AGW Still Not Settling Well

If you think that AGW is settled science, then read this. In fact read it two or three times. I did.

For me the money quotes are here:

"To test this, the researchers created a virtual Holocene reconstruction by taking temperatures generated by the models from the locations where the proxy records used in the reconstruction were obtained. When summer values were used for the Arctic points rather than annual averages, the virtual reconstruction more closely resembled the real one, with a peak and decline instead of continual warming."

The... real... one? What real one? It's all done by proxy cum models.

And this:

"Boston College’s Jeremy Shakun, one of the researchers behind the Holocene temperature reconstruction, told Ars that “any time there is a big data-model discrepancy like this, there's a good opportunity to learn something about the world. My hunch is that both the data and models are a bit off.”"

And this:

"The new paper concludes, “If the [Holocene temperature] reconstruction is correct, it will imply major biases across the current generation of climate models. To provide a credible benchmark for future climate models, however, the proxy reconstructions will also need to be reexamined critically.”

Let's see. The current climate models have major biases, based on the reconstruction; the reconstruction might be wrong due to proxy issues. So what we know now is that there is nothing firm in this "science", which is what we knew before. But don't tell Al Gore, he might have a hernia.