If we were having this discussion in the 14th-19th Centuries maybe you'd be raising a point. Meanwhile it isn't some fringe group that supports death for apostasy and blasphemy in the early 21st Century.

Stop banking in the 19th century people. I can honestly count the number of times I've used cash in the last year on one hand.

I constantly see credit card companies attempt to prey on people in malls or with mailouts. Hell, they did it to me when I was young and stupid. When I started work, I got a credit card with a $500 limit on it for travel and expenses, etc. Less than 6 months later the bank had increased the limit 4 times to over $3000. If I was smart I should have refused each increase, but like an idiot I basically looked on it as free money. Suddenly I was paying a fortune in interest and struggling to clear the card. Every penny I earned went on it, and then I'd rack up the bills over the next month again just to live.

But credit cards are great if you know how to use them. Eventually I paid mine off and now I live completely off it; fuel, groceries, the works. I pay for everything on it, and I get reward points that easily cover the cost of the annual card fee. I make sure it's cleared every month. Meanwhile, my salary sits in my bank account offsetting my mortgage. Now it literally is free money.

I actually feel kinda bad, because essentially people who are bad with money and run up credit card bills at 20% interest are basically subsidising my card for me.

A 19th century themed bar in Brooklyn? SHOCKING!!!

Bobknight's post is a great example of missing the point.

In that entire historical diatribe about how the Democratic Party is bad because of it's history he manages to completely ignore the ideas that formed the basis of the parties.

Hey Bob, if you read this let me ask you something. Do you really think the label "Democratic Party" has any meaning in the historical context you're so painfully trying to cite?

Do you think that the old south was full of liberals, or do you think the old south was conservative as ever and just the LABELS of what the party means changed?

Here's a history lesson for you, pal. The Democratic Party was started in the south as a conservative anti-federal, anti-government party. Sounds just like the south today. Sounds a lot like the republican party doesn't it?

Everything you criticize and ascribe to the "Democratic Party" you're laying the blame on the conservatives.

The democrats were the conservatives. Understand what that means?

The south didn't change, only the label of the party did. The republicans of the 19th century? They were the legacy of Hamilton's federalists, the industrialists, the northern bankers, supporters of strong central government, just the type of people you hate.

So when you condemn the democratic party history, you sound like an idiot coming from a conservative anti-federal government point of view. You're condemning the ancestors to your own movement.

You could call it the green party, or the birthday party for all it matters, it's the IDEAS that count.

The democrats were wrong in 1860 not because they were democrats, but because they were backward thinking, rural, anti-union, state rights supporters who plunged the whole country into a bloody war because they couldn't wake up and smell the 20th century coming.

Sounds like you'd get along with them famously! Doesn't it?

The problem with the Tea Party isn't who buys their bus rides, it's that, like you, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

The other week the BBC had some pictures from 19th Century India, and second image was a cheetah hunt!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-22212009

As part of his campaign to smear Westinghouse's AC standard in favor of his own DC standard, Thomas Edison really did electrocute stray dogs (and an elephant...I swear it's true) to try to demonstrate how dangerous AC was. Ultimately, Westinghouse's alternating current won.

The big winner in the great current wars of the late 19th century: Australia's greatest export, AC/DC.

If anyone wants to read more about Stephen and LGBTQIA youth, here is the NYT article.

The New York Time's

Generation LGBTQIA

By MICHAEL SCHULMAN

Published: January 10, 2013

STEPHEN IRA, a junior at Sarah Lawrence College, uploaded a video last March on We Happy Trans, a site that shares "positive perspectives" on being transgender.

In the breakneck six-and-a-half-minute monologue - hair tousled, sitting in a wood-paneled dorm room - Stephen exuberantly declared himself "a queer, a nerd fighter, a writer, an artist and a guy who needs a haircut," and held forth on everything from his style icons (Truman Capote and "any male-identified person who wears thigh-highs or garters") to his toy zebra.

Because Stephen, who was born Kathlyn, is the 21-year-old child of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, the video went viral, garnering nearly half a million views. But that was not the only reason for its appeal. With its adrenalized, freewheeling eloquence, the video seemed like a battle cry for a new generation of post-gay gender activists, for whom Stephen represents a rare public face.

