2011-02-12 15:36:19IPCC disappeared the MWP
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I drafted up the intermediate rebuttal to IPCC disappeared the MWP.  We've got it listed 4 times in the Monckton database, so I may make it MM #13.  Have a look, let me know if you have any feedback.
2011-02-12 15:48:01Looks good
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.217.214
Definitely make this a MM - this is one of his pet arguments. I remember him leading with it in Brisbane at the debate I attended.
2011-02-12 16:44:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.224.68
So Monckton thoroughly disagrees with Richard Lindzen over climate sensitivity then?. Rebuttal looks good to me.
2011-02-12 20:38:37
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.74

This rebuttal was really missing; although not that often, sometimes this mith appears. Good job.

P.S. Apparently I'm obsessed by repetitions. In the paragraph before fig. 3: "rather prominently.  The rather widespread". But you can safely ignore it :)

2011-02-12 21:10:58
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.175.241
I realize that you do carefully distinguish between Central England and NH temperatures but many people miss the distinction and it might be worth emphasizing the point that the IPCC NH reconstructions would not be expected to show the same pattern as a local one in England (I don't know if Monckton confuses this or not: is there a link somewhere to what Monckton actually said?).
 
Robert Way wrote a rebuttal showing a map revealing where the regional pattern of the MWP is revealed relative to modern temps. Since this map comes from a Mann 2009 reference this is not relevant to the IPCC argument, but it might be worth a link, nonetheless.
 
Mark Richardson covered the Lamb graph in some detail here and it might be worth linking to.
 
I recall seeing a post somewhere showing how some skeptic screwed up the digitizing of the Lamb curve but I forget where it was.
 
Here's some actual text from AR4 that shows the IPCC did not deny the MWP at all (WG1 Chapter 6 page 468). AR4 wasn't mentioned in the rebuttal.
 
The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean  temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm
in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Brif a, 2006).
2011-02-13 03:46:11thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

Riccardo - I actually noticed that repetition last night too.  I'll get rid of it :-)

Andy - very good comments, thanks.  I'll make some revisions to incorporate them.

Rob - good point, it's probably worth mentioning the 'hot MWP = high sensitivity' point.  I remember John making that argument previously - I'll find and link to it.

2011-02-13 04:23:08updated
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
I've updated the article, and also converted it into Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC.
2011-02-13 13:21:06Just to clarify
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.148.129

Does Monckton actually use the word “disappeared”? If not you shouldn’t use it either, because he could retort that it wasn’t the word he used.

Also, does anyone know the origin of the quote about “getting rid of” the MWP?

2011-02-13 14:35:41disappeared
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233

In the article I linked, Monckton says "ingeniously wiped out" and "artificially eradicated".  The rebuttal is "IPCC disappeared the MWP".   WUWT has used 'disappeared the MWP'.  I'll keep the 'disappeared theme', but add Monckton's exact quote in MM #13.

The WUWT article also claims an email from Overpeck to Deming said "we have to get rid of the MWP".  There's not actually any evidence to support the claim though (it originates in a Canada Free Press article).  I do recall another example of a climate scientist saying something which was intended to mean that they had to find the cause of the MWP, but which was misconstrued to mean they were trying to get rid of the MWP.  It was very Climategate-esque, but well before Climategate.

2011-02-13 15:50:49Here is that post by John that you mentioned
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.148.129

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Do-critics-of-the-hockey-stick-realise-what-theyre-arguing-for.html

2011-02-14 06:11:33thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.233
Thanks James, I've added the link.
2011-02-14 14:03:06Misquotes
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.148.129
Maybe we need to add a new argument along the lines of "Scientists said they were going to lie" to cover the various pre-Climategate misquotes/made-up-quotes used to make this argument: Schneider's "we have to find a balance between being honest and effective", Houghton's "unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" and "we'll have to have a disaster", Overpeck's "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period", Jones' "why should I give you my data when your intention is to find something wrong with it?", etc. (I've paraphrased from memory so these may not be the exact quotes/misquotes.)