Al Gore’s “blog” has the following entry:
The study in question is [link fixed] “A Zooarchaeological Test for Dietary Resource Depression at the End of the Classic Period in the Petexbatun, Guatemala” (Emery 2008). Funny thing- the passage cited by Gore does not pertain to what Emery finds, but rather is describing the conceptual models that amount to what might be called the conventional wisdom regarding the Maya collapse. However, Emery’s study actually concludes:
These results of these studies of changing diversity and hunting efficiency provide proxy evidence of resource availability changes over the Petexbatun occupational history. Early occupation of the region is associated with reduced hunting efficiency as defined by increased diversity and reductions in the proportion of large-bodied prey, particularly reduction in the proportion of the favorite species (white-tailed deer). This result is corroborated by other paleoenvironmental evidence for very early environ-
mental changes in the Maya lowlands.
However, the results of this study do not support a hypothesis of resource depression associated specifically with the “collapse” period in the region. Species heterogeneity was stable during the periods immediately before, during, and after the collapse of the political elite in the Petexbatun polity and overall hunting efficiency (representing nutritional availability) rose over these periods despite a drop in the efficiency of harvest of white-tailed deer.
Rather than justifiably take issue with Gore for selective or non-reading in furthering his cause, Watts Up With That? boldly snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by instead pushing a guest post that bizarrely claims:
Gore is advocating the abandonment of the IPCC doctrine and barracking for the study and understanding of climate dynamics that ignores totally the IPCC/AWG doctrine and focuses on all the other variables, especially how climate dynamics are driven by atmospheric/oceanic oscillations, the natural internal dynamics of the climate system and the role of the Sun in climate dynamics.
I’m sure there was much elbowing of ribs and satisfied chortling accompanying this precious attempt to make Gore appear to be arguing against his own position, but the flaws in the gambit couldn’t be more clear. Gore’s position can be summarized as “X-caused Z was bad, so we should avoid Y-caused Z”. The Watts-Mackey misrepresentation is “X-caused Z occurred, so we should only focus on X-caused Z and ignore Y-caused Z”. It’s a non sequitur that is almost beautifully absurd, akin to the proposition that due to the existence of naturally occurring forest fires, no one can make the case that we should take care not to start one ourselves.
Had Watts or Mackey actually read the study that Gore obviously failed to, they could have made a much more damning point by claiming that prevailing wisdom previously attributing at least partial anthropogenic causation to the Maya collapse through resource poverty has been shown to be overstated and perhaps non-existent, much as they believe anthropogenic climate change will be. Of course fact-based discussion isn’t a WUWT strong suit…
The Mackey post eventually goes completely off the rails, claiming that planetary-solar-lunar gravitational dynamics are the drivers of past, current, and future climate- completely ignoring GHG forcing.