Armed with the millennial generation's defining traits - Web savvy, boundless confidence and social networks that extend online and off - Stephen and his peers are forging a political identity all their own, often at odds with mainstream gay culture.

If the gay-rights movement today seems to revolve around same-sex marriage, this generation is seeking something more radical: an upending of gender roles beyond the binary of male/female. The core question isn't whom they love, but who they are - that is, identity as distinct from sexual orientation.

But what to call this movement? Whereas "gay and lesbian" was once used to lump together various sexual minorities - and more recently "L.G.B.T." to include bisexual and transgender - the new vanguard wants a broader, more inclusive abbreviation. "Youth today do not define themselves on the spectrum of L.G.B.T.," said Shane Windmeyer, a founder of Campus Pride, a national student advocacy group based in Charlotte, N.C.

Part of the solution has been to add more letters, and in recent years the post-post-post-gay-rights banner has gotten significantly longer, some might say unwieldy. The emerging rubric is "L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," which stands for different things, depending on whom you ask.

"Q" can mean "questioning" or "queer," an umbrella term itself, formerly derogatory before it was appropriated by gay activists in the 1990s. "I" is for "intersex," someone whose anatomy is not exclusively male or female. And "A" stands for "ally" (a friend of the cause) or "asexual," characterized by the absence of sexual attraction.

It may be a mouthful, but it's catching on, especially on liberal-arts campuses.

The University of Missouri, Kansas City, for example, has an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Resource Center that, among other things, helps student locate "gender-neutral" restrooms on campus. Vassar College offers an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Discussion Group on Thursday afternoons. Lehigh University will be hosting its second annual L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Intercollegiate Conference next month, followed by a Queer Prom. Amherst College even has an L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A. center, where every group gets its own letter.

The term is also gaining traction on social media sites like Twitter and Tumblr, where posts tagged with "lgbtqia" suggest a younger, more progressive outlook than posts that are merely labeled "lgbt."

"There's a very different generation of people coming of age, with completely different conceptions of gender and sexuality," said Jack Halberstam (formerly Judith), a transgender professor at the University of Southern California and the author, most recently, of "Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal."

"When you see terms like L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," Professor Halberstam added, "it's because people are seeing all the things that fall out of the binary, and demanding that a name come into being."

And with a plethora of ever-expanding categories like "genderqueer" and "androgyne" to choose from, each with an online subculture, piecing together a gender identity can be as D.I.Y. as making a Pinterest board.

BUT sometimes L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. is not enough. At the University of Pennsylvania last fall, eight freshmen united in the frustration that no campus group represented them.

Sure, Penn already had some two dozen gay student groups, including Queer People of Color, Lambda Alliance and J-Bagel, which bills itself as the university's "Jewish L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Community." But none focused on gender identity (the closest, Trans Penn, mostly catered to faculty members and graduate students).

Richard Parsons, an 18-year-old transgender male, discovered that when he attended a student mixer called the Gay Affair, sponsored by Penn's L.G.B.T. Center. "I left thoroughly disappointed," said Richard, a garrulous freshman with close-cropped hair, wire-framed glasses and preppy clothes, who added, "This is the L.G.B.T. Center, and it's all gay guys."

Through Facebook, Richard and others started a group called Penn Non-Cis, which is short for "non-cisgender." For those not fluent in gender-studies speak, "cis" means "on the same side as" and "cisgender" denotes someone whose gender identity matches his or her biology, which describes most of the student body. The group seeks to represent everyone else. "This is a freshman uprising," Richard said.

On a brisk Tuesday night in November, about 40 students crowded into the L.G.B.T. Center, a converted 19th-century carriage house, for the group's inaugural open mike. The organizers had lured students by handing out fliers on campus while barking: "Free condoms! Free ChapStick!"

"There's a really vibrant L.G.B.T. scene," Kate Campbell, one of the M.C.'s, began. "However, that mostly encompasses the L.G.B. and not too much of the T. So we're aiming to change that."

Students read poems and diary entries, and sang guitar ballads. Then Britt Gilbert - a punky-looking freshman with a blond bob, chunky glasses and a rock band T-shirt - took the stage. She wanted to talk about the concept of "bi-gender."

"Does anyone want to share what they think it is?"

Silence.

