Man Based Global Warming....

IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down? Watts Up With That?

If you have actually clidked on a link and read the material (you have to be able to understand it as well), you might have encountered someting like this - Mann published a paper using the Tiljander proxies upside down. How do we know this? Tiljander was contacted and verified the point.

Since you seem to be unable to make yourself click a mouse button and read something which contradicts your religious views, I've done it for you (again).

IQ Test: Which of these is not upside down?

17 10 2009
This is a simple IQ test anyone should be able to complete easily. Here are four images, which one of the images has elements that are not upside down? You have 5 seconds. Go.
Having trouble deciding? - Click for a larger image

Answer below.
Chances are, if you are not Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University, you’d answer: “It’s a trick question, all of them are upside down”.
And you’d be right.
If you are Dr. Michael Mann, and continue to insist that data in the image (from Mann et al 2008 ) in the lower right is not upside down, please contact me about some real estate in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you at a bargain price.
As WUWT and Climate Audit readers know, Mann made some blatantly obvious mistakes in his use of proxy data in Mann et al 2008, where he claims to be able to make a present day “hockey stick” of climate without the use of Bristlecone Pines that he used in his flawed 1998 study which produced the original Hockey Stick. Mann inverted data, upside down if you will, notably the Tiljander sediment as pointed out by Steve McIntyre.
Steve writes:

Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.
​

This isn’t an opinion. McIntyre personally verified this data inversion with the researcher, Tiljander, who collected the original proxy data. Yet Mann still denies it, probably because using the data right side up doesn’t produce the desired results.
Here is a figure from Tiljander et al showing the density graphic, rotated so that up corresponds to warm periods.

Figure 1. Excerpt from Tiljander et al, rotated from vertical in original graphic to show interpreted warm periods as up.
Here is the corresponding Mann data inverted from the Mann orientation:

Even if Mike Mann doesn’t, the Japanese know this:
Mann didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down, a point illustrated in the graphic below from a Japanese language article that rather appealed to me.

Figure 3. Excerpt from Itoh graphic identifying upside down Tiljander proxies.
In a more mundane version, the figures below (from CA in fall 2008) show the Xray density series shown above in the upside down Mann orientation together with another upside down Tiljander series.


Figure 2. Two of 4 versions used in Mann et al 2008
The huge HS blade is, as noted above, attributed by Tiljander to “intensive cultivation in the late 20th century… peat ditching and forest clearance … the rebuilding of the bridge.“
The SI to Mann et al 2008 conceded that there were problems with the recent portion of the Tiljander proxies (without mentioning that they were using them upside down from the interpretation of Tiljander and Finnish paleolimnologists), but argued that they could still “get ” a Stick without the Tiljander sediments. However, as I observed at the time, this case required the Graybill bristlecone chronology (where they failed to mention or cite Ababneh’s inability to replicate Graybill’s Sheep Mt results, even though Malcolm Hughes, a member of Ababneh’s thesis panel was a coauthor of Mann et al 2008). Thus their “robustness” analysis used either upside down Tiljander sediments or Graybill bristlecones.
Even though there is no doubt whatever that Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down, in their reply to our comment, Mann et al flat out denied that they had used them upside down. Mann:

The claim that ‘‘upside down’’ data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.
​

These comments are either unresponsive to the observation that the Tiljander sediments were used upside down or untrue. Multivariate methods are indeed insensitive to the sign of the predictors. However, if there is a spurious correlation between temperature and sediment from bridge building and cultivation, then Mannomatic methods will seize on this spurious relationship and interpret the Tiljander sediments upside down, as we observed. The fact that they can “get” a Stick using Graybill bristlecones is well known, but even the NAS panel said that bristlecones should be “avoided” in temperature reconstructions – and that was before Ababneh’s bombshell about Sheep Mt bristlecones. The claim that upside down data was used may indeed be “bizarre”, but it is true.
This wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. In our discussion of Trouet et al 2009 in the spring, Andy Baker commented at CA and it turned out that Mann had used one of Baker’s series upside down – as discussed here.
Mann’s failure to concede that they had used the Tiljander proxies upside down resulted in Kaufman et al 2009 also using them upside down. Kaufman said that he was unaware of our comment on this point, but was sufficiently attuned to the controversy that he truncated the data at 1800. As a result, the big HS blade isn’t used, but the Little Ice Age and MWP are flipped over, a point made at CA here Kaufman and Upside Down Mann. Two other Finnish paleolimnology series also appear to have been used upside down by Kaufman.
Atte Korhola, a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist, familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments, recently commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data, as follows (Jean S’s translation) (Google translation here):

data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa.
​

And yet at realclimate, Mann and others not only deny the undeniable, but accuse anyone saying otherwise of being “dishonest”.
Chris Dudley in comment #651 says:

Over at Dot Earth, McIntyre is taking another shot at Mann et al. 2008. community.nytimes.com/comments/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/?permid=302#comment302
He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
​

A few posts later #665, JM says:

He seems to still be worried about inverted data despite Mann et al. publishing a formal reply to this. At this point bizarre is not the word any more.
The word we’re all groping for is “dishonest.” I’m sure everyone is as shocked as I am.
​

At #673, Benjamin asked:

Could someone point me to where this “inverted data” issue is addressed by Mann or someone else who knows? I’ve so far been unable to debunk McIntyre’s claims that there was an error there. Thanks!
​

To which, Mann referred to the PNAS Reply referred to above:

[Response: The original commenter appears to be referring to: Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 106, E11, 2009. - mike]
​

Yeah right-o buddy, robusto crappo.
In other words, Mann’s study is falsified, yet he’s not Mann enough to admit it.

Now, I challenge YOU. Show me ONE paper in a peer-reviewed journal that states that the amount of CO2 man emits has caused the small temperature rise we have recorded in the past century - just ONE.

 

Hey, big 'A', your denial runs deep.

Your statements are false. The term 'global warming' implies man made global warming in your interpretation, does it not?

The fact that the globe warmed half a degree in the last century does not in any way prove that man is responsible. To think so is the worst kind of illogic. It is so illogical as to be Alrician.

In fact, you and the AGWers have absolutely ZERO proof that man has caused the warming. The theory that CO2 (and ONLY the CO2 that man emits) is responsible for 'catastrophic' warming is just that - a theory. It is a theory that finds its 'evidence' not in any temperature records but in computer programs. That is IT, nothing more.

There are other theories which attempt to account for this slight warming. They are probably more realistic than the one you and other AGWers insist is the ONLY ONE that has any validity.

Every glacier on the plamet could melt and it would still not 'prove' or even suggest that man was the cause.

Everything I have said above is true and you can not refute it.

 

Shawn, I'm not sure which community college you went to or what online university emailed you your degree, but we learned about the basics of molecules becoming excited and the changing energy levels within the first few weeks of class.

Also it's wrong that you said I have a belief system. If you look at this entire thread, you will see this: I sought out all the data I could that supports AGW, I found the data unconvincing, and I failed to accept the idea of AGW. My logic is sound.

A belief system is something that is taken, by definition, on faith (and faith is belief in something without logical reasoning.) Considering that there is not conclusive proof of AGW, it has to be taken on faith. This by definition makes AGW a belief system. Having faith in something is not the same as rejecting something based on insufficient evidence. I dare you to engage me in a debate about this.

I'm sure it helps you to feel better by calling us denialists and just insulting everyone. I bet it's about as soothing to the intellect as a picture of oxygen is to a drowning man.

(Need I point out you made another lengthy post doing nothing but insulting someone. I'm sorry you have such low self esteem.)

 

I truly believe the term "delusionist" fits you. I guess you didn't read the last few pages where ufourya and I asked you to explain some things that you couldn't? Wow.

 

The CRU deleting the original data is the biggest atrocity to science that has ever occurred. How on earth can they be given such a great responsibility and just throw it out the window? In light of the emails that were recovered from their systems, how can anyone have any "faith" in their doctored data? They literally changed the data by methods they refuse to describe and expect us to take them on their word? WOW - when you look at it, it is so incredibly screwed up!

 

To Alric,

Oh my god.

That must have hurt!

Love,
Radioprius1

 

Ok..here it goes. Again you have a link and copied blog post but this is easily dispatched of.

If you read that Tiljander paper rather than relying on a blog post you'll come across the following sentence:

“Natural variability in the sediment record was disrupted by increased human impact in the catchment area at AD 1720.”

And here is the reference you didn't provide:

Ref: Tiljander, Mia, Matti Saarnisto, Antti E. K. Ojala and Timo Saarinen, 2003. A 3000-year palaeoenvironmental record from annually laminated sediment of Lake Korttajärvi, central Finland. Boreas, Vol. 26, pp. 566–577. Oslo. ISSN 0300-9483, December 2003

Mann did not use the data after disruption in his data.

The other problem is that you are looking for problems in the original 2004 paper that since has been superseded by this:



in 2008. (Mann 2008). I've posted before but note how many sources of temperature data are in that dataset. All agreeing with recent temperature increases and a hockey stick.

Then you have all these:

We start with the original MBH hockey stick as replicated by Wahl and Ammann:



And what about the hockey stick that Oerlemans derived from glacier retreat since 1600?



How about Osborn and Briffa’s results which were robust even when you removed any three of the records?



Or there. The hockey stick from borehole temperature reconstructions perhaps?



No. How about the hockey stick of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and direct measurements?



Err… not even close. What about the the impact on the Kaufman et al 2009 Arctic reconstruction?



Oh. The hockey stick you get when you don’t use tree-rings at all (blue curve)?



No. Well what about the hockey stick blade from the instrumental record itself?



Nah….

Not a lot of text. Just a lot of published peer reviewed data.

 

Is that Mann reviewing Jones or Jones reviewing Mann?

 

Climate change
Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dispute, and in the run-up to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, the international discussions on targets for climate mitigation have intensified. There is a growing convergence towards a '2 °C guardrail' approach, that is, containing the rise in global mean temperature to no more than 2 °C above the pre-industrial level.

Our proposed climate boundary is based on two critical thresholds that separate qualitatively different climate-system states. It has two parameters: atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and radiative forcing (the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere). We propose that human changes to atmospheric CO2 concentrations should not exceed 350 parts per million by volume, and that radiative forcing should not exceed 1 watt per square metre above pre-industrial levels. Transgressing these boundaries will increase the risk of irreversible climate change, such as the loss of major ice sheets, accelerated sea-level rise and abrupt shifts in forest and agricultural systems.

Nature 461, 472-475 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461472a; Published online 23 September 2009

A safe operating space for humanity : Article : Nature

 

The science is settled, just ask Al Gore and Michael Mann, or watch this

Climate Catastrophe Canceled - 5 Translation(s) | dotSUB

 

"The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system. For those of us who served in the trenches in the climate battle, part of the much larger culture wars, this revelation is not news. In disparaging my papers, one of the first things that warmers would say was that they were not peer reviewed. They were, but that did not matter either, because like the warmer scientists, I got to choose my own reviewers. One of my papers passed a higher test than peer review. Real Climate devoted a post to attacking it, which was fabulous because it told me that I was having an effect, and gave me encouragement to keep going. ...
I don’t believe that changing the peer review system will help, in fact any prescribed changes are likely to make it worse. As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant. Making the system more prescriptive will simply entrench the corrupted establishment ...
The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace."

 

Can someone please show me where in the hacked emails there is any indication of impropriety. I read them and keep looking for a direct quote but find none. Since the hacked emails are not part of the science I will link a blog post on their correct perspective:

The SwiftHack Scandal: What You Need to Know @ EnviroKnow

4. The emails in question were taken out of context, and they don’t mean what deniers claim they mean.

Out of thousands and thousands of emails that were hacked, the climate change denying conspiracy theorists have only managed to identify a few that they consider to be incriminating. The supposedly incriminating emails are in fact, at worst, merely embarrassing.

One of the scientists over at RealClimate explains:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.

One of the gotcha emails, which has generated the ‘hide the decline’, does not mean what deniers are claiming:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

This RealClimate post explains the context behind some of the other supposedly controversial emails.

Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, notes that an email of his has been taken completely out of context.

Brian Angliss at Scholars and Rogues explains that some of this can be chalked up to how scientists talk:

I work in electrical engineering where I use words and phrases that, taken out of context, could be misinterpreted as nefarious by people who are ignorant of the context or who have an axe to grind. For example, I regularly talk about “fiddling with” or “twiddling” the data, “faking out” something, “messing around with” testing, and so on. In the first case, I’m analyzing the data to see if I can make it make sense or if I can extract the signal from the noise. In the second case, I’m often forced to force a piece of electronics into a specific mode manually so I can test it and verify some other function, or I use the phrase to provide artificial test data for calibration and/or verification that my electronics are working correctly. And in the third case, it usually involves trying to deduce whether a problem is caused by the electronic board I;m testing or by the equipment that is doing the testing.

For a technical discussion of the true meaning of the ‘hide the decline’ email, see this post at Skeptical Science.

Greenfyre made a similar point here.

Greenfyre also notes:

The edited bits we are getting can sound bad, but the actually say absolutely nothing. Stripped of context they could suggest all kinds of unethical behaviour … or nothing at all.

As I pointed out above, it is actually pretty incredible that out of thousands of emails the conspiracy theorists were only able to identify a few they consider to be damning.

Kevin Grandia wonders what would be uncovered if thousands of emails from the Conservative Enterprise Institute or Exxon Mobile were released in a similar manner:

Think for a millisecond about how juicy the news might be if someone hacked the CEI computer, finding a way to track funding and listening in on the conversations that have occurred between Ebells and his collaborators at Exxon, Ford and the Bush Whitehouse.

Hand over, say, six months of email communications beginning in 2003 around the time the Whitehouse asked you to sue it (yes, the Whitehouse asked you to sue the Whitehouse) to help block climate legislation. Then we’ll have a serious talk about who’s credible.

Kevin’s colleague at DeSmogBlog, Richard Littlemore, adds:

As a stunning amount of email traffic on this issue currently seems to be coming from uberDenier Marc Morano, why doesn’t the former aide to Okalahoma Senator and Republican Denier-in-Chief James Inhofe volunteer to share his correspondence?

Kevin suggested a six-month supply from CEI. I reckon the last six days from Morano might significantly advance the question of who’s credible on this issue. It might even show who hacked Hadley.

5. This story is being pushed by the exact same crazies who have been behind many other conspiracy theories and blatantly false smear campaigns.

Quickly moving through the right-wing propaganda network, this story immediately popped up in all of the familiar spots: industry-funded conservative think tanks, conservative and global warming denier blogs, talk radio blowhards, the Drudge Report and Glenn Beck / Fox News. When all of these folks latch onto a story with such force, it is a good indication that the story is false (see: the Van Jones smearing and the $1761 clean energy bill lie).

Brad Johnson at The Wonk Room has a good early roundup of denier reactions.

Marc Morano, who has been leading the charge, was the originator of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry. His site, Climate Depot, has been the hub of activity around the hacked emails.

This excellent post at ClimateDenial.org explains:

The coordinator of climatedepot.com is Marc Morano, a libertarian right self publicist and former aid to the outspoken denier Senator Inhofe, who has been seeking to become a kingpin in the climate denial industry. Marc Morano is not new to this kind of dirty fighting. According to the investigative site Source Watch, Morano, whilst working as a journalist for the right wing Cybercast News Service, was the first source in May 2004 of the smear campaign against John Kerry that later became known the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Although different in context and content, there are marked similarities between the Swift Boat campaign and the hacking of the UEA e-mails. Both were sophisticated strategies to undermine trust. Both identified trust and integrity as a major strength of the opponent and then played carefully chosen story lines to undermine them. At the very least the UEA e-mail campaign is an application of dirty political tactics to climate change campaigning.

Here are some of the other crazed conspiracy theorists who are leading the efforts to push this story:

Rabid conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck is all over this story.

Leader of the Republican party and certifiable nutjob Rush Limbaugh is claiming that this proves global warming is ‘made up.’

Matt Drudge, as of November 25th, was pushing the story with the following headlines at the top of his site:



Senator Inhofe, the most laughed at person in the United States Senate, has been huffing and puffing about this all week. He is now preparing an investigation and threatening scientists and Federal agencies. Taylor Marsh has more on Inhofe’s crazy antics and his role in all of this. Crooks and Liars has a video clip of Senator Inhofe making a fool of himself by calling for a probe of the hacked emails. Here is a video of Senator Inhofe being seriously questioned by a CNBC reporter:



Congressman Darrell Issa, who was largely responsible for the smear campaign against Acorn, is now trying to pin this ’scandal’ on White House Science Advisor John Holdren. For his part, Holdren tells Issa and other deniers to bring it on:

“I’m happy to stand by my contribution to this exchange. I think anybody who reads what I wrote in its entirety will find it a serious and balanced treatment of the question of ‘burden of proof’ in situations where science germane to public policy is in dispute.”

Other crazies who are pushing this include Superfreak Stephen Dubner and Senator David Vitter.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which gets considerable funding from polluting industries, is pushing this story as hard as they can. Tim Lambert at Deltoid points out that the CEI intends to sue Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate for… doing such a great job debunking the SwiftHack story.

A. Siegel has more on how all of this is a nefarious conspiracy.

Media Matters debunks some of the crazy claims put forth by the Drudge Report and the Washington Times.

 

A whistleblower at East Anglia U released them, it was an inside job. Look at how the language used describing their release has changed. A reporter for the BBC had them in his possession early in November.

As for Marc Morano, he is not performing publically funded science at public insititutions.

Do you think it is ok to not release data, fudge numbers and keep contrary scintific opinions squelched? If that is science what is politics?

 

Well, we already know how reliable RealClimate is so on to - Media Matters

Media Matters is a criminal enterprise funded by George Soros. Why do I say this? Because it is (1) funded by George Soros and (2):

"... Media Matters claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt organization... it's not allowed to get involved in politics... because you and I are subsidizing it, because it's tax exempt... yet they have never criticized a leftist talk show host on Air America, ever. They have never criticized Keith Olbermann, never. They only criticize the meda when the media does a story that is unfavorable to the [Clinton] crime family leaders...

I believe they are in clear violation of the Internal Revenue Code, the 501(c)(3) status that's been conferred on them... I believe every time they file a tax return, telling the government that 'we're non-political, non-partisan' and that they sign the tax-return on penalty of perjury, I believe that they're committing perjury.

If there was ever a lawsuit against this group, and there was full discovery of emails, phone logs, and testimony under oath or in depositions, the whole game would be up and they'd be completely exposed for what they are. Which is: a criminal enterprise, in the sense that they are, in my view... violating the tax code... "

Mark Levin

 

That Mann used the Tiljander proxies as well as some Finnish data INVERTED is incontrovertible.

That you cite HADCRUT temperature measurements in light of the fact that they have been exposed for manipulating the data and then flushing the original measurements fown the toilet shows utter desperation on your part.

 

Tiljander is not a component in these datasets. And even if Tiljander and HARDCRUT are not used you have about 14 other measurements to explain.

No one has disputed the quality of instrumental records. Still waiting for references on how the email show data was manipulated.

And please not a link to a blog post but a citation out of the emails.

 

Oh my god Alric you blew it with the inverted Finnish data.

 

The deniers have thoroughly confused everyone. Climate is the means and extremes for the most recent 30-year period (1971-2000, 1981-2010, . . .). Weather is what is happening at the moment. Do not confuse the two. Climate change must be based on measured, falsifiable, testable, repeatable evidence, not impulsive opinion.

Discussions concerning climate change relate to long-term changes. We have ice cores for Greenland and Antarctica dating back almost 1,000,000 years, plus a few ice cores from midlatitude and tropical mountain glaciers. We are now using sediment cores (rivers, lakes, ocean) and stalactites (karst topography) to infer climate.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

You STILL fail to show ONE paper that proves the CO2 produced by man is responsible for significant warming. What you have done is linked to a paper that references 46, that's FORTY SIX other works, including papers and books.

From these references, the authors draw conclusions. Your quote drawn from the article includes that statement that "Anthropogenic climate change is now beyond dipute." Big deal, we change regional climate all the time by cutting forests, building parkin lots, etc. In that sense, the statement is true. In the sense that these changes are all due to CO2 and will result in catastrophe to the globe, it is catagorically false.

This is a conclusion thay apparently base on the work of W. Steffen. et al. I am not going to pay $18 to access that paper or $125 to buy the book, so somebody else will have to tell me what it says.

The Nature article also includes this rather less certain assessment of the situation:

Although Earth has undergone many periods of significant environmental change, the planet's environment has been unusually stable for the past 10,000 years1, 2, 3. This period of stability — known to geologists as the Holocene — has seen human civilizations arise, develop and thrive. Such stability may now be under threat. Since the Industrial Revolution, a new era has arisen, the Anthropocene4, in which human actions have become the main driver of global environmental change5. This could see human activities push the Earth system outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene, with consequences that are detrimental or even catastrophic for large parts of the world.
During the Holocene, environmental change occurred naturally and Earth's regulatory capacity maintained the conditions that enabled human development. Regular temperatures, freshwater availability and biogeochemical flows all stayed within a relatively narrow range. Now, largely because of a rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture, human activities have reached a level that could damage the systems that keep Earth in the desirable Holocene state. The result could be irreversible and, in some cases, abrupt environmental change, leading to a state less conducive to human development6. Without pressure from humans, the Holocene is expected to continue for at least several thousands of years7.

I took the liberty of highlighting a few words. References 5 and 6 are to Steffen. Red highlights display uncertainty and the blue highlight is a real stretch. The eveidence simply does not exist. I don't know how Nature can allow such twaddle into its pages. Well, nevermind, yes, I can.

Steffen, from what I can gather is a pricipal in the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme which accepts the IPCC models as gospel. So in effect, we've come full circle. We are back to relying on the work of a small group of scientists whose work has been exposed as unreliable.