i ve seen a LOT of medical statistical thesis in my life. i said it before: if we apply the standard that Steve is putting on the Mann team on medical science, we can bury the medical research of the last 50 years.

Hogwash. Your lack of understanding of error bars on another thread, your loose use of the term significance on this thread in #34 (‘how can he do this, when a significant part of his sources don t have any data for the “end of the 20th century”?’), etc, suggests you have minimal exposure to statistics .

I’d be delighted if the “team” had to face the same rigor as any pharmaceutical company does to bring a drug to market.

If that rigour were not there, the company would be sued up, down and sideways.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the same were true for the Hockey Team …

if we apply the standard that Steve is putting on the Mann team on medical science, we can bury the medical research of the last 50 years.

Ever heard of the FDA? I’d be delighted if the “team” had to face the same rigor as any pharmaceutical company does to bring a drug to market.

sod: the data are what they are. It is not deception. All the data are public–would you like a copy? If you feel more comfortable comparing the MWP to the mid-twentieth century and then adding a few tenths to get to the 2000 levels, feel free. Repeating your accusations does not make them more true. Even if you stop your analysis in 1950, the paper shows that the MWP was a real fluctuation using widely dispersed data, and was not confined to Europe.

my problem is NOT with your data, but with the claims you make without useful data.

and without giving the information about the lacking data.

i have no problems with your result about the MWP, but with the comparison to “the end of the 20th century”.

i did not bring up any argument about MWP being Europe only.

Look at RomanM in 478 old thread: he plots the weather station data closest to my sites, and compares it to the long term plot of temperature for globe and NH–get high corr. this shows that the sites are representative of global weather.

a very good plot, but it does not adress my point. at best it speaks for the GISS data.

sod: a medical study with 12 people is still published even though it is not based on 20,000 and it is called “preliminary”–remember I said that my results were based on limited data.

i ve seen a LOT of medical statistical thesis in my life. i said it before: if we apply the standard that Steve is putting on the Mann team on medical science, we can bury the medical research of the last 50 years.

Steve: Don’t be ridiculous. Valid medical research passes relevant statistical tests.

MWP … was not confined to Europe

Did you test this, or is it just an unsupported assertion. What happens to your analysis when you leave out the north Atlantic samples?

no. my problem is with making claims beyond what the proxies show. that is what Loehle does.

9 of the proxies used by Loehle have ZERO data in the 1965-1995 time interval.

how can he claim some insight, when half his proxies do not supply data?

this is a fatal flaw in the paper!

Go ahead and apply that logic to MBH98.

i would start with the Thompson ice cores.
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Thompsonetal-climatic-change-2003.pdf

and you are playing with words there. the late 20th century is SIGNIFICANTLY warmer than the mid 20th century. and the article is talking about the end of the 20th century!

First of all, keep in mind these ice cores have a very limited coverage (Andes and Tibet.

Secondly, looking at Fig 5, I see only one of three cores showing the temps at the end of the 20th century being warmer than during the MWP. Ditto for Fig 6.

Furthermore, four of the six cores show the beginning and/or middle of the 20th century being warmer than the recent decades you so dearly want included in Loehle’s proxy reconstruction!
Lastly, if you want to talk about the Thompson ice cores, search this site for Thompson.