proxy variables like tree rings and ice core o-18 are related to temperature.”
But then he immediately follows this statement with the many times debunked McIntyre and McKitrick arguments. He then goes on to imply that this process is “rife for manipulation” with no proof whatsoever of any such manipulation.
In other words there is no new data or analysis in this article. Although it may have been written recently it could easily have been written in 2004 because nothing in that article other than the existence of climategate occurred after then.
Therefore my listing of several post-2004 “hockey stick controversy” debunking articles was entirely appropriate.
Also I did know that you had mentioned the RealClimate site and in fact fully acknowledge that your knowledge of the subject exceeds mine.
However you certainly know that you’re not arguing for my benefit just as I know that I’m not arguing for your benefit. Each of us is set in our opinion and there is nothing that either of us can say that will change the others opinion.
The real reason I posted those links was not because I was trying to change your mind or that I thought that you were unaware of them. I posted those articles for those that might read the thread that may still have an open mind. I assume that’s pretty much your intent as well.
As far as what to do about global warming I fully agree that's a perfect place for reasonable discussion. Just because I accept AGW that doesn't mean that there aren't wide variation in what the effects of it might be or what we can and should do about it.
I've gone on record as not being particularly in favor of Cap and Trade nor do I support anything that results in payments from developed countries to developing countries on the basis that we have been allowed to pollute and therefore should pay for them to not pollute.
I simply think it's far more productive to argue against these policies directly instead of making attacks against the basic science.
Hopefully this gets read having just discovered what TL;DR means.