Climate Action Now, page-161

Why not read scientific papers, instead of blogs?

To give you a very good example why getting your science news from a blog is a bad idea, I went to Wattsupwiththat.

I clicked on this link;



I then went and read the article.

The reference this graph


Now, they dont tell you in the article, but 'present day' means 1950 - its a geological rule used.

But not only does that graph above not appear in their paper (https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf)

But it does not include any of the warming from after 1950.

It makes it look like even in 1950, the temperature was lower, but in their paper, this is all their graphs
Which all clearly show temperatures at least as warm, if not warmer than the past 10,000 years.

In the abstract alone they say
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history"

"By 2100, global average temperatures will probably be 5 to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean"

Again, this is why I dont read blogs, in this case, they are being deceitful by manipulating a graph to not show the full picture.