[palmer]

I have confidence in the data presented in the non-peer reviewed paper. If you question the evidence, perhaps you can explain why it might be incorrect rather than just a vague appeal to authority.

Specifically, do you doubt the statements of Argentinian glaciers, Chinese cultivation, and stalagmite composition in South Africa? What is your reasoning in each of those cases?

[Yelling]

I do not have the papers in front of me so I can only provide some general comments. If you have links to them I will be happy to review and respond in detail.

Argentinian Glaciers. How a glacier grows is related to temperature and precipitation. So how did Soon correct for precipitation effects? Without knowing this it can not be used as a temperature proxy.

Chinese Cultivation. That paper actually is more concerned with how solar output changes climate (specifically as measured by oxygen isotopes and carbon isotopes). It does not appear to give actual temperatures but ties the solar record to historic climate records previously published.

Finally, regarding stalagmite composition, these are sensitive to precipitation and geological and visitation changes and thus they must be used with caution. However without the paper I can't say if the author corrected for these.

Now, I have answered your question, could you please address mine. Do you feel that Soon's methodology as presented in Soon's paper posted by WOSG is scientifically sound?