She explained that being bi-gender is like manifesting both masculine and feminine personas, almost as if one had a "detachable penis." "Some days I wake up and think, 'Why am I in this body?' " she said. "Most days I wake up and think, 'What was I thinking yesterday?' 

"Britt's grunginess belies a warm matter-of-factness, at least when describing her journey. As she elaborated afterward, she first heard the term "bi-gender" from Kate, who found it on Tumblr. The two met at freshman orientation and bonded. In high school, Kate identified as "agender" and used the singular pronoun "they"; she now sees her gender as an "amorphous blob."

By contrast, Britt's evolution was more linear. She grew up in suburban Pennsylvania and never took to gender norms. As a child, she worshiped Cher and thought boy bands were icky. Playing video games, she dreaded having to choose male or female avatars.

In middle school, she started calling herself bisexual and dated boys. By 10th grade, she had come out as a lesbian. Her parents thought it was a phase - until she brought home a girlfriend, Ash. But she still wasn't settled.

"While I definitely knew that I liked girls, I didn't know that I was one," Britt said. Sometimes she would leave the house in a dress and feel uncomfortable, as if she were wearing a Halloween costume. Other days, she felt fine. She wasn't "trapped in the wrong body," as the cliché has it - she just didn't know which body she wanted.

When Kate told her about the term "bi-gender," it clicked instantly. "I knew what it was, before I knew what it was," Britt said, adding that it is more fluid than "transgender" but less vague than "genderqueer" - a catchall term for nontraditional gender identities.

At first, the only person she told was Ash, who responded, "It took you this long to figure it out?" For others, the concept was not so easy to grasp. Coming out as a lesbian had been relatively simple, Britt said, "since people know what that is." But when she got to Penn, she was relieved to find a small community of freshmen who had gone through similar awakenings.

Among them was Richard Parsons, the group's most politically lucid member. Raised female, Richard grew up in Orlando, Fla., and realized he was transgender in high school. One summer, he wanted to room with a transgender friend at camp, but his mother objected. "She's like, 'Well, if you say that he's a guy, then I don't want you rooming with a guy,' " he recalled. "We were in a car and I basically blurted out, 'I think I might be a guy, too!' "

After much door-slamming and tears, Richard and his mother reconciled. But when she asked what to call him, he had no idea. He chose "Richard" on a whim, and later added a middle name, Matthew, because it means "gift of God."

By the time he got to Penn, he had been binding his breasts for more than two years and had developed back pain. At the open mike, he told a harrowing story about visiting the university health center for numbness and having a panic attack when he was escorted into a women's changing room.

Nevertheless, he praised the university for offering gender-neutral housing. The college's medical program also covers sexual reassignment surgery, which, he added, "has heavily influenced my decision to probably go under the Penn insurance plan next year."

PENN has not always been so forward-thinking; a decade ago, the L.G.B.T. Center (nestled amid fraternity houses) was barely used. But in 2010, the university began reaching out to applicants whose essays raised gay themes. Last year, the gay newsmagazine The Advocate ranked Penn among the top 10 trans-friendly universities, alongside liberal standbys like New York University.

More and more colleges, mostly in the Northeast, are catering to gender-nonconforming students. According to a survey by Campus Pride, at least 203 campuses now allow transgender students to room with their preferred gender; 49 have a process to change one's name and gender in university records; and 57 cover hormone therapy. In December, the University of Iowa became the first to add a "transgender" checkbox to its college application.

"I wrote about an experience I had with a drag queen as my application essay for all the Ivy Leagues I applied to," said Santiago Cortes, one of the Penn students. "And I got into a few of the Ivy Leagues - Dartmouth, Columbia and Penn. Strangely not Brown.

"But even these measures cannot keep pace with the demands of incoming students, who are challenging the curriculum much as gay activists did in the '80s and '90s. Rather than protest the lack of gay studies classes, they are critiquing existing ones for being too narrow.

Several members of Penn Non-Cis had been complaining among themselves about a writing seminar they were taking called "Beyond 'Will & Grace,' " which examined gay characters on shows like "Ellen," "Glee" and "Modern Family." The professor, Gail Shister, who is a lesbian, had criticized several students for using "L.G.B.T.Q." in their essays, saying it was clunky, and proposed using "queer" instead. Some students found the suggestion offensive, including Britt Gilbert, who described Ms. Shister as "unaccepting of things that she doesn't understand."

