I have to say that I am rather underwhelmed by the paper. The author bases his discussion, which does not contradict Mann, et. al. 2009, on 71 proxies. Mann used ~1200 proxies with greater geographical distribution. I have to say that I would take an actual analysis of the data vs. the eyeballing approach taken in this rather weak paper.

You play a nasty game – whatever you want to tell sounds like you are not on the position to accept what “raw paleo data” taken from all around the globe show:

The records show an amplitude between maximum and minimum temperatures during the past two millennia on centennial timescales ranging from c. 0.5 to 4°C and averaging c. 1.5–2°C for both high and low latitudes, although these variations are not always occurring synchronous. Both the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the 20th century warming are clearly visible.

Rest of the comment is off topic and has been removed per comment policy.]

The first cite, to Briffa et. al. 2008 in no way contradicts the Mann article.

The second cite is to a collection of raw paleo data. Huh?

The Esper paper presents an opinion which may have been correct at the time the paper was written (or may not have been correct) in the wake of the release of AR4. The Mann result does not make this paper incorrect, nor does it make the Mann result incorrect. All we can say at this time is that the jury is still out.

The fourth cite says that the climate was humid during the time frame of the MWP, not that the climate was warm (chalk up one for Mann).

The final paper has nothing at all to do with climate. Rather it seems to be looking at the efficacy of a particular mite as a proxy for human population levels.

I suggest you bone up on the research and come back with papers which make your point better.

The assault on climate-change science is beginning to resemble a DNS attack, and there’s no question it’s very effective in fora where formal rules of evidence and the right of cross-examination do not apply.

Where such conditions ARE enforced, science can more than hold its own: consider the Dover evolution case of a few years ago.

We know the denialosphere has deep pockets – to which we unwillingly contribute every time we buy gas for the car; perhaps it’s time to spread the wealth.

Are there any lawyers out there who can explain why unjustified comments accusing scientists – either as individuals or organizations – of fraud cannot be tried for libel?

[DC: I'm not a lawyer, so I'll defer to those with more expertise. However, in most jurisdictions libel is not a criminal offence. Rather it is a question of civil law, and only the persons or organizations who were libelled would have standing to bring an action. Libel laws, and therefore chances for success, vary greatly from country to country.]

This article missess many new finings and is completely biased!

Specifically I mean the following readings:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1501/2269.full

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/ljungqvist2009/ljungqvist2009recons.txt

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1411j3532u1n241

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037375.shtml

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH8-4N6Y5S4-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1118491268&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2643629537af9d6d9e2c9648d72fd4ad

Nope – dozens of new findings show clearly MWP was a global phenomenon and it is stygmatic global warming advocats first denied it’s existence and now try to put it into “local” frame.

Funny “local” indded – spead through 5 continents ))

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

Anyway – I see some bias in the discussion on the subject:

1) Annoying trend to neglect the meaning of MWP or even the actual existence of such a warm period in the past.

[DC: The MWP has been discussed in detail in the IPCC reports.

The rest of your points are off topic. ]

[DC: Sigh ... I'm letting through the first part of your comment, against my better judgment. The details you bring up are way off topic, though, as you have already been warned.

And, yes, I will be posting on specific aspects of the CRU hack. You'll just have to be patient for a little longer.]

As you wrote in the “about” section:

“I look at the organizations that propagate climate science disinformation and the public relations professionals who have worked behind the scenes to ensure maximum impact of that disinformation.”

It seems you already presume any form of critical scepticism towards scaremongering interpretation of very uncertain scientific data (or data providing various results dependent on slightest input change) is “disinformation”.

I do not think this is appropriate assumption – I would rather think you are biased and effectively filter discussion when it turns into “wrong” direction.

Regards,

[DC: I don't "presume" or "assume" anything. Rather my assertions were based on two years of researching astroturf organizations like Friends of Science, think tanks Fraser Institute and deceptive ol-industry funded PR operatives like Tom Harris and Morten Paulsen. After six months or so of blogging, I've seen nothing to change my initial assessment.]