John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3
rd, 2016 at 6:23pm:
I've seen enough of Watts and Jo Nova based on posts by Ajax and others like him on other forums, as well as those from Christopher Monckton. On the surface, their articles are seductively simplistic. Scratch below that veneer of half truths and cherry picking, and the arguments fall apart. Yes, I have on occasion followed the links, but the stench of deception at those sites was enough to discourage me from revisiting.
So that reporting climate science like Karl et al stinks.
Yes I have to agree with you.
John_Taverner wrote on Apr 3
rd, 2016 at 6:23pm:
The argument often used that the increasing trend in temperatures is just a continuation of the warming following the Ice Age is plainly incorrect (based on your graph for one thing) and it is also mind-numbingly obvious that the trend was that of initial warming, then slow cooling.
I doubt if even you could dispute that, even though you continue to dodge the question. I will give you a chance to do that. If you don't take it up, I'll infer from this, that you agree with me.
As I said you are looking at a small time-frame.
lee wrote on Apr 2
nd, 2016 at 6:42pm:
(Marcott) and noted that no variability is preserved at periods shorter than 300 years in our Monte-Carlo reconstructions
And you want to use that as proof that there haven't been short-term warming trends in the past? You are definitely an activist.