Ms. Shister, reached by phone, said the criticism was strictly grammatical. "I am all about economy of expression," she said. "L.G.B.T.Q. doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. So I tell the students, 'Don't put in an acronym with five or six letters.' "

One thing is clear. Ms. Shister, who is 60 and in 1979 became The Philadelphia Inquirer's first female sportswriter, is of a different generation, a fact she acknowledges freely, even gratefully. "Frankly, I'm both proud and envious that these young people are growing up in an age where they're free to love who they want," she said.

If history is any guide, the age gap won't be so easy to overcome. As liberated gay men in the 1970s once baffled their pre-Stonewall forebears, the new gender outlaws, to borrow a phrase from the transgender writer Kate Bornstein, may soon be running ideological circles around their elders.

Still, the alphabet soup of L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. may be difficult to sustain. "In the next 10 or 20 years, the various categories heaped under the umbrella of L.G.B.T. will become quite quotidian," Professor Halberstam said.

Even at the open mike, as students picked at potato chips and pineapple slices, the bounds of identity politics were spilling over and becoming blurry.

At one point, Santiago, a curly-haired freshman from Colombia, stood before the crowd. He and a friend had been pondering the limits of what he calls "L.G.B.T.Q. plus."

"Why do only certain letters get to be in the full acronym?" he asked.

Then he rattled off a list of gender identities, many culled from Wikipedia. "We have our lesbians, our gays," he said, before adding, "bisexual, transsexual, queer, homosexual, asexual." He took a breath and continued. "Pansexual. Omnisexual. Trisexual. Agender. Bi-gender. Third gender. Transgender. Transvestite. Intersexual. Two-spirit. Hijra. Polyamorous."

By now, the list had turned into free verse. He ended: "Undecided. Questioning. Other. Human."

The room burst into applause.

Correction: January 10, 2013, Thursday

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article and a picture caption referred incorrectly to a Sarah Lawrence College student who uploaded a video online about being transgender. He says he is Stephen Ira, not Stephen Ira Beatty.

Source NYT

Fair Use

That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

It would sound circular if none of those had any other basis for their timelines other than each other, which, not being an expert, I have to guess is not the case. You, the one making the enormous claim that the entire field of geology is unscientific, have to demonstrate that.

I found some more cherry-picking. From that article about mudstones, you take this one quote: "One thing we are very certain of is that our findings will influence how geologists and paleontologists reconstruct Earth's past" and determine from it that the age of the planet will be scientifically revised from many billions of years to a few thousand. You have no basis for that. Also, why are you quoting geologists? That isn't even a science, I thought, right? Is it just because these ones happen to sound like their story could be twisted to agree with yours?

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely: " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If by that quote you mean that old people tend to have a hard time changing their minds about things in face of contradictory evidence, you're right -- that's human nature. If you mean that scientific theories change randomly because new opinions grow and the old ones die out like cultural habits, you're wrong.

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time

This is another grand claim. Can you give a verifiable non-biased (non ID) reference as to the deliberateness of the shift, and the pre-formed idea that they needed to conjure up vast amounts of time? Science doesn't become conventional wisdom without a preponderance of evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean any of it is correct, just that there's a lot of supporting evidence.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint.

No. You're the one making ridiculous claims. I'm rebutting for fun, for sport. I don't believe your religion is real. I trust scientists more than dogmatists, and if I have to choose how to spend 1.5 hours, it's going to be reading Feynman or watching TYT or studying math or practising card tricks. You brought up the topic, and I happen to only care enough about it to rebut a bit, not to dedicate hours to it. Also, you have a history here of providing horribly unscientific quotes and references without any attempt at intellectual honesty, and based on that, I can guess the quality of that video, and I don't need to spend 1.5 hours only to be disappointed in myself for trying. If I were really that curious, I would go to the geology department of my university and ask some professors about the circular argument, and what the original basis was for the dating. If you care that much about actually finding the truth, you'll do just that. But I think you're too afraid to learn something contradictory to your dogma.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence.

Non-ID reference for the flimsiness required for grand claims.

