Dr Curry,
Willis Eschenbach plotted all the temperature proxies together to claim you can’t tell if CO2 lagged temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/nature_shakun_proxies_plus_co2_all.jpg
But the whole point of the Nature paper was that temperature rise in the northern hemisphere lagged the CO2 rise:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShakunFig5b.jpg
Eschenbach goes so far as to graph the proxies by proxy type, but not latitude. Funny that.
Eschenbach also tossed in an argument that Shakun cut the CO2 data off after 6000BC and smeared the scientists: “I’m sure you can see just what those bad-boy scientists have done. Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again …”
That’s an appalling smear. Don’t you see what Eschenbach has done there? For whatever reason Shakun didn’t show CO2 after 6000 BC, it can’t be for the fraudulent reason Eschenbach leads everyone to imagine. Because the CO2 rise is small after 6000BC and is easily compatible with a slight cooling trend.
But thanks to Eschenbach countless “skeptics”, including Booker, will now be pushing this argument to the public. I ask myself, is this kind of smear creation by Eschenbach deliberate? What do you think?
What’s more likely? That Shakun is a fraud, or Eschenbach is dishonest? Or neither?