Kulamiena wrote:
I stand by my statement when not taken out of context. The data is bad. There, I'll even say it again. Until correlation can be scientifically established, which to be clear means coming to a scientific conclusion as to the divergence, the historical temperature tree ring data is bad and unusable.
So you admit you were talking out of your ass when you said you neither questioned the data nor drew any conclusions about it? Great. Next step is owning up to all the other bullshit you've posted in this thread.
Quote:
Now to clarify, we are to take as gospel the words of scientists who, when challenged, have refused to release data, obfuscated, and threatened to destroy the data rather than subject it to peer review...
Links please. Show me when the data wasn't made public, how it was obfuscated, and who threatened to destroy it. Because while that sounds a bit paranoid, I'd be interested to know if it's true.
Quote:
...but the scientist who immediately goes back and corrects his work after an error was pointed out is to be dismissed out of hand. Am I understanding you correctly?
Absolutely not.
All scientific results should be held to the same standards of transparency and reproducibility. I applaud Loehle for owning up to his mistakes (such as not divulging his methods until asked repeatedly, misapplying those methods, and making completely inaccurate claims about 1935-1980 temperatures). But when an author makes mistakes of that magnitude, I'm inclined to be skeptical about his other claims. And when I find out that his work is funded by the paper industry, a major source of CO2 emissions, that skepticism grows. (
source) YMMV.
Quote:
I am pleased you have finally come to admit that more scientific scrutiny is necessary before we can establish whether tree-ring data is at all useful. As that was my point and it draws into question just about all of the current climate modelling, I'm done here.
No, your original point was that tree ring data had been deliberately manipulated. To quote:
Kulamiena wrote:
Your 13,000+ scientists based their studies on the same data and that dataset has now been tainted by manipulation and a lack of scientific vigor. Those 13,000+ scientists didn't know the data was faulty but it was.
But that point was indefensible, so you backpedaled to your current position, which simply restates a well-known issue with tree ring data.
Here is part of the IPCC's discussion of the divergence problem:
IPCC AR4 wrote:
All of the large-scale temperature reconstructions discussed in this section, with the exception of the borehole and glacier interpretations, include tree ring data among their predictors so it is pertinent to note several issues associated with them.... Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there. In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a). Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.
Bolding is mine. Source: IPCC AR4 "The Physical Science Basis," pp. 466-474, online at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... apter6.pdfThis issue was taken into account when the IPCC formulated its conclusion that "It is
likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the last 1,300 years." The IPCC quantifies "likely" as having a 66% or higher probability. Explanation of uncertainty here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 ... ceNote.pdfSo. Despite my better judgment, I've taken the time to respond yet again with reputable sources supporting my position.
I challenge you to do the same.My questions for you, from your last post:
1. How does the tree ring debate "draw into question just about all of the current climate modeling?"
2. When was climate data "not made public?"
3. How was it "obfuscated?"
4. Who "threatened to destroy" the data?
Support your statements and cite your sources, or I'll assume they're just your usual uninformed opinions. Which as fine, as long as you don't claim to know what you're talking about.
It was about 'control' and $. A great global 'experiment' in human manipulation. 