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's possible he has always done this in front of mirrors. Then again, he may be the only intelligent cat in existence and just feels that Victorian is so 19th century.

hmmm, I was aware that we only have thermometric readings of temperature for the last 100-150+ years. So basically you are doubting the ability of tree rings, pollen identification in sediments, and other methods of temperature reconstruction.

If I may reiterate my point, which I made rudely in the video post, I would say that you might be interested to know that if you go back further than 2k years, as in, more than 10k, there are temperature changes that were even greater than 1 degree, however, homo-sapiens was not around to endure them. Irregardless of previous temperature deviation, science tells us that our "freeing-up" of carbon dioxide, and creation of methane, are the culprits of the current temperature increase.

How does our ability to measure the last 2k years change that? or change the fact that we are heading for a 6 degree increase (which would not be uniform, for instance the poles have already warmed more than by 0.8 degrees, while the tropics may have warmed by less than 0.8 degrees)?

I fail to see that you have any point outside of that our estimations going back past 150+ years may be slightly off.

"It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate." -s.s.

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
You are exactly right, the red line is directly measured temperature, and it shows that we are indeed breaking records. The trick is it only shows that we have hit the record for the last 100 years for which we actually have a measured record. The temperature over the last 2k years is not directly measured, but derived from proxies like tree rings. Those temperature reconstructions never hit the heights of the measured record. The speaker in the video then declares that current temperature is then a record over 2k years. The trick is to look closer. When we state that the reconstruction of the last 2k years never hits the current measured records it doesn't only mean it never hit them before today, it means that even where the measured temperature hits the record today, the reconstruction STILL doesn't come close to hitting the measured record. Seems very strong evidence that the reconstruction might have missed a record like today that happened over the last 2k years, as clearly they missed THIS ONE.


In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
I can't understand how you are interpreting Mann's graph, you do realize the red line at the end is not a projection, but in fact current measurements...

So how are you coming to the conclusion that we are not (already, if not soon) breaking records?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.
To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.
The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.
The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!
>> ^bcglorf:
What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.





The speaker in the video makes a very big deal though about the current 0.8 of the instrumental record, and similarly a very big deal about it being unprecedented in the last 10k years, which you have to admit has been plainly proven as apples to oranges.

Yes, most current proxies show a 2k year old record, except the EIV which is the most recent and deemed most accurate record. If you can accept comparing reconstructions using the same proxy data but different analysis, the EIV proxy reconstruction shows that current temperatures are not record breaking at all.

If you want to say that "the curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources" I'd say you need also observe warming trends in the reconstructions over the last 2k years. Again, the rate of change over the last century is not unprecedented in the proxy records over the last 2k years. You can again plainly see that similarly or more severe warming and/or cooling within the last 2k years in the proxy reconstructions.

You are exactly right, the red line is directly measured temperature, and it shows that we are indeed breaking records. The trick is it only shows that we have hit the record for the last 100 years for which we actually have a measured record. The temperature over the last 2k years is not directly measured, but derived from proxies like tree rings. Those temperature reconstructions never hit the heights of the measured record. The speaker in the video then declares that current temperature is then a record over 2k years. The trick is to look closer. When we state that the reconstruction of the last 2k years never hits the current measured records it doesn't only mean it never hit them before today, it means that even where the measured temperature hits the record today, the reconstruction STILL doesn't come close to hitting the measured record. Seems very strong evidence that the reconstruction might have missed a record like today that happened over the last 2k years, as clearly they missed THIS ONE.


In reply to this comment by Peroxide:
I can't understand how you are interpreting Mann's graph, you do realize the red line at the end is not a projection, but in fact current measurements...

So how are you coming to the conclusion that we are not (already, if not soon) breaking records?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.
To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.
The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.
The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!
>> ^bcglorf:
What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.





The speaker in the video makes a very big deal though about the current 0.8 of the instrumental record, and similarly a very big deal about it being unprecedented in the last 10k years, which you have to admit has been plainly proven as apples to oranges.

Yes, most current proxies show a 2k year old record, except the EIV which is the most recent and deemed most accurate record. If you can accept comparing reconstructions using the same proxy data but different analysis, the EIV proxy reconstruction shows that current temperatures are not record breaking at all.

