Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
scienceblogs.com
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#2Because otherwise people would have realized much earlier that their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature?
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#3Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#4Because otherwise people would have realized much earlier that their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature?
Do you have a good peer-reviewed article that shows that tree-ring data as a proxy for temperature is a poor fit. I'd be interested in reading it.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#5Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.
Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#6This is how science is supposed to work. Sure there are a few straw men/ad hominem attacks peppered in the article but the proper response to criticism isn't calling the other side "denialists" and feigning offense but to respond with data and counter arguments.
The problem that many of these scientists have themselves compounded is the shroud of secrecy they've put over their "normalized" and "value added" data and methodologies. Painting Armageddon like scenarios and then obstructing freedom of information act requests when people ask about how they came about their conclusions is at best bizarre. Meanwhile we have a myriad of rationalizations from their defenders that we should instead trust their peer review which at the very least, the CRU/UEA emails show are suspect at least in this field.
Instead we are bombarded by these scientists/politicians who are anything but impartial who seem to present us with a binary choice that either we radically change our way of life which has serious risks in making us and the rest of the world significantly economically poorer or armageddon... and then they're surprised at the resistance? (This also ignores the myriad of policy responses like carbon trading being mired in corruption and leakages that are being advocated by these very same people)
It would seem to me that there are two parts to the problem - first understanding conclusively what has been happening and what will happen and second deciding what the appropriate policy response will be. Personally, I think AGW is likely but I also think that we are on the cusp of a massive transition towards clean burning (and more importantly, cheap) natural gas and alternative energies which makes at least the emissions as generated by much of the Western world moot.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#7Another thing worth remembering in this context is that once people get used to lying with a straight face it is a hell of a job to stop.
Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.
And you don't think that the billions of dollars at stake in carbon trading don't result in proponents attempting to discredit critics?
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#8I was going to comment that this borders on ad hominem:
> FoxNews.com tells us that we finally have a 'smoking gun'--proof that scientists are manufacturing a global warming crisis so that they can… they can…
You know, calling out political theater instead of acknowledging that reasonable people are concerned when they see scientific misconduct. I was going to explain that this sort of Fox News reference is not so good for the discussion - let the points stand, noting that one critic of yours is abrasive does not make the criticisms invalid.
But, then I came upon this a little lower, which is a bit less subtle about it:
> It's interesting stuff ... not interesting in the way that the rabid anti-science fuckhead (pardon me!) reality-denying luddite denialsphere types are saying, though.
Why might the science be wrong? Because it's moved from science to an identity issue. Us vs. them. This guy isn't helping.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. But at least that's more discouraged in scientific circles than in think tanks and PR/astroturfing campaigns financed by those who want to discredit science for financial gain.
And you don't think that the billions of dollars at stake in carbon trading don't result in proponents attempting to discredit critics?
The current views in climatology were developed long before there were "billions at stake".
Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries that would like to not have to install complicated and expensive filters for their manufacturing exhaust, and for the automotive industry which would surely love not to have to meet quite so stringent air quality standards.
Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#10Because otherwise people would have realized much earlier that their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature?
You seem to be another carrier of the recent disease infecting HN, where users are commenting on articles that they didn't bother reading.