Marcott’s proxies – 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion

Older article – but this is why I don’t accept proxy data. Only observed and recorded data counts, and it must be compared to stations still in existent in places that are unaltered from a previous condition. The satellite record is more reliable, but I am aware that it has problems as well; just not nearly as many as the surface record. When someone says “hottest on record” it’s pretty meaningless. And if someone says “hottest ever” they are a crackpot.
There is no “catastrophic climate change” happening – man-made or natural.

Watts Up With That?

Note: Steve McIntyre is also quite baffled by the Marcott et al paper, finding it currently unreproducible given the current information available. I’ve added some comments from him at the bottom of this post – Anthony

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I don’t know what it is about proxies that makes normal scientists lose their senses. The recent paper in Science (paywalled of course) entitled A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” (hereinafter M2012) is a good example. It has been touted as the latest hockeystick paper. It is similar to the previous ones … but as far as I can see it’s only similar in how bizarre the proxies are.

Nowhere in the paper do they show you the raw data, although it’s available in their Supplement. I hate it when people don’t show me their starting point. So let me start by…

View original post 1,346 more words