If you want to say that "the curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources" I'd say you need also observe warming trends in the reconstructions over the last 2k years. Again, the rate of change over the last century is not unprecedented in the proxy records over the last 2k years. You can again plainly see that similarly or more severe warming and/or cooling within the last 2k years in the proxy reconstructions.

I can't understand how you are interpreting Mann's graph, you do realize the red line at the end is not a projection, but in fact current measurements...

So how are you coming to the conclusion that we are not (already, if not soon) breaking records?

In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.
To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.
The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.
The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!
>> ^bcglorf:
What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.





The speaker in the video makes a very big deal though about the current 0.8 of the instrumental record, and similarly a very big deal about it being unprecedented in the last 10k years, which you have to admit has been plainly proven as apples to oranges.

Yes, most current proxies show a 2k year old record, except the EIV which is the most recent and deemed most accurate record. If you can accept comparing reconstructions using the same proxy data but different analysis, the EIV proxy reconstruction shows that current temperatures are not record breaking at all.

If you want to say that "the curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources" I'd say you need also observe warming trends in the reconstructions over the last 2k years. Again, the rate of change over the last century is not unprecedented in the proxy records over the last 2k years. You can again plainly see that similarly or more severe warming and/or cooling within the last 2k years in the proxy reconstructions.

By your own admission, the composite readings are now at record highs. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention that these measurements were exactly equal to the 0.8 instrumental record. I only said that they followed the same directional trend. Read it and weep, a 2000 year-old record is a 2000 year-old record.

To argue that 'Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate,' is to willfully ignore all the other data sources. You completely miss the point that instrumental data is by far the most accurate. Proxy reconstructions are relied on in the absence of instrumental data.

The lack of widespread instrumental climate records before the mid 19th century, however, necessitates the use of natural climate archives or “proxy” data such as tree-rings, corals, and ice cores and historical documentary records to reconstruct climate in past centuries.

The curve of this warming trend is gradually accellerating accourding to all data sources, even if you ignore the two instrumental lines. And what a coincidence that it matches the timeline of the industrial revolution. Ignore science at your own peril!

>> ^bcglorf:

What graph are you reading?
CPS Land with uncertainties: Peaked at 0.05 in 600, but yes a new peak in the lat 1990's at 0.15(not 0.8), recent temp is the internal record by only 0.1.
Mann and Jones 2003: current peak at 0.15(not 0.8), but current is the record by 0.25.
Esper et. Al 2002: peaks once in 990 and again in 1990 at negative 0.05, not positive 0.8 nor is current warming a record.
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties: peaks at 0.2 (not 0.8) and only starts at 1500 not sure how much the record would've been set by if it included the year 600 where land alone hit 0.05.
Briffa et al. : Series begins in 1400, but again peaks at 0.15 (not 0.8). Can't tell from the graph how much of a record but by Briffa et al's original 2001 paper it's by 0.2
Crowly and Lowery (2000): peaks at 0.15(not 0.8), granted it current warming sets the record within the series, by 0.25 higher than 1100.
Jones et al. (1999): peaks at 0.05(not 0.8), current is record by 0.1
Oerlemans (2005) and both borehole sample go back less than 500 years. The boreholes who a smooth curve throughout, with warming starting 500, not 100 years ago. They all peak at 0.2 or lower, again not 0.8.

If I repeat my main point, I think it is reinforced by each of the series above. Instrumental measured warming is completely anomalous compared to the proxy reconstructions. The instrumental record peaks fully 0.6 degrees higher than any of the proxy series. How can anyone look at that and NOT object to the declaration that the last 2k years as shown by proxies proves temperatures have been far cooler and more stable than the last 100 years as shown on the instrumental record. If you instead compare like to like, and compare the last 100 years as projected by each proxy and not the instrumental record, you clearly see that the last 100 years is anything but a radical anomaly.
If you accept Mann's statement that the EIV construction is the most accurate, it can be easily said that the last 100 years, as appears in proxy reconstructions, isn't much of an anomaly at all.

