Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#41

Post by nfnaaron » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:04 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #20

I have spent some hundreds of hours listening to arguments for global warming, er Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change or AGW or ACC (or whatever the PC acronym is this week) The problem that I keep getting back to is best phrased like this: archaeological climate record extrapolation is nowhere near as sure-fire as supporters make it out to be. I have many more problems, but this one addresses the current artic…

"There's also quite a bit of ad-hominem character assassination going on, even in this piece. I find that folks who have to result to labeling and name-calling usually are insecure about their position."

Yes, the amount of derision, even targeting scientists who merely hold an opposing interpretation of the data, is troubling.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#42

Post by gloob » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:13 PM UTC

logjam wrote: post #36

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #20

I have spent some hundreds of hours listening to arguments for global warming, er Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change or AGW or ACC (or whatever the PC acronym is this week) The problem that I keep getting back to is best phrased like this: archaeological climate record extrapolation is nowhere near as sure-fire as supporters make it out to be. I have many more problems, but this one addresses the current artic…

>The problem is....archaelogical climage record extrapolation is nowhere as sure fire.... Then pray provide us with some science supporting your point. If you cannot, when you just keep bleating you are "troubled" over and over, you really look like someone just pushing an agenda without any support whatsoever. And oh, what's needed now is a "slam-dunk" on the issue. A "slam-dunk", of course, was never needed when an…

Paranoia and ad hominem don't do your argument much good.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#43

Post by ugh » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:16 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #25

thaumaturgy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks (sincerely) for being honest about that, at least. There were two clues: one, your comment timestamp was not far removed from the time that the article was posted. I read pretty quickly, but it still took me some time to fully read and digest the entire article. Second, there was your statement: "their tree-ring data is not a useful proxy for temperature". The article specifically mentioned that tree-ring data…

No, it doesn't answer why they felt they had to "hide the decline" instead of discussing and justifying how the recent divergence is congruent with their claims of its usefulness as a proxy when there were no (accurate) temperature readings. These are not the actions of honest men.

Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#44

Post by hga » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:33 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #43

hga wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't answer why they felt they had to "hide the decline" instead of discussing and justifying how the recent divergence is congruent with their claims of its usefulness as a proxy when there were no (accurate) temperature readings. These are not the actions of honest men.

Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.

In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned.

Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the release of the CRUtape Letters, but not after.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#45

Post by CamperBob » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:36 PM UTC

FTA: The main cause seems to be increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Call me when you're sure. Extraordinary calls to action require extraordinary proof.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#46

Post by ugh » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:38 PM UTC

hga wrote: post #44

ugh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they discussed it. In public. In peer reviewed journals. You know, this mail is not the only place where climate scientists talked about tree rings.

In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned. Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the r…

This is a joke, right? And the upvote, too.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#47

Post by antonovka2 » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 9:41 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #40

jellicle wrote: post #39

Watching Hacker News argue about climate change is like watching the blind argue about colors. Please stop. In general you have no idea what you are talking about. Again and again and again and again there are comments along the lines of, "I did five minutes of Googling about this issue and I've come up with a fatal flaw in climate science!" Do you really think that the tens of thousands of scientists who do their li…

Your comment has even less evidence or analysis than the comments you're complaining about. It's just an angry assertion. It's ok for people to who are not experts in a subject to explore it. If you feel they're on the wrong track, help them by giving them information.

There's an over-abundance of information. All that's left for HN is angry, emotional quibbling by those who lack the basic qualifications to evaluate the data and science, even if they were interested in actually doing so.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#48

Post by albemuth » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 10:00 PM UTC

w00pla wrote: post #35

Is anyone a little disturbed about that website? From the title "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". On the sidebar: "The Rise of Atheism, Global Atheist Convention". This guy is some type of Atheist cult member.

> "Atheist cult" That's quite an oxymoron don't you think?

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#49

Post by hga » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 10:05 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #46

hga wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In peer reviewed journals that they kept free of not just "deniers" but anyone who wasn't as fervent as they. One journal was excommunicated (my phrase) until half the editors resigned. For another that was "too important to lose" (direct quote (or rather paraphrase, see below) from memory) they applied enough pressure that the offending editor resigned. Really, now. What you're saying might have flown prior to the r…

This is a joke, right? And the upvote, too.

As a scientist (who was forced into a sordid life of programming :-) I wish it was.

From the horse's mouth: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filen... refers to the first incident while talking about the second (search for "It's one thing to lose").

And for another telling quote, see http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... where Phil Jones says "I can't see either of these papers being in the next [UN] IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"

Pielke, BTW, is not a denier, he just doesn't agree with the CRU crowd on various details.

Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’

#50

Post by thwarted » Sat, Dec 19, 2009, 10:34 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #20

I have spent some hundreds of hours listening to arguments for global warming, er Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change or AGW or ACC (or whatever the PC acronym is this week) The problem that I keep getting back to is best phrased like this: archaeological climate record extrapolation is nowhere near as sure-fire as supporters make it out to be. I have many more problems, but this one addresses the current artic…

I know some folks will say "no matter what the proof you're never going to believe"

If there was proof, you wouldn't need to believe. Anyone who says "you're never going to believe" isn't looking to convince anyone, they're looking for others to have blind faith in order to have their own faith validated.