The reason why this thread is here instead of the Earth science files, will be clear in the last sentence In the spring of this year I received a discussion-group E-mail with an early draft of this paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0606291103v1.pdf Emphasis mine. As a reaction I replied to the (intermediate) sender with this http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refs-holocene-maximum.pdf [Broken] which was also cc-ed to everybody involved in the paper, including the authors. There is an issue with the quality of the scientific procedures in that publication challenged here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=833 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=834 [Broken] http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=837 and here: http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5157&posts=2&start=1 [Broken] Showing that the error margin of the critical proxies is way too large to use it as fundament for far fetching conclusions. But there is also an issue with the basic procedures in the scientific method. If one particular proxy is suggesting a conclusion with global implications then the researches are obliged to test that with available data and literature, from my http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refs-holocene-maximum.pdf [Broken] it is clear that they refrained from doing so. Yet all authors are specialists and very aware of the extensive literature on the Holocene maximum. It is also clear that nothing in the study warrants the conclusions as emphasized in the abstract here. Therefore we are forced to conclude that these statements are unfounded but nevertheless have a definite potential for hype building: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i40/8440climatechange.html [Broken] http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/business/2006/sep/28/566610828.html [Broken] http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060927/FON0101/609270509/1985 [Broken] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060928-9999-1n28warming.html [Broken] http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/09/26/100wir_a5global001.cfm [Broken] etc etc, (Google news “global warming 12000”) All those statements suggesting “Global warming at 12,000- year high” are proven to be false to begin with, initiated by a rambling study. But those unfounded opinions of the authors have a strong influence in the shaping of the opinion of the people (demagoguery). In the USA there is a Data Quality Act. Are there any USA citizens here willing and able to help me exposing the spin legally using that act?