>> ^alcom:
Ah, now I see your point, bcglorf. Of the various methodologies, the 2 instrumental record sets of the last 100 years are the only ones that show the extreme spike of temperature. The composite reconstructions have not yet shown data that is above previously held records in the last 2 millennia, with the exception of the following:
CPS Land with uncertainties
Mann and Jones (2003)
Esperg et al. (2002)
CPS land+ocn with uncertainties
Briffa et al. (2005)
Crowely and Lowery (2000)
Jones et al. (1999)
Oerlemans (2005)
Mann et al. Optimal Borehole (2003)
Huang et al. Borehole (2000)
If you closely follow these lines, you will see that each plot above has indeed set 2000 year-old records in the last 25 years within their own recorded plots, even if not as pronounced as the instrumental record highlighted by the red line. I'm not sure why the EIV lines stop at 1850, but I'm also not a climatologist. The instrumental record has more or less agreed with the EIV record since its existence, including an extending cooling trend midway through this century. The sharp divergence is not fully understood perhaps, but I still think it foolish to ignore the provable, measurable and pronounced upward trend in all calculated measurements.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^alcom:
After a cursory reading of Mann's Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia, I can't see how climate change deniers can both read about his methodology AND at the same time gripe about a bias towards measurements that support his argument while ignoring conflicting measurements through other means.
These measurements AGREE. The regression measurement data seems to have a wider variance as you go backwards, but they all trend in the same directions both up and down over the last 2000 years. (I'm looking at the graph here: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html ) converge and climb at the same incredible rate at the end (the last 25 years or so.) Show me ANY scientific data that reports a measurement of +.8°C over such a short period of time.
As for the polynomial curve objection, the variation in measurements over such a limited data set my not yet reveal the true nature of the curve. And Earth's feedback mechanisms may already be at work to counteract the difference in atmospheric composition. For example, trees will grow faster and more quickly in slightly warmer temperatures with elevated CO2 levels, and naturally counteract the effects of fossil fuel burning by simply converting more of it into O2. There are undoubtedly many, many more factors at play. I'm suggesting perhaps that apparent "straight line" graphing is currently the fastest rate of increase possible based on the feedback systems that are at work.
The point is that it is a losing battle, according to the current trend. At some point, these feedback systems will fail (eg., there will come a point when it is so hot in a region that no type of tree will continue to grow and absorb CO2) and worst still, there are things like the methane in permafrost that will exacerbate the problem further. This isn't like a religious doomsday scenario, the alarm bells are not coming from a loony prophet but from real, measurable evidence that so many people continue to ignore. I'd rather be wrong and relieved that there is no climate crisis and clean energy initiatives end up being a waste of time and money than wrong that there IS in fact cause to make serious changes. The doubt that has driven so much misinformation will at some point be exposed for the stupidity that it truly is.

Look closer at the graph in http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252/F3.expansion.html for me. It is the graph I was talking about. NONE of the reconstructions from proxy sources spike up to 0.8 at the end. The all taper off short of 0.2, the bold red(instrumental) line makes them very hard to see precisely. The closest curve to the red that can be seen is the grey one, which is in fact the other instrumental record they include, and even it stops below 0.6. What is more, the green EIV reconstruction peaks past 0.2 twice over the last 2k years. It also spikes much more quickly around 900 and 1300. Most noteworthy of all is if you read further up in Mann's report, because the big reason for re-releasing this version of his paper is to evaluate the EIV method because statisticians recommended as far more appropriate. Mann notes in his results as well stating that of all the methods, 'we place the greatest confidence in the EIV reconstructions'.
My key point is glaringly obvious when looking at Mann's data, even on the graph. The instrumental record of the last 100 years spikes in an unprecedented fashion. The proxy reconstruction of that same time frame does not. Two different methodologies yielding 2 different results. The speaker in this video points at that and declares it's because of human emissions 100 years ago, but we must look at the fact the methodology changed at that exact point too. The EIV reconstruction was the latest attempt to bridge the gap between the proxy and instrumental records, and although it more closely matches the instrumental, it still doesn't spike 0.8 degrees over the last 100 years, and more interestingly it also shows much greater variation over the last 2k years. Enough variation in fact that if you look at just the green EIV line, the last 100 years isn't particularly note worthy or anomalous.

>> ^Fletch:

Who knew that the Chinese invented rap in the 19th century?


They did EVERYTHING in the 19th. They just kept quiet about it.