I was going off of memory. I just double checked the link. It was first observed in Alaska but the study was later expanded. Still the Yamal data set of 12 cores used by Briffa did not show the same divergence of that study.
So wait a minute... First your making the argument that Briffa cherry picked data from an area where divergence exists and now your bitching that he didn't cherry pick from an area with little to no divergence? Not really sure what you're getting at here.
I still call BS on your comment about that Harvard-Smithsonian sponsored study.
Speaking of cherry picking...
1. Limiting the argument to land temperatures, which was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the data points used in the graph JohnC so eagerly shared.
2. Limiting already cherry picked data to an arbitrarily picked period of "pause". We've been over this part of the argument to the point we've killed the horse. Models made to predict long term trends being attacked with short term, cherry picked results is intellectually dishonest. I can't remember who said it, but its like assuming at sundown that the sun will never rise again. Itís not an impossible outcome, but itís probably worth waiting until morning to find out if youíre actually right. Monckton is making the assertion that the current upward trend that, notably, even his cherry picked data shows as existing is going to remain relatively flat (and publicly claims will begin to cool). There is no evidence
to suggest this. Creating your own formula and presenting it at proof is hilariously wrong.
You say there is no way the article has been shown for what it is so early(very confidently put, by the way), but yet this paper has seen boat loads of criticism from all sorts of angles.
Critique of the model
Issues in the data
This analysis by Carbon Brief
which draws it's arguments from this Nature article.
Climate Economy Society's take
Climate Depot's breakdown.
I'm going to leave out ass ton of reports and opinions over the issue over the fact Willie Soon is heavily funded by big oil.
I think Eric ran out of canned rebuttals from the Global Warming Propagandists at Skeptical Science because like a ghost, he's GONE! <crickets>
I'm off Thursday and Friday's. You'll notice I post on here between the hours of midnight to around 4am EST unless I have time on my phone to argue(like the last post I made). I don't concede to arguments I find untruthful because if I had no argument to make, how can I make such a claim? I'm not like you, after all. You... LOL. You have got to be the biggest hypocrite I've ever encountered which, in the age of the internet, is quite a crown to hold.
Also, have you read the information available on Skeptical Science? I know you are much more concerned with the talking points over the science, as well as sticking to stuff that agrees with you, but it's worth reading. At least Eagle has done that.