3 ms·

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.

hga 17y ago
a) One of the worst aspects of ClimateGate is how that group was keeping people less fervent than them out of the peer-reviewed literature. b) All you have to do is look at how their tree-ring data (MXD to be precise) diverges from recorded temperatures starting in 1960, it declines, to be precise, to know why they felt they had to "hide the decline". Heck, look at the chart where they cut off the green line that represents this data just as it's starting to fall and conveniently where it's in a thicket of other lines so that you won't easily notice the cutoff.
robotrout 17y ago
I don't have one. That's sort of the problem, though, isn't it? With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by selecting which peers do their reviews, and by applying political pressure to the journals, the whole "look it up in the established body of work" approach has been sabotaged. EDIT: I forgot an important one. The collusion aspect that the emails revealed. We're not going to put this result in our paper, even though we believe it, because it messes up Scientist B's premise.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  You're kidding, right? Evidence of absence is not proof. Imagine if this argument were used in other contexts: "there are no papers published in peer-reviewed journals about intelligent design. This proves that there's a conspiracy in the biological community!" In fact: there are a few published papers which challenge popular climatological measurements and papers, and they are cited as often as possible by ... I don't want to call them denialists, but I'm not sure what else to call them. So, wrong on both counts.
  - robotrout 17y ago
    Reread my post. I didn't say that the absence of papers proved anything. I said that the scientific process has been sabotaged in this instance, making things more unclear than they should be. You are slick though! EDIT: Perhaps you're honestly confused. I'm a bit doubtful on that, but in case you are. We know that the process has been sabotaged. Not because there are no papers, but because many of the details of the sabotage were revealed in the ClimateGate emails.

hga 17y ago

a) One of the worst aspects of ClimateGate is how that group was keeping people less fervent than them out of the peer-reviewed literature. b) All you have to do is look at how their tree-ring data (MXD to be precise) diverges from recorded temperatures starting in 1960, it declines, to be precise, to know why they felt they had to "hide the decline". Heck, look at the chart where they cut off the green line that represents this data just as it's starting to fall and conveniently where it's in a thicket of other lines so that you won't easily notice the cutoff.

robotrout 17y ago

I don't have one. That's sort of the problem, though, isn't it? With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by selecting which peers do their reviews, and by applying political pressure to the journals, the whole "look it up in the established body of work" approach has been sabotaged. EDIT: I forgot an important one. The collusion aspect that the emails revealed. We're not going to put this result in our paper, even though we believe it, because it messes up Scientist B's premise.

thaumaturgy 17y ago
You're kidding, right? Evidence of absence is not proof. Imagine if this argument were used in other contexts: "there are no papers published in peer-reviewed journals about intelligent design. This proves that there's a conspiracy in the biological community!" In fact: there are a few published papers which challenge popular climatological measurements and papers, and they are cited as often as possible by ... I don't want to call them denialists, but I'm not sure what else to call them. So, wrong on both counts.
- robotrout 17y ago
  Reread my post. I didn't say that the absence of papers proved anything. I said that the scientific process has been sabotaged in this instance, making things more unclear than they should be. You are slick though! EDIT: Perhaps you're honestly confused. I'm a bit doubtful on that, but in case you are. We know that the process has been sabotaged. Not because there are no papers, but because many of the details of the sabotage were revealed in the ClimateGate emails.