I've read through the article, and what it all says to me is that there are more questions on answers, and a lot of speculation as to the divergence problem. While there are some sound suggestions as to why, it would seem to me that these are all enough to discount tree rings as a useful proxy until they are better understood. To me, the use of statistical methods to blend out the divergence from a specific date seems like a real fudge.
Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
51–60 of 72 posts
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#52Earlier 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.
So policy makers get the dishonest graph unless they have the wherewithal to dig through the references at the back? I don't trust my representatives that much.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The comments I've read so far present interesting POV's backed up by data and observations. I don't see how that qualifies as "angry emotional quibbling".
I don't see the problem with discussing science either. Newton's law of gravitation has been around fot 322 years, and it has been shown to be just a very good approximation (like everything else in science). Also, it is still an open question (AFAIK) whether it holds at very small distances. Climate research is not physics. The number of variables and the complexity of the system is of such magnitude that I am pretty sure there will plenty of room for scientific discussion for years and years to come.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Where is the ad hominem?
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#55Earlier 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.
So policy makers get the dishonest graph unless they have the wherewithal to dig through the references at the back? I don't trust my representatives that much.
They get the graph that scientists agreed (after lengthy public discussion in the last few decades) is closest to reality.
Just because you wish something were dishonest doesn’t make it so.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I know those mails and don’t see the scandal. That’s why I believe you were and must be joking.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#57Is 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?
Not at all. Atheism is without God or gods. This is not the same as without religion.
As an example some Buddhist sects are both atheistic and cults.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#58I love HN. Everyone here is an expert on anything.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 quali…
> Meanwhile, if there are "billions at stake" in the "green" industry, there are trillions at stake in those industries
Don't count on it. Enron, 1998: "If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States, the potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous."
The biggest contributor to the debate is governments, and their self-interest in climate change is eclipsing that of any business.
> Can we at least agree that arguing about monetary motivation is problematic at best, and probably stupid, and stick to the actual science here?
Apparently not. Obviously, your plea is sound, had it not followed an assertion of one side of the argument that it is claiming problematic and stupid.
Re: Why climatologists used the tree-ring data ‘trick’
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Oh. Asking for someone to actually back up their emotional little assertions with facts, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the obvious axe-grinding which accompanies their fervent assertions that they are unbiased is...."paranoia and ad hominem".
And your response was to add nothing except labeling "paranoia", right? Was that before or after you mentioned "ad hominem". Or did you, like him, have any actual science to cite here to support his assertions?
Your projection doesn't do your argument much good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection