"WOSG! I am disapointed! You are cutting and pasting from the good old CO2Science site!"
You have a problem with science not approved by the IPCC politburo?
Note these are Russian scientists, no ax to grind.
"What was done Whereas most boreholes do not exceed 1 km depth, which limits the length of the ground surface temperature history reconstruction by this method to only the last few centuries, the authors studied a borehole extending to more than 5 km depth, allowing them to reconstruct an 80,000-year history of ground surface temperature. This borehole was located in the Middle Urals within the western rim of the Tagil subsidence (58°24' N, 59°44'E)."
I'll state it plainly. A simple, single temperature timeline reconstruction over 80,000 years puts Mann's work and his easy-to-munge-into-your-preconceived-conclusions-PCA to shame. This is good work. If you reject it because your biases are not in accord with the views of those who point it out, well, there's not much for us to discuss.
There is plenty of climate data to keep you thinking whatever preconceived notion you want to think - as long as you ignore the 'other stuff' from those 'bad scientists' and 'bad websites'.
WOSG:
I have broken my replies into two parts since they address different points. This one deals with issues that are not really scientific but that I want to address, the second one will discuss the science raised so far.
To begin with, in a previous reply you state: “Your reading comprehension is pretty poor, I must say.” While you are entitled to your opinion, I am curious why you feel a need to insult anyone who disagrees with you? Do you do this always or is this a special occasion?
You also say “You miss the point ... plenty of evidence exists for the LIA... see below.” In reply, I say that you have missed my point. I was not doubting the existence of the little ice age but the start time of it. You provided a link to information about the Little Ice Age so let me quote from it. It claims the Medieval Warm Period is from about 900 to 1300 and the LIA from about 1350 to about 1900. I can agree with this point but I would like you to explain why the link YOU referenced gave a start time for the LIA as 1185. That it could be so wrong about such a established time makes me question the validity of the content.
Finally you also say “You have a problem with science not approved by the IPCC politburo? ….. There is plenty of climate data to keep you thinking whatever preconceived notion you want to think - as long as you ignore the 'other stuff' from those 'bad scientists' and 'bad websites'.” Again you do not understand what I said. I said nothing about the scientists or the paper. My objection is to the CO2 Science site that provides reviews of valid scientific papers but with a heavy bias based on cherry picking. Instead I would encourage everyone to not let anyone else do your thinking for you (even if they seem to share your political beliefs). Read the papers, consider the information and then make your conclusions. Don’t depend on others to do your thinking for you.
Now, we can move on to the science which I always consider the fun stuff.